Document Information

Date: 1978-10-30
By: William G. Davis
Citation: Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers on the Constitution, Opening Statement by the Honourable William G. Davis, Premier of Ontario, Doc 800-8/030 (Ottawa: 30 October-1 November 1978).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

DOCUMENT: 800-8/030

OPENING STATEMENT
BY
THE HONOURABLE WILLIAM G. DAVIS
PREMIER OF ONTARIO
TO THE
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS
ON THE CONSTITUTION

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1978

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, I WELCOME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR
IDEAS ON HOW BEST TO BIND THIS GREAT COUNTRY TOGETHER.

THERE ARE MANY POSSIBLE INITIATIVES WE CAN TAKE TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE. IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS,
WE WILL BE DISCUSSING WAYS IN WHICH GOVERNMENTS CAN
CONTRIBUTE TO THIS ENDEAVOUR BY THE SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE OF
MAKING CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION.

I AM ACUTELY AWARE, HOWEVER, THAT REFASHIONING THE
CONSTITUTION IS ONLY ONE DEVICE FOR ACHIEVING BETTER
RELATIONSHIPS IN THIS COUNTRY OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE ARE THE
PERSONAL INITIATIVES OF EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN OF CANADA, AND
THE WAY WE RELATE TO EACH OTHER NO MATTER WHAT OUR ORIGINS
HAPPEN TO BE OR WHERE WE MAY HAPPEN TO LIVE.

WHILE WE HAVE MANY OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES TO FACE
AND DEAL WITH IN CANADA, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY MINIMIZE THE
NECESSITY OF MAKING APPROPRIATE CHANGES TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS. I KNOW ONLY TOO WELL THAT THE OFTEN ABSTRACT
DETAIL OF SUCH CHANGES DOES NOT EXCITE MANY PEOPLE. BUT WHAT
LIES BEHIND PROPOSED CHANGES AND WHAT EACH CHANGE MEANS IN
PRACTICAL TERMS IS OF GREAT INTEREST TO OUR CONCERNED
CONSTITUENTS.

TO USE ONE OF OUR GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL EXPRESSIONS,
WHAT WE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DEALING WITH HERE AND WHAT OUR
AGENDA IS REALLY ALL ABOUT IS NOTHING LESS THAN THE PEACE,
ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

PRIME MINISTER, I AM HERE TO SAY TO YOU THAT WHAT
IS AT STAKE AMONG US Is THE VITAL MATTER OF RESTORING
NATIONAL STABILITY AND TRUST IN OUR COUNTRY. THIS MATTER HAS
SUFFERED FROM INATTENTION AND NEGLECT, AND WITH THIS FRESH
OPPORTUNITY I WANT TO INSIST THAT WE START DOING NOW WHAT THE
PEOPLE OF CANADA WANT US TO DO.

IF YOU SHARE THIS GOAL, YOU CAN COUNT ON THE FULL
CO-OPERATION OF ONTARIO. WHAT WE WOULD ASK IN RETURN IS A
SYMPATHETIC HEARING OF OUR IDEAS AND PREFERENCES. THERE ARE
MANY DIFFERENT VOICES AND OPINIONS AROUND THIS TABLE, AND,
WITH GREAT RESPECT, SIR, YOU MUST LISTEN TO EACH AND BEND
EVERY EFFORT TO MOULD OUR VIEWS TOGETHER. THAT TASK IS
DIFFICULT, BUT OUITE WITHIN OUR GRASP PROVIDING THAT
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS, WHICH WON’T AND DON’T FIT THIS
MARVELLOUSLY DIVERSE COUNTRY, ARE NOT IMPOSED UPON US.

THE OVERWHELMING CASE FOR COMMON SENSE IN RESOLVING
OUR PROBLEMS CANNOT BE IGNORED. IN THIS COUNTRY, SOME TALK
OF SEPARATION; SOME TALK OF ALIENATION; SOME TALK OF
FRUSTRATION. BUT WHO SPEAKS FOR MODERATION?

