Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PLANT CLOSURE

Mrs Fawcett: I rise today with a great deal of disappointment and sadness, for yesterday the death-knell sounded for a 100-year-old family industry in the town of Port Hope: Cooper Tools. Cooper Tools was home to, in some cases, three generations of family employees. Now, over the next 8 to 10 months, Cooper Tools will face a slow death, forcing approximately 200 more employees to be added to the list of jobless that continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

It is no accident that this industry will now be transferred to the United States. The high interest rates and artificially high Canadian dollar make it impossible to compete in the global economy. This country's inflationary policies like the goods and services tax just further add to the difficulties for our industries.

As government, we put into place policies to assist these men and women who are devastated by this news, like the program for older workers' adjustment and transition. This government, in its Agenda for People, made several promises to workers suffering job loss. Where is the plant closure justification program? Where is the wage and benefit protection fund?

The Premier and the Labour minister had no problem railing at the governments of the day continually about the injustices to laid-off workers. But that was then and this is now, and the promises sit gathering dust on some obscure shelf, hoping they will be forgotten and go away.

This province needs leadership; these people need direction. Where is it and when will we see it? What commitment will this government make to assist those families affected by this recent decision at Cooper Tools?

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF YORK REGION

Mr Cousens: Yesterday the member for York North effectively pointed out to the Minister of Community and Social Services the severe problems being experienced by the Children's Aid Society of York Region. I am calling on this government to address the society's financial needs and, more important, the needs of the children it serves.

This afternoon the minister will be meeting with officials of the York region children's aid society in an attempt to resolve several outstanding issues. I remind the minister that York region is one of the fastest-growing regions in this province. Over the past decade, our population has more than doubled in size. One of the major impacts that such burgeoning growth has had is an overwhelming burden on our social service network.

According to our children's aid society officials, York region is currently the lowest-funded agency per capita in the province. Their budget is the 13th largest, while their service network encompasses the fifth-largest population base. Not only must they cope with operating at a deficit; they must also attempt to provide mandated services for an ever-growing population.

The children's aid society has undergone review after review, and each time the consensus has been that its base budget fails to reflect the reality of its needs. I call on the Ministry of Community and Social Services to make use of this opportunity to solve the problems in York region. It is even more unfortunate that this measure must be taken now that the board has had to resign. May they not resign; may they be allowed to carry on the job they have been given.

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr Sutherland: I rise today to extend congratulations to the University of Western Ontario men's basketball team on recently winning the national championship. It was successful in winning by defeating Guelph 78 to 69 in the final game. This is the first time that an Ontario team has won the national championship since 1975.

I would also, at this time, like to bring attention to this House that this is the 100th anniversary of the founding of basketball. While Canada is recognized for its contributions in sports, particularly in hockey and curling, we sometimes forget that basketball was invented by a Canadian, Dr James Naismith. As is noted in the recent edition of the YMCA Triangle magazine, Dr Naismith was from Almonte, Ontario, went to McGill University, graduated from there and then became involved with the YMCA. He was sent to their international training school in Massachusetts and given the task of trying to develop an indoor activity for the wintertime that people could enjoy. After failing on several other attempts, Dr Naismith sat down and came up with the game of basketball.

It should also be noted that, unlike many other sports, women were playing basketball shortly after its invention. I think all of us should take time to remember that basketball, a game that many people enjoy the world around, was invented by a Canadian and an Ontarian.

ÉDUCATION EN FRANÇAIS

M. Daigeler: La section catholique du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton gère six écoles élémentaires dans l'ouest de notre région mais aucune école secondaire. Cet état de fait engendre un taux élevé d'assimilation des jeunes francophones qui préfèrent s'inscrire dans des écoles secondaires anglophones de leur quartier plutôt que de s'imposer jusqu'à trois heures de trajet par jour pour fréquenter une des trois écoles secondaires situées dans l'est du territoire du conseil.

Pour remédier à cette situation déplorable, la section catholique a poursuivi plusieurs solutions afin de lui permettre d'offrir des services scolaires au niveau secondaire. Malheureusement, tous ses efforts ont été vains jusqu'à présent. Le Conseil scolaire public d'Ottawa refuse de louer ou de vendre une de ses écoles disponibles.

Les parents et les conseillers de la section catholique du conseil francophone d'Ottawa-Carleton ont demandé à plusieurs reprises que le ministre de l'Éducation intervienne dans ce dossier.

Je me joins aux parents et au conseil dans leurs efforts. J'encourage le ministre de l'Éducation de faire de son mieux pour assurer le plus tôt possible une éducation française et catholique au niveau secondaire dans l'ouest d'Ottawa-Carleton.

1340

ENERGY FROM WASTE

Mrs Marland: In the standing committee on estimates on 18 February I asked the Minister of the Environment, "Do you feel that it would be fair for a proponent of an EFW plant -- and I am thinking of St Lawrence Cement...to proceed into an environmental assessment hearing with their proposal to burn municipal waste in light of your position of opposition?" The minister responded: "If they chose to proceed, knowing what my position was, I assume under the law they have the right to do that. But I am quite prepared to tell anybody who asks me that I do not favour incineration of municipal solid waste."

One would hope that the minister's statement would be a signal to firms to suspend plans for energy-from-waste projects since it would be unlikely that the projects would receive the government's approval. However, St Lawrence Cement, which is located in my riding of Mississauga South, has signed an agreement with the firm of Lincoln Waste Management to obtain waste to fuel its cement kilns. Although the Environment ministry has serious concerns about many aspects of St Lawrence Cement's draft environmental assessment document, the firm plans to proceed to an EA hearing on its refusederived fuel proposal.

The EA will cost the taxpayers of Ontario a great deal of money. The government must immediately state its position on energy from waste and the incineration of solid municipal waste so that firms like St Lawrence Cement cannot waste taxpayers' money on environmental assessments for proposals that may go nowhere.

RANDY NORTON MACLEOD

Mr Waters: I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House to recognize an individual of my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay who has been awarded the Decoration of Bravery by the Governor General, His Excellency the Right Honourable Ramon Hnatyshyn, for his acts of courage and bravery. As of 8 March 1991, Randy Norton MacLeod has the honour title of MB following his name.

On 17 November 1988, while out deer hunting, Randy Norton MacLeod of Mactier, Ontario rescued three of six hunters whose boat had capsized in rough waters on Vaughan Lake. Hearing screams for help, Mr MacLeod ran along the shore until he could see three people clinging to the overturned boat. He then swam across the channel to get a canoe, paddled back to the victims and made two trips to bring them to a nearby island to which another victim had managed to swim.

Realizing the danger of having wet men exposed to the frigid temperatures, Mr MacLeod again made two trips by canoe to transport all four men to the mainland. Unfortunately, only three were able to be brought to the camp successfully. Mr MacLeod then set off in a boat for help and brought three friends back. Despite his exhaustion after several hours of rescue effort, he set out again to notify police and ambulance.

I would like to ask the House to join me in recognizing this individual for his courage and bravery. Mr MacLeod has a keen sense of responsibility to humanity. He has proven to be not only a conscious hunter but a concerned humanitarian. We can all learn a lesson or two from Randy Norton MacLeod's bravery.

LAYOFFS

Mr Elston: I rise in the House today to bring to the attention of all of us here the destructive effects of the recession and the effects it is having in at least one part of southwestern Ontario.

Last August as the current Premier was travelling this province he stopped in the town of Listowel in Perth county and referred to the town's growing economic problems. He basically told the people there that if he were in power he would alleviate the difficulties; he would prevent the layoffs and job loss.

Although it may be shocking, I would like to point out that layoffs are continuing to occur in the town of Listowel despite the fact that residents there believed this promise and, in fact, subsequently elected the candidate who stood for the Leader of the Opposition at that time.

The facts are there. Campbell Soup in Listowel has recently laid off 38 employees. Other communities within the southwest region are also experiencing similar economic downfalls. Royal Homes has suffered layoffs in Wingham. Stanley Door Systems has closed and Premdor in Wingham likewise is closing down. These layoffs are unacceptable.

Plant closures are also occurring in other places. Canada Packers has shut down, leaving 130 residents in the Harriston area without work. A further number of people in Mount Forest are likewise without work; 187 people are searching for employment as General Homes Systems in Hensall searches for a new owner. I can go on and recount how people in my riding are likewise looking for work because of the closure of a chopping mill in Hanover, and the list goes on and on.

In its throne speech, the present government said it would foster a society where economic change will not mean a dramatic loss of income or self-esteem. That is happening now. This government is busier planning for municipal elections in the fall than planning to help laid-off workers.

SALE OF BEER AT MAPLE LEAF GARDENS

Mr Runciman: I rise to address the issue of allowing the sale of beer at Maple Leaf Gardens.

The members will know that this issue has been brewing for some time and we can only hope that the current government does not turn it into another brouhaha. This is one of the toughest cases on the government agenda. I want to make my pint in a Crystal clear manner. The government was close to allowing beer in the Gardoons but then the Premier fired Peter Puck.

This is a premium opportunity for the government to Foster good relations with the ale-ing Leaf franchise. This issue has Giffin me great Coors for concern. Now we have a new minister and we can only hope she realizes that this proposal has had sufficient time to ferment.

The issue has long since come to a head, and while we know that this government is often at lagerheads, we can only hope that it will not bock at this opportunity. This is a Golden opportunity for the minister. The Gardens should no longer be dry; the Gardens should be Special Dry.

We can no longer make Lite of this issue. The government should move immediately to amend the stadium act to permit the sale of beer at Maple Leaf Gardens. This is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that it is not an administration with no deposit and no return. Let's finally give Leaf fans a Rae of hope.

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Wessenger: In light of the Treasurer's announcement on the economy, I would like to add my own concerns about the state of the economy.

While we in Ontario are doing everything in our power to ensure that this province's high standards in social and health care services will not be compromised by hard economic times, the Conservative government in Ottawa thwarts our every effort.

At a time when we in Ontario are pumping more and more money into post-secondary education, including $1.6 million to Georgian College in my riding, the federal government is further cutting back its cash payments to education under the established programs financing act. Equally devastating is Ottawa's decision to continue its freeze on payments to Ontario for health. At a time when hospitals like the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie are desperately trying to meet the needs of the community, the federal government makes it almost impossible to maintain our national standards for medical care.

What about the workers of companies like Flex Industries, VDO-Yazaki or Caulfield Apparel, who already have had to experience the impact of the federal government's free trade and monetary policies? Is it fair to fight the recession on their backs by cutting job training programs and asking them to accept higher unemployment insurance contributions?

Finally, let us look at the impact of this budget on Ontario's most important resource: our children. Just ask organizations like the Simcoe children's aid society how it and others will manage to survive in light of the continued cap on the Canada assistance plan. Does the federal government not realize that it is paving the way for a decentralized federation by driving economic wedges into an already fragile Confederation?

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Hon Mr Hampton: One of the commitments this government has made to the people of Ontario is to improve access to justice in the province. The fulfilment of this commitment will involve a wide range of programs and policies. It will also include initiatives in law reform to simplify the often intimidating legal system for the use of the public.

In this context I will be introducing today for first reading the Arbitration Act, 1991. Arbitration is a good and accessible method of seeking resolution for many kinds of disputes. It can be more expedient and less costly than going to court. The parties can design their own procedures and select appropriate arbitrators.

1350

The new statute will make it easier for people to submit private disputes to resolution by arbitration. It will do so in several ways:

First, when people have agreed to go to arbitration, the act will help ensure that all parties abide by this agreement.

Second, the ability of the courts to intervene in an arbitration is spelled out precisely, and as a result, the role of the courts will be constructive and less likely to be used by reluctant parties to delay the proceedings.

Third, the parties are given much freedom to design the procedures that suit them best. However, the act also sets out procedures to be followed if the parties do not choose their own and gives the arbitrator the power to bring the arbitration through to its conclusion.

Fourth, the enforcement of the arbitral award is made more certain and less dependent on the discretion of the court. Enforcement of all awards from other provinces is enhanced as well.

The new act is substantially the same as a uniform statute adopted in 1990 by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It is also related to Bill 226, introduced by the former government last year. We appreciate the groundwork laid by the former Attorney General in this area. Changes have been made to the new legislation to reflect comments received on Bill 226. The former bill said an arbitrator could become a mediator or conciliator and still resume the role of arbitrator with consent of the parties if those methods failed. To avoid an appearance of unfairness, this rule has been changed in the current legislation. If arbitrators engage in mediation or conciliation, they may not return to arbitrating on the failure of the other methods.

By passing this act, Ontario will be promoting consistent legislation across the country on the subject, as urged by the Canadian Bar Association and the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Canada. I expect other provinces to follow our lead in this direction.

RESPONSES

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mr Sorbara: I am pleased to respond to the statement of the Attorney General today relating to his intention to introduce the new Arbitration Act in the province of Ontario, and I am glad to see that he gave the appropriate credit to the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David.

I think probably my friend the Attorney General could have simplified his statement by saying that the government planned to introduce the bill that the member for St George-St David introduced into this House about nine months ago, and proposes to pass it. That would have been enough. The changes that he has made to the bill are minimal, and I want to tell the Attorney General that we look forward to dealing with the particulars of this bill when it comes to the justice committee of the Legislature.

I hope that when that bill does come there, the Attorney General and his ministry are not going to show the same inflexibility to comments from opposition members that he is showing and his colleagues are showing in the justice committee on the consideration of the support and custody orders enforcement bill, the child support bill. That bill has been in committee now for about two months. We have brought matter after matter before the Attorney General and he and his representatives in that committee refuse to listen, refuse to offer any concession to the evidence that was brought before that committee. I want to tell him here that the bill is going to be in committee for a very long time unless there is some flexibility shown by the government.

But what is more distressing is the fact that this government, in the face of the economic problems that this province is facing today, has the nerve and the gall to come before this House during ministers' statements and make one statement and one statement only, about an Arbitration Act. That bill is non-controversial. That bill will pass this House very quickly. It will assist in small measure the practice of law in the province of Ontario. The lawyers will be delighted to see its enactment.

But what about the people who are without jobs? What about the women who are now on welfare and cannot get co-operation even from the social service agencies that are supposed to be providing that? It is scandalous that the Attorney General and the government of this province, after a three-month recess, have the gall to come back to this House and make statements about moose licences, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, and arbitration acts, I say to my friend the Attorney General.

Surely to God the government realizes that we are in very serious economic circumstances in this province. Indeed just today the Conference Board of Canada has once again revised its economic assessment for this year and has revised that estimate downward. That is to say that the economy is not going to do as well even as the conference board has suggested it was going to do. I think it is absolutely terrible that the government, in the face of situations faced by so many people all over this province, should choose to make one announcement today and one announcement only, that being on the Arbitration Act.

The Minister of the Environment had promised us months ago that we would be seeing legislation to revise the Environmental Assessment Act. Where is it? Sunday shopping: Now we are going to have a month's worth of consultation -- a year's worth of consultation, excuse me. But even in the Attorney General's own ministry, it is apparent that nothing is going on except the promotion of bills that already were well into the design stage under the previous government.

The Attorney General is responsible for alternative dispute resolution measures in this province. He could have made a statement about that today, and I am going to defer to my colleague the member for Ottawa West for a word or two on that.

Mr Chiarelli: The Attorney General will know that arbitration is only one small component of the whole area of alternative dispute resolution. Last June, the justice committee reported to this House a comprehensive report on alternative dispute resolution. That report included very expert opinions from people in ADR across the country, people such as Bonita Thompson from the Canadian Bar Association, Chief Gordon Peters from the Chiefs of Ontario and a host of other people. This committee reported nine comprehensive recommendations on the area of alternative dispute resolution, and this Attorney General has done virtually nothing with those recommendations. He is dealing with one small component, the question of arbitrations, and I would implore the Attorney General to respond to the people of the province of Ontario who are looking for leadership in the whole area of alternative dispute resolution.

Mr Harnick: For the limited purpose for which this bill is intended, it is a good bill. It is a bill that I look forward to reviewing. It is supported by the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Canada, Ontario branch, and the changes to the bill from its intended predecessor are good changes, are realistic changes, and I look forward to reviewing this bill further.

Mr Jackson: I wish to enforce the statements by my colleague the member for Willowdale and again suggest to the new Attorney General that the whole area of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are available in jurisdictions across North America were recommended in the justice committee report of last June, in which I had an opportunity to participate.

The NDP caucus of the day, led by the former member for Scarborough West and myself spoke against the principles of its application for family law because of the very vulnerable position in which children in abusive situations would be put. We have yet to hear a statement from this government about whether or not it will rubber-stamp that approach that the Liberal government took last year and whether the government is going to remove its activities in this delicate area of family law and focus more appropriately on consumer areas, on the environment, where the public across this continent is actively involved in reducing court costs, finding mutually agreed upon solutions to relieve pressures in our courts.

This is obviously not a priority for this government if it is going to proceed simply with this minor amendment to the Arbitrations Act, when in fact there is a whole opportunity available to a government if it is committed to better and more efficient government and ultimately fairer services and justice in this province. I encourage this government to be looking in that area aggressively and forcefully, and to present legislation to this House as soon as possible in the best interests of the citizens of this province.

FUND-RAISING

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise today to bring to your attention a particularly interesting piece of information. It really arises from an answer given by the Premier yesterday to the question of tollgating on the population in Ontario to the sum of some $800-plus to go to their 25 April get-together for New Democrats. We were told and led to believe by the Premier at that time that he had no knowledge of this information and yet we see that the return address -- the business envelope is indicated to the New Democrats but above that is a line which is opaqued and under that opaquing fluid is the name Bob Rae, which is clearly visible when one either scratches this off or takes a look at it from inside.

1400

The point of privilege is this, Mr Speaker: We were led to believe yesterday that there was no involvement by any of those people, but it is clear that the Premier's name is being used as a way to attract attention and that this is a manner in which they will ensure that people know that he is associated with this particular event. I find the need to ask the Speaker to rule on the propriety of the answer given in this House yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr Elston: I would send it over, but you might destroy it.

The Speaker: I was operating on the assumption that when a member raises a point of order the member would like to hear a response. I think what the member has is quite properly an item of discussion for question period and not a point of order. I do appreciate the fact that he raised this matter before us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Treasurer in his capacity as philosophical high priest for the labour socialist party, the left wing at least. In that capacity he must have recommended to his leader and his colleagues that the government very properly accept the responsibility to move in five years to pay 60% of the overall operating costs of education.

In his announcements on transfers made a few days ago, weeks ago now, he indicated that they were not moving towards accomplishing that commitment. As a matter of fact, it depends on who is doing the arithmetic. If the commitment is 60% of the total operating costs, his announcement will pay 40.8%, which is down from 41.5% during a period when a more generous government, more thoughtful about education, was in office; or if it is 60% of total expenditures, including pension and capital, then it is 45.6%, down from 45.9%.

Once again, there is no move towards achieving the commitment upon which the government was elected. I understand that the Treasurer said repeatedly that they are having trouble keeping these promises, but surely one having to do with the quality of education should be the last to go. Will the Treasurer say that that commitment still stands and specifically what is included in the arithmetic? Surely the goal is 60% of operating costs.

Hon Mr Laughren: The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct in his numbers, as I recall them. He is also correct in that we have a long-standing commitment to improve and enhance the amount of the cost of education that is assumed by the province as opposed to the local property taxpayer. At the same time, I think that fairminded members of the assembly and others would agree that during these very difficult times we went some way to improving and increasing the amount of transfers to all our transfer partners out there in the province of Ontario.

I would ask -- I almost called him the Treasurer -- the leader of the official opposition to compare the amount that this government has transferred to the educational sector with what any other jurisdiction in this country has transferred to its educational sector.

