Document Information
Date: 1981-11-06
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]
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to table a rather historic document in the life of this country. I only have one copy, and I hope somebody will bring me another one. I do not intend to table this one, because it happens to have the signatures of other first ministers. I do not often keep documents or memorabilia, which is probably a mistake on my part, but this is one I intend to keep.
I want to report to the House on the events of the past nearly four days. I must say it is really kind of pleasant to be back here in the peace and tranquillity of this House compared to what has been going on elsewhere. I report to the House with feelings of optimism and confidence and a greater appreciation of what this country is about and what is required to make it work.
I went to Ottawa on Sunday evening and appeared at the conference at 10 o’clock on Monday morning without being totally sure that some measure of compromise or consensus was achievable. It is fair to state that all of us as first ministers were faced with some rather entrenched positions, points of view that were very firmly and, I say with respect, sincerely held, not just by the group of eight as a group, not just by the Prime Minister of this country, the Premier of New Brunswick or the Premier of this province.
These were points of view we had come to believe in and support, some of us over a period of many years and in my case for 10 years, two and a half months, two days and several hours. For some other Premiers, they were points of view that had been developed and determined more recently. As I looked around the table on Monday morning and listened to the preliminary opening statements made to the public of this country, a lot of observers, I think, would have expressed that same reservation.
But then we met as a group. We met for long hours, not always together, not always in the same groups and not always with unanimity. Out of that process we have achieved something that is significant for this country. Subject to the House of Commons and the British Parliament, we have achieved patriation after many years of effort. We have achieved a charter which, even with its limitations, is probably as significant as one will find in any country in the free world. We have agreed on an amending formula that has eluded us for many years as well.
It was done, by and large, in a spirit of genuine compromise. There was not too much rancour or bitterness. There were periods during those four days when the conference was on the verge of breaking down. There were individual situations that only my memoirs — if I ever write them, which is doubtful — will explain to the general public. There were personal relationships that were developed during the course of that meeting, and a genuine desire on the part of all first ministers to come to grips finally and reach a measure of consensus that has escaped us for so many years.
10:50 a.m.
I know that some members opposite were concerned when the Premier of this province indicated at the opening meeting that Ontario was prepared to give away what the Toronto Sun described as its “veto.” Of course, the Sun did not report what I wanted in exchange for that; and I am not being critical, because I did not say what I wanted in exchange.
I thought it was important that there should be some indication on the part of some first ministers at the conference — and the Premier of New Brunswick did this as well — that we were not intransigent, that there were areas of flexibility which would give some motivation to the group of first ministers. It was with this in mind that I indicated to the other first ministers and to the people of this province and of Canada that, from my perspective, an automatic veto for this province was there for negotiation.
What is hard to explain to people across Canada is the sense they have that while we are here with 8.5 million people and that through our representation in the House of Commons, by the sheer weight of numbers, we have a very significant position in this country — and that position is not going to be altered; it is not going to be diminished — at the same time some first ministers then understood that in the perception of the people whom they represent, whether they be the 120,000 in Prince Edward Island who came into Confederation on the basis that, while they do not have the numbers, they too were important to the makeup of this nation.
The people in western Canada, I guess, have traditionally felt over the years — and I do not say that it has always been with justification, but one deals with perceptions as well as with realities — that perhaps central Canada has had more than its share of economic growth and development, and some of the western Premiers were concerned about their provincial rights and about the fact that they as individual provinces did not have the same rights as pertain here in Ontario. It is difficult to understand this until you sit down and meet and discuss with these individuals.
I think one should understand something else in this process. When the private meeting on Thursday adjourned at 12:20, or whatever the hour, and I went back into the conference centre, one of the first questions I was asked — and I am not critical of the media; it is their job, and I understand the difficulties — was: “Did you lose? Did you win?”