I AM CONVINCED THAT CANADA IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN
WHAT THE ADVOCATES OF ‘OTTAWA-KNOWS-BEST’ OR ‘TWO NATIONS’ OR
‘MASSIVE DECENTRALIZATION’ OR OTHER THEORIES WOULD HAVE US
BELIEVE. THE VAST MAJORITY OF CANADIANS HAVE A HEALTHY
SKEPTICISM OF EASY ANSWERS. THEY WON’T BE HOMOGENIZED. THEY
WON’T BE ASSIMILATED. THEY ENJOY THEIR DIFFERENCES WHILE
RETAINING A DEEP ATTACHMENT TO CANADA.

AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE ARE
SOME DEEPLY FELT GRIEVANCES IN MANY PARTS OF OUR COUNTRY,
PARTICULARLY AT ITS EXTREMES. WE ARE SENSITIVE TO THESE
FEELINGS, AND THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT WE ARE
OBLIGED AT THIS POINT IN OUR HISTORY TO LOOK SERIOUSLY AT THE
ISSUES ON OUR NATIONAL AGENDA, AND FIND IMAGINATIVE, SENSIBLE
AND WORKABLE MEANS OF REDUCING THE TENSIONS AMONG US. THE
STATUS QUO WON’T DO, BUT NEITHER WILL UPSETTING THE WHOLE
APPLECART.

ACCOMPLISHING MEANINGFUL CHANGE IS ALSO IMPORTANT
BECAUSE WE NEED A NEW CONFIDENCE AND A WILL AND A VASTLY
IMPROVED CAPACITY TO DEAL WITH OTHER PRESSING MATTERS NOT
DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CONSTITUTION.

ONTARIO IS THEREFORE AT THIS CONFERENCE TO
CONTRIBUTE SPECIFIC AND I HOPE CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS TO
ACHIEVING A REASONABLE PLAN OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. WE ARE
NOT HERE TO CENTRALIZE OR BALKANIZE. WE ARE HERE TO PROPOSE
MODIFICATIONS WHICH HAVE THE RESULT OF MEETING OUR REAL
PROBLEMS, AND WHICH ALSO FIT COMFORTABLY WITH OUR PEOPLE.

PRIME MINISTER, I HOPE WE DO NOT LEAVE THIs MEETING
WITHOUT A SPECIFIC PLAN OF FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS TO GET ON
WITH THIS CRITICAL JOB, AND I SHALL LATER BE MAKING PROPOSALS
TO THIS END.

LET ME NOW TURN TO THE DETAILS OF THE TASK WE MUST
SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISH THIS TIME. I SAY THIS TIME BECAUSE,
AND LET THERE BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING ON THIS SCORE, I ASSUME
WE ARE ALL HERE WITH THE SAME MISSION EVEN IF AT THE OUTSET
WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT IDEAS ON HOW BEST TO REACH THE GOAL OF
STRENGTHENING OUR UNION.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS CAN BE COMPLEX, BUT THEIR
UTILITY CAN ALSO BE MEASURED AGAINST SOME CLEAR TESTS. MY
TESTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

– DO THEY STRENGTHEN AND IMPROVE
RELATIONSHIPS IN THIS COUNTRY?

– DO THEY HAVE THE SUPPORT OF CANADIANS IN
ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY?

DO THEY WORK?

IT IS EQUALLY A TEST THAT THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD
NOT BE A SOURCE OF DIVISION FOR CANADIANS. OUR DISCUSSIONS
TO IMPROVE THE PACT AMONG US MUST LEAD TO RECONCILIATION, TO
TRUST, AND TO A NEW UNITED PURPOSE.

THIS IS WHAT A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS WANT. THEY
HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF FRICTION AND DISPUTE. THEY WANT
AGREEMENT. THEY WANT PEACE IN THE FAMILY THAT IS OUR COUNTRY
SO THAT WE CAN ALL GET ON WITH CREATING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR
FREE AND PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY.

IT IS WORTH REMINDING OURSELVES THAT THIS IS THE
FIRST TIME IN SEVEN YEARS, SINCE THE MEETING IN VICTORIA IN
1971, THAT THE FIRST MINISTERS HAVE MET TO CONSIDER THE
CONSTITUTION. THE HISTORICAL RECORD MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
AGREEMENTS WILL NOT BE REACHED EASILY, BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES
US WITH THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE TO DO THE JOB PROPERLY THIS
TIME.