Mr Nixon: That answer is about as effective as it was when I gave it. The Treasurer, and I say this most carefully, must have been directly associated with the 60% promise and, having been Treasury critic for a number of years and being knowledgeable in those matters, he must have realized what a huge commitment this was. Does he agree with the Minister of Education who said, when questioned in one of our standing committees, that in fact the calculation of this percentage would have to be adjusted and that there was some discussion of including costs that are extraneous to the actual operating costs of the schools?

The Treasurer would know that most of the members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation are being awarded increases in salaries right now amounting, in the case of Brantford, for example, to just about 12% over two years with other substantial enrichments. Since the salaries of teachers are about 75% to 80% of the total cost, would he not agree that he is rapidly falling behind rather than moving towards keeping his commitment of paying 60%?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I would not agree that we are rapidly falling behind. First of all, there has been not one single indication from this government that we are retreating from the promises in the Agenda for People. What we have said is that we believe as much in the principles contained in the Agenda for People now as we did when they were written. What has changed obviously is that it is much more difficult now than it was when the Agenda for People was written to be able to start that process.

We fully intend -- and I know it is a serious question from the Leader of the Opposition -- to honour all the commitments we have made. I do not know when we can start the process of increasing the amount of money that we provide as a proportion of total education cost to the educational sector. I can tell him that at the present time, with our revenues being very flat and our expenditures going up, not even the leader of the official opposition would expect us to move in that direction in this fiscal year. I do not think he would.

Mr Nixon: I would have expected the Treasurer to hold the line. I do not think that this is an inappropriate suggestion. If he is going to move to 60% in five years, he should not allow it to go back. I just want to quote from the leadership of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, which everyone in the province knows is moderate and well informed and not normally moving out into a position of making statements that are in any way untoward. The quote is as follows: "We call on the Treasurer to define publicly once and for all the components of the provincial share and to agree not to change the definition unilaterally. Were he to do so, he would impose a much-needed measure of integrity on our discussions." Is he prepared to do that?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, it is our intention, because we regard the educational sector out there, including the teaching profession, to be our partners in the delivery of education in the province of Ontario. We do not intend to impose it unilaterally.

Mr Nixon: The teachers are implying, or at least I am inferring, that the Treasurer lacks integrity. I would never say that; I would not have thought those thoughtful, moderate teachers would say that, but they have.

Hon Mr Cooke: Just think what they were saying about you.

Mr Nixon: That is exactly what I have in mind and I am glad the member is perspicacious enough to notice it.

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Nixon: This morning, we in the Liberal caucus were extremely fortunate to receive a visit from a major delegation of business and municipal leaders from northwestern Ontario, the chamber of commerce. The Treasurer and some of his colleagues and the Premier may no doubt be meeting them later in the day. They told us of the major economic difficulties now facing northwestern Ontario.

For example, as the Treasurer would know, regional unemployment in northwestern Ontario is now 13.5%, as compared to 7.1% when the NDP government came into power just six months ago. Members of the delegation told us they could confront these economic challenges as long as they were allowed to stay competitive and play in a level playing field in what has become an increasingly global marketplace.

Given that the Treasurer has now publicly and officially abandoned the NDP promise of a $400-million northern fund, can the Treasurer outline what specific proposals his government will put forward to ensure at least a fighting chance for the people and businesses of northwestern Ontario?

1410

Hon Mr Laughren: It did appear a short six or eight months ago that it was going to be much easier to provide assistance to northern communities when we had a surplus, but that now is becoming increasingly difficult to do. I would remind the former Treasurer that we do have an active Minister of Northern Development and a Minister of Mines, both of whom have a very good understanding of the problems of northern Ontario, and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association can be assured that we will listen to it very carefully. We take their concerns most seriously.

There are problems all across northern Ontario, not just northwestern Ontario. As the leader would know, we have very serious problems in Elliot Lake and Sault Ste Marie as well, not to mention a large number of sawmill communities. It is a serious problem and we will be addressing it, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition it is not going to be easy.

Mr Nixon: I have a high regard for the minister's colleagues who have special northern responsibilities, but the Treasurer is the person who has decided that the $400 million promised over the next two or three years will not be forthcoming. As a matter of fact, one of his ministerial colleagues indicated that the unemployment situation in the north is not as bad as it is in the south.

One of the difficulties that businesses face is the problem of cross-border shopping, believe it or not. We were informed that at the Pigeon River crossing, the increase of goods declared was $28 million year over year. The minister is aware of this problem. His colleague the Minister of Revenue, when asked about using the provincial sales tax that would be payable on declared goods, said, "Consumers would just go rangy on us, if any changes were made in this existing system."

Do the Treasurer and his colleagues have any idea of what might be done by way of legislation or regulation or special assistance to assist those businesses, in northwestern Ontario particularly, that are really being forced to the edge by the government of the day taking no action on this problem of cross-border shopping?

Hon Mr Laughren: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are very much aware of the problem. My own colleagues are for ever bringing it to my attention.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it is not. The members surely understand, and the Leader of the Opposition will, I know, that it is not simply a provincial problem. It is not that easy.

Mr Sorbara: Interest rates, high dollar.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is right. Interest rates are a problem, the value of the dollar is a problem. We know that.

Quite frankly, when I saw what the federal government did by putting in an express booth in British Columbia without consultation with the provincial government of British Columbia, it seemed to me that was not a particularly helpful thing to do.

I would further add that I believe tomorrow --

Mrs Caplan: There are things that you can do. That doesn't help those municipalities, Floyd. You've got to do something.

Hon Mr Laughren: This is a serious question. I am surprised that the leader's colleagues are not paying more attention to the answer.

It is my understanding that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs begins an examination of this very problem tomorrow. We are looking for advice from the committee, and just as we sought advice from that committee in the pre-budget consultations and it was very helpful in that regard, we are looking forward to its advice on the whole question of cross-border shopping as well.

Mr Nixon: The Treasurer has already got advice from his colleagues; for example, on the price of gasoline. The Minister of Natural Resources has unloaded on that one. The Minister of Northern Affairs has called for equalization. Can the Treasurer tell the people of northern Ontario when he will be implementing the promises of these ministers and the party for having a graduated gas tax for northern Ontario, and will he as well explain to this House what programs he plans to implement to offset the negative economic aspects in northwestern Ontario of a minimum wage which guarantees 60% of the average industrial wage in Ontario? The gas tax graduation is a very good idea. The other aspect is, when the government keeps its commitment to raise the minimum wage to $7.50, moving to $9 in three years, what is he going to do to offset that impact on the tourist industry?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would raise that question, since when he was over here he would not entertain that very idea. However, I want to assure the --

Mr Nixon: Looks good from here.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is right.

Mr Mahoney: That was then.

Mr Nixon: What are you going to say about it? You thought it was a good idea.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: There you go. I do want to remind the leader of the official opposition that this government has already made a very major commitment to northern Ontario. Out of the anti-recession package of $700 million, we put $148 million of that into northern Ontario. We have provided $15 million for Elliot Lake already and another $15 million for the sawmill communities in northern Ontario that are in some difficulty as well. So I think it is not fair for the leader of the official opposition to imply that we have not already gone some distance to aiding the problems and helping to solve some of the problems in northern Ontario.

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

Mr Harris: I give up on the Treasurer when it comes to northern Ontario, and it has been reconfirmed by the response to the questions today from the leader of the Liberal Party. I will ask my questions of the Minister of Northern Development so we can ascertain if there is any one over there lobbying on behalf of northern Ontario.

The minister had lunch today, I believe, with the delegation -- or if she did not, she cancelled and they thought she was going to have lunch with them -- from northwestern Ontario. She is aware of their brief and their presentation, and later today, as soon as the Premier figures out what he is going to say -- that is why he is not here today, I guess -- on the Constitution, I guess it will be tonight, he will be meeting with them.

One of the areas, though, they would have brought up with the minister at lunch is the area of transportation in the north and the difficulty that they have. They will remind her of her party's commitment, over and above all the millions of dollars that have been brought up so far, specifically of $100 million to proceed with the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway across the north.

I wonder if the minister can tell us if she is lobbying from Old Scroogie there, who can run the deficit up to whatever for the rest of Ontario, but when it comes to living up to the Agenda for People commitments that got those people elected, he says no. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether we can anticipate and those in northwestern Ontario can anticipate anything over and above the current level of allocations for highway improvements in northwestern Ontario.

Hon Miss Martel: I want to begin by pointing out to the leader of the third party that I have made it very clear to the delegation that I would be most happy to meet with them tonight. A number of northern and southern cabinet members are meeting with them. They were told very clearly I could not attend this afternoon because I was in cabinet. They are very aware of that.

Second, my colleague the Minister of Transportation and myself and our respective staffs, along with Treasury staff, have been meeting on a very frequent and ongoing basis to try and deal with the question of what we are going to do with respect to northern highways.

I can tell him that there are a number of initiatives going on. The Minister of Transportation at this point is looking at speeding up a number of the engineering studies, we have talked to our colleague the Minister of the Environment with respect to the environmental assessments and how that process might be amended in order to help us get some of that work done, and we hope that we are going to be in a position to make an announcement in the near future with respect to what we are going to do.

Mr Harris: There are two things, though, that are here. One, if they are going to soften the environmental process so that we can get things approved quicker, that would be one thing. The difficulty is that, regardless of whether approvals are in place, there is no money. There is no money. They promised the people of northern Ontario -- the people of northwestern Ontario are down here now asking about these promises -- $100 million of brand-new money for four-laning. This is each and every year. They are saying: "Look, you don't have to spend it on four-laning. We'll accept one cent of new money on anything, whether it is passing lanes, whether it is improving the transportation corridors, whether it is repairs to existing highways that are deteriorating."

Is the minister prepared to fight? I know she will say, "The Treasurer, we have to wait for his budget." All I am asking her to do is speak on behalf of northerners. Is she prepared to fight for the $100 million that her Premier promised in new money each and every year for northern Ontario transportation?

1420

Hon Miss Martel: I am always amazed at how the leader of the third party can come in and talk on the one hand about cutting budgets and on the other hand how we are going to spend and how we should be spending. I remind him that there is a very clear paradox there in those two issues. He cannot have it both ways.

I would point out to the leader of the third party that il would be very helpful if he would go lobby his federal colleagues and get them on board, because we certainly could use some cost-sharing on the part of the federal government for the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway, and I can tell the leader of the third party that his federal colleagues are not interested in dealing with us. As a northerner, he might want to go and lobby his federal counterparts on our behalf as well.

But I can tell him one more time that there are a number of discussions going on. We are hoping to move forward all the planning processes that can be done and we hope to make an announcement with respect to money in the very near future. Passing lanes would be a part of the proposal as well.

Mr Harris: I want it to be very clear. I made it clear to the people from northwestern Ontario that I did not promise them $100 million of new money. In fact, I said we could not afford it; we could not do it. The people did not vote for me, because I guess I said I could not afford it but their party said it could. The Premier said: "We can afford it. We will give you an extra $100 million." That is what they are interested in hearing of. My commitment is clear: We cannot afford it, so do not confuse that commitment. I said no, but they have refused to say no. They have said yes to everything, and that is the difference.

So let me ask the minister about one of their other commitments, in addition to the ones that were raised be fore, in addition to the $100 million. The Premier said in the election that he would start a multimillion-dollar fund to protect the resource-dependent north from boom and bust cycles, over and above all the other programs, over and above all the existing money. Could the minister tell us the status of that.

Hon Miss Martel: I will try one more time. I know very well what we said during the course of our Agenda for People and what we said during the election campaign and I appreciate hearing that the leader did not make those kinds of promises and he might not want that kind of money. However, his municipality in North Bay is very much lobbying me for this kind of activity.

Let me say to him that we are working between the two ministries to try to speed up a number of the engineering studies that can be done with respect to a number of projects across northern Ontario. We have talked to our colleague the Minister of the Environment with respect to a more efficient environmental assessment process, not softening but a more efficient one that would allow us to deal with these projects, and we hope to make an announcement on these in the near future.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD

Mr Carr: My question is to the Solicitor General and it deals with a press release today which says, "Rae also said today he supports Susan Eng for the chair of the Metro Toronto Police Services Board." I would refer to a couple of quotes. From Mayor Johnson, "It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse." Mayor Trimmer said, "The chairman should be able to relate to everyone, and she certainly can't do that." She goes on to say, "I don't want a juvenile heading up the police board." That is the mayor of one of our municipalities. Furthermore, she also says, "Eng is too antagonistic."

My question to the Solicitor General is this: In light of these very dramatic statements, does he agree with the Premier and feel that she should be elected as chair of the police services board?

Hon Mr Farnan: May I also quote? I am quoting from Michael Valpy in today's newspaper, and he says, "Ms Eng, apart from her past two years on the police board, has had a 15-year history of community involvement with organizations such as the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Ontario Press Council and the Premier's Council on technology and industrial change."

I would suggest she comes with a fine record and is fully deserving of the appointment.

Mr Carr: The decision is not up to Mr Valpy, it deals with municipal issues and this is what municipal politicians are saying. Yesterday he said that he was going to consult; now he is cherry-picking. He is picking out the things he wants to hear and he is disregarding other ones. He is cherry-picking in his consulting is what he is doing. Consult if necessary but not necessarily consult.

Let's go to some more quotes. Here is what the police say. The effect of Eng's appointment could have a serious effect on the morale among officers. "Maywood said he and other officers are concerned because Eng demonstrated an 'adversarial' attitude to police." Art Lymer says, "All she's done is criticize.... Both men said they fear Eng doesn't understand what conditions are like for officers on the street."

We are not interested in what Mr Valpy would say. We are interested in what municipalities are saying, and my supplementary question to the minister is this: What does this appointment do to the morale of the police officers in this city when they have these comments and then he stands up and supports this person to become chair of this police services board?

Hon Mr Farnan: First of all, I want to address the first part of the member's question. There is a distinction in terms of appointments. Some appointments are the Premier's prerogative, and I would point out to the member that there is a historical tradition in terms of those appointments that are made from the Premier's office and those that are made from the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

I also want to point out to my friends on the opposite benches that indeed there is a very clear process being enunciated and developed and which will be introduced into this House which sets up a committee for police appointments, commission appointments, for the future.

The reality of the matter is, and I have this on very good authority, that a very thorough search was made for the best possible appointments to the board. The decision was made very carefully. The selection process was made with consideration, and the result of the consideration was the support for Ms Eng in the position, and therefore I believe it should have the support of all people who want to encourage co-operation within policing across the province and within this city. I would urge the member, rather than be destructive and finding fault, let him put forward positive solutions in terms of policing for this province.

Mr Carr: I guess I am one of the ones who will be consulted. I hope the Solicitor General will not cherry-pick my ideas and just leave the other ones aside. I believe he has a very serious problem. On the one hand, he has appointed somebody who has criticized the police. He stood up in this House and agreed with it, so therefore he must agree with a lot of her criticism in the past. If he got her on the board, he obviously must agree with it. My question is this: Does the Solicitor General agree with her past criticism of the police, and if not, will he now stand up and say that he does not want her to be the chairman?

Hon Mr Farnan: I want to quote for a moment.

"Was Ms Eng 'anti-cop' when she and Chief William McCormack appeared in a police video created to bridge the gulf of suspicion between the police and the Chinese community during a spate of Chinatown crime and violence?

"Was she 'anti-cop' when she supported the Toronto Chinese Business Association's campaign to bring foot-patrol officers who speak Asian languages into Chinatown to establish a community-based policing unit?

"Is she 'anti-cop' when she criticizes some of the practices and policies of Toronto's police or tries to improve the way the police do their jobs and serve their communities?"

We have a good person with a good community track record who was willing to put herself forward to serve the community. We are putting our trust and our confidence in her and we hope that she will receive the support of all members of the House.

1430

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Mancini: This is for the Treasurer of Ontario. It is his responsibility to ensure that every part of this province is allowed the opportunity to participate in the government's anti-recession campaign. He promised funds for capital assistance in order to create jobs and ease unemployment in Essex county, where welfare case loads have increased more than 50%, where unemployment sometimes reaches the second-highest level in all of Canada and is now hovering well over 13%.

With these facts in mind, I know the Treasurer would agree with me that funds must be directed to Essex county. In spite of our economic suffering, the Essex county public school board and the Essex county Catholic school board are the only two, out of 21 boards, in all of southwestern Ontario that did not receive a single penny from the Treasurer's anti-recession campaign. Does the minister think this is fair and does he approve of this?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, there was a very complex and I think reasonable set of criteria that determined where the $700-million package of anti-recession money went, and it was based on need. I think it is not appropriate for the member to imply that because of welfare case loads, Essex automatically should have got more money, because if we use that criterion, first of all, it simply was not possible in view of the large number of welfare case load increases all across this province. We tried to strike a balance on spreading the money across the --

Mr Mancini: Zero is the balance? Zero?

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, we tried. Every community and every school board could not get what it wanted. It is as plain and simple as that. It was very difficult to appropriate across the province. There were major problems in northern Ontario. The school boards were not the only people out there to get money from the antirecession package. The municipalities were involved, the hospitals were involved, some school boards were involved, so it is not appropriate to simply pick on one school board that did not get a part of the anti-recession package and say that there was any other reason for that.

Mr Mancini: Let me be very clear: We did not pick on the Essex county school boards, where unemployment sometimes reaches the second-highest level in all of Canada. They picked on them by allocating zero dollars, out of all southwestern Ontario.

We care about the opportunity for people to work in Essex county, and I am waiting to hear from the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for WindsorRiverside and the member for Essex-Kent and the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I am waiting to hear from them.

Several weeks ago, trustees in Essex county publicly stated that they were told by officials in the Ministry of Education that the minister would financially punish them for not carrying out the orders of the minister, even though these orders were not in the best interests of Essex county. Are these the standards in government established by the NDP, whereby people are denied the opportunity to take part in government programs, denied the opportunity to work, denied the opportunity to improve our educational infrastructure just because we do not agree with NDP socialist policy?

Will the Treasurer join me and stand up for the unemployed in Essex county? Will he join me and stop the Minister of Education from taking her revenge on the backs of the unemployed and will he ensure the integrity of his --

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: Will the Treasurer stand up? Mr Speaker, I want to speak for the unemployed in Essex county. I think I have a right to do so.

The Speaker: Finish posing your question.

Hon Mr Cooke: After 15 years, it is about time.

Mr Bradley: That was then, this is now.

Mr Christopherson: You were then, we are now.

The Speaker: No one could ever accuse the members of this assembly of not being lively and interested in public business, but perhaps we could curb a bit of our enthusiasm so that the member for Essex South could succinctly complete his question.

Mr Mancini: Will the Treasurer ensure the integrity of his anti-recession program and will he ensure that all citizens of this province are treated equally and will he allow appropriate dollars to flow to Essex county?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I think the member would acknowledge that there has been a fair amount of money go to the Windsor board. I think it is now $12 million so far, with more to come, so I think it would not be fair for the member for Essex South to leave the impression that we are not doing the best we can for the people in southwestern Ontario, including Windsor and Essex county.

I would urge the member, however, to do what he can to help resolve a very difficult problem between the school boards in Essex county. The sooner that happens the sooner we will get on with helping the school boards get on with their job of providing education.

PURCHASE OF HYDRO PLANT

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Sixteen months ago Ontario Hydro signed a deal for the purchase of Smoky Falls power plant from the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co Ltd at a cost of $115.5 million, rising some $2 million a month for every delay in closing that deal.

I would ask the minister, given the fact that the employee option purchase plan to save 1,200 jobs in Kapuskasing is contingent upon this transaction being completed, what is she doing to make sure that Hydro closes this deal before the end of April?

Hon Mrs Carter: I thank the member for that question. We are most concerned with the people of Kapuskasing and the maintenance of jobs in that area. However, Ontario Hydro cannot be expected to purchase a plant that has not gone through environmental assessment and that will not in fact be sure that it can produce power until that assessment is concluded.