Mr. Kerrio: Give it to them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am not giving it to them at all. I did not enter that conference on the basis of winning or losing. I know that is the attitude some have. I have always approached first ministers’ conferences not to win for myself; I am a relatively modest individual, although some will not always agree with that. But my purpose at that meeting was clear, and I said it to the press: There were to be no winners or losers at that conference in terms of the politicians or the positions of their governments. The winner this week has been this nation and the people of this country, and that to me is what this exercise is all about.
During the next few days, few weeks and few months some people in the academic world, some of the social scientists or the political scientists and others, will be able to find theoretical flaws in the compromise we achieved. There is no question they will find some. From my standpoint, there is no question it represented less than perfection. All of us in this House try to achieve perfection; I guess some do and others do not.
I would not be honest if I did not say that if I had been writing it by myself, it would have been somewhat different. I do not quarrel for a moment that there will be those who will say that certain things that were important to them are not there or perhaps are there in a form that they like less than what they had suggested. I do not think there is any question, as it emerged, that it was a consensus, a recognition on the part of all of us that we had to give something, that we had to move one another, and that was accomplished.
I know some of my own very loyal supporters will question my observation, but I want to make it clear and repeat what I said publicly yesterday: While one can disagree with the Prime Minister of this nation on economic issues and many other matters, I have never questioned his sincerity, his motivation or his sense of purpose when it comes to constitutional change. I know he too, if he had been personally writing the document yesterday, would have had a different document. But I think he sensed, as I did, that this country is not the product of any one government, of any one Premier or of any one Prime Minister.
I think it is fair to state that the Prime Minister of this country, in spite of the predictions prior to the conference, showed a degree of flexibility and a recognition that, to have some sense of belonging in this process, he too was prepared to move away from his very strongly held positions.
As I review the past four days, I want to pay tribute — as will the opposition members, because this is a nonpartisan event — to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) of this province, who worked hard not only in the hours they dedicated but also in the way they conciliated, the way they worked with their fellow ministers, in the way they gave direction and took part in the activities in the late hours of the evenings and into a couple of mornings this week and in the way they were able to work with their colleagues from across this country. I think it is appropriate to recognize the contribution of those two ministers of the crown.
I should also acknowledge the work, some for many years, of some public servants of this province — I do not know whether they are in the gallery today, and I apologize for not having a written statement, but time would not permit — of Rendall Dick, the former Deputy Attorney General, the former Deputy Treasurer and now the present Deputy Attorney General, who has been involved in this process; the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Donald Stevenson, who has a tremendous knowledge and experience in this field; and Allan Leal, Gary Posen, John Cavarzan and Mr. Segal, whose contributions in the past year and a half have assisted in this process. There were many others who made a contribution.
In terms of the substance of the agreement, patriation has been agreed to. We have agreed on an amending formula that, once again, does not represent perfection. It is a compromise, but it is an amending formula that I believe will work if we as Canadians want it to work.
11 a.m.
There are some alterations in the amending formula from what has been historically referred to as the Vancouver formula or the accord formula. The prime area is the deletion of the transfer of fiscal equivalents if a province opts out of a constitutional amendment that derogates from provincial rights. That is a sensitive issue. I was one of those who supported this, and I explained to my fellow Premiers that, while one might isolate certain situations, the reality is that if Ontario has the right to opt out — which we would have — and if there were a national program to represent the national will, if Ontario or, as an even better example, Alberta were to opt out and still receive the fiscal equivalents, that would be rewarding provinces that should not have that sort of incentive or encouragement to opt out of a program that the rest of the country felt was in the national interest.
I know this created a concern for the Premier of Quebec. I think one has always looked at it without understanding that if we are to have that type of formula, there is the possibility that provinces that traditionally never would opt out would have that inducement or incentive. I felt very strongly, as did the Prime Minister and some other Premiers of the group of eight, that this was not an appropriate measure to have in an amending formula. We perhaps will hear more of this from the Premier of Quebec, but the Prime Minister also made it abundantly clear that while he could not support that fiscal transfer in terms of an amending formula, no government of this country is going to look at a province that through genuine principle or practical application determined that a national constitutional change would not work.