WHAT HAS THE HISTORICAL RECORD TAUGHT US? THE
EVENTS OF A FULL DECADE OF EXPERIENCE — AND I REALLY DO NOT
NEED TO GO FURTHER BACK THAN THAT — SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED SO
THAT WE HAVE A BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON WHERE WE STAND NOW.

– IN 1967, ONTARIO CONVENED THE CONFEDERATION
OF TOMORROW CONFERENCE AS A FORUM FOR
GOVERNMENTS TO BEGIN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF
OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS CANADIANS AND
TO IDENTIFY THOSE FACTORS WHICH WERE
PREVENTING US FROM ACHIEVING THEM.

– BETWEEN 1968 AND 1971, THE FEDERAL AND
OTHER PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS PARTICIPATED
IN A PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW.
THAT PROCESS CAME AWFULLY CLOSE TO SUCCESS,
BUT ULTIMATELY FALTERED BECAUSE THE REFORM
THAT IT PROVIDED FOR WAS TOO LIMITED.

– SINCE 1971, THERE HAVE BEEN NO
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETINGS ON THE
CONSTITUTION-FEDERAL PROPOSALS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN 1976, AND AGAIN
THIS PAST SUMMER, WERE DEVELOPED AND
PRESENTED TO THE PROVINCES FOR COMMENT.

– IN RESPONSE, THE PREMIERS OF THE PROVINCES
DEVOTED MUCH OF THREE MEETINGS IN 1976
(EDMONTON AND TORONTO) AND IN 1978 (REGINA)
TO A DISCUSSION OF THE RESPECTIVE FEDERAL
PROPOSALS, AND TO A SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT OF
THEIR OWN IDEAS. ON EACH OCCASION, THEY
REACHED A GENERAL CONSENSUS ON PROPOSED
DIRECTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE.

– IN PARTICULAR, THE PROVINCES SPENT MUCH
TIME ON THE CRUCIAL QUESTION OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS. THE FEDERAL ANSWER
TO THIS WORK WAS, TO PUT IT GENTLY,
DISAPPOINTING.

– TO AID IN OUR OWN CONTRIBUTION TO THESE
DISCUSSIONS, ONTARIO HAS DRAWN GREAT
BENEFIT FROM TWO ADVISORY COMMITTEEs ON
CONFEDERATION MADE UP LARGELY OF PRIVATE
CITIZENS FROM OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT. THE
FIRST COMMITTEE SERVED FROM 1965 – 1971,
AND PRODUCED TWO VOLUMES OF ORIGINAL WORK.
THE SECOND WAS APPOINTED IN 1977; IT HAS
PRODUCED ONE REPORT, AND IS WORKING ON A
SECOND.

– AS WELL, OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, AND IN A
SPECIFIC EFFORT TO STIMULATE BROAD PUBLIC
DISCUSSION ON THE QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE US,
ONTARIO CO-SPONSORED THE DESTINY CANADA
DESTINEE CONFERENCE AT YORK UNIVERSITY IN
JUNE 1977, To WHICH PEOPLE FROM EVERY PART
OF CANADA WERE INVITED, AND THE
CONFEDERATION ’78 MEETING AT GLENDON
COLLEGE. I PERSONALLY BENEFITTED FROM
ATTENDING THESE SESSIONS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY,
I PRESENTED OUR VIEWS ON CONSTITUTIONAL
CHANGE TO THE TASK FORCE ON CANADIAN UNITY.

I RECOUNT THESE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AND
INTERPROVINCIAL MEETINGS OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS AND THESE
EFFORTS TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE THOUGHT OF
THESE MATTERS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN IMMENSELY HELPFUL IN
BRINGING ME TO SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT OUR PRESENT
SITUATION:

1. CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IS A NATIONAL
PRIORITY AND MUST BE TREATED AS SUCH.

2. A CLEARER IDEA OF WHAT WILL AND WHAT WILL
NOT WORK IS EMERGING.

3. OUR INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND CONCERNS, AND
WHAT CHANGES EACH OF US REGARD AS ESSENTIAL
TO PRESERVE A BLEND OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL
INTERESTS, ARE BETTER UNDERSTOOD.