Ontario Hydro has the responsibility to manage its financial contracts in such a way that money is spent to benefit the electricity system of this province. An inter-ministry group has been meeting with the company and with the concerned workers to assist them in working out a solution to the problems associated with the purchase of the company. We will continue to seek ways of assisting the people of Kapuskasing.

Mr Harris: Short of listening to the propaganda that Hydro is giving the minister that it cannot complete this transaction without the complete environmental assessment being through, which is totally untrue -- it can complete the transaction. They can take the responsibility for whether the environmental assessment will be successful or not. They can take the responsibility. It is they that wanted to buy it. It is they that wanted the power and they could take that responsibility, I suggest, easier than the 1,600 employees who are going to lose their jobs can take that responsibility.

I would ask the minister this: Why did Hydro take this and roll it all into the overall study, which will take three, four, five, maybe fifty years if the minister cannot amend the environmental assessment process? Surely she would agree with me this is an older plant. It is operating, it is generating electricity, no matter who owns it. Surely since the environmental assessment of that is complete and finished, it could be treated separately from whether we are going to build extra nuclear plants. Ontario Hydro could take that obligation instead of employees, and we could get on with saving the jobs in Kapuskasing.

1440

Hon Mrs Carter: I think it is rather odd that the member of the opposition wants to anticipate the results of the environmental inquiry. I do not think there is much point in undertaking this kind of inquiry if we are going to assume what the outcome is going to be.

I also think Kimberly-Clark has an obligation to keep its side of the bargain, and at this point I would like to ask my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology if he has something to say on this issue.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Durham East.

SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS

Mr Mills: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health, and it is a serious health problem, I think, in the province of Ontario. Some 13,000 people die prematurely in the province of Ontario every year due to use of tobacco. This figure is more than the deaths attributed to homicide, suicide, traffic accidents, AIDS and drug-related use.

In my riding there are many pharmacies that sell cigarettes and tobacco products, and in particular the large drug centres. I find this behaviour totally unethical and I am asking what the ministry is going to do to stop this practice of pharmacies that promote health selling tobacco.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I welcome the question. The member for Durham East is aware, I am sure, as other members of the Legislature have drawn to his attention, that I am myself a smoker. I have always found it convenient to buy cigarettes at pharmacies but, along with other people in the province of Ontario who have not managed to quit the addiction, I recognize that the selling of cigarettes in pharmacies in Ontario really is a contradiction in health terms.

This has also been recognized by the College of Pharmacists in Ontario, and in October it voted to have pharmacies in Ontario stop providing sales of cigarettes. It has set up a task force to implement that policy which expects to be reporting in June. I am looking forward to its report and I have offered whatever assistance the Ministry of Health can provide to make sure it is able to follow through on its policy.

Mr Mills: What role does the minister see her ministry playing in this decision-making process?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: So far, the College of Pharmacists has not been able to persuade all its members that they should voluntarily adopt the policy of stopping cigarette sales. If it turns out that its task force decides there needs to be a change in legislation to accomplish this, certainly I will very much encourage the Ministry of Health to take the recommendation seriously and consider bringing forward changes to legislation.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs McLeod: A question for the Minister of Community and Social Services: Our leader has been repeatedly asking about the huge increases in the numbers of people on welfare rolls across this province. In spite of the minister's very vague assurances, there is clearly no coherent plan to provide relief by getting people back to work. In the meantime the municipalities are more and more concerned about the escalation of their share of the costs. In fact, the community services committee of Metropolitan Toronto council yesterday approved a 51% hike in the social services budget for Metro city council. The minister, in response to that question about it, indicated that she was indeed concerned, monitoring the situation, hoping it would level off. She spends more time -- as she is quoted saying -- praying than projecting, but it does not look good.

I wonder if the minister can tell this House, and through this House the municipalities across this province, what she will do in a very direct and a very concrete way to assist them as they now prepare their budgets and set their mill rates.

Hon Mrs Akande: I will repeat for the benefit of the member that, yes, in fact we have co-ordinated our efforts. We have already begun to assist. We have moved to have the immediate application for people who will eventually be on FBA done just at the general welfare assistance source so it can move more quickly. We have increased the number of staff at the municipal level so as to speed up the process whereby they move right on to provincial rolls rather than remain on the municipal rolls. We have, in fact, recommended to them that they stop going out for the home visits so that they could process the applications much more quickly. We have begun to address other ways and meet with municipalities in order to find ways in which we might further assist them. I might also mention that, yes indeed, I do pray.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the minister's reiterating the very vague assurances which she has given our leader over the past two days. I still continue to believe that there is no evidence that people are actually being successfully helped back to work. In any event, that was not my question this afternoon; it was not the focus of my concern.

My concern was with the immediate relief that can be provided to municipalities as they prepare their budgets for this current year. The government now has three separate reports, all recommending that the province should assume 100% of the costs of social assistance: the Social Assistance Review Committee report, the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee and, most recently, released last week, the Ballinger-Hopcroft review on provincial-municipal financing. The minister's own fast-tracked report on welfare reform recommends that the province assume a greater share of the costs of social assistance immediately.

The municipalities cannot wait three years for a commission on tax issues to report. Will the minister today commit to taking this one step that everyone now agrees with? Will she commit to paying an increased share of the costs of social assistance for longer than just this current year? Will she commit, if not to paying 100% of welfare costs, even to paying 100% of the increased costs as a first step?

Hon Mrs Akande: I would be remiss to say that we are not considering changes of a long-term nature in terms of the funding relationship, but, too, I would be anticipatory if I mentioned those changes here in the House long before they had been decided upon. In fact, the focus of my response to the member was the kind of assistance we are giving municipalities relative to their social assistance funding. I am indeed happy to have the implementation report Back on Track in my hands, and we are studying it, and more long-term solutions will be implemented just as soon as we have made our collective decision.

WOMEN IN FILMS

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Attorney General. The Attorney General will know that on Monday of this week my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville and I raised a question in the House with respect to the proliferation of adult-only explicit sex video shops in this province. The minister has had two full days plus a cabinet meeting to have this matter considered, yet we have had no statement from the minister.

I would like to advise the minister that another store has opened up in my community in Burlington this week. The minister would be aware of Project P, the task force on pornography. He would be aware that his predecessor Roy McMurtry in 1975 began that, and that there is a strong working relationship between the Attorney General's ministry and the police forces concerned about pornography in this province.

Knowing that the Attorney General's office, through the crown attorneys, works closely with the police in the laying of charges, would the minister please explain to this House why, after these shops have been open for five months, he has not made any statement or is doing nothing? What is he actually doing about this problem?

1450

Hon Mr Hampton: There seems to be some confusion in the member's mind about exactly how the legal process works in the province of Ontario. I do not tell the police to lay charges, and I do not tell police to close down establishments. The police have the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is the law in Ontario with respect to these matters concerning obscenity. The police consult with senior crown law officers from time to time for guidance in terms of how the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code will be interpreted. As the member knows, there have been some recent court cases in this area. There are some ongoing court cases. The police have consulted with senior criminal law advisers and, based upon the advice they have received, will enforce the law accordingly.

Mr Jackson: The minister persists in maintaining an arm's-length relationship, yet in fact the terms of reference for Project P are very clear. I might also advise the minister that the very chair of the Ontario Film Review Board, Bob Payne, is on record as saying that this is a situation which is a political problem and that it needs to be addressed. He is referring, of course, to the minister's cabinet and to his government.

I am asking the minister quite frankly: Given the fact that the police lay charges but crown attorneys prosecute under the law, section 163 of the Criminal Code, and given that the women in his cabinet have spoken out and are on record that the exploitation of women in these explicit X-rated videos is wrong, when are we going to hear something from him as a member of the cabinet with respect to this issue in the laying of charges under section 163 of the Criminal Code? When are we going to get some action from him?

Hon Mr Hampton: I just want to repeat my earlier comment. I would suggest that the honourable member perhaps sit down and consult a book on criminal procedure, because I do not give the police orders.

Mr Jackson: I did not say that.

Hon Mr Hampton: But the member implies that, and he implies it very directly. To be very clear, in the province of Ontario the police have the ultimate discretion in laying of charges. I think the police --

Mr Jackson: Talk about the crown attorneys.

Hon Mr Hampton: I am attempting to address the member's question. Obviously, he does not want an answer. I think no one in Ontario would want the police directed as to who they should lay charges against and who they should not.

Turning to the second part of the member's question, I am not aware at this point that crown attorneys have withdrawn any charges of obscenity laid by the police within the last six months. If the member is aware of any, I would ask him to bring them to my attention.

COMMERCIAL FISHING ON LAKE SUPERIOR

Mr Martin: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I understand there has been progress in negotiating with the Batchewana first nation in terms of its right to harvest fish commercially on Lake Superior. While I commend the minister for the progress in this area, I would like to know what provision has been made to ensure consultation with non-native stakeholders in the community.

Hon Mr Wildman: I know of the member's interest in the area, particularly as a large portion of the Batchewana first nation reserve is in his riding. He is aware that this is a dispute that has been ongoing since 1985 at least. This is part of our commitment to negotiate land claims and to negotiate self-government with aboriginal peoples in this province. The negotiations we have had with the aboriginal people of the Batchewana first nation will be carried out in the most open way possible, with as wide consultation as possible.

To date we are happy to say that we have been in touch with the Sault and District Anglers Association, the East Lake Superior Commercial Fishermen's Association, the Batchewana Tourist Outfitters Association, the zone representative for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, as well as the fact that my deputy minister, I understand, has been in touch with Rick Morgan, the executive director for the provincial Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. We continue to negotiate with the band and consult with all other interested groups.

Mr Martin: In light of the fact that this has been an ongoing problem in the area and a great concern to a lot of people, is there a timetable in place for a successful conclusion?

Hon Mr Wildman: I must say that at this point I am unable to provide the member with a deadline by which we expect to have an agreement, but I can say that the district manager, Ron Lessard, is at this moment, I understand, in discussions with the fishermen of the Batchewana first nation to arrange a negotiating meeting next week. We are very encouraged by the approach taken by the chief and the council of the Batchewana first nation in that they have agreed that any agreements will be binding on all members of the first nations involved in commercial fishing, and that they will take into account conservation, the protection of the fishery as well as allocation of commercial fisheries. I am very encouraged, and we are looking forward to the final resolution of this long-standing grievance with the Batchewana first nation.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It has been reported in the St Catharines Standard, an impeccable source, under the headline "Niagara Threatens to Ease Restraints on Development," that unless the Ontario government provides new financial aid for farmers in the near future, the regional municipality of Niagara may start dismantling some of the long-time development bans that have prohibited stretches of agricultural land across northern Niagara from being used for other purposes.

In view of the fact that some of the best tender fruit land in all of Canada exists in this particular belt, and in view of the fact that the climatic conditions are excellent for the growing of tender fruit, why have the minister of agriculture and his many colleagues, who had all of the answers in opposition and all of the answers when he was going across the province last summer, delayed, and why are they now delaying and dithering and squabbling instead of implementing programs designed to save the farmers who are in trouble now and thereby save the agricultural land in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Let me assure the member of a couple of things. First, this government feels very strongly about preserving agricultural farm land and we will make moves to ensure that that is the case. On his question on providing relief for farmers, we established a committee in the second week I was in this position, which went across the province and did the consultation. That report was released two weeks ago, and my ministry officials are currently, at this very moment, working on programs I hope to announce in the very near future. We have followed the course of action this government believes in, which is to consult, put things together, announce and be active, and we intend to do that in the very near future.

Mr Bradley: The problems have been known for a very long time in the Niagara Peninsula and across this province, the problems being encountered by farmers, particularly as we get into this growing season, where farmers are virtually losing their farms, they are going bankrupt, they are being really compelled to sell off their land. The minister may remember, as I know the Speaker would remember, being in the Legislature in those days, when the former leader of the New Democratic Party, Stephen Lewis, used to stand and talk about how much agricultural land was being lost.

What I am asking the minister is why he has not taken action already. He has been in power for half a year, which is a considerable amount of time. We are talking about a new growing season. He had all the answers before. Why has he not already taken action to save the farm land, to get the farmers on side with those of us who are attempting to save agricultural land in the area and have been for some period of time? They were on our side back in 1976. They are not now, because they are not getting assistance from the government. Is the minister prepared to take that action, or is it another case, as the member for Welland-Thorold appropriately said, of "That was then and this is now"?

1500

Hon Mr Buchanan: That is a new line. I would suggest to the member that the problem is much more complex than just providing interest relief or providing money for farmers, which we intend to do. There are a number of other issues around the tender fruit industry that need to be addressed. Part of that is tied in with free trade, part of that is tied in with the interest rates, the federal government -- there are a number of issues that we intend to address.

Another issue that has been raised in this House the last couple of days, cross-border shopping, is also an issue for the tender fruit industry and for the farming industry down in the Niagara area. That is another issue this government intends to act on and we will be moving to assist those farmers, because we know that, if the farmers get a decent price for the products they produce, they will not be interested in selling their farm land to developers, and that is the kind of policy we intend to bring forward.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Sterling: I want to ask the Deputy Premier a question because I think that this may relate more to fiscal policy than to the Premier's responsibility, and that is with regard to the gasoline prices in eastern Ontario. I have watched the gas prices, both here in the Toronto area and in eastern Ontario, for the last month or so. In eastern Ontario, gas prices rose to over 65 cents per litre, while on the other extreme, I have seen gas prices as low as 42.5 cents per litre here in the Toronto area.

Given that it costs probably less than 1 cent a litre to transport a litre of gas from Toronto to the Ottawa area, there really is no apparent reason for these wide discrepancies. While that discrepancy has changed from anywhere up to 15 cents per litre of gas -- the people in eastern Ontario paying the greater amount -- down to maybe 5, 6, 7 cents per litre for gas, there still seems to be no apparent reason why the people of eastern Ontario are disadvantaged in buying a litre of gas over the people in central Ontario.

In the past government and the two previous governments, I have heard the Deputy Premier's party demand of other governments to stop the gouging in eastern Ontario and other parts of this province. What is his government going to do to stop the gouging of eastern Ontario consumers paying too much for their gasoline?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is good to have the question from one of the leading members of the PC caucus and to have him acknowledge the contradictions in the marketplace, because I think that bedevils us on this side as well. One of the problems that I have been fighting about personally.as a member from northern Ontario is that there seems to be no logic in the pricing whatsoever. It is the same in northern Ontario as it is in eastern Ontario. There are greater differences between communities in the north from time to time than there are between communities in the north and communities in the south, and I suspect that is the same in eastern Ontario as well.

It has been an extremely difficult issue with which we have been trying to grapple, but I think the member opposite knows, because I can recall a number of years ago when a member of his caucus, when the conservatives were in government, moved a private member's bill to control the price of gasoline in northern Ontario and his caucus voted against that member from northern Ontario. I recall that and I know that the member opposite appreciates that it is a very difficult problem and a very complex one, but I can give the member the assurance that it is a problem on which we are working very hard.

MEMBERS' SERVICES

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It deals with the job of the members of the Legislative Assembly. It has come to our attention, as members of the Legislative Assembly, that the Registrar General -- and I have written a letter to our friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- will no longer be able to process our applications received from our constituents for birth certificates and certified copies of birth records.

The new regime means that staff from our offices must line up, and in the last couple of days it has taken some of our Liberal caucus staff over two hours to process their work on behalf of me as a member and on behalf of several other fellow colleagues. I wish the Speaker would check into whether or not our role as members is being affected. I suspect it is not only Liberals but also people from the Tories and the New Democratic Party. This is not a partisan issue.

Perhaps the Speaker could check to find out if there can be direction from the Legislative Assembly to restore the ability of members to quickly access the Registrar General's counter so that we can do the work for those areas of the province that are not served any other way than through their members' offices. It is not only on behalf of my caucus but I believe rightfully on behalf of all three caucuses that I ask the Speaker's efforts to effect a successful result. Otherwise we will have to ask for more staff to line up; there is no other way.

The Speaker: The experienced member no doubt knows that it is not a matter of privilege, but it certainly is a complaint which may very well, as we speak, be heard by the Registrar General and hopefully it will be acted upon.

Mr Elston: I am very sorry to have to rise again, but I do believe, and I see that the minister probably will rise to speak to us on it, that it really does affect us, because as we consider our budget, if we are going to have to have our staff lining up on a daily or semidaily basis for two hours at a time, then government policy --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please? Yes, it is definitely a complaint and I realize there are a number of complaints about administrative procedures. It is not a point of privilege for the House to consider.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Sutherland from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of London.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the City of York, be not reported.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fifth report.

Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(14) the report was deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ARBITRATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ARBITRAGE

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 42, An Act to revise the Arbitrations Act.

M. Hampton propose la première lecture du projet de loi 42, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur l'arbitrage.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1510

Hon Mr Hampton: As I indicated in my statement earlier, the bill will replace the Arbitrations Act. It is based on the uniform model law on international commercial arbitration. It resembles the Uniform Arbitration Act recently adopted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The guiding principles of the new Arbitration Act are that the parties to a valid arbitration agreement should abide by their agreements, that they should be free to design the process for their own arbitration as they see fit within the limits of overall fairness, that opportunities for delay should be minimized, and finally that awards made in arbitrations should be readily enforceable and should be reviewable by the courts only for specific defects.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION / RAPPORT PROVISOIRE DU COMITÉ SPÉCLAL SUR LE ROLE DE L'ONTARIO AU SEIN DE LA CONFÉDÉRATION

Resuming consideration of the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

Suite de l'examen du rapport provisoire du comité spécial sur le rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.

Hon Miss Martel: Again, there has been consent among the three parties to share the time.

Hon Mr Marchese: I welcome the opportunity to address this Legislature, especially on an issue so central to us, the future of our country.

I believe the committee has identified the very substantive issues facing our country and our province. The interim report from the select committee on Ontario in Confederation takes the pulse of Ontarians.

As we engage in this process of major changes where we name our values, define our national institutions, debate legislative powers, it is critical that we hear from all of us and that we are all involved in every facet of decision-making, including these current debates.

The report from the select committee confirms many of the positive values that make us stronger and identifies issues for all of us to consider as we together shape the vision of our future.

The people of Ontario told the committee that:

On doit reconnaître la multiplicité des races, cultures et langues qui contribuent à faire le Canada. Non seulement doit-on reconnaître celles-ci, mais on doit les nourrir, les entretenir et les intensifier.

We must ensure equal access, equal opportunity and an equal voice for all of us. Immigrants clearly expressed feelings of not wanting to have secondary citizenship. Women, aboriginal people, disabled persons and racial, cultural and linguistic communities must be valued, included and integrated into every aspect of our society. This means the proactive removal of the barriers that traditionally marginalize them.

The separation of Quebec would pose significant consequences for both Quebec and Ontario, and indeed all of Canada. But to ensure that Quebec stays in Confederation, we need change. We are at a fundamental crossroads in examining the nature of federal-provincial relations and on directing our constitutional future. We have to seize this opportunity collectively.

I would like to speak to three major issues that are very close to me, and they are language, culture and multiculturalism. On language:

L'histoire de notre pays et notre réalité constitutionnelle donnent aux Franco-Ontariens le droit d'avoir des services en français, le droit d'utiliser leur langue et le droit de fonctionner en société comme Franco-Ontariens. On doit honorer leurs droits et respecter leurs demandes.

The concept of one country, one language will not make us strong. It is not a vision we want to carry into the future. We need a country that respects and values diversity, including the protection of minority language rights.

On culture: The report did not touch on this issue, but issues of cultural sovereignty are familiar to most Canadians because of our proximity to the United States. The constant deluge of US books, magazines, feature films, music, television news, sports and drama has made us aware of the importance of protecting and nurturing our cultural identity.

We need therefore a national vision, national standards and measures that will protect and preserve our distinct, strong but fragile, and diverse Canadian culture. In light of free trade and in light of the negotiations with Mexico, this issue is ever more urgent and cries out for a national response.

