The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

SECURITY IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to do with the privilege of a member to invite guests into the Legislature to participate in tours of the Legislature.

Two months ago I agreed to work with a group called the Family Benefits Work Group to establish a number of events in this week coming up, including a demonstration on Thursday and the singing of songs outside the Legislature today by a small group of mothers and children. Another part of what I arranged was a tour of the Legislature by a part of that group, understanding that the younger children couldn’t participate but older people might.

Today a group of students from an alternative school who came with the group entered the Legislature as my guests, along with the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). We passed the security guards and the barriers that were set up outside for this small group of 10 mothers and children -- below the age of four -- and explained they could come in. We sat down and had our pictures taken with them on the steps, and they proceeded to take the tour, under guidance from the staff here.

They happened to be wearing T-shirts which they had put on in support of the action of the group that was outside singing the songs. As a result, I was pulled out of a caucus meeting this morning by the security staff and asked if I might go and ask these people to remove these T-shirts or to leave the building. I went and talked to the group of students, feeling quite constrained in my position as a member and feeling this was a very unfortunate kind of thing to do to young people who were coming quite innocently to the Legislature.

I found them sitting on the floor listening to the tour guide, being very peaceful, creating no kind of disturbance at all, and explained the situation to them. They decided they would leave this Legislature rather than be dictated to as to how they might dress, given that some of them were wearing T-shirts with no other apparel underneath.

I feel we must be able to handle our security matters much more democratically and with a little more humanity and understanding and not put members like myself in the embarrassing position of watching seven students and two teachers leave this building feeling they were not welcome here.

Mr. McClellan: Since I was a co-host of the group of students who were here in the company of their teacher, Mr. Harry Skinner, I want to convey to you, Mr. Speaker, my own sense that my privileges as a member have been violated and my own very deep regret that this incident happened. I don’t think it is the business of the security forces of this Legislature or of the Speaker’s office to dictate to the guests of a member how they shall dress as they take a tour through the building.

I point out to you that the demonstration of the Family Benefits Work Group is not today; it is on Thursday. This group was here as part of a regular tour of the Legislature.

I would ask you, sir, to write to the students and to their teachers with your own apology for the discourteous way they were treated here today, and to invite the group to return to the Ontario Legislature and to continue its tour.

Mr. Speaker: I have some knowledge of the incident to which the member for Scarborough West and the member for Bellwoods refer. It has been the practice in this Legislature and in its precincts that all demonstrations be carried on outside the building. When it was brought to my attention by the security forces, I went out and found that there was a very well-run demonstration outside the building.

People were wearing the T-shirts you refer to, with their message inscribed on the front, and also were carrying balloons on which the same message was inscribed. In every sense of the word, that is a demonstration which is quite legal and quite legitimate outside the building. The security forces, for reasons known to all of us, have been advised that all demonstrations will be conducted outside the building.

When it was brought to my attention and I investigated, I found out that the same message as that transmitted outside the building, was being transmitted inside the building. This places our security forces in a very invidious position. The kind of guidelines that were laid down by at least two predecessors of mine are known well to all members and staff of this Legislature. The security forces of which you complain were only carrying out the instructions that have been issued to them for a number of years around here.

If you feel they are not appropriate to the situation, I think it’s the responsibility of the House to give some guidance to the Speaker so that in turn he can transmit it to our security forces.

On the basis of what I know of the incident I see no cause for complaining as to the actions of our security forces. Unless I get some other guidance from the House in general, those guidelines will be enforced in the future as they were today and as they have been in the past.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member want to challenge --

Mr. Breaugh: I do not wish to challenge but you did ask for guidance. I would like the record to show that I have never in my life been frightened or threatened by children wearing T-shirts or carrying balloons, and I offer that as guidance.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not the question.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GREAT LAKES-SEAWAY TASK FORCE

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, when I announced the appointment of Mr. Ralph Misener as chairman of the provincial Great Lakes-Seaway task force, I indicated my intention of reporting back to the House on the makeup of the entire group once the members had been selected.

Today I would like to inform the House that 11 of the proposed 13 individuals who will sit with Mr. Misener on this important provincial investigative body have been selected -- 11 people with a considerable weight of experience in marine transportation, municipal administration, union representation and manufacturing.

The people I speak of include: Mr. Bob Saracino, mayor of the city of Port Colborne; Mr. Nicholas Trbovich, mayor of the city of Sault Ste. Marie; Mr. Dick Thomasson, legislative representative of the Seafarers International Union of Canada; Mr. Clare Westcott, executive director, Office of the Premier; Mr. Don Irvine, a director with Hall Shipping Company from Prescott, Ontario; Mr. John Pressinger, a retired mill superintendent, once with Abitibi Mills, from Thunder Bay; Mr. Duncan Maxwell, president of the Port Weller Dry Docks; Mr. Aird Lewis, executive director of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, from Toronto; Mr. Jack Shirley, retired president of Bowater Canadian Limited of Oakville; Mr. Jacques LesStrang, senior editor of the Seaway Review, published in Maple City, Michigan, and Mr. Robin Summerley of the economic policy office with my ministry.

2:10 p.m.

I anticipate two additional members of the task force will represent steel production in Ontario and one of our milling companies. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, representation is from across the province and across the border as well. I am confident these individuals, under the able direction of Mr. Misener as chairman, will provide Ontario with the kind of background information that will ultimately form the backbone of a provincial policy which will not only lead to a more efficient marine facility along our portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway system, but be the basis for our continuing negotiations with neighbouring American states, Ottawa and those municipalities with critical interests.

Each of the people selected to sit on the task force has indicated a keen interest in working towards the improvement, where feasible or possible, of the marine mode in our overall transportation network. I would like to point out Mr. Misener, the chairman, is with us today sitting in the gallery at the end of the aisle here as an indication of his interest in the task force.

I have also set up a task force secretariat under the co-ordination of Margaret Kelch to supply the members with management and support services. In addition, I will be setting up a technical advisory committee to provide specific knowledge on various issues identified by the task force.

Finally, as I said earlier, I expect Mr. Misener’s full report, together with the findings of the provincial task force on rail policy, will provide Ontario with a greater understanding of our future in intermodal transportation.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I have a statement regarding the forest fire situation in northern Ontario. I am presenting this statement for my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), who is at present in Holland participating in the ceremonies marking the Canadian involvement with the liberation of that country in the Second World War, in which the minister played a very active role.

I would like to give the honourable members the latest information on a very serious forest fire situation which developed in northern Ontario, particularly in the northwestern area. At this moment 89 forest fires are burning across the province. This is a considerable increase which began over the weekend when a violent lightning storm hit the northwestern part of the province. About 90 new fires resulted. Many of these have been put out but more are expected throughout the area where ground conditions are extremely vulnerable to the threat of fire.

Yesterday nine major fires developed, primarily in the Kenora, Dryden and Fort Frances districts. In the Kenora district, the hardest hit, one major problem is a fire moving just north of Sioux Narrows. It is not known yet whether an evacuation order will be issued for that community. At Camp Robinson, a settlement north of Highway 17 on Red Lake Road, an evacuation order has been issued to the 30 people there. The fire is still 10 to 15 miles away but it could become dangerous to the community in the next day or two. Another major fire was heading for the community of Minaki yesterday, but bypassed it, crossing the CNR main line just west of the town. Minaki is not now in the path of the fire, but the situation remains hazardous there.

The ministry has declared a state of fire emergency for the three communities: Sioux Narrows, whose population is about 750 at this time of year; Minaki with about 300, and Camp Robinson with 30.

To deal with the serious fire situation, the ministry’s fire control system has called upon all available manpower, equipment and aircraft from the less hard-pressed areas of the province to work on the problem fires in the northwest.

This morning 55 fire crews were on duty in the affected area with more on the way. In service were 25 helicopters plus 10 water bombers. As far as the weather is concerned, some relief is expected today with a significant drop in temperature and some snow squalls. However, northwest winds still prevail and the situation remains critical.

This is an up-to-the-minute outline of the situation as reported by the ministry’s provincial fire control centre in Sault Ste. Marie.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CARE OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. S. Smith: I will direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister explain the philosophical rationale for his continuing insistence upon a municipal contribution before he will settle the matter of the disabled people who are now languishing in the back wards of various provincial hospitals and institutions when they could, in fact, be living a more vital and interesting life in the community? What is the rationale for the insistence upon a municipal contribution when these people are already being housed totally at provincial expense?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, it has long been the policy within this province and in other areas of this country as well that such cost sharing is an approach to the delivery of social services at the local level. There are a number of very good reasons for that, not the least of which is the importance of local involvement in the planning and the co-ordination of social services.

On this specific issue that he raises today, some other municipalities in Ontario, outside Metropolitan Toronto, not only have expressed a willingness to continue as they have in the past with cost-shared programs like this, but have asked that they be permitted to cost-share, specifically for the reason that they would like to feel they, as municipal bodies, have some direct influence and control over the programming at the local level.

I think the reference to the persons who are resident at the present time in chronic-care facilities in terms of cost is, one might say, a red herring. It is a red herring in the sense that the member knows, and certainly those of us who have responsibility for some of these programs understand, that the transfer of persons from those residences is being done not for financial cost saving by and large, but rather for humane reasons in order that they might lead more fulfilling and fulfilled lives in the community.

I would suggest to the member that we are willing to continue on this basis to try to apply the available resources as equitably as we can across the province, and the offer stands for Metro the same as it does for others. At the moment, the only municipality which has taken that particular stand is Metropolitan Toronto and there are other municipalities waiting. I am not prepared to allocate the additional moneys that would be required to fund services in Metropolitan Toronto at 100 per cent and sacrifice other areas of the province which are waiting for their 80 per cent so they can proceed with comparable programs.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: The answer to my question seems to be the minister feels he needs a municipal contribution so the municipality can assist in the administration or the local planning. By way of a supplementary, would the minister kindly explain himself in this regard: Since in the welfare program, or other such programs, the municipality may decide who is to qualify and so on, and it is natural that if it is not paying any of it the administration might take on a very unusual flavour where it is spending other people’s money, in this particular case, where the whole purpose of the program is clearly designed to get people who are now housed in totally inappropriate settings, at provincial expense, into these special facilities, and where obviously only those who are severely disabled in this way could possibly qualify -- nobody else could conceivably decide they want to walk in off the street and take these facilities -- what is the necessity for the local contribution?

Why doesn’t the ministry just accept this, as it does with children’s mental health services, for instance, as a provincial facility and a 100 per cent provincially funded facility, and get these people out of the back wards where they are at present languishing?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I guess it depends upon what one chooses to use as a comparison. I think that much more appropriate than children’s mental health centres would be a comparison with other persons living a normalized existence in the community who are in need of some support by way of homemaking and nursing service, for example.

There are two components to this program. There is the housing component, and where the problem has developed in terms of Metro is in the home support service, the support component.

The counterpart that I see there is the counterpart of the homemaker and nursing service, under which act we propose to provide those services. To argue that this is somehow inequitable seems to me to be arguing that the physically handicapped, because they may require a somewhat higher level of service than the elderly or the otherwise less disabled persons living in the community would require in the way of homemaking and nursing service, ought to be treated differently.

If we really believe in normalization, it seems to me the generic programs we offer, in this case the homemaking and nursing service, ought to be applicable on the same basis to all of those who are in need of the service, whether they require a high level of service, as the severely handicapped do, or a lower level of service.

It is a question of degree, and all I’m suggesting to Metro, and have been suggesting to others, is that we continue with that principle in terms of the delivery of the generic service of homemaking and nursing support in the home.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary: I would ask the honourable minister whether he recalls at the time in 1974 when the government killed the care package proposal, the commitment that was made by the minister of the day, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), to fund any project proposals for independent community living facilities for the physically handicapped as they came forward and to fund them at 100 per cent? Does the minister recall that he funded all projects in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 at 100 per cent; and if the minister does recall those promises, why has he changed his mind about 100 per cent funding? Why has he, all of a sudden, discovered cost sharing in 1980?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, by no stretch of the imagination could the honourable member claim that cost sharing, as a principle, has been discovered in 1980.

I stand to be corrected. I wasn’t here in 1974, but it is my understanding that the commitments made at that time referred to specific pilot projects, and we have maintained that commitment. There are four projects which we have established in co-operation with local agencies across Ontario and it was on the basis of those pilot projects that we determined --

Mr. McClellan: Funded at 100 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Norton: At 100 per cent, certainly, during the period that they were pilot projects. It would be my intention eventually to have those as part of a regular ongoing program rather than being funded as special pilot projects.

We did that for the specific purpose of learning, from the experience, what the most appropriate type of setting would be for handicapped people living in the community. In fact, I made that determination before the end of the full three years of the pilot projects, because it was evident to me that there were many physically handicapped persons who not only could function but also could benefit more fully from living in an integrated housing concept within the community, and that’s what we have decided to proceed with.

That may not be appropriate for everyone, obviously, but that is where we are putting the available resources at the present time. We funded the experimental or the pilot projects at 100 per cent for obvious reasons. That makes sense when one is trying to find out how well something works. To the best of my knowledge, it was never the intention that the ongoing program, once it was established and the policy decisions were taken, would be at 100 per cent, but that it would be on the same basis as other localized services, other social services delivered at the local level.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. We have spent 10 minutes on this one.

Mr. S. Smith: It happened to be a long-winded answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Mr. S. Smith: We agree on that. In the meantime, these people are still languishing, while they’re arguing politics -- the minister’s friend Paul Godfrey, of course.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask my second question of the Minister of the Environment.

Would the minister care to explain how it is that his ministry can assure people throughout Ontario that they ought to accept various waste disposal facilities and rely on the ability and the careful monitoring of his ministry as the main protection of their home communities, that they should not refuse these various waste disposal situations, when his ministry seemed totally unable to act in the case of the famous magic box, in Hamilton -- a box in which at least 270,000 gallons of toxic wastes were put, and from which they disappeared; a box which everyone on the site referred to as the magic box, knowing full well you could pour waste into it and the waste magically disappeared?

Given the fact that the Ministry of the Environment could, first of all, allow that to happen and, secondly, could take no action as a consequence of having discovered the situation, how can any community in Ontario have confidence in the way in which the minister conducts himself?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two parts to that question. The first was with regard to various processes we are trying to establish across the province to treat our liquid wastes. As I’m sure the leader of the Liberal Party knows, we have suggested and insisted that the hearings be held under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Although, quite frankly, I reject the concept of whether the ministry is trustworthy or not -- I’m sure it is -- I would think the leader of the Liberal Party would realize that the Environmental Assessment Board, made up of citizens throughout this province, has the fullest opportunity to make assessments on those proposals and then make recommendations. It is not a matter of whether our ministry is involved in that particular process or not. It is the Environmental Assessment Board and those officers who will be making that assessment.

The second part of the question had to do with the Upper Ottawa landfill site. I’m sure the member knows that all jurisdictions, at the time that certificate was issued many years ago, permitted landfilling of liquid waste. I’m sure he knows I’m strongly opposed to the landifilling of liquid waste. We’re making every effort to change that situation.

I would suggest to the member that if he does not think that such a process should go on, he should address his concern to the regional municipality. It is running that site. A certificate was granted to it by our ministry. We have some monitoring responsibilities, there’s no doubt about that, but it is the region that runs that site.

The certificate for solidification has now expired. It might or it might not be renewed; it’s up to them. I think the member should make his case in his own municipality. His own municipality is running the particular site and I think he would be wise to make his communications to it as well.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since the lawyers in the Ministry of the Environment indicate the law is such that they have no way of prosecuting in a situation of this kind, or dealing with it, whether it be due to the region failing to monitor, or the ministry failing to monitor or, more likely, both failing to monitor; since, according to the minister’s lawyers, the law is insufficient to allow any kind of prosecution to take place, even though everybody must have known that 270,000 gallons of liquid waste are not constantly disappearing by evaporation; since the law is that weak, does the minister not feel some responsibility to change the law so that when he offers a solidification process somewhere else he can offer a guarantee to those people that such a thing could not possibly happen again?