4. REFORM MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE, AND A WISE
AGREEMENT IS UNLIKELY ON A PIECEMEAL BASIS.

5. GOVERNMENTS HERE IS THE EFFECTIVE WAY TO
PROCEED IF WE ARE TO ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVE
OF ESTABLISHING AN ATMOSPHERE OF TRUST
AMONG CANADIANS, WHICH IS A PRE-REQUISITE
OF A RESTORED NATIONAL PURPOSE.

6. DIFFERENCES CANNOT SIMMER INDEFINITELY;
ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMITMENTS SHOULD BE
MADE WITHIN AN AGREED UPON AND FORESEEABLE
TIME.

THIs CONFERENCE, THEREFORE, REPRESENTS A
CULMINATION OF PAST EFFORTS. THE EFFORTS HAVE NOT BEEN
WASTED, AS I HAVE TRIED TO SHOW, BUT WE SHOULD NOW RENEW THE
TASK.

WHILE SEVEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED, I HOPE WE CAN TAKE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO START THE JOB OF SHAPING AND REFINING OUR
INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES INTO A NEW EXPRESSION OF OUR NATIONAL
AND LOCAL OBJECTIVES.

WE HAVE ALL MADE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DISCUSSION.

NOW IS THE TIME TO CHOOSE WISELY FROM AMONG THE
MANY IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED OVER THE DECADE.

WE SHOULD AGREE ON AS MUCH AS WHAT WE CAN, AND WE
SHOULD THEN ACT TO IMPLEMENT IT DECISIVELY.

WE HAVE THE BENEFIT NOW OF MANY REPORTS AND STUDIES
IN ADDITION TO GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS. MOREOVER, THE REPORT
OF THE TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL UNITY WILL SOON BE AVAILABLE
AND IT WILL PRESUMABLY REFLECT THE VIEWPOINTS OF THE MANY
CANADIANS THEY HAVE CONSULTED.

ALL MAJOR CONCERNS SHOULD BE TABLED AND SHARED
AMONG US NOW. I PREFER NO UNTOWARD SURPRISES ONCE THE
NEGOTIATIONS HAVE STARTED IN EARNEST. PROVIDED WE HAVE A
COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR PRECISE SITUATION IS, WE CAN
BUILD TOWARD AGREEMENT.

DURING THE NEXT FEW DAYS, ONTARIO WILL BE MAKING
DETAILED COMMENTS ON EACH AGENDA ITEM. THEY WILL, IN THE
MAIN, NOT BE FINAL OR ABSOLUTE POSITIONS, BUT RATHER
CAREFULLY WEIGHED PREFERENCES.

I AM NOT INTERESTED NOW IN ETCHING OUR POSITIONS IN
STONE FOR I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A PROCESS OF
GIVE-AND-TAKE TO ARRIVE AT A GOOD AGREEMENT.

I AM, HOWEVER, INTERESTED IN CONVEYING CLEARLY, ON
BEHALF OF THE EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION CANADIANS WHO I AM
PRIVILEGED TO REPRESENT, THE DIRECTIONS I THINK WE SHOULD BE
TAKING.

FOR EXAMPLE, ONTARIO IS FOR SUITABLE CONSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGMENTS WHICH WILL:

– REDUCE THE FRUSTRATIONS CAUSED BY UNEQUAL
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
CANADA CANNOT AFFORD THE CONTINUATION OF
SHARP DISPARITIES AND A BETTER DISTRIBUTION
OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS, THEREFORE, A
PRIORITY. EACH OF US SHOULD BE WILLING TO
SHARE A PAIR PROPORTION OF THE BENEFITS
WHICH ACCRUE FROM FAVOURABLE NATIONAL
POLICIES OR FROM THE GOOD FORTUNE OF
NATURAL ENDOWMENTS.

– ACCOMMODATE THE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OF
FRENCH-SPEAKING CANADIANS TO ENSURE THAT
THEIR LANGUAGE AND CULTURE WILL BE ABLE TO
DEVELOP AND THRIVE. PREDOMINANTLY, BUT BY
NO MEANS EXCLUSIVELY, THE FOCUS OF THIS
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE IN THE PROVINCE OF
QUEBEC.

