Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Hansard Official Report of Debates, “Constitution Amendment Proclamation”, 32nd Parl, 3rd Sess (13 October 1983)

Document Information

Date: 1983-10-13
By: Ontario (Legislative Assembly)
Citation: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Hansard Official Report of Debates, 32nd Parl, 3rd Sess, 1983 at 2075-2243.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

The HTML Text Below Has Not Yet Been Edited

This document has not yet been edited for mistakes. Help us out by correcting the text and mailing it as a text file to pd@theccf.ca. Your help will make PrimaryDocuments.ca the most complete word-searchable electronic repository of documents relating to the Canadian constitution. For more information consult our Be a Contributor page.

Read the unedited text

N0. Page
Column Line
The following errata for the Third Session ol the 32nd Parliament (April 18-December
l6_ 1983) have already appeared in previous daily issues of Hansard. They are reprinted here in
bulk so that subscribers can ensure that the C0rT€Cli0nS have been made.
2 33
Should rend:
Clnc is Max 3 Million, a Spirited black bass
with a lag on it_ Catch that fish and you will
win S1 million. That fish was unleashed in front
of Brockville as part of that city‘: Riverlest.
only live we have. Opinicon Lodge at Chaffeys
es. Messrs. Gnesilt, Pattet$0n and Yoneyama
lrom the Ministry of Consumer and Commer-
cial Relations. Mr. Olah lrom the Ministry ol
Energy. and Dr. Soots irotn the Ministry oi
that are published in Drive Prvpznez Sum~
mary of Fleet Demonstration Results Report,
which came ftatn the ministry in March l98Z. l
commend it lot bedside reading to all mem-
bers. because ll docs clearly demonstrate
Jon Kieran for helping me get this presentation
by 168 teachers {mm the following schools:
Centennial Collegiate and Vtycaljmnal lIlSll\u$e,
Guelph Collegiate and Vocatitynal Institute.
Collegel-leigltts Secondary School and the John
But we should also make this distinction;
that is. not to say we are not prepared to defend,
in a very active way, Lhe escarpment versus,
say, the developers. Those people are new to
the scene. They are putting forward pro»
posalslsome of whifih will have dramatic effects
on a piece of property such as the ¢S€ilrpmenL
For these people, I do not see that this Legis-
lature has a great deal oi Qhligatioh to btealt
mics. to bend nrles or to reinterpret rules.
Shittgkzwuk who signed the Robins<7n~l»lumtt Legislature after attending a reception hosted Shaliq Qaadri, who was top Ontario deba(er,198Z; Stuart Olley,lop English clebater, When the province spends close lo 0,2 per Bennett, Hon. C. F.. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: scrutinized by the province in the first year. apply-“ Q! “la 3 rm?“ No 54 Onlatlt) Hansard Official Report of Debates Legislative Assembly 01 Ontario Third Session, 32nd Parliament Tuesday. October 11, 1983 Afternoon Sifling Speaker: Honourable John M. Turner Clerk: Roderick Lewis. QC Published by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Editor 1 – Q Debates. Peter Btannan CONTENTS Contents of the proceedings reported in this issue of Hansard appears at the back together with an alphabetical list of tlie speakers taking part. ‘ Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues can be obtained by calling the Hansard Reporting Service indexing staff at (415; sosztsa ansard subscription priee ts s1>.oo per session from” Sesstonal Subsc ti s ”
I f – S . _ _ – »_ _ np on ervtce.
The21:12!iZl7Ae;1£§e;h?;n:::l,6g\/lggigsérzygsof Govemment Services. nth Floor, 880 Bay Street,
Thursday. October 13, 1983
The House resumed at 8:01 p.m.
Hon. fvlr. Wells moved. seconded by Hon.
Mr. Snow. resolution l0:
That the following resolution. laid before the
assembly in accordance with the constitutional
accord entered into on March lo, l983. be
adopted: Whereas the Constitution Act. 1982
provides that an amendment to the Constitution
of Canada may be made by proclamation issued
by the Governor General under the Greal Seal
of Canada where so authorized by resolutions ol
the Senate and House of Commons and resolu-
tions of the legislative assemblies as provided
for in section 38 thereof:
And whereas the Constitution of Canada.
reflecting the country and Canadian society.
continues to develop and strengthen the rights
and freedoms that it guarantees:
And whereas, niter a gradual transition of
Canada from colonial status to the status of an
independent and sovereign state. Canadians
have. as of April 17. l982, full authority to
amend their Constitution in Canada;
And whereas historically and equitably it is
fitting that the early exercise of that lull author-
ity should relate to the rights and freedoms ol
the first inhabitants of Canadat the aboriginal
Now therefore the Legislative Assembly of
Ontario resolves that His Excellency the Got»
ernor General be authorized to issue a procla»
mation under the Great Seal of Canada amend-
ing the Constitution of Canada as follows:
Proclamation amending the Constitution of
t. Paragraph 25tbl of the Constitution Act.
1982 is repealed and the following substituted
“lbt any rights or freedoms that now exist by
way of land- claims agreements or may be so
Z. Section 35 of he Constitution Act. 1982 is
amended by adding thereto the following
“(ll For greater certainty. in subsection tn
‘treaty rights‘ includes rights that now exist by
way of land claims agreements or may be so
“t4l Notwithstanding any other provision of
this act. the aboriginal and treaty rights referred
to in subsection ll) are guaranteed equally to
mall: and female persons.“
3. The said act is further amended by adding
theretot intmediately aitcr section 35 thereof.
the following section:
“3S.l The govemment of Canada and the
provincial governments arc committed to the
principle that. before any amendment is made
to class 24 of section 9l of the Constitution Actt
t867t to section 25 of this act or to this part.
‘ital a constitutional conference that includes
in its agenda an item relating to the proposed
amendment. composed of the Prime Minister of
Canada and the first ministers oi the provinces.
will be convened by the Prime Minister of
Canada: and
“(bl the Prime Minister of Canada will invite
representatives of the aboriginal peoples or
Canada to participate in the discussions on that
4. The said act is further amended by adding
thereto, immediately after section 37 thereof.
the following part:
“Part lV.l
“Constitutional Conferences
“37.l (1) In addition to the conference con-
vened in March 1983. at least two constitutional
conferences composed of the Prime Minister of
Canada and the lirst ministers of the provinces
shall be convened by the Prime Minister of
Canada. the first within three years after April
17. X982. and the second within live years after
that date.
’12) Each conference convened under sub-
section (ll shail have included in its agenda
constitutional matters that directly affect the
aboriginal peoples of Canada. and the Prime
Minister of Canada shall invite representatives
of those peoples to participate in the discussions
on those matters.
“(3l The Prime Minister of Canada shall
invite elected representatives of the govem-
ments of the Yukon Territory and the North-

west Terriloriefi to p3|’IICipate in the discussions
on any item on the agenda of a conference
convened under subsection ll) that. in the
opinion of the Prime Minister. directly affects
the Yukon Territory and the Northwest
“l4! Nothing in this section shall be construed
so as to derogate irom subsection 35lIl.”
5. The said act is further amended by adding
thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof.
the following section:
“$4.1 Part IV.I and this section are repealed
on April ts. 19877
6. The said act is further amended by adding
thereto the following section: –
“ht. A reference to the Constitution Act I867
to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference
to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation.
7, This proclamation may be cited as the
Constitution Amendment Proclamation. I983.
Que la résolution suivantc, deposée devant
l’Asscmblee legislative conformérilent a l‘accord
consrirutionnei conclu lc I6 mars I983, soit
adoptée: Considérant: que la l.Dl€OI’IS1.i!U!i0nrt£lle
de I982 prevoil que la Constitution du Canada
peut Eire modifice par proclamation du
gouverrleur general sous Ie grand sceau du
Canada, autorisée par des resolutions du Sénat
er de la Chambre des communes et par des
resolutions des assemblées législatives dans les
conditions prevues a l’ar\icIe 18:
que la Constitution du Canada. a l‘irnage du
pays et de la societe canadienne. est crl perpetuel
devenir darts Taiientlissemcrtt des droits et
libertés qu”elle gararttit:
que les Canadiens. aprés la Iongue evolution
de leur pays de simplecolonie a Etat indépcndant
ct souverain, ont. depuis le 17 avril 1982, tout
pouvoir pour modifier leur Constitution an
que l‘histoire et Féquite demandent que l’une
des premieres manifestations de ce pouvoir
porre sur les drcils et libertés des peuples
autochtoncs du Canada. premiers habitants du
l”AssemhIée legislative de l’Orltari0 a résolu
d‘autoriser Son Excellence Ie gouverneur gen-
eral a prendre, sous Ie grand sceau du Canada.
une proclamation modifiant Ia Constitution du
Canada comrne il wit:
Proclamation modifiant la Constitution du
I. L‘alirtéa 25b) de la Loi constitutionnelle do
I982 est abrogé et remplace par ce qui suit:
“(bl aux droits ou libcttés €1(iSl3l’i|-S issus
d‘acct>rds surdes revendications territoriales ou
ceux susceptibles d‘etre ainsi acquis.”
2. L’article 35 de la Loi constiturionneiie do
I982 est modifié par adjonction dc ce qui suit:
“\3> Il est entendu que sotll compris purrni les
droits issus de traités, dont il est fail mention au
paragraphe l I l. les droits existants issus Ll’accords
sur des revendications territoriales ou ceux
susceptibles d’étre ainsi acquis.
“l4l Indépendamment de route autre disposi-
tion de la présente loi, les droit5—- ancestraux ou
issus do traités-visés au paragraphe (ll sont
garantis egalement aux personnes des deux
3. La meme loi est modifiée par insertion.
apres Particle 35. de cc qui suit:
“35.1 Les gouvemements federal ct provinciawt
sent lies par l‘et\gagerf\et\t de principe selnn
lequel Ic premier ministrc du Canada. avant
route modification dc la catégoric 24 de l’article
91 dc la Loi constitutionnelle dc 1867. dc
l’article 25 up la présertte Ioi on dc la présente
“lal convoquera une conference consti-
tuiionnelle réurtissant les premiets mirtistrcs
provinciaux ct luinneme et col-npottatlt a son
ordre du jour la question du projet de
“lb) invitera les représcntants des peuples
autochtones du Canada a participer aux 30
travaux relatio at cette question.”
4. La meme loi est modifiée par insertion.
aprés Particle 37, de ce qui suit:
“Panic IV.I
“Conferences Constitutionnelles
“371 (ll En sUS de la conference convoquée
en mars 1983, Ie minisrre du Canada convoque
au moins deux conferences conslitutionnelles
réunissanl les premiers tttinistres ptOViII<:iau‘1t et
ltli-meme, la premiere dans les trois ans et la
scconde dans les cinq ans suivant le I7 avril
“(ll Sonr placées a l‘ordre du jour de chacune
des conferences visées au paragraphe (1) les
questions constitutiortnelles qui interessent
directement les peuples autochtones du Cana~
da be premier rttinistre du Canada invite ieuts
rcprésenlants a participer aux lravaux relatifs a
ces questions.
“l3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite des
représentanlsélusdes gouvernementsdu terriloirc
du Yukon er des territoires du Nord-Ouesl a
participer aux travaux relatifs a toute question
placée a l’ordre du jour des conferences visées
au patagraphe (ll et qui. selon lui_ intéresse
I3, I983 Z077
directement le territoiredu Yukon et les rerritoires
du l*iord~Ouestr
l4l Le present article n’a pas pour etiet de
deroger au parrlgraphe 3511)?
5. La tnéme loi est modiliee par insertion.
aprés l’arIicle 54. de ce qui suit:
“$4.1 I1: parlie IV.1 ct lo present article sont
ahrogés le I8 avril I987.“
6. La meme loi est modifiée par adjonction de
cc qui suit:
“61 . Toute mention des Loi conslitutionnelles
de I867 it I982 est répuree constitueregalernent
une mention de Ia Proclamation de1983 rrtoditiant
la Constitution.“
1. Titre de la present proclamation: Procla-
mation de 1983 modiiiant la Constitution.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker. how about reading
the resolution in both official languages in this
Mr. Speaker: I am not proficient in the other
oiiicial language and I would not embarrass
myself or this House by trying.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker. I am happy to
rake part in this debate tonight as we move this
.VIr. Conway: Are these personal or govern-
mental opinions?
Hon. Mr. Wells: These are both personal and
I am happy to take part in discussion of this
resolution tonight, which is to amend the Con-
stitution Act, 1982. Its purpose is ID include
certain provisions to further define and protect
aboriginal rights.
It is an historic event for this House because
this is the first opportunity for us to consider
amending our own Canadian Constitution which
now resides in Canada and which t\<)w has
within it an amending formula. Therefore we
have before us a constitutional amending reso-
lution in both the official languages oi Canada,
8:l0 p.m.
The introduction of this resolution was pre-
ceded by another historic occasion. That was
the first ministers‘ conference held in March of
this year. I might say just at this point there were
in attendance at that conference. which was the
first of its kind held undcrour new Constitution.
the first ministcrs—that is. the Premiers of the
provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada-
joined at the table by the leaders of Canada’s
aboriginal peoples as well as by govemment
leaders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Never before had nongovernment leaders sat
clown with first ministers to discuss items involv-
ing our Constitution.
I am pleased to say many representatives of
the aboriginal peoples in this province assisted
us in developing positions. They met with “St
consulted with us and were part oi our delega-
tion to the various ministers and the first
ministers‘ conference that made up the process
which led to the accord which results in this
constitutional amendment.
we have in the gallery tonight some of those
people: Mr. Joe Miskokomon, presidem of the
Union oi Ontario Indians, Mrs. Donna Phillips
and Priscilla Simard. Donna Phillips is president
of the Ontario Native Women‘s Association.
Mrs. Simard is a member of that organization.
There were many other of our aboriginal
peoples from Ontario who were with us during
the conference and who also contributed to the
meetings held before the conference as we
developed positions to be presented at the
conference. Some of those spokesmen are here
tonight: Grand Chief John Kelly. Treaty 3; Mr.
Gordon Peters. President ol the Association oi
Iroquois and Allied Indians; Mr. Wally McKay.
former Grand Chief of’l”reaty 9; Mr. Fred Kelly
from Treaty 3; Mr. Peter Kelly: Mr. Patrick
Madahbee. fonner president of the Union of
Ontario lndians; Chief Gary Potts from Bear
Island; Mrs. Agnes Mills from the Ottawa
region of the Ontario Native Women‘: Associa-
tion; Mr. Marty Dunn of the Ontario Metis and
Nonstatus Indian Association; and Mr- Duke
Redbird. also of the Ontario Metis and Nonshatus
Indian Association.
There were many others who were there. but
I do not have ail those names in front of me
tonight. Ii] have missed any ofthe group. I hope
they will forgive me. Perhaps at some time in
this debate I can add further names of those I
failed to recognize because there were so many
of our aboriginal peoples in this province that
we met with in these meetings that led up to u-iis
historic constitutional conference.
Before I go into more details of the amend»
ments that concem us today, I would like to
outline some of the processes that led to the first
ministers‘ conference and share with you my
recollections about the agreements reached on
the ongoing process and die other c0nstitu~
tional amendments.
The honourable members are well aware that
Ontario has had a long-standing commitment to
aboriginal matters. This dates back to the first
ministers’ conference on the Constitution in
I979. in fact, it was due to Premier Davis‘s

initiative that the aboriginal item was included
in the constitutional agenda at that time.
During this first phase of constitutional nego-
tiations, Ontario supported inclusion of a sec-
tion on aboriginal rights in the Constitution.
The final version of the Constitution, the ver~
siorl which was presented. mentioned aboriginal
peoples in three of its sections. These were
section Z5, which shields aboriginal and treaty
rights from derogation or abrogation by the
charter; section 35, which recognizes and affirms
the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the
aboriginal peoples: and section 37, which calls
for a first ministers‘ conference to identify and
define those rights.
The second phase of constitutional consider-
ation of aboriginal rights occurred after the
Constitution was brought home to Canada in
April i982. As members will remember, Ontario
still had a commitment to further the rights of
aboriginal peoples. in keeping with this com-
mitment, the province began a series ofconsul-
rations with aboriginal groups from Ontario to
ascertain their p0Sili obtain a better sense of priorities.
It was also the government’s hope that regular
personal contact would luad to a greater mutual
understanding of the issues involved on the part
of all. At the same time, Ontario took part in a
number of federal-provincial officials‘ and min’
islets‘ meetings to discuss and set the agenda for
the first ministers‘ conference.
During the course of these consultations and
meetings, it became increasingly apparent that
it would be impo$Sible to reach zl consensus on
all of the agenda items. Thirteen governments
and four aboriginal groups were involved, all
with differing views. In addition, the working
agenda had grown to include lb or more items.
each of which would require Extensive and
detailed distrussion.
Because of this situation. the govemment of
Ontario recognized the need to concentrate on
a few items that stood a good chance of being
accepted by the provinces. the federal govern-
merit and hopefully the aboriginal peoples.
We also recognized that it was of the utmost
importance to achieve agreement on a further
series of conferences or, as we came to term it
during our meetings. “on the ongoing process,“
so that any unfinished business from the agenda
could be dealt with in the future at conferences
specified by the Constitution and would not be
at the whim of any government of the day.
Along with the establishment of an ongoing
process, last January the Premier (Mr. Davis]
identified two other items likely to obtain
agreement at the conference.
The first item we called consultation. The
aboriginal groups had been pressing for a con-
stitutional amendment requiring their consent
to any future amendmenm that affected their
rights. Since this would in our opinion amount
to a veto on certain constitutional changes, the
government of Ontario was opposed to the
proposal, as were most of the other govern-
ments. because we felt that such a provision
would be at odds with the parliamentary and
federal nature of this country.
We therefore looked for an alternative. and
as a practical alternative to consent the Premier
suggested a consultation provision. The consul-
tation prQviSi0l1 would require that aboriginal
peoples be consulted on any proposed amend-
ment dealing with aboriginal rights.
-The second item that Ontario felt could
receive quick agreement was equal rights for
aboriginal women.
During the consultation process, the Ontario
Native Women’s Association had asked for
Ontario‘: help in establishing the principle of
equality between men and women with respect
to aboriginal peoples, The group”: concerns
stemmed from past legislative discrimination
under the Indian Act with regard to the deter-
mination of band membership. as well as some
of the customs and traditions oi some of the
aboriginal peoples.
l would like to review for members some of
the highlights of this year’s conference.
In llisopening statement, the Premier suggested
that the first business of the conference should
be to agree on an ongoing process. As other
provinces spoke. a general agreement on some
sort of ongoing proccs appeared to be emerging.
To further this growing consensus, it was
agreed that the first ministers would begin to
consider this long list of about lb agenda items
we had. It was also agreed that an evening
meeting of ministers and officials would tackle
the questions of the ongoing process and the
possibility of a set of principles to guide the
discussions under that ongoing process in the
years ahead. The difficulty at this time was that
there were not the necessary seven provinces
with 50 per cent of the population, as required
by the new Constitution. in favour of some
manner of constitutional change.
mo p.m.
At theeveningmeeting—andlrecall thisverv
clearly~rninisters and aboriginal spokestnch
quite quickly reached agreement on the ongo-
l3. I983 Z079
ing process, but theydifferecl on how we should
achieve that goal. Some provinces preferred an
accord approach-in other words. signing an
accord rather than proposing a constitutional
amendment, Ontario and some other govern-
ments maintained that the ongoing process
should be entrenched in the Constitution. Still
others felt that the conference should simply be
adjourned and continued at a later date and that
this would ialte away the need for either an
accord or a constitutional amendment. A few
favoured bilateral consultations between gov-
ernments and aboriginal peoples.
After much discussion, and I guess as we have
said many times. in the true Canadian tradition.
a compromise was reached on an ongoing
process: the compromise was an accord with
entrenchment in the Constitution. That is. we
said an accord would be signed committing
governments to an additional conference within
one year from the date of this years conference.
with the stipulation that each govemmenl would
introduce in itsown legislature by Decemberll,
N83, a resolution to entrench further confer-
ences in the Constitution.
The accord would act as a bridge to ensure
that the ongoing process continued until the
amendment to the Constitution took effect.
General agreement was also reached to include
a statement of principles to guide the ongoing
l recall again that before the evening session
closed an agreement was reached to proceed
also with entrenchrnent of equal rights for
aboriginal women and a guaranteed consulta-
tion clause.
What then happened was that officials of the
federal government, having seen the wish of all
the governments and aboriginal groups at our
meeting that night. worked through the night to
draft an accord that would embody the agree-
ments that we had arrived at.
The next morning, March 16, when this draft
accord was presented to the first ministers, it
unfortunately met with immediate opposition.
lt was Clear that ministers and aboriginal Ofiir
cials should have reviewed the draft in privanz
ratherthan seeingitforthefirst timein lheglare
of a public meeting.
To my friend, the member for Renfrew North
hvir. ConwayJ,tl1ese are my private recollec-
tions l am now giving him.
Mr. Conway: 1t is a peculiar view of cabinet
solidarity, this public versus private opinion.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Anyway, I am telling the
member what-
Mr, Conway: Leo Bemiet said the Premier
encouraged you all to have vigorous differences
of opinion in cabinet, ,
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Wells: i have always respected
cabinet solidarity. At times I think it has assiflcd
all of us and it is incumbent upon ti minister to
indicate his private views and perhaps some of
his private opinions,
Mr. Conway: The way you do that in the
British parliamentary tradition is resign the
executive cabinet and carry on.
Hon. Mr. Wells: None of the positions that I
have presented to you would necessitate the
drastic action that the ministers of the British
Mr. Speallkrz We seem to be entering into a
private debate here and l would ask the minister
to proceed with his remarks.
Hon. Mr. Wells: 1 am just saying that this is
my recollection. and my editorial comment on
the events of that conference was that it was
clear we should have reviewed the draft in
private before all those at the meeting on the
morning of March 16 looked at it, because the
accord we had thought had been agreed to ran
into opposition.
in order to save the accord, ministers, oili-
cials and representatives of the aboriginal groups
were immediately instructed to reconvene pri-
vately to iron out the difficulties, Most of that
second day we worked through that process
and. thankfully. the final accord was reached
just as the conference was scheduled to end.
That final accord is the accord which brings
us to the constitutional amendment we are
considering tonight.
Therefore. let us turn to the accord which was
signed by iéof Ylgoverrlmerlts, the Assembly of
First Nations, the lnuit Commitee on National
issues. the Native Council of Canada and the
Mctis National Council.
The first item covered by the accord is a
commitment to hold another constitutional con-
ference. This conference will be a first minis-
ters’ conference and must be convened by the
Prime Minister within one year of the confer-
ence completed on March l6, i983. it is to
include on its agenda those items that were not
fully considered at this March conference,
The second item dealt with in the accord was
an agreement by governments to introduce in
their respective legislative assemblies a resolu-
tion to amend the Constitution Act. i982. The
proposed amendment was to be in four parts.

It was agreed to amend the Constitution to
provide for two further constitutional confer~
cnces of first ministers and aboriginal peoples.
The first conference required by the Constitu-
tion is to be held within three years after April
17. 1982: the second conference to be held
within five years after that date. The agenda for
each of these conferences shall include consti-
tutional matters that directly affect the aborigi-
nal peoples of Canada.
Second. it was agreed to amend the Constitu-
tion to provide that aboriginal and treaty tights
arc guaranteed equally to men and women.
Third. it was further agreed to amend the
Constitution to provide for consultation with
aboriginal groups whenever an amendment to
the Constitution is proposed which affects their
rights. The consultation will take the form of a
constitutional conference called for that spe~
cific purpose.
Fourth. the tlnal amendment guarantees that
modern land claims agreements have the same
constitutional status as existing treaties.
l said at the beginning of my remarks that l
would comment upon the achievements of the
March meeting. As a practising politician.
achievement often means not necessarily agree-
ment or consensus but sometimes progress
towards an objective. particularly when we
know that there will be a succession of meetings
all working towards that objective. ln this
respect l would have to say that the Match
conference this year was a success.
First, as governments and legislators we did
not stand still in terms of our constitutional
commitment to aboriginal rights. We agreed to
a process to ensure that governments and
aboriginal leaders would have to meet todiscuss
these issues in the years ahead.
Second. we recognized that an innovative
measure had to he placed in the Constitution to
ensure that amendments desired by the wider
Canadian community do not adversely affect
the rights of nur aboriginal Canadians.
Third. I believe we demonstrated to Canadi-
ansthat our new Constitution with ils amending
formula had met the promises Contained in it. ll
had proved in this first examination to be
adapted to the evolving demands of nation
1 want to devote my final remarks to the
future and explain briefly some of my thoughts
concerning the task ahead of us.
ln just over three weeks. 16 govcmments and
the four national aboriginal organizations will
gather in Ottawa again to develop an agenda for
the l984 first ministers’ conference on aborigi-
nal constitutional matters and to establish a
work plan for our respective officials. lexpect
that self-govemment. a Metis land base. and
culture and language issues will be at the top of
the list.
l-low do these specific issues relate to the
more general place of abofiginal rights in the
Constitution? At the March i983 conference.
Ontario was not able to secure general suppon
for the inclusion in a constitutional amendment
of substantive guidelines which could state the
desired relationship between governments and
aboriginal peoples. A set ofprinciples, wecalled
thcm.prlnciples that could have given direction
to the future negotiations by indicating areas of
common commitment between the governments
and the aboriginal peoples. but we were not able
to get the general support necessary to include
that in this constitutional amendment.
l have no intention of prejudging lheoutcome
of the i984 first ministers‘ meeting. l do feel
personally. though. that our task will be simpli-
fied and our route more certain if we can have
the benefit of some principles to guide out
Let me then just indicate to you what l think
these principles could be. and these are very
close,to the principles that we believed should
have been included in the constitutional amend-
ment to guide future constitutional conferences.
The principles could be stated as follows:
That the aboriginal peoples are citizens of
Canada and distinct peoples because of their
occupation of thc land since lime immemorial
and as such they have unique cultures and
That the aboriginal peoples be entitled to
various institutions of self-government within
the Canadian federation;
That the aboriginal peoples be afforded the
opportunity to benefit from the use of their land
and waters as a base for the enhancement of
economic opportunities and living standards of
aboriginal communities and families. including
the protection of their traditional livelihoods;
That the aboriginal peoples have the oppor-
tunity to participate fully and equitably in
resource development.
8:30 p.In-
These principles would give us the locus rdr
the leading aboriginal issues that need to he
addressed. These issues are the unique culture.
language and family life of the aboriginal pet»
pics: the mailer of sellrgovei-nment; participa-
l3_ I983 208!
tion in the benefits of resource development;
and the economic use of their lands.
ln conclusion. l wish to advise the honourable
members that the Ontario Legislature is the
seventh legislature to debate this resolution to
amend the Constitution. ll has been passed in
the other six legislatures. The resolution embod-
ies the work and the efforts of many pcOple over
a great deal of time. it captures some of the
hopes and aspirations of the aboriginal peoples
olCanada. ll also provides a mechanism through
which other goals of the aboriginal peoples may
he discussed and. l hope. agreed upon.
Therefore. I would urge each and every
member lo give this resolution his careful
consideration and support so that we may carry
on the historic process to which we have
committed ourselves.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Spcakcnl tried as best l
could to listen to the words oithe minister and l
was particularly interested in his closing rcmarlts
about what the principles could be. I would
have to lake it from this that his words mean
they have not been totally accepted by the
cabinet of the govemmenl of Ontario. If l am
\vtong.l hope he will clear that situation up ior
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. $pealristing” not he
seen as a limitation on the parameters of those
rights which it identifies.
Beyond that we would ask. does the govern-
ment recognize the existence of both aboriginal
and treaty rights in Ontario today‘? Will it
specify which aboriginal rights it recognizes in
this province‘? Does the govemment still sup-
port a charter of aboriginal rights for Indian
people and does it believe that such rights as
enunciated in the charter he entrenched‘!
At the beginning or my remarks I asked the
minister for a clarification of what he had hoped
the principles would be. and he explained that
the principles were not acceptable to the rest of
the country. 1 would like to go back and ask the
government if it is prepared to support a state-
ment ol principles which would be written into
the Constitution Act and which would deal with
the recognition of the rights of aboriginal peo-
ple? ls the government prepared to go back to
the table to try to negotiate such :4 statement?
The minister made reference to the govern-
ment’s position on Indian self-government. I
I3. I983 Z083
would like him. it‘ he orone of the speakers from
his parry has the opportunity. to go back and
explain a little more fully his position on Indian
self-government. Must we wait for the federal
position to come out in front of us before we sec
the province really clarify its position on Indian
The government is inclined on occasion to
speak in noble phrases on the need to protect
native rights. I-Iowcver. we in the opposition on
occasion are given to considerable scepticism.
We Iind on occasion that their words are no
more than hollow gestures in the light oi their
past actions in dealing with the problems that
are facing the native people within their own
The professed devotion of the Premier (Mr.
Davis) “in finding real and lasting solutions to
the problems of native peoples” means little
when we examine the provinces continuing
shameful saga of the mediation process with the
Whitedog and Islington bands regarding mer-
cury pollution in the English-Wablgoon river
system. Fully I3 years have passed since mer-
cury poisoning contaminated the fish stock
throughout that river system. Fully live years
have passed since mediation efforts began to
redress the damage caused by these events
which were beyond the control oi the native
The minister End. 1 am sure, the Premier will
recall the words of ;\/Ir. Justice Patrick Hartt
when the Premier accepted the establishment oi
the mediation process as an emergency situa-
tion, “What justification for immediate gov-
ernment action is required here other than
decency and the restoration of human dignity?‘
Yet all majorissues remain unsolved because
of the province’s unco-operative attitude. This
attitude can be summed up with some quota-
tlons from govemment cabinet ministers or
former ministers. I should make it clear that
some former ministers are included. l am just
going to read some of the comments they have
I am quoting from I976 and the Honourable
Rene Brunelle. a former minister of this House.
He said. “Economic development on Indian
reserves is a federal responsibility.“ So they do
the Pontius Pilate thingand wash their hands. In
another quote from I977, the member for Don
MillS (Mr. Tirnbrelll, who is Still a minister of
this I-louse. said. “We don‘! know ii the symp-
toms (from which the Indians suffer) have been
caused by the fish. alcoholism or venereal
In I976the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier).
another of our present cabinet ministers, said.
“Ontario’s policy is that there will be no com-
pensation for industrial pollution. The courts
are open to individuals to take on the polluterf
In I981 the member for Sault Ste. Marie lMr.
Ramsayl. also a minister. said. “Any liability for
damages would appear to lie with those whose
actions led to the presencc of mercury in the
water and not. I would emphasize, the govern-
ment of Ontario.” In I982 another former
cabinet minister. the member for Lambton (Mr.
l’letld€rSor|l. said. “Indians are the children of
the federal government.“
I ask you. Mr. Speaker. in all sincerity. how
there can be any credibility in this govemmenfs
sincere participation in the dialogue on native
rights in view of this record. The minister
starred with glowing words. and I commended
him for his efforts. hut I would have to say the
efforts of some of his colleagues have fallen far
short or‘ the mark. He and his colleagues now
have the opportunity as a government and as
spokespersons for the government at the debate
table to bring some of the comments from the
opposition members to light.
I do not want to end on a totally negative
note. I want to remind the government of its
shortcomings and I want to suggest it should go
a little further when it goes back in discussing
this resolution. There is a good case to he made
for the word “exist” or “e>tisling“ to be removed.
It is reasonable for the government to show u5
its sincerity by listening to these comments and
to the comments of the Indian leaders. some of
whom are with us in the gallery tonight. and to
seek that these further changes be brought
3:50 p.rn.
Finally, this government has a pretty poor
record when it comes to assisting our Indian
people in Lheir attempts to get organized and to
attend conferences such as the one we had in
the spring oi this year. I would ask that we look
at Llle number of dollars spent in supporting the
native people and ask the government if itcould
show a little more benevolence in this regard
and provide adequate funding for the organiza-
tional work that is necessary for them. so that
they too might be better able to represent the
views of all of those people for whom they
Thank you for the opportunity to take part in
this debate.
Mr. Wlldman: Mr. Speaker. it is a privilege