Could he not guarantee if it did happen that there would be severe prosecution undertaken? Can the minister either undertake to change the law or explain to us why anybody should have confidence in his ministry as a monitoring or prosecution agency?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The Leader of the Opposition should know that every jurisdiction had, at that time -- I mean outside Ontario as well as within Ontario -- permits to take liquid wastes. I am sure he knows that we are very much opposed to that and are setting out on a very active program to stop the disposal of liquid wastes on our landfill sites.

I don’t think I need to repeat all of the activity we have engaged in during the last year or year and a half to try to overcome what I think is a very serious environmental problem. I will not rest until we are able to amend the legislation and there will be no landfilling of liquid industrial wastes. That is an unconditional commitment of this government. We are working diligently towards that end.

It does not help us if we do not get those essential facilities in place before we place the legislation. With no facilities and a proposal for legislation such as the member has made, there is only one alternative; that is the illegal dumping of the wastes on to our land and into our streams. That is a terrible mistake. So we must have facilities in place and then, without any question, this government will ban the dumping of wastes.

It would help a great deal if the Leader of the Opposition would turn around and talk to some of his own colleagues who have made such comments as, “We hope to God it is not here.” Those facilities are essential for our province. I will say over and over again, we must have those facilities and we are doing everything we can to get them. Then we will have, I think, one of the best disposal methods of all wastes that it is possible to have.

Mr. Isaacs: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister has indicated that it is his ministry that has monitoring responsibility in these situations, and it took his ministry five months in 1978 before they discovered and closed down the magic box. Given that was a holding tank and the solidification process is now to be reopened at the Upper Ottawa Street site, will the minister assure us there will be full public access to all the information as to what is going into that site? Will he ensure there will be full public information through an Environmental Assessment Board hearing or through some other mechanism as to the process, the monitoring and the security that is in place so that the people of the area can be assured that the magic box incident, or anything of that kind, will never recur -- at the Upper Ottawa Street site, or anywhere else in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me take a minute to try to explain what this dramatic scene of the magic box is.

The magic box, I guess, was a holding tank, as the member said. There was nothing illegal about bringing waste into that landfill site. It is a practice about which, for the last year and a half, we have started to say we very much want to discontinue the disposal of liquid wastes into landfill sites. Until we have those facilities there, the landfill site is the only alternative. It is not an alternative that I like. It is one that we want to get rid of, but it is the only viable alternative right now.

It is happening in other jurisdictions as well. I hope the honourable member understands that the site had the legal right to accept liquid wastes there and in other areas as well. There were many other sites in this province and in other jurisdictions that could accept liquid waste. That is the magic box concept we are talking about. It was the right of a municipality to have a landfill site that accepted wastes.

On this particular site it was to be treated in a solidification process, but that did not mean it had to be per se treated that way. They had the right to put those liquids on to the site. The solidification process on that particular site is not now operative, and I hear the honourable member making the case that he thinks it should not be operative.

I think that is terrific because we in this province have said we want two solidification processes as soon as we can get them. If other people want to come forward later and go through the whole public hearing, it is their right to do so. The member should be aware of the tremendous amount of effort that we, the private sector and the municipalities, are making to get these facilities on stream as soon as it is humanly possible to do so.

In conclusion, we could have done it much sooner except for the very legitimate commitment that all these hearings must go through the environmental assessment hearing process. That does take time, but it also gives a lot of protection to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: So do the answers. We have spent 21 minutes, and we are not finished the second question yet. Final supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the company charged about 10 cents a gallon minimum for that 270,000 gallons, and charged it on the basis they would be using it for solidification, since the region only accepted that whole project on the basis that waste would no longer be poured on to the Upper Ottawa Street site, which clearly could not take any more, and there was to be a solidification project, properly monitored, according to its certificate of approval. What is going to happen to that $27,000 which the company took for solidification, when it then allowed the material to go out a hole in the bottom so that it might just as well have been dumped in the first place, as the minister himself just said? Is the minister going to try to recover the money?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, that is something which must be addressed between those people who paid the money, that is industries in our province, and those who received it.

One thing that has not happened, and I am rather pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) has changed his position a little bit on this point, is that the money has not gone illegally into the pockets of the people of our ministry as he accused. He has never, with respect, suggested otherwise.

They are very trustworthy people, and I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition is no longer accusing our ministry, or the employees of our ministry of illegally receiving that money. That is a marked step forward.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Premier which touches on human rights and which, I believe, is relevant to the debate we are having in the Legislature this week on the constitution. Is it government policy that the Ontario Human Rights Commission should be silent on major issues affecting minorities in this province? If not, why was there no public statement at all by the commission relating to CTV’s racist attacks on the Chinese-Canadian community from the time the show Campus Giveaway was aired last September until the time CTV withdrew and apologized completely to the Chinese just two or three weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, going back in my own recollection of the activities of the commission and its members, they have never been reluctant to express a point of view on issues of this nature. I cannot recall exactly whether a member of the commission did have a point of view that was expressed. I know that members here expressed a point of view. I can recall the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) doing so, and I recall an observation I made at a dinner the Chinese community had, I believe, at the Inn on the Park.

Certainly there is no policy not to make statements. My experience, as I look back at the activities of the commission, which I think have been really exemplary over the years, has been that they have never been reluctant to do so. I cannot comment whether individual members did.

I will look into that for the honourable member, or have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) look into it for him. I can only speak from my personal knowledge of the members of the commission and their own personal commitment with respect to issues of this kind.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question: Is the Premier aware of the mounting concern among ethnic communities across this province at the abdication of leadership by the Ontario Human Rights Commission? Is the Premier aware of the fact that the chairman of the commission, Dorothea Crittenden, has been so totally invisible that she has had only one public appearance this year, and in two years of office has made no public statements on matters affecting racism?

2:40 p.m.

Is the Premier aware that the enforcement of human rights by the commission is now so inadequate there is a backlog of 900 cases that will take almost a year to clear up? What action is the government prepared to take in order to restore the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s credibility in the eyes of ethnic communities across this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the leader of the New Democratic Party is doing a disservice to the chairperson of the human rights commission.

Mr. Laughren: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, all right. Listen, if members want to be critical of her, let them be so, that is fine. I happen to know Miss Crittenden. I know of her service to the public of this province for many years. I know her sensitivities and her concerns with respect to the responsibilities she has assumed, a rather onerous task. She may not make a lot of public speeches, but there are people I know who make too many. Somewhere in between there is a balance.

I am just going by press reports, but I believe a member of the commission was present when this matter was discussed. I think if one checks the records one would see Dr. Ubale was there and he wasn’t invited to speak or comment. Dr. Ubale is a relatively outspoken member of the commission who is not reluctant to speak what he feels. This has applied to others over the years. I think it is very unfair of the leader of the New Democratic Party to be attacking, in a very personal way, the chairman of the human rights commission. She is a very able, sensitive, dedicated public servant.

I think there is a separate issue and that is the increased work load of the commission. There is no question that the numbers of cases that are being brought to the attention of the commission have increased. I personally met with the commission, along with the Minister of Labour, a week to 10 days ago when they informed us of the growing difficulty in terms of the administration because of the numbers of cases before the commission. They have made suggestions to the ministry and government which we are assessing as to how we might assist through increased personnel the very substantially increasing work load. I think that is a separate problem from the one the honourable member initially raised.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I am pleased the Premier is giving his attention to the matter of expanding the personnel and, of course, the funding of the commission. Would the Premier also give consideration to the request made in the production, Life Together, by the Ontario Human Rights Commission? The request was made that the commission should be more responsive to the Legislature as a whole in a nonpartisan way rather than to the government directly. Would the Premier also consider that the chairman be appointed by consultation with the opposition parties and that the reports be made to the Legislature as a whole in much the same way as the reports of the Ombudsman, for instance? It seemed like a very reasonable request to have them removed from the sort of partisan or semi- partisan realm. I wonder if the Premier would give his earnest consideration to that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this was a part of the recommendation. There has been some discussion over the years as to the appropriate reporting relationship. I guess my experience has always led me to the conclusion that in matters where government policy is obviously involved, to try to divorce that responsibility from the government of the day is really not realistic. I discussed this with the author of the report at the time. I think there is a very real distinction between the functioning of the Ombudsman, a creation of this Legislature, and the human rights commission, which is responsible for the administration of legislation passed and also responsible in an indirect and sometimes direct sense for government policy.

I think it is fair to state, and I don’t say this critically, that to try to divorce that responsibility from the government of the day is not really realistic. The government of the day, even if we were to take that step, would still be held responsible, as it should be, for the activities or lack of activities of any agency, including one as sensitive and as important as the human rights commission. That is not an attempt in any way to reject any creative idea. I think what I am saying, with respect, is it is really a matter of reality, a practical point of view that I think if the Leader of the Opposition were to reflect on carefully he might at some point come to share.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he was referring to Rev. McLeod, who actually said the human rights commission should respond to the Legislature rather than being an agency of the Ministry of Labour.

I would like to ask him whether be has given any thought to the comments made by the former chairman of the commission, who said the commission has become bureaucratized to the point that now, and I quote, "I understand all commissioners must check with her” -- the present chairman -- “before they speak to the press. You can bet they are not allowed to say anything critical of the government.”

Does the Premier think this is the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission? Is he aware of the criticism that is levelled on the commission because of the way it is run right now by a civil servant appointed by this government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the member will find if he checks the records carefully -- knowing some members of the commission; not all of them -- that they have not been reluctant in the past and they are not reluctant at present to express personal points of view. All the member has to do is check the press, some of his own press, and he will find this to be factually the case.

I don’t think I discussed the other matter raised with the former moderator of the United Church. I have discussed other issues with him on occasion. I think really -- I am going by memory -- my discussions were with the former president of Trent University. I think that is the case.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary: Since the credibility gap which now exists for the human rights commission among the ethnic communities across this province is in large part due to the inadequacies of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the failure to revise that code since publication of Life Together in 1977, will the Premier give this House a commitment that before summer the government will table its general amendments to the human rights code so that they can be before the Legislature and can be enacted into law before the end of this year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is fair to state the government is not only prepared to do this, but will in fact be introducing these amendments. When they are ready, the government will be awaiting with some interest the reaction of members opposite to some amendments, or the lack of same.

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I might say, before beginning this question, that Gérard Lévesque, the secretary general of L’Association Canadienne-Française de l’Ontario, is following the constitutional debate this week. He is sitting up there in the gallery, I believe. Oh, he has just gone.

My question is to the Premier. In the context of the constitutional debate this week and the need to show Quebec and to show French Canada that Ontarians are serious about French-language school rights and the rights of the French language in this province, is the government prepared to reconsider its rejection of the creation of a French-language school board in the region of Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that causes the government some concern because of the potential for misunderstanding. I am not surprised that the leader of the New Democratic Party has raised it at this moment, although I might express perhaps a measure of disappointment. One of the difficulties with issues of this nature is not so much the reality of the situation here as the potential of its perception in other parts of Canada, particularly Quebec.

I answered a similar question at a press conference in Montreal, where I made it abundantly clear that the policy of this government as it relates to this issue is not based upon the question of language. There has been an indication by some -- perhaps even felt by the leader of the New Democratic Party -- that this is, per se, a language issue.

I endeavoured to point out to the media in Montreal that what was being discussed was really the creation of a third school system in Ontario. I explained in principle, and I don’t think the leader of the New Democratic Party can argue this, that if this is to happen in Ottawa-Carleton as an experimental or pilot project, in terms of principle there should be a French-language school board to administer one relatively small secondary school in Simcoe county with perhaps, and the minister could correct me, half a dozen elementary schools within Tiny township.

2:50 p.m.

It means a third bureaucracy, and I don’t say that in the pejorative sense of the word, but it means we would have three directors of education. We would have X number of superintendents of education and over the years the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has been saying that we already have far too many within the existing system. We would in fact have the public school system, the public school board or board of education; we would have the public separate school system; we would have the French-language or French school system. We would have these systems in many parts of the province, because we could not confine it to Ottawa-Carleton, if, as a matter of principle, this is the route that should be followed.

I just want to make it abundantly clear to the leader of the New Democratic Party that this is not an issue of language. We are interested in finding a vehicle whereby the parents of the youngsters who are attending the French-language schools have an input in terms of the academic nature or the quality of the program, but we endeavour to stay away from the creation of another school system and that really is the issue. It is not a question of language; it is a question of establishing a third school system here in Ontario and that is what I endeavoured to explain to the media in Quebec.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Would the Premier and the government not be prepared to review the situation in Ottawa-Carleton where some 30,000 French-language school children are now taking instruction, where the school system is divided in four parts between two Catholic and two public boards and where the creation of a French-language school board can be done without any addition of school boards? It could, in fact, be done with possibly, even a reduction in the total number of school boards. Rather than looking at the extension across the province, will the government not look at the situation in Ottawa-Carleton, specifically where the proposal for a French-language school board has been endorsed not only by the Mayo commission but also by all four school boards in the area and has got broad support from the entire Ottawa-Carleton community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I realize it’s hard for the leader of the New Democratic Party to understand that if it makes sense, if it is right educationally, if it is right in terms of the principle -- and I know that that perhaps may not impress him -- if it is right in Ottawa-Carleton, with great respect it is also right where one has substantially fewer students.

We have never based the delivery of educational service in this province, in the years that I have been involved, on the numbers of students that would be looked after by a particular school board jurisdiction. That has never been the ground rule. The ground rule has been simply the traditional and the legal basis for the public separate school system and for the boards of education.

I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, it isn’t as simple as saying, “Let’s experiment in Ottawa-Carleton.” It’s not as simple as saying, either, that one can solve readily the question of whether one has a French-language public school system or one has a French-language separate school system. There is, in some communities, some modest difference of opinion as to what particular route that may go as well.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: In listening to the Premier answering this question and having in mind our full and unanimous support of the motion that my leader has seconded in this House and the debate that is taking place; having in mind that I see nothing improper about raising this issue, considering it is something that was proposed by a commission established by this government some four or five years ago and the fact that his concern appears to be on the basis of bureaucracy -- the denial is on the basis of bureaucracy -- and considering that his own commission has recommended that Ottawa-Carleton could be cut from four existing boards to three boards, including a French board --

Mr. Speaker: Can we get to the question?

Mr. Roy: I am getting there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not nearly fast enough.

Mr. Roy: -- why would the Premier not accept a recommendation made by people in Ottawa-Carleton and by people on this side that when he sets up that sort of board in Ottawa-Carleton he do it on an experimental basis, say for a period of five years? With the facts given by the leader of the NDP, does the Premier not feel Ottawa-Carleton is a situation much different from some of the situations across the province that he has cited? Doesn’t he think the situation existing in Ottawa-Carleton does not exist in most other areas of the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, and I would appeal to the intelligence and logic of the member for Ottawa East, I know there are in Ottawa-Carleton more students than there would be, say, in Simcoe county. But I ask him, as a matter of principle, if it is the right thing to do to establish another school board and really another school system in Ottawa-Carleton, how can the member logically argue the same right should not be available to those youngsters in Simcoe county’s Tiny township? If the member were the member two rows behind him, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) --

Mr. Roy: You do it every year for the schools. You don’t establish a school for five students and you don’t establish a board for one school.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We don’t. With great respect to the member for Ottawa East, we are talking about a school system; we are talking about a principle. One can’t argue it on the basis of there being 30,000 students vis-à-vis 4,000 students. If there are enough students to administer a school system, then I think in matters of principle the member for Ottawa East would have to understand the logic of the situation. One can’t have an experimental program for five years. It is either the right thing to do educationally or as a matter of policy -- which should be extended into Essex county, Nipissing, you name it -- or not.