I think we have had that situation three times in the past many years. and the chances are that there will be very few such situations in the future. The government of this country will treat that particular province with fairness and equity. There is nothing in the formula that precludes the national government from moving in. If the people of Prince Edward Island, for example, cannot join the other nine provinces of this country on a matter of principle, who is going to say to them they are going to be penalized? No one is looking for a penalty. What we are looking for is a formula that does not provide an incentive or encouragement.
There will be some criticism of the principle of opting out. One cannot opt out of the charter itself or out of those matters in the federal jurisdiction. To put it simplistically, and there are variations, it is confined to those constitutional changes that would take away the traditional rights of the provinces. I think it is a workable formula. It may be that my successor 10, 15 or 20 years down the road — my successor on this side of the House — and other first ministers will find an even better amending formula or some variation. We are not precluded from that either.
I move to the charter itself. There will be those who will say it has been altered as it exists in the resolution. I do not argue with that. But the reality is, provinces that six days ago were opposed to the principle of a charter being entrenched in our constitution are now saying: “We accept the principle; we are prepared to entrench democratic rights and mobility rights.”
We also reached a compromise with respect to the fundamental rights. That was one I hoped would be in the non-notwithstanding approach, along with legal and equality rights. A number of provinces will not take the notwithstanding approach. There were those in the group of eight who, my guess is, will accept fundamental rights as a matter of course. I think the Premier of Alberta expressed it in terms of his own province — his concern about the entrenchment or not having the right to put in a notwithstanding clause.
I emphasize that right also contains with it the necessity to put in a sunset provision so no Legislature can do it in perpetuity. It automatically comes up every five years so that the conscience of those legislators, at that time, will have to be tested as it relates to the social attitudes in their provinces. I am an optimist and my prediction is it will not be many years before the fundamental rights will be part of the entrenched part of the charter in this country as a matter of course.
The question of equality rights is a sensitive area. It was Premier Hatfield who suggested this after I suggested we would take a look at the accord formula for amendment if the other Premiers would move towards accepting the principle of the charter, so one has the equality rights section and the legal rights section.
I think our Attorney General has expressed, not the reservation about the principle but the concern that perhaps there is some wisdom in refining or taking a look at the legal rights section. No one opposes legal rights at all — I want to say that for the other Premiers. It is a question of having it in sufficient balance that it is workable.
The members have all had representations. We have had discussions with the police chiefs’ associations, not of this province but of Canada. We have had the crown attorneys. There have been the civil libertarians. I think our own Attorney General understands the concern that has been expressed with respect to the provision of legal rights. While I would have preferred to have equality rights and legal rights in there, I think over a period of years we will find that they too will find their way by way of practice into the national charter, if I can phrase it in that fashion.
Ontario introduced the principle of mobility, and that is in the charter. I have expressed my views, sometimes emotionally, on this subject. I happen to believe in it and it is there. One has to be Premier of Newfoundland to understand what the implications of that section are. That province has an unemployment rate well above the national average, and the Premier wants to find employment for the citizens of that province. We have found an accommodation that accepts the principle but understands the diversity of this country.
I express regret this was also an area where the Premier of Quebec said he could not support the agreement. I regret it because I think maybe words could have been found to maintain the principle but recognize some of the concerns of the Premier of that great province. But it is there. That, to me, is fundamental.
We have, as well, the principle of equalization. That is there. That is basic to the functioning of this country. The recognition of regional disparities and the agreement we reached on resources are included in the agreement reached yesterday in the nation’s capital.
I would be less than honest if I did not express my concern at the decision of the Premier of Quebec on behalf of his government not to sign that agreement. I think some of the members saw his point of view being expressed. His opposition, his reluctance, his decision not to sign was based on the mobility section and was based on the fiscal equivalency.
