LONDON (January 29, 1998) - After referring to Fp leader Lloyd Walker's criticisms of the Calgary Framework, London North MPP and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dianne Cunningham described the crisis facing Canada's provincial and federal governments as one that was caused by a failure "at the time of Confederation" of having "our responsibilities at (various) levels of government spelled out.
"Over a very long period of time, but especially since the second world war, we got our modern democracy, I think, by making promises at different levels of government with regards to programs that weren't really our responsibility," explained Cunningham. "In Ontario, I really cannot tell you how we spend some of the federal government's money that is sent to institutions, and we actually have no authority to check to see how that money is spent."
Cunningham's comments were made at a publicly advertised Ontario Speaks meeting held at the Jewish Community Centre. Arrangements were made to engage the 55 attendees in a 'dialogue' that included group table discussions directed by 'facilitators', who explicitly instructed participants to avoid "arriving at conclusions" or "discussing matters of substance."
Rick Russell, "a full-time facilitator since 1989," emphasized that "Nobody's here today to make a decision about anything. This is really a consultation process. Think about what you'd like the country to look like, act like, behave like. Then we're going to talk about our approach to diversity, and how we view diversity in the context of what the Framework says. Then we're going to talk about how our view of Canadian diverse society fits with the Framework's view."
One after another, speakers described how their view of Canadian society did NOT fit in with the Framework's view. Many demonstrated their awareness of the glaring omission of individual freedom as a value within the Framework's vision of Canada, though this was not surprising, given many attendees' involvement with groups like the Reform Party, the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada (APEC), and Freedom Party.
Fp leader Lloyd Walker received particularly strong applause when he encouraged the government to "get out of the culture business" and to "abolish groups such as the Human Rights Commissions which bring the entire justice system into disrepute."
He challenged Canada's politicians to "live up to the rules of Confederation as laid out in the BNA Act of 1867," and condemned the Ontario Speaks process as an illegitimate means of collecting the opinions of Ontarians.
"I would like to point out that the Standing committee of the Ontario Legislature has recommended the use of referenda on Constitutional issues," Walker reminded Cunningham. "Maybe it's time they got that through and actually used it, if you really want to hear what individuals have to say on this Framework."
Cunningham defended the provincial government's process of collecting the opinions of Ontarians by claiming that the 1.6% return rate of the Ontario Speaks survey represented "a HUGE response."
"We sent out over four million brochures," she explained, "and we are now going to have something like a 1.6% return. For most of us, that doesn't sound like very much. For people in the business of trying to get 65,000 people to talk to them about something they care about, this is great news!"
Given the informality and absence of structure in the government's Ontario Speaks public meetings, it is highly doubtful that anything meaningful can possibly be accomplished by such a subjective process. If anything, such a process offers evidence that our government's do NOT want to hear from their constituents, and their attempt to focus attention on meaningless process rather than substance is an admission of the government's not-so-hidden agenda.
"The Calgary Framework is about government power and their ability to force a rather perverse vision of diversity upon us," concluded Walker in his comments to Cunningham. "Where is the respect for the individual? Where is the freedom? Where are the safeguards for us? Where are the limits on government that should be part of any vision of the future of this country? They're just not here in (this) Framework, and that makes it an extremely dangerous vision."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