Mr. S. Smith: Not necessarily.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is. Principles may not mean that much to the members opposite but they are fundamental.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t convinced about the efficacy of the NDP question until the Premier gave his answer, but now I am.

I have a two-part question for the Premier in regard to public opinion polls, his annual $430,000 expenditure of taxpayers’ money. In view of the fact the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) indicated April 21 that all of the public opinion polls taken in the last year would be made available by the individual members, and they have not yet done so, would the Premier gin up his colleagues, if I may put it that way, to produce such public opinion polls?

Second, since de facto the chairman of management board has indicated that these polls will be forthcoming, will the Premier make an unequivocal statement today that as these polls are received by the various ministries they will be tabled in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I won’t rise on a matter of personal privilege but I really take some exception to the distinguished member suggesting I should “gin up” my colleagues. If that is how the member wants to treat his colleagues, that is his business -- and maybe he does on occasion.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You had better do something to rouse them up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am a great believer in motivation but I always felt alcohol wasn’t necessarily the best motivator. The member may feel differently.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member who asked the question that it is the intent to table those polls that were referred to in the answer to the question. I don’t know whether the answer contained this in detail, but it was my understanding that ministers would be doing this as they got into their estimates and opportunities arose to discuss them. I think the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), for instance, has already tabled some of the polls referred to standing in the name of that ministry. But yes, the member will have access to them, as will the world.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One short supplementary, on behalf of the world -- or the other jurisdiction, as the Premier is fond of saying:

Would the Premier not agree that since the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) was able to table in the Legislature the forest regeneration agreement between the government and the ministry, he should follow the same procedure? As the ministries and ministers receive the public opinion polls, should he not routinely table them at the same time they are received by the ministers? In that way the world and everybody else will know what is in them and have them available.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question. I am sure if the member had his way he would really like to ask if we would be prepared to give him a copy of the poll before the ministry even saw it. I would ask for the same thing, but not really expect to get it. I can’t give that sort of undertaking to the member, but I do give the undertaking they will be made available.

TOILET TISSUE

Mr. Swart: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He will recall I questioned him in the House recently as to why he had not kept his commitment to produce the report on the in-depth investigation into the price of bathroom tissue. He answered me that it was his understanding that particular report had been conveyed to me and he would make sure it was in my hands. It is now 12 days since he made that statement and I have not yet got that report. Can he table it? What is the date of it? What is in it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, when the question was asked I said to the honourable member I didn’t really understand why he didn’t have it because I had recollections of seeing that report. The report I saw was an interim one. The reason it has been delayed -- and it will be available to the member next week -- is that at the same time in my estimates, as the members of the committee will recall, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) wanted a detailed food analysis along the American border, which was agreed upon with Detroit. The toilet tissue and other paper products of the Eddy Corporation became involved in the preparation of the food analysis. They will both be tabled next week.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary: Can I remind the minister he did promise to have that report tabled more than two months ago and he did promise to make the comparative food basket report many months ago? Can I ask him why he is so indifferent to all these matters of excessive consumer pricing? Why does he refuse even to investigate the companies that are charging excessive prices, let alone take any action on those prices?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There were two reports done in the southern Michigan area on food prices. The first one was completed in early January or mid-January. I thought it would be fairer, since this would be the basis of comparison with US food prices -- that whole thing suggested by the member’s party, not by the member -- that there be a second comparison to really reflect the first quarter of the year. That has now been done and will be tabled next week.

I have honoured my commitments. I always do, though it may not be to the member’s satisfaction.

CARLETON BY-ELECTION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier if I may interrupt him. Considering that there has been a vacancy in the riding of Carleton now since April 15, when does the Premier plan to announce a by-election in that riding so that the people of Carleton may get provincial representation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Roy: Don’t give me that bull about in the fullness of time that the Minister of Education is suggesting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be unkind to the member for Ottawa East, but I expect if he will attend here in this Legislature with some degree of regularity, at some point in time he will hear me say just when that by-election might take place.

Mr. Roy: I don’t want to be unduly harsh on the Premier, but am I to deduce from his reluctance to call a by-election in that riding that he is somewhat apprehensive in putting his government’s record before the people of Carleton?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the member for Ottawa East, as he knows, because he has a great deal of intelligence some days, that one thing we are most reluctant to do is put forward the record of this government vis-à-vis the policies or lack of them of the Liberal Party or the Smith party of Ontario. I tell him that in that, there would be no contest.

ETHNIC NEWS MEDIA ADVERTISING

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

In view of the fact that the government information and communications program budget has not been increased for the last three years, as was recognized during the discussion of the estimates of that ministry, and in view of the fact that there are many ethnic newspapers which are suffering because of increased costs and inflation, has the minister come to any determination, as he promised on that instance, and has the budget been increased, or is the minister thinking of increasing the advertising budget for the ethnic papers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, there currently is an increase being developed in the advertising budget for ethnic newspapers and it will be finalized shortly.

Mr. Di Santo: By way of supplementary: In view of the fact that the guidelines now encourage the large enterprises to the detriment of the small papers, which are struggling for survival, will the minister make sure when devising the new guidelines that the small papers get a fair share of support so that their survival can be ensured?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say immediately that I in no way support the presumption upon which the honourable member bases the question. I don’t support for a moment the principal that the member suggests is implemented in our program, which is to suggest that we support the larger newspapers, and so on, to the detriment of the small papers. It is clearly just not fair to say that.

What we try to do through that program is not an easy task, which, of course, involves the government (a) using its advertising resources as wisely as possible, (b) ensuring that we use the ethnic newspapers and media to the maximum extent possible, (c) ensuring that those persons who use the ethnic media are in a position to obtain as much information about government programs as anyone else. Finally, of course, we seek to use the program in ways in which all ethnic media can participate in the program, so that we can in that way help keep those media vehicles in operation.

I know there is a constant controversy over which papers fall within and outside the guidelines, and I know the member will agree that we have to have some guidelines so as to ensure that people don’t run out and start a newspaper tomorrow morning and automatically become qualified to receive our ethnic advertising moneys.

Unless the member is advocating an open-ended program, it means that with the given allocation of moneys in any year the degree to which new people come upon the scene and claim to have valid new ethnic newspapers will take money from other long-established, very strong ethnic media which still need the same amount of continued government support.

In fairness to the readers of all those newspapers, and in fairness to the very fine newspapers throughout this province, we must have some guidelines put in place. I don’t doubt that there will always be firms that will claim the guidelines should be expanded to take them in, but I must say -- and the member is in a position to attest to this at first hand -- the number of small newspapers in this province that have been established and are thriving today is due testimony to the effectiveness of the government’s ethnic advertising program.

I may only add that the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, through its multicultural branch, is playing a closer and closer role in co-ordinating these efforts with us so that we may develop programs that are more mobile than ever before.

TOWNSEND NEW COMMUNITY

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Minister of Housing about the Ontario Land Corporation program to erect a new town called Townsend, partly in my constituency. Because of the disappointing reaction from builders in the community at large to the availability of lots, is the minister going to exercise his well-known flexibility in adjusting the timetable for the development of Townsend?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the honourable member before that we keep a constant review of the situation in Townsend and the availability of lots and, indeed, the uptake by the private sector. I reported to this House in a written answer to a question on the Order Paper the exact uptake we have had to this point and the interest shown.

3:10 p.m.

I will be in Townsend in the next few weeks to review further both with our people on site and our assistant deputy minister, in relationship to Townsend, the amount of land we shall service and make available for production use in the next 18 months.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question: Since the minister reported in answer to my written question on the relatively small number of lots that have been committed, not necessarily sold, in spite of a very expensive multicolour advertising insert in most of the newspapers in the area and extending far beyond, why would the land corporation be reluctant, in fact refuse, to make public an independent residential marketing study covering the area, since this matter is of such concern to the taxpayers as well as to the independent developers in the area?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member will recall that in a written letter to the research officer for his party we indicated very clearly and precisely that we felt we were in the same position as anyone else in the private market. When we do research studies that indicate what the market potential happens to be, we do not share the results with our competition. That is exactly the position we are in at this point.

GROUP HOMES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Now that the Ontario Municipal Board has upheld the North York bylaw that discriminates against certain categories of group homes, thereby torpedoing the government’s program of voluntary compliance with acceptance of group homes and undermining human rights, what action does the government intend to take?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am very disappointed by the decision taken by the OMB. My colleagues and I will be studying it very carefully over the next few days.

Mr. McClellan: A supplementary question: When the government is studying it -- and I appreciate the fact that it is studying it -- may I ask it to consider most seriously bringing forward amendments to the Planning Act and to permit group homes to exist in neighbourhoods right across this province, as a matter of basic human rights?

Mr. Speaker: A new question. The member for Lincoln.

Mr. McClellan: I did not hear the answer to my question.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That will also be part of the consideration.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARINGS

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Given the understanding I had that the minister has reconsidered the earlier rejection by hearing officers of transcription facilities at the current Niagara Escarpment Commission hearings, can the minister now advise when a public printed record of each day’s hearings will commence?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member brought this to my attention, as have other members, and I indicated that I would look into it. I discussed the matter with the chairman of the commission and the figure I have been given is a cost of approximately $1,600 a day.

As the honourable member knows, this does not prevent anyone at the present time, if he wants, from making notes, et cetera; they can do this at their own expense. The officer in charge of the hearing, Mr. McCrae, who has over 20 years of experience, has also discussed this matter with me.

Those who wish to take notes and make recordings can do so, but they must do so at their own expense.

Mr. Hall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Nevertheless, I hope the minister will take into account the fact that such taking of notes means daily attendance at these hearings, and they have vocations to follow. This is a hardship.

It is a question of whether, in the matter of the public interest, the government should provide this service, or whether it should be taken off the salaries of individuals by loss of pay. I do not think that is very fair.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been very thoroughly looked into. As the honourable member knows, these meetings are strictly to provide information. It is not a trial; it is not a public inquiry. We feel it is not necessary to have recordings made of the proceedings at government expense.

FRANCOPHONE ENUMERATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. As the Premier has now received suggestions on French-language enumerations from the Association of French-language Advisory Councils, from the Toronto Star in its editorial today and from my resolution which I presented on May 1, which we hope has been of some help to him, can he tell us when be expects to have an answer for us on the possibility of enumeration this fall? What method will he choose to use to have this enumeration done?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the honourable member, enumeration takes place some time around August or September. I expect we will have the matter resolved by that time. As I said to the member we will find a way. I am delighted to have all the advice. I am not sure just what priorities the member gave, whether he thought his advice was better than that of the Franco-Ontarian association or the Toronto Star.

Mr. Roy: Or the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell).

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, the member for St. George.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They are all identical.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are certain similarities; I acknowledge there are certain similarities.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 28, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) has expressed dissatisfaction with the answer to a question posed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) concerning the disposal of liquid waste. This matter will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of Bill 67, An Act to revise the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to impose heavier fines upon offenders of waste management laws and to establish a fund based on the surcharge added to this fine, also to be paid by the offender, which will be used to rehabilitate abandoned waste disposal sites and abandoned landfill sites.

Accordingly, the bill contains amendments to the Environmental Protection Act whereby waste management law offenders will pay fines up to a maximum of $10,000 per day, up from the present $2,000, and the same offenders will pay an additional surcharge of five per cent of their fines to go into an abandoned waste dump cleanup fund for the aforementioned purpose.

This bill expresses a concern of university students Cathy Wesol, Marian Shull and Rick Double who prepared it.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 132, 134 and 135 and the interim answer to question 141 standing on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Speaker, if I might also indicate, for your guidance, I understand that questions have been raised concerning the answer to question 110. It is the ministry’s opinion that question 110 has been answered. The answer was from the Ministry of Health. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) indicated to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) that that was the answer which should also pertain for his ministry.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DEBATE ON CONFEDERATION (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the constitutional resolution.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, first let me say, as a Canadian and as a member of this Legislature, I am extremely proud to be taking part in this debate today. Like all Canadians, I think it is fair to say I share a deep and passionate affection for this great country of ours.

Ontario’s commitment to the social and economic development of this country is well established and beyond question. Our outstanding reputation as realistic and constructive negotiators with other jurisdictions is not questioned in either the public or the private sectors. I suggest this is the result of the creative development of the many resources of this great province and perhaps, more important, the constructive use of the many talents of the diverse representation of people in this great province.

3:20 p.m.

We are in the midst of a task which could not be more critical. As individuals, as legislators, as Canadians, we are evaluating our identity. We do so with the full knowledge that our sister province of Quebec is working through a period of tough decision-making. Quebeckers cannot take a good hard look at the relevance of Canada and the relevance Canada has for them without all of us -- indeed all Canadians -- taking stock of our identity, nor can any other province in this Confederation.

The future of this great country is at stake. The members of this Legislature on all sides of the House are joined in a debate on our founding principle. Canada, a confederation of provinces and territories, is being challenged by forces within her own boundaries. A nation rich with the diverse and dynamic talents of all its peoples, filled with natural resources and technological expertise is being torn apart by that same wealth that sets as apart from other nations. Change has to occur from within if this nation is to be strengthened from without.

This week, right now, we are examining what this great country of Canada means and what kinds of experience identify what is to be a Canadian. All of us in this House, in this province and in the whole of the country have a story to tell. Personally, I find the timing of this debate quite significant. Thirty-five years ago this month the Canadian Armed Forces accepted the surrender of Germany in Holland, signalling an end to what was the most bitter period in the history of our modern world.

It was a time of unified effort by Canadians. I like to think the fight was worth while for it sustained freedom for many peoples. For everyone involved, the experience evoked feelings of profound intensity. Like many other Canadians, I participated in this war as a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I served in the Snowy Owls squadron, unit 420. I trained in many parts of this great country and I served on active service in Europe.

In my unit on the squadron, there were representatives from all parts of this great country of ours. More significant and perhaps unique, on the same field where we were stationed we flew with a partner squadron, the Alouettes, number 425. Obviously, we worked very closely on a daily and hourly basis. Despite our differences of language and background, we were a united team. In order to work together efficiently as individuals, we related to each other. To protect our identity as Canadians we established a strong camaraderie whose basis was the recognition that we shared the broad base of experiences that are at the centre of this Confederation.

The kind of relationships we formed during that period were very special. Indeed, the time was special. These two squadrons joined together to face crises on a daily basis, as did all the other squadrons serving over there. Together we worked and hoped to survive. Implicitly, we were protecting our nation from a philosophy which would impair the development of our individual talents. As Canadians, the men who were with the Snowy Owl and Alouette squadrons, together with many other Canadians, defended the nation’s aspirations to self-expression.

I am saddened by the feeling of many people within the province of Quebec that Canada no longer works for them. It is rare now indeed to develop such attachments as we did during the war. I say that for me these friendships have had a profound meaning. These experiences have added a dimension to my life which shapes my belief in the value of a full and democratic life.

I would submit this is what is very special about this Canada of ours. In addition to the economic benefits of Confederation, I can appreciate the potential of a combined endeavour. The combined efforts of Canadians during times of national emergency were rallied in the face of an external threat. But the threat posed to us now is from within this great country and is no less intense and no less real.

What I find disturbing is the ability of Canadians to recognize and to unite in the face of outside interference and yet to be blind or indifferent to the dangers of this more insidious threat. In the face of what some Canadians perceive as unwarranted American economic expansion to our markets, nationalism is espoused. Nationalism comes to mean a cultural economic defence against penetration or domination.

I am sure we have all heard the argument that we should be constructing barriers which will separate us from the excesses of the domination of other nations and absolve Canada from the threat to her nationhood. Unfortunately, we know all too well that barriers may be constructed from within a nation as well as from outside. This is the very reason for this debate.

We in Ontario are in a strategic position in many ways. Geographically situated squarely between eastern and western Canada we are in the centre of the flow of essential mineral and energy resources and foodstuffs. Ontario’s leading expertise in the manufacturing sector, as well as her own wealth of natural agricultural and energy resources, is by no means accidental. We have a wealth of creative talent and many tools with which to build. These very facts alone speak for themselves. We must also recognize and take responsible action towards promoting one of the intentions of Confederation. We must find ourselves in a location which must promote both the free flow of products and ideas throughout a united Canada.

