Document Information

Date: 1981-11-23
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]

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL

BUSINESS

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside so that the House may debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely the resolution to amend Canada’s constitution, now before the Parliament of Canada, and the need for positive action by the government of Ontario in order to ensure that the Constitution Act recognizes and protects aboriginal rights, that it give an unqualified guarantee of women’s rights and that section 133 of the British North America Act be applied to Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this notice was given to you, in accordance with the rules, prior to 12 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all members that the notice of motion was received in time and does comply with standing order 34. I will be pleased to listen to the member for Ottawa Centre for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Cassidy: I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that the government would agree with us that this matter is of obvious public importance. Next to the economy, there is no other issue of such importance to the long-term future of our country than the constitution before the Parliament of Canada right now. Its urgency also, it seems to me, is unquestionable.

The constitutional package was presented to the Parliament in its final form or in its penultimate form was just three or four days ago. On the weekend we learned the Prime Minister has set a deadline of Tuesday night, an arbitrary deadline, before which time he hopes to hear from the premiers as to whether they are prepared for changes with respect to the questions of aboriginal rights in section 34 and women’s rights, the equality between men and women clause, in section 28.

The fact that there is a deadline lends added urgency to this debate. I believe the government thought we might have a discourse on the constitution in this Legislature sometime in the future, maybe after we saw the people from Suncor. By that time it will be too late; this matter must be debated today if there is to be any input at all from the opposition parties.

Apart from comments made in this House after the Premier’s conference, the only clarification of the government’s position we have had has been by means of debates such as this one or questions which we have been able to put in the Legislature. This is the first time we will have had to have a debate.

We, on this side, find it unacceptable that the basic and fundamental rights for women and native people have been excluded from the proposed constitution. We believe it is urgent to make every effort possible to see those sections that were taken out — sections originally put into the act because of the efforts of the federal New Democratic Party, and I am proud of their efforts — are restored and not in any watered-down version as proposed, for example, by the Premier of Alberta.

I know the Premier has suggested this government is prepared to see these rights included and I applaud him for that. However we would like to see clarification as to exactly what it is the government is proposing to bring in.

[…]

On the subject of women’s rights, I find it absolutely incomprehensible that we should be at the verge here in 1981 of declaring ourselves to have a new constitution — a constitution in our own country — with a charter of rights, and yet half of the population will not have their rights respected. In this day and age it is reprehensible that women should have to even fight to be regarded as having rights equal to other citizens. I find it inconceivable there should even be discussion on the matter. I also find it inconceivable that we should even be having to debate it, let alone that there should be serious opinion against having that position entrenched in the charter.

To the credit of the Ontario government, it has been in favour of this. Probably there is little we can accomplish in our discussion here, other than to say all of us agree with Ontario’s position. Perhaps the NDP leader would take a moment after he has had a chance to speak here and call Premier Blakeney and let him know it is inconceivable that anybody as reasonable and as intelligent as he is — or that anybody else for that matter — would be against having women’s rights in the constitution.

I would suggest further to the members opposite that when it comes to treaty rights and aboriginal rights for our people, the first Canadians, the people who have been treated shabbily over the years, have every right to complain of what is their lot today — the poverty, the social disruption, the lack of health facilities, the lack of housing facilities. These people deserve to have their treaty rights respected. They deserve to have aboriginal rights respected. It should be entrenched in the constitution of Canada, and although Ontario has taken that position I wish they could be a little more forceful about it.

Why does the Premier not call Peter Lougheed and tell him what he thinks? Pat Kinsella, his friend who ran his highly-principled campaign in the last election, is now advising Premier Bennett. Call him and tell him to tell Premier Bennett to recognize the aboriginal rights.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment for a few minutes on the motion put forward by my friend. There is no question this is a matter of great public importance at the present time. It is a matter of importance to all the members of this House, and it had been our intention that this would be debated in a regular, proper, formal debate, with a motion on the Order Paper. This would be a motion which, of course, could be amended if desired by the House. In that way all members of this House would have notice of that debate and would have an opportunity to take part in what would be one of the historic debates of this House.

We have been, and are working on that proposition. I would submit to members that the debate will probably start next week if the House leaders can so schedule it. The matter with this resolution is that there is a certain degree of urgency this afternoon to have this debate. That urgency is based on the fact there are three things in this resolution. I draw to members’ attention that there are a multitude of other things in the constitutional resolution — things that were settled through what we term in this House a good old Canadian compromise. If the leader of the NDP had through some misfortune been Premier of this province we never would have reached that compromise, because he is not that kind of person.

The kind of thing that happened with the Premier as leader, the kind of compromise that allowed us to arrive at the point where we have guaranteed minority language education in the constitution in the nine provinces of this country — and we all regret it is not in the tenth province — and the kinds of things that have happened are a great credit to all those people who took part in that conference.

In so far as women’s rights are concerned, it must be said that this province stood with only one other province and the federal government in support of the inclusion of those rights that women are entitled to. The province of Saskatchewan did not support the resolution with women’s rights in it.

Mr. MacDonald: After the federal caucus took a firm position to put them in.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I want to say to my friend it is not a cheap shot that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) took against the Premier of Saskatchewan. It is something all of us deeply and sincerely regret. A man of the stature and calibre of the Premier of Saskatchewan should be the last person standing in the way of the inclusion of women’s rights in the constitution.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s a cheap shot.

Mr. Cassidy: Talk about French rights.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The position of Ontario is very clear in all our communications. We want full rights for women in the constitution. We want aboriginal rights in the constitution. That has been made very clear. That particular discussion is going on at present. Whether or not a debate is held today, I submit it is not going to influence or diminish our fight on behalf of everyone in this Legislature to make sure that women’s rights and aboriginal rights are in that new constitution. I can guarantee that to the members of this House.

[…]

4:10 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Cassidy’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria,
Breaugh,
Bryden,
Cassidy,
Charlton,
Conway,
Cooke,
Copps,
Cunningham,
Di Santo,
Eakins,
Elston,
Grande,
Haggerty,
Laughren,
Lupusella,
MacDonald,
Martel,
McClellan,
McKessock,
Miller, G.I.,
Newman,
Nixon,
Peterson,
Philip,
Riddell,
Ruprecht,
Ruston,
Smith,
Swart,
Sweeney,
Van Horne,
Wildman,
Worton,
Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes,
Ashe,
Baetz,
Barlow,
Bennett,
Brandt,
Cousens,
Cureatz,
Davis,
Dean,
Drea,
Eaton,
Fish,
Gordon,
Gregory,
Grossman,
Harris,
Havrot,
Henderson,
Hennessy,
Hodgson,
Johnson, J.M.,
Jones,
Kells,
Kennedy,
Kolyn,
Leluk,
MacQuarrie,
McCague,
McLean,
McMurtry,
McNeil,
Norton,
Piché,
Pollock,
Pope,
Ramsay,
Robinson,
Rotenberg,
Runciman,
Scrivener,
Sheppard,
Shymko,
Stephenson, B.M.,
Stevenson, K.R.,
Taylor, G. W.,
Timbrell,
Treleaven,
Walker,
Wells,
Williams,
Wiseman,
Yakabuski.

Ayes 35; nays 53.