Our culture is rich. Aboriginal people, French and English and the stream of people from all over the world that make up this country and this province have made it so. We must do everything possible to preserve, value, enhance and save it. Culture must flourish within the regions and within communities. We must respect these differences, for in our differences we will find unity. So there is a federal role for keeping this complex cultural fibre together. This is a matter, certainly, for further debate with the people of Ontario and for this government.

Our culture needs to be inclusive. Aboriginal people, cultural and racial groups, women and francophones must be included in all of the decision-making, in all of our institutions and in every position of responsibility.

That leads me to the issue of multiculturalism. For too long, multiculturalism has meant celebrating our different songs, dances and foods. This simply is not enough. Residents of my riding have told me they want more. They want access to opportunities, access to services. We must listen and respect these demands. We must strive to meet these demands. Tolerance, understanding and respect are basic values to inform a revised Canada. This is what the members of the public have stated over and over again before the subcommittee. We all need to listen to what many of the people are telling us.

I want to compliment the Chair and the committee on the work they have done to date. I look forward to taking part in a further debate as the committee looks towards proposals as it continues its dialogue with the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: If you recall, yesterday the member for Parkdale addressed this House for 28 seconds only. He asked me if he could continue his speech today. If I follow the procedure, he cannot. On the other hand, I believe we did allow another member to continue his speech, so if there is unanimous consent, I will allow the member.

Agreed to.

Mr Ruprecht: I want to thank the members for the unanimous consent so I could conclude my remarks, starting in 28 seconds.

I am delighted to join the honourable members who have already expressed very eloquently what we need to do in this country in order to be continuing as Canadians.

We have recently seen headlines and they said, "Canada at the Crossroads." I remember in Sudbury 14 years ago the same headlines which we used when I was teaching at Laurentian University. The conclusion that we came to -- and I remember distinctly because I was Chairman at that time of the Canada at the Crossroads Conference -- was that without Quebec, there would be no way that this country could possibly remain together and stay together. Without Quebec, there could not be a Canada.

It is simple to understand for most of us. The normal communication lines do not run east and west from sea to sea, from Newfoundland to BC. The communication lines and economic lines actually run north and south, so that it would be a lot easier for people to purchase refrigerators from Seattle, Washington or North Dakota or Montana or even Chicago, and they would be a lot cheaper, if we did not have our communication lines and economic lines established across this country.

I think that conclusion will be at the centre of our discussion, that without Quebec today, we cannot remain as Canadians. The centrifugal forces that are operating economically will really bust us apart, and I am not surprised because the majority of our population really exists within a band across North America from sea to sea, 100 miles north of the United States border. That is all there is in terms of the majority of the population in Canada. So we have to do what we can to establish these links across the country to maintain our Canadian nationhood.

There were those at that conference who said: "Let's go ahead and punish Quebec. If Quebec wants to secede, let them. They will have to pay a heavy price." What is that price? The voices said they would not be competitive economically: "How can Quebec possibly compete in the North American market or world market alone with its population base? They cannot maintain their culture because the onslaught of the cultural attractiveness of the United States and the rest of the English-speaking world surrounding them would simply be strong enough for them not to maintain their cultural integrity."

1520

I remind the members that third, we must consider what we would do as Canadians if we split up and become appendages of the United States. Maybe Ontario would be the 51st state and Alberta the 52nd and Manitoba the 53rd, and so on and so forth. We as Canadians must remember what it is like to go to the directors in the boardrooms of multinational corporations across the United States, in Chicago, Detroit, Washington and Boston, and argue for Canadian content. We know what it is like when we look at our economic wellbeing. We must come to one conclusion, that even here, in this country, we are not tough enough or strong enough to be the masters of our own destiny because, economically speaking, we are not the masters in our own house. How can we possibly expect to maintain a strong Canada when economically we are not maintaining the toughness that it takes for a strong Canadian content?

Have we forgotten what it is like, that we should stay together? Have we forgotten what it means to be Canadians? What does it mean to be a Canadian? Let's draw some comparisons and analogies.

One I can think of obviously is that we are more law-abiding. Let's look at the figures in the United States. What do we see? It becomes crystal clear to Canadians that yes, we are better off in terms of our own security. We have a parliamentary tradition as opposed to a congressional system. Yes, we are less commercially inclined. Even today we are still talking about Sunday shopping. If that is not a prime indicator of less commercialism, then I do not know what possibly could be.

Of course, when we ask anyone across the globe, when we say we are from Canada, they think immediately that we should be bilingual. They say: "Do you speak French? Do you have any friends in Quebec? What is Canada about?" The strong francophone fact in this country makes for part of our own identity already.

Of course, what is just as important, as we heard earlier so many speakers indicate, is that yes, we are a multicultural fact. The reason we are multicultural and the reason there are thousands of people wanting to come into this country is because we have freedom, we have economic opportunity and we have so many items and things that people are envious of. Many of them are standing at the border and are knocking and are saying: "I want to come into Canada. I want to be a Canadian." And what are we today? We are saying Canadian nationhood really means -- it is questionable. Yet we have the whole world knocking on our doors and wanting to come in here. I say to the assembled members that yes, we have got to take it easy. If there is but one chance that we would be able to maintain the country, if there is but one chance that somehow we do not talk about a totally independent, sovereign Quebec, I would say let's take that chance. It is not a chance in a million. It is a chance of reasonable people.

We say to the rest of Canada that yes, in Ontario, we are very reasonable people. We do not go in right away and say to Quebec, "No, we want to punish you." We have seen the pamphlets that come across our desks. I know the members have had them. I know I have had them. They say: "If Quebec wants to be sovereign, let's cut them off. Let's cut them off economically. Let's cut them off militarily. Let's cut them off in terms of land. Let's take away Labrador. Let's take away communication corridors. We will cut them down." My friends, it is too early to make those kind of decisions. It is too early to want to come to some kind of a confrontational program with the province of Quebec. We should not jump the gun and talk about cutoffs.

Just let me add in conclusion that we have certain choices to make very soon. Some are talking about 20 months, others are talking about perhaps 36 months, and then we would have to make a decision because we were forced into it. No matter how easy we want to go, no matter how slow and cautious we would want our approach to be, we are being almost forced into this.

If we do it, we have some considerations to make. On the continuum, there is a totally independent, sovereign state of Quebec. On the other hand there would be a maintenance of some form of co-operative federalism. In between on this continuum are various options that we, the Canadian people, will have to choose from.

I think that we want to be optimists. I think there is still time to decide what kind of agreement we want to hammer out. Even if it may be a loose Confederation with more powers to the provinces and Quebec, and even if it may mean in the end that the courts will have to decide which of these powers will go towards a greater federal policy and which would go closer to a provincial policy, I think that may be in the end one of our saving graces.

In the United States, we recognize that the Confederation that was established in the 18th century was indeed very loose. But the powers that have shifted from the states and their rights to the federal government have been interpreted by the courts. Time after time, decision after decision was made to shift those powers from the provinces, ie, from the states, on to the federal government. We have hope. I know that the members of the Constitution committee who have gone across the province and have heard from so many individuals will most likely agree that here we have considerations to make for a unified Canada, a new structure. I would think that all of us would agree: Let's take our time. Let's not be rushing into an immediate decision. I think that the people of Quebec, with us, will also in the future agree that yes, we want to be together in the bosom of one state called Canada.

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to begin my remarks by commending the committee and the many members of this Legislative Assembly who took part in a very public and open process as they looked at our Canada and our province.

I would be amiss if I did not say that I was happy that it did take place and I was pleased with the report. There are always some reasons for misgivings, and I suppose that my greatest criticism would be -- and others have said the same thing -- that during these public hearings I think we tried to do too much. I think we tried to hear too many people. I think that in many instances we left out the voice of young people and certainly of school students. I think we learned something from that process, and we must never let it happen again.

Given the process as it did take place across this province, I would only say that in fact I think the report is reflective of what the committee heard. I was particularly pleased that the residents of Ontario who came before this committee came with open minds and a sincere desire to give good information and their views from their hearts as well as their heads to the committee. I think the most important part of this report relates to Quebec's future in Canada, and I was proud to hear that the submission stated that:

"There is a sincere desire that Quebec should remain within Canada. It is thus very important that efforts be made to try to reach an accommodation with Quebec. There are, however, differing views as to the nature of the accommodation that should be sought."

1530

This went on to say that "Quebec is a crucial part of the Canadian identity," that "Quebec is a distinctive community within the Canadian federation" and that "The rejection of the Meech Lake accord should not be interpreted as a rejection of Quebec. Many factors were at play, including the process by which the accord was negotiated."

I suppose what pleased me the most about the conclusions of the report, not only as it related to Quebec's future in Canada but as it related to recommendations around the involvement of the aboriginal peoples and the process, as it related to the recommendation with regard to women being a very important part of the process and even as it clearly delineated the problem that we all face -- the observations of people who live in Ontario who call themselves Canadians first, their observations are not new.

I would like to take just a couple of minutes -- and I know that is impossible, but we will give it a go -- to talk about what has happened before. As a matter of fact, in this province members of this Legislative Assembly may have been very much a part of a very important conference that was called in 1967. I am reading now from the debates of 18 May 1967 when the then Premier, John Robarts, stood to address this very assembly on the occasion of Canada's 100th birthday. He said, "Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to initiate the debate and discussion on the resolution to hold a Confederation of Tomorrow Conference." Many of my colleagues have already related to this, as did the committee in its travels.

"I would like to open with a few remarks which fall into perhaps four sections. The first portion will deal with the origins of the idea; second, the justification for holding such a conference; third, the subject matter that might be discussed at such a conference; and, fourth, its form and structure."

I would direct the Chairman of our committee to take a look at those Hansards. l think he may get some very good ideas as to where this government, with all of our assistance, can move next.

Mr Robarts, in this very same debate, talked about his reasons for holding such a conference and his leadership, being the Premier of Ontario at the time, in getting this discussion together. He said that:

"A conference of this type can be of double value. First, it allows the federal and the provincial governments to come together to initiate discussion among themselves concerning the fundamental issues that each government must face, because we must face these issues, we cannot avoid them. Such an exercise will be of value to all the governments involved in that it will allow them to gain a wider understanding of each other's difficulties."

I believe the difference in those times was rather significant. l think that today in Ontario and in Canada we are looking at a very different economic picture, one that is of tremendous concern. In 1967-68 the federal debt was some $17.6 billion and now all of us and our children face the tremendous challenge of looking at a debt in this country that is over $380 billion. Provincially, at that time we had a debt in Canada on our 100th birthday in the province of Ontario of just $1.4 billion and we are looking at a debt far beyond that now, certainly upwards of some $30 billion. So our economic problems have become rather significant, but I will say that in spite of them, we have been very open and very positive about revisiting our problems with our federal counterpart and certainly with the other provinces. I think that our province and our Premier should be showing the leadership in looking at the next stage very, very carefully.

My criticism would be that we cannot in fact move about the province in the same manner in the second stage, but we perhaps could use a process that was used some 10 years after 1967, in 1978, which I will come to. I did want to say that I think the great failure in looking at the problems in Canada in the last two or three years and solving the Quebec situation, where I think Ontarians and Canadians want Quebeckers very much to be a part of our country as they are to stay that way -- it is not new, but I think the process was one that we should all be very much ashamed of, and I hope that this time it will be open, it will be one that people can relate to and one that is carefully planned. We have a chance to show the leadership here.

I would like to move on from the council that we talked about with Premier Robarts just to show members that the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference, which took place from 27 November to 30 November 1967, contained some five discussion papers. They talked about the goals of Canadians -- these were all the premiers and representatives of the provinces and the federal government -- the role of the English and French languages, ways in which the federal system could be improved, ways in which provincial systems could be improved, the machinery and structure of federal-provincial and interprovincial relationships. I say to all of us in this House, what is new? We must revisit the very structure we are built on and make it work in these times, which are somewhat different, with real economic challenges. We must make it work in a different way.

It was revisited again in 1979, by the Council for Canadian Unity, which was a council of independent citizens, businesses, labour unions, educators, people who were involved in their communities across this province of Ontario. I would direct the chairman of the committee, the member for Dovercourt, to take a look at the Outlook Ontario report in 1979, which was sponsored by the Council for Canadian Unity where, again, it was looking at the exact same issues. They wanted to ask, "What can politicians, the media and others do to further encourage positive attitudes on the part of Canadians towards each other?" These were their questions:

"What is the extent of the constitutional changes that Canadians outside Quebec will be prepared to accept in order to maintain the integrity of Canada? How far are English-speaking Canadians prepared to go in accepting basic Canadian duality? To what extent do Ontarians represent most other non-Quebeckers in their defence of the prerogatives of the federal government and their distrust of further decentralization? Do Canadians in general really believe that we are facing a crisis? And is the stress by the task force on Canadian unity on the three principles of regionalism, duality and power-sharing realistic and helpful and, if so, what should we do to implement them? If not, what should we put in their place?"

All of these questions were responded to in some fashion during the deliberations. I think the interesting part of the deliberations was that meetings were held over a three- to six-month period of time that involved the young people of this province in six different parts of Ontario. They themselves came to the representatives who took the leadership role of their community, with politicians of course being invited as observers, both federal and provincial, and they told us what they wanted next, and it worked. We influenced Quebec. We had an influence on their vote and they chose to stay within our Confederation and we are all very happy for that. Right now, we have to hope that we have not alienated them enough that they would take another view and take another decision.

I think my challenge to the committee would be to get working quickly with a very good process so that people feel involved, because my understanding and my great respect is for the public as it influences us and advises us in our very responsible position. But it must be meaningful, they must have time and we have to delegate some responsibility to them for their advising us.

I will close today, having been given this tremendous opportunity to speak to Canada, to the role that Ontario can play, with the challenge that I think all members of this Legislative Assembly will want to be part of bringing to the Chairman of the committee and the committee and the government the expectations and the beliefs of their own communities as we try together to influence, of course, the province of Quebec but, more important, the federal government and all the other provinces as to the importance of finding a way.

I thank members for this opportunity to speak to finding a way to support this beautiful country, this wonderful country that has served all of us so well and that we now have the opportunity and the responsibility to serve in return.

1540

Hon Mr Wildman: I too am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate in the House today.

I want first to congratulate the Chair and the members of the committee from all three parties who worked so hard to reach a unanimous decision. l know how difficult it is at times to come to a unanimous decision when we are all of different partisan stripes. I think that in doing that the members took their responsibilities very seriously, the responsibilities not only to represent their own constituencies, but to represent the whole province of Ontario, to exercise their judgement in the best interests of not only their constituents but all of the people of the province, and indeed in this case the rest of the country, because I believe that it is the responsibility of all of us as members of this assembly to represent Ontario to the rest of this country as well.

I note in the interim report that the committee recognizes that we have a great deal to celebrate in this country. We have enormous resource wealth. We all share the responsibility to manage those resources responsibly and to protect the environment. As minister responsible for native affairs, I am gratified that the committee heard many non-native witnesses who indicated that they believe that aboriginals could set an example to all of us in this province on how to properly care for our resources and to respect the environment.

The committee also pointed to the tremendous diversity of cultures and peoples we have in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, and I welcome the committee's commitment to further recognition of the multicultural and multiracial diversity of this province and the fact that the committee felt that the majority of the people who spoke to the committee during its hearings talked of tolerance as one of the major values that united Canadians. I am gratified by that.

I think we would all agree, though, that Canada, our country, is more than the sum of its resources and its people, really more than the sum of its parts. Rather Canada is a united experience, an experience of struggling against elements that are harsh at times and difficult, an experience to build communities and a nation, a shared experience, one that really tells us that Canada is more than the sum of its parts, that Canada is a concept, an idea, and one that is worth struggling for, and that we, as descendants of the pioneers and the aboriginal people, owe it to those who have endured those hardships of the past to do as much as we can, not only for ourselves but for future generations, to strive and maintain and strengthen our nation.

The committee also recognized that we share a past that has included inequities and that we share a responsibility to recognize those inequities and work to rectify them. I am gratified that the committee unanimously said that we must respond to the demand for a greater voice by the aboriginal peoples, as well as other minorities in this country. The committee indicated that this requires proactive measures by governments, and the wide consensus that the committee recognized for the need for justice for aboriginal peoples, I say, is a great step forward in the history of our country.

Obviously, as the minister responsible for native affairs in this government, I am encouraged by the committee's conclusion that the government of Ontario has a mandate to negotiate aboriginal self-government and also that aboriginals must be involved in constitutional discussions, because obviously the Constitution must be inclusive, not exclusive.

I just want to conclude by saying that the rejection of the Meech Lake accord, which initially involved aboriginals such as Elijah Harper, must not be seen by anyone, aboriginal or non-native, as a rejection of the people of Quebec or the aspirations of Quebeckers. Rather, I believe it was a rejection of the process. It was a rejection of the fact that aboriginal people were not included, that the Meech Lake accord was not inclusive, as I said constitutions must be. However, it cannot be seen, and would be unfairly characterized, as a rejection of the distinctiveness of Quebec in Canada.

I support the committee's conclusions that we must do all we can to ensure proper services for Franco-Ontarians in this province at the provincial level, and I am happy that it believes that the majority of Canadians share the vision of this country that respects and values the diversity that we have in language, culture and race in this country.

But I recognize, finally, that the committee is right when it says that there is much work to be done. We have to deal with the question of federal-provincial powers, the reform of our institutions. How do we deal with Quebec and the view in Quebec that it is dealing only with the federal government and not other provinces? How do we involve all the provinces and territories and regions and peoples of this country in the process?

I believe that we can involve all Canadians -- aboriginal people, women, minorities, disabled people -- in a process that will arrive at a final decision as to the future of this nation.

I will just close by quoting from a very good friend of mine, Chief Patrick Madahbee of the Sucker Creek Reserve, when he said, in dealing with the role of aboriginal people, "There are some people who are reluctant to change and fearful of change, but I don't think there are too many who believe that the status quo is something they can continue with." I hope that we all keep that in mind as we strive for unity in diversity in our country.

Mr Miclash: I would just like to say first of all that I am very pleased to be able to rise to speak on this most important issue today. I would also like to congratulate the committee on its hard work, especially the member for Dovercourt, who chaired the committee.

As most members will know, the committee started in Kenora, and one of the complaints that came to the committee off the bat was that they had very little time to prepare. But I think this is something the committee saw as being a very important factor on listening to the many briefs that were given to it in Kenora, Dryden and Sioux Lookout, the fact that people did speak from the heart on this issue.

I must also say that I was privileged to be able to join the committee during its visit to the area and listen to the views as they came from the people throughout the riding.

I would like to quote from the Globe and Mail, which stated: "Many of the statements have gone far beyond the issues the 12-member committee is supposed to be addressing, that of how to rewrite the Constitution and Quebec's future relationship with the rest of Canada. Instead, people have talked about the need to solve aboriginal problems."

Very dear to my heart and very close to me are the problems of the aboriginal people. As members would know, a good portion of my riding is made up of aboriginal people, and I think that dealing with the issues surrounding the place of aboriginal people in Canada, in the Constitution, is very important. I would just like to stress that I feel that this is as important as Quebec's place within Canada.

Mr Speaker, as you know, my time has been limited, so with that, I would just like to end with a quote that came from somebody who did a presentation in Thunder Bay:

"We must walk a mile in the other person's mocassins. I mean that regarding the native people, but I also mean it regarding those who live in Quebec, the east and west. It is time to start considering the common good."

With that, I would like to end in this debate.

1550

Mr Harris: Let me say, at the outset, a couple of things. First of all, the biggest mistake, in my view, and clearly it has come home to roost, was the fact that we opted to bring this Constitution home to Canada incomplete, that the process that was agreed to at that time was a flawed process, that the process that was followed in Meech Lake followed from that. So in my criticisms of the process and those involved in it over the past eight years, I recognize that it was not their process. They were trying to complete something that had never been completed.