In this nation the centres of flow are changing. Increasing energy needs are exerting greater pressure on the western provinces to tap their oil and gas resources. An explosion of activity in western Canada has been the result, accompanied by well-deserved, substantial economic rewards. As the direction of cash flow has taken a new course, so have the federal government’s equalization payments. Such sudden changes have been heralded by cries of regional disparity throughout the whole of this country. It is time for everyone of us in this country to reappraise our positions. To deal with our social problems I believe new and innovative approaches have to be taken.

Let us not try to kid ourselves. Constitutional reform is demanded, and all levels of government, federal and provincial, will be called upon to integrate fresh long-term goals. We know all too well that many of our energy resources are non-renewable. We have already set to work on this premise. The task in front of us is to renew our Confederation and to encourage co-operation among all Canadians, not the isolation stemming from preoccupations with regional self-interests.

3:30 p.m.

We need to draft a new blueprint for this great country of Canada. We need to draw the attention of our communities from local interests and focus on national values. For more than a century, our country has acquired and developed in a stable and uninterrupted fashion fundamental freedom for all of its citizens: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the right to vote, freedom of the press, the right to a fair trial. All these rights, and more, are enshrined in our federal laws and in federal statutes such as the Canadian Bill of Rights. These rights, liberating self-expression, were no historical accident. They were the natural product of our federal system.

The diversity of people living within our borders has enhanced the tolerances for differences within our system and, indeed, has ensured its survival. We are fortunate that our diversity in people is matched by our diversity in resources. The possibility of developing energy self-sufficiency is far greater in a united Canada than it is in a divided Canada. Confederation ensures that every province and every region will share in the wealth and freedom provided by our resources and enjoy the benefits of a protected rate. Confederation provides adventurous Canadians with the opportunity and the challenge to build forward-looking communities, to create jobs and to make use of our wealth, fostering Canadian investment.

In the international arena, our nation has indeed achieved an enviable reputation. Our economic, geographic and cultural advantages, as well as the traditional policy of our nation to protect the rights of self-determination of our indigenous population, has earned respect the world over. Canadians play an important role in the defence of western values and further peace and harmony in the world through active participation in the United Nations.

The reputation and heritage all Canadians share is also freely expressed through provincial participation in the international affairs of our nation through trade development offices, cultural exchanges and sporting activities. Confederation allows each province to play a far greater role in world affairs than if they were separate entities.

To be a Canadian is to appreciate the shared meaning expressed in all the regions of this great country: to build on a tradition founded on the principle of integrity. I sincerely hope that we fully appreciate our common potential and experience, an ever-maturing combination of creative energy and unfolding talents, and make full use of our diverse and abundant resources.

I would suggest that we reflect on the words of Georges-Etienne Carrier: “The question we ask ourselves is this: Shall we live apart, will we be content to preserve a mere provincial existence when united we may become a great nation? No union of small communities was able to hope to reach national greatness with such facility as we are.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, when I first contemplated participating in this debate, I considered talking about justice as it exists in Quebec, as it exists in Ontario and as it exists elsewhere in Canada. However, somehow I was unable to convince myself that this was the topic I really wanted to pursue on this occasion. Eventually, I decided not to elaborate upon the theme of justice except once more to go on record as saying that if we are thinking about justice in absolute terms, then we have to acknowledge the existence of its counterpart, injustice, which is in reality the absence of justice in the true sense.

Frankly, I felt that at this point in our history it was more important to speak from the heart than from the head. We may never have a better opportunity than we have here today to move out of the flatlands in which we spend the greater part of our lives and to take a look at the view from the mountain tops, so to speak. We have a unique opportunity to put into words, inadequate though they may be, something of what we feel about Canada. We have the chance of a lifetime to put on record what we believe this country is all about. We have a gift which is given to a few of us, a forum in which to make, hopefully, a ringing appeal which, God willing, may find an echo in the hearts of other Canadians who are as concerned as we are about the future of our country.

Let me say at the outset that I support the resolution which is before this House. I believe we should not negotiate sovereignty-association which is surely simply another way of saying separation. I recommend that we should regard a no vote as a signal to begin the process of renewing Canadian federalism.

Sometimes it is the outsiders who see most of the game. Listen to what the Economist, a well-renowned British weekly magazine of news and opinion, has to say: “Canada is a country threatened by a possible economic and political breach that could and almost certainly would destroy it. It is really inconceivable that Canada would survive as three chunks instead of a broadly interdependent system of 11 federal and provincial governments or that a French nation in Quebec would bring greater ethnic independence and economic advancement to the large French-Canadian populations in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Manitoba.”

In any federation where power is divided between two or more levels of government, stress is inevitable. Possibly it is even healthy. Sad to say, however, built-in stress is frequently aggravated, possibly even exploited, by politicians at every level and of every stripe, who are more concerned with their own day-to-day political survival.

The federal system under which we live has so much to recommend it, so much in its favour. De Tocqueville understood the merits of our system when he stressed the fact that small nations are often unhappy, not because they are small, but because they are weak, while large nations prosper, not because they are large, but because they are strong. Strength is often a primary condition for the happiness and even the existence of nations. De Tocqueville concluded that the federal system was invented to consolidate the various advantages of the greatness and smallness of nations.

One of the truly remarkable assets of our federal system is its flexibility.

In wartime or during times of severe financial conditions, such as a depression, we move easily towards centralization. With peace and plenty, we tend to decentralize, This ebb-and-flow characteristic of Canadian federalism gives us much cause for optimism in coping with the problems presented by our present complex situation vis-à-vis Quebec and the other provinces and the necessary future constitutional discussions.

3:40 p.m

Today the confidence of the people in governments and politicians is severely shaken. There is widespread doubt about the ability of those who are elected to alleviate the sufferings of the world and to solve the serious problems with which we are confronted. Throughout the world, whether or not elected under a democratic system, representatives hold in their hands the fate of nations, the lives of communities composed of millions of men, women and children. Sometimes those in power and those with power have a tendency to forget that salient fact. In times of crises, such as we face today, there has to be give and take between the parties. There has to be a concerted effort to work together to solve apparently insurmountable problems.

This great country of ours is going through a very turbulent period in its history. However, my heart does not fail me at the prospect of what lies ahead. Always in the past, when we have passed through times of storm and difficulty, we have been sustained by the strong and flourishing roots which we have put down in this country. Our roots are good and our roots are strong. Much of this strength derives from the very diversity of the people who make up this nation of Canada.

Like my colleague from Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), I have no roots in either the English or the French fact in Canada. My background is basically Celt. For this reason, I want to mention the tremendous pride I feel at the fact that during the First World War the famous Van Does fought shoulder to shoulder with the Highland regiment -- the Ladies from Hades, as they were called -- and the Princess Pats and the other great Canadian fighting regiments. From all over Canada they came to join together to protect the country which they all loved. And so it was in the Second World War.

I think it is rather sad, particularly at this point in our development, that Canadian history is taught in Ontario as a political and constitutional history rather than in terms also of the stirring tug-at-the-heart stories which make a nation’s story a vital and living thing.

I will touch briefly upon the historic documents in which our constitutional history is enshrined. There is the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which dictated that British civil and criminal law would apply. In 1774, coincidental with the problems in the American colonies, came the Quebec Act which provided for the application of the Napoleonic Code in Quebec. The Constitutional Act saw the light of day in 1791, establishing Upper and Lower Canada. The date of the Union Act was 1840 and, in 1867 we had the British North America Act.

It is important to recognize that even before the British North America Act we find our constitution reflecting the changing times and changing circumstances. So today there comes from all parts of Canada a strong desire for constitutional change yet again, for change that reflects our needs at this time. We are pledged to make the necessary changes.

Like many Canadians, I have a dream about this great country of ours. Sometimes I have even thought we have come a long way towards developing a society which encompasses understanding and generosity as well as respect for the rights of the individual. How wonderful it would be if here in Canada at this time we could fulfil our destiny and show the world the way to devise a national community in which people of diverse origins can live, love and work together and so light the way to the achievement of an international community with similar understanding. Clearly in order to fulfil this impossible dream, there has to be a strong and abiding desire on the part of people on both sides in this question to live together in mutual respect and to give a sense of priority to the achievement of those things which are valued by each community.

I think the Yvette movement has caught the imagination of Canadians as few developments in connection with the Quebec situation have done. These women have set aside all the partisan political stances and have cut through to the heart of the situation.

Lorsque Lise Payette, Ministre d’État du Québec pour le Statut de la Femme, a comparé les femmes pro-fédéralistes du Québec à des “Yvettes” -- un caractère de petite fille soumise, des histoires pour les écoles primaires -- elle a provoqué une petite explosion.

Cette suggestion de Madame Payette, que toute Québécoise dynamique et intelligente est nécessairement séparatiste, a été complètement et irrévocablement démolie par la réaction immédiate qu’elle a provoquée.

Si les femmes pro-fédéralistes étaient aussi humbles que le Ministre l’a suggéré, la réaction n’aurait pas été aussi spontanée et aussi remarquable. Trois jours après ce commentaire du Ministre, 1,700 femmes se rencontraient au Château Frontenac à Québec pour une “réunion des Yvettes”: et moins d’une semaine après, 15,000 femmes représentant tous les différents groupes ethniques et sociaux se rassemblaient au Forum de Montréal pour lancer leur appel passionné pour que le Québec reste au sein du Canada.

We cannot simply throw up our hands and surrender Canada to the forces that would seek to divide us so that we may be destroyed. We dare not contemplate the chaos that would follow such a development. We must be ready and eager to make accommodations, even, if need be, sacrifices, so that we may recreate Confederation for today’s generation and for generations yet unborn.

Make no mistake about it, we have the right to enter this debate because we are not a nation of allies, but members of the family which is Canada.

3:50 p.m.

Today more than at any other time in the history of this nation, we need to send a clarion call to every province, to every Canadian. If we are to meet the incredible challenges which lie ahead, we must summon all our intelligence and strength, all our forces, whatever our differences may be, in the all-absorbing, all-encompassing Canadian cause, the survival of this country as a country.

We all have our vision of what Canada is all about. For some people, it is the coves and inlets of our rocky coastline to the east and to the west. For others, it is the incredible sweep of the Prairies. Some think of Canada in terms of the emerald forests, the silver grey rocks and the shining blue waters of the Canadian Shield. There are those who think of Canada as the home of great wilderness regions. There are others who take pride in and confidence from our vibrant and exciting urban centres, or take comfort and strength from the quiet, other-world atmosphere of our small rural villages.

For most of us, Canada is a combination of all of these things. Few of us think of Canada as just our own small corner of it. If we do, then surely we are the losers.

As a result of our failures, the enthusiasm and loyalty of the people of Quebec for the concept of Canada as one nation, stretching from sea to shining sea, shrivelled and almost died, but not quite. I believe the enthusiasm and loyalty are still there, longing for nourishment, the nurturing that only we can give. I believe the best interests of all Canadians will be served by seeking a renewal of our present association within a modified Confederation.

In closing, I will tell you unabashedly that one of my favourite anthems is O Canada, particularly in its French version, which was the first version which I learned, because when I was in school our national anthem was what has now become our royal anthem. In those days it was felt sincerely that we must at all times remember the French fact in Canada.

Notwithstanding the importance of the recognition of our ancestors of this country in O Canada, my favourite line is, “Protégera nos foyers et nos droits” -- the plea for the protection of our hearths and rights. I hope those words are heard and remembered in Quebec and throughout Canada. I hope that the prayer which is implicit in those words is answered.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, the contributions to this quite remarkable debate have been, by and large, both thoughtful and considered and, on most occasions, quite passionate.

I think members of the assembly have come here to this debate, as we do to most debates, representing not only our own constituencies and our own political parties, but the sum of our own experience. We bring that diverse wealth to the legislative assembly on this occasion perhaps more so than on other occasions. In the modern vernacular, perhaps it could be said we are at where we are who we are.

I cannot bring to this debate, as can many members of the assembly, the insights of a lawyer or a businessman or a teacher or a farmer. I am by occupation a factory worker, an occupation that is not terribly well represented in the assembly, but working people across this country have as much at stake in this debate as does anyone.

I, for one, am quite prepared to admit I do not understand the intricacies of constitutional reform, constitutional amendment and constitutional law, although I do believe that reform and amendment are needed urgently and are long overdue. I can’t say I agree fully with either side in the current referendum debate in Quebec, although I do understand and accept the fundamental right of the people of Quebec to self-determination.

This debate in this assembly takes place within a larger debate across the country. I suppose it is good that we are all talking to each other. It never hurts. But at some time the time for action arrives and has a way of passing. I hope, as we sit here and debate today, that the time for action has not already passed and that it is not too late to do something about the issues before us.

I have followed the debate across the country, in Quebec and in the legislative assembly. I can’t agree nor can I say that the national crisis is a crisis of sovereignty-association or a question of a new Confederation or a new constitution. I have to think back to where I come from in this debate. When one looks at the problems of Canada from a shop floor or from the north end of Hamilton or from any other industrial community in this country, things look a lot different than they do when viewed from this assembly and from the other places where this debate is taking place.

As a worker, it seems to me that the national crisis is fundamentally and severely related to the basic economic inequalities in this country today. I find it incredible that in Canada at this time we are still unable to supply jobs to people who want jobs. I find it a national disgrace that in this country we are unable to meet the basic human needs of our people. That is what I think is the focus of the national crisis.

I, for one, am quite prepared, quite willing and quite happy to join with all Canadians in building a new constitution. But if I had my way I would prefer to join with all Canadians in building a new Canada. I think one of the most fundamentally difficult economic issues for us in this country is the issue of regional disparities. It is a crying shame, and it’s an unparalleled problem in this country. It is a crisis that won’t go away and that can’t be ignored. Yet that is exactly what we’ve tried to and exactly the way we’ve tried to deal with regional disparities in this country.

In 1977, the Economic Council of Canada issued a major report entitled, Living Together, which dealt with this issue. The specifics are frightening for national unity. In 1970, the per capita income in Ontario, which was the richest province then, compared to the per capita income in Newfoundland, which was the poorest, showed that we in Ontario made double what the people made in Newfoundland. Even taking into account federal transfer payments, we still made 87 per cent more in Ontario than the people of Newfoundland did and, after taxes, 70 per cent more. In spite of a decade of attempts by federal governments to rectify the situation, a huge gap remains between the incomes of Canadians across the country.

4 p.m.

It is not just a question of income when we talk about regional disparities. There are other questions involved, such as the question of jobs. That is fairly clear when one looks at the March unemployment statistics broken down by region in this country. The Atlantic region has 12 per cent unemployment; Quebec has 10.1 per cent; Ontario has seven per cent; the Prairies have 4.3 per cent; BC has 7.6 per cent. The regional disparities are even more apparent in terms of unequal opportunities. Over half our research and development contracts, and we do not have very many in this country, are in Ontario. Almost half the corporate head offices in this country are in Ontario. Ontario has done very well out of Confederation up until recent months perhaps.

The inequalities lead to other devastating effects on many regions in this country. The degree of interprovincial migration, the brain drain, is particularly frightening in some of our regions. Regional disparities form one of the major components of our current process of political fragmentation.

A moment ago I referred to the March figures for the unemployed. I cannot think of a more devastating thing to have happen to a person than to want a job and not be able to get one. But that is the situation in Canada today, and it can be multiplied across the country.

During the depths of the Depression in this country, we had something like 825,000 people out of work and now we hover constantly around a million people out of work. In March, there were 969,000 people out of work. It is both sad and dangerous in human terms, and in financial terms it is devastating.