I0r me (0 lead Off in this debate on behalf of the
New Democratic Party. a debate which the
govemment House leader. the Minister for
Intergovemmental Affairs (Mr. Wellsldescribed
as historic. I agree that this is an historic
occasion. the first opportunity that this assem-
bly has had to discuss a constitutional amend-
ment under a new constitution which is Canadi~
an. It is indeed appropriate that the first debate
and the first matterol business be one that deals
with aboriginal and treaty rights.
I had thc privilege of attending the constitu-
tional conference in Ottawa in March at the
invitation of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs as a representative of this caucus and as
an observer. I thank the minister and the
government for that opportunity. I considered it
a privilege to be able to attend and observe what
was, as the minister described. an historic
It is Z pleasure as well as a privilege to be able
to speak on this debate, but I think it is
important for us. when we rise to support the
amendment which is in line with the constitu-
tional accord reached in March I983. that we
also bring some important substance to the
debate on aboriginal and treaty rights in the
province, and that we understand from the
debate what fhtr Commitments of the provincial
government are to the rights of Indian. Mctis
and nonslatus Indian people in Ontario, as well
as their commitments to constitutional change.
During this debatc I and other members of
our caucus will be raisingspccific concerns that
we have with regard to the commitments of this
government to living up to the aboriginal and
treaty rights that we believe this government
should recognize in Ontario. Our party supports
and affimis our commitment to the full inv0lv|:~
rnent of aboriginal peoples in the process of
revising the Canadian Constitution. particularly
as it affects them and their righu. We see trtisas
an opportunity to develop and strengthen the
rights and freedoms of the aboriginal people of
this country and this province.
Aboriginal people in Canada have the right to
expect to be dealt with justly by Canadian
society. In the past Indian pcOplcs have entered
into treaties and agreements with the crown.
Whether that be originally the crown in the
name of the British governnient—the Imperial
crown-—the federal government or in right of
the province. They reached those agreemenu
and. unfortunately, all too often those agree
ing by the aboriginal people who were a party to
them. If they had been aware of the full
implications of some of the terms they agreed
to, they would not have accepted them.
Moreover. governments have not even
respected those terms or. in some cases. while
they have respected the letter of the terms of the
treaties and agreements. the spirit of those
agreements as they were understood at the time
have not been recognized and lived up to by the
governments either at the federal or provincial
levels in Canada.
In my view. the worst blemish on the history
Of Canada has been the failure of Canadian
govemments. federal or provincial. to uphold
the rights recognized for native peoples at the
time of the negotiation of the treaties. It is my
view, and this is shared by many others. that the
treaties were really political agreements between
political groups. Unfortunately. they have not
been treated that way and given precedence by
the courts over legislation passed by subsequent
white govemments. I think we have the oppor~
tunity now. while we affirm our commitment to
this ongoing process. to right some of the
wrongs of the past.
We in this party support the amendment as it
is proposed since it is in line with the accord and
since it provides for further constitutional con~
lerences involving the Prime Minister and the
first ministers and representatives of the aborig-
ivtal peoples. as well as representatives of the
territorial governments where they are affected.
I also understand this accord and the com-
mitment to further meetings is not in any way
intended—and I certainly hope it is not intended
by any governments in this country-to be an
attempt to have an ongoing dialogue on how
somehow to limit the rights of aboriginal peo
ples in this country. but rather to define as
widely as possible what those rights are and to
cntrench them in a Constitution.
Like my friend from the Libcriil Party. I have
serious concerns about the continuation of the
wctrd “existing” as it is used in the Constitution.
It does appear this word could be taken to mean
that aboriginal and treaty rights are just those
ones that are now recognized by the courts to be
in existence. l recognize the federal and provin-
cial governments have stated this is not neces-
sarily the case. not was if the intention of the
draftets of that section of the Constitution.
Like my friend from the Liberal Party. I ask
the goventment House leader. is this govertl~
ment prcparcd to fight for the removal of the
word “cxisting“ from the Constitution in order
to ensure it does not in any way limit the
I3. I983 2085
aboriginal peopI$S’ rights which are to be
entrenched in the Constitution‘! I think it is
incumbent upon this government. ifit is indeed
committed to the recognition of aboriginal and
treaty rights that may be so acquired by issue of
land claim agreements in the future. that it
make it absolutely clear by lighting for the
removal of thc word “existing,” or at least for
the added definition of What that word actually
menus to the extent that it is not meant to lirnif
the rights ofthc Indian people. the Inuits. Metis
and nonstatus Indian people or this country.
l hope that during this debate we will gain
some understanding of what this govemment
means by aboriginal rights and what kind of
commitment it has. not just to recognizing those
rights and to negotiating their inclusion in the
Constitution, but to enabling the aboriginal
people who live in Ontario to exercise those
l sincerely hope the constitutional confer-
ence that is now coming and the subsequent
ones will lead to concrete progress. l think we
must have concrete progress. We cannot have at
situation when: we just continue to agree to
continue to talk. We must continue to talk.
obviously, but 1 would certainly hope we could
move beyond that to actually making some
progress in defining what those rights are.
9 p.m.
I note that in the governtttent House leaders
remarks he talked about the consultative pro
cess and referred to the request that has been
made by the aboriginal otganiaations that there
beaconsentclausc included in the Constitution
to ensure the rights recognized and entrenched
in the Constitution cannot somehow be changed
bilaterally by govcmments. but that they them-
sclves will be able to have the right to say yes or
no to a change that affects their rights.
I understand what the minister has said about
the difficulties with that in regard to the British
parliamentary tradition and the parliamentary
tradition of this country. but that does leave the
question of what this government means by a
guarantee of aboriginal and treaty rights. Does
it just mean a guarantee of consultation regard-
irtg changes in aboriginal and treaty rights‘! It
that is the case. I doubt that the aboriginal
peoples of this country will be satisfied. I hope
the minister will he able to clarify that matter
before the end Of the debate.
One oi the great advances made at the
conference in March was the commitment of
the govemments of this country and of the
aboriginal organizations. as representatives of
the aboriginal peoples of this country. to recog-
nize the equality of the sexes as it relates to
aboriginal and treaty rights.
The problems of the past relating to the
Indian Act and the definition of band member-
ship are examples of the kinds of problems
tesultingfrom the incomprehensible rules made
through the years by white govemmenls trying
to deal with Indian problems. managing Indian
affairs and dictatingto Indian communities. We
all welcome the change agreed to at the confer-
ence which said that female and male persons
will be treated equally and their righs guaran~
teed equally under this constitutional change.
I Want to deal at some length with the
question of what is meant by the ncw term “or
may be so acquired” when it relates to land
claims agreements. This is welcome in the sense
that the current subsection does not recognize
future negotiated land settlements and resultant
rights. The new term makes it possible for those
future settlements to be considered the same as
treaties and for the rights accompanying them
to be entrenched. But it does raise a couple of
other questions.
What does it mean, for instance. in speaking
of land claims relating to lands that have been or
are thought to have been reserved for the Indian
peoples of this province and this country in the
past but have since been lost. and the righs that
are related to those lands‘! ll those land claims
arc revived and the federal and provincial
governments are involved in negotiating settle~
ments that will lead to future agreements. the
clause covers it: but what about disputes that
cannot be resolved through negotiation‘! Are we
to continue having to revert to the courts, with
all the difficulties. expense and waste of resourc-
es. in my view as a nonlawyer, that entails?
The member for London North (Mr. Van
Horne). who spoke previously, asked a question
regarding a charter of rights for Indian people
which might be entrenched in the Constitution.
I understand the Ontario government has
supported this idea in the past. and in the
meetings the minister referred to before the
conference that was held in March. the meet-
ings with the aboriginal organizations. this ques-
tion Was raised by representatives of the gov»
etnmcnt bureaucracy. But I would like the
minister to clarify whether the govemment still
supports this position; and if so. what attempts
will be made at the ncxt conference to have this
matter dealt with.
The rninister‘s statement. although it reiter-
ates a number of times a commitment to aborig-

inal rights, leaves unclear what the government
of this province means by aboriginal rights‘ in
my view, aboriginal r-ightsstem from the national
rights enjoyed by the Indian tribes and Inuit
groups that were established on this continent
before European colonization. They were not
granted, in my vie»/— as is the view. apparently.
of many courts and of many others in this
country-—by the British through the proclama-
tion oi I763. ll seems to me that aboriginal
rights must be related to a relationship of the
people with the land that existed long before
Europeans came tb North America.
The question of aboriginal rights must be
defined, and I hope that in this debate the
minister will do that. It is not enough to say we
are committed to it; we must know what we are
committed to. It would be much easier lo
understand the government’s attitude on land
claims in this province if we knew its actual
definition of aboriginal and treaty rights.
This morning my colleague the member for
lake Nipigon (Mr. Srokesl and I met with
representatives of Treaty 9 and the chief of
Lansdowne House. We talked briefly With them
regarding a problem that has been going on for
the socalled satellite communities of the Fort
Hope band for some time. If I talk a little bit
about this problem. I think I can demonstrate
the problem we have in understanding what this
government’s commitment is to land rights and
land claims.
lit I931. the chiefs of Iansdowne Hou$¢,
Webequit: and suinincr Beaver inet with the
Minister of Natural Resources lMr. Pope] and
the legislative assistant at that time to the
federal Minister Of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and presented them with a draft
memorandum of agreement to negotiate a reso-
lution of the lack of land status for the three
communities I mentioned. That was in I981.
This problem is still going on. and it has not
been resolved.
Over the next few months after that proposal
was made, five drafts were made of the original
agreement that was proposed. There seemed to
be aprubletn with the question of whether these
communities, which are on crown lands, have
aboriginal right and/or treaty right to their land‘
Eventually, though, by the end of I981 the
negotiators for the three parties came up with
an acceptable draft for all three parties.
However, when the federal and provincial
negotiators took the agreement back to the
federal and provincial cabinets for signature,
apparently the cabinets at both the federal level
and the provincial level balked. The federal
department apparently felt it was being asked to
write a blank cheque for the land, because it
would have to pay the provincial govemmertt
for the transfer of provincial crown land and it
was unable or unwilling to do that.
9=l0 p.In.
Subsequent to that. the Minister of Natural
Resources took it upon himself to try to resolve
the problem all by himself. He decided he was
going to transfer community land to the elders
of the three communities via a fee simple
arrangement. This was done without any Warnr
ingr Alter extensive discussions the three com-
munities returned the deeds to the province,
saying they did not want land in fee simple; they
wanted reserve status. They did not want to own
provincial land.
These problems facing these three communi-
ties are not unique. There are I5 other commu-
nltics that are so-called squatters on provincial
crown land. The question of their rights to that
land remains up in the air.
This problem has been debated back and
forth by people from both levels of government
for more than 20 years, and it still has not been
resolved. The only case where this has been
resolved was when the Big Trout Lake commu-
nities agreed with the federal and provincial
governments for a transfer of land. In that casc.
the provincial govemmerit agreed to allot addi-
tional lands to the satellite communities and
agreed to their identification as reserves. But
that has not occurred with the others.
If the government is committed to the recog-
nitiOl’\ of land claims and to aboriginal rights and
treaty rights, as the minister says, why have
these problems not been resolved‘! in general.
the provincial government has taken the posi-
tion that any new reserve lands must be created
from already allocated land.
The federal government has argued that
Ontario is demanding that land be purchased at
inflated market values. The federal government
is also demanding that the so-called parent band
must agree to the creation of new reserves, and
land from the existing reserves Should be allot-
ted for new reserves.
in other words. what is being proposed is that
if the so»called satellite communities are to be
given land that will have reserve status, the
socalled parent community will lose land. I ask
you. Mr. Speaker. would governments commit-
ted to aboriginal rights, as the minister has said.
I3. I983 Z087
demand that to bring about an agreement‘!
My colleague the ineinher for Lake Nipigon
will be going on in I’nOf9 detail on this kind of
problem with regard to the aboriginal peoples’
rights to land. l hope we will see something from
this prcvince~bcfore this is debated at the
constitutional conference—which will lead to a
resolution of these problems.
I also want to refer to another land claim in
another area of the province. It is the Athabaska
land claim, which is a claim for a strip of land
near the Lake of the Woods, consisting ofabout
L600 acres of land.
Apparently this piece of land was originally
an Indian reserve; the title of the land was
transferred from Ontario to Canada for that
purpose. However, in I930 the provincial gov-
ernment started opening the land for develop-
ment. apparently through some error in its
records which failed to Show that the land was
really a reserve. In researching the dealings and
correspondence between the provincial and
federal governments. the federal government
also apparently made the same error and came
to the conclusion that the land was not a
reserve; so the land was sold.
In I977, however, the land claim was put
forward and both the federal and provincial
governments admitted their en’ors. Settlement
negotiations started about three years ago and
proceeded with some progress to the point
where the bands involved put forward their
entire position and believed that negotiations
were close to n conclusion.
A meeting was set up in early July of this year
to receive a response ofthc federal and provin-
cial governments to the Indian position. That
meeting was convened in Toronto, but for some
mason the Ontario governmerlt was represented
by people who had not been party to thc
previous negotiations and those individuals stated
they had no instructions on how to proceed. As
a result, they could not reach a settlement of the
claim. They were arguing that they would have
to start over again and sort out with the federal
government who was responsible for the mixup
in the sale of the lands and how that responsibil-
ity would be divided between the federal and
provincial governments ~
It seems to me most unfair that the provincial
government would make this kind of statement
at the llth hour just before everyone expected
there was going to be a settlement of the claim.
It certainly does not indicate to me that this
government is committed to the settlement of
land claims and to aboriginal and treaty rights in
this province.
As with many other land claim problems. this
matter has been referred to the courts because
an out-of-court settlement hasnot been reached.
It seems to me a government that was really
committed, and not just committed in rhetoric,
would be meeting with the Big Grassy Band and
thfi Sabaskong Band to resolve this and other
land claims in the province.
I do not have to mention—and I will not,
because it is before the courts—the long history
of the Bear Island claim, but again it is an
example of how committed this government
really is.
I want to deal with some other rights which 1
believe must be recognized by this govemment
and by the federal govemment and which must
be entrenched in the Constitution. This is in no
way intended to limit rights or to have me stand
up here and say these are the aboriginal and
treaty rights that must be recognized; they are
ones I think are important and must be dealt
with though.
Obviously related to land is the right to the
resources on that land, the right to bunt. fish.
trap and harvest, without interference. We have
seen a long and inconsistent application by the
courts and by governments of the treaty rights
to hunt and fish in this province. In the not too
distant past. we saw the Moraviantown raid. I
hope a commitment to the recognition of aborig-
inal rights will mean we will not have any more
of those kinds of activities by peace officers in
this province.
I will give the govemmentcredit. An attempt
was made by the Minister of Natural Resources
to resolve fishing rights through negotiations
last year. which led to the socalled Indian
fishing agreement. I hope this government will
make the status of that agreement clear. The
Minister of Natural Resources made a state-
ment recently that “the agreement was dcad”
~those were the words he usedvas far as he
was concerned, because the federal govem-
ment had not ratified it.
l hope that is not an indication that the
Minister of Natural Resources has been under
so much pressure from other ministers of this
govemment and from certain other interests in
thc community not to proceed with the Indian
fishing agreement. and that he is now trying to
look for-a scapegoat and excuse to get out of it.
I congratulated him at the time he brought
that forward. While it was anything but perfect.

it was his first step towards rationalizing and
putting an end to the inconsistency in enforce-
ment of treaty fishing rights. I would hope that
eventually it might lead to an agreement in
rerrrls of hunting rights. by this government and
by the courts.
It was a step towards comanagcment of the
fishing resource by the bands and by the gov-
emtnenl. There was an attempt to look for ways
to have self-regulation. where band councils
could he involved in determining what regula-
tionswould be set for their people with regard to
the harvest of the fishing resource in Ontario. In
my view. if we are committed to conservation
and to sustained yield. whatever that means. this
kind of agreement and involvement by Indian
bands across Ontario is essential. We cannot
allow the surne kind of buck-passing that has
occurred so often in the past between the
federal and provincial governments to wreck
this agreement.
mu p.rn. .
I understand the federal authorities have
disagreed with the Ministry of Natural Resources
and said: “No. the agreement is not dead. They
would like to discusscllanges:” and so on. To be
frank. 1 have not seen any great eagerness from
that government to resolve whatever differ-
ences there are. It certainly leaves the way open
for further discussion. and I hope the minister
can tell us that this government is indeed going
to proceed with trying to bring the Indian
fishing agreement into effect through an agree-
ment with the federal government.
I recognize there are some Indian organiza-
tions that do not support the agreement. I do not
think we are ever going to reach unanimity on
these very complex and difficult issues. There
was. however, substantial support for the agree-
ment from the Indian community when it was
brought out. As I said, despite the pressures
experienced by all of us in this chamber with
large expanses of northern Ontario as parts of
our riding. we in this party support proceeding
with that agreement.
I can point to another example of what I think
is a lack of commitment by this government
towards aboriginal rights. l refer to the sorry
tale of the wild rice moratorium. It seems to me
that this government. responding to a lot of
pressure. agreed rather reluctantly to a morato-
num on the issuing of licences for wild rice.
harvesting over a five-year period. This experi-
ment was to see how that resource could be
developed to benefit the Indian people. We
know the problems With weather. water levels
and so on that made the five-year period inap-
propriate to carrying out a real experiment. yot
the moratorium was allowed to lapse. I do not
know the government’s present position with
regard to wild rice licences. I hope that will he
made clear.
In our view , the wild rice resource is part and
parcel of the treaty and aboriginal rights of the
Indian people. It should be a real economic base
for many Indian communities. The Indian pet)-
plt: must be involved in the control and devel-
opment of that industry. They must be on
control boards that regulate the water levels in
the lakes that are important for the wild rice.
We must be moving. especially with Ontario
Hydro. to stabilize the water levels in the lakes
so that the wild rice resource will be able to
grow and be harvested effectively.
I believe this provincial govemrrtent should
be assisting in establishing an integrated wild
rice industry in Ontario. involving the harvest-
itlg. processing and marketing of wild rice for
the benefit of Indian communities.
Aboriginal and treaty rights to land. in my
view. must also encompass compensation for
the loss of forest and mineral resources from
lands reserved for Indian people in this province.
Over and over. ever since I was first elected in
I975. I have raised the question of the status of
the 1924 land agreement. In eight years I have
never had a straight answer. Frankly. I do not
think most of the ministers over there. espe-
cially the ones involved with Indian affairs and
natural resources. know anything about the
I924 land agreement. I see a member shaking
his head. It has been almost 60 years. and we
keep getting the whole thing bounced back and
forth between the federal and provincial
It may proceed that we will be ablc to
celebrate the bicentennial of the I924 land
agreement without finally getting it resolvod. I
hope not. My colleague the member from the
Liberal caucus mentioned the sorry history of
the mediation process with the Whitedog and
Grassy Narrows reserves in northwestern Ontar-
io. I think it really docs point out the lack of
commitment on the part ol this govemmerlt.
Since this firststartcd in 1970 we have had three
or four Ministers of Natural Resources. I think
we have had even more Provincial Secretaries
for Resources Development. The matter still is
not resolved.
Mr. Martel: What do they do‘!
Mr. Wlldman: They seem to convene meet-
ings between Indian people and Indian Organi-
I3, I983 Z03‘?
zutions and other ministers. It seems to be their
I will not rcfcr to the comments of the former
secretary about Indian people. I do not think he
really understood most of the issues.
In this regard I have just received a copy of a
letter. dated August Kl. to the Minister of
Natural Resources from Chief Isaac Mandamin
of the Islington band. I will read it into the
record. It says:
“Dear Mr. Minister: It is most unfortunate
Perhaps you will better appreciate the attitude
of your Kcnora office district-manager and the
type of frustrating situations which develop
regularly between Kenora chiefs and Mr. D.
“Some time ago the province of Ontario
agreed to supply fresh fish on a regular basis to
the members of my band as a result of the
pollution ofthe English~Wabigoon river system.
The last shipment of fish by your ministrywas in
the early pattoi May 1983. Since then the hand
has made two written requests_to have the
freezer restocked. To dare, we have received no
fish. and as Chief. I am having difficulty pct-
suading my band members not to set nets for
fresh fish on other nearby lakes.“
They cannot even keep the freezer stocked.
Alter the whole economic base of a community
is ruined through the mercury pollution that
resulted from the economic activities of the
companies in the area, rather than doing some-
thing about it the government at one point said.
“All right. we’ll give you fresh fish 50 you d0n’t
fish in the contaminated waters.“ They cannot
even keep the freezer stocked. What kind of
commitment is that‘!
l understand we have a new Provincial Secre-
tary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling).
l hope hc is going to attempt to resolve this
problem and get the mediation process on
track. I understand the federal minister has
rnude attempts to resolve this problem. but I
think it is useful ior US to lo0k at the history Ol
9:30 p.m.
The Ontario government signed an agree-
ment to mediate the mercury pollution settle-
ment with the lslington and Grassy Narrows
hands on December I3. I978. eight years after
the problem first was identified. This mediation
was recommended by the Hartt royal commis-
sion in vicw of the lack of interest by the
province and the papcr companies between
I970 and I978.
From the spring of 1979 through November
I982 the lslington band treated the process
seriously and attempted to negotiate with the
provincial government in good faith.
Unfortunately. little was achieved. as the prov-
ince was not prepared to put forward a package
of substance.
In November I982 the hand advised the
Premiers office that it would be announcing
publicly a final termination of discussions with
the provincial government because of lack of
provincial oummitntcnt to a meaningful pro-
cess. In his reply to the band the Premier ltvlr.
Davislsuggested a60day process that had been
recommended by the band. that process to
commence on December 1, 1982. and to tenni-
nate on January 31, I983. The Minister of
Natural Resources was designated as the princir
pal Ontario representative.
The hand agreed to that proposal and some
progress was made. Again I have to give credit
in this case to the Minister of Natural Resourc-
us. who did attempt to get something going. \o
the point that in late January 1983 an agreement
resulted and a draft was written. dated February
22. After a number of minor alterations the
band accepted the draft— the alterafiottsdid not
change the intent or the content of the agree-
ment in any way~and that draft was signed by
the chief in council and delivered to the Pre-
mier‘s office on March I4 of this year. right
around the time of the constitutional conference.
However. instead of accepting that draft and
reaching an agreement. provincial ministers
apparently entered unofficial negotiations with
a citizens‘ committee from the Kenora Conser-
vativc riding association. It also involved other
members of the Kenora community. the mayor.
the rceve of Ear Falls and others. apparently a
committee of up to I8 people.
The former Provincial Secretary for Resources
Development in May 1983 forwarded it to the
but-id stating it had been altered only to clear up
the language, but in fact it was drastically
changed. A Sl-million greenhouse went from
ownership of land and buildings to a lease
arrangement; the land and the buildings could
he recovered by the provincial government at a
future date. This. of course, was totally
unacceptable to the band and was anything but
just an altering of language.
l submit that this process is another example
of a lack of commitment by this government to
the settlement of land .claitns and B lack of
commitment to aboriginal rights and to the