I regret it but I said publicly, and I will say it again, I think the Prime Minister and every Premier in this country were dedicated to finding the ways and means to make it abundantly clear there was no attempt to isolate the people of Quebec in this discussion. I sat there, I listened, I know whereof I speak. I only hope at some point we can bring the government of Quebec into this relationship and into this agreement because that is important to the future of this country.
Mr. Stokes: Where does that leave native rights?
11:10 a.m.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will have the document distributed. The honourable member has, as we all do, a very genuine interest in this subject. I would note that the native people themselves had made representations to the government of Canada and to this government about their concern over the wording that was in the present resolution.
The agreement that has been signed by all first ministers, or one or two acting on behalf of their first ministers, contains a specific section that a constitutional conference will be held, as provided for in the resolution, and include in its agenda the item directly affecting the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The native people will be invited to attend that conference to sort out and find wording — whatever it is we need to do — to have that ultimately included within the constitution. That was part of the agreement, as the honourable member will be able to read in clause five.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have taken longer than I should have. However, I emphasize that while there will be those who question and have reservations, and while there are some of us who would have liked to have seen more, at the same time what was accomplished in Ottawa yesterday, to me, is significant.
I could sense it as I sat there yesterday afternoon. It was not quite a feeling of relief, but I sat there with first ministers, some of whom were not talking to one another, and we had been debating these things. The rhetoric has been pretty great over the past year. There has been rhetoric with respect to the Prime Minister and the government of Canada — we all know what has been said. But the heads of governments, regrettably with the exception of the Premier of Quebec, were sort of saying as one: “We have done it; we are going to have patriation; we are going to have a charter; we have agreed on a formula; the constitutional discussion at this phase is over.”
We really are saying that at one o’clock yesterday this country, after 114 years, has achieved nationhood.
[Applause.]
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this is a very happy moment in the Legislature. It is a moment in which I am able to rise to first of all commend the Premier on an excellent summary of the situation that he has just presented to us. More than that, I am able to associate myself wholeheartedly with the accommodation which, as he says, is not perfect but is a decent, honourable and useful compromise.
I believe had I been given the same document to sign I would have signed it — and just as happily as the Premier has signed it. Therefore I am especially pleased that we can speak on this matter with no sign at all of partisan difference, but rather with the good feeling we have as Canadians, as residents of Ontario and legislators in this Assembly.
When the news came out he was prepared to be conciliatory on the subject of our so-called veto I supported him in this. The Premier may not be aware of that but he should know it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: There were others who did not.
Mr. Smith: There may have been others who did not, but he should know that I supported him, and did so publicly. He should know as well that when the news of the agreement came out I stood to pay tribute to him and his fellow first ministers for having achieved that accord.
I believe we should pay tribute to Premier Peckford, whose solution was eventually chosen. But I think the contribution of our own Premier in being willing to be conciliatory and in being willing to help to negotiate between the various parties was equally important, if not even more important. I am willing to say that and am very happy to say that. There were times I felt that perhaps such conciliation would have been Ontario’s role earlier than the eleventh hour, but better late than never. Perhaps the timing turned out to be just right in the long run anyhow. I want to say that very sincerely.
I hope I may take a moment, with the willingness and wholehearted appreciation of other people in the House, to pay tribute also to my national leader, a man for whom this constitutional issue has been a burning personal issue. A good many Canadians might well have wondered why it was something he felt it was necessary to deal with. He has had the courage to stand up to much criticism. He has shown flexibility in the last analysis. He has shown a sense of what Canada is all about. I am very proud to serve in the party of which he is the national leader, and I want publicly to pay tribute to Pierre Elliott Trudeau on this accomplishment.