Members of the assembly will remember back in the spring of 1971 when the nurses graduated in Ontario. We had 2,533 graduate nurses, 800 of whom had to go to the States to look for work. Do we know what it cost us to educate those people? It cost $6 million. If we multiply that by the number of people that we sent out of this country looking for jobs, we can see what kind of proportion the crisis reaches.

The average Canadian worker produces something well in excess of $20,000 a year of goods and services, and yet we have a million people out of work. Basic multiplication gives $20 billion a year in lost production in this country. Think what that could do for Canada and the million people out of work. We do not even count the hidden unemployed in this country any more. If they are not working, if they have not been looking for work over the past four years, if they are not on the list down at the local manpower office, they are not unemployed. We are talking perhaps of another 1.5 million to two million people. There are 2.5 million to three million people out of work in this country, and that is devastating for national unity.

Income distribution in this country is an absolute crime. In 1951, the upper 20 per cent of our population received 45 per cent of the total income while, at the same time, the lowest 20 per cent received 3.2 per cent of the income. Do the members know it is now worse? In 1971, the upper 20 per cent had increased its share to 49.2 per cent. The lowest 20 per cent of the population then received two per cent of the total income. I thought that was why we brought in a system of income tax. I thought that was what a lot of our taxes were for, namely, to distribute that wealth more fairly across the country. It is not happening. Those that have get more; those that do not have get less. There is something fundamentally wrong in that kind of a policy.

It still remains that the private citizen carries the tax burden, not the corporate taxpayer. Profits and interest on investments have been increasing steadily, if not amazingly, in the years from 1974, and yet very little of that wealth has been recovered for use among the people of Canada.

About 20 years ago in Ontario, 15 per cent of the provincial income came from individual taxes and 25 per cent came from corporate taxes. What is the situation today? Two years ago, the figure was 48 per cent from individual taxes and 11 per cent from corporate taxes. Some of the examples are just unbelievable.

During the federal election campaign, the 1978 figures for Shell Canada Limited, with total revenues that year of $2.734 billion, showed a modest little profit of $150 million. They managed to pay not one penny in taxes. How many of our citizens across this country can claim the same with such an income, never mind all the write-offs and loans and grants we shell out to those companies? I don’t know how we can expect to keep Canada together when we allow such inequities in our tax system and in the redistribution of wealth and foreign ownership.

Saskatchewan’s Premier Allan Blakeney, no doubt the most enlightened of our nation’s premiers, said only two weeks ago, as he entered the debate on national unity, that foreign ownership in Canada and its influences are the root of our present constitutional crisis, and I think he is right. The degree of foreign ownership in this country is incredible. It is thought by most that it is difficult for a major industrial country to properly function and maintain some sort of influence or control over its economy when more than 10 per cent of its economy is held by foreign corporations.

In Canada, the figure is over a third in the non-financial sectors. In the manufacturing sector, it is 57 per cent. What does that mean in terms of money, capital inflow and outflow? In 1976, we actually managed to export more capital to those foreign investors than they brought into the country. In that year, Canada exported $3.3 billion in dividends and interest payments. If those trends continue, in the 1985 figure will be $12 billion.

When one wants to know about the degree of foreign corporate responsibility in Canada, all one has to do is look at the auto industry today. When times get tough at home, they shut down a plant in Canada and take those jobs home. They don’t care about Canada and they don’t help us to develop this country. That is another one of the difficulties we have here.

I love this country very much, as do all members of this assembly, but in many ways I love it for its potential, what it could be, and Canada could be a truly great country. There are some things we must do in this economy before we can move ahead and realize our potential.

We have got to end the regional economic disparities in this country. That means we are going to have to establish a national industrial strategy, something we have talked about for years on end. it is going to have to be a creative, innovative strategy that plays to our strengths and that provides new opportunities, especially in the regions where unemployment is so high and where opportunities are needed so badly. It is going to have to play to our strengths in terms of our resource base and develop those resources for the benefit of all Canadians.

There are many other things which are going to have to be expected from our national industrial strategy. One of those things is that we are finally going to have to come to terms with understanding the role of the private and the public sector in this country. There are major success stories in the private sector in Ontario and in Canada. Look at the steel industry in Hamilton. That is a major private success story.

There are major public success stories, and one need look no further than Ontario, to see Ontario Hydro. We have to understand there is a necessary mix between private and public sector investment. Those people who so dogmatically and rigidly oppose every move to some kind of public entrepreneurship badly misunderstand the heritage of this country. Public ownership is as much a part of our future as it is of our heritage.

National strategy is going to go a long way in providing jobs for our people. There are other things we can do in the short term. We have talked for a long time about lowering the work week. That is something we can do to provide more jobs. We can get a handle on the ruinous interest rates in this country, and that will provide more jobs. We can start to control the exodus of foreign capital from this country, and that will provide more jobs in Canada.

Simply put, we are going to have to recognize that in a new Canada every Canadian is guaranteed a right to a job, and that is going to have to be one of the bases of a new industrial strategy in this country. We are going to have to come to grips with the fact of foreign domination in our economic life. We are going to have to understand that in a new Canada, as in an old Canada, we can’t have real political independence unless we have economic independence.

4:10 p.m.

Unless Canadians can direct their own economic life, then they are always going to be subject to decisions from outside this country. We have the capacity and we have the tools. We could use FIRA and we haven’t. We could use the Canadian Development Corporation and all of the countless other federal and provincial agencies, and we haven’t.

Something else we are going to have to do, and I am convinced of it, is to completely refashion the taxation system in this country. We are going to have to eliminate unfair tax loopholes. We must ensure that people pay their fair share and that there is a more reasonable distribution of wealth in this country.

I don’t mean to imply that by speaking about the economy there isn’t a linguistic or a cultural component in the debate we face in this country because there is. Other members of the assembly have discussed and will continue to discuss that. But I do believe that it is only by building together on a solid base of a strong, independent, national economy that we as Canadians are going to reach and achieve our potential, that we are going to be what we can be.

I have, as do all members of this assembly, a vision of Canada. My Canada is a place where we don’t turn our backs on anyone, where everyone can find economic, social and cultural justice. My Canada is a place where francophones and anglophones can live exciting and meaningful lives anywhere in this country from coast to coast. My Canada is a place where working people can lead dynamic lives with security and opportunity. My Canada is a country in which immigrants are welcome to full citizenship -- a country where the multiplicity of our cultures is realized as something that builds and strengthens and enriches the national fabric. My Canada is a place where the old people can remain in their communities and live out their twilight years in comfort and dignity. My Canada is a place where all of our young people have equal opportunities and truly unlimited horizons.

I think that on the northern half of this continent we can build a country that is both singular and truly great. In some ways, in many ways, we can he an example to the rest of the world. I hope that one day other people in the world can look at Canada and say: “Yes, it is possible. Oui, c’est possible.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I thought about my remarks for this afternoon for some time, and as I did one theme ran through my mind continually. It was the thought that surely there are people situated in many parts of the world who would find the mere fact that we are conducting this kind of national debate throughout our country at this time rather hard to believe.

I also thought there are many who participated in meaningful and important ways in our public life in Canada who would find it equally hard to believe if they were with us today. Laurier who believed that the twentieth century did belong to Canada would surely find the national debate that has been carried on for some time hard to believe.

Those who look at our country from a distance and see a country with the tremendous agricultural base we have, the tremendous base of natural resources, potash, oil, natural gas, uranium, nickel, the fish resources, the wood products resources we have, and add to it the enormously skilled work force, the access to markets we have, particularly in this part of the country, and the enormous assets of our electrical energy base in many parts of this country, would find the current debate in a country so rich in all of those things rather shocking and startling. It would seem to me that nations which currently are starving and struggling and sacrificing, nations which are currently spending time seeking food and clothing and shelter for their people, would find this discussion rather strange, disheartening and mystifying.

It would seem to me that other nations that look to Canada as a small but significant international political force would find this debate distressing. It would seem to me that other nations that look upon us as a large and important provider of foods, manufactured goods and raw materials would worry about this debate. Those people wonder why we are not marshalling our forces, pooling our efforts, to maximize the enormous potential we still do have as a nation. Yet, being uniquely Canadian I suppose, instead we debate fragmentation, ways to pull us apart, ways to separate an already too divided nation and national economy. Instead in this country, we debate institutionalizing our weaknesses, not uniting and reinforcing our strengths.

It seems to me that interdependence in this country and interdependence throughout this country was the key to Laurier’s goals. I understand the danger in talking about the economic side of Confederation. After all, when Levesque does it, it is categorized by some as “balance sheet separatism,” and when I do it, it is called “typical anglo scare tactics,” but we should not forget that interdependence in so many ways, including economic, is at the heart and core of this country.

I can’t and don’t suggest that the over 100,000 jobs which are dependent in Quebec and another 100,000 in Ontario which are dependent on Ontario-Quebec trade in manufactured goods are the be-all and end-all to this debate, but I think it does indicate that the dependence of any one province on the total Canadian market is surely stronger and more important than the total Canadian reliance on any one provincial market. Yet we see that we have been unable to go in the way of solidifying and building the kind of interdependence among our own markets that would give us the strength to accomplish many of the goals we have spoken of in this debate and others, including that of ending regional disparities.

It seems to me that provincial governments, with their newfound fiscal freedom and widespread regulatory authority, have sought in various ways to redress their traditional grievances by means of all sorts of interprovincial barriers to trade and, frankly, unco-ordinated, noncomplementary regional economic development strategies -- strange and quite antithetical to the kinds of things this nation needs at this time.

Newfoundland is now considering implementing a registry of workers to effectively preclude anyone from outside that province working on its oil rigs. Alberta has established a tribunal which has recently threatened to cut off feedstocks to Petrosar.

Newfoundland wants permission to ship Labrador hydro power to the United States export markets and can’t do it through another province. The Atlantic provinces have signed an agreement establishing purchasing policies which favour not Canada, but provincial and maritime procurement and preference.

Alberta has long had an industrial permit system that effectively maximizes an Alberta-first policy. Manitoba’s last major hydro purchase was of turbines from the Soviet Union, not turbines from a Canadian supplier based in Ontario. Ontario, too, let us face it, chose Hawker Siddeley in this province to build its streetcars instead of a lower bid from a Quebec firm.

4:20 p.m.

These examples, which are only a few of far too many, do more to show our problems to date. They show that governments have to leap ahead at this point in time. It is my belief that governments in this sense are behind their people. I think a base of public support for the kinds of things this country needs is there and must be met by its governments.

The kinds of interprovincial barriers to trade, to manpower mobility and to capital flow which I have just touched upon outline not only the problems we currently have but, more importantly, outline just how unworkable the concept of an economic association would be. We are already working in a restrictive and restricting economic structure, and those deficiencies must be addressed immediately and effectively. Surely there is now an impetus to address those. The only way they can be addressed is within the context of a renewed federal system within one single sovereign nation.

It seems to me that at this point we have a clear choice. At this critical point in our history, we can continue to fragment our nation’s economy or, instead, we can develop a unified Canada, one with combined interests, shared objectives and mutually beneficial goals.

It would be unfair to suggest that we could strengthen an already fragmented market by anything called economic association. Our challenge is to use our differing strengths throughout this nation as a basis for building a strong Canadian whole rather than do what we have done before, restructure the individual units, failing in the end to ensure a firm foundation upon which we can all develop and strengthen as a nation.

Our country will continue to experience industrial prosperity in its geographically centralized areas. We will continue to experience agricultural prosperity in our agrarian provinces, economic prosperity from the fisheries of the Maritimes and resource prosperity from our mineral rich regions, but to share this prosperity amongst all citizens of Canada is both the challenge and the objective we have. Where we have failed is in the inability of our governments to use actual strengths to develop our potential strength.

We have failed to turn cyclical gains into long-term certainties, to use transitory regional prosperity as a means of protection against long-term drought. Only by sharing can any nation hope to achieve both greatness and the ability to insulate all of its people against hardship caused by economic forces beyond their control. In the final analysis, the future of this nation will be determined not by constitutional analysts or balance-sheet chicanery, but by the hearts and minds and emotions of its people.

I am not so naive that I believe economic statistics can be suitably persuasive to convince the people of Quebec to vote no on May 20. A country that has as its foundation a balance sheet can scarcely be called a country. Indeed, if balance-sheet mentality were the root of this nation, the boundaries of my province and the boundaries of my nation would alter every decade with the ebb and flow of industries endemic to each part of Canada.

We cannot pretend to hold or attempt to hold one province, any one province in this country, simply because there is a financial cost to its going. Those in Quebec who want to go are certainly prepared to pay the financial price to leave. Equally, I believe the rest of us would be willing to pay the extra financial cost to keep Canada together. It is not a question of the extra financial cost on either side. I believe that Canadians everywhere respect the aspirations of the people of Quebec. The question is whether the people of Canada have the will to accommodate those aspirations. I believe they do.

Important corollary questions are whether the people in the rest of Canada fully understand those aspirations and whether the people of Canada are willing to pay, not the financial price, but the social and economic price, of the changes we must have in this country. I still fundamentally believe there is that kind of strong, unseen Canadian patriotism, that pride in this sometimes crazy, but always unique, nation which gives our people the commitment not only to accommodate those aspirations, but to make those social and emotional changes and accommodations to satisfy those Quebec aspirations.

One of the things we see in this country is that we don’t have the base of understanding and experience of many other countries. How many Ontarians have visited Edmonton and Victoria? How many have been in Quebec City and how many in Charlottetown? How many of those same Ontarians who haven’t been to those places presume to be experts in understanding the aspirations of Canadians in those parts of Canada? One of the ways in which Canadians everywhere could show their renewed emotional and social commitment to this nation is by going to those places, listening, learning and understanding.

There has been much debate on constitution rewriting. I, for one, am much more concerned about the spirit and commitment of our people underlying that rewriting in the next little while. The roller-coaster ride from May 20 on will be the key to the future of this nation. May 20 may be the watershed for this nation. This entire debate and discussion over the last period of years is a watershed for our nation. If our people can marshal the economic strength to react properly to the outcome of May 20, whatever it may be, then we won’t have a roller-coaster ride that destroys our nation. That is why the spirit behind the people living and working in our country and living and working in our political system is more important to me, as one legislator, than the crossing of the t’s and dotting of the i’s on our new constitution.

It seems to me few Canadians really understand the implications of sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. Few have read or heard of the Rowell-Sirois report or the constitutional, linguistic and religious guarantees contained in the BNA Act or the equalization formula. Few have read or paid much attention to the Pepin-Robarts report. Few Canadians, it seems to me, direct their attention to the ideal numerical composition for a House of the Provinces or worry about balance-sheet federalism or balance-sheet separatism. The people who will eventually sit in the Senate or the House of the Provinces, the people those people speak for and represent in a Senate or House of the Provinces and the motivations of those people are far more important than the numerical breakout of those assemblies. Balkanization and continued feuding will destroy a House of the Provinces as surely as it will destroy a Senate.

I believe Canadians are proud of their country and are looking for an opportunity to express that pride. The pride that built a railway many years ago, in 1870 and on, can surely be mobilized once again to build bridges in 1980. Canada is not and has never been a melting pot. It has not been demanded by its legislators to be a melting pot nor thought by its voters to be a melting pot. We are two cultures and many cultures. We have two languages and many languages, but surely the base of support for this multicultural country comes from our unique roots in the two founding cultures of this nation. That is the base of the pluralism we have established in this country which surely we must jealously protect and maintain.

4:30 p.m.

The impact of French-Canadian culture and tradition, even for a person born, raised and educated in the city of Toronto, will be an integral part of him. Far beyond the balance sheets, I and all Canadians have been enriched by the constant presence of that rich and vibrant people. The impact of the French-Canadian culture, be it all the rich tradition or just the obvious things, the bilingual tensions, is a very real part of this country and has made all of us what we are here.