– ALLOW THE CULTURES OF CANADIANS FROM MANY
LANDS TO FLOURISH SO THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS
OF OUR MULTICULTURAL HERITAGE CAN BE FULLY
SHARED AMONG US.

– RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF OUR NATIVE PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE AN ESPECIALLY VALID CLAIM TO OUR
UTMOST CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER. AND WE
SHOULD ENSURE THAT THEY ARE CAREFULLY
CONSULTED AS WE PROGRESS.

– FIND READY WAYS OF IMPROVING AND
ENCOURAGING COTOPERATION AMONG THE VARIOUS
CAN WORK TOGETHER IN PURSUIT OF COMMON
OBJECTIVES OR RECEIVE A FAIR HEARING WHEN
DIFFERENCES MUST BE ARBITRATED.

– MODERNIZE OUR 1867 ACT WHILE BEING CAREFUL TO
RETAIN THOSE ASPECTS OF IT WHICH HAVE PROVEN THEIR
WORTH OVER THE YEARS. OUR CONSTITUTION IS NOT A STATIC
INSTRUMENT AND ACTING TOGETHER WE SHOULD TAKE MORE
ADVANTAGE OF ITS FLEXIBILITY.

ABOVE ALL, ANY NEW ARRANGEMENTS WE AGREE UPON MUST
STRENGTHEN MUTUAL TRUST IN THE CRUCIAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT
CHARACTERIZE CANADA — BETWEEN ENGLISH – AND FRENCH-SPEAKING
CANADIANS, AND THOSE FROM MANY OTHER CULTURES, AMONG MATURE
AND DEVELOPING REGIONS, AND BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS. THAT TRUST IS VITAL TO ALLOW US TO
RECOGNIZE AND RECONCILE DIFFERENCES AND TO HAVE CONFIDENCE
ABOUT THE COMMITMENTS WE MAKE FOR THE FUTURE.

IN SUPPORT OF THESE BROADER POINTS, HERE, BRIEFLY,
ARE EIGHT SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE CONSTITUTION TO WHICH ONTARIO
ATTACHES HIGH PRIORITY:

1. SELECTIVE BUT SIGNIFICANT ADJUSTMENTS TO
THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS TO STRENGTHEN
PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ACTIVITIES
OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE, AND FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR ECONOMIC AND FISCAL MATTERS OF NATIONAL
IMPACT.

2. NEW PRACTICES FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL
CONSULTATION AND RECONCILIATION OF
DIFFERENCES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
UNILATERAL AND INSENSITIVE ACTIONS BY ONE
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REGARD FOR
THE EFFECTS ON THE OTHERS.

3. A PROCESS BY WHICH THE PROVINCES
MEANINGFULLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE APPOINTMENT
OF THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CANADA.

4. THE ASSURANCE THAT INDIVIDUALS, GOODS,
CAPITAL AND SERVICES CAN MOVE FREELY ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.

5. AN EXPRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS AS
IDENTIFIED IN THE 1971 CANADIAN
CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER.

6. THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
MINORITIES TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN EDUCATED
IN THE MINORITY LANGUAGE WHERE NUMBERS ARE
SIGNIFICANT.

7. AN AMENDING FORMULA INVOLVING A SIGNIFICANT
MAJORITY OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES ACROSS
CANADA.

8. THE QUEEN AS OUR HEAD OF STATE AND AS THE
BASIS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. THE CROWN
PROVIDES STABILITY AND CONTINUITY TO OUR
COUNTRY, AND MOST OF US WISH TO LEAVE THAT
MAJESTIC AND HONOURED RELATIONSHIP AS IS.

THESE ARE OUR STRONG PREFERENCES. OTHERS HAVE BEEN
OR WILL BE PUT FORWARD BY OTHER GOVERNMENTS. FROM THESE
PREFERENCES, CHOICES INVOLVING A SERIOUS BARGAINING PROCESS
CAN THEN BE MADE. THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, FOR THE COST
OF EACH OF US INSISTING THAT ALL OUR POSITIONS BE ACCEPTED IS
THE LIKELIHOOD THAT NOTHING WILL BE ACHIEVED.