That led to the Quebec round and we got off on so many tangents in the Quebec round that not only were we going to solve that but, because of some mistaken impressions that a lot of people were left with, somehow or other this Constitution was going to solve all the problems that everybody had all across this country. That, in my view, is one of the problems that we have. That is not the purpose of the Constitution.

Let me also say that if Canada's fate was left to politicians alone, then I would fear very much for this nation's continued existence. If we have learned anything from these trials and tribulations, it is that, when challenged, Canadians fight back. When challenged by the constitutional dictates of 11 first ministers, the wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, the public fought back and trashed that political agenda, trashed that process. They served notice that never again will Canadians tolerate the needs of 11 politicians, as they saw it, being substituted for their own. So I take some comfort in the fact that the people have taken the constitutional agenda away, to a certain extent, from the politicians, from us.

I am sure no one takes any comfort from the damage that has been done. We have come dangerously close to jeopardizing, and still are, something that is very precious to all of us, and that is our sense of nationhood.

Some have argued that it is our Constitution that defines this sense of nationhood. To some extent, I agree -- to some extent. A Constitution can indeed define the values and the principles that unite us as Canadians. It can properly define the division of powers or the responsibilities of states in the various levels of government. But there are some things that are impossible to define, and some that ought not to be defined when it comes to intangibles such as nationhood, particularly when we have a process in place that says everybody has to agree to these or we do not have a document, we do not have a Constitution.

In arbitrarily trying to define who or what we are, we also run the risk of trying to be all things to all people or, worse, of losing sight of those things that matter most to people. Just like government itself, a Constitution cannot be all things to all people, nor is it necessarily flawed or impossible to function or impossible to have a nation if it does not list every special interest group that everybody has or every special interest that comes forward across this country.

Somehow, for example, Great Britain has managed to survive for more than 1,000 years. I suggest to members that most of us would agree that they function, that they have a sense of nation, of what it means to be British or from England, and they do not have a written Constitution at all. They do not have one at all. Yet for some reason or other, the politicians have raised this to the extent that if we do not have it all, if we do not all agree, if we do not have everything defined and written on paper, somehow or other we are less of a nation or we cannot function. I would like to put what I have to say in that perspective as well.

I am also very concerned about the tendency on the part of politicians to lose sight of those things that matter most to people. I recall the dire warnings associated with some of the last constitutional talks. I have not heard one person imperilled by our failure to resolve the Senate dispute. I have not heard one person. Perhaps there has been a person in western Canada come before the government on Capital Hill or their Legislature and say: "I can't function in this country. I can't be a Canadian because you didn't resolve the Senate dispute." But I know thousands who are in need of a job.

I have not seen one demonstration on the steps of Queen's Park over judicial appointments, not one. I have not had a letter, I have not had a phone call on the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, not one. Yet somehow or other, if you go back into that debate, this country could not function with this proposal or that proposal as to how the judges were going to be appointed. But I have seen dozens across Ontario in support of safety on our streets, of drug-free neighbourhoods, of schools.

On language, the one issue that has sparked heated debate that I have heard a lot about, few politicians even admit to a problem, let alone are they willing to discuss or define this difficulty over language that I believe is at the fundamental root of our problem in not being able to agree.

So I say to members here and elsewhere, we can talk all we want about constitutional specifics, but for most people it is inside baseball. They do not understand what you are talking about. They do not understand the implications of it. It does not affect how they feel about the country. They are Canadian. It does not affect their family. It does not affect even whether they can shop on Sunday or not. There are all these other vehicles that affect that. So I say to members, not that the specifics are not important, they are, but I think Canadians are tired of the political bickering over details at the expense of what is the big picture.

What we have to determine, I believe, is the purpose of the Constitution. I do not believe it should be driven by the need to broker special interests. I disagree with a process where everybody comes with a shopping list and horse trades the shopping list off. "This is my price to agree to your deal," and what not. Actually, although I am very critical of the process, the one thing I do congratulate Ontario for is that it has not traditionally approached constitutional discussions that way. Other provinces have and I condemn that.

What it should be then, in my view, is a statement of values and principles upon which people agree that the affairs of state should be administered.

I begin from the point of view that we now recognize that the constitutional status quo, both in terms of process and in terms of substance, is a non-starter. We knew that in 1981-82 Quebec would not sign, so something else had to take place. Given the impasse and what is happening in Quebec, Canadians, in my view, are not only receptive to the idea of re-Confederation -- they want it put into perspective, mind you -- they are demanding a look at how we are confederated.

I believe the vast majority of Canadians maintain a tremendous affection for this country and for what it stands for and what it has to offer, whether it is written down in a document or not. While they are passionate about their country, I think one other thing is very loud and clear: They are not prepared to extend special status to any one province or indeed any one group just to prop it up, because that is contrary to how they fundamentally see Canada, as equal opportunity for all. It just in essence is not what they feel should be in a Constitution.

I think they are prepared to accept Quebec as a full and complete partner in Confederation or not at all, because they do not see a Confederation if that is not one of the fundamental principles. I think that message has been pretty loud and clear. Whether politicians like it or not, Canadians do not perceive Quebec as being a full and complete partner in Confederation, nor does Quebec. The demands put forward by the Quebec Liberal Party in the Allaire report or by the Bélanger-Campeau commission today do nothing to assuage this perception.

Canadians are receptive, however, to a new Confederation and a new constitutional arrangement that will involve all of Canada. I do not think there is any doubt about that. On the surface, some would say that appears to be unacceptable to Quebec. I do not think it is; I really do not think it is. I think that is acceptable to Quebec.

While I believe that the process of constitutional discussions and the amending process surely ought to be agreed on before we get into all the matters of substance -- we have got another couple of thousand years if we wish to continually amend the matters of substance, but if we cannot agree on the amending formula, then we surely have no Constitution at all. I firmly believe that and I am going to talk about that today.

However, there is one specific issue that has prevented Quebec from signing any future document that I said politicians do not seem to want to talk about, and I want to spend a few minutes on it today. It is the language issue. Ironically, I believe that this issue is the one that has divided us, the fear of Quebec that whatever powers it has or does not have will somehow or other lead to an erosion of its French language and its culture. So they have not agreed with however those powers are configurated. We have not satisfied their concerns and that has divided us.

1600

Ironically, I believe that if we come to grips with this issue, if we will talk about it, it is the issue that in fact can bring us together, that can point out to us how petty some of the other differences are when it comes to the country. I suggest to members that making language a provincial responsibility could satisfy the linguistic needs and the aspirations not just of Quebec but of all provinces, because just as Quebec has its own language requirements, so does Ontario, so does New Brunswick and all other provinces and territories. Surely if it is language that is tearing this country apart, then it is the language issue that must be resolved in order for us to come together.

Now I want to share some thoughts with members that they will say, "No, that's not exactly the way it is. Harris is wrong," and I may be on some of this. But what I want to share with members is the perception mixed in with the reality that has led to this, in my view, confusion over what Quebec wants and the language issue, and I believe how much we have in common with Quebec when it comes to this issue.

Ever since we were going to bring the Constitution home from England -- we were okay when it was in England. We did not have to worry about it. We operated, we functioned as a country. Some people were unhappy, some wanted more powers than the rest, but we had a country. But then when we were going to bring it back to Canada, we were going to have a made-in-Canada Constitution, Quebec obviously was in support of that. Obviously if members look at their history, they were not terribly enamoured that our Constitution should be sitting in England; surely we can understand that.

Consistently, for 25 years or 35 years, however long this has been talked about, they have said: "We are worried about losing our language and our culture. We are worried in this milieu of North America, indeed of the world. Particularly in North America, where English is the dominant language, we are worried that we are going to lose ours. We see assimilation taking place. We see our children losing it."

They did not trust the federal government in a country dominated by English-speaking Canadians to be able to protect their language and their culture 25, 50, 100 years down the road. So they said: "We want language. We want enough power vested in Quebec" -- and the other provinces could have it too. They did not ask for special status but particularly language to be a provincial responsibility, and we said no.

The federal government said no, Trudeau said no, those who had a vision of -- I do not know what. I guess the vision was that some day, 50, 75, 100 years from now, all Canadians would be fluently bilingual. That would eliminate any arguments about how much French is enough in Edmonton and how much English service is enough in Quebec City, because everybody would speak French and English fluently. It would not matter. We would have official bilingualism, ie, you can function and work and operate your daily life in French or in English and they are interchangeable.

It is true that if language is a provincial responsibility, that vision of the country probably will not happen. I suggest to members it is not happening. I think we can provide services, I think we can do many things, but I do not get a sense that British Columbia sees all of its citizens as fluently bilingual at some point in time.

More important than that, Quebec said: "No. We don't trust Canada. We think that if the languages are equal, if everybody can speak French and English in this milieu, English will dominate and we will lose our French language and our culture." I agree with them. They said: "We want the power to protect it where we have the numbers. We want to be a French province. We'll provide services to the English minority" -- and they do -- "but not equal. If you allow it to be equal, then English will take over." We said no.

Do members know what happened? We tried to buy them economically and this is what made English Canada fed up. Quebec came and said, "We want to be French." We said, "We'll give you some offices in Hull." They said: "Thank you very much. We'd be happy to have those. We're not stupid. But do you understand? We are asking you to be French." We said: "We'll give you this grant program and that grant program. We'll move the space agency from Ottawa to Montreal. We'll move the CF-18 contract. We'll put that here."

They said: "Thank you, thank you, thank you. We appreciate all that. We're happy to have that. But do you understand? We are asking you to be French. We want language to be a provincial responsibility."

Do members see what happened? We tried to buy them in and tie them in economically. So where our Premier was so off track on the weekend, he warned Quebec about the dire consequences of leaving Confederation. We have tried to buy them for the last 25 or 30 years. They are like any other province. They will say: "Are you going to give us something? We'll take it. But do you understand our one condition to sign this document that we have consistently told you must be there? We want to have control and power to maintain being French."

You cannot go to Quebeckers and put a price tag on that, and I applaud them for that. Unless you are prepared to talk about what you mean by official bilingualism, unless you are prepared to challenge what I call the Trudeau vision -- and he can deny it if he wants, but those who believe that you cannot accept Quebec unless it will accept bilingualism, French and English equal, I disagree with that. I think we can have a French province in Quebec in this country. I am proud of it.

I see no change, if language is a provincial responsibility, in how the federal government operates. It has to be bilingual. It has to deal with the French province, it has to deal with the English provinces, it has to deal with the bilingual province, it has to deal with a French minority in English provinces and it has to deal with an English minority in a French province. I see no change in how Ontario operates. We will have to provide, and should, services to the French minority in our province. Quebec will have to provide services to the English minority in its province.

Some English Canadians say Quebec is not doing a good enough job of that. I say to them: "How can you ask them to even do that when you won't accept their first tenet, which is that basically they want to be French? Surely you have to accept that first, before you can criticize what English-language services they are providing." For the life of me, I do not understand. I can only suggest that it is because a lot of the intelligentsia in the media, a lot of politicians have said: "If you don't accept this carte blanche, never mind trying to understand what bilingualism means. If you talk about it or you don't accept it, we'll label you a bigot. So you can't talk about it."

I think we had better talk about it. I think it is fundamentally at the root of why Quebec will not sign, did not sign, refuses still to sign, unless it is going to have those powers. In Meech Lake, they said, "If we get these six powers we think we can save our language and our culture." But fundamentally, they have kept coming back and back and back because we would not say yes to language being a provincial responsibility. If we would agree to that, then I think we could get on treating all provinces equally and get on to the other jurisdictions.

I said I did not want to get into specifics, but I thought that one was important because this whole dispute ended up being the Quebec round. Why will Quebec not sign? Why will Quebec not agree? We must solve that.

I also believe that we should be taking advantage of re-Confederation to disentangle myriad conflicting federal and provincial powers. Now is no time to resume the already tried and failed piecemeal approach, in my view, to nation-building. We do not have to resolve them now to agree on the Constitution. I think this is something that will flow out of this, because many of Quebec's concerns now go far beyond the language and go into these other powers that it is upset about.

We in other provinces share those jurisdictional problems too. There are so many entanglements of who is responsible for what and who has the taxing powers to be able to pay for it and so many violations of the principle that I call "He who opens his mouth or she who opens her mouth should pay." We get many levels of government promising things and another level of government saying: "That's not fair. We didn't promise it but we have to pay." Municipalities to the province, the province to the federal government -- we must resolve those over a period of time as well. For very sound economic and social and fiscal and political reasons we need to embrace a whole host of major structural reforms, not the least of which is the division of the taxing and the spending powers.

1610

As a nation, I do not think we can afford the luxury of focusing on the simplistic challenge of single issues, of special interests, of quick fixes. There is an expression, "We have taken the car in for so many cheap and easy short-term repairs so many times that we now need a complete overhaul, if not an entirely new model, if we are going to stay on the road."

I want to spend some time today talking about one of the most critical elements in ensuring the success of any re-Confederation: the process. We know Canadians told us they did not like the process. I guess I have seen too many politicians still preoccupied with trying to drive this vehicle rather than putting this new vehicle together. We cannot drive it, yet we have not got it together.

I do not think one has to be terribly smart to figure out that the old closed-door process does not work. I think we still need, though, some insights before we get it through our heads, all politicians and the political leadership in this country, that changes are necessary.

Here in Ontario, I say to the Premier, I think we have started off on the wrong track. I think we are repeating some mistakes. I have pointed that out to the Premier in meetings we have had, and my disappointment with the committee structure, my disappointment with the document that was brought out. We are debating yet another committee report at a cost of some $2 million, really on the basis of a document that could have been and should have been far more focused as to what the issues are.

I think it is part of the politics of the past. The Premier will say he is consulting, but I suggest that we are consulting in a vacuum. We were contributing to this problem of expectations. We went out to the people and said, "What do you want in the Constitution?" and we heard presentation after presentation of many good things people wanted. None of them had anything to do with the Constitution.

Were we to say to people who came before us and said they want official bilingualism, "Do you think you could get that quicker?" or "Are you comfortable that you could lobby for that if language was a provincial responsibility, or the way the Constitution is now?" that would be a fair question. I would like to hear the answer to that. I think we should have done some educating as to how the process would work. But we did not and, in my view, we missed an opportunity. In fact, what is remarkable, and it is a credit to the people who came before the committee, is the quality of input we did receive in the absence of a framework that I think should have been there.

So they understand what I am saying, at some point in time the Premier might want to consult on agricultural issues, for example. If he asks Ontarians what they think about agriculture and says: "We want to consult. We want to hear what you think," he will probably hear that some are happy, he will probably hear that some are not and he will hear that a bunch do not care. But if he told people that how the policies were structured would affect the price of bread and here is why, then I think he would have got a far more informed response. People would have said, "No, I like the old way better," or "I like this way." For example, if it was a marketing board or the free market and what impact that had.

We had an opportunity to do that. We had an opportunity to go to people and say: "Some are calling for a different way to run the country, for different powers. Here's what that means. Here's how it would affect you. Here's how it would affect Ontario." But we did not do that.

Similarly, the Premier's failure, in my view, and in my criticisms -- as we are debating this report, I think this is the appropriate time to lay them out. I do not criticize, nor am I attacking in any way, the Premier's desire to keep Canada together or his devotion to this country -- I think he knows that -- but the failure to offer any vision or substance or leadership whatsoever on the Constitution has been a little embarrassing, as an Ontarian.

At a time when Canadians are looking for fresh ideas and for new approaches, the Premier of Ontario, in my view, chose to pursue the route of the politics of the past, the partisan route: "I've got control of the committee. I've got the majority in the committee. I'll tell you how we're going to consult. Here's the government report, and then I will decide." We have not heard a word. Today perhaps we will hear a word on what he has decided, where politicians canvass public opinion under the guise of consultation and then retreat to the back rooms to make the real decisions. I do not know where the real decisions were made. I was not asked to partake or participate in them. That politics of the past involves tokenism, and I think we have seen some of that. I think it is some of the same cynical shortcut that was taken by the former government, and they see where that got us.

The Premier of Ontario really had a chance to do something different this time. We have had all kinds of suggestions and examples of how to improve the process, how to make it truly relevant, how to make it non-partisan, how to make it meaningful in terms of opening up the decision process.

I proposed one, "Why don't you set the makeup of this committee four, four, four?" I offered to agree to that. I was giving the most up -- most people do not understand this -- because I was giving up my right to be partisan. I was saying, "I'll give that up." I will give it up on other issues as well, not all of them. But I was laughed at by the leaders of both the other parties, because, I suggest -- he will have an opportunity to speak after me -- I think the leader of the Liberal Party is still embedded in the politics of the past, too. The two of them agreed: "No, we want the right to criticize you. We would never agree to anything like that." Of course the Premier said: "We've got the majority. We were elected. This is now. That was then, when I believed in true non-partisanship."

I am also quite intrigued with the concept of constituent assemblies to generate grass-roots dialogue on a very non-partisan basis. I have heard the Premier say that this idea has merit, so I ask the Premier why we did not take advantage of that option, to try it out. What better time and in what better way to test constituent assemblies than at this early stage -- it is our early stage; it is late in the constitutional process -- in Ontario? It has been suggested to me that one way to do this would be to establish these assemblies in each of Ontario's 130 ridings. We have 130 members in place, ready, able and presumably willing -- I hope so -- to assume the chairmanship of 130 assemblies in every riding. I think we have a remarkable degree of public interest, of commitment, from which we could solicit non-partisan, regional representation. I think the advantages of that are very obvious, and I think the need is clear. The only thing lacking is the political will and the leadership required to make it work.

I suggest that if we had been doing this for the last -- well, six months is not fair. I would not expect the Premier to announce it on the day he was sworn in, but let's say for the last three months. Instead of this $2 million committee running around the province, if we had done it that way we would have involved all 130 of us. What could be more non-partisan than that? We would have had an opportunity to hear from virtually everybody in our communities. We would not have been able, perhaps, to televise it and show everybody how good we are, but we would have actually heard, and we did not do that.

I am suggesting to the Premier that we can still do that, if he wishes, tomorrow. Scrap the committee and get on to a true consultation process. He should not scrap it, though, if he is not going to replace it with something better. I still think the committee is better than nothing, but I ask him to think about that.

At the very least, the Premier had an obligation as well to explain to the people of Ontario the real issues at hand. If he had wanted informed input, he should have said: "Here, Ontarians. You should know that somebody, I or somebody on behalf of this province, is going to have to deal with issues like the triple E Senate. Here's how the powers work today without it, with an appointed Senate, and on the other page, here's what it might be like with a triple E Senate, elected, equal and effective." He does not have to lay it all out: "Here's what would be different. Here's how the political process would be different. This is what this would mean to Ontarians, to the provinces, to the federal government." He should say to Ontarians: "What do you think of that? Because I am going to have to say yes or no to that or something like it one day if we are going to have a Constitution."

1620

We could have talked about native self-government. I do not know what it means. I truly do not. I think we could have said: "Here's how native bands operate now. There are federal programs; there are provincial programs. Here's why the natives are unhappy with that. Here is a sample model or a couple of models of how it might work if natives had self-government. Here are the responsibilities they'd have. Here's where they'd get their funding. Here's how it might work. Ontarians, what do you think of that?" That would have given the Premier some meaningful input, because that will be on the table.

We could have talked about all the powers that Quebec is saying it wants. We could have said: "Here are the federal powers today. Here are the provincial powers. Here's what Quebec is proposing. Here's how the country might function if we gave all these powers provincially. If you are interested in health care and ensuring we have national standards and health care was totally a provincial responsibility, here's what might happen. If you are interested in welfare and social programs, here's how it might work. What do you think of that, Ontarians?" That would have given the Premier a meaningful response to something he is actually going to have to say yes or no to.