Be it simple but important things, like Hansards and anthems in two languages, be it the fleur-de-lis flying beside a red ensign, be it the Lesages, the Trudeaus, the Marchands, the Vaniers, the Lauriers, the Levesques, they are all as much a part of what has woven the Canadian fabric, the Canadian personalities that my children and I are and will be, as are the Sir John As, the Aberharts, the Lougheeds, the Frosts, the Bennetts, the Stanfields, the Smallwoods. They are all part of what has created the Canadian of today. Every Canadian, no matter where, has been shaped and created by these people and by the impressions they have made, the tensions they have somehow evoked and the trials they have put us to. The hopes, aspirations, satisfactions, defeats, successes, dreams and debates that all of these have caused are part of what has shaped us today.

This nation can and will rise strongly out of the current dialogue and trauma. Canadians have never, it seems to me, been able to turn to a single heroic time or turning point in their country’s history. Each Canadian now addressing himself or herself to these tensions has an opportunity to focus on who we are and why we are what we are; to think, not for just a moment but for a long period of time, about what this unique Canadian culture is; to understand that we are not simply parka-clad Americans, but we are different and what we have is worth saving; and to think for a moment about why that has made us what we are today.

The lives of Canadians across this country have been shaped by all the citizens of this country, by all the provinces and by the two founding cultures. The tensions and trials we go through now are simply, I believe, products of the time and mechanisms for bringing forward to all Canadians the fact that from this watershed on we do have the will and commitment not only to meet the aspirations of the people in Quebec, but to learn to accommodate and, more than accommodate, understand the motivations, aspirations, needs, wants, desires and cultural backgrounds of people throughout this country.

Those motivations, the spirit with which people get into that exercise are, it seems to me, far more important and will tell the truer tale behind our continuing country and our success as a country than the constitutional rewrites which are so important, but provide only a framework for what will be a truly strong, unique, fiercely proud and determined nation. We must be if we are to meet Laurier’s view of the 1980s, the 1990s and the years following 2000. I am sure Canadians will meet that challenge.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, as I know it is for all members, to rise and participate in this unique debate. I do so with a great deal of interest and commitment. I have enjoyed in a very special way the contributions of each and every one of my colleagues who has preceded me in these last 24 hours.

Those of us who inhabit what Donald Creighton once called the empire of the St. Lawrence have come again to that seemingly ancient, but none the less basic question of our existence in this part of North America. How shall we, French and English, share in our common geography and history?

Once a generation, it seems, we must renew ourselves as a nation. On this occasion, our introspection comes as a result of the Quebec referendum debate and the vote to follow on May 20. This brings me to the resolution standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party. I can very easily support this resolution. I do so in the hope that it will signal to the people of Quebec and of Canada our collective resolve in this assembly to repudiate the semantic separatism represented by sovereignty-association and, as importantly in my mind, because I believe this resolution speaks to a genuine, if somewhat newfound desire, for meaningful reform in this part of the country where our constitution is concerned.

This morning’s mail brought to me a letter from an old friend and former teacher at Queen’s University, Professor F. W. Gibson, from whom I have taken a great deal of guidance and instruction in matters of Canadian history. Professor Gibson’s letter, signed by other members of the department, says more eloquently than I could put the case why we should be suggesting to our friends in Quebec that they vote no on May 20.

I would like to quote part of that letter, which was also sent to the public press in the province of Quebec. “It would be folly for anyone to think, as Mr. Levesque appears to think, that men and women who feel as we do are prepared to permit our government, whether federal or provincial, to sit down and negotiate the breakup of our country and, in the next breath, to work out some kind of amicable economic association with those who seek to destroy us. Let no one be deceived. We will not barter the integrity of our country for the mirage of association.”

A little later on, the letter states, “That does not mean that we are in favour of preserving the status quo, nor does it mean that we, and a host of Canadians like us, would interpret a no vote on the referendum as a vote for the status quo. We want Canada to become not a broken country, but a better country for all citizens, francophone and anglophone, westerners and easterners alike. A better Canada, and indeed a better Quebec, will not be achieved by sovereignty-association, which is nothing more than separatism in disguise. It can only be achieved by reform, honest, creative, comprehensive reform, of our institutions, including as a very high priority constitutional reform.”

That says it so very well that I’d like to join with my former friends at the Queen’s history department in putting it on the record as a statement of how I feel about the referendum and the resolution before us here today. I would also like to bring a personal perspective to the debate, as so many other members have. Mine, sir, as you may know, is an Ottawa Valley experience. I come from a long line of Irish-Canadian forbears who from the mid-part of the previous century have inhabited the upper reaches of the Ottawa Valley. In that sense, I suppose it is important for me to say that the interaction of my forbears has been a particularly creative one with both founding peoples.

4:40 p.m.

If I might suggest, in reflecting upon family and regional history, it seems to be fraught with equal enthusiasm for the English and French of the Ottawa Valley. Out of all of that has come part of the creative and genuine dynamic that has made that region the very interesting part of Canada we all know it to be.

More directly, as a member of the assembly for Renfrew county, I can tell members and the people of Quebec that the separatism of sovereignty-association is indeed a dead letter for the people of Renfrew county and the Pontiac who have worked too well together for too long a period of time to allow or to easily accept the creation of new rigidities, the erection of new barriers which would disrupt the otherwise free exchange of people and ideas which has existed along that Ottawa River frontier for over three centuries.

I think it would be remiss, and I would be remiss, if I did not draw to the attention of members and to the attention of the people of Ontario the debt we owe our friends in Quebec for bringing into focus many of the present challenges which face this province and this nation today. The present challenges are indeed serious and immediate.

The challenge of dualism, the challenge of regionalism, the breakdown of our national party structure, spoken of by other members in this debate, the domestic and international energy situation are matters of urgent and pressing concern. To many in Ontario and in Canada, these would appear to be unusually troubled times and, I suppose, in some ways they are. I am, however, personally concerned, and increasingly so, by the mood of frustration and despondency which seems to be overtaking more and more of my fellow Canadians as they look out at their present and not-too-distant future.

I would like to put our current situation in something of an historical context. I have long believed that our past offers both guidance and courage, by means of which we can more adequately and more successfully meet the present challenges. I want to speak in this connection about our political and constitutional challenges and difficulties as we see them today.

First of all, it is well for Canadians here and elsewhere to remember that the Confederation of 1867 was the fifth constitutional arrangement by means of which Canadians sought to govern themselves. It was not a genesis. It was not then, and surely it is not now, a sacrosanct document. I think it important to underline that because I have always been surprised by the number of people in this country who have a peculiar notion of this country’s existence and constitutional arrangements prior to July 1, 1867.

Many see 1867 as the beginning, as the genesis before which there was some kind of an abyss in which only fur traders and selected others participated. The history is quite obviously different. Confederation was a difficult compromise, hammered out by very pragmatic, mid-19th century politicians who saw it as their only realistic hope for a new departure.

It is important, as well, to look at the why and the how that led the so-called Fathers of Confederation to their deliberations in the mid-1860s. The union parliament and the union constitution, which had been devised largely by Lord Durham after the rebellions of 1837-38, had provided a period of 25 years from 1840 to 1864 in which there were some considerable successes.

It was an arrangement which had provided responsible government at the general level and municipal government at the local level. Those are the principal achievements that are generally referred to as a constitutional arrangement that had been devised and was offered as the one which would solve our many and troubling difficulties. But there was a gradual disintegration and a tendency to deadlock, so much so that by June 1864 the government of the day had simply ceased to exist. If memory serves me correctly, no fewer than five different arrangements were attempted between mid-1862 and the early part of 1864. Every one of those so-called national governments ended in dissolution.

Leading politicians of that period, people like John A. Macdonald and George Brown, literally hated each other and the ground each other walked upon. My friend from York South spoke of that yesterday. One has only to examine the record very quickly to see the depth of animosity that characterized the differing personalities in that pre-Confederation period.

It is important to state that. It is important to convey to the people of this province and the people of this country the desperate political deadlock that existed on the eve of Confederation, the personal animosities which existed among the principals, particularly in old Upper Canada, because in very short order these men, George Brown and John A. Macdonald principally among them, set aside their old grudges and their personal animosities and in June 1864 forged the so-called great coalition. What really only existed as a government for about 16 months took this country through that critical period and allowed the federalism that was incorporated in the British North America Act to be possible.

One interesting historical fact in that connection is that under the leadership and at the insistence of George Brown there was struck in the spring of 1864 a select committee of the union parliament to look at all of the options that existed at that time to deal with the constitutional problems. That select committee was very important in providing the articles of federalism upon which the various forces could agree. That select committee proved to have an extremely important role in that critical time period. That is why I was delighted to see a select committee included in this particular reference because I hope through that vehicle and through that mechanism we will find a George Brown and a consensus that will materially advance the constitutional debate in so far as this assembly is concerned.

There were some who talked not so very long ago in this debate about the timeliness or the appropriateness of this Legislature’s participation. I would like to cite another historical point in this connection about what the Canadian politicians did after they formed their great coalition in June 1864. They heard of their British North American friends meeting in Charlottetown to discuss the entirely independent question of Maritime union. Without so much as any kind of an invitation, these so-called Fathers of Confederation hired the Canadian steamer Victoria, filled it full of spirit and goodwill and headed down the St. Lawrence to join their maritime friends. At Charlottetown in September 1864 under the very considerable influence of what one historian has called “cocktail diplomacy,” we began to see the genesis of a new Canada. The circumstances of that intervention are really important and positive for us to reflect upon when we wonder as to whether or not a certain kind of intervention would be timely or appropriate.

4:50 p.m.

We need only to look at the Charlottetown intervention. We need only look as far as George Brown, John A. Macdonald and Georges Cartier to see what they thought were right and proper courses of action. From Charlottetown the group convened in Quebec some weeks later. There the resolutions were hammered out that provided the basis for the British North America Act some two years later.

I was rather interested to hear privately and from some publicly the concern expressed about the timeliness and the usefulness of this debate. Some of my friends in the press even wondered whether or not it was a useful exercise. Again, history points a good lesson. The historic Confederation Debates of Quebec and the union parliament in February-March of 1885 were in some ways castigated by much of the public and many in the press who saw this as not altogether a necessary or useful enterprise. They worried about the unrelieved dullness and the dreary endless speechmaking that was making it difficult for the Speaker of the day to get a quorum. One need only look at the records to see the kind of commentary that existed. So we need not, here in 1980, worry as to whether or not our difficulties are new because they are surely not.

I recommend those debates to each member who has a special interest. They point out in a very telling way much of the good and compelling arguments that underlined the Confederation period. What is important is to understand those extremely difficult times and circumstances. We worry now, as we should, about international and internal problems, but think of those people who met in Charlottetown in 1864. They saw that very weekend the assault on Atlanta. They were watching the fiery furnace of the American Civil War. They were watching the greatest federalism that had ever been attempted go up in flames before their very eyes.

Those same people, our British North American forbears, who were trying to make a new departure were concerned about the end of the imperial preference and the devastating economic impact that would have on the young colonies in the northern part of British North America. They were concerned that the United States was becoming increasingly belligerent and was about to engage in economic sanctions ending, as they did in the mid-1860s, the reciprocity agreement of the previous decade that had brought significant material advantage to British North America.

Those were some of the economic, international and political problems in which the John A. Macdonalds, the Cartiers and the Browns found themselves. It is important for the record, as well, to understand that not all who met in those conferences saw this federalism as the best possible option. As most historians have pointed out, they saw it as the second best in most cases -- the lowest common denominator on which Maritimers and Upper Canadians, French and English, could agree to go forward and meet the new challenges.

It is important when we think about the present situation in Quebec to recall what one of the most prominent historians of French Canada said about the impetus that brought those people into the agreement. I would like to quote from Professor Bonenfant’s article, French Canadians and the Birth of Confederation. He says: “Confederation was achieved because the English-Canadians needed to have the French-Canadians in it, and the French could not then become independent. The great majority of nations have been formed not by people who desired intensely to live together, but rather by people who could not live separately.”

In conclusion, it is extremely important at this time of renewal for all of us to draw upon much of that historical experience, to take its benefit, to take its guidance, to be made courageous by it, to see how previous generations dealt with their equally difficult -- in some ways, more trying -- problems and to sort out of our current difficulties a new departure that can make this country the dynamic, positive and progressive place that each and everyone of us now and in years before felt it could be.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, in the history of government it is not every generation that is called upon to write a constitution. This is a rare time. Nor is it every person who is privileged in such a time to represent the views of fellow citizens and to try to express those views in such an important forum as this one. Nor have there been many times in history when a woman has been admitted to such a place of privilege to add a voice which sounds with a feminine timbre for the 50 per cent of our citizenry who have little official history of their own in the affairs of state, but which in a democratic society will find self-expression whether politicians are ready or not.

In the 20th century, most of the constitutions have been written by the victors of violent revolution. In fact, the histories of constitutions written by elected politicians are not inspiring. I think of the Weimar Republic and the provisional Kerensky government’s proposed constitution. We must not be dismayed, because it is not only elected politicians who have been known to fail in this awe-inspiring task of establishing a workable constitution. Victorious generals of revolution and counter-revolution in both the 19th and 20th centuries have scored quite well in the failure count.

If we are absolutely practical about the art of historical analysis, the important lesson to be learned about constitutions is that a workable constitution can be created by people who know it can survive. It is the survivors who have the luck, because luck -- or what we call luck -- is the function of having a half-decent start. In spite of the hard lives of our ancestors, immigrants all, they had the courage to be immigrants to a harsh, unknown land which has rewarded their optimism in full measure.

We have to acknowledge our task with the same sense of optimism and with the recognition that we enjoy enormous good luck in the circumstances which surround us. We should let it be our challenge to know in our hearts how lucky we are. If we who enjoy so much cannot accept this challenge, then who can? The thought should both encourage us and make us bear a special burden of responsibility that we must be able to succeed.

To begin with, I believe we need to sense our roots. Like every other person who lives in Ontario, I have talked to people whose ancestors were here before the immigrants arrived. Before the Spanish and the Portuguese, the French and the English, this land was peopled by the people we now call natives. Then came the others to kill the natives whose land was taken, to farm the strips of river bed, to live in the circumscribed political rules that the foreign managers of the mercantile interests of Europe prescribed. When the foreign occupiers of this land decided it was not worth a European war, they handed it over to their branch-plant managers to rule. These managers became what is still known as the Family Compact. In Ontario, they rule to this day.

There are those of us in Ontario who oppose that rule, of course. The Liberal Party of Ontario, which currently has 34 seats in this Legislature, hit its stride in the farmers’ rebellion against undemocratic government in Upper Canada. In the armed rebellion of 1837, southwestern Ontario farmers fought unsuccessfully for democratic reform and the power of the class they represented. They lost but their battle caused enough disturbance to force the British Privy Council to send us Lord Durham. The good lord in his wisdom recommended that the king should grant responsible government to the established farmers of Ontario and recommended also that Upper and Lower Canada should be married.

5 p.m.

It was a marriage of convenience for many. The lurking motive was that the French of Lower Canada should be joined in a parliament with the English of Upper Canada where the French would soon he submerged by immigration from what the English called the mother country.

The Liberal Party of Ontario saw its victory 30 years after the farmers’ rebellion when Sir John A. Macdonald wooed its participation in the British North America Act. Just to indicate how far the Liberal Party of Ontario, representative of the populist feeling of the property-owning farmers of Ontario, had come in its concern for a national constitution, let me quote from a letter, dated October 27, 1864, by George Brown, key Liberal Father of Confederation, to his wife:

“All right. Confederation through at six o’clock this evening. Constitution adopted. A creditable document. A complete reform of all the abuses and injustices we have complained of. Is it not wonderful? French-Canadianism entirely extinguished.”

George Brown is of course known to all of us as the founder of the Liberal Party of Ontario and the founder of the Globe, the paper we now call the Globe and Mail.