economic base of Indian communities in this
The band, as I understand it, is prepared to
continue the negotiations and to attend a meet-
ing with the Premier, the Minister oi Natural
Resources and the Provincial Secretary for
Resources Development (Mr. Sterling). They
naturally feel betrayed by the actions of the
former secretary. which seem to have been
aimed at paciiying the people oi the town of
Kenora rather than at resolving the problem
and bringing about a settlement.
It this government really has any kind oi
commitment to the native people of this prov-
ince. it will resolve this mediation process once
and for all.
Obviously. ifwe have a commitment to treaty
rights. aboriginal rights. the settlement of land
claims, then we have to recognize them in terms
of resources. Too often in the past the resource
tights. whether they be hunting and fishing
n’ghts or land rights of the aboriginal peoples of
this country. have been overridden by legisla-
tion. be it the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
the Fisheries Act or by provincial law, so much
so that the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed
treaty promises have been broken and injustices
have been done in the past.
We all recognize injustices have been done;
but it is not enough to recognize that. we have to
remedy it. We could start by remedying the
injustices we have done to the people of Grassy
Narrows and Whitedog.
I believe we require constitutional protection
for Indian resource rights. notjust in relation to
hunting and fishing but also in relation to
mineral and timber rights on reserves and to the
real settlement of land claims.
I would like to point to one other example of
the commitment, or lack of it, to aboriginal
rightsand treaty rights by this government. That
relates to the exemption from taxation, which
was recognized by the treaty. The fact that
income taxes and sales taxes had not been
instituted or were considered temporary aber-
rations when most of the treaties were signed is
no excuse to abrogate the spirit of the treaty
exemption from taxation, in my view.
We have a history in this province ofchanging
regulations with regard to the sales lax exemp-
tion for Indian peoples. At one time or another
the govet-ment has said that if a person lives on a
reserve and purchases goods on a cash~on-
delivery basis to his home on the reserve. he will
not have to pay sales tax. On other occasions
they have changed that and said. “Well, yes, we
recognize that there isa treaty tax exemption, so
that even if the person lives on the reserve but
purchases the goods off the reserve. he should
not have to pay sales tax.”
I participated in a discussion between offi-
cials of the Ministry of Revenue and a number
of bands from the north shore of Lake Huron,
the north channel area, a few years ago. We
finally got agreement ironi Revenue officials
that thesalestaltexemptionwould apply.even if
goods were not delivered and paid for on the
reserve. as long as the people lived on the
However. when the sales tax was subsequently
changed in the budget, so that we had an ad
valorern feature and we also had the application
of sales tax to inexpensive meals. that all went
out the window. We are back to the point where
if you purchase a hamburger at a McDonald’s in
Sault Ste. Marie, across the road from the
Batchawana reserve, the Rankin location, you
have to pay sales tax, even though you are a
member of the Batchawana band.
I aslt you. is that a commitment to the
recognition of the treaty tights? I believe we
must have not just rhetorical. oreven a constitu-
tional commitment to those rights. we must
have a substantive one.
shstl ‘|).m.
I would like to speak for a few moments about
the comments made by the minister on Indian
self-government. In his statement the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs said this govenr
ment favoured the recognition, and certainly
the aboriginal peoples of this country and their
organizations want a recognition of their gov-
ernments as an order of government within
Canada. As we know, a federal special sub-
committee on Indian self-government has been
travelling around the country having hearings
and receiving su bmissions and that committee is
supposed to be releasinga report this fall. I hope
Lhls government during this debate can ntakc
clear what it means by the Indian self-government
it says it favours. I do no-t think we should have
to wait for the federal parliamentary committee
to come down with its report.
This party believes aboriginal peoples have
die right to control their own affairs and pursue
their traditional living undisturbed. In order to
do that, they must have sufficient resources to
support themselves. They have the right to
govern themselves accordingto their own forms
of government. That includes the right to estab-
lish and control their own schools and educa-
tional programs and other social programs.
I3. l9&”l 1091
I believe education is central to the preserva-
tion ol culture. In the past, the type of education
provided to the native peoples has been subject
to the caprice of white politicians and bureau-
crats. Fortunately. there now seems to be a
general agreement that native people should
have maximum control over their own educa-
tion. The only guarantee that aboriginal peoples
have of gaining ultimate control in as Culturally
important an area as education would be a
constitutional guarantee of their right to exclu-
sive jurisdiction over the education of their
Obviously. ifwe believe in the preservation of
culture, we rnust accept the right of aboriginal
peoples to safeguard sacred places and to
preserve and practice their religion. customs.
culture and languages. I believe control of
education is necessary for that to take place.
It is not enough, though. for us to say that we
favour forms of Indian self-government or even
to try to define them if we are not prepared to
co-operate with the federal government to pro-
vide sufficient resources to enable Indian peo-
ples and other aboriginal peoples in this country
to administer the programs over which they are
to have control. It is not enough to accept the
right to self-govemment; we must facilitate
Indian self-government. The govemmenls of
this country must be prepared to provide suffi-
cient resources to make the rhetorical commit-
ment to Indian self-government meaningful.
I may have appeared to be somewhat nega-
tive in my comments this evening. I have tried
not to be. I have tried to deal with what Isee are
real problems with regard to the commitment of
this provincial government to aboriginal tights
and treaty rightsin this province. I look forward
with optimism. however, to the ongoing process
and to the next Confertrrlce. I believe we must
make concrete progress, and I believe if this
govcrment makes clear what iLs commitments
really are in this debate and prior to the next
conference and the following conferences, con-
crete progress will be possible.
I believe the alternative to progress at the
next conference will be an explosion of legal
battles involving both the federal and provincial
governments. The costs would be staggering.
Not just the financial costs, but the human
resources that would be wasted would be far too
great. The end results would be unsatisfactory
to both the Indian and non»lndian communities
in this country.
While I welcome the words of the minister on
behalf oi the government that there is commit-
ment to the ongoing process. to constitutional
change. I do not believe we should be waiting to
begin to solve the problems facing the aborigi-
nal peoples of Ontario until the constitutional
process is completed. I believe we must institute
programs now to deal with the conditions faced
by Indians and Metls people in this province.
We do not need to wait. I believe we should be
reaching the land claims agreements as soon as
possible and doing everything we can to facili-
tate them. If we do that. then we will indeed
have achieved agreat deal and we will be looked
on by other countries in this world as a leader in
the recognition and support of aboriginal rights
in this country.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, It is with a very
real sense of pride that I rise to participate in
this debate on the proposed amendments to the
Constitution of Canada. This is a motion unlike
any other which has ever been before this
House. This is in the truest sense a historic
occasion. For the first time, we in this assembly
are being asked to debate amendments to the
Canadian Constitution. which may be adopted
without recourse to the Parliament at
Westminster. In my view. there can be no
debate more important. no issue which can
make us more aware of our responsibilities as
elected representatives of the people than a
debate which would result in amendmenu to
the fundamental laws of this great country.
I am also proud to be able to take part in this
debate because of the substance and the nature
of the amendments themselves. It is only right
that the first amendments to our repatriated
Constitution should address the rights of the
first peoples of Canada.
Finally, I atn proud to participate in this
debate because it proves that our process for
amending the Constitution can work. The fact
that these amendments are before this House
demonstrates that our Constitution is not cast in
stone: rather, both the Constitution and the
process for amending it have the flexibility
necessary to operate effectively in a country as
diverse as Canada.
It is a privilege to be part of that process. All
honourable members are aware that in terms of
our relations with the aboriginal peoples we
have travelled a long road from the royal
proclamation of I763 to those amendments
which are before us tonight. No one could
pretend that it was an easy road. At times our
relations have been strained by mistrust, misun-
derstanding and bitterness. There are those who
would argue that the situation remains unchangai.

I. however. reject that view and believe the
simple fact that we are debating these amend-
ments demonstrates that our relations have
significantly improved. These amendments are
thcmsclves no mean accomplishment. The future
state of our relations with the native people in
oursocictyand the role thattheywill playinour
national life will be determined by these amend-
ments and the meetings that grow out of them.
I would point out to members that the consti-
tutional accord on aboriginal rights has already
been ratified by the national body of Indians in
Canada, the Assembly of Fl1’Sl Nations. The
assembly endorsed the accord on May l7, I983.
at a meeting in Winnipeg. l would also note that
the executive council of the chiefs of Ontario
have encouraged this Housc to give prompt
approval to this resolution.
950 p.|I\.
In a release dated May 27, 1983. the executive
council said. “Today we commend the govern-
ment of Ontario for bcing the first rlon~lndian
government in Canada to begin the process of
ratifying the accord.“ The executive council
went on to say, “We trust that all legislatures in
Ontario and across Canada will act promptly to
udopt the resolution to amend Canada‘s
Honourable members and Mr. Speaker, for
too long the special rights and status of thc first
nations of Canada have been denied by settler
governments. lt is historic that the first amend-
ment to Canadas Constitution should begin to
correct this injustice. The 70.000 Indians of
Ontario expect and have every right to expect
that this House will ratify these proposed amend-
ments. With these amendments. we have indeed
urrived at what the national chictof the National
Indian Brotherhood has characterized as a
utattzrsllsld in Canada’s Indian-white relations.
As members will know, under our amend-
ment process an amendment to the Constitution
can only be adopted on the approval of seven
provinces with 50 per cent Of the Canadian
population. l have every confidence that Ontario
will be one of those provinces. and I personally
can lend my unqualified support to these
l hclicve this House would support these
amendmens for a number of reasons. First,
these amendments will build on and enhance
the legal recognition afforded native people in
the Constitution Act of 1982. That act is in many
ways unique, especially section 35, which rec-
ognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and
treaty rights of our native people and dgflngg
aboriginal peoples to mean the lndian, lrluitand
Mclis people of Canada. Through that section
we became one of the very few nations to
recognize and affirm in its constitution the
existing rights of aboriginal people, lt also
represents the first time that an act of parlia-
ment defined aboriginal peoples.
Second and most ‘important. thesc amend-
ments, particularly those proposed in section
37. will establish the means to settle with our
aboriginal peoples certain constitutional ques-
trons which had been left unresolved by both the
Constitution Act of 1.982 and the accord of last
March. As I am sure all members are aware.
there arc a number of very important questions
which remain to be resolved. To my mind, the
most important outstanding issue is a precise
definition of the aboriginal rights which will b6
protected by the Constitution. The additional
constitutional conferences providcd for by the
proposed clause 3’Illlti) will ensure the exis-
tence of a forum at the highest level of govern-
ment where ongoing discussions of this and
other issues can occur.
l will leave it to those more qualficd to debate
thc legal implications of these amendments. To
my mind, the substance of these amendments
might be quite simply stated. By endorsing these
amendments, we are being asked to support the
pl‘OC€sS of identifying and defining the rights of
aboriginal people. We are being asked to hip»
port a process which will give substance to our
constitutional principles and commitments. We
are being asked to abandon the old patcmalism
which too often found expression as malign
neglect. In its place we are being asked to
co-operate with our aboriginal peoples in build-
ing new social. legal and constitutional relation-
ships which will enable them to determine their
own future with dignity and confidence.
I have no doubt that this I./cgislature will
respond positively to this challenge and oppor-
tunity. in Ontario we have always believed that
progress in this area is best achieved through
consultation with our aboriginal community.
The policies of this government arc based on
and reflect that philosophy. We have a range of
programs which focus on the native community
in our province. The common Blemcnl in all of
these programs is the emphasis placed on the
importance of communication and native
This commitment to consultation is most
evident in this governments participation in
tripartite discussions and continued support for
the tripartite council established in V973. The
council provides a valuable arena in which
muttcrs of interest to the province. the federal
government and Ontario‘: native groups can be
l cannot pretend that Oonstlltalivt: tripattisln
or the bilateral discussions which take placc
between thc Provincial Secretariat for Resources
Development and Ontario native groups have
succssfully resolved all thc problems in gov-
ernment-native relations in Ontario since there
are a number of important issues still outstand-
ing. However. this government is. in all instanc-
cs. dealing in good faith with Ontario’s native
l would also point out that this government
fully supported the efforts of major native
associations in this province to prepare for the
constitutional conference of March past. As
part of the process of preparing the provinces
submissions to the Match conference. the Pro-
vincial Secretariat for Resources Development
as the lcad ministry for native affairs held 3
series of meetings with thc major native groups
and associations in the proviricc. II1 atluiiicri to
consulting with these groups. the govfifflmbfli
provided lundirig to assist them with the costs of
consultative meetings, both with thclr members
and the government.
lam sure that the members will be pleased to
know that the secretariat will continue to con-
sult with these groups in preparing for thc next
first ministers‘ conference on aboriginal rights. I
would also bring to the members‘ attention the
fact that this government remains committed to
helping native groups in this province ade-
quately prepare for that conference.
Mr. Wildman: Give them some money then.
Mr. Gordon: I note that just last month the
Ministry of Citizenship and Culture approved a
grant of 521 .600 for Grand Council Treaty 3 in
Mr. wildmanl Exactly the same amount as
last year. What about inflation‘)
Tilt Acting Speaker (Mr. COIISEIISI1 Order.
Mr. Gordon: Thisgrant is intcndcd to be uscd
to assist the Grand Council in its preparations
for thc i984 first ministers‘ conference on
aboriginal and treaty tights. This type of activi-
ty. this type of support. indicates this govern-
ments commitment to constitutional change in
the area of native rights extends beyond the
mere rhetorical.
I would be remiss if l did not in this debate
make note of thc lead role the province of
Ontario played at the March conference and of
the significant contribution made by the prov-
ince to the attainment of the accord.
Mr. llaggertyz Where has the member been
for 40 years‘!
Mr. Gordon: In particular. I hope We can put
aside partisan differences to acknowledge that
the Prcrnirrr of this province ll‘/ll’. Davisl was
instrumental in keeping aboriginal rights on the
constitutional agenda of this nation.
Mr. Wildman: That is right, and also in the
Mr. Gordon: As early as the 1979 first minis»
tcrs’ conference on the Constitution. the Pre-
mier of Ontario was arguing that constitutional
reform would bl; deficient unless the issue of
aboriginal rights was addressed. Again. in sep-
tember 1980, during the final debate of the first
ministerson the Canadian Charterot Rights and
Froetloms. thc Premier spoke of the obligation
to consider aboriginal rights in the broader
context of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
ll any membcr would care to review thc
record of the March 1983 conference, he or shc
would find that Ontario‘: proposals were not
only well received but arc much in evidence in
the amendments before us tonight.
t0 p.m.
l would also extend a word of appreciation to
thc provincial and national aboriginal leaders
who participated in the March conference.
Their obviously strong commitment to their
cause was matched only by their negotiating
skill and knowledge of the issues. To them must
go much of the credit ior the success oi the
March conference.
These proposed amendtnens to the Constitu-
ticn of Canada offer the possibility of a new
beginning for relations between our races. They
will not in themselves cure all tht: ills or heal all
thc wounds. They Will, holvevcr, provide the
foundation on which we can, working together.
build a better tomorrow for the native peoples
of Canada and Ontario.
Much remains to be done. The terrible social
problems that beset our native peoples must be
dcalt with quickly and effectively. Any solu-
tions. however. will be and must be based on
lrustand mutual understanding. We still have u
long way to go, but we can‘ take a step in the

right direction by supporting the resolution that
is before us tonight.
Mr. Peterson: Mr, Speaker, it is not my
intention to rehash a number of the facts that
have been given tonight in recalling the history
of the negotiations through the eyes of the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I also
had the privilege of hearing Chief Billy Dia»
mond speak about those negotiations from the
point of view of the negotiators for the aborigi»
nal people and it was, I think it is fair to say. a
little different story. But the facts are that the
results have come out pretty much the same.
In many ways this is a very happy day for us.
but it is not a completely happy day. As I
listened to some of the speeches, l did so from
almost a bitter-sweet orhappy—sad point of view.
I do not think we should deceive anybody about
what we have accomplished. We have not
accomplished a great number of substantive
reforms. What we have done is lo institutional-
ize a process, and I say that is progress and I very
much support it. Given the hundreds of years of
no progress, one should be grateful for any
movement at all.
lt is an indication from all sides of the House.
from many levels of govemment and in many
governments across this country that it is our
responsibility to rectify historic injustices. lt is a
sad reality that history cannot be changed, but it
must he acknowledged and understood for use
both as a foundation on which to build the
present and as a measuring stick by which to
guide us in the future. The history of Canada is.
as well. a history of the natives. We pay homage
to that history in the very wording of the
resolution before this House.
But as lsat and listened to this debate today, I
sensed the agreement on all sides of the House
and I thought back to exchanges earlier in the
House today and other days and to the same
miniswr who participated in those things. I
think we are making progress here; we have
recognized the need for a process to solve
historic injustices. If we can do it here. why can
we not do it In other areas as well‘?
It is not my intention to dampen the feeling of
this debate or the important principles inherent
in this debate. But why are we so pal’Sil‘l’|0niOus
of spirit in other areas as well? There is a new
feeling sweeping this country and a new spirit of
generosity coming Irorn all quarters of this
country. Sure, it is slow in coming in some areas.
but I sense that people are prepared to step
forward and put behind them a lot of the
bigotry-—l was going to use the word “racism”
but I do not like to use that word—a lot of the
intolerance oi the past.
This is just one example of people of goodwill
working together trying to institutionalize a
process that will rectily historic wrongs. Many
of my colleagues tonight have pointed out that
we are making history, When the history of this
country is written, this debate may be a tiny
footnote. It that is the case, then that is a good
thing. I am always interested in the remarks oi
the Minister of lntergovemmcntal Affairs, who
isa good and decent man and was a major player
in this debate, as he has been in other similar
kinds oldebates. I think when the history of this
is written. he will have a significant role.
I congratulate him for this. I just want to
remind him of his responsibilities in other
debates in this country and in this province as
well because I sec Lhe contrast, particularly as it
occurred today. l am happy tonight; I was sad
this afternoon.
My colleagme the member for London North
(Mr. Van llornelmlho made the lead speech for
us. indicated his point of view, as well as my
point of view and the point of view of our party.
it is not difficult for all ol us to find a number of
examples where we believe the government of
Ontario or, if members prefer to use the collcc~
tive term, we collectively have failed our native
Particularly since t have become leader. t
have I-lad the opportunity to involve myself
personally in a number of individual problems
and a number of individual areas. ln all l1umili~
ty_ as a private member from London Centre. I
did not have the opportunity to involve myself
in some of these matters. As leader, however, I
have been able to travel. This summer I was in
Whitedog and I was in Grassy Narrows. I sat
under the tree as Chief Isaac Mandamin was
building his new log cabin. We were able to
shoot the breeze about a number of the prob-
lems in Whitedog. We went to Grassy Narrows
and talked with Chief Steve Fohister about
some of the problems there. I have been on a
number of reserves and l have had some very
important learning experiences in that regard. It
has substantially widened my own knowledge as
well as my own feeling for these problems that
need redress now.
I had the opportunity to attend the chiefs‘
banquet not too long ago where l heard Chief
Billy Diamond speak. My wife was with me and
her reaction as we left that evening was that it
was one of the most moving and meaningful
OCTOBER I3. was 10%
events she had been at since we have bccn
involved together in the political process.
I guess really it has to touch one. I am
interested that the members who are speaking
are all members with intimate and personal
knowledge. It is not that easy for someone who
has not run into these problems in u personal
way to have the same kind of feelings. Obvious-
ly. the more that individual members have the
opportunities that some oi our northern mem-
bers and even some of our southern members
have. the more we will see more tolerance. more
understanding and more reachingin these kinds
ol issues. I like the tone of what l see tonight.‘l
think it bodes well for successful negotiations In
the future.
That being said. l think we should remind
ourselves in the middle oi all this euphoria that
it is only one small step forward for mankind. l
grant it is an important one. but we have so
much more to do. I very much hope that the
Spirit of charity, the spirit of understanding that
people are demonstrating now will he extended
forward in the next two. three. four and ilvtf
years as we get into some of the really tough
problems. In many regards. l think when the
history is written, we will see that this was
perhaps one of the easy chapters as we try lo
move forward to rectify some of these historic
10.10 p.m.
Many issues have been mentioned tonight. I
do not fundamentally disagree with anybody
who has spoken. and I do not want to rethrcsh
old straw. I just want to point out in closing that
one of the most beautiful pieces! have run into.
which touched me very much. is a poem written
by George Kttnny.;\3O-year~0ld Indian from the
Lac Seul reserve in northwestern Ontario who is
now residing in Toronto. He writes:
For most of l3 years
dreams oi screaming rides
on eagles
filled my night eyes
thitt had thtrir bini-l
in trying to escape
the sneers through public
then high school
“You dirty Indian”
und lighting for respect
nn Ojibway youth
who lost as much as
he won
at night he cried into
his pillow
and through I3 years
dreams of screaming rides
on eagles
filled his night eyes.
It says so well some of the things that we have
created as asociety, and it speaks to the road we
have to travel.
Mr. Sp¢8l(El’2 Just in case there is any concern
in therninds ofanyof the honourable members.
I am informed that the lire alzlnn has gone oil. It
is a false alarm. The trucks have arrived and
everything is in order.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker. I want to start out
by saying that I do share the sentlmenlserpressed
by members who spoke previously about thc
importance of thisoccasion. l also want to make
it quite clear that I think a problem oi such
urgency, such importance and with such tar-
reaching ramifications should have been given
an airing in this Legislature long before now.
The Minister of lntergovernmcntzl Affairs.
who Was responsible for putting this m0tr0n on
the order paper. for the reasons that he men-
tiuned and that we nll know so well, will know
that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr.
Nixon) and I have on numerous occasions
invited the government of this province-—we
have even suggested it to this minister. since he
assumed responsibilities for constitutional
mzltters-— to provide this I-Iouseand its members
with a forum to discuss the very things we
should be talking about in connection with
constitutional change as it affects our first
citizens, the aboriginal people of this province
and this country. That opportunity. to this
point. has not been afforded us.
II one were to address oneself strictly to the
wording of this motion, there would be very
little ct substance or import to talk about in
terms of the conditions that affect our aborigi-
nal people residing in Ontario. While l intend to
take full advantage ot the opportunity during
this debate to do just that. l want to say that I
was n little bit disappointed, not in what the
members who have spoken previously have
said—there was very little I would have dis-
agreed with-but because, for purposes of this
debate, of what must be said by this House as a
democratic institution about the importance of
the first halting steps we are taking by Way of
this motion for constitutional reform and the
enshrining of treaty and aboriginal rights. We
are just taking the first steps.

in the time that is allotted to me, l intend to
slate in what l hope will be very specific and
convincing terms why l think what is going on
here thiscvcningatldwhalwenlotlinfvlafch arc
very halting steps.
in speaking to the motion on the order paper
in his name. the ministdr Said. “The purpose of
this is to include certain provisions to further
deline and protect aboriginal rights.” l really do
not know what that means. ll sounds very
meritorious. hut l really do not know what it
means. The minister has lztiied to explain it to
l have not seen anything in print or any
pronouncement over there or. even more impor-
tant. in lny travels as a member of this Legisla-
ture. either within or outside my riding irl
Ontario. to indicate that any minister over
there. including this one here tonight. hasaciue
about what our first citizens are talking about
when they refer to treaty and aboriginal rights.
l intend. going back not to the original treaty.
Treaty 9. signed in i905. or to the adhesion to
that treaty signed in I924, but to I958. to
document in very spcciiic terms what various
ministers and civil servants have said in relation
to land claims. the alleged illegal occupation of
provincial crown land by native people and the
significance of that very iuct~and my colleague
the member forAlgortla (Mr. Wildman) alluded
to it briefly in his commcnt5~for at least I6
communities made up largely of aboriginal
people in Ontario that do not enjoy reserve
status. that are not even recognized as Indian
bands for purposes of the Indian Act. although
they are treaty Indians and, if they are treaty
Indians. uccupying provincial crown land ille-
gally. as many people over there and civil
servants going hack to I958 have reminded us.
loizu p.|’n.
lwanttosuggest to the ministerthat ifhcdoes
not have the will. the grace or the wit to
understand that if we have treaty lrldians who
cannot get reserve status because the govern-
tncnt will not deed provincial crown land over
to the federal government in trust for thc use of
native peoples in Ontario. they are wholly and
lully the responsibility of this government.
ljust say that for shock effect, because many
of our first citizens fail between two stools. The
federal government says we are not going to see
an extension or proliferation of Indian reserves
throughout the province. and indeed it has said
that as it applies to all of Canada. The provincc
says it is not going to deed provincial crown land
over to the federal government without consid-
eration so that its options will be limited with
regard to the use oi that land in the future.
The Ministerof Natural Resources (Mr. Popel.
who has aborted more negotiations with regard
to Deer Lake and North $pirit Lake in the riding
of my colleague the member for Kendra (Mr.
cerriicrl, has done the very same thing with
regard to Summer Beaver. Lansdownir House
and Wtzbequie. which are considered to be
satellite Communities of the Fort Hope lndidn
What does the Minister of Natural Resources
say? “lf the federal crown. in the right of our
first citizens. will come up with market value Ior
whatever land it is decided they need for their
social. economic and cultural welibeing. and if
the federal government pays lor it. we will turn
it over.”
l am not, by nature. a very uncharitable
person. I think I have been a very reasonable
p<rSon, but lor agood deal of the ill years that I
have had the pleasure ol being a member of this
House. I have travelled to those comrnunitiis
and I have heard whal our first citizens have
been saying.
Let rtte give one quote from the text of the
travelling show that went on in luly of this year
in the House oi Commons in Ottawa. during
presentations made to a committee on sell-
government. I am going to elaborate on what
they found, but for purposes of putting the
emphasis on the very kind of thing l am talking
about. I Want to share with him what it distin-
guished member of the federal Parliament said
in reaction to what he saw and what he heard
after a good deal of testimony by some very
articulate native people.
Who does the minister think I at-n referring
to‘? None other than the Honourable Warren
Allmand. who is now a member OI the Commit-
tee; but lwant to remind rnetnbers that he is a
former .\/linistcr of Indian Affairs and Northem
Development. He questioned one of the
presenters. who happened to be Peter Moonias.
the chief otl.ansdow1te House.
Mr. Allmand said: “First of all, Mr. Chairman
and Chief. I must tell you that when I come to a
community like this and I see what you have
shown us today and l hear what you told us
when you were bringing us around. it makes me
ashamed to be a Canadian~to think we have
treated a community like this the way it appears
we have; and it is still like that today. l think if a
lot of Canadians—it is too bad there are not
more than l0 or so of us who come up here and
see this, because I think most Canadians would
l3. i983 2097
also be ashamed anti would want to do some-
thing about it. it is not very fair or just. and it
should certainly be corrected.”
There was morudialogut between Mr. Allmand
and the chief. He ended up by saying»-
Hon. Mr. Snow: How would lit! have got there
without the airport‘! _
Mr. Slokos: I um not being critical of this
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Allmand Went 0rl—;\tltl
remember. this is a former federal minister
responsible tor liaising with native people in the
things that he as a minister was responsible
for-—to say: “The fact that you have recognized
that you have no reserve—thc more we travel
around and the more we listen to different
communities. the more difficult it is to und-:r~
stand what the policy of the department ls.“
New he is it former tttirtistct who tprcsidtd
ovcr 3 lot of the sins oi omission and,commis-
sion perpetrated on our first citizens by the
federal government. aided and abetted by ti
good rnany of those people. rt stream of minis-
ters over thc years who were responsible for
l-le said: “ff l understand. you are all rcgis~
tctcd status lttdiutts hut you have no reserve and
you have no band. Because you have been the
chief for some time. could you tell us what
answer the department gives you when you ask
to be recognized as a band? l can see thc
problems you have had with respect to the
rcscrve land. but why will they not recognize
you a separate band‘! What answers do they
give youl”
it would take me the next hourto explain why
tho elders and leaders in at least lbcotnmunitios
lying north oi tllfi French River in Ontario iitld
frustration upon frustration every time they
have to deal with the bureaucracy and manda-
rins up in Ottawa. aided and abetted. for some
unexplained reason. by a succession ol minis-
tets leading from the Provincial secretary tor
Rcsourccs Development to the Minister of
Citizenship and Culture. the Minister of North-
crn Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resourc-
es. l do not know what it is with these people. It
is not they do not understand; it is not that there
has not been a litany oincglcct and indifference
all these years.
t just wonder what the minister. who is well
intentioned. means by treaty and aboriginal
rights when we see thc frustration that is experi-
enced by literally every community that is
crying tor reserve status. looking lor its place in
the sun. We are talking about self-government
forindillns. and theydo not even havua place to
stand. They do not even have a square centimetre
oi this great province of ours that they can call
their own. When we talk about treaty and
aboriginal rights. I do not know whether we are
on the same wavelength at all.
On motion by Mr. Stokes. the debate was
l0:30 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Wells: First. Mr. Speaker. I would
like to indicate that when I moved the motion
earlier this evening. I lailcd to indicate it had
been agreed that we ask the table to keep the
lirtlt: lot this debate. and the time will he split
among the three parties. This debate will con-
tinue tomorrow morning and next Monday
afternoon. lt is hoped that it will conclude bysix
o‘clock on Monday.
Mr. Stokes: On a matter of clarification. Ml”.
Speaker: l asked our House leader specifically
what the arrangements were. and he said there
was an agreement that the time would be split
equally among the three parties. l said. “Does
that mean there is a time limit on the debate?”
He saidt “No. cortainly riot.” I would like the
government House leader to clarify that: he said
“by six o’clock on Monday.“
Hon. Mr. Wells: All the House leaders dis-
cussed it. We reviewed thc number of speakers
and lelt that.with the time and the spealscrswo
were going to try to linish it by sir o’clock on
Mr. siokuri is that mandatory‘!
Hon. Mr. Wells: No. it is not mandatory. but
it is what we hoped to do.
The business that has been agreed upon is
that on Tuesday. October l8. in the afternoon.
we will deal with second readings and C0mn’lil~
tee of tho whoic on Bills 6!. B6 and 87. and ii
there is time, we will call second reading of Bill
68. On Tuesday evening. We will resume thii
debate in committee of the whole on Bill 42.
On Wednesday. October l9, the usual three
committees have pemlission to sit in the moming.
On Thursday, October Z0. in the afternoon.
we will deal with private members’ ballot items.
and on Thursday cvening we will debate gov-
ernment notice of motion l3 respecting interim
Qn Friday. October Zl . we will be doing thst
estimates of the Ministry of Int<:r_governmental
The House adjourned at 10:33 p.m.