I suspect the very process of the negotiations
— which we watched and frankly found incomprehensible most of the time — and the outcome establish plainly the reality of regionalism in this country. We in Ontario sometimes fail to understand that. We are so closely identified with a central government and with a sense of Canada as a unity that we sometimes forget the importance of regionalism as a potential source of strength in this country. But the regionalism of our nation was recognized by the process of bargaining that went on, and in a sense the very compromise has recognized the regionalism. That is fine. I do not see anything wrong with that. There is no way that a country whose population is stretched so narrowly from one ocean to the other could expect to avoid regionalism as a reality of feeling among Canadians everywhere. I think the compromise recognizes it, and recognizes it in a useful way.
I am not happy that people can opt out of certain provisions, but I agree with the Premier that they have done everything possible to make it difficult to opt out. In the long run, maybe people will not be opted out. I can live with the amending formula. I am happy with most of the compromises that were made, even though, as the Premier says, I would have preferred the original document. But that was not to be.
I am concerned about what is going to happen in Quebec. The people of Quebec are once again going to be the subject of competing arguments. It seems as though they are never to be left alone with these matters. They are going to find people of beliefs, which are sometimes opposite to one another, going before them in one way or another, seeking their views and seeking their allegiance. Whether it will be in the form of some vote or just in a general political sense, I do not know.
But I am disappointed the government of Quebec saw fit to oppose this compromise so vehemently. I would have thought they could live with it, frankly. I would have hoped that Canadians everywhere could realize there is more in it for all of us to be generous with one another than to be especially protective of ourselves. We should have enough confidence in ourselves after these many years to know that Canada can survive and even our various regions can survive, with whatever identity we wish to give them, without the necessity to be anything less than generous to those minorities who live among us. I would have hoped that could have been understood.
My view is that it goes beyond education rights. My personal view — and I do not wish to raise another issue here today; it is not the time for it — is that services are just as important as education rights. I still hope the day will come when in our own province something like the bill of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) or some other guarantee of services will be enshrined in legislation. I really believe that would be good for Canada.
11:20 a.m.
I accept that in the matter of language of education there is apparently a problem in the government of Quebec. The Premier did not mention that when he spoke of the objections. Perhaps he meant to or he mentioned it at other times. But there is, I think, a serious question there. I want to say to my friends in Quebec that they really have nothing to fear from that provision.
Je veux dire à mes amis dans la province de Québec que le Québec ne perdra rien en permettant le choix dans le royaume d’éducation.
Moi-même, j’ai reçu le bénéfice d’une éducation en anglais dans la province de Québec. Le Québec est très généreux envers ses minorités anglophones. Je comprends très bien qu’ils craignent perdre l’identité francophone dans la province si l’on donne trop à la très forte minorité anglophone.
Mais selon toutes les indications au Québec maintenant, les francophones sont en contrôle et ils vont y rester. Les vraies questions dans la province de Québec sont celles de la langue dans la place du travail. La langue de travail doit être le français dans la province de Québec. Et on ne va pas garantir cela en réduisant les droits des anglophones à l’éducation en la langue anglaise.
On peut être généreux envers les minorités sans avoir peur de perdre quelque chose d’important dans le procès qui continue chaque jour à garantir l’atmosphère et l’esprit français dans la province de Québec.
Je veux dire sincèrement que j’espère que la population de la province de Québec va prendre l’attitude qu’on pourra accepter ces droits. C’est naturel, quand on donne un droit à la population, que le gouvernement, soit fédéral soit provincial, va perdre quelque chose, parce que ce sont les individus qui vont obtenir quelque chose. Mais la province de Québec n’a rien à perdre, n’a rien à craindre de ces amendements et de ces droits inscrits dans la charte.
So I believe that much good has been done for our country by the compromise; I believe that our Premier represented us well at the congress; I believe that the country will be stronger as a result. My concerns about Quebec, I am sure, are shared by other members in the House, but we will do our best to persuade our friends in Quebec that they have nothing to lose and nothing to fear from a reasonable amount of generosity, which has always existed in Quebec until very recent years with the anglophone minority. We for our part, I trust, will reciprocate those feelings in Ontario.