All this historical anecdotage is to note there is a large body of Ontario opinion represented by 33 seats in the Ontario Legislature of 1980 which was not represented in the land-owning rebellion of 1837, which was not represented in the founding of the Globe and Mail newspaper, which was not represented in the bargaining of John A. Macdonald about the BNA Act and which has survived to stake its claim as we enter the new and difficult period of writing a workable constitution for this country of ours.

A lot of us who now represent this province had no roots here in 1864. We weren’t here when George Brown, founding father of the Globe and of the BNA Act, was representing what has now become Ontario. My ancestors can be traced to the original Spanish and French occupiers of this land, and I am proud to claim English and native blood in this country. My father came from a coal-mining family in Cape Breton and my mother, now dead, came from the hard-pressed middle class of Newfoundland. My stepmother was raised in the vulnerable farmland area just outside the city of Toronto.

When my father and family were scraping for an income in the early 1940s, we moved to the Ottawa Valley, to Aylmer in Quebec. An English-speaking teacher in those days in Quebec didn’t earn much, though my father, I now know, earned more money in Quebec than if he had been a French-speaking teacher.

I still remember the outhouse and the pump in the kitchen sink from which my mother pumped the water to heat on the coal stove for the diapers. People like us didn’t ask any questions about constitutions. We were surviving and we knew it was no small thing. Like thousands of other English-speaking Quebeckers, we looked to the government of Canada as our true political representative. The same was true, of course, for most of the residents of Ontario.

The government of Ontario was not a government which played an active role in meeting the needs of the ordinary citizens of the province. It was laissez-faire. It was not socially progressive. It was the inheritor of the political mantle of the old Family Compact, but the province was rich in resources and was a natural location for the branch plants of multinational corporations. The economy was strong enough to provide employment to support a rising level of family incomes for most, even though development was uneven and the vast profits of resource exploitation were concentrated in the hands of the resource extraction industries, many of them foreign-owned.

The average Ontario voter expected little from his provincial government and got what he expected. He looked to the federal government for progressive social legislation. He supported the creation of the CBC and the Bank of Canada, as he also welcomed the federal development of income support programs. The attitude of the Ontario government towards progressive social moves at the federal level was usually passive, if not resistant, the crowning example being Premier Robarts’ challenge that public medical insurance would come to Ontario over his dead body. It was, and continues to be, the kind of attitude that makes individuals and groups in Ontario concerned with social welfare programs react with fear to proposals that the federal government hand over funding for social programs without program strings to the provincial level of government. It is an honest fear, born of years of bitter experience with this government’s indifference to the social needs of Ontario.

It is not only the social policy failings of the Conservative provincial government which are disquieting to the people of Ontario in 1980, but it is also the growing awareness that the lackadaisical economic approach of the past is penalizing us in the present and threatening our security in the future. As we reflect on the pattern of economic development which the provincial government has promoted, we understand the sources of our current economic problems and we understand why Canadians in other provinces regard Ontario with such suspicion and bitterness. There is more than a hint of hypocrisy in this government’s recent conversion to a position where it rejects the constitutional status quo. For years, the Canadian status quo has been what Ontario wished it to be. The government of Ontario has masked its own ideological preferences by pretending to be merely the willing follower of the federal government.

As province after province has struggled to assert a public claim on resource profits, Ontario has blithely continued to allow Ontario resources to profit the corporate exploiters rather than the public of this province and this country. While the federal government associated itself with court actions by private companies against other provincial governments, the Ontario government looked the other way. While the federal government acted out the charade of the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Ontario government continuously apologized for foreign takeovers of Ontario businesses.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has even gone so far in pursuit of Ontario’s subservience to international capital as to expose himself to a public attack by foreign investors on our hard-won legislation to protect the environment and the rights of Ontario workers. It is a wretched record and it hasn’t gone unnoticed in such provinces as Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia.

This Conservative government has hidden its ideology under a cloak of pretended ineffectualness and, by doing so, has lent legitimacy to the aggressive actions of a federal government which has sought to cripple attempts by other provincial governments to make public claims on the profits from provincial resources.

The pattern of federal government misdeeds is unmistakable and Ontario’s benign indifference to those misdeeds has implicated this province in the eyes of other Canadians. It is not as if the Ontario Conservatives have been ignorant of the implications of federal actions. Earlier in this century, the Conservative government of Premier Whitney passed legislation to protect public ownership of silver ore in the Cobalt area and enacted the establishment of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission. In both cases, the federal government threatened to disallow Ontario’s legislation and publicly argued the case for the private companies which were opposing the public’s right to reap the profits from resource development.

More recently, the federal government has resisted the attempts of Alberta and Saskatchewan to exercise public control over and reap the benefits from oil and potash developments. When the private companies dragged Saskatchewan into the Supreme Court, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec associated themselves with the case of the Saskatchewan government, the federal government participated on the side of the private company, and Ontario looked the other way.

5:10 p.m.

The same pattern is asserting itself in Quebec’s current attempts to assume control of the asbestos industry in that province. In this case, Asbestos Corporation has obtained an injunction in the Quebec Court of Appeal and is claiming Quebec’s effort to force asbestos processing in that province, rather than the export of the raw material, is in contravention of the federal government’s authority over federal trade. Again, there is not a peep of concern from the government of Ontario, even though there is similar legislation to require domestic processing on the Ontario books. The Ontario legislation is effectively useless because of the number of exemptions granted by our upstanding provincial government.

To hear the Premier now claim he rejects the constitutional status quo would be almost laughable if it weren’t so irritating. The provincial Conservatives have permitted the mining of Ontario’s forest resources and consciously passed the ownership of Ontario’s mineral resources to the private corporations for a pittance in public revenue returns. The losers are not only the residents of Ontario, but all the residents of less fortunate regions of Canada. Ontario’s refusal to generate appropriate public revenue from this province’s resources has significantly lowered the national average of resource revenues. That, in turn, has meant equalization payments paid to poorer provinces to compensate for lower-than-average revenues have been less than they should have been. Thus, Ontario policies have deprived the Atlantic provinces and Manitoba of equalization grants they would enjoy if Ontario resource revenues were at a reasonable level and calculated into the national average of resource revenues.

This is the government which now expects the feds to ensure that the maximum amount of Alberta oil flows to the rest of Canada at a price less than world price. It is the government which is surprised and affronted when Alberta suggests Ontario minerals be sold to other provinces at a Canadian price and that Ontario electric power exports be subject to federal export taxes. No wonder the rest of Canada is impatient when Ontario screams in pain about energy prices.

The government of Ontario has always turned a piously deaf ear to the pleas of other provinces for a fairer shake on federal tariff policies which benefit Ontario, federal freight rates which benefit Ontario and industrial development policies that benefit Ontario. The Ontario government is very righteous about the fiscal fallout of an Alberta heritage fund which removes billions of dollars from the national economy and hordes it within the boundaries of Alberta. But it has to answer for the fact that it has never been willing to create a public fund based on resource revenues generated in this province, let alone willing to share such a fund with other governments for the common good.

During the March school break I visited Alberta with three Ontario NDP colleagues. Our discussions with representatives of many sectors of Alberta society were quite enlightening. The common theme of those discussions was the clearly expressed judgement that Ontario had no right to be whining about oil prices and gas policies when its government continues to hide behind the aggressive exercise of federal government powers.

A couple of days after our Alberta visit, I listened with dismay to the same kind of discussion on CBC Radio’s Cross-Country Check-Up. Many callers supported the notion that because the western provinces are not now and rarely have been adequately represented in the decision-making processes of the federal government, Ontario’s contingent of MPs in the House of Commons should be reduced. The feeling was that Ontario had called the shots too long and that if proportional representation had to be sacrificed in order for this province to be put in its place, then so be it.

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for us to be issuing ringing declarations about how we reject the constitutional status quo and beating our breasts about how the people of Quebec should join with us in the creation of a new constitution for Canada. But our credibility will be dubious in the eyes of other citizens of this country until we have a provincial government that starts to display by its own actions some sense of responsibility for the common good which it has so breezily counselled others to adopt in the past.

There has got to be a new attitude that puts the Family Compact view of government firmly behind, that grasps the need for economic development that brings the maximum public benefit and that expresses the real desire of the people of Ontario to co-operate with our fellow citizens in common efforts towards social progress, political vitality and economic sharing. I believe nothing less will do for the future of this province and the future of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, already during the course of the debate in this House we have heard some very eloquent observations and various personal perspectives on the state of the Confederation in this country and the role of Quebec and Ontario within that Confederation. I think that almost all members have distinguished themselves by rising above partisanship on this particularly important issue and on this particularly historic occasion.

Members of both sides of the House have described their personal commitment and the commitment of this province to Canada and to its people. It is evidently the wish of this House, as it is my own, to endorse a stable and equitable framework of government for our country within the federalist structure. I believe it is also a fair description of the aspirations of the people of Ontario generally for Canada.

If Quebec’s future is not to be as a full member of Canada, then we as Ontarians will be diminished by that loss. In the public debate about Quebec’s possible separation, some have questioned publicly whether we in Ontario care enough about this danger. Some accusations have been made during the course of the referendum campaign that we in this province are indifferent to Quebeckers and to our historical ties to their culture. Those accusations have been a disturbing feature of what, in many respects, has been a sincere and a passionately debated campaign. The chance to deny these accusations and to attempt to set the record straight on the part of all of us during the course of this debate is, I think, an important reason for our participation.

I consider it a very real privilege personally and as a member of this Legislature to join with my colleagues in the course of this debate. Our discussions touch directly on issues of fundamental importance for us as individuals and as citizens of Canada. I hope sincerely they can influence positively the nature of the Canada we shall enjoy in the future and that they can contribute to the secure sense of social justice for all Canadians which is an inseparable part of that goal.

Because of our concern about the referendum in Quebec, I believe it is important for us to acknowledge that a foundation of equitable social justice has not always been fully accessible to francophones in Canada and, indeed, within Ontario. Obstacles of both a personal and an institutional kind have existed historically.

I have chosen to make my home in eastern Ontario. That part of our province enjoys a considerable proportion of francophone residents. I know many of them have felt the special contribution their heritage can make to Ontario has been undervalued and rebuffed in the past. In some individuals that has produced a sense of personal grievance and frustration which is private, deep and sometimes bitter. Many others, I am happy to say, encounter now a fresher, more open attitude of respect among their fellow citizens, and an honest effort within government to ensure their fair treatment.

5:20 p.m.

Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le Président, j’ai choisi de m’établir dans l'est de l’Ontario. Cette partie de notre province est habitée par des francophones dans une portion considérable, et je sais que bon nombre d’entre eux croient que la contribution spéciale de leur patrimoine et que la culture ontarienne ont été rejetées ou sous-estimées par le passé.

Chez certaines personnes cette idée a donné lieu à un sentiment de frustration et à un certain ressentiment qui ne s’est peut-être pas manifesté ouvertement, mais qui n’est pas moins profond et parfois empreint d’amertume. Bien d’autres cependant, et je suis heureux de le constater, font maintenant preuve d’une attitude plus ouverte et d’un plus grand respect de leurs concitoyens. Il y a aussi des efforts sincères de la part du gouvernement pour qu’ils soient traités avec justice.

In part, that very welcome evolution of attitudes can be ascribed to the strengths we have gained from an increasingly multicultural environment. As a society, Ontario has matured dramatically in the past generation. The development of attitudes toward multiculturalism has permitted us to strengthen our support for our francophone population.

But I feel sure that an important part must also be attributed to the sincere concern that Ontarians feel about the future of Quebec and the difficult process of self-examination in which Quebeckers are now engaged. Even though I have no doubt about the choice I hope Quebeckers will freely make, I think we should applaud their readiness to undertake such a difficult process; it is a gallant one.

We often hear from some sources that the majority of our citizens feel too removed from issues of constitutional and statutory change to be really concerned about them in any personal way. People who make this argument frequently conclude that these issues are not important to us, that we feel no attachment to them because they’re obviously not directly impacting upon the daily routine of our lives.

I can accept that for many of us, perhaps most of us, constitutional matters seem too abstract and too complex to be comfortably grasped. Certainly, they are elusive of quick or easy solutions. I know as well from my own contact with people across this province that many of our people who wish to indicate to Quebeckers their sense of national solidarity feel, with some discouragement, that too few avenues are open to them by which they can offer their contribution.

But I simply do not accept the sceptical conclusion that the results of the referendum campaign are of little concern to our people. People in Ontario do want the continued and valuable contribution of Quebec and the involvement of her people within an enriched Canadian federation.

Ontarians generally accept that there is a widespread agreement within Quebec that substantial changes are necessary to make that possible, and many of us agree with that conclusion. We are ready to listen and to work together to find the kinds of accommodations which permit all provinces, and our nation to flourish. We are ready to seek, with all Canadians, a renewed vision of this nation that will take us together into the future.

Ontarians worry that it’s not enough, that the rich opportunities we have in Canada to build a splendid nation will not draw from contemporary Quebeckers the deep response that the call to separate has developed in substantial numbers of them.

I believe Ontarians are prepared to urge on this House, and on the government of this province, that we aggressively articulate their support for constitutional change, which would ensure that we can have a stable and united Canada. They expect us to take an active and leading role in discussions to amend the constitutional structure of our nation and to pursue their best interests vigorously during those negotiations.

They expect Ontario will acknowledge and help to safeguard the legitimate historic and cultural interests of Quebec and the other provinces of Canada, as well as advancing those prerogatives which are properly the jurisdictional purview of the federal government of Canada. They expect us to speak for Canada, and to make it our foremost priority to promote a vision of a nation which can be institutionally viable, while remaining sensitive to the cultural complexities and the strengths of our various regions.

I am very pleased to join with the members of this Legislature in giving my unqualified endorsement to the resolution before us. Let us indicate to the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada where our hearts lie on this most fundamental of national issues. Let us speak from this chamber with a united voice in support of Canada.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, it has been moved and unanimously accepted by this House that we commit ourselves, as our highest priority, to support full negotiation of a new constitution to satisfy the diverse aspirations of all Canadians and to replace the status quo, which is clearly unacceptable. We further affirm our opposition to the negotiation of sovereignty-association, and we appeal to all Quebeckers to join with other Canadians in building this national constitution.

Of fundamental concern, as we deliberate the impending referendum in Quebec, is the preservation of Canada. So urgent is the issue which confronts us that this historic debate must resolve itself into two main purposes. The first is to expose the real intent of the Parti Québecois, that when they ask for a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association, they premise their request upon the dissolution of this country. The second is to demonstrate to Quebeckers that we in Ontario are prepared to work with them immediately to build a country in which each and every one of us can enjoy equal status, a country within whose boundaries, from sea to sea, we will all feel at home, and a country which we can hold out with pride to the rest of the world.

The term “sovereignty-association” means nothing more and nothing less than complete separation -- the unequivocal dismemberment of Canada, a Canada whose co-founders were both good and proud people, French and English, who originally formed themselves into Upper and Lower Canada, subsequently to become known in Confederation as Ontario and Quebec.

I carry into this debate on Canadian unity a real sense of pride, inasmuch as I am a direct descendant of one Daniel Stong who, as a United Empire Loyalist, arrived in Canada in the late 1790s, and whose original homestead forms the nucleus of, and is preserved in, what is now called Black Creek Pioneer Village in this city. Just as my forefathers cleared the land by the sweat of their brow to build this country, I will use all my resources, including the honour of this elected office, to help save my country from destruction.

I cannot accept the protested innocence of Mr. Rene Levesque, the Premier of Quebec, when he asks his constituents for a simple mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association. He is steadfastly determined to destroy this country, Canada, which my ancestors and those of my French counterparts toiled so hard to build.

I say to Mr. Levesque and his followers that we in Ontario will not negotiate sovereignty-association, which is implicit in a yes vote. On the contrary, we regard a no vote as a signal to begin the process immediately of renewing Canadian federalism, the process which we are eager to undertake with Quebec, the other provinces and the federal government

5:30 p.m.