boards to discuss the matters the honourable
member raises. I think it is important that
discussion be as frce. as open rind as clear as
possible before we proceed in any direction
other than that which was suggested in the
Mr. Cassidy: Frant:oOntarians as well?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. all I9 boards.
Mn Speaker: Before proceeding. I would like
to deal with the matter which was raised by the
member for Nickel Belt lMr. Laughrenl at
question period yesterday. I undertook to tell
him i would report hack on his point of privi-
lege. which really was a point of order. He
alleged that the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing (Mr. Bennett) was imputing motives
by virtue of the words used in an answer.
I have taken a close look at what was said.
lifting out the W0rd5 I think he was referring to.
and I would quote them directly: “for their own
purposes.“ In my view and in my opinion. that
dues not impure motive.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
present a petition. which reads as follows:
“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Gover-
nor anti the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;
“We. the undersigned teachers, beg leave to
petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:
“Whereas we oppose the extension of the
Inflation Restraint Act because it ii inequitable
in its application to the citizens of Onuarin and
restricts our basic free collective bargaining
rights: and
“Whereas we believe that an extension of the
act or measures which will have a similar effect
would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms:
“We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore
our free collective bargaining rights icriiiwitn
under Bill 100. the School Boards and Teachers
Collective Negotiations Act.“
The above petition is signed by 157 teachers
from the following schools: A. Myer Second-
ary School, L/ord Elgitt Vocational $cho<>l_
Niagara Falls Collegiate and Vocational Insti-
tute and Stamford Collegiate and Vocational
Institute. all of the city of Niagara Falls.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker. I have a petition
to present to the Honourable the Lieutenant
Govemor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontar-
io, which reads as follows:
“We. the undersigned teachers. beg leave to
petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:
“Whereas we oppose the extension of the
Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable
in its application to the citizens of Ontario and
restricts our bane free collective bargaining
rights: and
“Whereas we believe that an extension of the
act or measures which will have a similar effect
would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms:
“We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore
our free collective bargaining rights forthwith
under Bill l(X). the School Boards and Teachers
Collective Negotiations Act.“
This is from three different schools: Port
Cclbome High School. signed by 41 petitioners:
I-DCkVle\‘<‘ Park Secondary School‘ 28 petition- ers, and the Fort Erie Secondary School. 40 petitioners. Mr. Rrtprechr: Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows: “We. the undersigned teachers. beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: “Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collec\ive bargaining rights: and “whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have u similar effect would violate the spirilof thc Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100. the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.“ This petition is signed by over 80 teachers irom two schools in Pafltdale: West Toronto Secondary School and Parkdale Collegiate Institute. – Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker. I too have at petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Gov- ernor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows: “We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill I00. the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.” The above petition is signed by 149 teachers from the following schools: Port Dover District High School. Sitncoe Composite School. Delhi OCTOBER 14. I983 Z113 District High School and Valley Heights Sec- ondary School. Ms. Bryderr: Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in the same form as the other petitions presented this morn~ ing. In this petition the petitioners request the Ontario Legislature to “restore our free collec- rive bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100. the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.“ The petition is signed by 199 teachers from five schools in my riding: Monarch Park ScC- ondary School. tvlalvern Collegiate Institute. Lakeview Secondary School. Greenwood Sec‘ ondary School and SOLE School. which is a special school. l support this petition. INTRODUCTION OF BILL ROITMAN INVESTMENTS LTD. ACT Mrs. Scrivener moved. seconded by .\/Ir. McLean. first reading of Bill Pr9. An Act to revive Roitrnan Investments Ltd. Motion agreed te. 11:10 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROCLAMATION tcontinuedl Resuming the adjourned debate on govern~ ment motion l0: Rights and lrcedomsofthe first inhabitants of Canada. the aboriginal peoples. Mr. Stoks: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last evening l was attempting to elicit some response from the Minister of Intergovernmen- tal Affairs (Mr. Wells] about his governments position conceming existing treaty and aborigi- nal rights. I referred to the great enrphzcis he placed on the need for consultation with the various native groups in order to eutrcnch or enshrincthese rightsintheConstitution.l’Iehad emphasized the need for a more clear under- standing of what treaty and aboriginal rights mean in that this government and this province have a responsibility for the social. economic and cultural wellbeing of our first citizens. I referred to the hearings that were held in Lzrnsdowne House in July of this year by a committee of thc House of Commons that was looking into lndian self-government. I quoted rrcni an exchange between the chief tit the settlement of Lansdowne House and various members of that committee. including none other thun Mr. Allmand who was himself a Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Devel- opment. During the exchange he said he was ashamed of what he saw while visiting thc community of Lansdowne House and could not really understand why the government in Ottawa had been so callous. so indiilercnt. so insensi- tive and so unfeeling towzrrds the plight of people living in that community. lt stretches credulity when a former minister of the crown who had specific responsibilities for the Department of lndian Affairs and North- ern Development visits a northern community. a-s;erls that he is ashamed and wants to know what the department he presided over takes exception to in the very modes! request being made by the settlement of Lansdowne House in seeking reserve status. Such status would give them a form of local government. i.e.. a chief and council that would be recognized by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under the Indian Act. A Iormer minister whose chief responsibili- tics were to protect treaty and aboriginal rights and to facilitate zt meaningful rapport with our first citizens in that community said he was ashamed and asked why the chief, the council and members in the settlement were not able to convince the federal department that their requests were reasonable and urgent. That is almost like having the former Minister of Agri- culture and Food in this House saying to a bunch of farmers. “Why carrt you convince the present Minister of Agriculture and Food he should be doing something about the red meat industry in Ontario?“ The Minister of Intetgoverntnctttal Affairss who is not in his seat or under the gallery. gave a lot of pious platitudes in his Z0page opening statement about existing treaty and uboriginal rights and about the need to set up a useful. productive and meaningful consultation to right many of the wrongs that have been perpetrated on our first citizens by both Senior levels of government for many decades. I want. lo quote very briefly from the hearings I referred to earlier. I am quoting directly from testimony given by the chief of the Lansdoivne House settlement: “Lansdowne House is an Indian community whose legal status is in dispute. Our community is not an Indian reserve and we are not recog- nized as a band under the terms oi the Indian Act. These t\vo faetors—that we are not a reserve and that we are not a l7and——-have caused many problems Ior our community. ZII4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO QCTQBER Since \ve are not recognized under the Indian Act. we have four councillors in our communi- ty. We could have 50 if we wanted to, because wc are not recognized. “Historically. before our people siped the James Bay treaty in 1905. our people had their own chief and we were a band of Indians living in Lansdowne. When the treaty was signed. our chief and council and our status were lost. Our people became members cl the Fort Hope band. There was no reserve land set aside for us at the community of Lansdowne. although thc people existed, and they still exist, and they will exist in the future. But instead of settling down at the Fort Hope reserve, our people continued to live in the Lansdowne area. which we call our hunting. fishing and trapping areas. It is still our home and, us I said before, it is going to be our home lor the future.” l1:20 mm. He went on at great length to state why the settlement ol’I.ansdo\vne House. along with the settlements of Webequie and Summer Beaver. is seeking reserve status—and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). who is fiddling with his papers. will know precisely what I am talking about. 1 want to quote further from that testimony. He said: “Our site govemmen! has been push- ing. we have been pushing. to have our commu- nity relocated since 1976. You have a document this afternoon from zt study we did \vith a consultant finn based in Winnipeg. We want to relocate because the land that Lansdowne House is presently on is generally not suitable for the community setting. There is poor drainage, as we saw this afternoon when we toured the community. Because of this poor drainage. our children have to play in mud puddles and they have to wear rubber boots even in sunny weather such as today; even in hot weather when we have 90-degree temperatures. Most of my people have rubber boots today. not because they cannot afford runners or any other shoes they can make out of moosehide or whatever. but because our land is not suitable to wear those sorts of shoes in our community.“ He went on at great length and if any mem- bets of the House want chapter and verse. I refer them to the House of Commons Hansard. issue 37, the proceedings and evidence of the special committee on Indian self-government. I want to quote further from the reaction of one of the members who was listening to testimony from representatives of our native peoples. It was from 3 Ms. Jamieson. who comes lrom the Six Nations reserve and who is also a member of that committee. “The only thing I would say is that your description of the community in your brief is a very gracious one: perhaps a very mild one. What I saw today. frankly. really infuriated nle. I saw Indian people living in inadequate homes. inaswamp. in unsanitaryconditions; whileright next door I saw government personnel in beau- tiful homes. a mission and this hall on high ground in a very nice”—and there is something wrong with the transcription here. “The difference is so extreme. it is very shocking to me. I do not know an easier way to explain it than here we are. seeing what is left over from colonialism. in my view. I know the committee members are not wild about that term. but that is exactly what I see. Our committee is to deal with sell-government, and that has to do with decoloni1.ation.I think.” l think that explains very vividly and very convincingly the altitude of both senior levels of government with regard to their perception of what treaty and aboriginal rights really are. I want to remind members of this House that I had the privilege of visiting three northern communities this June with the first citizen of this province. who had expressed Ll wish to travel to remote northern communities to see for himself what life was like on those remote northern reserves. We stopped first at Pickle Lake and had anice visit with people in the community. We jour- neyed from there to the Fort Hope Indian band, spent all day and overnight there and had an opportunity to speak to community leaders and anybody else who had anything to say about the conditions in that community. We journeyed from there to Fort Severn on the shores of Hudson Bay, did the same thing there and returned to Big Trout Lake. Anybody who had anything to say at all was given an opportunity to do so. The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor made only two promises. He said. “I promise to listen very carefully to everything you have to say and to direct your observations and your concerns to whomsoever you direct me.” The other promise he made was. “l hope to be invited back in the not too distant future to see whether or not my visit here has had any effect.” As His Honour stated. as Hcr Majesty’s representative to all of the people in Ontario. he felt he had a responsibility to visit those remote comrnunitiesand toasist.ifpossiblc.in righting I4. I983 lilo some of the wrongs that had been perpetrated on our first citizens for decades. He is not a political person. I-ie cannot go the political route. I can only assume that His Honour has met the first of his promises. which is to tcll representatives of both levels of gov- ernment what he saw. l visit those communities on a regular. ongoing basis. As a result of my observations and what I have been told. I followed up with the appropriate ministers at both levels of government on the concerns expressed to us at that time. ll:30 a.m. lam sorry the Minister of Natural Resources has left. because I anl going to quote from a letter that I directed to his attention on June Z7. shortly after our return lrom that visit. l tried to relay as forcefully. as honestly and as accurately as I could what I had heard that l felt the Minister of Natural Resources had some respon- sibility lot. “Dear 3/Ir. Minister: “During a recent trip to Fort Hope with His Honour the LieutenuntGovernor, thechiefand members of the band brought numerous con- cerns to our attention. “One that was dwelt upon at some length in Fort Hope. as\vell as at Big Trout Lake and Fort Severn. was the traditional lifestyle of native people and assurances given or implied in treaties that they would have the undisputed right to hunt, fish and trap on all crown lands in perpetuity. Not only was this a guarantee of aboriginal rights to food along with leather and fur for clothing. but an implicit tight to harvest vital and essential resources beyond the bound~ aries of the reserves. For at least Z0 years your ministry has allocated trapping areas by the issuance of a licence to individual band mem- bets to designate specific areas of harvest. This same approach has been applied to fishing for food in many areas by the issuance of 3 com- mercial fishing licence with quotas for various species to protect the resource. with specific quotas in both cases. “lt isargued,andwith somejustification. that the requirement of a licence is in itself a violation of the original treaty. “The seizure of gill new belonging to mem- bers of the Fort Hope Indian band and the laying of charges against members of Fort Sevem for violations under thc Migratory Birds Act (since thrown out of court) are other examples of violations or abrogation of treaties signed in 1900. “The West Patricia land use plan seems to ignore the provisions of Treaty 9. and it can be argued thatyour ministry is formulating plansor guidelineswhichignoreordenythccxistenceof a formal contractual agreement between our native people and the crown. “With the exception of the fishing agreement between our lirst citizens and the province of Ontario (still to he ratified by the federal governmentl there has never been a genuine effort to more clearly deline.confirm or renego- tiate treaty and aboriginal rights.” lam going to digress from my letter forjust a moment to remind honourable members and the very minister to whom I directed this that l was one of the few people in this House who supported l-in-ri in his efforts to have an Indian fishing ugreernent signed. Members know what he said in the past few days. For all intents and purposes. even that is dead because of the intransigerlce of the federal government to come to an agreement. The federal minister. Mr. Munro. disagrees with our Minister of Natural Resources, saying: “It is not dead. We just want more time to consider it.” One wonders whethcrthe pressure put on the Minister of Natural Resources by some of his cabinet and caucus colleagues has killed the only real effort that has been made by anybody over there in living memory to come to grips with some of the problems I have been talking about. One wonders about conimitrnent to treaty and aboriginal rights; one wonders about consultation. I will leave honourable members to draw their own conclusions. I will go on: “The West Patricia land use plan, with its terms of reference. inventories and resource management approach. fails to take into account that there is a legal and binding agreement in effect concerning resource utilization. Many scholars would argue that before any land use plan or guideline is put in place covering the Treaty 9 area. there must be a clear statement of commitment to and definition of treaty rights acceptable to our native people before any meaningful negotiations can take place. “lt is my hope that such a recommendation‘ ‘—a faint hope—”will be part of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment.“ As the minister well knows. the Royal Com~ mission on the Northern Environment has been in existence since 1977. It has spent in excess of S9 million of taxpayers‘ money. The last official pronouncement I heard from the royal commis~ sion. which was something in the order of two and a half or three years ago. was that it was 2116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO OCTOBER having difficulty pulling B focus on what its terms of reference werer and it was really waiting ior this government to come outwith a policy for economic development in that part of Ontario which the royal commission has been studying. What we have here is this government saying it is waiting for recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Northern Environ- ment and the commission sayingit really cannot put a focus on it until it knows the direction this government is taking with regard to economic development. So there you have it. “With this as a basis lor negotiation. it will then be possible for all northern communities to address the specific components oi an overall plan for their area. “I am aware of the fact that the Kayahna tribal council and settlements like Summer Beaver are proceeding with land use p]al’|S lor their summer and winter travel are&sLtrrottt\dirlg their traditional resource harvesting activities of hunting, trapping and fishing, or to put it another way. present land utilization. “Proposed waterway parks in the Winisk River Provincial Park with the Webequie set~ tlement within its boundaries are a clear indica- tion that existing resource policies within your ministry an: or will be in conflict with existing treaties. _ “Other undertakings like the Ogoki Road are now under way without any regard to the Environmental Assessment Act. notwithstand- ing the Detour Lake study done by the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, or the effect this road will have on traditional lifestyles. This isnot toiniply that the Fort Hope Indian band is opposed to all development. On the contrary. they are forever vigilant in search- ing lor opportunities to enhance the social and economic wcllbeing of its people while preserv- ing and pursuing their traditional way of life. Forestry. tourism. toad construction. cottage development will have a profound and irrevers- ible effect on treaty and aboriginal rights. “You are also aware that the communities of Summer Beaver. Lansdowne House and Webequie are seeking reserve Slztu5.s0tr1€ll\it\g that the federal government has recognized for many years by virtue of core and capital funding as well as education and medical service. “You are also more aware than most that native people loolt to your ministry more than any other as a source of employment in tree planting and fire suppression. They now com- plain that more and more contracts are let to private contractors in the south. thus eliminat- ing many tree planting jobs for their people. With timber licence limits now extended to the south shore of the Albany River. there is now a much greater need lor a northern lire centre which should be located on the Fort Hope reserve.” l went on to say: “1 um advised that when Kimberly-Clark limits were extended to Fort Hopesdoorstcp. Mr. Bernier.aIormert\/linister of Natural Resources. approached the band and stated that limits north of the Albany River could be allocated K0 them. They are now advised that they would not be judged any differently than any others interested in timber limits. Ifsucll isthe case,wh’ite man doesindecd speak with forked tongue.“ l was up to Fort Hope u couple of weeks ago and asked them again the status ol the timber limits surrounding the Fort Hope reserve north of the Albany River‘. that is. areas that are not under licence to Kimberly-Clark. They still dt) not have a commitment from this government that the indigenous resources on their very doorstep will be made available to them for economic development on their reserve. ll:40 phi. If the government does not do that. do members know what happens when somebody wants to build ahouse in a place like Fort Hope, Lansdowne. Webequie. or any oi the other so communities in that area‘? A contract is let by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.Thc lumber islikclypurchastzd in Winnipeg or Dryden or Thunder Bay and sent by ground transportation to u place like Pickle lake and flown to one of those remote northern reserves. Members know what it costs to fly S\.lpplIOS like that to those northem communities. But there is no coordination between the federal and the provincial governments to pro- vide them with seed money to use resources indigenous to the area that would bring down the cost of things we do up there. such as building schools, houses, medical clinics or whatever it is those people need. Think of how much bigger n bang for our buck we would get yust by putting a little seed money in. or something as simple and straightforward as issuing a timber licence so that thev could harvest the resources on their own doorstep. So much for consultation. So much lor treaty and aboriginal rights. “They also expressed the feeling that they were unfairly treated as a result of the 1914 Indian lands agreement “—-or the adhesion to H. I983 ZII7 Treaty 9. The minister has stated, “this is now a mutter lor negotiation by the tripartite commit- tee. even though I have been urging a succes- sion of provincial cabinet ministers to amend the prOViSi0\’l>’ oi this agreement icr over live
“Another problem was raised concerning
their attempt to take greater advantage ol the
tourist potential in the area.
“A lodge owner culled a resident oi the Fort
Hope Indian Band asking him to get guides lor
his lishing camp as it was going to be a busy
summer. He sent I9 guides to the operator of
this lodge which had 25 tourists. but only live
were hired. They were told it was up to the
individual tourist. when usually it is the lodge
owner who hires the guide.
“Another band member oi the Fort Hope
Indian band has been trying to get a licence to
operate a tourist camp lor several years. I-le
feels that your”—thc g0vernmrm\’s—-“cn’teria
aremuch too restrictiveandilreallyannoyshinl
when he works his trap line IO see non~Indian
tourist operators establishing in that area.
“A number ofother issues were raised which I
will be bringing to the attention of other minis-
ters. But those enumerated above are those
which deal directly and specifically to your
“In summary. let me emphasize that there is
nothing more near and dear toour native people
than their relationship to the land and the Oreat
Spirit which put it and the resources there for
their use. and might I be so bold as to quote a
well~known and often used phrase. “To pre-
serve and conserve.”
“To your credit and against much opposition.
you have persevered with the Indian fishing
agreement. We ask that you follow through with
the same practical and philosophical approach
when dealing with treatyrights and resource
and land use in addressing the legitimate and
long-standing concems of our first citizens.
“Your particular and swift attention to them
will be most welcome and greatly appreciated
by all concerned.”
Do members know what happened to the
Indian fishing agreement‘? To quote verbatim
and directly from the Minister of Natural Rcs<>urc~
es. “Even that brief and halting step to come to
grips with treaty aboriginal rights. land use
planning. resource management. seems down
the drain.” So much for commitment to treaty
and aboriginal rights.
Within the past week I read a band council
resolution lrom the community of Kingiisher
Lake. I wish the Minister of Natural Resources.
the Ivlinister of Northern Affairs Wit. Bernierl
and even the Attorney General lMr. McMurtryl
were in their places now. They would know
something ol the history or the chronology oi
what I am going to speak about. Members
interested in these things will be aware that the
Attorney General enumerated all of the land
claims that were being dealt with by the tripar-
tite cotttrnitt-:12, by the law officers oi the crown.
with regard to land claims outstanding. I will he
interested to hear what the Attorney General
might have to say on this issue. il he participates
in this debate a little later on.
This will indicate why l. personally. am
prutialily even more infuriated than our first
citizens when I hear the talk at the lirst minis-
ters’ conferences about treaty and aboriginal
rights. and when I hear the Zlkpage opening
statement by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. when band council resolutions such as
this are brought to my attention once again.
Back in about 1975. satellite communities ol
the Big Trout Lake band were seeking reserve
status; namely. the Wapekeka reserve.
Kasabonika. Kingfisher, Wunnummin Lake in
my riding. and communities like Sachigo. Bear-
skin and Muskrat Dam. I see Bill Morris sitting
there under the gallery. and he will know
precisely what I am talking about; he goes up
there quite regularly.
They were seeking reserve status. They were
considered to be a part of the Big Trout lake
Indian band. Negotiations had gone or for l0or
12 years with both levels of government. They
were seeking provincial crown land which, ii
they were to get reserve status.would have to be
transferred to the federal crown in trust for the
native people living in those settlements. After
very long. protracted negotiations. an aocomr
modatlon was made, roughly. but not precisely.
on the basis of an acre~for-acre exchange to
accommodate the legitimate needs of the peo-
ple living in those satellite communities.
There was one snag and it dealt with King-
fisher Like. where the crown. in its Wisdom-—
the provincial crown and the federal crown-
said, “We will give you three locations: narncly.
reserves number one. number two and number
three.” This was not acceptable to the residents
of the settlement of Kingfisher Lake. They
expressed their concern about the lands that
were to be designated as their reserves. All of
the negotiators at the federal and the provincial
levels said: “We understand your concerns. we
consider them to be legitimate but we don‘:

lvzlnl to abort the whole process because ofyoltr
specific conCerns. We will sign the blanket
zlgrccment with all of the people who were
traditionally secn to be members of thc Big
Trout Lake band and we will resolve the spficific
problems at a later date. You have our word on
11:50 a.m.
That was in I975. This week l got a band
council resolution saying. “The council of the
Kingfisher Lake band do hereby resolve that a
majority of the electors of Kingfisher band of
Indians. for \vht)se use and benefit in common
the Kingfisher Indian reserves 2 and 3 were set
apart. whereby assented to the surrender for an
indefinite term from dute of acceptance by the
governor in council by that band to Her Majesty
in right of Carlcltla. at a general meeting called
by the Coltnttil of the band and held on the sixth
duy of lune. ms. the whole pr Kingfisher
Indian reserves 2 and 3. described as situate.
lying and being in the district of Kenora in the
province of Ontario as shown on plan I5-78-012
and I5-78-O13. Marshall. Macklin. Monaghan.
OL5“—that is “Ontario land surveyors”-
“attached in order that Her Majesty in right of
Canada may exchange the lands so surrendered
with the province of Ontario. Ministry of Natu-
ral Resources. for two new reserves to bekvtown
as Kingfisher lnclian reserves ZA and 3A as
shown on plans prepared by“-the land survey
ors that I just rnentioned~”Paul Torrance. on
March I4 and I6, 1978 . . . that the province of
Ontario commence the necessary action to
complete the requested land transaction as the
province has already agreed on this matter with
crown Canada.“
I called a fellow in the Ministry of Natural
Resources who I think has a heart. 3 fellow who
is responsible for Indian claims. and he con-
firmed everything I just related to this House.
He continued that a contmitmcnt was made in
I975 and once they had something definite on
paper from the Kingfisher settlement c0mmit~
lee they would proceed with it.
l said to Ted Wilson, who is responsible for
such things in thc Ministry of Natural Resourc-
cs, “What is the status of this?“ He said: “We
agree with everything they told you. There was
a commitment made back in I975.” He added.
“We sent the request for the designation along
with our recommendations to the law branch of
the Ministry of Natural Resources in lune oi this
year to prepare an order in council for the
transfer of land from due province of Ontario to
the federal government. to be held in trust for
the residents of Kingfisher hike.”
He cannot tell rhe why the law branch ol the
Ministry of Natural Resources. after I0 years.
hud not seen fit to finalize the deal and honour tl
Commitment made 10 years ago. So much for
consultation; so much for trcuty and aboriginal
What would members of this House do. as
individuals or as part of at community living
north of the 50th parallel in this province of
opportunity. in the most affluent nation on the
lace of the earth. if they knew that taxpayers‘
dollars that were appropriated to thc Departr
ment of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop-
ment at the federal level. those precious and
scarce funds. were being used to provide €tCCO!’l‘t-
modation for our first citizens in swamps‘! After
zt year or two. the houses sinlt. the underpin-
nings of the houses become rotten. the panelling
on thc walls Starts t0 buckle.
The choice high ground within the commu-
nity ls dedicated to I~Iudsol1‘s Bay stores.weather
stations and DIAND cabins. Scarce resources
are used to put in water and sewage facilities for
the very few white people who live in those
com\‘hu‘rli\ies.while precious rcsoutccs are alto
cated by DIAND to build houses for our first
citizens in swamps. That is what is going on in
many communities in the north.
l want toaslt the members of this House what
they would d0 if they were residents of one of
those northern communities and wanted to
improve their social and economic wellbeing
and wanted to sct up a tourist camp. only lo be
told what they had in mind for a very modest
hunting or fishing camp to accommodate
t0urists—wh0 are starting to go up into those
areas in ever-increasing numbers because of the
shortage of fish and game resources much
closer by~docs not meet the criteria that were
set by somebody down here in One of these
hlglrrisc offices we pass every day.
I want to ask what the members would say if
they were tesidents of one of those northern
reserves and they saw valuable timber resources
right on their doorstep and they felt that by the
orderly exploitation of those resources they
could cut out the necessity of hauling lumber
and other building materials all the wzly from
Winnipeg. Dryden. Thunder Bay or Geraldtott.
They could have them produced right on their
doorstep using indigenous resources. cut down
on thc high transportation costs and in the
process provide employment for local people.
get them off social assistance and give them a
l4. W83 Z11‘)
feeling of pride and sclf»worth. Then they find
out that is not the way the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development does things.
Traditionally. they have always brought build-
ing materials in from the south and that is the
why at is going to be.
I2 noon
1 want to ask what the members would say ii
they were members of a northern community.
such as the onesl have been describing. and had
some mineral resources within the confines of
their reserve they wanted to develop to provide
an economic base for the L‘,0tntnl1\’\ily.wht:tr: the
I924 land agreement had provisions in it conr
cerning mineral wealth found within the con~
lines of a reserve where so-called traditional
treaty and aboriginal rights were respected. and
then had the Treasurer of this government say:
“No. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a
reserve and belongs to the native people. if you
exploit any of the mineral wealth. there will be
royalties charged against your resources and we
take those off the top.”
What is it in our psyche or our mentality. in
the way in which we organize ourselves as
so-called democratic institutions at the federal
level and the provincial level. that makes us
seem to have the ability and the need to thwart
every effort that has been made by our first
citizens who have been hived off into those
remote northern communities? We say to them:
“No. The resources are there but we set the
rules and unlcss you can conform to those very
strict and rigid guidelines. those resources really
are not for you at all.“ Why is that‘?
I could go on for much longer than I want to
or much longer than anyone would be prepared
to listen about the conditions that exist in those
northern communities. and how frustrated hon-
est. sincere. dedicated and well-meaning com-
munlty leaders up there are. how hard they have
tried to convince both senior levels of govern-
ment that they could indeed, for the most putt.
become independent. self-sustaining and quite
capable of paddling their own canoe if given
half a chance.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr.
Nikon] and I talk about these things on occa-
sion. He has suggested we sct some time aside.
as wc arc doing here in the <.llSClt5SiOl’l of this motion before thc House. But when we refer to it every once in a while. we hczlr :1 lot of pious platitudes and nothing meaningful ever results from such an exercise. Senior members of the House will know we had a n\eml>ers’ tour in I968 to northwestern
Ontario where members had an opportunity to
view at lirst hand some of the conditions of
which I speak. There was another tour for
members in I972. I believe. to northeastern
Ontario. whcrc they saw what the MiniSlty of
Natural Resources wanted them to see~the
highlights. the good things.
In a spirit of hospitality and with all sincerity.
lwould invite members to view at first hand—in
these times of austerity l will not suggest zt tour
for all mcmbcrS-What the first citizens of this
province and l saw in lune. I would like them to
see what l have been trying to talk about at
every opportunity made available to me in this
House over the lust I5 years.
Those who would be in the grOup. l suggest.
would include the Prcmicr lfvfr. Davis). the
Minister of Northern Affairs thc Minister of
Natural Resources and even the new Minister of
Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish). who now
has responsibility for the Indian community
branch with that very meagre budget she has to
look after native affairs. I would also like to
include the Provincial Secretary for Resources
Development (Mr. Sterlingl. who has the respon-
sibility for coordinating all of thc sxrcallcd
programs within provincial jurisdictifln that
have any relationship to the social, cultural and
economic wellbeing of our first citizens.
I would like to have all those people sitting on
thc cabinet benches who have some responsibil-
ity for the things I have been talking about and
the things this resolution speaks to in general
terms. I would like to get all of them. lvith two
back-benchers from over there. two back~
benchcrs from the Liberal Party and two baclr
benchers from this party. and take them on at
trip to the north. There they could see whether
or not the consultation the Minister of Inter-
governmental Affairs talks about or the existing
treaty and aboriginal rights he wants enshrined
in the Constitution have any meaning or any
validity. lextend that invitation most sincerely
12:10 p.rn.
The member for Sudbury lfvlr. Gordon} read
from L\ prepared tcxt last evening. It was very
high-flying; it sounded good. If he had been
listening to what I was saying last evening and
this morning. the member has missed the tcztl
import and significance of what is being attempted
by our first ministers if he can say. “All is well
with the world and all we have to do is pass this
motion and we have set the wheels in motion;
that salves our conscience. We have all the
governments in Canada on our side. and we are