THIS POINT DESERVES EMPHASIS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
WE ARE EACH STARTING OUT FROM SOME QUITE DIFFERENT VIEWS. WE
SHOULD THEREFORE TRY TO IDENTIFY THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE OF
GREATEST SIGNIFICANCE TO EACH OF US SO THAT THE PROCESS CAN
BE SENSIBLY MANAGED. WE SHOULD THEN TRY TO NARROW OUR
DIFFERENCES ON THESE ITEMS TO THE POINT THAT WE HAVE A FEW
REALISTIC CHOICES BEFORE US.

PRIME MINISTER, AS I HAVE EARLIER INDICATED.
YOUR LEADERSHIP HERE IS CRITICAL ALTHOUGH THE RESPONSIBILITY
IS SHARED BY ALL OF US. ARE WE NOW PREPARED TO DEMONSTRATE
OUR WILLINGNESS To BRING TOGETHER THE BEST IDEAS WE HAVE AND
ARRIVE AT SOME PRACTICAL AGREEMENT?

I THINK THAT A RENEWED CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE, IF
IT IS TO ENDURE, A DOCUMENT OF ASSENT, NOT DISSENT, AND A
DOCUMENT WHICH ALL CANADIANS CAN ENDORSE AND IN WHICH THEY
CAN TAKE PRIDE.

I STATED AT THE OUTSET OF THESE REMARKS WHAT I HOPE
THIS MEETING WILL ACCOMPLISH. I CONCLUDE ON THIS NOTE
BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WE COULD AGREE TO ADOPT A
CONSENSUS ABOUT THE FUTURE ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINES:

– FIRST, AT THIS CONFERENCE STATE WHAT WE
WANT DONE. IDENTIFY THE ISSUES THAT WE
ALL AGREE SHOULD BE GIVEN PRIOR ATTENTION
IN THE CONSTITUTION.

– SECOND, AT THIS CONFERENCE ESTABLISH FOR
THIS PURPOSE ALONE, A JOINT COMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND INSTRUCT IT TO
TACKLE THE SPECIFIC LIST OF ISSUES WE
AGREE ON HERE; REDUCE THEM TO FIRM
RECOMMENDATIONS; AND PRESENT THEM TO
ANOTHER MEETING OF THIS GROUP TO BE HELD
WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

– THIRD, REVIEW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECONCILE THE FEW, SELECTED, OUTSTANDING
DIFFERENCES, AND AGREE ON A PACKAGE OF
PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE.

– FOURTH, ASSIGN THIS PACKAGE TO LEGISLATIVE
DRAFTSMEN TO DEVELOP THE PRECISE
CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE BASED ON OUR
PROPOSALS.

– FIFTH, AND FINALLY, HAVE THIS GROUP REVIEW
THE FINAL TEXT, AND SUBMIT IT AS OUR JOINT
AND FIRM RECOMMENDATIONS TO PARLIAMENT AND
THE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES FOR THEIR
APPROVAL.

THIS PROMISES TO BE A DEMANDING TASK, AND ONE
I ENVISAGE COULD TAKE UP TO ONE TO TWO YEARS. IT WILL
REQUIRE A SOLEMN COMMITMENT FROM EACH OF US IN TERMS OF
AND EFFORT AND A WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH.
WILL REQUIRE IMMENSELY SENSITIVE UNDERSTANDINGS AMONG
OURSELVES AND A SHARP APPRECIATION OF THE REAL NEEDS OF
COUNTRY.

IF WE CAN AGREE ON AN ORDERLY AND SENSIBLE COURSE
OF ACTION, THEN YOU HAVE ONTARIO’S COMMITMENT TO THIS
ENDEAVOUR. I MAKE MY PERSONAL COMMITMENT NOW AND THAT OF
THE PEOPLE OF ONTARIO TO SEEING THAT WE SUCCEED IN THIS
ENDEAVOUR.

IN SIMPLEST TERMS, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EFFORT IS
THAT THE CAUSE IS CANADA.

-30-