Of course, language being a provincial responsibility: "Here's what it would mean. Here's what it would mean to the aspirations of francophones. Here's what it would mean to anglophones. Here's what it would mean to the multicultural community. Here's how it would function. What do you think of that?" Then the Premier would have had some meaningful input on something he is actually going to have to say yes or no to, that Ontarians are going to have to say yes or no to.

On that basis, when I conclude I will be calling on the Premier, as he did not do that before, to do that now, to do the economic study, to do the study on this, to lay these out before the people and ask for that informed opinion, not, "What do you think?" It is silly to ask somebody, "Do you want Quebec to stay or not stay?" or for somebody to come to the committee and say, "If Quebec wants all this, let 'em leave," without knowing what that means, knowing the implications. It is our job to tell them what the implications are, to do the economic studies, the impact studies. We have not done that.

I want also to talk a little about the amending formula. I said that before we get into specifics -- yes, we need to define Ontario's role, but I do not believe we are going to make much progress as a nation unless our political leadership deals with the amending formula. Surely this is something we can talk about now without the specific issues. I agree with Premier McKenna. He came to Ontario, in fact. He said that before we can resolve the substantive issues we must first embrace a workable amending formula. Premier McKenna made specific proposals in this regard similar to the Victoria formula. He said: "Look, we've tried to amend this Constitution I don't know how many times. We haven't been successful once. We weren't successful with Meech Lake. Surely we've got to deal with the formula."

What does the Premier of Ontario think of that? I have not heard. We could share that with the people of Ontario and ask for opinion from those who understand the constitutional dilemmas. I do not think that has to go to every Ontarian; not every Ontarian understands the legality of things. They understand, "How does it impact me?" We must consult them there. Does the Premier of Ontario agree with these proposals? I do not know. We do not know.

As well, Mr McKenna was proposing a national referendum on whatever amending formula the provinces come up with. I think Ontario should know about that. I think we should be asked about that. I also think we should support it. More important, I think we need to know what Ontarians think of that.

Without giving all the facts to those we are reaching out to, I think we did not get back nearly the informed opinion we could have got back, and the clock is ticking. I think it is wrong. I think Ontario deserves better.

I want to conclude with a few thoughts. Meech Lake is dead. The 1981-82 document is dead, unacceptable to Quebec. Certainly Confederation as we know it is changing, but Canada, regardless of what is in or out or if we have a Constitution or not, is alive. It is in the hearts and the minds of Canadians, certainly the vast majority. It is alive and it is well, in my view. Given a choice between a new Constitution within a re-Confederated Canada -- that is one choice -- and the outright destruction of our country, I do not think is any choice at all. I think that is an easy one for Canadians to make. I think we can and I think we must and I think we will build upon those shared values that bind us together as a nation and that have always served us so well.

I want to lay out a few I believe in, a value such as freedom. I do not know that we have to define it any more or any less than that: a basic human right that Canadians have defended. We have defended it on the battlefield. We have died for it. We have sacrificed for it, and enshrined it in our political process. A value such as opportunity, a cherished Canadian birthright, sure, and for those who come to our country, which some take for granted but others pursue to breathtaking heights. A value such as justice, a fundamental tenet of Canadian citizenship, in my view, based on a belief in the principles of fairness, of equality for all.

These, I believe, are some of the values that Canadians hold dear, that unite us, that define us, that shape our lives with a sense of nationhood as to this Canada of ours which, in my view, makes any constitutional document that goes into great detail about how justices are appointed pale by comparison.

Can we enshrine those values? Yes, I think we can. Should we enshrine them? Yes, I think we should. How do you enshrine them? Well, in my view, by turning to new and creative ways to those people who do hold high this torch of leadership in defence of Canada and do it each and every day -- Canadians, not politicians, Canadians, all Canadians in the communities where they live and where they work.

We must set aside the self-serving agendas not just of partisanship but of territory, of responsibility, the fingerpointing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We must enlist the help of those who have so much to lose if Canada fails, yet so much to offer that I am convinced we can only succeed if we are willing to entrust them with this. I think we can define and we can redefine those things we can control, can improve, that will make the lives of Canadians or the opportunities for Canadians better.

I think we can agree as well to disagree on those things over which we have no control, and things which in the overall scheme of things really do not matter that much. We can still pursue them, but we do not have to say we do not have a country if we cannot agree on every single item today.

I suggest that Canada matters. I suggest that people matter, and I think they know that. I think we are doing no favours if we continue to allow people to believe that a new Constitution will solve all their problems. In fact, a new Constitution will solve none of them, not one of them. Not one witness who appeared before the committee to talk about improving the lot of natives on their reserves or on their land; not one who came before it concerned for or against the French language, not one, and we heard many impassioned presentations -- the committee did. I heard some of them on social programs, on things that need to be remedied in our province and our country. The Constitution will not solve one of those, not one.

1630

I say that in the sense that this report today is not much good to us. It is not the fault of the people who appeared before the committee. The report has in itself increased expectations that cannot be met, and I ask members to think about what the Constitution is. It is simply a breakdown of federal powers and provincial powers and then a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect individuals from government; that is all it is. It sets the rules by which we can work to solve our problems, so we should be looking at those federal-provincial powers.

We should be looking at principles that unite us. If there are some we do not share, then leave them out for now and carry on with those that we can agree with. Make sure that we have a process that is meaningful and workable and that we continue to provide forums to debate the issues and those aspirations that many of the people who came before the committee have. But whether we have a Constitution or not, or this one or a pre-1981 or the 1982 one or a new one, is not of that much significance.

I call on the Premier to give us the impact studies of the real things that are on the table, of the federal-provincial powers. Give us those. I call on him to give us what it means to have a triple E Senate, the economic impacts of breakup, the language of provincial responsibility. What does that mean? Native self-government: What does that mean? I ask him to take them to 130 constituent assemblies and empower all of us in the Legislature, all 130 of us and all people in their ridings, to deal with those issues and to really hear what people think about those issues that are on the table.

Today as well I am calling on the Premier to examine the amending formula, to take a look at it and see if we cannot, without getting into all the issues and all the powers and all the things that should or should not be entrenched, deal and get a success on the amending formula.

I suggest to this House that the clock is ticking. I suggest that Ontario is not yet in the game. We are the largest province in terms of people, in terms of economic activity in this country, and we are busy playing a catch-up role. In that aspect I am embarrassed as an Ontarian. I still think we can do something about it, but I think if the Premier is not prepared to lead and to put Ontario back into the game, to put Canada back into the game, then he should do what perhaps should be done anyway: take it out of the hands of politicians altogether and put it in the hands of people who can and will lead on behalf of Ontario.

Mr Nixon: This is the fourth time that I have participated in a major debate on constitutional matters in this House. In each preceding time I always did so with optimism and confidence that the people in charge of the country would marshal public opinion and their own brainpower and come up with a solution that would see Confederation moving forward and perhaps strengthened. I do not feel that way now. Perhaps it is a sign of age or some other slowing down, but the usual optimism that I always feel in public issues, which is associated with liberalism, for reasons, Mr Speaker, that you would not understand, does not seem to be there.

I am confident that the first ministers, with whatever advice they deem appropriate, with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec, will come up with some sort of a solution before the deadline imposed today, which is just, I guess, about 17 months away.

I hate to start by saying that I am not totally confident in the success of this particular operation. I well remember, when I first assumed the leadership of the opposition, actually in November 1966, the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference was scheduled by then-Premier John Robarts. It was our Confederation year and I may have mentioned some of the details in the House previously of that conference. John Robarts probably was the first to go out of his way to see that opposition politicians were well represented. As the new Leader of the Opposition I was in the front row and able to listen to the exchanges very carefully and, of course, over the four or five days of the conference, end up on a first-name basis not only with the premiers but with many of the officials who were there assisting -- a very, very valuable function indeed.

I can recall the Premier of the day saying, "We're not here to make decisions; we're here to listen to the views of the leaders of the various provinces," and in that instance the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Pearson, was not in attendance because of whatever decision made that the provinces were coming together to review their role and that the government of Canada had a supervisory role that became evident somewhat later, as a matter of fact particularly when Pierre Trudeau succeeded Lester Pearson in 1968.

I will not dwell on the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference, other than to say that it too was one in a long succession of reviews by parliamentarians and royal commissions of the various aspects, fiscal and otherwise, of our Confederation.

The next occasion that I recall was a federal-provincial conference convened in Victoria in 1971. Trudeau had assumed the prime ministership and had a certain degree of confidence based on his acknowledged abilities, and he had convened all of the premiers then. By that time, Bill Davis was the Premier. Following John Robarts's lead, he saw that I and the leader of the NDP at the time, who I think was Donald C. MacDonald, were in attendance. It is interesting, in conjunction with what we are talking about now, that after the opening formalities and rather generalized formal statements, Trudeau, as chairman, announced that from that time on the conference would be closed. It meant that my wife and children and I had a nice time in Victoria for three or four days.

We had no idea what was going on but, in fact, it was Mr Trudeau's first and almost totally successful attempt to remake the Canadian Constitution. We did not have a chance to hear rumours from it. We talked to the officials who were in there and, of course, they certainly were not talking about it at all, but there was unanimous agreement about amending formulas, the distribution of powers, a wide variety of matters pertaining to re-Confederation, which would have been a tremendous tour de force by all the first ministers with the leadership of Trudeau.

Mr Bourassa, then on his first time around as Premier of Quebec, went back to his cabinet and found, I think to his chagrin, that his colleagues felt that too much had been given and that, in fact, Quebec was not going to continue with the agreement that he had announced.

At the time, there was considerable discussion in this Legislature that the Premier of Ontario, newly come to that job -- just like the present Premier, although not quite so surprisingly as this Premier; surprising for some -- had not followed the traditions of our relationships with Quebec and had tried to assuage the difficulties and fears that the government of Quebec felt. They felt they were giving in too easily to the proposals from the rest of Canada, although there was not that much polarity then as there is now.

In any event, the thing fell apart and it was regrettable, indeed. Even if it had been successful, we might very well be just where we are now, because in all of these fixes over the years -- I do not call them Band-Aid fixes because they really were as a result of a tremendously deep review and the meeting of the minds of men, in those days; I do not think there were any women involved, and that is maybe why we failed, I say to the Chairman of Management Board, who is interested in these matters, thank goodness -- we might very well have been at the same pretty pass even now, which leads to the kind of pessimism that I have already expressed.

There were a variety of federal-provincial conferences dealing with the control of energy, particularly after 1973 when the world energy crisis came forward. Many of these matters resulted in the kinds of speeches on Confederation which were extremely important and interesting, although most of the speeches, I am sure members would agree, with the exception of -- I will not make a list of exceptions -- tended to be repetitive, boring, useless. Frankly, even in that regard, having spoken in these debates four times in the past, I cannot determine that I ever, as an elected member of the Legislature, had any effect on the destiny of the nation or even to persuade any individual to think differently.

1640

In the case of the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference, a person who assists me in research turned up the Hansard and I will not say I am proud to say to members that my comments then filled 23 pages. So if anybody wants to know everything about the Constitution, at least from the standpoint of South Dumfries township, it is there.

But my feeling, frankly, is although we have all taken part in this, the important speech is yet to come, and it comes from the first minister. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who I thought spoke very well in a very interesting way -- I would like to take time to argue, but we do not have that time right now -- went back to the view that we certainly cannot go behind closed doors, that as a matter of fact, the politicians should be dismissed and the people should make the Constitution. I am paraphrasing him, and of course he did not say it in those words, but I gathered that was what he meant.

I think that is quite foreign to the way we have kept our nation together for 123 years. But we have a parliamentary system and we have a first minister here and we have a Prime Minister of Canada who at their peril would represent us in Ottawa or anywhere else without consulting as they saw fit. Listening to the speeches here I appreciate the fact the Premier is spending time here listening to this. I would expect that he would, but here he is, and he would consult as he saw fit.

Now the committee, I thought, did a good job, but really they were put out there simply to hear what the residents of Ontario, the citizens of Canada, wanted to tell them about what they were interested in. I thought they did an excellent job. They worked hard and the thing I liked about it is they really got engrossed in the matter and became good friends across party lines. They form a coterie in this House which, if they do not understand everything about the Constitution -- and who does? -- if they do not all have the final answers -- and nobody does -- at least they have a perception and a generosity of spirit which I certainly admire. I thank them for the work that they have done.

We went on to the patriation debate in this House. I can recall that our present agent general in London, the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Tom Wells, was one of the significant leaders. Our newly appointed Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, the then Attorney General, Roy McMurtry, took a position of leadership as well. And the Premier, Bill Davis, did a great deal to put aside what might have been called sort of the primary selfish interests of Ontario to support the federal initiative.

I tell members that a lot of other provinces found it much easier to oppose the federal initiative. It might have had something to do with the timing of their next provincial election. Let's face it, sometimes these things are affected by local politics. But Bill Davis took, I thought, a leading role in supporting the federal initiative that ended up with the patriation of the Constitution. I can certainly recall that and frankly, I for one was very excited about it and extremely interested in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I heard from many of my former political friends, then on the bench, now probably supernumerary, who had very strong views that we should not be turning over so much of our constitutional and lawmaking powers to the judiciary. It is interesting that some of the judges -- as a matter of fact, former federal cabinet ministers expressed those views, and as we see what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has done for and to the nation, there is some validity in that opposition.

I think, in spite of the yearning of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party for a country without a Constitution, like the United Kingdom, that most people feel a nation like Canada, with its disparate cultures and geography, is well served by a Constitution. Certainly we have one and we have to have one and we will have one, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an integral part of it.

The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party also said that he believes we have to have a nation where there is no recognizable difference among provinces, that we are all equal, and yet the concept that was put forward in the Meech agreement about a "distinct society" was debated and supported by all parties and, as I recall, all individuals here.

I am not offended by that concept, although my former federal leader, Pierre Trudeau, certainly was. Right down through all the years of his leadership he made it quite apparent that any sort of agreement entered into by the federal government with Quebec that did not put them with the same responsibilities and the same powers was something that he felt was unacceptable. I should not even try to paraphrase his words, let alone his thoughts, but I was interested to hear him at Convocation Hall just two or three days ago when he was talking about this very matter.

I will not take time to talk about the justification of his role, even in answer to the criticism that came from Mr Harris when he said that Trudeau patriated the Constitution, but without Quebec. It is interesting to hear Trudeau's view on that and his criticism of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in that regard. I will not dwell on that, but it is simply an interesting aspect of our development.

I want to just talk about these experiences for a moment and say that of course today is an historic day as well, with Bélanger-Campeau reporting -- the CBC got it yesterday, and so we had it on the news last night -- and with the Allaire report, which is the basis of the policy of the Liberal Party -- not necessarily of the Liberal government in Quebec -- having reported two or three weeks ago.

So the structure is there. It recalls the Premier's statement that Canada is not negotiable, and how odd that statement seems as we look at what has happened since he said that. It seems that in the past, the federal government had a leading role and Ontario had a leading role, but right now Quebec is calling the shots and setting the timetable. The Allaire report, with some of its recommendations, is of great significance to us, and they have said that unless an agreement is reached with the rest of Canada that is satisfactory in the eye of the government of the day -- we presume, do we not, that it will be a Liberal government 18 months from now -- there will be a referendum, and that if the referendum supports sovereignty, then automatically, a year to the day, sovereignty will occur. It is an interesting deadline, a year from this October. Goodness knows where all of us will be or what we will be talking about or what the various issues will be, but this, more than anything else, is going to set the timetable for our thoughts and action, and there is nothing we can say or do that will put that away.

The other thing that concerns me is the announcement in the Allaire report, which is verified and underlined by a special motion at the Liberal Party of Quebec's meeting, that the government of Quebec must not deal with the other provinces, that it must deal bilaterally with the government of Canada. In the Bélanger-Campeau report, they establish two committees, one to more or less look at the offers that may come in in the next 18 months from Canada, see if one of them is good enough to accept or maybe discuss, and if it is good enough, there will be no referendum. The other committee is one to determine the costs and economic implications of separation.

My own view is that if the Premier is contemplating putting this committee back to work -- I believe that he should -- now that we have had a general run at the province, we have to give the committee much more specific instructions. It may very well be that the instructions will be basically the speech that the Premier will be giving in a few minutes. In other words, this is what the head of the government of Ontario thinks. What do you think about what he thinks? That may or may not be useful, but at least it will be consultation.

I believe that we should ask the committee also to undertake a review of the economics of separation from our point of view. God forbid that this would happen. I have to keep saying that to sort of protect my anatomy, but I do believe that we would be less than sensible if we did not at least take the lead, the precautions that are taken in Quebec. Let's just look at what we are getting into. It is fine to beat our breasts and say Canada is not negotiable. It is fine to say this cannot happen but there is a feeling among reasonable people in Quebec and certainly elsewhere in Canada that in spite of our best efforts, the people in Quebec may make a decision that is not along the lines that we would make or that we would wish they would make. I believe it is necessary for us to do the hardheaded review, almost thinking the unthinkable, and see that we as members of the Legislature and, through us, the people of the province, have at least got that to work on.

One of the good things is certainly the fact that Bourassa, in his second incarnation as premier ministre, has said quite clearly to his party, and therefore to the people of Quebec and the rest of us, that he believes in the federalist cause. Once again, I cannot quote him, and I should be able to, but that Quebec's role is in Canada and in Confederation.

1650

We have to remember that he is the head of the government. He has indicated that he does not want to deal with his fellow premiers, but knowing that he is a reasonable person and a very effective, I might even say consummate, politician, there is no doubt there will be discussions. Whether they are held formally in this chamber with all of the premiers here or something like that, I would doubt, but there is no doubt that he and his officials who have different views -- Claude Ryan, we know his views; M. Paradis and others have already expressed views that we should be talking about.

It might even be that even as caucuses we would have communication with those people to see just what their views are. I hope that no one would be critical of that, because the more information we get the better it will be for us all. We have got something good there. Bourassa has spoken clearly and publicly in favour of the federalist alternative saying that Quebec's role is in Canada.

But opposite him is M. Parizeau, and he is certainly a politician, a man, a thoughtful person who cannot be discounted in any way. In my very brief tenure in government as Treasurer and as Minister of Financial Institutions there were a number of occasions when I had reason to have the highest regard for his initiative when he was Minister of Finance during the separatist government, where they had special and very difficult situations to cope with, and he was probably the most imaginative and capable Minister of Finance that they could have had under those circumstances in that party.

So I just say to members that we cannot discount him in any way, a very capable person, and of course we know his views. Some of us -- certainly I went to hear him at the Canadian Club. He was not in Toronto to make friends. He spoke very well, and since the Empire Club was the cosponsor we not only sang O Canada but also God Save the Queen. Like a gentleman he stood at attention and did all of the things that an educated person would do under those circumstances.

He delivered an address that raised my hackles a little bit, but he said some things that I am not going to repeat here. But, for example, I had just been talking to the people around my table about, "What are they going to do about the national debt?" He dealt with that first. He said, "Our position, of course, is to accept fully our responsibility for our share of the national debt when we separate and I hope you people who are concerned about that will know that we will demand our share of the national assets."

That does not dismiss the problem at all, but it is an indication that the separatist party down there is not fooling. Not only that, but they are optimistic and they know that the rest of Canada does not as yet have a vision of what the rest of Canada can be. I think Audrey McLaughlin tried to bring forward a vision earlier this week about a social contract. Certainly Frank McKenna came up to Toronto and has spoken in his own jurisdiction indicating that we can be best in education, we can be best in the environment, we can be fiscally more responsible and so on, all those things. But somehow no one has been able to capture the vision -- I hate that word, but it applies here. Our vision is to somehow negotiate and fool around and see if we can get another five years out of the Edsel. That is not visionary.