R I4. I983 ZIZI
off and running to satisfying the legitimate
economic. social and cultural aspirations of our
first citizens.“
I want members of this House. who for
obvious reasons do not get the opportunity. to
go up there and see firsthand what it is we are
talking about. what the whole process olconsul~
tation and the whole notion of treaty and
aboriginal rights are all about. We all, individu-
ally and collectively. have a lot ofsoul-searching
to do.
This motion is going to pass. We are going to
support it. But it is notgoing to change anything
unless there is a definite commitment by those
responsible in the government to meaningful
and active consultation and unless there is
direct and decisive action by those at the federal
level who have a responsibility. one can have all
the so~called consultations by first ministers and
all the things l have been talking about ad
nauseam, but they are not going to make one
tittlc ol difference until the govemmcnt is morc
aware of those conditions in those northern
Once again. and finally. Icxtend an invitation
to all those people in the government who have
some responsibility in that regard. Maybc I
should even include the Minister of Consumer
and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) because
he will know that a study was unveiled very
recently that looked into and investigated the
high cost of consumer goods and transportation
in the tar north. t hope the minister has read
that. I-lc has some responsibility for consumer
protection. He has some responsibility to see
whether there are injustices. inequalities or
inequities in the marketplace. l know he will he
concerned. If he has not read that report, I
commend it to him.
Mr. Piché: On a point oforder, Mr. Speaker: I
should point out to the honourable member that
there is a committee. the select committee on
the Ombudsman. that will be going to the far
north in early January. It is a committee oi the
three patties and it will be visiting the far north
for three or four days. So not only is the
member’s invitation accepted. but as l men-
tioned, a committee will be there that includes
his party.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the-
Mr. Piché: Something is being done, and the
member is still criticizing.
The Deputy speaker: Order. The member is
not in order. If he wants to share that kind of
information. perhaps he could send a nute.
Mr. Stokts: Mr. Speaker. anything the mem-
berfor Cochrane North(Mr. Pichelorunyothcr
members will do to make themselves much
more familiar with the situation I have been
talking about will be welcome. I have never
heard the honourable member say anything hy
way of any pronouncements or getting involved
in this. I invite him to get up and talk about what
goes on at Attawapiskat. Kushechcwan and
Fort Albany. Sit down: I have the floor.
Mr. Piché: on a point oforder. Mr. Speaker: I
hope the honourable member will be in the
House on Monday when I will bc-
rhe Deputy Speaker: order. Will the mem-
hcr state his point oi order‘!
lVlr. Martel: Throw him out. He doesrft have
a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of
Mr. Stokes: That is twice in the last couple of
minutes he has indicated he wants to get involvedl
perhaps the Speaker will recognize him.
rhe Deputy Speaker: His tithe will come.
Mr. Stoks: l do not think there is any issue
concerning anything in the province I feel more
strongly about than this issue I spoke about last
evening and this morning.
Mr. Shymko: se do tnany on this side.
Mr. Wildman: Then do something about it.
Mr. R.F. Johnston: You care more about the
yet. –
Mr. Piché: All you do is criticize. Let’s work
together on this. This is very important.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The members
will have their opportunity for debate in proper
rotation. Would the member continue‘!
Mr. Stokes: By way oi response to the inter-
jections by the honourable members over there.
lask them to read the Zopage opening statement
by the Minister of lntergovemmental Affairs
and also to read the prepared statement by the
member for Sudbury and point out to me or.
more irnpormnt, to our first citizens what they
have said by way of recognizing the problems 1
have tried to present to the House.
Mr. Wilflmanz They weren‘t even mentioned.
Mr. Stoke: lrnay have missed something. but
I did not see it. The member for High Park-
Swansea (Mr. Shymkol and the member rdr
Cochrane North are concerned-
Mr. Wildtnsnt They should settle the land
claims if they are concerned.
Mr. Martel: if they are concerned. they
should do something. They are in power.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lake
Nipigon has the floor. Will all honourable
members retrain from the intcrjections.
Mr. Stokes: with the initiatives that were
taken by the Prime Minister of this country and
a spirit of co-operation by other first ministers.
and with the inclusion of spokespersons repre-
senting the major native groups. ti first step has
been taken.
l think the time is ripe now for us to translate
our words into meaningful action. something
that will put some flesh on the bones they have
been talking about. I have heard nothing of that
over there. I will listen with a great deal of
interest to the Minister of Natural Resources.
the MinistcrofNorthern Aliairs. the Minister of
Citizenship and Culture. the Provincial Secre-
tary for Resources Development, perhaps the
Attorney General and maybe even the member
for Cochrarlc North. if they have anything at all
meaningful and useful to contribute to this
whole debate.
t2=10 p.In.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased
and honoured to follow thc member lor Lake
.\’ipig0n hvtr. Stokes). who has certainly been
involved mere than any other individual mem-
ber in the day-today problems of the Indian
residents of Ontario. I well recall the trip he was
talking about when the members of the Legisla-
ture did get to Attawapiskat. Fort Severn and
Winisk and the other communities to which the
honourable member made reference. He has
the day-to-day responsibility to see that the
residents and taxpayers. the Indians in those
communities. are properly represented in this
From time to time I can understand his
frustration, particularly when he sees various
ministries of the government of Ontario dealing
with it in their usual protracted bureaucratic
manner. No doubt their intentions are good. but
red tape involves them and probably the lack of
a real feeling notofsympathy butoithe tact that
thc problem can be solved. They are not
committed to the solution of those problems.
and l ieel those delays must account forsome of
the feelings the member has expressed.
The member has invited the members of the
House to accompany him on a repeat tour of
those communities more than a decade later. I
forone would be delighted to accompany him at
his expense—or even mine. ii it comes to that
extreme position. I shall certainly look forward
to it.
l have nothing but support lor the resolution
that is before us. I do not think we should get too
excited about u constitutional amendment that
binds the government of Canada and the first
ministeroICanada with thefirst ministers of the
provinces simply to have two meetings in the
next five years in conjunction with representa-
tives of the native community. but I do feel the
resolution does convey what passes in politics
for gootl intentions and individual sincerity.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime
Minister and the first ministers had that inten-
tion when they felt the best they could do was to
make this a constitutional promise that the
rights. as they are currently experienced, are
safeguarded until such time—l would say in
perpetuity—as they may be expanded and
strengthened even further by the discussions
that the constitutional amendment envisages.
For my part, I have the honour to represent
the most populous Indian reserve in Canada.
That does not make me particularly expert in
joining in this debatc,which in many respects is
a listing of the injustices that have been part of
our historic dealings with the native people in
Canada and particularly in this province.
While a list of injustices could be prepared
associated with the Six Nations reserve. it is far
easier and. I believe in this instance. more
helpful to recount the extremely effective accom-
plishments of that reserve community under the
leadership of its band council and ct succession
of capable chiefs, most particularly the present
one. Chief Wellington Staats. and his council.
The member for Wentworth lMr. Deanl, the
Minister without Portfolio. travelled to the Six
Nations reserve to represent the government of
Ontario at the opening of a new bridge over the
Grand River, built at a cost of more than S2
million. The minister in his reticent way was
able to convey to all prescnt that the governr
ment of Ontario had participated to the extent
of 80 per cent in the financing of the structure.
which is wholly on the Indian reserve, on both
sides of the river; and. of course. the Grand
River is in many respects the river tit the Six
This is just the most recent in one of the
important developments to add to the quality of
life on the Six Nations reserve. l do not want to
bore the members who are sitting out this
debate until one o‘clocl< with simply a list of 2l22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY or ONTARIO OCTOBER what has been accomplished, but compared with what is donc elsewhere. it is so significantly different that I nrn going to put it before the members. The band council operates out of one ol the finest administrative headquarters in my con- stituency. I do not know of any mayor or corporation in any of the towns or other areas that has a better building with a council cham- ber and offices for thc various officials of the local government. It is an excellent site indeed. After extensive discussions with the .\/Iinistry of Health here. but more particularly with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Ottawa, they have recently complcted an extremely line medical centre. Once again it surpasses the quality of any other medical centre in niy whole constituency. They are very Proud that they have offices with the most modern equipment for dentists and medi- cal practitioners. who are available there on a regular basis. It really is an excellent facility. It is not a hospital. because the Indians have supported and make use of thc excellent active care facilities in Brantford and other communi- ties nearby. ln the mail yesterday I received a very kind invitation from the chief to attend the opening of a new nursing home to replace the Lady Willingdon Nursing I-Iome, which was built in I923 and which obviously has long outlived its usefulness and safely. The new home is named after the Iroquois Confederacy, and it is an outstanding example of modem facilities designed lor the care of our senior citizens. I hope the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will be able to attend. No doubt he has been invited because. when he was Minister of Health. it was he who gavc thc approval for the extension of the number of nursing home beds that enabled the Indians to go forward with the building of the structure. It was financed federally. almost exclusively in this case. but certainly the co-operation of the govemment of Ontario was essential and appreciated. The chief is wise enough and a good enough politician to be sure that the present Treasurer. the then Minister of Health. was aware that the Indians understood the importance of provincial participation. The list goes on, because the main commu- nity in thc Six Nations reserve. the town of Ohsweken. is well equipped with a sewage system and water. They have just started work on a new_subdivision which is going to include a building where the regional office of the Depart- ment of Indian Affairs and lvbrtliein Develop- ment will be established. It will be removed from the city of Brantford. Without going on at too great a length on these accomplishments, I would say that among all the communities in the constituency of Brant-Oxfordrblorfolk. the one governed rt-ally independently by the band council of the Six Nations is probably more progressive than any other, if we are prepared to use a list of concrete accomplishments of the type I have brought to the House as the criterion of modem success. Ishould also say that the debates in the band council are excellent. In quality. they probably exceed what we are used to hearing here. They do not simply spend money raised elsewhere; they have had to come to grips with some very difficult political decisions in the recent past. I am very glad to see that the Minister of Govemment Services (Mr. Ashel is here. because in his recent past incarnation as Minister of Revenue itwas his. I am sure,di5tasteful duly to deal in a rather tough way with the Indian community on the Six Nations reserve when it became apparent that millions of cigarettes \vere being purchased free of sales tax and sold off the reserve asa bootleg commodity. There is no doubt this was happening, and none of the Indian officials denied it. They certainly were quite aware of their rights to purchase these and other materials free of provincial sales tax for their own use. Frankly, I was very proud that the Indian chief and the council. while they responded roughly to the minister and his officials.stilIdid not go behind the defence of “You are always against the Indians and you are trying to put us down. as you always have in the past,” Instead. they came to grips with the situation. passed appropriate byIaWS within their own council, which I believe in die long run are going to be the very best protection the Indians themselves can have that will safeguard their rights to buy these products free oisales tax for their own use but not endanger the precious revenues of the provincial ministry. I2:3(I |‘|.m. After all. fair is fair, and I would like them to have everything they can get as well as what they deserve under the law, But in this instance I would say the chiel and council have certainly shown their grasp of the law and their capabili- ties as individuals to deal responsibly and dem- ocratically on behalf of their own citizens with a very tough problem indeed. I refer to this only to emphasize that the capability of the Indians for sclfgovernment is I4. I983 Z113 certainly not in question in my urea. nor. I believe. should it be anywhere else. Therc arc problems in northern Onrario,wherc the Indian bitnds are smaller and more fragmented and have been under the special economic problems and pressures of communities thut do not have independent sources of revenue for their own support and thc support of their community and their families. This is not true in the case of the Six Nations community. where many ol thcm are very well employed and have special rights under the Iantuus .lzty”s treaty to cross the border for employment readily. Many of them work in Buffalo and in New York state and have attained an international reputation as high stccl riggers and so on. There are those who say the Indians have a special genetic quality that enables them to work on high steel without the vertigo that affects most of us even when we stand up in the Legislature. Ido not belicvc that is true. lsimply believe they are extremely capable workmen and the confidence that goes with being able to do a good job has been handed on from father to son for a number of generations. One of the developments in the Six Nations community, just by way of example, was the building of what I would say is one of the finest arenas in our whole area. Instead oi coming to the government at Queens Park and trying to get all the money necessary to hire a contractor to put it up for them. they realized that there was avery large structural steel building available in it nearby community. Knowing how to do these things and having the initiative that backs up this ability, they bought the building and moved the thing locktstock and barrel. having taken it apart. and reerected it on the reserve. They have an arena that I would say is far better than the arenas in most of the communi- ties in my area. which were built largely by the direct largess and generosityofwintarlo. usually supported by local service clubs working very hard to lind the proper money. But in this case the Indians actually did the work themselves. and very good work it was. As l say. it is an outstanding facility for the whole community, I am very keen indeed that we as legislators recognize not only the desire but also the ability of the Indian communities for self-government. when I list all the things that have been done on the Six Nations reserve, there is no douht that it is not generosity but the good judgement of the government in Ottawa. and particularly the present minister. tltc Honourable John Munro. that has to be credited. There arc those who say. “The Six Nations community is in southern Ontario; it is easy for the various officials in thc federal department to visit and serve.” I suppose that is part of thc explanation. But the instance hcrc surely is thul the chicl. the council and the community have through their own initiative sought out the governmental assistance. particularly fcderal governmental assistance. that has pen-nltted them to go forward with these things. I have often felt that the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. while it is well served by its officials, seems to have an awful lot of them. The various people at the local community level always have an opposite number in thc district oflice, the regional office and the office in Ottawa with whom they must consult. I have got to know these people a bit because. like the local politi- cians. they attend the opening of these various facilities; so we have a chance to meet and tall: about what is going on. My own feeling is that more and more the fcdcraldepartmcnroughttogctitshandsoffrhe day-to-day operation of Indian communities and emphasize what is clear to them and to everyone else. that in any community similar to those of the Six Nations the elected councils are quite capable of carrying on their own affairs in an extremely healthy and productive way. I am vcry much conccrnetl as well that there be no question that the Indians have the contin- uing right to support themselves and to have thc benefits of any developments in the area having to do with natural resources. In the past. and l would say my ancestors were part of this. the non-Indian settlers would movc into the area and say: “This is a pretty good piece of farm land. lguess wc‘d better get this away from the Indians somehow.“ Certainly in the great Six Nations areas. there were large purchases of productive farm lands from the original Six Nations bands who came more than 200 years ago from what is now the United States. I believe the purchases were at arm’s length and not improperly influenced in any way. but the non-Indian people moved into the arca. The farm that has been in my family since about I840, while it was not purchased from the Indians wasoriginally Indian land from one of the most fertile pans of the whole of the southern Ontario peninsula. That is not to say that the Indians in our community. or elsewhere as far as i know. have 2124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO been forced entirely off the fertile lands. The Six Nations rescrvc itself does have many extremely productivefan’ns.and,alongwith the member for Lake Nipigon lMr. Stokes). I would invite members to visit the Six Nations reserve; It can he reached more conveniently than Attavvapiskat or Winisk. The residents of the Six Nations bands would certainly make them feel welcome. In this connection. there are many things to do as a visitor in that area. They are leading craftsmen. You might be interested to know. Mr. Speaker. that during a recent visit of that great world-class Tory, Margaret Thatcher. the government of Ontario presented her with an extremely beautiful vase that was envisioned and crafted in the Six Nations reserve. If mem- bers go up there with a few dollars they too could acquire some oi this world-class art. It could grace the various ministerial offices. The nice thing is that their carpets are deep enough that, ir dropped, the vase would not be cracked. There is at real tourist attraction in the Six Nations community that we have done little to emphasize. As a matter of fact, when the bridge 1 referred to earlier was opened a few weeks ago [suggested that Highway 54. which runs through the Indian communiry,ought to be redesignated as the Six Nations Parkway. We should make a real eiiort to inform our follow citizens in Canada and around the world that as far as Indian culture in Canada is concerned, here is a readily accessible and beautiful community where travellers are welcome to participate in the scenery and the other touristattractions. but more particularly to take part in the culture of the Indians themselves. Mr. R. F. Johnston: Stay. René. We’re waiting to hear from you. Mr. Piché: I am speaking on Monday after- noon. It will be the iirst Monday you are here. Mr. lviirdnr Are you going to do something with him, Mr. Speaker, or will I‘? The Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Rotenberg: He’s being provoked by the NDP. It’s not his fault. Mr. Nixon: He is going home to write his speech. hi Mr. Martel: Or to get somebody to write it lor rm. Mr. Nixon: It will be a collection of editorial views from the Kapusltasing Bugle. I hope the developments in the Six Nations can be made a showcase for what Indians themselves, through their initiative and prop- erly backed by provincial and federal govern- ments and provincial and federal revenues. can do for the community and the people. It is nice to know there is at least this instance where the Indian initiatives have in no way been stultified and that we can use it as an example ol what can be done elsewhere. As far asthe resolution is concerned. we may recall that early irl thc tenure of the present Prime Minister of Canada—and we all know that he is nowhere near the end of that; there will be many years in which his policies to improve Indian affairs will continue-—he was visited by a number of Indian bands. They felt that here was a new approach to the federal govemment. In response to their requests he said he would be quite prepared to repeal the Indian Act and related pieces of legislation it that was the wish oi the Indian community. One can imagine the ferment oi discussion that went on for months following in which the Indians realized that the Prime Minister. who had just assumed office. was prepared to take extremely far-reaching steps to respond to the require- ments of the Indian community if it was their wish. 12:40 p.n|. In the final event, when the views of the Indian community were completely assessed. it was plain that while they were not completely satisfied or even nearly satisfied with the provis- ions of the Indian Act. still they felt that it served their special place in the community of Canada and recognized it as proper. In the instance of many of my constituents, they argue with me that they do not consider themselves to be even citizens of Canada but allies of Her Majesty. When one looks at the traditions of the Six Nations one can see that was so. ln fact, they had large lands which they owned and which they had ruled for centuries.l suppose they made the decision. wise or unwise in the vicw mat we might have. of maintaining Lheir allegiance and alliance with the British crown at the time of the American Revolution. If they had had thcirway, probably the British would not have capitulated 85 soon as they did, because they were certainly great warriors and strong in defence of the British crown and the legitimate rule of the colonies. But their leaders capitulated and they found themselves on the losing side. Their position became untenable, and the government in the United Kingdom very properly offered them lands here in what OCTOBER 14. i983 2125 was then British North America. in an area. now Ontario. which was practically not at all settled. There were two very small French settle- ments. one in the Detroit area which still exists. bur in general there was nothing but bush and, over the years. Indian Wars had eliminated almost all of the indigenous Indian settlers in this southem Ontario peninsula. There was nothing here but trees and game and very fertile land-—beautiful hunting—so the Indians of the Six i\‘ations,who were familiar with dtis. accepted the offerof the British crown to take up Iandssix miles on each side of the Grand River. They came over and established themselves in their community near Brztntford and have been there ever since. They came here as allies of the crown 200 years ago. In the coming year. they are celebrating that bicentennial and it is certainly appropriate that we in this House. the legislatures across Canada and the Parliament of Canada are considering the rnattcrs of Indian rights and the entrenching ol those rights alter they arc carefully examined and established in our Constitution. This bicentennial is a most appropriate time lor us to he dealing with this. Naturnlly,l have the greatest enthusiasm in supporting at least the constitutional amendment that is before us. In my view. this showsthe goodwill of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces to deal directly with the leaders and representatives of the native communities in seeing that their rights are regarded and rairly treated. that those that have been accepted are entrenched and that other rights are established and expanded so that we can live together as Canadians in happiness and prosperity. Mr. R. F. Iohnstonr Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to allow the Conservatives to take their turn.ifthey wouldlike to, ratherthan have them just leave this to members on this side to participate. I find the rather pro torrna pet’- tormance a little bizarre at the moment. with two set speeches that have been given and nobody rising to involve themselves. This is quite bizarre behaviour considering the impor- tance of this matter. I am no expert on affairs having to do with our native peoples or Indian communities in Ontar- io. ldo not pretend to be. I had some experience before being elected. when l lived north of Pererborough. and some knowledge of lite on the reserves in that area. l have had some experience. through our Constitution commit- tee a couple or years ago in terms of presenta- tions from the major native groups in the province and a little bit during our family violence hearing in the social development committee. lam no expert. as is the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes]. whom I could listen to speaking on this subject for hours and hours because oi his very personal knowledge of the reality of native peoples and lndinns in northern Ontario. I do want to spcak very specifically about something falling out from this resolution. We all support the resolution. Many of us wish the accord could have been much deeper prior to this stage and not just be announcements of forthcoming meetings. but we are all obviously in favour of it. I wish to Speak very particularly regarding my portfolio as critic for Community and Social Services for this party and issue a call to action and demand action from this government to redress the harm we have done to Indian communities in this province over the last number oi generations. I want to speak very specifically about child welfare in terms of this resolution and in terms of the suggestion of a move towards selfgovenlnlent. autonomy. con- trol by our status Indian reserves of their own child welfare system: our failures in that regard in Ontario in the past and. in tact. the tragic consequences of our past and present policies in terms of native kids. In Ontario, we have essentially taken a whole generation of Indian kids out of their communi- ties in northern Ontario and moved them into southern Ontario. Huge numbers have been adopted by white Iamilies. They have been torn away from their cultural roots as a systematic policy of assimilation ot the crudest form over the last 20 years. We are now seeing the results oi that in terms of the destruction of a society of northern communities in the province. Anyone who has read Patrick Johnston”: book. Native Children and the Child Welfare System. will understand the enomtity of that tragedy where so many kids were taken out to residential schools, brought into care in south~ crn Ontario lor specious reasons. never to be able to return lo their home communities. The adults felt a sense of deprivation in those communities as we white-dominated govern- ment officials and children’s aid society officials told them they were not capable oi looking alter their own children. that their values were not appropriate in terms ol the raising of their children and that we could do a better job. We took virtually half the kids out of specific reserves throughout northern Ontario and put 2126 LEGISLATIVE ASS E .VlBl,Y OF ONTARIO them into care by the children’s aid societies which are dominated by white citizens. well meaning for the main part but the instrument of the destruction ofsocicty in northern Ontario of the various native bands. It has not stopped, even though we have realized for some time what has been going on. We have slowed the process slightly. but this is the reality of what we found in one briei trip to Kenora without the experience of going to the isolated bands that the member for Lake Nipigon has been speaking about, which we should have visited as a committee in September when we were in Kenora. Native children still make up 90 per cent of the case load of the children’s aid society in Kenora, even though the population statistics do not war-rant that high a numberofchildren in care by that children‘: aid society. They have only fourlront-line native workers in 1983: four. There is one lndian representative on the board ofdirectorsof that children”: aid society in I983. There have been several attempts to get an advisory committee oi native people to that CAS and they have not been successful: there has been a roadblock. l2=s0 p.rn. We still extricate kids from those communi~ ties. We still lint] most of them being adopted in white homes with no chance of thcm being reunited with their families in northern Ontario. 50 this resolution is meaningless to us unless we understand that it is incumbent upon this gov- ernment to stop the process of white interior» encc now. the process of us telling them that we know best how their communities should Qpfils atc, how their families should operate. how to best protect and nurture their children. What we are seeing is a decimation of the society and an abject lailurc on our part to provide proper care and sustenance and nurturing for those children, through everything we have been doing in the past. Rather than us doing what we have been doing, which is a kind of pilot project approach to giving some support to some communities like Whitedog or Winisk to provide some scr~ vices on the reserves through their native con~ trol, we must be setting in place immediately the structural underpinnings for the Indian com- munities in northern Ontario to take control oi their own child welfare system. We must see therc is no provincial role for us here, except to have an orderly extrication of our involvement on the reserves and to set in place, in a systematic fashion. the capacity of those reserves to provide the kind of support within their own communities they feel is ‘apprty priate to protect children. to nurture children and to provide a sense of continuity in the communities. For six or seven years we have been having tripartite discussions in this province in terms of getting more control of child welrare and social welfare programs by native communities. But still there are only SO native workers involved in child wclfarc around Ontario: 50 in l983. We do not have one band in Ontario that has control of its own child welfare at this point. There is one pilot project which is coming along tvcll but we have not seen the enabling legislation which would permit them to have control oi their child welfare in the Rainy River district. We can be proud of the successes of some of our pilot projects. but we must contrast that to otherjurisdictions in Canada in terms oi what is going mt. When we do that. we will see that we are failing in an abject fashion. I would point to Manitoba, which has taken a very different approach to the divesting of control on child welfare matters. llwc look at the facts. that we have a couple of group home projects in northern Ontario. that we still have the situation I described in Kenora. that we still do not have one band that is in control of its child welfare. and contrast them to what is in place now in Manitoba we can see we are miles behind. There is a desperate need for itnntedi» ate action. in Manitoba they have laid the groundwork for the lndian communities. the status reserve bands, to take control of child welfare adrnlnisr tration. The last time l heard.’Z3 of the Z5 bands are participating in that project. They have already placed in operation at this point a combination of white professionals and Indian paraprofessionals to start to develop these sert vices in those eommunitieson a systematic basis for a gradual complete transfer oi responsibility to the native communities. The band councils will now make the deci~ sion as to who gets adopted. not some white CA5. The band councils will decide whether or not there is need for it group home or an emergency receiving home in their community and work for the funding oi that. not the local CA5. l think we have a great deal to learn from thc expeflmtifll that is going on in Manitoba and to understand that we have a major responsibility to move as quickly as we can in that direction. as quickly as the native communities wish to OCTOBE R l4. 1983 1127 move: and that our role in it must be as Manitoba’s. which is to say that as soon as that divesting of responsibility is done We are out of that business and they have the responsibility of looking alter their otvn affairs. We have always known the funding has only iust been laundered through the provincial government anyhow; the funding has always come from the federal government. We should move ourselves away from laying our values on those communities. from usurping their right to self-determination and the provision of the kind ofserviceswhicli will nurture theircomrnuniiies and not destroy their communities as we have done in the past. One other thing l would like to add to this before I conclude my remarks is that what we have not developed systematically in this prov- ince is the capacity of native workers to provide the services on reserves that are taken for granted in southern Ontario and that arc pro- vided by professionals: CAS. family support services, day care services, whatever it might be. it is time we recognize that we have to train as many paraprofessionals as we can. as quickly as we can. among the Indian communities and to get them in place in their communities as soon as we can in a community development sense so they can start to determine the priorities in their own communities and look after their own affairs. With only 5Oworkers throughout all of Ontario at the moment we cannot possibly consider divesting ourselves of our responsibilities. We have tc put child care workers in place and have good training for child protection workers. We need paramedical workers and native people who are working in early childhood education and we need those people to be trained as soon as possible. ignoring, as we would have to in northern Ontario. the requirements that we have at present for professional qualifications. We learned at Grassy Narrotvs that there was only one person who had gone through high school in that community at that time. We will have to recognize people who are interested in the area, who wish to provide the kind of supportcven iltltey do not have the educational background and as quickly as possible get them the kind of training which will enable them to took alter their Qwn people and at least to start the planning for the kind of comprehensive programs that should be available to native people in their own Communities. it is unthinkable that here we are in i983 and we have not done that. Here we are dealing with pilot projects. when we have not laid in place the basic structural foundations for the transfer of responsibility in child and social welinre programs in gcucrat. For any members on the government side to sit there smugly putting out statements such as the one we have seen, the opening statement by the miniSler, expressing that this resolution is a wonderful thing. when we have such a tragic history or our involvement in this is outright hypocritical. There is not one member in this House who should not he up speaking passionately on this situation and demanding in a nonpartisan way. in a universal way, that we need action now and it needs to be a priority now, l hope that on Monday when Tory members start to partici- pate again in this debate we will hear them saying so and not inst mouthing these sell» congratulatory kind of words about what we have done up to the present. in any kind oi rational look at what has happened. we have failed miserably and we have not given it the kind oi Bmphasi$ it should have. lt has been a privilege to participate in the debate and I would like I0 move adjournment at this point. On motion by .\/lr. R. F. Johnston. the debate was adjourned. The House adjourned at l:Ol p.rn. CONTENTS Contenis oi the proceedings reported in this issue of Hansard appears at the back. together with an alphabetical list of the speakers taking part. Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues can be obtained by calling the Hanszlrd Reporting Service indexing staff at (416) 965-2159. I-lansard subscription price is_Sl5.00 per session, from: Sessional Subscription Service. Information Services Branch, Ministry of Government Services, Sth Floor. 880 Bay Street, Toronto, M7A IN8. Phone (416! 965-2238. , 222l LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO Tusday, October 18, 1983 The House resumed at 8 p.m. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROCL.-\T\/lATlO.\‘ (concluded) . Resutning the adjourned debate on govern- ment motion l0: Rights and freedomsol the first inhabitants ol Canada, the aboriginal peoples. Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, as we resume tile debate on motion l0 related to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada. the aboriginal peoples. I would like to say i_t is with pleasure that we see our young people in the galleries. those who have studied the history oi Canada and, particularly at their age. the his» toryolournativepeoplesandtheitcontribution to the history of our nation. To continue in my thoughts. concluding yesterday at six o‘clock. I spoke about~ Mr. Williams: A point oi privilege, Mr. Speak- er: For the benefit of the member lor High Park-Swansea. I want to point out that the young people he is addressing in rlie gallery happen lo lie the 14th Scarborough West A Cub Puck from the riding of Oriole. Mr. $hymko: I certainly thank the member for Oriole for pointing out in precise detail who l was referring to. In my remarks yesterday. l stressed one element that is very often forgotten by our citizens and at times by our politicians. We must remember that constitutional declarations. stat- utory acts and any guarantees in our laws really depend for their survival on one aspect; the attitudes. the values, the thinking of the people of the particular time in history. That is when declarations and constitutional guarantees and laws will have any relevance. We have seen moments in our history. as recently asduring the Second World War, when Canadian citizens were incarcerated in concen- tration camps despite guarantees and despite laws. I refer to the American Declaration of Independence. tne grcatdocument ofour neigh~ bouts to the south, where Negro slavery existed for three quarters of a century alter that decla- ration because or tlie peoples attitudes. ln spite oitlie amendments we will I38 making to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. it is important that we startchanging our attitudes to our aboriginal peoples so as to entrench that in the minds and the hearts of the citizens of canada and of tnis great province. I am very concerned that our laws provide that all people should have the opportunity to attain those ends and to make their unique contributions to our national way of life in their own way. We as a society must accept that principle. I mentioned tolerance. l believe we will only develop that understanding. that sensitivity, il we talk to one another. Mr. Haggeny: Where has your party been the past 40 years? Mr. Shymko: We can make partisan remarks and play the little game of partisanship. But progress has been made. This a Progressive Conservative Party and it has made changes in the Human Rights Code. l recall people demonstrating. when the Min- ister ot Labour (Mr. Ramsay) was seeking reelection. over the fact that we Wanted to implement changes. I do not have to listen to those remarks. Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker. on a point of order: I lail to sec zt quorum. Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung. 8:11 p.m. The Deputy $peaker: There now being a quorum, would the member lor High Park- Swansea please continue. ~ Mr. Shymko: I would like to tl’lank~ Mr, I. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would like topointcutatactlorthebeneiitofthe members of the House. The Deputy Speaker: Are you rising on a point of privilege? Ml-.1. M. loltnsnnz A point of privilege. The Deputy Speaker: The chair will hearyour point of privilege. Mr. J. M. tolinsonr Mr. Speaker, as whip responsible lot the attendance in the House tonight. I was disturbed by the quorum call. I attended the standing committee on resources development and advised that we did not have members in attendance- 2222 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member’s comments are neither a pcinr of privilege ndr a point of order. Mr. Sllymkoz Mr. Speaker. I would like to express my gratitude to the member for Riverdale lMr. Ronwicltl. who realizes not only the impor- lance of this debate but also the importance of my words and what I was trying to say. who wanted not only to make sure that we would have a quorum but also to try to have this entire House filled with members of the Legislature. I thank the member for Riverdale for his assistance. I would like to continue by—- Mr. Mancini: You drove the members out of the I-louse. Mr. Boudria: You chased them away, Yuri. Mr. Shymko: I may be over-reacting to the member for Erie (Mr. ldaggertyl. t know these references are made once irl a while. and I will try to stick to my comments and my speech by not reacting. As 1 was saying, we will only develop the understandingscnsitivity or toleranccl referred to if we talk to each other and share equally one another”: concerns and. above all. ifwe have the courage. determination and intelligence to put aside all prejudice and stereotypesorlcc and for all. Our history is a sad histcry. In my opinion. it tells us that thc first people of this land have been ior too long excluded from the political. social and 8CDl’lOl11lC life of this nation. For them, to quote the Prime Minister, it has not been a “just society.” They were placed in a position in whiCl’l their destiny. future and very existence were paternally determined by the bureaucracies which were ignorant ctthern and over which they had no control and little influence. To this day, for one reason or another—-and I will not try to discuss the reas0ns~we do not have a member of out native peoples sitting in this Legislature. Much worse, at times and in different places in this country, our aboriginal people have been actively persecuted. if l may usc the tenn. Some students of history and of the treatment oi our aboriginal peoples tell us that Canada is unique in that it has historically recognized the legitimacy of the concept of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title. This may be true; however. all too often what we approved of in concept we did not practise. Nor did the policies adopted at the national level with respect to the native peoples— and l refer to the federal govemrnent of Canada—neccssarily reflect those commit- ments to those philcscphical and legal princi- ples of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title to which some of the participants in the debate referred. l do not have to recall to the members that in the United States. Indian policy for centuries vacillated between extermination and assimila- tion. The former is best summed up by General Sheridan’s pllraSe—and it is unfortunate that one has to say this-that “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.“ lt was a reality. 1 refer to the attitudes. the thinking and the minds of people al that stage in history, no matter what constitu- tional guarantees were entrenched in that great country to the south. In Canada, the goal of total assimilation at times dictated our aboriginal policies. certainly until the 19405 and, some would argue, in various ways until the mid-19605. In my opinion. the difference between integration and assimi- lation is that we must all integrate socially. economically and politically and participate in the process; it is a desired goal. Some of the fundamental, beautiful values of that diversity are at blessing in this country, and not a curse. I refer to the culture, tradition and customs of our peoples. They should not be destroyed in some uniform way. They are a blessing that should be preserved. That is what l mean by integration asopposed to assimilation. These things should not be destroyed. This is where we are unique in this pr0vince,in Some of the policies this government has initialed; the heritage language program being one. and accep- tance of the policy and thc concept of multiculturalism which we all share and which in some degree is being entrenched in article I5 of our Constitution. Let us be frank. The policies I referred to earlier have been a failure in the past. and the native peoples of this country paid the price for that failure. Our policies failed so miserably that by the 1970s, for example. some people were beginning to speak of our native pclicies as policies of cultural genocide. All members are familiar with the grim statistics on mortality rates, alcoholism and ianiily violence. I do not haveto refer to some oi the studies that have been done and to the standing committee that visited a part of our province and saw some of the destitution in this area. l do not have to talk about the crime,suicide and poverty thatdescrioe the life of our native peoples. l need not review them here. Those statistics point not only to the failure oi OCTOB I8. 1983 Z223 ER a policy but also to the death of a culture. The death oi a culture isa terrible thing. lrleaves the individual born and raised in that culture with- out valuc orientation in life. Perhaps no mem» her in this chamber can fully appreciate the trauma this must cause. Members should try, if they can. to answer these questions put by the hereditary chief of the Coast Salish tribe and the honorarychiefofthcSquamishtribe.ChiefDan George. who is well known to all of us. With your permission. Mr. Speaker. 1 would like to quote Chief Dan George. for thc first time in the history of this Legislature in a language of one of the province’s aboriginal peoples. namely. Ojibway. l also hope the day will not be too long in coming when we can all be blessed by the presence of Canada‘s natives, one of thcrn or maybe more,sittirlg among usas elected members of this Legislature. Until that day. l beg forgiveness if rlonrnalives such as I do not speak with thc facility and the eloquence that this beautiful language deserves. &tZ0 tun. But these are the questions that Dan George posed. This is the way they sound in Ojibway. |Remarks in Ojibwayl Before providing the translation. I want to thank Isidore Toulouse. the adult program co-ordinator of the Native Canadian Centre here on Spadina Avc.. in Toronto. for his kind assistance in coaching me. For the benefit of the honourable members I would like to provide you with the translation. This iswhat these questions posed by Chief Dan George were: “Db you know what it is like to be without moorings? Do you know what it is like to be and to live in surroundings that are ugly and every- where you look you see ugly things‘! Do you know what it is like to feel you are ofno value to society and to those around you. to know that people come to help you but not to work with you because you knew they knew you had nothing to offer in the first place? “Do you know what it is like to have your race heliulcd. to be without pride in your race. pride in your lamily. pride and confidence in yout- self? You do not know. for you have never tasted its bitterness.“ The reason I believe these amendments are so important, so crucial to our future, is because they are_asone commentator put it,a.test of our civility. They signal a change in our altitudes towards the native peoples of this nation, a change brought about by a change in our values which I believe, and I stress again. is more important than any statutory act. than any constitutional guarantees. This is what we will have to stress in this Legislature to our constitu- ents, no matter where we live and what area we represent. To a degreet credit for this change must go to the native peoples thcmselves. They have taken this issue out of irrelevance. At a. conference on educational reform for minorities held at the University of Windsor in May 1971 , Delia Opekokew. a native. said of the native people: “A real conflict is going to erupt one of these days. We are going to do more than simply stay in our reepecs.” They did more. They organized. They lob- bied. They took legal and political action and they worked to inform the public and the politicians of their needs, of their demands and of their rights. We saw their desperate activities while the constitutional conference and debate were being held in Ottawa. They went to London, tn the United Kingdom. They pres- sured. they convinced and they worked on the attitudes and the opinions of all Canadians. I would like to say that the results of their actions are here before us today in this debate and this amendment. These amendments must be passed because this dialogue. this process of defining aboriginal rights. must lie continued. Our laws reflect our values. our attitudes, and no body oi law should do that more completely or more accurately than our own Constitution. I would like to add that adopting these amendments is only a first step. Mr. Stokes: when are you going to translate the words into action’! Mr. Shymkor lt is only a first $lep~—I am concluding my remarks and I will not react to comments. 1 have valued the comments from the member ior Lake Nipigon. I say that adopting these amendments is only afirst step,an impOl”Lant0l‘le,butWc can only go forward because we must only go forward. Pr\>g1t:ss will depend upon our understanding of
the issues and our commitment to devising
workable solutions. They are not perfect: we
are not perfect. But the commitment and the
intent on this side of the House is to work
towards that goal and members cannot question
that intent. With members‘ help. together we
must ensure that the very least of these matters
remains in the forefront of our political stage-
yes. by debates such as these.
In the iuture conferences that will be man-
dated by these amendments I hopc that national