Canada is a very great country. It is a great country for all of us in every province, no matter what language we speak, no matter what our ethnic background is. I am happy to see that this week our country has moved towards its coming of age, and I pay tribute to all who have been involved in that process.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in future years November 5 is going to be an historic date. I envisage the day, perhaps, when school children visit this building and are brought up into the hallway out there and are asked to take a look at the Fathers of Confederation. It is even possible that it will be supplemented with or replaced by the fathers of reconfederation.
I can quite understand the Premier starting for the first time in his life to collect memorabilia and having at the top of that list the original document signed by all of the first ministers yesterday because it is, I repeat, a truly historic achievement.
Occasionally we try to rescue ourselves from the inevitable and perhaps even desirable measure of partisanship that characterizes exchanges, and take the more ecumenical approach of focussing on the great common ground we share. I think this is one of those occasions and I want to join generally with the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier in tribute to what went on.
I confess the news yesterday was perhaps as great a measure of profound relief as I have had on anything for quite some time. I have lived with this constitutional issue, partly because of an interest in it from my days under J. A. Corry at Queen’s University decades back but more recently as chairman of the constitution committee in our caucus here and as a member of the constitution committee within the framework of the federal New Democratic Party. Periodically I have had the privilege of discussing with various Ontario government advisers as well as Saskatchewan government advisers what was going to happen to try to get the breakthrough we needed.
There were many times when one came to the conclusion that perhaps the breakthrough was not possible, that there was not that necessary element of statesmanship among our leaders today to make it possible. I have often used the analogy of what went on back in the days of Confederation with people such as Sir John A. Macdonald and George Brown, who hated each other with an intensity I suspect surpasses the intensity of personal antagonism between any leaders in Canada today; yet this nation was born because they were able to set that antagonism aside, set some of their political differences aside and come together to make possible a new nation on the northern half of the North American continent.
There is something I have felt very strongly about and have urged among my colleagues, both here, federally and generally, when I was speaking on this issue. It is that one has to recognize in the process of constitutional reform that one may set forward goals on which one places extremely high priority but one always has to do it in the framework of a certain tentativeness. In the final analysis there have to be tradeoffs. One may not like it, it may be demeaning, but there have to be tradeoffs.
The exciting thing about what happened in Ottawa, in what must have been a blood, sweat and tears process, was that finally the necessary element of statesmanship emerged. That petulant Peckford who was sticking to the mobility issue in terms of labour was willing to modify it. Everybody else in equivalent ways was willing to modify. As our Premier has said, it is not a perfect document, but in a federal state one can never get a perfect document because it is the product of that basic necessary compromise.
Perhaps nothing has concerned me more in this whole process than the fact Ontario was willing to forego its traditional role in federal-provincial relationships until almost the eleventh hour. That traditional role has been one of establishing a working relationship with other provinces. It is not traditional to permit itself to be isolated in the fashion Ontario tragically had become isolated, but to play the mediating role between French Canada and English Canada because of our geographic and historic ties with Quebec.
Without spelling that out, because we are all familiar with it, what has happened in the last decade is that Ontario has moved into a new role in which we had total, uncritical identification with the federal position. Our working relationships with the other provinces virtually disappeared, whereas in years gone by when the Premier of Ontario spoke most people tended to agree and go along with him.
11:30 a.m.
Tragically, in recent years if the Premier of Ontario tended to take a position, the other nine were likely to line up against him. For us who live and work in the province, the longer that went on not only is it tragic for us, it is tragic for this nation. I am convinced the continuing role of Ontario in that historic pattern is there. It emerged in the course of the negotiations.