Maybe we can do it. Maybe we can depend on self-interest in Quebec for when a referendum comes or an election comes -- which probably will decide it -- that people will vote, I would say, for their patriotic love for Canada. There is some of that, I am sure, but essentially we are counting on them voting in their self-interest: "It is better for you in Quebec to be a part of Canada." Sort of down the list, we do have equalization, we do have the things that the leader of the third party was talking about, like these political plums that come your way. All of that stuff, I agree with him, is a strange sort of politics, a strange way to hold the country together and may be more associated with politics than it is with holding the country together, because every now and then in a federal election we get gifts here too. There is Fort Communication down at the CBC. There is the -- what do they call it, the political park?

Hon Mr Rae: Harbourfront.

Mr Nixon: Harbourfront. What do we call that? Never mind. But these things are known to happen and we all renounce those things and there are no politicians here who would ever undertake that antiquated way of persuading people of our efficacy. Anyway, there it is.

I have more notes here than I should have, but I would say to members that there is now a deadline, a guillotine that I do not believe we will ever get to if the Liberals are in office, which concentrates our thinking enormously. While we have to be thinking of the role of the Indians, if I may call them by their legal name, we have to be thinking of the rights of women, we have to be thinking of the amending formula, we have to be thinking of a triple E Senate -- may I go on record as saying let's abolish it --

Hon Mr Rae: No, no.

Mr Nixon: -- and all of these things, still what we have to get is some sort an agreement.

The Premier thinks I have given up hope of going, right? Why does he think I said something nice about Audrey?

All of those things are out there. When I mention the Indian situation, the aborigines, the natives, whatever the word is that we should use, I just want to say this: I do not have a solution for this. I know that we are going to have continuing difficulties. I have the honour to represent the largest reserve in Canada, but I have to say something else, that for the first time in 70 years they did not vote for a Nixon. They voted for a nameless, faceless, fine young man who would have been a supporter of the NDP if he had been elected, and he almost was. It is interesting. I think I should tell the members that there are probably 4,500 people on the voters' list there, but less than 300 vote because the Mohawks consider themselves allies of the crown to some extent, but very, very limited. They participate in federal elections, but very few people participate in provincial elections. But one thing is sure -- and I guess it does not hurt me or bother me to say so -- they have complete confidence in the Premier.

This is a terrible burden for the Premier to carry because I am not sure what he is going to do after he does what he does very well, and that is meet with them and raise their spirits, support them in a reasonable way, because they do not have confidence in very many people. They have had confidence in my father and me for ever, at least the people who vote. I still have many good friends down there and am well connected and do not feel blown away by the fact of the 240 votes cast I got three or four less than half. I just say to the Premier there is a downside to being good in these things: He has got to deliver, and I do not know what it is. The leader of the third party mentioned self-government.

They have excellent self-government there, an elected council, but once again, the Indian community does not support it because the hereditary chiefs in many respects still command their support, although a larger and larger number support the elected council, which in my view does a good job and has been well supported not only by the government of Canada but by the government of Ontario. I just mention that in passing. I am not sure what the role is in the Constitution.

I am not the greatest fan of Elijah Harper having been the instrument in destroying Meech, which I supported, along with every other member of this Legislature as it then was.

Hon Mr Wildman: No.

Mr Nixon: Well, there were a few disaffected people who would not follow the leadership of the then Leader of the Opposition. I would just say that we lost a good opportunity for re-Confederation under those circumstances, but we are not thrashing that straw any more.

I just want to spend a few minutes indulging myself in something that I find intensely interesting, and that is going back beyond the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference in 1971, way back to where in fact the situation that we define by language and by culture, to some extent by religion, and certainly by way of Constitution and government, where it comes from. I am not going to spend too much time on this, I hope, but I just want to say that going back to 1760, after the battle of the Plains of Abraham, the conquerors brought a proclamation from the British crown, the Royal Proclamation, that said:

"We have conquered here. There will be nobody who is Roman Catholic in faith having anything to do with government. There will be no French spoken anywhere in government. By the way, the English common law will be the basis of all the law here, not what you people have been using, and by the way, land titles, the old seigniories, will be dispensed with and you will have to reallocate the land by fee simple, which is the British way."

1700

It is possible that the conquerors might have been able to impose that. The populations were small, and once the battle had been won, it was not going to be refought, except for one thing. The so-called American colonies were getting very restless, and the powers that were at Westminster certainly were not going to have this new colony, with rather unhappy and disaffected French people in the huge majority, join that stuff. So they very wisely passed a new law, the Quebec Act, which is really a remarkable piece of legislation, which welcomed Catholics into government, something that even in those days was not permitted in the United Kingdom.

They welcomed the French language in the discussions in their councils. They said: "You may return, and as a matter of fact we insist that you return, to the French common law and your method of holding land. You do it the way you want it, because we want you to be friendly."

As a matter of fact, it was so successful that the possibility of the French colony, that is, the British French colony, joining up with the revolution was put to bed. They were extremely successful in that policy, but that feeling of generosity and open-mindedness has carried down to this day and we should be proud of it, in spite of the fact that the real motives for it were not just the finest.

The next thing that happened, and I will only take a couple of hours on this, was that the United Empire Loyalists arrived, about 1780, and they had fought on the wrong side of the American Revolution. Many of them came over at Niagara and took up farming land that the crown had made available to them. They were joined by a large group of Indians from the Six Nations, the Iroquois confederacy, including the strongest group at the time, the Mohawks, led by Chief Joseph Brant, a significant name. They came into the central part of Ontario and were granted all the land along the Grand River from its mouth to its source, six miles on either side. So while we would say they were natives, they came at the same time as the other settlers, although for several scores of years they had hunted in this area. If members read some of the histories, they would know that Iroquois, in imposing their kind of peace, had in fact killed all the neutral Indians in the area. That is the way things were done in those days, and they had taken over this as a hunting ground. So in those days we had these new settlers. The Indians could not have been more friendly and supportive to the new settlers, helping them with what was needed, because they of course knew how to live in the virgin forest, as it then was, and they were certainly helpful in every way.

But the United Empire Loyalists found, to their horror, that they lived under the British crown but in a government that spoke French, that accepted Catholics -- as a matter of fact it was almost all Catholic -- where the British common law had no role in the courts and they could not own their farms by fee simple. So like any people who understand these traditions, they rose up, not in rebellion but in sort of an academic rebellion, and sent a petition to the government in England, and it was granted.

Their petition was, "We want to separate from the French Catholic part of Canada." So those people were the first separatists and it was granted to them and a line was drawn down the Ottawa River. They sent over their own governor and this was all English Protestant, with the Indians in support, and of course Lower Canada was French Catholic and they went on their way. I will not spend a lot of time on this, I have said it before, but it is interesting to note as we see this that the first separatists were motivated just the way I describe it and no other. They were not prepared to work with their confrères as they should have been in the other part of the colony.

Well, many things happened I will not tell you about, the Tories supporting the governor and the reformers, liberals, who were taking the more progressive side, but an interesting thing happened. The leaders of the reform movement, both in Lower Canada and in Upper Canada, had somewhat the same approach: Louis-Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada, a reformer, a very capable and intelligent person; and William Lyon Mackenzie, grandfather of William Lyon Mackenzie King, in Upper Canada, who had other qualities which members can read about. He was a very effective member of the Legislature. The governor kept dismissing him. He would go back in a by-election and be re-elected. In other words, it was a strong movement from the people to wrest the power from the Governor.

In those days, the Governor had it all. By his writ he could put anybody in jail. He could levy any tax. He had a little bit of a council of people who were called the Family Compact who shared in some of those advantages, but people soon grew to dislike this, and I want to point out that Mackenzie here and Papineau down there shared this.

It got pretty tough. At one stage the Parliament buildings in Lower Canada were burned. At one stage the farmers grabbed their pitchforks and under Mackenzie's leadership marched on Toronto. They stopped for a cool beer at Mackenzie's Tavern, the Governor's militia found them, and it was all over.

This is a slight oversimplification, but I just want to tell members that, as a result of that, which is nothing like the American Revolution or what happened on the steps of the Winter Palace in 1917, the government in London did exactly what governments always do. It appointed a royal commissioner, and it happened to be the son-in-law, I believe, of the Minister of Colonial Affairs. Lord Durham came over here to find out what was wrong and made a report saying that these two colonies should be put together and that there should be one Parliament, that they should have responsible government and the Governor should only act on the advice of his ministers. In fact, they moved to responsible government in those days with the kind of government we have now.

The point of all this is that because the one side of the united province of Canada was Catholic and French and the other side was not only English and Protestant but Orange, if members know what I mean, the government almost had to have two heads. So from that time on there was always an English-speaking person for what is now Ontario, a French-speaking person from what is now Quebec, and politically they had an alliance which came down really right to now.

I have already mentioned Mackenzie and Papineau, but it goes on. The most interesting ones, the first premiers, joint premiers, of the united provinces were Baldwin and LaFontaine. We have excellent portraits of them out there, absolutely the greatest. If members read about those people, it is quite amazing. Brown and Dorion I mention for sort of self-serving interests, Macdonald and Cartier, and 124 years ago, when this joint affair really fell apart politically, in a sense very much the way it is happening now, they undertook a Confederation with other colonies and created Canada.

Members understand that the capital moved from Toronto to Kingston to Montreal to Quebec and the elected members did not have the benefit of simultaneous translation. They could not get home at night in a Chrysler limousine with a driver or anything like that. They had to really make a commitment.

They soon found that their friendships, beyond language and beyond culture, formed bonds which were stronger then, I submit, than they are now. Even in the 30 years that I have been in this House observing these things, I feel that there is less generosity and breadth of vision now than there was 30 years ago. The leader of the PC party mentioned the importance of language policy, and in a funny sort of way it was not so much an issue then as it is now, and it may be, as he pointed out, that politicians are largely responsible for that issue being as divisive as it is. He has suggested a remedy. I would have to think about that. But whatever happens there, it was better then than it is now.

There is a tendency for people my age, I suppose, to always think that, but I was not there, not quite. But during those days there was this growing strength between the two provinces and a growing understanding that while they had huge and difficult political differences, still they could go forward if they worked together, with the two government heads being reasonably in harness and working for that purpose.

This has gone on in Confederation in an interesting way -- if I can find it; anyway, I remember most of this -- because when I first came on the scene, Hepburn was the Premier here. Duplessis was no Liberal, although he and Hepburn might have had something in common of a degree, but there were many exchanges. Often it was a balance against the power of the federal government, but the two provinces worked closely together.

1710

Even in the brief time that my father was Premier of Ontario, his opposite number was Adélard Godbout, a person I met at our farm and for whom my father had the greatest respect and a close personal friendship. It goes on for M. Lesage and John Robarts, and Robarts in many ways epitomized more than any other premier -- I say that advisedly -- the approach that Ontario has traditionally taken on a friendly basis and supportive basis in Quebec, and it was reciprocated. There was no big sister-little sister stuff. They were balancing, double cornerstones of Confederation.

While I would hesitate to talk about their importance relative to the Maritimes, relative to the west and British Columbia, we know what those relative importances are and the role that Ontario and Quebec have had has been quite dramatic. This goes on, of course, with Mr Davis and Mr Bourassa. The role that David Peterson played in Bourassa's second premiership and the Meech Lake accord is well known.

If I had a little more time I might explain the difficulties the Premier has, perhaps not with his own thought processes but with the advice from the Treasurer, who is seeing that he looks as good as he can, when the Treasurer has advised him over these many weeks: "Don't get involved in this constitutional stuff. It's like getting involved in some sort of mud pile and you can't get out." I just have a sense that the advisers of the Premier --

Interjection.

Mr Nixon: Well, if it is not the Treasurer, it is probably Ross McClellan who said, "Look, politically stay out of this and the time will come." The time has come and we look forward to that speech, because there are those who say, and I am not one of them frankly, that David Peterson lost a lot of support by his commitment to the support of Quebec on a reasonable basis to bring about the re-Confederation of Canada. I regret very much that that did not come about.

I am not sure what the Premier's relationship is with M. Bourassa now. I know that they met in Florida. There is no doubt that, being premiers, they talk. I do not know whether the Premier likes to talk on the phone as much as other premiers do, but probably he does. So there soon builds up a rather firm friendship based on a certain degree of confidence, since all the first ministers share this huge and difficult load.

For us to suggest for a moment that somehow all of the people have got to be involved in deciding the intricacies and specifics of a re-Constitution, in my view, is wishful thinking. I certainly believe that our committee and, through the committee, all of us have a responsibility to consult and give individuals a chance to express their views, but when it gets down to it, the person who represents Ontario at these meetings for now is the Premier. I am not prepared to say that I have all the confidence in the world in him, but I know that he has the ability and he has demonstrated in this House not only that he understands the nuances of Confederation but also that he can express them in an effective way. So I am not feeling uneasy about that.

The member for Nipissing pointed out that we have maintained for ourselves the right to criticize. That is what we are here for and I suppose that is what we are paid for, and we do that from time to time. But I would just say that in my view, if Confederation is going to go on with another fix for another five years, it will depend on Mr Bourassa talking to the Prime Minister of Canada and perhaps informally -- not perhaps, I am sure informally -- with the other premiers and working out an accommodation. My own view is that the real test will come not in a referendum, which I do not expect will happen 18 months from now, but in the next general election in Quebec, where the people will know it is clearly put. Frankly, I think Mr Mulroney was probably giving a fairly good service when he said: "It is not limited sovereignty. When you people in Quebec decide, it is are you in or are you out?" It will be very interesting to see what happens in that regard.

I want to end by telling a little story. When I was Leader of the Opposition in a previous incarnation, René Lévesque had just been elected Leader of the Opposition as the head of the Péquiste party and some group in Toronto thought it would be a good drawing card if they had the two leaders of the opposition at a luncheon to debate sovereignty. I rather stupidly allowed myself to get into that situation, because Lévesque was a very, very capable and attractive person and I tend to be kind of lumping. It was definitely a one-sided debate, except that I got myself into trouble after all this.

Nobody took this seriously. Here is a separatist party in Canada? How could this be? Except it was led by one of the most effective politicians in Canada -- a little parallel there -- and when he finished describing the aspirations of the people in Quebec, nobody agreed with him, but we knew that he believed in it. We also knew that many people in Quebec believed in it.

I remember saying in my final windup that as far as I was concerned, I had understood the close, binding history between our two provinces and, more than that, the people in the provinces, and that everything should be done to re-establish Confederation. We have kept it going a long time. But I said: "If, God forbid, the people of Quebec decide to take another course than staying on in Canada, then our destiny in Ontario is to do what we can to stop that, to point out that that is a bad course to take, but if it happens, our destiny is to be and continue to be Quebec's best friends whether it is economic or cultural or whether it is simply that we have the great good fortune to share this part of the world that is so blessed with our sister province and the people who live there."

I know that the people in this House and our first minister are committed to a continuation of Confederation. I am not sure what our first minister will do. I hope he is not going to be antagonistic and bombastic. It is not the way he is, except occasionally in question period. In fact, we should be as considerate and as generous as we practically can to see that our Confederation will continue and that, whatever happens, we are seen and felt by the people of Quebec as -- and I cannot put it any other way -- their best friends.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to begin by saying that I have enjoyed listening to the debate this afternoon. In particular, I want to say that I really did enjoy and benefit from the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I thought it was an outstanding contribution to our discussion and I think it was an education for all of us who were privileged to listen to it. As always, I am very proud to be a member of the same Legislative Assembly as the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to say to members of the House that it is clear to all of us that our country is at a crossroad. The task and the challenge of national unity is as serious as any that has been confronted by the country since the years before Confederation and I think it was particularly important that the Leader of the Opposition in his remarkable speech this afternoon referred to those years and reminded us a little bit about our history and of our coming together and of our coming apart and of the tension and of the differences that have characterized Canada and characterized the years before we became a country.

I do not think there is any question in my mind that the challenge that we now face is every bit as real and every bit as immediate as the challenge that we faced prior to 1867. I think it is also clear to all of us and I think it is important, and I will come back to this theme again, that we understand this not as any kind of statement about a threat of any kind, but I think it is important for us to understand that the costs of failure are high. They are high emotionally. The wrenching affect that it will have on the entire fabric of this province and of the whole country has to be understood. It is not just a question of the money or of finances. It is a question of our own identity and of our own capacity then to respond.

But I believe the benefits of success are equally great. We are in the middle of a very serious and indeed deep recession which is not unique to Ontario. It is in fact being shared right now by the province of Quebec; it is increasingly the case that we share this situation. It is clear to me that economic renewal and nation-building in fact go hand in hand and must go hand in hand, because the eyes of the world are on Canada and our progress in dealing with the issues that now confront us will be assessed by all those who look to Canada as a place to invest and as a serious international partner.

1720

I want to start quite simply by not only thanking the committee but by congratulating the committee. I think the committee did an excellent job in a very difficult time frame. I think they produced an important consensus on some issues: The shared view in Ontario that aboriginal rights are important and need to be expressed in our Constitution; the willingness to review the distribution of powers; the need for the country to be involved; the importance of minority language rights; the need to strengthen the charter.

I also want to share the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he said that, in a very new Legislature where there are a number of newly elected members, we began the process which has to begin in this Parliament and during the life of this government, where occasionally we get over the partisan differences and where we recognize that all the members of the House are trying to work together with the people in this Legislature and with the people of Ontario to keep Canada united and to keep Canada together.

I want to say very clearly that I believe it is very important for the committee to continue its work and I want to say again that I agree entirely with some of the comments that have been made both by the leader of the third party this afternoon and by the Leader of the Opposition that now, at this next stage, it is crucial for the committee to become more specific in its work, more specific in the questions it asks, more specific in the research it undertakes, more specific in the consultations it undertakes. I think it has to consult more widely with the general public, and I believe that consultation continues to be important and will be especially important in the days ahead.

I think it is important that it meet with expert opinion as well. I think it has to meet with groups outside Ontario. In particular, as we see across the country, as we see other legislatures beginning to come forward and wrestle with these issues and begin to present their perspectives from their own views, I think it is extremely important that the legislative committee begin to meet informally and indeed formally with other committees as we strive to build this national consensus. I can tell the House on behalf of the government that we are willing to see the committee gets all the resources it needs to do its work.

I want to say on behalf of the government that Ontario is ready to help build a new Constitution and we are ready to help build a new Canada. Indeed, we are determined to do so. I want to state categorically that we are prepared to discuss the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government; that we are prepared to deal with the extraordinary changes that have taken place since 1867; that we are prepared to come to grips with the fact that it is not just a question of language any more, I would say. It has now become clear that it is a question of a number of changes that have taken place across Canada and in the province of Quebec which we have to address.

I want to stress to the Ontario public that in doing this it is not a question or a matter of appeasing Quebec or of accommodating Quebec. It is a matter of our seeing this as a round for Canada in which all of Canada stands to benefit from a Constitution that works better to the advantage of all Canadians. It is our task to make the issues of constitutional reform as real for the people of Ontario as they are for people in other parts of the country.

The leader of the third party was commenting today, being very critical of things, but I think it is fair to say that the Ontario public has not been as seized of this issue as perhaps some other publics have been, certainly the public in Quebec, but indeed in other parts of the country where there is a much stronger sense of regional or constitutional grievance. I think it is fair to say that in our own province that sense has not been as strong, so now in the next step which we are undertaking as a province and as a Legislature and as a government it is important for us to stress that there are real disadvantages, not in a regional or local sense, not that we are being shafted at somebody else's expense or benefit, but that there is substantial advantage to us as a people to make sure the Constitution works better.

Let me just mention, to be very specific, two or three areas where I think it is very clear to all of us -- it is certainly clearer to me since becoming the Premier -- that the current division of powers and the overlapping of powers do not work well. We are in the middle of an economic sea change, of a quality and of a character which we have not confronted since the Depression. I want to suggest that when it comes to the area of training, manpower, unemployment insurance and income security, if we look at that whole field, that whole area of how we help people cope and deal with this change, there is an extraordinary amount of duplication and overlap and constitutional confusion.