and native leaders will talk and converse as
friends. as neighbours. and not just negotiate as
antagonists or protagonists. as conquerors or
vanquished, We do, after all. share 3 great land.
Let us pray that we will share it in harmony.
share it in understanding and in trust, as the
treaties used to say long, long ago. “for as long as
the sun shines and the river runs.“
Mr. Boudriu: Mr. Speaker. I come into this
debate rather at the last minute only to express a
few views of my own conceming this very
important and historic event. I must say that
before coming into the Legislature tonight I had
not considered speaking on this resolution. and
t will probably make my remarks fairly brief.
Not long ago a number of members of our
Legislature had the privilege of travelling as part
of a committee to northwestern Ontario, where
we went to visit an Indian reserve. I think it is
important to talk about this briefly. and I know
rhat my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin
lMr. McGuiganl did discuss it earlier in the
For a person such as I, who represents a
constituency that does not have a native reserve
and is quite some distance from other
constitucnees that do. my exposure to and my
knowledge oi natives and oi the reserves was
very limited. While I will not profess tonight
that I am now an expert on the topic, which of
course I am not. I gained some knowledge over
the (cw days I was there that was, in my view.
very interesting and taught me things I had
never felt existed in this province.
As you know or may have read in the papers,
Mr. Speaker. wt: sperll some time in Kendra and
visited the Grassy Narrows Indian reserve. I
mustsayit was thc first time in my life I ever was
on a gravel road that was 75 or 80 miles long. I
am sure some of nly northern colleagues have
been on such roads probably within the last
week visiting their own constituencies. but for
some ot us in other areas that does not happen
yery much. Although I represent 2 rural riding.
it is very different lrom tl-int part ofthe province.
Mr. Sheppard: You must have some gravel
roads down in your riding.
Mr. Botudriu: I do have gravel roads. but none
that long. to answer the member for
mo y.l’I‘l.
As I was saying, the experience we had was
that we visited an Indian reserve. Upon arriving
on the reserve, it became very obvious that this
particular place had quite a bit more poverty
than I felt I would sec. It became obvious that
even though this community was quite remote
there were very few automobiles, the housing
was not in very good condition—or did not
appear to be in good condition just lrom the
appearance of the outside of the premises.
Although what we saw as a first impression
when we arrived was shocking and disappoint-
ing. it was nothing compared to what we learned
We had an interesting conversation with the
chief and some of the members of the band
council. during which he explained to us the
very sad state oi affairs that we. as a society,
have allowed to happen. The chief explained to
us that I5 or Z0 years ago the federal govern-
ment would spend only 3 few thousand dollars 3
year on that reserve~S5.000 or $6.000. some-
thing like that.
At that time the people were living a much
happier lifestyle than they are today and. from
what the chief told us. a much more meaningful
one. One generation later. we have achieved a
state wherein that samc reserve we now have a
situation whereby government spends some
5500.000 a year and almost the totality of the
population is without gainful employment.
We asked the chief how we got this way. He
proceeded to explain to us some of the things
that had happened in his community. I may
have the sequence of events changed in the way
I will explain it. but I will attempt to recall it for
thc House as best I know how.
The chief explained that mercury pollution
was discovered in their source of water supply,
in theirlakes and rivers. where the reserve used
to be. After some negotiations with paper
companies. governments and so forth, it was
decided that they had to move the reserve
because it just could not stay there given those
They moved the reserve a few miles down~
stream. or on another river. where it remains
today. However. in doing so. they moved the
reserve to an area Illa! had no agricultural land.
The old area had very fertile land, where the
natives had vegetable gardens and things like
that. In this new location. there is very hard clay
and one could not grow anything worthwhile.
Some employment was lost in this particular
The fact that one is moving a community is
very traumatic in itself. This is also very disturb
ing. II this had been all that happened. I would
say things would have been going pretty well on
I8. was 2215
that reserve. but this is only the tip of the
From that situation. we proceeded to learn of
another experience they had had. When they
moved to the new area. they lost much of the
rour guide employment they were prsriouslv
providing. The natives would act as guides to
the tourists who would come in and Iish and
hunt. In the new community. it became increas-
ingly difficult to do this. There were fewer Iish
in thc new place and one could not be a fishing
I am sure the next sentence will bring a
message home to the member lor Lake Nipigon
(Mr. Stokes). because I have heard him discuss
this in the House. It is the business ol clear-
culling the lorest. In the new location. they cut
down all of the trees. We went there just
recently and there is hardly a tree that is bigger
than about the Size ofa cup. This was in a forest
which is 75 or 80 miles from the nearest
community. One would think that all one would
see there would be very huge and prosperous
forests. but that was not the case. There were
relatively small trees. and that was all that was
This is because the forests had been clear~cut.
I had heard that exprfission used in the House
hefores but I must say I had never seen il.Il13d
heard the member for Lake Nlpigon describe
what the landscape looked like alter such a
thing happened. but l must say I had never seen
it myself. not being from that part of our
Needless to say, they have no more trees and
no more wood. Not only that. but they have no
more animals to hunt. because if you no longer
have a forest. of course. you no longer have the
animals that were there as well.
As the chief explained lo us. not long after all
those incidents happened they decided to dam
the river and raise the Water level, and that
destroyed the wild rice crop. Now they have no
more Wild rice. which was another source of
gainful employment for the natives of that
I understand that some people came in with a
machine which was supposed to harvest the
blueberries and get much better yields from
them. However. when this blueberry-picking
machine. or whatever it is called. came in to
harvest blueberries in that community it destroyed
all the plants. They had a very good yield that
year. but nothing has ever grown there since. so
now they have lost the blueberry crop.
In listening to what the chief told us. it
became obvious that in this community we had
allowed a situation to happen where we had
totally destroyed those people’s environment.
their lifestyle, theirculture and everything else.
Therewas nothing left there that they were used
One of the very shocking things that was
brought to my attention by the member for
Kent-Elgin was that here we were 75 miles in the
middle of the forest. or some similar distance.
and there was not one log house. Structures
were made oi all kinds oi things except logs, I
suppose. They looked like some of the housing
you would sec in certain areas oi the suburbs of
the city. with the exception, of course.that they
are all very small hounng units and certainly not
with very many of those lancy things that we
take lor granted in some oi our communities.
The chief was telling us that on this reserve
there is almost I00 per cent alcoholism. and it is
small wonder thatwe see this kind ofsituation ii
we have destroyed everything those people had.
I must say that I came back from this very short
trip and lwas really upsetwith what I had seen.I
cannot help but Wonder just why this has been
pemtitted to go on for so long. ‘
The reason I bring all this up is to state that lt
i$linei<)rus—ltiSgood,3t:lually’.Iorus-—lopaSS resolutions and to amend and to correct.at least on paper. some of the inequities that have happened in the past: but. needless to say. lt obviously cannot stop there. I think we have to go much further and we must ensure that we give back to our native people the pride they once hall. and in order lo do that we obviously have to pay far greater attention to them. to stop destroying their environment, their culture and their surroundings in order for them to be able to prosper as communltles. In conclusion. it is interesting that we are all here in this chamber debating and agreeing on this resolution oi constitutional amendment. and it is my hope that thc resolution we are discussingtonightwill lay thegroundwork for us to discuss further constitutional amendments later. I know that 1 speak only from my own personal views. but it is my hope that there will someday be a resolution in this House in which we will entrench the rights olothers, namely the francophone community. Merci beaucoup. Monsieur ie President. mo pm. Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker. in winding up the debate for our party.I first want to pay tribute to my colleagues in the House who have contrib~ uteri to the debate, led oil by the member for 2226 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY or ONTARIO OCTOBER Algoma (Mr. Wildmanl. followed by the mem~ her for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Brcaugh). Each put on the record of this House the basic concerns our party has with respect to the relationship between the native people of this province. the Indian people of this province and the Ontario government and the relationship with the gov- ernment of Canada. In closing the debate for our side, I want to put our views in some perspective. I hope to shed some light on the historical juncture in which we now find ourselves with respect to thc historical and collective rights of our native people, the Indian people oiOntario. the Indian people of Canada. the native people of Canada. It is perhaps worth recalling that it was I5 years ago that the Prime Ministcrof Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issued a white paper. at which time thc purpose of that white paper was to say that the way to get out oi the anomalous relationship between the federal government and the native people. from the perspective of Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister at that time. as he still is today, was basically for the govern- ment of Canada to pull back and to pull away from its historic relationship and for the Indian people in a sense to develop a direct relation- shipwitll their pr0vlrlr:ialgb\’crtlrrlenlS,io estab- lish a direct relationship with their governments just like all the other citizens of Canada. I suppose it was the classic expression of the assimilationist point of view which stated that there were no particular relationships, policies and legal understandings that could or should be reached with the Indian and native people of Canada, that it was time to cut the cord, as the Prime Minister would have put it at that time, and for the Indian and native people to be seen and treated jusi like everybody else It is important to remember that approach was rejected out of hand by the Indian people and by the native people and was proven to be a political nonstarter back in I968, I969 and I970 when it was put lorward by the Liberal Party at that time. It is important to recognize that the hangover from that point oi view is still very strong. It has apparently taken even more than the Nishga case itself, which was settled in the Supreme Court of Canada. to convince both provincial and federal governments that there issomething unique. particular andspecial in the historic and collective relationship our Indian people and native people have to this country. Those of us who. when we were able tosteal a moment or two. watched the constitutional debate of the first ministers, which was addressed by Chief Billy Diamond, David Ahcnaltew and other leading spokesmen for the Indian and the native people oi Canada. saw this was the first time the people of Canada were exposed to a tradition of point or view, to a tradition of argument which has quite simply been in the wilderness lor too long. The Canadian people and the first ministers were exposed to thc reality that all of the rhetoric that had gone on through the constitu- tional debate about whether we put in or took out the word “existing” in terms of cxisting rights or other rights. or whether some things are said or not said, and the general arguments that were heard and the concessions that were made at the last minute,that there was avery big reality behind the rhetoric, and that it was time for governments to come to terms with that reality. In my view. we are in an extremely exciting time. I have shared the experiences of the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). All of us who have been on reserves in northern Ontario Irom time to time, all of us who have talked with spokesmen lor native peoples, all of us who have been in the friendship centres in many communities across the province and know the htlrnnn problems, who know the poverty and have seen the poverty. who know the problems with booze and drugs. could come away with a perspective that would be missing something in the story. missing something in what has happened. This is really what Iwant to say in this debate. The Indian people and native peoples have accomplished one hell of a lot in the last 10 years. They have done it largely on their own. They have convinced government to move away from the assimilationist point of view. They have thrown that point of view into the trash can of history where it most deservedly belongs. They have forced politicians of all stripes to listen to a very different kind of language and to understand a very diiferent point of view. 1 believe they have even forced the first ministers finally to come to grips with the meaning, the hard reality of what it is wc mean and understand by the historical and collective rights of aboriginal peoples. All the facts aboutpoverty,all the facts about guvernrncnt negligence and mistreatment should I8. I983 2227 not obscure the fact that the native and Indian people of this country have made a giant leap in terms of their having changed the agenda oi constitutional politics in this country and. l daresay, of constilutional politics in this province. They have put the question oi’ rights firmly on the agenda from which it cannot be removed. For that they deserve the thanks oi every single member in this assembly and every single citi- zen of Canada. By awakening us to the impor- tance of understanding their particular relation- ship to this country and to the land and the wealth oi the country. I believe they have touched something very deep in the psyche of all ofuswith respect to a country called Canada. That is a point worth remembering. Thesecond point Iwant to make isthat all the rhetoric that is adopted with respect to this resolution—and let us remember this resolution does not give any concrete meaning to aborigi- nal rights: it does not give any hard concrete content. any real substantive content to the notion oi aboriginal rights—does is put into process a series of consultations. In itself that is a victory. When I questioned the Premier lMr. Davis) on his intentions with respect to the upcoming constitutional meeting last spring, I said in the House that unless they curne away with that as B very minimum. we were in danger of throwing away all the progress that had been made legally . constitutionally, politically and econom- ically with respect to advancing the cause of native rights and the cause oi aboriginal rights in this country. To members opposite I want to suggest the cutting test is now to come. They have agreed on the process. Tory government in Ontario and governments across the country have agreed on the process. Now we come to the crunch. the short. sharp strokes as to what exactly is meant by the phrase, “aboriginal rights,” precisely what is being recognized when we say. as governments are now apparently prepared to say, there are such things as treaty rights, precisely what is the content and what is the meaning of those terms. 3:50 )’l.II!. I have a vcry real concern When I look at the record of this government and at the record of the Canadian government with respect to the meaning of these terms. I know those concerns have been expressed by the member for Algoma and the member for lake Nipigon. among many others. I believe we as a people have to take thc next stepin this province to give real meaning to those terms: and giving real meaning to them means, first of all. recognizing claim to the land itself. I will give one small erample of ihe very real difficulties native people are experiencing with respect to claims for land. In talking withlndlan people. band chiefs and grand council chiefs for Treaty 3 and Treaty 9 and other areas in the province. I sensed they feel that if it was left to thé provincial and federal governments the discussions about land claims could go on forever and never be resolved. The federal government could always blame the provincial government and the provincial 3°”‘””me“l could blame the federal government. They sense there is never going to be a real resolution to the disputes about land. I suggest the Premier should read very care- fully the remarks made by the member lor Lake Nipigon with respect to land. I-lc should read the remarks with respect to the tact that there are Indian people in Treaty 9 who are looking for reserve land and theirclaim to land has not been recognized; neither has their claim to be a band with a relationship to a piece of land been recognized. There is no way governments can get away talking any longer in grandiose language about what their intentions are. I refer to thc speeches by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Pichel and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gor- don) about the new spirit of tolerance and understanding which is building in northern Ontario. None oi those things means anything unless there is a willingness to take the next step with respect to land. Certain concerns were expressed to me when I was in northwestern Ontario I0 days ago. I attended a meeting. as did the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernierl—he followed rile on the agenda-of the grand council of Treaty 3 in the Rat Portage reserve just ouLside Kenora. l mct with the chiefs from the Big Grassy band and the O-ne-ga-ming band and they told inc a story I have confirmed in discussions with the lawyer for those two bands. Mr. Donald Colbomc. He iS a lawycr in Thunder Bay who is involved with negotiating the claim. It is a land claim known as the Assabasca land claim. The claim is for a strip of land ncar Lake of the Woods. about 1,600 acres. The land was originally an Indian reserve aria title was transferred from Ontario to Canada for that purpose. lrl I930, however, through att error in 2228 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO OCTOBER 18. 1983 2229 their records which failed to show the land as a reserve. Ontario started opening it for devel- opmcnt. ltt dealings Llrld correspondence between Ontario and Canada. Canada made the same error -and came to the conclusion the land wa$ not a reserve. As a result. the land was sold. Since the claim was first launched in I977 the governments have admitted their trrror. The settlement negotiations started in earnest about three years ago. There was some progress to the point where the bands involved put their entire position on the table. believing the negotiations were close (L) a conclusion. The meeting to receive the response of the g0\’t:rnrnt:IltS to the lnclian position was convened in Toronto in early July. At that meeting the Ontario government was represented by people who were not previously party to the negotiations. One can imagine the lndiansfceling. Negotiations had been going on for nearly six years and they were coming to one part they thought was near a Conclusion. They turned up at a meeting they thought had been convened to resolve the negotiations and found the representatives lrom thc Ontario govern- mcnt were people who had never previously been involved. lt was utterly incredible. Those negotiators for the Ontario govern- ment said they bad no instructions on how to proceed. Since then they have said they cannot sit down to settle the claim until they sort out with Canada who is responsible for the mess or how responsibility should he divided. The unfairness of this is quite simply that Ontario has known from the very beginning. from 1977 when the Claim was first launched. that these questions are between the govern- ments of Ontario and Canada and would have to be settled. l can assure members that the bands are very upset with the negotiators for the Ontario government for having waited until the llth hour to act. That is one small example. We are talking here about ti land claim lor 1.600 acres. We are not talking about some of the major issues that are currently either before the courts or before the Commissioners in this province. Unless tilt: government of Ontario can show a degree and measure of good faith with respect to a very simple land claim. such as the Athabasca land claim which l have iust described. l would ask members to think about the consequences of what they are doing negotiating in that kind of a way. From my discussions with the Indian earri- munity since becoming the leader oi’ the provin- cial New Democratic Party. there is asense that the Ministry of Natural Resources does not really want to follow through on these negotia- tions und is not really determined to lake thc next step. There is a sense of an almost AliC€-lTl- Wonderland unreality to the discussions taking place. There are the endless delays. six-month adjoumrnents and the replacement of whole teams of negotiators by new trams of negotia- tors who know nothing about what has pre- viously been decided or talked about. I say these words adviscdly: there is a sense of udt really caring or focusing On the issue by the govern- rttcnt of Ontario. Indeed. l have heard it said HS recently as 8 few days ago by the Ministry of Northern Aitairs that the basic ptristdictiott for the lndian people of Ontario rests with the federal government. All along that has been the basic stance the government oi Ontario has taken. All along the government o[Ontario has said. “It is not really our problem orconcern. It is really the problem and concern of another level of government. li you have a pr0b|6m_ go and talk to Ottawa.” When one talks with the native people and with the Indian people about their essential concerns. when it comes to land. wild rice. fishing. hunting. resource management and con- servation, those are all issues which speak directly to the activities of the government of this province. It is not good enough any longer in 1983 forthe Minister t>ff\’orthcrn Affairs tosit
back and say: “it is essentially a matter lor the
government in Ottawa. All we do here is basi-
cally pass on whatever is going on and we are
really not involved.“
As members of my party have pointed out.
the member for Algoma. thc member for Lake
Nipigon and the member iorScarborough West.
in talking about family services and child wel-
fare services and education the provincial gov-
ernment cannot take that position any longer.
The government er Ontario cannot take that
position any longer and the Tory party cannot
getaway with that any longer.
As thc member tit talte Nipigtltt has quite
correctly pointed out. as he pointed out with
such eloquence in his speech the other day. it is
not possible lor the government oi Canada to
give land. in terms of reserve status. unless the
government of Ontario is prepared to give up
some crown land and cede it to the government
r>tCartada sothat it can.in turn.cedeit to create
lands lor reserves. in Treaty 9 the examples are
there in the speech given by the member lor
Lake Nlpigon. That is just one example.
9 p.m.
lwunt to return to tvhat l was saying. The first
point is that these historical and collective rights
meun nothing unless they are attached to a
piece of land. As long as we have a government
over there that is not prepared to deal in good
faith with respect to land. we are not going to
make real progress with respect to the negotia-
tions arid c()nsullaliOl’lS. whether they go on itt
Ottawa. Kcnora or anywhere in Ontario.
We are not going to make real progress in this
province until that government makes a com-
mitment with respect to land claims and the
attachment and the claims of the native people
and the aboriginal people of this province to the
land itself. That fact has to be driven home. Ii
they do not understand that and do not under-
stand that something has to bc given up and
something has to be negotiated. then we are
really not going to makt: a great deal of progress.
The second point l writ-tt to make is with
respect to what the government of this province
has to recognize. lt has to recognize that the
demand lor self-government is not an abstrac-
tion: it has very real substantive meaning. That
demand has been expressed to the federal
committee that has gone acrom rvortherrt Ontario
as it has gone across northern Canada and to
rntmy other parts of Canada where the Indian
people and the native people are living.
When we look at the sense of anger and of
frustration of the lndizm people with respect to
their wild rice resource in northwestern Ontar-
io. their fishing and hunting rights and a new
area that is going to become Of increased
importanccwith respect tomanagementolboth
nonrenewable and rertcwahlc resources. l say
there is rm way we ate going to get over the
problem of massive joblessness on reserves
unless we say; “Fine. let us give real responsibil-
ity and real authority to the bands on the
reserve. not only with respect to relatively
minor matters but also with respect to the
foundation oi’ the real economy on those reserves.“
lithe real economy on a reserve is fishing. let us
give the responsibility with respect to conserva-
tion of that resource to the Indian people
themselves On that reserve.
1 want to congratulate the Minister ol?\‘atural
Resources (Mr. Pope) for trying to do that. In
fact. if his efforts had not been undermined by
the man who is sitting there in the front row. the
Minister of Northern Affairs. we might have
made some real progress with respect to fishing
rights and the rights of the lndian people on
reserves to real authority with respect to
This government goes off in all directions: it
has the Minister of Natural Resources saying
one thing in the north and the Miniittr of
Northern Affairscompletcly underminingevery
attempt by the government to reach agreements
in good laith and to have those agreements have
real teeth and real meaning. That is the face of
the Tory party in northern Ontario. and that is
the face of thc Tory party which has to he
cttposcd in this province.
We cannot have the Minister of Natural
Resources getting up and saying. “This is the
kind oi agreement we want to reach when the
Ministeroft’\’orthem Affairs isgoingaround the
province writing letters. even to the Minister of
Natural Resources himself. expressing his c0n~
cerns with respect to that agrcemcnt. it that
agreement is a dead letter—-and I have heard it
said that it is a dead letter—then let the respon-
sibility for it being a dead letter lie straight.
fairly. firmly and squarely on the shoulders of
the Minister of Norlhem Affairs.
In doing that. in undermining thatagreement.
we have taken a step backwards in this prov-
ince. I know there were concerns expressed by
some hands. and indeed I know there were
corlcems expressed very directly to me by the
Grand Council of Treaty 3 with respect to that
agreement. but l still say any advancement that
is going to be made with respect to self-
government has got to come to grips with the
responsibility that has to be given to the lndian
reserves. to the Indian bands themselves. with
respect to conservation.
Lord knows. l sometimes hcaritsaid.and it is
sometimes expressed privately. that if we rec»
ognize the historic rights to fishing and hunting.
the resource will be depleted in two. three. four
or tive years and it will be all gone. I want to
suggest that view is nol only profoundly insult-
ing to the Indian and native people of this
province: it is also absurd and it is dead wrong.
Given the record of the Ministry of Natural
Resources with respect to the renewal of a
fundamental resource like forestry. it is hard to
imagine anybody doing a worse job than that
ministry with respect to the renewal ol that
ll we are going to make progress in this
province. and I believe we are all agreed that
progress has to take the direction of self-
govcmrnent. that selfgovemment has to involve
a real devolution of authority with respect to

