Document Information

Date: 1981-11-09
By: Ontario (Legislative Assembly)
Citation: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Official Reports of the Debates (Hansard), 32nd Leg, 1st Sess, 1981.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF). [external site–Ontario Legislative Assembly]

CONSTITUTIONAL PACKAGE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I would like to know what initiatives the Premier plans to take within the next few days to ensure the concerns that have arisen because of the constitutional agreement do not come to pass.

What initiatives will the Premier take to ensure native rights are included or negotiated? He said there was room for more negotiation.

What steps will he take internally in Ontario to assure the women of the province that he will not use “notwithstanding” clauses, for example in legislation about equal pay for work of equal value?

Perhaps most important, will the Premier take the historic and statesmanlike step of indicating to the people of Quebec that Ontario is willing, ready and able to come under the jurisdiction of section 133 of the present British North America Act as a gesture of goodwill to the people of Quebec and that things still are worth negotiating in this Confederation of ours?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with what really were three questions. The first related to the concern of the native people. The member pointed out there is a specific section in the agreement — which all first ministers except the Premier of Quebec signed — making it clear the question of aboriginal rights would be determined, we hope, by the first ministers. A meeting for this purpose would be at the call of the Prime Minister of Canada.

I would point out to the acting leader of the New Democratic Party that Ontario was not one of the provinces that suggested it should not be contained in the charter at this time. I think that position was well known.

With respect to the second question, I am not sure the wording in the charter specifically referred to the item he raised. This province, certainly in the field of equality rights, will not be passing any “notwithstanding” legislation. I think that much is obvious. So that covers the second question.

The third question touches on a very sensitive issue. This matter — I think I am right about this historically and in terms of the point of view expressed by the Premier of Quebec — was not an issue at the conference in any manner, shape or form. The point of view of the Premier of Quebec, of course, is that education is strictly a provincial matter, and it was not raised at the meeting itself.

As I tried to tell the House on Friday, the two areas in which the Premier of Quebec registered his disagreement with the document that was signed were, first, the question of fiscal equivalencies in cases of opting out and, second, the mobility question.

I made clear in Ottawa, and I restate, that from my perspective we in this province are certainly prepared to do anything we can to help in the debate or discussions that may take place. I do not think the conference of first ministers has precluded some other wording on the question of mobility as long as the principle is contained in the charter.

I have difficulty in not accepting the principle of mobility. This was one of the areas Ontario suggested, I guess, a year and a half ago — whenever it was: two years ago — along with the principle of free movement of goods and services. Incidentally I think that should be within the charter as a matter of principle. But we did not debate that any further; it was not acceptable to many others. The government of Canada, as I recall, was prepared to accept it, but I think Saskatchewan — and I do not say this unkindly — was less than enthusiastic, as were a number of other provinces.

So I would say in summary, on the first question, this province is not one of those which was not prepared to have it in. I assume there will be discussions between the government of Canada and the leaders of the native people as to how we deal with it.

With respect to the second, we had already supported equality rights in the charter itself and I do not expect that is going to change.

With respect to the third question, this province will certainly do all it can to find ways to ease the situation with Quebec, but I cannot tell the honourable member it is the kind of thing which would have any meaning to the Premier of Quebec, in any event, with respect to section 133.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier not agree that the moment of history has not yet passed and there is still much to be done? Would the Premier not agree it is up to him, that it is indeed part of his role, since he is one of the people central to confederation and this province is one of the provinces central to confederation, to take initiatives to ensure the native people receive the aboriginal rights they deserve, not only in this province but also in this country?

Second, with regard to the question of the attitude of the Premier of Quebec, will the Premier of Ontario not agree that he must make overtures not merely to the Premier of Quebec but also to the people of Quebec and to the people of French-Canadian origin in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Taking the questions in reverse order, I think it is fair to say, at least at this moment, that it is not the decision of the people of Quebec but of the government of Quebec not to be included in that agreement. I regret that decision. I really felt that we worked quite hard and that it was worded in a fashion that would be acceptable.

If the decision is based solely on the mobility section of the charter, I still have difficulty understanding the decision, but I cannot put myself in Mr. Lévesque’s position. It was perhaps more understandable when he said the fiscal equivalency was a matter of principle for him; yet, as I explained here on Friday, I find it difficult to build that into a formula when the fiscal transfer could be considered as an inducement to opt out of a constitutional change that one would hope reflected the “national will.” So I cannot suggest to the honourable member that the position should be altered with respect to that.