The Premier well knows that on occasion I presumed to call up some of his advisers on this issue and say, “Why cannot Ontario move in and attempt to bridge the gap that existed there?” I am not going to be critical and second-guess that he did not do it until the eleventh hour, because I recognize that timing is of the essence. But at least Ontario has now moved back into something of that traditional role. On television last night, I saw that rather touching scene where Peter Lougheed turned and said, “Bill, you even helped to persuade me.” That was really touching.
However, as my final comments on what has happened here, I want to suggest very strongly to the Premier that he should pursue with vigor the re-establishment of that historic role of Ontario. He should do it in terms of those two areas which, despite all of the euphoria and all of the relief over yesterday’s achievement, if I may borrow Joe Clark’s phrase, represent “dark shadows.”
The one, of course, is the problem of Quebec. The Premier will forgive me if I speak feelingly on Quebec. My great-grandfather carved a farm out of the bush in Quebec south of Montreal. I grew up in Quebec from the age of 10 and most of my family lived in Quebec. I am proud to assert I am a Quebecois. I would like to be considered a Quebecois.
What happened yesterday admittedly takes us out of the pattern of the last year or so when we had, as some people said, as great a threat of separatism from western Canada as we had from Quebec. Perhaps that has been resolved but we are back to square one, the problem of how we establish a working relationship with Quebec. I would like to have believed that if the only two — and I do not have the details clear in my mind yet exactly what was achieved — but if the only two reasons for not signing the agreement were the mobility section and the fiscal equivalent signing-out section, I find it a little difficult understanding why, if those were the only two, Premier Levesque could not have signed it on behalf of Quebec.
But we have seen enough in the last year or two. Do not underestimate who is really in touch with Quebec and its people. I, for one, am not going to say that Levesque is not. It may well be he knows what the people of Quebec feel on these issues strongly enough that we have a massive job — to borrow the phraseology of the referendum era — of appealing to the hearts and minds of the people of Quebec.
I come back to my essential theme. Ontario has to play a role in that, a greater role it has played in recent years. In order to play an effective role, Ontario has to do something to refurbish and rebuild its credibility. Without pursuing it any more, dare I say section 133 will have to be looked at, or the issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition.
The second area of dark shadow — and I am sorry I am not comforted by the Premier’s suggestion that section 5 makes a commitment to a conference to take a look at aboriginal rights. If one reads this morning’s paper, there is a sense of burning outrage among native peoples in this country. I can quite understand their burning outrage. After years of struggle and then sort of being kept out of the whole consultative process in constitutional reform, finally they got a revision in the package in the House of Commons that included a protection of aboriginal rights.
The specious illogic of the argument that I saw in one story in the paper this morning was that because there were differences among the native people, and they were not happy with what was there because it was less than perfect and they wanted it to be closer to perfect, the answer was to strike it out of the charter, totally, even though he has given promise of a conference in which he is going to sit down to address it.
I repeat, it is an insult; it is an affront. I can understand the sense of outrage among the people. However, we leave that with the plea that Ontario will pick up on its historic role and pursue it.
I join with others in paying tribute to the Premier in re-establishing that mediating role, in bringing in a measure and a mood for entertaining flexibility.
I pay tribute, because nobody else has particularly mentioned it, to the role of Allan Blakeney, because he has been in a very difficult position in recent months. Western Canada is massively lined up politically these days, and he has to live with his electorate. Everybody knew that Allan Blakeney had to live with it, and yet there were measures of flexibility that he was willing to entertain. Only in the final process was he able to come in and share in that. While it may be deemed a Peckford compromise, I think Allan Blakeney and our Premier played a major role in the initial work that ultimately ended up in the so-called Peckford compromise.
It was a great day yesterday, and as we resume the partisan exchanges in the days to come, I do not think the measure of that achievement will diminish at all.
Mr. Speaker: As everybody has said, it is indeed a great, momentous occasion, and I would like, on a very personal basis, to extend my thanks to all those people right across this country, from coast to coast, who participated in coming to a successful conclusion.