conservation of a basic resource like wild rice.
as well as fishing. hunting and Other renewable
and nonrenewablc resources.
If we do not give the Indian people, thc
people on the reserves. a direct stake in the
resources upon which their economy is based,
we are cutting off the only avenue that I believe
is possible for economic development in the
reserves of northern Ontario.
All the wt’.ll—mearlir\g schemes that may come
out of the heads of various people will have no
meaning at all unless they are attached with
roots to the real economy oi those reserves. One
cannot have an industrial strategy or an eco-
rlomic strategy for the northern reserves that is
based on some abstraction or abstract theory. It
has to he based on what the people grow. what is
there. what is growing and living. what is close
to the land. what is indigenous to the land itself
and what is indigenous to the tradition of the
Indian people themselves.
That is not to say we are not going to move
beyond that and have effective manufacturing.
sawmills and so on; but those are only going to
lie effective as and when we give real rights with
respect to cutting and management of the basic
resource itself.
In conclusion. I want to suggest that we are in
the middle of nothing short of a constitutional
and political revolution. Many of the ideas upon
which common law lawyers were raised. about
the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. about
the nature of an individual’s relationship to the
state and about an ittdividuafs relationship to
the law. are really inadequate to describe what
is unique about Canada.
We are one oi those unique nations whose
original people were essentially conquered by
colonists. and yet whose original people have
carried on traditions, a way of life, a way of
fueling, a way of being. a way of relating to the
land. a way of relating to this country that we
now have to come to terms with as the children
of the original colonists in this country.
It is something that is going todemand agrcat
deal ofingenuity— not only intellectual ingenu-
lty but also very real political and economic
ingenuity. All of us are chcapened byour failure
to have C0me to grips with this issue, with the
frustrations, with the poverty, with the sense ol
lost opportunity and with the solitudes. the
silences and the resentments that have grown up
for so long between the communities of this
province and of this country.
9:10 p.ni,
I see this as a real opportunity. I saw it as an
opportunity at thc time of the constitutional
debate when I was a federal member in Ottawa.
I saw it as an opportunity when our federal
leader made an extraordinary effort to involve
the leadership of the Indian and native commu-
nities in that process. however flawed it was.
and at least to get some recognition. when we
came back after the Premiers made their agree-
ment. we managed to get it back on the agenda
again. We have made a last-ditch effort now to
establish the process of consultation and get it
built into the system. So we have made that
degree and amount of progress.
I want to suggest that we are now up against
what I call the short. short strokes. We are now
in a situation where the good faith and the
integrity of government itself are at stake.
Unless we make some very real progress with
respect to the issues that I and my colleagues
have described, with respect to the issues of
land claims and self-govcmment and with respect
to the particular issues of wlld rice. fishing.
hunting and resource management, and unless
we do that quickly. we are sowing the seeds of
our own destruction. That is a very real feeling
on our side. Thar is a very real feeling on the
part of our members. That is why we have
participated in this debate in the way in which
we have.
I would also like to say that I am personally
sorry the Premier chose not to participate in a
debate of this historic importance. It is not often
that an assembly such as ours gets to discuss an
amendment to the Constitution oi this country.
and I find it peculiar, to put it mildly. that the
Premier would have chosen not to involve
himself in discussions. It casts some doubt in my
own mind as to the seriousness which this
government attaches to the process that is
under way. It is a process which we do take
seriously. and I hope to God they take it
seriously on the other side.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker. as a member
who has some responsibility for about 2! or 22
reserves in his riding, as one who has lived in
northern Ontario tor some half a century now.
as uric who has lived, worked and played with
thc native people of that area and as one who
over the course of the past I7 years of his
political life has gained a certain amount of trust
and respect-and that is reflected at the polls-I
might say at the outset that I have some
contribution to make to this debate.
I look upon it as a very historic debate. one
that has never happened before in tny t1 years
here. 1 suppose one could look on it as historic
a5 the debate we had in this Legislature with
respect to ihe referendum in Quebec. To me it
has more importance. I did gct involved in that
debate with a great deal of sensitivity because of
my French-Canadian background. but I also
have a background that is iairly closely con-
nected with the native people of northwestern
Ontario. and I am very proud of that.
Members may not realize. but my fathcr-in-
law was nlarricd to a iulbblooded Indian. She
was from the riding of Lakc Nipigon: she was
from Cat Lake. She was married to my wife’s
father. Dallas Gastmeier, and they operated a
fur trading store at Allan Water. Savant Lake
and Alcona. That was in the early l‘)2\§s. They
had three sons. One of them is still living in my
own home town <>fHuds0n,and he is very much
part of our family. There is no question about
As one who has lived with that particular
situation, as one who for 35 years now in his
married life has been part of a family that is
connected with the native people and has seen
firsthand the problems that they and their
children are associated with, I reel that I am
very well qualified to speak in this debate.
I listened with some interest to the other
members of the Legislature. I listened to the
leader of the New Democrats speak. and I have
to say to the honourable member that after a
::Quple of trips. maybe one or two trips to
northwestern Ontario, people sometimes become
authorities. We refer to those people as inners
antl outers. They come in for a day and they are
gone again. They do not really get the feel we
have in northwestern and northern Ontario.
However. I do appreciate the comments. As I
will point out, 1 appreciate and certainly wel-
come the contribution other members have
At the outset. I want to compliment my
colleague the member lor High Park-Swansea
(Mr. Shymko) for his efforts. He made mention
of the fact that he felt very strongly we should
have in this Legislature a member of the native
community. I have made this suggestion on a
number of occasions.
The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes)
will recall when I suggested that there should be
a riding lrom Mocsortee to the Manitoba bor-
dcr. taking thc top of the Kenora riding. the top
of thc lake Nipigon riding and the top of thc
Cochranc North riding and making that a sepa-
rate riding. It we were todo that. we would have
a member from the native oomrnunity sitting in
this Lcgislature,spealring for the people of that
area and indeed for all the native people of
That has not happened yet. Maybe it will with
the redistribution of the electoral boundaries in
the next go~around. There is a golden opportu»
nity for that to happen. I hope I am still around
when it does happen, because in my own heartl
know that the three members who look after
that vast atca of the remote north do not look
alter it as well as they should.
We get up there one. two or perhaps three
times a year. I make it a point to get up there on
a regular basis, but I think a local member
elected in thatarea could doamuch bettcrjob. I
compliment the member for High Park-Swansea
for making that suggestion. to which I give
strong support.
My colleague the Minister of Intergovern-
mental Affairs (Mr. Wells] has outlined the
prOCess through which we have travelled to
reach this historic moment in the lite of our
country. this province and our first citizens.
In reviewing the remarks of others who have
preceded me in rhisdebate. I find not only that a
number of very important matters have already
been addressed at length but also that there
appears to be a strong sense of commitment by
all the members of this Legislature. We are now
embarking on a new and,I hope. more exciting
chapter in our relations with our aboriginal
I was impressed by the remarks of the mom»
her forAlgoma (Mr. Wildman) and the member
int Lake Nipigon and by thc excellent remarks
of the member FOI Bram-0>tford—Norioik (Mr.
Nixon). In their statements, those members
brought to our attention the broad range of
needs and aspirations of the native peoples of
this province.
The member for Lake Nipigon described
accurately and very well the northern woodland
Cree and Ojibway people who live in his riding
and in my own riding of Kenora. The problems
ht: discussed arc both immediate and graphic.
and concern the absolute necessity of ensuring
an economic base for a growing population
All these communities are isolated geograph-
ically. The cost to both govemrncnts and the
individual band members is high and growing
each year. As the member for Cochrane North
(Mr. PiChél mentioned in his remarks. my
ministry hasjustcomplcted an in-depth study of
the high cost of transportation and living in the
remote north. At present. we are wailing for

comments by the various bands. by the various
tribal grqupsand by the various treaty groups to
that study and report. Then we hope to take
action on some of the many recommendations. I
might say we have already acted on a number oi
those recommendations. and these will be spelled
out at another place and lime.
I am pleased that some steps have been taken
in recent years. To listen to some members. one
would think nothing has happened in the remote
parts of northern Ontario with respect to our
native people. That is not totally correct.
We have improved our communications and
now can guarantee yearrround access to supplies
through such provincially funded programs as
our airstrip development program. which up to
this time has cost this province about S25
million: our radio and television communica-
tions program. which has cost about $17 mil-
lion; and our winter roads program. which costs
about 5500.000 annually to serve that vast area
of the remote north.
in addition. I am pleased to say rny ministry.
in cooperation with Tvontario, is bringing
coverage to about I60 pockets or population
throughout that entire part of northern Ontario
at a cost oi some S3 million.
9t20 p.rn.
lhad the privilege tobein SandyLakea‘t>outa
year and a hall ago and I was most impressed to
meet with the chief. Tom Fiddler. He invited me
to his home and he said. “Leo. l want you to sec
what has happened here.” We walked into his
living room. he turned to the door and he
flipped a switch. on Went electric lights. Ht-
walked over to the Corner where he had at
25-inch colour television set. He turned it on.
Then he walked over to the table, he picked up
the telephone and dialed his Son Jonas. He said.
“Jonas. come On over. Leo’s here.”
I-lesaid: “Leo. that was not here l0or I5 years
ago. It’s here now. We have electricity in Sandy
Lake. I have television perfectly clear via satel-
lite and via other transmissions. I have a modern
telephone system and. believe it or not. I gel my
mail every day because of the airstrip that was
developed there. That is something we never
had before.”
Mr. Stokes: Does he have 2 job?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Does he have a job now‘!
The member knows as well I do that there is
very little economic base there. but the basic
necessities of life are being put in place. That
iront of these buildings when Queen Elizabeth
was here. I-Ie presented her with a personal
letter thanking her for the things the federal and
provincial governments of this country had
done for his people.
It wasastep forward-. tlota big step but hewas
grateful for what had been done in the field of
health. affecting his culture and improving the
quality oi life. That was a very inspiring moment.
I do not want the House to feel nothing is
happening in northern Ontario. I think the
member for Lake Nipigon will agree that as long
as we have been in this L/ttgislaturevand we
have been around here for about I7 years-
many changes have occurred in the remote
parts of that particular area. albeit slower than
we would have liked. I grant that. but there are
changes and they are coming about.
Mr. 5lokes: What about Deer Lake. North
Hon. Mr. Bemier: Deer Lake‘? I was there two
weeks ago to open a new Sl.7.~million airport.
They are very pleased and excited. Has the
member ever heard of an Indian reservation
talking about a new subdivision? That was not
heard of I0 years ago. Now they are talking
aboutasubdivision of I2 to I5 homes: so things
are happening.
Mr. Stokes: When are you going to give them
Hon. Mr. Bernier: We give them land. Oh yes.
lwatlt to talk about that. I was interested to hear
the members remarks. I also think the member
for Lake Nipigon made some comments about
the problems they are having wiLh some land in
Summer Beaver and Slate Falls. I Want to point
out to the House that I was Minister of Natural
Resources when we settled the Big Trout issue.
it took some lime. It took many years of
l am very pleased that more members of the
opposition are taking the time to go up to
northern Ontario to meet those people and see
them at first hand. It was good to see the
elders—their pictures are in thc paper. in the
Wawatay =\’ewsI have herein my handmgathcred
at that official airport opening. and to have the
Rev. Alex Barkman stand there in his place and
give the blessing to the airport through an
He pointed out that he had been in Saettigo
since he was seven years of age. and he is now
seeing the changes and is very pleased. not only
for himsell but lor his children who are living in
the Sachigo area. They now have communica-
tions. provided by the provincial government.
that will give them the daily services and
medical services they need. They are very
grateful that things are happening.
Mr. Stokes: Did he tell the minister how much
he paid for a gallon of gas‘?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: it will be a lot cheaper now
that the airstrip is in place. There is no question
about that.
On this same point. the federal member lor
our area. John Reid. and I were invited to
Round Lake about a year and a half ago to
attend the 50th anniversary of the Round Lake
Indian band. The member lor Lake Nipigon
may know Saul Keeash. the tortner chief. He
stood there on the platform and recited. chapter
and verse.37 differentprograms that the lederal
during the last few years that have directly
helped his people in that area. It was gratifying.
because it was unexpected and unsolicited. to
hear a former chief recite to all these people and
to us. It was a very satisfying feeling indeed.
Comforting though it was. again I have to say
that some oi these things are coming much morfl
slowly than I would have liked. To deal with
these problems adequately. we clearly cannot
confine our view of the needs of these commu-
nities to the quest merely to right the wrongs of
history or to a too narrow inteptetation oi the
provisions of the various treaties signed by the
federal govemnlent and the variou$ Indian
bands in this province.
This brings me to my second observation.
which was very well addressed by thy lricnd the
member lor Algorna. That is the necessity to
avoid a too narrow intepretation of the word
“existing” as it relates to the moral relationship
between govemment and our native people. I
fully agree that Canada’s view oi its moral
commitment to these citizens cannot limit their
rights in any way. On the contrary, our constitut
tional framework for ab<>riginal rights should be
suiiiciently flexible that it can adapt to the
changing needs of Indian people in the years
In a conversation with the Attorney General
(Mr. .\/icMttrtryl this afternoon, he pointed out
to me that the legal experts Of this province
pointed out to him that the word “existing“ in
the Constitution as it is written does not really
change anydting. However. he correctly pointed
out that some of the other provinces do not
share that view. I think we agree on that. That is
where the problem lies.
Mr. Haggerty: Which provinces? Tell us.
Hon. Mr. Bemier: The member knows which
ones. I do not have to tell him.
The member for Brant>Oxford-Norfolk in his
iernarl-.s spoke eloquently of the way ol life oi
the Six Nations Indians. the sophistication of
public services and administration which the
elected band council provides.
Indeed. in the examples he chose. a case
could well be made in support of suggestions
now being studied by a parliamentary commit-
tee in Ottawa~l believe it is chaired by the
former member from my area. Keith P€!\l’\£:f-
to introduce a much broader system of self-
government for reserves across Canada and st
greater degree of autonomy in the operation oi
their band schools.
I was pleased to read. again in the Wa WLI T13’

News, a copy of which I have here, that they are
moving in that direction. It is encouraging to
read that in the Sioull Lookout district alone. Z5
per cent of the full-time teaching staff are
natives and another 29 percent of the classroom
assistants are natives. That is a major step
forward, and I am sure the member for lake
Nipigon will agree that we are heading in the
right direction and getting the right people in
those classrooms. Now we must rake the next
step and give them total control and autonomy
in the educational system.
What we see in the remarks so far in this
debate is the complex range of interests of
native peoples and the varying degrees of eco-
nomic, political and cultural self-sufficiency of
the different Communities.
mo phi.
When this amendment to our Col’tStitutl<>n is
in place, it is my hope that the federal and
plovirlcial governments will begin the impor-
tant task of redefining their areas ofjurisdiction
and that this redefinition of responsibility will
include a much larger place for Indian band
councils than has been possible up to now. As I
move around to the various Indian bands and
reservations as a minister or as a local member.
if there is one problem I see it is to find out
where the area of responsibility really lies.
In many cases we have extended beyond what
some people think is our provincial responsibili-
ty. In the economic development field, when I
was Minister of Natural Resources I remember
having staff go to Lake Winnipeg and actually
purchase a shallow fishing boat that we trucked
to Round Lake where we put it on a helicopter
and flew it to Sachigo Lake to mist them in
their fishing operations. Many people said it was
not ourjurisvdiction, but we saw a need and we
answered that need. I was pleased to be part of
When this Ccnstitutional amendment is in
place. I hope a whole new Indian policy would
emerge that will be able to address not only the
desperate needs of communities such as those in
my riding and in Lake Nipigbn riding, but the
needs of the Six Nations Indians and many
others as well. We must also recognize that at no
point since Confederation has Canada been
prepared to respond to the varying needs of
Indian communities. It has always been the
other way around.
At dte time of Confederation, and for virtually
I00 years. the policy of the federal government
has been to assimilate all Indian cultures into
the European cultures of Canada without Spe-
cial legal status. without a land base and without
distinctive cultural and political institutions.
Clcarly, this policy is unacceptable to our native
people and to all other Canadians. By this
constitutional amendment we are, in effect.
saying it is unacceptable to the laws of Canada.
Mr. §loltes= You have all the crown land.
non. Mr. Bemier: They will get it.
Where do we go from here’! In my view we
begin by removing the paternalism of goverrr
ment in establishing coroperative mechanisms
to establish development priorities, acceptable
living standards and an economic base suffi-
cient to meet the needs of each Indian commu-
nity in the country.
I do not believe our native people will any
longer tolerate their isolation from the decision-
making process that affects their day~to-day
lives and the confrontational relationship which
so often characterizes their relationships with
the federal government.
Provincial governments also need to know
how they can cooperate with the federal gov~
ernment in new and more creative ways to
provide services on the reserve and to assist
those who choose to live and work off the
reserve, To integrate, and if so to what extent,
or to remain living on a reserve is a decision
which each native person must feel free to make
without bureaucratic interference and without
the fear of loss of rights or loss of support.
A new co-operative approach to policy for-
mation should also include the participation of
municipal governments who are called upon to
provide services which are not infrequently
beyond their financial capacity. It should include
as well, other users of the resources of this great
I believe we have more than enough wealth in
this country to provide for the needs of all
Canadians. native, non-native. Metis and those
of us from other parLs of the world. We are one
of the greatcultural mosaics of theworld and we
must ensure the rights and privileges of each. I
do not believe it is an impossible task. If we
develop a sufficiently flexible approach to meet
the complex needs of all Canadians. there is
ample room in Canada for all of us,
I hope and pray that this constitlldonal amend-
ment will bury once and for all the narrow
paternalism of the past, the bureaucratic night»
mares which have enmeshed our native com-
munities and strangled their creativity and the
jurisdictional sttaitjacket of federabprovincial
relationships on questions affecting our native
Mr. Stokes: What about the fishing agree
ment? You didn’t mention that.
Hon. Mr. Bemier: The feds have killed it.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, may I just
conclude for a minute’? I think it is in order for
the mover to round out the debate. Ido not want
to be long. but I would just like to say that-
YVIr. Stokes: Please do. because you missed
most of it.
lion. Mr. Wells: No, l have read most of it. l
have read it all.
I wasgoing to say to my lricnd and to all those
who took part that I thought their contributions
were excellent. This is probably the most impor-
tant debate we have had in this House on native
issues and on aboriginal matters, and the con-
tributions of all members were excellent, I think
they indicate that all panics arc of one mind that
we should be moving ahead to solve many of
these problems, to address ourselves to some of
the wrongs that have existed and to recognize
the rights of our ab0rigin3l peoples in this
We may all have different Ways Of Solving
some of those problems. but we all on all sides of
this House are committed to that particular end
and I think the discussions that took place in this
particulardebate indicated that. I think we have
moved one small step forward in asserting and
assentirtg to the rights of the aboriginal peoples
of this province by what we are doing tonight in
passing this constitutional amendment.
This amendment is a first. of course. lor this
Legislature because it is the first time we have
taken part officially in an amending process to
the Constitution of Canada. It is also the first
time that the new amending procedures for our
Canadian Constitution have come into play, For
llfi years we had no formal way Ql amending the
Constitution. We now have a method: it is being
used for the first time, and I think very rightly
so, to take that one small but very important
Step forward in the area Of aboriginal rights and
our affirmation of them to the native peoples of
this province and of this country.
This resolution. ofcourse. has been passed by
the House of Commons; it has not yet been
passed by the Senate, so thc federal process is
not completed. It has been passed by the Nova
Scotia Legislature. the New Brunswick Legislar
lure. the Prince Edward Island Legislature, the
Manitoba Legislature and the Alberta Legisla-
ture. Whcn we pass this tonight We will. of
course. become the sixth province to pass it.
One more provincial passage will be required.
and the official passage by the Senate. tomakc it
part of Canada’s Constitution.
I think it has been a very important debate
and that the contributions of all members will be
heeded by all of us who have to llrlng forward
programs and planning in this particular area. l
would urge the members of this House to
enthusiastically and unanimously carry this res-
olution tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: We thank all the mem-
bers for their participation.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker. I am sorry. Ifl
have the consent of the House. I might just
indicate that my friend the Attomey General
it/Ir. Mcivlurtry), who took p8\’t in all these
meetings with me as we worked up to this
particular amendment, intended to make a
contribution tonight but could not be here
because he had to be at the dinner for the
Ombudsman. He wanted me to say that he did
have some important remarks to make and he
will have a chance to make them. he hopes, on
another occasion in thc House on this very
important matter.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on resolu-
tion I0.
All those in favour of the motion will please
say “aye.” __
All those opposed will please say “nay.
I declare the motion carried unanimously.
Resolution concurred in.
Hon. G. W. Taylor moved second reading of
Bill 86. An Act toamend certain Acts respecting
Regional and Metropolitan Municipalities.
Holt. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker. on this
matter. it is a consolidation of amendments to a
number of bills respecting regional and metro-
politan municipalities. This bill amends nirlc
statutes establishing regional municipalities and
the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Each of these actscurrently requires at least one
member of the board of commissioners of
police to be a judge. This requirement is being
removed. It issirnilar to an amendment that was
made in the Police Act in I979. It is really
intended to afford greater flexibility in making
appointments to regional boards and the Mob
ropolitan Toronto police board. I think it is in
line with today’s thinking on judges perfonning
tlutics for police commissions. It is one that I do
not think needs great elaboration and debate
and one that I put forward and await the