To negotiate sovereignty-association is to negotiate after the fact, to dress the wound after the patient has died, to hold a trial after the accused has been hanged, or to close the door after the horse has bolted. We will negotiate a new constitution. We will not negotiate the dismemberment of this nation.

I have always regarded a strong Quebec in Confederation as indispensable to the rights of francophones in Ontario. I must admit, however, if I were a young male francophone in Quebec today I would be very angry. I would see my father and his father before him relegated to the status of second-class citizens even in the province I regard as my own. I would see them as having spent their entire working lives on an assembly line or pushing a broom in a factory without ever having been afforded the opportunity of becoming a foreman in the shop, much less being elevated to the board room where decisions are made.

Yes, I would want to resort to any method that would change that situation and I would be driven to exercise my inalienable right to vote to effect that change -- and that at the first opportunity. But I hope that in the circumstances of this referendum I would realize that a yes vote will lead to the destruction of the very subject I would rather change and improve.

I do not believe the answer to the issue before us lies in lofty ideals, legalistic subtleties or philosophical idiosyncrasies. I believe instead that the basis of strength in this nation lies purely and simply in observing the principle that as co-founders of Canada, the French and English are equal in status. As Canadians they must enjoy, among other things, equal opportunities of cultural development, equal opportunities for economic achievement and equal opportunities to communicate in their own language in essential services. Surely this is the least the co-founders deserve in their own homeland.

I am prepared, as I am sure my colleagues in this House are, to use my office as an elected representative to assist in any way to pound out a new constitution that will guarantee these fundamental equalities to these two founding peoples.

It has been said that this referendum debate in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is happening too late in the day, that the seeds of destruction of Canada have already been sown and the matter is all but accomplished. Quebeckers have not yet marked their ballots. As they weigh the alternatives, we must demonstrate our commitment to a new federalism, a commitment that involves a concerted effort from all quarters.

As I reflect on the crisis confronting our nation at this time, I am reminded of a report of an instance that occurred in a small town in one of the southern states of America about five years ago. The story centred on a desperate search by the entire population of that town for a missing four-year-old girl. It began when the little girl failed to come home for supper one evening. The young mother commenced her own search by calling on all the neighbours but without success. As darkness set in and the little girl had not returned, the town’s single police officer was involved. He toured the streets and outlying roads but could not find her. By midnight the whole town of 200 had been alerted and a walking search was organized. As the night temperature dropped, the tempo of the search reached frantic levels with everyone covering his own area time and time again.

Throughout the entire next day the towns- people tramped through the bushes, over the fields, up the hills and along the bank of the river that flowed past the small community. Everyone thought the worst, but each went his own way covering and re-covering areas that had already been searched. Just before sunset on the second day, a final desperate attempt was made by the exhausted searchers, only this time someone suggested they all join hands and form a human chain.

The line moved towards a clump of trees that had already been searched. Within half an hour of the forming of the human chain the little girl was discovered. She was huddled under a rock formation, but she had died of exposure. I will never forget the picture with the caption under it which accompanied that tragic story. It showed the townspeople leading the young mother away from the scene as she cried out in anguish, “Why didn’t they join hands sooner?”

It is not yet too late to save Canada from dismemberment. If Quebeckers vote to join with their sister provinces in Canada to create a new federalism, then such a common resolve will be accomplished. Ontario has unfolded its arms in the past in its relationship with its francophone population and now it is extending those arms in an open gesture.

As justice policy critic in the official opposition, allow me to illustrate the continuing commitment to unity in terms of the court services that this province has implemented and, more particularly, is offering in French-language court services. An important component of our democratic system is our judiciary and the ability of a citizen to exercise his or her legal rights before the courts.

Just as our two founding races form the cornerstone of our national cultural identity, so too do these legal rights provide the foundation for a society truly governed by the rule of law. In this context it is only proper that, concomitant with the right to a fair trial and the right to seek civil redress before the courts, access to these rights be provided in both of Canada’s official languages.

I am honoured that my colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has been at the forefront of the movement to establish French-language court services in Ontario. I also wish to commend the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for the advances that have been made in this area over the last few years. Since December 31, 1979, any person charged under the Criminal Code of Canada has had the right to be heard by a bilingual judge and bilingual jurors where there is a trial with a jury. Ontario legislation now permits the transfer of cases to areas of the province where bilingual jurors are available.

French-language services are at present available in the provincial court, criminal division, in 11 communities, as well as in the provincial court, family division, in 16 communities. In addition, the Attorney General has announced he expects that by the end of the year French-language services will become available in the small claims courts in appropriate areas.

Je suis encouragé par les récentes améliorations et je ferai tout en mon pouvoir que l’on continue l’expansion des services en langue française dans les tribunaux de notre province.

I would like also to address a few words about the role of the Supreme Court of Canada in a restructured federalism. The Supreme Court of Canada sits at the apex of our judicial system and not only presides over important constitutional issues but also deliberates with respect to our various civil and criminal laws. In so far as the interpretation of our laws and statutes affects the nature of the society within which we live, to that extent the Supreme Court of Canada has an important bearing on our everyday lives. For this reason, the nature of this court becomes an issue of importance in the context of constitutional reform.

Federalism by definition requires mechanisms for the resolution of disputes between federal and provincial governments. Federal-provincial conferences are one of those mechanisms. The Supreme Court of Canada is another. In this context, it is important that the Supreme Court of Canada be an institution that embodies its federal-provincial nature. It is for this reason that appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada should not be the sole prerogative of the federal government, as is the present case. Rather, appointments should be the product of a consultative process between the federal and provincial governments.

Such a process should not depend on the magnanimity of the federal government, but rather should be part and parcel of the new constitution itself. The present regional representation found on the bench should be continued. The tradition of one judge from the Atlantic region, three from Quebec, three from Ontario and two from the west, I would not want to see disturbed.

5:40 p.m.

On devrait également souligner dans une Cour Suprême réorganisée et lorsque l’appel implique seulement des questions se rapportant à la loi civile du Québec, la majorité des juges de l’audience devraient être de loi civile.

Our entire judicial system can be strengthened to reflect more equitably the different interests that form Canada if we are all prepared to work together to accomplish such resolve. However, the judicial system is only one aspect of our constitutional makeup.

It is most important that, following the referendum in Quebec, the whole of Canada act with the utmost dispatch in convening constitutional discussions on a new federalism. If we join together in this great nation immediately and with a common purpose, our descendants will never be heard to ask, “Why didn’t they join hands sooner?”

Mes compatriotes du Québec, on vous demande de voter sur une question de la plus grande importance. Si vous votez oui, donnant ainsi le mandat à votre premier ministre pour négocier la souveraineté-association, vous accepterez en même temps le démembrement de notre grande nation. Si vous votez non, vous direz au reste du Canada que vous nous prenez au mot, et que vous voulez commencer immédiatement la négociation d'une nouvelle constitution. Nous sommes tous prêts pour la création d’une nouvelle constitution.

Notre nation a été fondée par deux cultures différentes, par deux peuples bons et fiers, les Français et les Anglais. Cette nation a deux partenaires fondateurs, le Français et l’Anglais. Ensemble nous sommes Canadiens et seulement ensemble nous formons le Canada. Sans les anglophones, le Canada ne peut pas exister. Sans les francophones, le Canada n’existerait pas.

Si motives par un réel désir de réussir, nous joignions nos efforts immédiatement pour discuter une nouvelle constitution dans un but commun, un désir de préserver le Canada et d’en faire une nation forte et unie. Si nous joignions nos cœurs et nos esprits dans une même détermination, nous sauverions notre pays. Le présent sera le nôtre, l’avenir appartiendra à nos enfants.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are finally having this debate on the future of the Canadian constitution in this House. I am glad so many members are participating in the debate. I regret, however, that we have waited until the referendum campaign is in progress in Quebec to bring this matter before us.

Quebec nationalism is hardly a new phenomenon. It didn’t develop after November 1976. The Quebecois long ago developed a strong sense of nationhood. This sentiment began with the conquest and has been nurtured by the many injustices experienced by francophones in Canada, such as the Manitoba and Ontario schools crises and the imposition of conscription in the First World War. It really flowered with the development of the pride of the Quebecois in the quiet revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.

As nationalism throughout the world led to the emergence of small states after the collapse of the 19th-century European empires at the end of the First World War and the dismantling of Europe’s African and Asian empires since the Second World War, it was almost inevitable that this Quebecois national sentiment should lead to demands for change in Canada, especially as Canada increasingly traded British colonialism for American economic and social dominance. The election of the PQ and the referendum must be seen in that context.

If anyone believes our debate this week will significantly affect the results of the vote in Quebec on May 20, he or she is woefully out of touch with the history of Quebec nationalism and the present situation in that province. We should have been debating the issue much earlier in this House.

However, I would hope that during our debate this week we will reaffirm our support of the basic democratic principle of the right of nations to self-determination. We must publicly recognize the basic right of the Quebecois to decide their own destiny as a nation. I regret very much the inclusion in the resolution before the House of the second phrase, which I hope will not be seen as any attempt to coerce the people of that province.

I sincerely hope the Quebecois will decide that their aspirations can be met within a restructured Canada, and for that reason I support the sentiments expressed in the first and second statements in the resolution: “That we the Legislative Assembly of Ontario commit ourselves, as our highest priority, to support full negotiation of a new constitution to satisfy the diverse aspects of all Canadians and to replace the status quo which is clearly unacceptable.” For that reason, I support the resolution and I am glad we are finally debating the matter in this House.

Whatever the result of the referendum, we in Ontario must be prepared to renegotiate the constitution and the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada in order to accommodate the aspirations of the Quebecois. We can, I believe we must, join together in building a lasting relationship based on mutual understanding, respect and equality.

I realize the Quebecois may feel Ontario has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to this realization, but the desire for constitutional change in this province is real. Movement has indeed been slow, and it has been blemished by the intransigence and hesitation of local authorities and the provincial government in situations such as the Essex county and Penetanguishene school crises. For some reason, instead of leading local authorities to expand French-language school services in this province, the government has stumbled into a French-language school entity policy that really doesn’t please anyone involved.

The necessary leadership hasn’t been forthcoming from this government and I regret that. Much more has to be done to expand health, social and legal services for Franco-Ontarians in their own language, but I would be remiss if I didn’t admit that progress has been made. However, these advances in education and other services in the French language in this province have been largely the result of developments in Quebec over the last 15 to 20 years. Without the growth of national pride in Quebec, I don’t think progress here would have been possible.

If the Quebecois turned their backs on their francophone brothers and sisters here and in other parts of Canada, the effect on French-language rights in Ontario would be catastrophic. In my view, the white paper doesn’t adequately discuss the methods for Quebec to deal with francophones in other parts of Canada once sovereignty-association were achieved. I would hope the people of Quebec would continue to support the aspirations of francophones in other provinces to protect their language and culture. It would be tragic if these minorities lost that support.

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, since it is close to six o’clock, I would move adjournment of the debate and resume at eight, if that is acceptable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not necessary to adjourn the debate.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue and I suppose will complete after eight o’clock.

I want to move to another aspect since I am a representative of a riding with diverse economic groups within it. I must say I am disturbed that neither side in Quebec’s referendum debate has recognized adequately the desire of other groups who have contributed so much to Canada’s life to maintain their culture and benefit equitably from the benefits of our society.

My colleagues in my caucus will be discussing the needs of other ethnic groups but I wish to deal with the issue of native rights in the negotiation of a new constitution, having recognized the right of self-determination for Quebec. I can’t presume to speak for Indian and Inuit communities in Canada, and I believe that none of us in this House can make that presumption. No Premier in Canada can presume to speak for the native communities in his province, nor for that matter do I believe the federal Minister of Indian Affairs can presume to make that claim.

In this country, native people must be able to exercise their right to choose their own spokespeople, who must be able to participate directly and fully in constitutional negotiations. In reading the white paper, I had to search through it for a reference to the native role in the process of constitutional change. When I found the short platitudinous comments about native rights, they sounded nice, but I suspected that the Parti Québecois really doesn’t know how to deal with these complex issues.

It appears from the white paper that the decision on the future of Quebec, that is its relationship with the rest of Canada, should be decided before dealing with the aspirations of the native communities. The white paper really only deals with dualism in Canada and the development of sovereignty-association. In my view, that is unacceptable. Dealing with native rights must be an integral part of negotiations on constitutional change.

The beige paper for the no side does take a more generous approach than the white paper in that it recognizes the constitution should ensure native people a better status in Canada and calls for discussion and negotiations with representatives of native communities. It emphasizes that native people must be authors of their own destiny and suggests that the treaties should take precedence over legislation. I agree with that. However, we must be prepared to deal with native rights on an agenda determined by the Indians and Inuits themselves. We must not set out the principles and objectives of negotiations ourselves.

I emphasize that the agenda of what is to be discussed with the native communities must be determined by those people themselves, but I would like to list some of the things I suspect they would wish to discuss with us:

First, the whole issue of aboriginal rights. Aboriginal rights stem from the national rights enjoyed by the Indian tribes and Inuit groups that were established on this continent prior to European colonization. They were not granted, in my view, by the British proclamation of 1763. Canadian courts, throughout history, have failed to understand the origins of aboriginal rights. A new constitution should correctly describe and establish those rights and the federal government must be given the clear authority to negotiate the settlement of aboriginal claims throughout Canada.

Second, we must deal with treaty rights. The worst blemish on the history of Canada has been the failure of Canadian governments to live up to the rights given to native people at the time of the negotiation of the treaties. The treaties were political agreements between political groups, but they have not been given precedence by the courts over legislation passed by white governments.

The constitution must correctly describe the legal status of the treaties in Canadian law, and also, the terms of these treaties must be entrenched such that they cannot be abrogated by future Canadian governments. The new constitution must deal specifically with the continuing problems concerning Indian rights under those treaties. The obligations of governments for economic development of Indian communities and education and health services to natives must be clarified. The methods for resolution of treaty land claims must be incorporated in any new constitution.

Third, band membership: Because of the incomprehensible rules under the Indian Act there has been tremendous dissension throughout the Indian community over who is eligible for rights under the treaties in this country. Who is an Indian and who decides who is an Indian must be resolved in any new constitution.

Fourth, education: In the past, the types of education provided to native peoples have been subject to the caprice of white politicians and bureaucrats. Fortunately, there now seems to be general agreement that native people should have maximum control over their own education. I believe the only guarantee native people have of gaining ultimate control over such a culturally important area as education would be a constitutional guarantee of their right to exclusive jurisdiction over education of their children.

Fifth, resource rights: The series of constitutional cases in the 1960s and 1970s involving hunting and fishing rights have shown how inconsistently these rights have been accepted by the courts in Canada. Treaty and aboriginal rights to hunt and fish have been overridden by the Migratory Birds Convention Act (Canada), the Fisheries Act (Canada) and provincial law. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed that treaty promises have been broken and injustices have been done, but these injustices have not been remedied. The logical answer is constitutional protection for Indian resource rights, not just in relation to hunting and fishing but also in relation to mineral and timber rights on reserves.

Since Canadian Indians are subject to different legal regimes than other Canadians because of their special constitutional status, their treaties and aboriginal rights and the Indian Act, this creates a difficult problem respecting proposals to entrench Canada’s Bill of Rights in the constitution. If everyone is to be treated equally before the law, what does that mean for the special rights and privileges of native peoples under the treaties?

I believe Indian concerns in regard to a clear explanation of how the Bill of Rights is to apply to Indian communities must be negotiated under a new constitutional debate. We must assure our native brothers and sisters that we reject assimilation once and for all. We must recognize aboriginal and treaty rights and they must be entrenched within a new constitution. If we do that, it will be recognized internationally as a great achievement in the treatment of aboriginal peoples throughout the world. This must be part and parcel of a complete revamping of the Canadian constitution with participation directly by the leaders of the native communities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has five minutes remaining in his allotted time.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.