I did point out, and the Prime Minister made it very clear, both in private and at the public meeting, that as a matter of principle that should be in but that no national government was going to penalize a particular province because it decided to opt out of a constitutional amendment. Once again, I guess that assurance was not sufficient for the Premier of Quebec.

With respect to the native peoples, if the member checks carefully with the native peoples as represented in this province, they will agree that Ontario insisted it should be on the agenda at the meeting a year and a half ago and that we were supportive of having the native peoples dealing directly with a first ministers’ meeting. I can only say to the honourable member that Ontario did not ask that it be removed.

There was concern expressed by some other provinces — I do not intend to identify them — that the wording and some of the problems inherent in that were not yet satisfactory, and the Prime Minister really did include that in the statement. I believe all first ministers are committed to agreeing to this process. If there is some alteration in this by some other first ministers prior to the resolution being passed by the House, certainly Ontario would not stand in the way.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier give us any insight from his days of negotiating with Mr. Lévesque as to what the Premier of Quebec’s objection is with regard to the minority language of education section in the proposed charter, particularly inasmuch as that Premier seems to have said in the past that he would be willing to agree on a bilateral basis with each of the other nine provinces individually to provide such rights if such were also provided in the other provinces?

Given that it could even be worded in the charter as nine bilateral agreements, if the federal government chose to so word it, rather than as one blanket statement, does the Premier have any real understanding of what Mr. Lévesque’s objection might be under these circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be very reluctant to express what I perceive to be the point of view of a fellow Premier. I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition that my sense was that the Premier of Quebec regarded this as being in direct conflict with the existing jurisdiction in the field of education and that he felt this was fundamental with respect to their educational and language policy; I think it was that point of view that put him in the position of saying he would not accept it.

I do point out that my recollection — and I am going by recollection and by the press conference — is that he really did not refer to that, because the clause was very specifically worded that the other nine Premiers agreed that it would apply in their provinces and that Premier Lévesque’s objection to signing the agreement was based on the other two issues. But if the Leader of the Opposition is asking me, I think it has been his position that historically it is a direct change in the powers of the constitution, that he regards the language and education areas as being totally in the provincial domain and that he probably would not accept it. However, he really did put forward his arguments based on those other two items. It was not on the education part of the charter.

2:40 p.m.

The Leader of the Opposition is substantially correct, because it was Mr. Lévesque’s suggestion at either Charlottetown or St. Andrews-by-the-sea — I guess it was there, but there have been so many conferences — that there should be agreement by reciprocity. I think all provinces objected to that in principle, because one does not make anything as fundamental as minority language rights dependent upon a reciprocal agreement between provinces. That would not be my preference, and I expressed it at the time.

Mr. Foulds: I listened carefully to the Premier as he explained what had happened in the past. He used phrases such as, “Ontario will not stand in the way.” However, having taken the one initiative last week of giving up the veto, can the Premier tell us if he feels that is enough for Ontario to do? Is he holding out for us no hope that he and his government will take some initiative in the future, in the next few days, to try to end the terrible isolation Quebec may find itself in?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am relatively modest but, with great respect, Ontario’s statement that we might, under appropriate conditions, forgo the veto was not Ontario’s sole initiative. It was somewhat more complicated than that. Ontario was substantially more involved in that particular suggestion, but I do not intend to go into that. If he wants to read about it, when I publish my book 30 years hence it will all be there. It will be factually correct, perhaps.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It will be an awfully thick book if you write like you speak.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be a very short book. I just repeat, I would have liked to have seen the Premier of Quebec sign the agreement. That would be my preference and, I think, that of all other Premiers. But I cannot honestly say to the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, and I hope he is not asking me to say, that we now disagree with mobility rights in the charter. I am sure the honourable member supports that as a matter of principle. I am sure he supports the principle that, if a province opts out, it should not be the financial beneficiary of opting out of a constitutional amendment.

Those are the two key elements as expressed to me by the Premier of Quebec, and I am sure the acting leader, the next leader of the New Democratic Party, in his own mind would not want to see us alter our position on that. I would not even if he did, but I am sure he does not.

I also have to make this casual comment: I saw that the honourable member was quoted over the weekend as saying he has more presence than charisma. I am not one of those who would say that; I think he has an equal amount of both. I will not say how much; I said equal.