comments of other members of the House. l am
mentioning this so that one can see the context.
mo p.rn.
Bill S7 isa companion bill. I would propose to
ease the convenience of the l-louse if it is
possible to have first and second reading on
both these bills and then put them into commit-
tee oi the whole House at the same time. If that
aids further debate on the matter. I put those
recommendations to you. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Spensieri: Mrt Speaker, I am pleased to
make what will surely be a brief intervention on
this second reading. As thc Solicitor General
has indicated. it is a rather modest amendment
to the existing statutes and it would not be in
order for any of us to engage in too long a
However. a numbcr Of things should be said
and perhaps one could begin by saying that the
previous requirement contained in the various
municipality statutes required that the judge be
a judge from a county or district court desig-
nared by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
By removing this requirement. the present bill
still makes it quite optional on the Lieutenant
Governor to appoint. as one oi the members. a
person who may very well be ajudge.
Current thinking and experience in this field
seem to suggest that the presence of a person
trained and having the dutics and responsibili-
ties of u judge does not always lend any greater
efficacy to the board ofcommissioners. On this
side Of the House we would have preferred
perhaps to sec the wording as requiring that no
person who was a judge be eligible for
However, we are certain. and the Solicitor
General has indicated in other places, that thc
practice of continuing to appoint judges will in
all likelihood he discontinued. particularly given
the ever-increasing pressures they have come
under asa result of the case load which sec-rns to
be increasing in every one of the metropolitan
areas affected by this bill.
In essence, we consider the bill to be support»
able in its present forrn and we would hope the
Solicitor General will indicate clearly on record
that it would be the preference, intent and
certainly stated policyof this government at this
time that future appointments stay away from
members of the bench.
With those remarks and reserving further
re-marks on the companion bill,l will conclude.
Mr. Renwidr: Mr. Speakcr, I would like I0
speak to Bill 86. an Act to amend certain Acts
respecting Regional and Metropolitan Munici-
palities. as it touches upon police matters. First
of all. l would like to express in the l—lousc—and
I know I do on behalf of all members present-
the shock and concern we experienced when we
read of what appears to be the senseless.
mindless killing of police officer David Utman
in the Ottawa area two or three days ago, The
funeral was held yesterday.
Whenever we touch upon police matters.
there is usually a sense that we are talking about
people we know, people we have come to have
confidence in. When these acts of mindless
violence occur in our Society, it affects all of us.
particularly those of us in this assembly who
represent all the people of Ontario collectively.
I think we. in particular. have an obligation to
express our concern, our sympathy and our
understanding of the role police officers play in
providing the protection society requires. They
play their part on our behalf and as out
I would express our concern to the family of
that deceased police officer without ‘presump-
lion, on behalf of all the members of the
assembly at this untimely, useless and mindless
act. As reported in the press. it deprived the city
of a ntan who was dedicated in his interest in the
police profession. His brief history would indi-
cate this dedication deserves our highest
We had a most interesting discussion in our
caucus this morning about the provisions of this
bill and about the companion bill. Bill 87,
dealing with the amendments to the Police Act.
Our discussion was mainly concemed with the
provision related to the composition of police
commissions, which has been 2 matter of con-
tinuous comment in this assembly for a long
We all welcomed the amendment to the
Police Act in I979 that removed the mandatory
obligation that police commissions falling under
the purview of that act must of necessity have a
judge as a member. l have never followed it that
closelysol do not know towhat extent there has
been a grandfathering of the judges on those
various police commissions throughout the prov-
ince to which the Police Act applies.
I have. however, been aware of the manda-
tory requirement that a judge be a member of
the police commission in all the regional gov-
ernments in the province, including the Metro-
politan Toronto region. indeed, in the Metro-
politan Toronto area We have had the anomaly
of two judges. a county court judge and provin-
cial court judge, lt has been the tradition-
certainly well known to the Conservative Party~
that the chairman of the board of police com-
lnissionersin Metropolitan Toronto should bea
provincial court judge. Those are matters oi
history and do not need any recitation on my
In our discussion in caucus it was interesting
to listen to my colleagues who were slwaklng
about two aspects of thc question. Ont: was this:
is it sufficient at this time that the Solicitor
General can say to the assembly that it will no
longer be mandatory that there be ajudge of the
county court as a member of the regional
governments board of police commissioners‘! Is
it sufficient to say that it is no longer mandatory
that thcre be a judge as a member of the
Metropolitan Toronto Board of Police Com-
missioners? One of the incidenml changes brought
about by the bill is the renaming from the more
cumbersome title of the Metropolitan board to
thc shorter Form.
9:50 p.u:.
Our caucus felt very strongly. certainly thc
Metropolitan Toronto members felt strongly
and the other members of the caucus expressed
their views positively on the question. that it was
important that the act would require specific-
ally and make provision thal no person holding
a position as a judge and exercising the lunc-
lions pr a judge should be a member pt any
police commission, specifically any regional
board of police commissioners or the Metropol-
itan Toronto Board of Police Commissioners or
any of the other boards of police commission-
crs. on a pet-rnissive basis or otherwise.
ln other words, we wanted to preclude the
govcmmcrll of Ontario from appointing any
judges as members of boards of police commis-
sioners in the future. in addition, our caucus lelt
strongly that it was important to make certain
that those judges who now served on boards of
police commissioners in Ontario at all levels
should not be eligible f0r reappointment at the
expiration of their existing terms.
The feeling was that it was important from
our point of view, regardless of whatever views
the government may have had in thc mixlure of
views which obviously the members of the
Conservative Party would express on such an
issue or that my colleagues in the Liberal Party
would express. not to leave the permissive
factor available to the government of Ontario
with respect to future appointments but also
specifically to provide in the bill at provision that
no present appointee who is a judge would be
eligible lor reappointment on the expiration of
his tenn.
We would, therefore, propose when the bill
goes into committee.and it is ourinrention. as I
advised the Solicitor General and my colleague
the critic for the Liberal Party, to put the bill in
committee. at the appropriate time to move the
amendment to give effect to those prohibitions.
I would trust in the course of the exchange on
the debate that the reasonableness and the
positive nature oi the position we put on that’
issue would be accepted by the govemment.
and accepted by the Liberal Party.
T he second concern we had with respect to
the bill is about the financing Of police. My
colleague thc member tut Welland-Thorold
(Mr. Swarl) is much more knowledgeable about
these matters than I, having been a municipal
councillor for a long lime, just as other mem-
bers. both in the Conservative Party and the
Liberal Party. have sewed as municipal council-
lors. Perhaps some oi them may have served as
members on boards of police commissioners, as
my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold
so sewed.
A major concern we had is in the question of
the financing of the police by the municipalities.
I think it is somewhat trite to say there should be
a better relationship between those who bear
the burden ofdctennining the numberofdollals
which are to be spent and have the responsibil-
ity for raising the number of dollars that are
required, along with whatever grants are made
available from the provincial government, to
ensure some balance, and those membcrsol the
police commissions who are appointees of the
government of Ontario. They should bear a
prcpcr proportionate relationship to those mem~
hers who are representative of the communities
to which the police forces are accountable in
the ultimate sense.
I think it is trite to say, whatever the actual
figures are, that substantially more than two
thirds of the cost of the police iorces in any
municipality in Ontario are borne within the
local municipalities by the general rates which
are imposed upon the citizenry of that munici-
pality and to whom thc elected members of the
municipal councils are responsible.
We, therefore. would propose a second
amendment, a very imponant amendment, which
I think would appeal to all members of the
assembly because of the slated position of the
government on so many occasions, that munici-
pal autonomy is a matter Close and dear to the
hearts of the Conservative government and of

zzss LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY or ONTARIO 0c’r0BER 18. i983 2239
the Liberal Party. it is that in some Way
the suggested amendment— not of major
significance~should change the balance of
those hoards so that the amendment which now
provides that two members of the five-man
boards will be appointees, one way or another.
of the municipal auLhority and three members
will be appointees of the provincial govemment
would simply be reversed. That is a very seduc-
tive proposition, I hope. It is not a major
change. It is not a matter of suggesting that
every vote that comes before a police commis-
sion at the regional level or at the Metropolitan
Toronto level is always subject to avote which is
split between the rival factions on the board;
that is not the way the boards operate.
I think it would be a sign of good faith in the
proposition that the rnunicipal politicians, who
have the responsibility for raising the money
and expending the funds to maintain in large
proportion the municipal police forces in the
regions and in Metropolitan Toronto. should be
able to say what makes sense. Members will
note that we have not gone to any extreme
position; the extreme positions tend to be the
positions of the Conscrvative Party or the
Liberal Party. We have tried to come right up
the middle simply to say just reverse the num-
bers. Pretend it was a typographical error in the
bill and that they really meant that two members
would be appointed by the Lieutenant Gover-
nor in Council and three members would be
within the purview of the municipal authorities.
It is a sleight-of-hand game and, considering
the lack of attention which is paid to this
assembly, I do not think anybody would notice
if we passed that bill tonight. I do not think that
it wculd explode within the regional municipali-
ties or otherwise if it was suddenly leamed that
the municipal councils were to have the author-
ity to elect three as distinct from two and the
Lieutenant Governor in Council could only
appoint two instead of three. I do not think it
would be considered a revolution in the municl~
pal life otthe country. I think thisassembly in its
contemplative view~and it is only those mem-
bers who are in the assembly tonight who are
really interested in this t0pic—will see the sweet
rcasonablenessof the proposition I place before
the assembly with respect to our second
I know it will be perhaps said that in the
fullness of time we could change three to two
and two to three. but maybe tonight we could
grasp the nettle and change three to two and two
to three in that bill. That is what we would like
to try to do because we have the members widi
the greatest wisdom. the greatest interest and
thc greatest knowledge of municipal alfairshere
assembled tonight, small as that number may
be. When the point comes up in committee of
the whole House, I would urge that the House
seriously to consider supporting that second
amendment as well, of course. as the first
amendment I have put before it.
ln order not to antagonize, because we are
not engaged in confrontation, as my colleagues
the Liberals are with the Conservative Party on
these issues, we are not going to vote against the
bill on its second reading. We are not going to
oppose it. we simply want reason to prevail in
committee on the two amendments I have said
we in this party propose.
10 p.m.
The third one is of greater interest to those
members who represent the ridings of Metro
politan Toronto, or whom so many are in
attendance in the House tonight. The Minister
for Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wellsl. my
colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClel-
lan) and I, perhaps represent the cream of the
crop when it comes to discussion of this kind of
Mr. Reuwickz Forgive me. My colleague the
member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) is here.
So there are four of us here tonight who would
respond positively to thc real concern expressed
in Metropolitan Toronto about the lack of
representation on the Metropolitan Board of
Commissioners oi Police of the community for
which they are responsible in relation to the
aclminiSlrati0n of the police.
We will, therefore, be proposing an amend-
ment to do two things, one of which will be to
increase substantially the number of the Metro
politan Board of Commissioners of Police in a
real sense, in a way that will appeal, I trust, to
the members of the assembly who are here
Numbers have a certain magic to them. I am
not certain what one calls those numbers that
are not divisible by any other number. but if my
recollection is correct, there is a specific term.
Nineteen is one of those numbers. Nothing can
be done with 19. One cannot divide it. It does
not divide into anything. except by the use of my
computer. I do not know what it does if one
finds the square root of I9. In iuelf is a magic
number and that is the number we in our party
have selected as the maximum number for the
Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police.
The number ls made up this way, and it is
quite simple. The chairman of the metropolitan
courlcil,—perhaps those with a pencil could add
them up-—and, in addition, one member Oi the
metropolitan council, appointed by thc metr<>~
polllan council. That would reduce the total
number of appointeesor members of metropolr
itan council as such, from three to two; that is.
the chairman and one member as distinct from
the chairman and two members. as is proposed
in the bill and as has been the case for some
It seemed to us to make very good sense that
there should be one member of the council of
each of the municipalities in Metropolitan
Toronto who is not a member of the metropoli-
tan council. One member of each of those
councils should be appointed by that area
municipal council. It is the sense of our caucus
that the dispersal of the membership through-
out, so that each area municipality would have
one member who is a member of council on that
Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police.
would be a useful and important addition to
achieve the goals we are concerned about in the
Metro police commission. If my numbers are
correct, I believe there are six area municipali-
ties: Toronto, York, East York, Scarborough.
North York and Etobicoke. That would. there~
lore, bring my numbers up to eight members.
The next portion of our amendment would be
to provide for nine further members of the
commission who are not rncmbers of any area
municipal council, who would be appointed by
the metropolitan council. In other words, there
would be nine members added to the board of
police commissioners from among the general
citizenry. to be appointed by metropolitan coun-
cil. The only disability they would be under is
that they could not be a member of any council
in Metropolitan Toronto.
That would bring the number to 17. Then, to
presewe for always the integrity and the virtue
of the government of Ontario, two members
would be appointed by the Lieutenant Gover-
nor in Council. This would make 3 total of l9
members on the Metropolitan Board of Com-
missioners of Police.
For those who fear a revolution if such an
amendment were passed, there would still be a
majority of government members over citizen
members. With the two appointees of the pro
vincial govemment, those who are elected either
at the metropolitan council level or in the area
municipalities would have a voting edge of ll) to
nine over those who were represented simply in
their role as citizens.
I am sure the magic of those numbers will
appeal to my friend the Solicitor General. I
think the Minister of intergovernmental Affairs
will also understand the importance of these
amendments. as he is a member from Metropol-
itan Toronto. He will understand the necessity
ol making certain the Metropolitan Board of
Commissioners of Police in Metro reflects appro-
priately the kind of society the city represents.
To make sure diere would be no confusion
about that. we would make all those appoint-
ments subject to a clause in the amendment we
will introduce in committee. We simply state
that in making any appointments under the
provision for that composition of the Metro
police commission, “regard shall be had to the
cultural. racial, social and economic complexity
of Metropolitan Toronto to ensure the Metro-
politan Toronto board reflects that complexity.”
I know the Solicitor General would like these
bills to pass without any particular comment.
Indeed, when he was speaking on October I3 to
the municipal police authorities, he noted these
proposed amendments and was careful to indi-
cate this did not in any way affect the ongoing
review of the Police Act. He suggested the
amendments as he would propose them were
matters that generally would receive widespread
approbation. He said they should simply be
passed because the govemrnent thought this
was die time to make some minor changes.
As soon as l sit down I will circulate copies of
the three proposed amendments to the Solicitor
General, the Liberal Pany critic of the Solicitor
General and to any other members who are
interested. Briefly, I would summarize them as
being first, a specific prohibition against judges
being appointed to police commissions and the
ancillary prohibition against thc renewal of the
appointment of any present judge who holds a
position on a police comrnmission.
time p.|‘n.
Second. we would make the simple transition
of providing that the balance of appointing
authority would be for the municipalities to
appoint three members and the government of
Ontario to appoint two in those areas where
there were to be five-person boards.
Third, in view of the concerns that have been
expressed over the years with respect to thc
composition of the Metropolitan Toronto police
board, we should give here and now specific
consideration to the proposal to make a sub-

stantial. balanced. intelligent increase in the
numbers of the Metropolitan Board of Commis-
sioncrsol Police for thc purpose. as 1 have said.
of reflecting the cultural. racial, social and
economic complexity of the metropolitan area.
l um certain that my remarks, together with
whatever remarks my colleague the member lor
Wellancl-Thorold (Mr. Swartl would choose to
make in amplification of these amendments
and, more than anything else. with the reason-
ublcness of the amendments. the essential integ-
rily of the process we are engaged in here
tonight amongst this select group of intelligent.
wise and deliberative membcrs of the assembly.
at this particular time. each of those three
amendments will have the unanimous approval
of the assembly in committee.
In order not to untagonile anyone from the
rational concern and consideration of those
amcndments.Weare not going tooppose the bill
on second reading. but I did want to give some
intimation of the amendments we would pro-
pose in committee of the whole House on Bill
On Bill 87. while we will deal with it, we can
deal with it somewhat more briefly. TWO of the
proposed amendments are. of course. appropri-
ate for that bill: namely, the exclusion of the
judges from any role to play in the other boards
of police commissioners. and we will propose
theamendments to that effect in duecourse but
will not need to speak at any length on them.
Second, again the reaffirmation of the exclusion
ol anyone performing a judicial function from
membership on the boards of police C0mrnis~
sioners either now or in the future or by rcnewa]
of his appointment because in my private discus-
sions with the Solicitor General about them-
and l think he will forgive me for saying sovwe
are in total agreement on one proposition. that
the roles of judges and the roles of members of
the boards of police Commissioners are incom-
patible. and I think that is a good word to
express the thrust of the amendments.
With those few words I would solicit in
committee the support of the assembly for the
amendments we will propose.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker. from the outset I want
to associate myself generally with the views
expressed by the member for Yorkview (Mr.
Spensieri) and the member for Riverdale.
In speaking to Bill 86. An Act to amend
certain Acts respecting Regional and Metropol-
itan Municipalities. it is somewhat surprising to
me that whereas the act was changed forsmaller
municipalities some years ago, there has been a
delay of four years or so in making the amend-
ment for regional and metropolitan municipali-
ties. Surely. if the need was there for the smaller
municipalities a few years ago. the need was
there for the larger municipalities to make the
amendment whereby judges not only cannot sit
on police commissions but should not sit on
police commissions.
l want to associate myself with the amend-
ment that the member for Riverdale has men-
tioned he wants to introduce whereby judges
will be asked not to sit on commissions and will
not qualify for that position.
In particular, lwant to mention an instance in
my own regional municipality of Waterloo
where ajudge had a potential conflict of interest
in serving both on the pclice commission and on
the bench in hearing the officers who Came
before him. I do not think even ajlldge in his
great wisdom can completely forget. when he is
on the bench, that he is a police commissioner
and maybe that same evening. for that same
officer. will have to detemtine his salary. When
that officer is presenting evidence in court
during the day and then that evening the judge
has to decide whether that officer as well as 650
others should get a raise in pay or should be
reprimanded because he has committed some
offence, or whatever the case might be, I do not
think it is fair to the system. nor do I think it is
fair to the judge.
So Iccmmend the minister for bringing in this
amendment but l do not think he has gone far
enough. I think he feels personally that the
change should be made completely, but I guess
hc is trying to tiptoe through the tulips and not
step too harshly on the toes of some people. in
this case, the judiciary. whdm he might offend.
Maybe he feels he would offend them if he
ccrnpietely eliminated the possibility bi their
sewing on police commissions.
I menripned my bwn regional municipality
because we have a serious situation there where
we have two police chiefs. one in the person of
Syd Brown. a name well known in this province.
and the other being Harold Basso. We are
paying each of them over 540.000; the active
police chief much more. The reason I raise this
is that the only person still on the police
commission now who was on the pclice com-
mission when Mr. Brown was hired some seven
or eight years ago. is the judge.
He is still on the police commission, so I
would think that at some time in the future the
particular situation is g0ing to be rectified. l
have noill feeling towards thejudge. I just think
it is unfortunate that he has been put in that
position, and it is unfortunate that the Legisla-
ture has moved so slowly in trying to rectify it.
While speaking to this bill I would like to ask
whether the Solicitor General would try to
rectify a serious oversight whereby regional
municipalities and the larger. regionalized
municipalities—with the exception of Ottawa-
Carleton. as my colleague the member Ior
Ottawa East (Mr. Roy] well knows~get only
S12 per capita as opposed to $17. It is an
incredible injustice to the people in the smaller
municipalities as well as that one regional
municipality that they should be so discrimi-
nated against. and yet this government of 40
years continues to discriminate against those
1t issaid a new broom sweeps clean. I look rd
the Solicitor General and I only hope that for 2
change. he will impose his views on the new
Treasurer (Mr. Grossmanl. who says he is going
to start a whole new system of reviewing the
budget and consult with thc people of the
province. l only wish the Treasurer would have
such foresight and consult with the Solicitor
General. who obviously is embarrassed by the
inequalities that he practises as a mernberof the
government of this province.
One furthcr point is the matter whereby the
number of municipal appointees to police com-
missions will be increased by brie and the
numberofappointees made by the province will
be increased by one. for a total of five for areas
with populations cvur 25,000.
10:20 p.rrl.
I certainly can clearly associate myself with
the views of the member for Yorkview (Mr.
Spensieri] and the member for Riverdalc lMr.
Renwickl.when they suggest this should be
reversed. l am one who has mentioned this ever
since l came to the Legislature six years ago and
I hope the Solictor General in his “sweet
reas0nabIeness“WiIl reverse that particular thrust
and give the municipalities the say for which
they are paying.
As he knows, there is an old saying, “Whoever
pays the piper calls the tune.“ l-le knows and I
know that he is calling the tune and he is not
paying the piper. I think he should have a
sleepless night tonight thinking of how he is
stealing from the municipalities the right to
have three representatives on those police com-
missions. He is Stealing them lor the province
because. in fact. they should have three and he
should have only two. How can he sleep atnight
with that on his conscience? I say. “Shame.” to
the Solicitor General if he does not go along
with the particular amendment that is going to
be proposed. Ionly hope he sees the light before
the bill is passed and goes along with the
It the Solicitor General says he cannot sup-
port an amendment presented by the opposi-
tion. that he can support only his own amend~
ment, I would ask him to be reasonable as was
the transport minister earlier today when hc
spoke to Bill 61. An Act to regulate Off-Road
Vehicles. I-Ie was able. in a very positive man-
ner. to go along with some of the suggestions
made by the opposition parties, in particular
those made by my colleagues the member for
Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the member
for Werltworth North (Mr. Cunningham). He
went along with those two suggestions and I
hcpe the Solicitor General is big enough. and I
am sure he is, to go along with the suggestions to
increase municipal representation so the munic-
ipalities, which pay the most money and are
accountable to the people. as my colleague the
member for Erie lM\’. Haggcrty) says. will have
the power to appoint the majority of the mem-
bers on the police commission. ‘
That is where the real power should be. That
is where the real authority should be. They
should have the opportunity to appoint the
majority number of members to their police
commissions. because they are theclosest to the
people, as the minister and l both know. I think
it is something he can easily accept and he will
be recognized as making a very courageous
move. a progressive move, at a time when there
is not a lot of courage over there. We see that
from time to time and he could show himself as
being a leader among the people over there and
across the province.
Sol implore the Solicitor General togo along
with those amendments and to show the kind of
leadership for Which he has been elected as a
member and appointed by the Premier lMr.
Davis) to cabinet.
Mr. Swan: Mr. Speaker, first. I would like to
commend thc Solicitor General for bringing in
the Regional and Metropolitan Municipalities
Amendment Act, to make some charlgc in the
composition of the police commissions. a change
which does not go as far as we wish. To have
brought it in this soon in his term of office I
think deserves some commendation.
Mr. Wildmun: You are commending him.
The other guy said he could not sleep at night.
Mr. Swan: I, too. want to say. as the minister

might expect, that I fully support the very
articulate and complete comments of my collcage
the member for Riverdalc (Mr. Renwickl. and
the issue does not require a great deal from me
or anybody else in the way or explanation.
I share his feeling that this is a rather impot-
taut issue. When the member for Yorkview
made his comments. he indicated that he did not
{tel it was a very significant bill. I do. At leasl.
let me put it this way, l think it is a very
significant issue. The issue of who shall have
authority over the police department is exceed
ingly important and it is one that has a long
To some extent, I have been involved in that
history for a number of years. My advent to
municipal council some 36 years ago this com»
ing September was due to this very issue. There
was a small police force in the municipality in
which I lived that was directly under the control
oi the cfluncil. There was no commission. My
friend the member for Erie will know about
which municipality I speak, the township oi
The citizens of that municipality considered
the police force to be extremely comlpt. Exist-
ing in that community was a number of houses
of prostitution and bootleggers. Because I had
taken an active part in this matter or trying to
get some remedy to that situation ior some
months, perhaps a couple of years, and had
expressed spine viewpoints, when municipal
elections came around, I think they were Janu-
ary l at that time. in i948, prior to the nomina-
tions I was approached to see if I would run for
council. I accepted the invitation‘ and was
elected. The election was (ought on that issue:
the matter of policing that municipality.
There were live members of council: three
reform rneruberswere elected. The police there
were thrown out. The Ontario Provincial Police
was brought in and inside of three months that
situation with regard to the bootleggers and the
houses oi prostitution was cleaned up.
Subsequently. the Ontario Provincial Police
perlorrned the policing in that municipality for a
period oi time. but we saw the other side of the
coin which was that they were so far removed
lrom the public and the council in that munici-
pality that the public felt generally they had no
control whatsoever over the police. In no way
were they accountable. Subsequently. in that-
Mr. Nixon: The Niagara region?
Mr. Swan: It was not the Niagara region then.
It was a few years ago. as l am sure the memhor
is aware.
Ultimately, a police commission was appointed
within that municipality and that seemed to
bring to-—
Mr. Bradley: Were there any Tories on that
Mr. Swan: What do you think’!
That seemed lo provide a balance to a greater
degree between accountability and yet some
removal from the direct control of the local
oouncil. In the United States, Where policing
has been under direct control of councils, we
know thc policing of any of tl’\<>Se places has
been or less than exemplary.
However. I do not think that we have reached
the ultimate in the police authorities. This bill.
for the iirst time in quite a long period of time.
gives us a chance iomaltetheneccssary changes
to get what is close to as ideal a type of authority
as we can have.
Mr. speaker, l see you rather nervously
looking at the clock. I am not sure which one
gives you the correct time and which one you
are going by. but l have some more comments.
not lengthy, that I want to make.
On motion by Mr. Swart. the debate was
The House adjourned at 10130 p.m.
OCTOBER 18, 1983 Z243
Tuesday, October I8, was
Government motion
Constitution alnclll-‘llnenl proclamlliolli resolution lo, Mr. Shyrnko_ Mr. Boudria. Mr. Rae.
.\/lt.Eernier.Mr.Well$.agreedlo…………………___…..,.. …. zzzl
smn-i reading
Regional and Metropolitan Municipalities Amendment Act. Bill 86. Mr. G. W. Taylor.
Mt. Spensieti. Mr. Renwick. .Vlr. Epp. .Vlr. Swart_adjoutned. . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . .. 22.35
Other business
Afljoumtllent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2242
Bemier, Hon. L.. Minister of Northern Ailaiti lKenora PC)
Boudria. D. (Prescott-Russell Ll
Epp. H. A. twaterloo North L»
Haggerlyi R. lErie L)
.l0hn$0l‘l. J. M. lWellington-Dufferin-Peel PC)
Jones. T., Deputy Speaker and Chainnan (Mississauga North PC]
Rae. R. K. [York South NDP)
Renwick..l. A. l_Riverdale ND?)
Sheppard, H. N. tNorthurnberland PC)
Shymko. Y. R. (High Park-Swansea PCl
Spetlsieri, A. Woritview L)
Stokes. J. E. (Lake Nipigon NDP]
Swart, L. (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Taylor, Hon. G. W., Solicitor General [Simone Centre PC)
Wells. Hon. T. L., Minister of Intergovernmental Aiiairs
(Scarborough North PCl
Wildman. B. (Algoma ND?)
Williams. l. R. (Oriole PC)

Read less

Leave a Reply