Just to give a very practical example, we have a situation where there is conflict between what we are trying to do in terms of increasing the amount of adjustment assistance to workers and the approach being taken by the federal government with respect to unemployment insurance. I do not say this in order to make a partisan point about what is going on in Ottawa. I am simply here to say that it is not only the people of Quebec who look to this system and say: "Wait a minute. That's not working very well." It is also possible for citizens in other parts of the country to say: "You know, we can make this work better."

If people want to discuss how the division of powers needs to be made to work, there is nothing sacred about the categories that were established in 1867, there is nothing sacred about the divisions which were set up in 1867 between section 91 and section 92 of the Constitution. It ought to be possible for us to take this challenge which is now before us -- and it is a very real one -- and turn it into an opportunity where we do not simply address the agenda of one province but where we say, "Okay, let's take that fact, the fact that Quebec has taken the decisions it has taken and that the failure of Meech has produced the fallout it has," and turn that into an opportunity where we say to all Canadians, "This is a chance for us to remake the Constitution." We do so at a time of extraordinary economic and social difficulty and social change. We ought to see this as an opportunity and not simply as something to be afraid of. It is a chance for us. It is a chance for, I believe, a new optimism.

The Leader of the Opposition says he is pessimistic. I, myself, feel we have an opportunity and that we ought to see it as an opportunity to build Canada better, to make it stronger and to make it work in a way that benefits all the people of the country. We can only do this if we convert what for the last five years has been seen as a Quebec round into a round for Quebec and into a round for all of Canada as well. That is a difficult task but it is what we have to do.

Monsieur le Président, je veux parler directement à la population québécoise. Au nom de mon gouvernement, et je crois que je peux dire au nom de la législature de cette province, je veux dire que nous nous approchons des discussions qui auront lieu dans le gouvernement avec un esprit de générosité, conscients que nous pouvons, devons et voulons reconnaître le caractère unique et distinct du Québec, sa personnalité. Nous voulons le faire, nous sommes prêts à le faire sans pour un moment nier la réalité d'une autre identité aussi. Comme partenaire canadien avec la population québécoise, nous attachons une importance à trouver une solution à nos difficultés et à nos différences. Nous voulons que le Québec puisse trouver son identité dans la fédération canadienne parce que nous voyons des avantages énormes pour nous tous dans cette solution.

1730

Je l'ai dit en anglais et je le dirai encore : franchement, nous voyons aussi des coûts émotionnels, politiques, sociaux autant qu'économiques pour nous tous, pour le Canada, pas seulement pour le Québec mais pour nous tous, pour l'Ontario si nous ne trouvons pas l'imagination nécessaire pour créer une nouvelle constitution.

C'est pourquoi je dis sincèrement que nous voulons trouver une solution à nos problèmes constitutionnels pour que nous puissions, ensemble, créer un Canada qui marche mieux pour tout le monde. Nous croyons qu'en résolvant, si vous voulez, la question des discussions québécoises, nous devons aussi admettre que c'est tout le Canada qui a beaucoup à gagner de mettre sur la table d'autres questions dont il serait aussi discutées dans ce rond constitutionnel. Nous le faisons pour nous tous, mais surtout nous le faisons pour le Canada.

When federations are created, a new country is born, a country that is bigger than its parts. The federation whose historical process has been described this afternoon meant that there was a sharing of sovereignties, which means that there was a recognition of mutual rights and obligations.

During the Meech Lake round I spoke in this House, sitting in the chair that is now occupied by the Leader of the Opposition, and I said then, and I say today, that I believe profoundly that Quebec's character and collective rights can be recognized and must be recognized without compromising the need for national programs and national standards and without denying the rights of others to have their personality recognized as well.

It ought to be possible for us to have the self-confidence to be able to say what we all know to be true: that Quebec does have a unique character, a distinct -- whatever words you want to use -- society within Confederation. We ought to be able to say that without in any way diminishing our own identity and our own personality and without taking away for a moment from the fact that there are other rights and other recognitions that equally well belong in the Constitution.

When you think about it, it is more than a little absurd that we have created a Constitution, admittedly in an imperfect fashion over many years, that still does not talk about the fact that surely one of the fundamental characteristics of the country is that it was a land originally settled, originally occupied, by our native people, and that they were there long before any other people came, and that that historical relationship is one that has never really found full expression, either in our Constitution or indeed in many of our other institutions.

I am not saying that the process of finding or defining what we mean by self-government is going to be easy, but I can say -- and the minister responsible for native affairs knows how challenging and daunting it is -- to the people of this House, as I am sure is felt across the country, that this is a rendezvous with our own conscience, our own destiny and our own past that we have an obligation to make, and we ought to take advantage of this opportunity as we rewrite the Constitution to do just that.

We believe that the charter can be strengthened. There is a concern in the country and I think it is a concern that is felt by many members in the House. Some are saying, "If the federal government takes the view that the only way to satisfy the Quebec agenda is to massively decentralize to other provinces" to get over the question of special status, which was raised again by the leader of the third party this afternoon, by saying, "Well, okay, we won't just make it Allaire; we'll make it Allaire for everybody" -- I think there is a very strong concern among a great many Canadians that we cannot just turn the federal government into a post office and let it be done and say: "Now we've solved the problem. We've got a little committee of people up in Ottawa and all the power's gone back to the provinces and that's the national consensus that's going to pull us out of this." The only problem with that is that it leaves out the soul of Canada. It leaves out the will of the Canadian people, and the will of the Canadian people is that the definition of a country is people who create something in common together that means something and that has a common meaning.

I think we have to wrestle with this question, and one of the contributions that our government wants to make is to explore with other governments and indeed to explore with the people of the province whether there is not some way of strengthening standards and rights in the Constitution and being a little bit more flexible about the question of who delivers what program. In other words, if we can define more clearly in the charter not only individual rights that have been expressed so far but also certain important social rights which we all accept -- the right to health care, for example, and I can think of a number of other examples which are generally shared throughout our society.

I might just say in parentheses that one of the ironies of what we are facing is if we think how different sociologically and culturally English Canada and Quebec were in 1867 compared to today. Quebec is a modern society today, as urbanized as Ontario is. Its commitment to social programs, whatever governments may change and how they may change, is every bit as strong as it is in this province. So in fact there is a much stronger basis for national consensus on some of these programs than we might believe.

If that consensus is there, I want to suggest that perhaps one of the solutions is -- and I do not pretend to have any magic answers. One of the things I have learned in this whole constitutional field, having been in it for 12 years, is that people who have magic answers do not tend to get very far. What we have are some suggestions that we want to share with other Canadians and we want to share with other legislatures and other premiers and other people, just so we can begin this discussion. If we can strengthen national standards and strengthen the Charter of Rights, maybe it allows us then to be more flexible on the question of the division of powers in terms of how we deliver programs. It seems to me that that might be one way that we could go.

Je dirai au gouvernement du Québec que M. Bourassa lui-même parle souvent -- et quand je lui ai parlé en Floride et je lui parle au téléphone -- et je peux rassurer la population de notre province et la Chambre que naturellement ce n'est pas étrange pour le premier ministre de l'Ontario et le premier ministre du Québcc de parler ensemble.

Hier soir, quand j'ai parlé avec M. Bourassa, je l'ai invité à venir dans notre province et dans cette ville de Toronto nous rendre visite, nous donnant la chance de discuter encore et lui donnant l'occasion de présenter la position du gouvernement du Québec. Il m'a invité aussi au Québec et j'ai l'intention de le faire pour discuter de nos relations en commun et pour discuter de la situation. C'est tout à fait naturel que ça va se faire comme ça.

M. Bourassa et le gouvernement québécois parlent souvent de la Communauté européenne comme une espèce de modèle sur les questions de l'avenir du Canada -- créer un marché commun avec les institutions communes. Mais je dois dire d'abord que la Communauté européenne a une charte sociale qu'elle reconnaît. Ils ont des normes environnementales, une approche faite pour l'industrie, pour l'économie qui marchent beaucoup mieux communément.

Alors, je dis que si vraiment on veut avoir un Canada qui va marcher, une fédération qui va marcher, il faut que nous reconnaissions l'élément social et économique des droits économiques et sociaux dans cette nouvelle fédération. Si nous reconnaissons les droits dans la constitution, si nous reconnaissons la possibilité d'avoir des droits plus largement définis dans la constitution, alors, ça nous donne la chance de dire : «Eh bien, on peut parler de partager les pouvoirs d'une façon différente».

1740

I believe that the province is ready and the government of Ontario is ready to discuss the concerns that have been raised by many westerners and, indeed, Atlantic Canadians, in particular the Prcmier of the government of Newfoundland who has raised the question again and again of Senate reform. Unlike any other federal system in the world, we have a Senate that does not function in the way that it is supposed to function. It does not credibly represent the regions. It does not credibly represent the federal principle. It represents the patronage principle. What we need is an institution in Ottawa which represents more clearly the federal principle and not an institution which recognizes the patronage principle. We are prepared to work with other governments to see that this is exactly what happens for the benefit of all Canadians.

Having said that, I must confess that to this point I am not persuaded of the real possibilities of a strictly triple E Senate. I think it will take some real discussion as we discuss the ways in which the Senate will be elected, the exact proportions and the powers that such a body would have. I do not intend as we head into this period of national discussion to lay out categorically exactly what that is, but I am prepared to say and want to say on behalf of our government that we are bound and determined to improve our institutions, and that includes the Senate.

I take the approach, and I reaffirm it today, that I do not think it is useful at this stage for Ontario to say that we have a particular agenda in a kind of regional way and that this is what we take into the bargaining, and that if we do not get this -- that is not the nature of the discussions and that is not the nature of the role that any Premier of the province has ever taken going into discussions.

Rather, I want to say that we stress certain principles: an affirmation of rights and an extension of those rights to include some broader social and economic principles as well; a determination on our part to use this round to make the country work better, more efficiently, and more fairly and explicitly to deal with the division-of-powers question to ensure that in fact Canada is capable of meeting the challenge of the 21st century, a challenge which I believe we can only meet truly effectively if we have a renewed and stronger Constitution; a willingness on our part to say categorically that we are prepared in this round on behalf of the people of the province, as we were in the last round, to recognize the unique character of Quebec; as well as some other basic principles -- the rights of aboriginal people, the fundamental equality between men and women, equality rights generally as part of a new Constitution.

That, I hope, indicates to the House some direction, in terms of substance, in which we want to go. But I want to say to both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party that we see the committee and, indeed, discussions among party leaders, and as many discussions as we can possibly have, as a chance for us to share all the information that is available in terms of some of the questions that have been raised.

On the question that the leader of the third party raised about the impact of the division of powers, I can assure him work is going on. I can assure members as well that one of the tasks of our government is not only to deal with the question of the division of powers as it relates to Ottawa, but to recognize at the same time that our municipalities are looking to these programs that have not been working, and the disentanglement that is required, and work with our municipalities in making sure that we deal with this question as well. If we do that, I think we will begin to allow the people of the province to see what is at stake for them and what is at issue for them in our trying to build a stronger country, in our trying to make it work better.

I want to turn now to the question of process. I think it is clear -- and I think it has all been said before and been said here as well -- that we cannot simply go back to the old game. It is not possible, in my view. For a whole variety of reasons -- the position that has been taken by the government of Quebec, the position that has been taken by a number of other governments, the feelings that have been expressed across the country and, indeed, the feelings expressed in our own province to the committee, we cannot simply return to the notion of a few people getting together and trying to solve the problem.

At the same time, I want to say that there are some realities that exist. First of all, we do have a Constitution which is the legal framework for how we have to get from here to where we want to get to. We have to be prepared to be as creative as possible in using that framework to allow us to get to the new Constitution.

I do not believe -- it has been suggested by a number of people -- that you can simply do an end run around the old rules by going to the Supreme Court and saying: "Look, it's a crisis here. You've got to give us a new amending formula," or: "Here's a new amending formula. This is the one you have got to use." I do not think that is going to work. I do not believe that this approach is going to work. I do not believe that simply having a referendum on a new amending formula in itself can work unless we are prepared to use the means that are there at our disposal in order to get us there.

I can tell members that I think we need very strongly to have a serious discussion at the national level and in this House on the question of an amending formula that will work better than the old formulas. In the Constitution as we now have it, we do not just have one formula; we have a couple. We have unanimity for some. We have seven and 50% for others. We have bilateral negotiation for a third. The process is unnecessarily cumbersome and confusing. It is the view of this government that we should move to a single amending formula, and it is one that will require less than unanimity. Beyond that, l think it is important for us to discuss what the various options are.

I was intrigued by someone suggesting that a return to Victoria is a possibility. Mr McKenna mentioned that. It has been mentioned by some others. That is certainly an approach that is worth a serious discussion across the country. But I would say to the leader of the third party, who advocated it here today, that it is not quite as simple as that. We have to figure out what the opposition is from those provinces that have said no to Victoria and have told us categorically that they will under no circumstances return to it, of which I can tell him there are now two or three. We have to sort out the question of, well, if not that, then what will there be?

There are a number of eyes that glaze over when they hear us talking about amending formulas and about what happened at Victoria and what happened here and what happened at Meech, at Langevin 1 and Langevin 2. It is precisely because of that that the sense is -- and the leader of the third party said so clearly today; he was so right -- for so many people that this is just an inside ball game. Nobody really understands what it is you are talking about. You are not talking about them.

I am here to say to Canadians, let's not get hung up on whatever formula we want to use. It should not require the approval of every single province for us to be able to make constitutional change. At the same time, the interests of regions and the need for us to attempt to find a national consensus before making change is necessary. Beyond that, we ought to have the imagination to find a way out of our current impasse when it comes to questions of formula.

So the question will become, what next? What is going to happen now? We had Allaire. We had the Liberal Party convention. We have Bélanger-Campeau. The question becomes, what is the next step? While it is not possible, I think, for us to delineate exactly what is going to happen, I want to suggest that there are some approaches that we have to take and some realities that we must take into account.

l750

First of all, as I have said already, our committee has to become more specific, has to deal more clearly with other provinces and with other people and has to deal more concretely with the costs and benefits of all the options that are being explored. That is an approach which the committee must take, which the government encourages and which we shall do everything possible to see is happening. I can tell the House that obviously a lot of work has been going on within the government, not just since I took office but indeed before I assumed the role of first minister. There are other groups out there. There are all kinds of study groups that are going on in our universities, in the business community, in the labour world. There is lots of work that is going on in this whole field. There will be no absence of discussion and of information and of sharing of information, and that process will go on for a time.

I intend to meet now more regularly with other premiers. I intend to encourage other premiers to come together, not necessarily all at a time but in groups of two and three at a time, so we can begin to really discuss the elements that will be essential for us to make reform happen. I have already indicated, speaking in French and I will say it again in English, that when I was speaking to Mr Bourassa last night on the telephone, and I say to the people here and elsewhere the relationship that we have is one -- there has been no reluctance on his part to discuss constitutional questions with me as the leader of the government of the province. There has been a great willingness to put forward the views and to talk candidly about what kind of situation we find ourselves in and the need for us to work towards a change. I have invited Mr Bourassa to come to Toronto and Ontario and he has invited me to come to Quebec. We both accepted both invitations and that will be happening very soon.

I have also been discussing these questions with the Prime Minister in terms of what proposals he and the government of Canada has. They are attempting to find a solution to this, and of course there will be discussions with other premiers and with other governments as we meet at this first point in an exploratory way to continue to try to find the common ground which we have to find.

Eventually, however -- and when I say "eventually" I mean before too long -- I believe it will take a constitutional convention, a gathering, certainly made up of legislators from provinces, territories, the House of Commons and native people, and I think that is the least number of people who need to be involved as we attempt to find a genuine national consensus which will then have to go through the legislative process which is set out in our own Constitution.

I must confess that I do not share the enthusiasm for referenda which has been expressed by some. I do not want to make disparaging comments about rolling the dice, but I do want to say that everyone should understand that it is far better for us at this stage to attempt to find this consensus, and to attempt to share information and to try to find a national consensus, through a constitutional convention which has a degree of political responsibility and accountability, which takes into account all the consultations which have taken place.

I must say, as messy as that is and as necessarily loose as that is and as still moving towards consensus as that is and as frustrating as that is, I much prefer that to a process where on a snap question, defined by who, on a snap referendum, established when, we put questions to the people. Let me say to those who think it is a great idea, Mr Gorbachev did not find it was a terrific success when he tried it. Let me say that the last time we tried it in this country was during the Second World War and it proved to be one of the most divisive and difficult exercises that the country had gone through up till that point.

Much has been said about what needs to be done, about our past, about the history, about other first ministers in other governments. I want to make just a couple of personal comments. This issue is as important and real as any that we face as a people, as a government, as a Legislature. The country itself represents so much that is good, so much that is valuable to our sense of our own identity, whether we were born here or came here as immigrants, whether it was our parents or our grandparents or great-grandparents who came to this land, whether this has always been our land, as is the case with our native people.

The Canadian community has always in the face of crisis found sufficient goodwill and, dare I say it, sufficient leadership to allow it to continue. Fate and the electorate have given me the responsibility of leading the province through this time. I can only tell the members of the House that I do not see the Constitution as an issue that is out here or the economy as something that is over there and social policy questions somewhere in between. These questions all come together for me in a very special way and I can tell the members of the House, as I have said before, that I am going to need all the help I can get from other members in helping us to deal with this question. I am going to need the advice and good counsel of those who have been here before, and I intend to rely on that. I do not see this and will never see it as an intensely partisan question.

I can tell members that I spoke to the Prime Minister last night. I hope members of the House will realize that he and I are members of different political persuasions and we have had our differences in the past, but I said to him last night, as I have said to him before, "This government is prepared to use all of its imagination, all of its abilities, all of its goodwill and generosity with all the other governments of Canada to help us remake a new Constitution."

Partisan politics we leave outside. What we bring and what we give to the people is our good judgement, our attempt to build a Constitution by talking candidly and frankly with one another about the choices that are before us. Canada deserves our best efforts today in a way that has not been true for a long time. We desperately need to see this challenge as an opportunity, to convince the people of this province that reform is there for them as well, to convince the people of the province that to recognize the rights of others is to take nothing away from themselves.

Il nous faut dire à la population de la province de Québec que nous sommes avant tout des gens de bonne volonté, des gens qui voient l'avantage profond de notre fédération et qui voient toujours les possibilités d'un nouveau Canada où les droits sont plus clairement exprimés, où les responsabilités sont beaucoup mieux partagées et où les identités différentes et diverses sont profondément reconnues et respectées avec dignité.

If I may conclude, the House has had an opportunity over the last several days and in the middle of extraordinary changes across the country to see the possibility of change and I think also to come to terms, perhaps more suddenly than many had realized, with the implications of the impasse. We believe in a Canada where rights are strengthened and affirmed. We believe in a Canada in which the definition of citizenship, the sense of what we owe each other, is more widely shared and understood. We believe in a Canada which works more efficiently and better, in which powers are newly redistributed because we think we can do it better than now, in which the character and rights of the people and population of Quebec are recognized, as are other collective rights of our aboriginal people, but in which the common thread of citizenship comes through all the time. We see a Canada in which the tasks of economic renewal, of social justice and of nation-building are one and the same. I hope very much that this succeeds. I know that with our best efforts and with the efforts of all the members of the House and all the people of Canada it can and it will.

VISITOR

Mr Kwinter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could I ask for unanimous consent? The Leader of the Opposition alluded to a gentleman who had a great input into the constitutional discussions that took place. He is in the gallery. More important, I would like to ask unanimous consent to express our condolences to him. He is here, unfortunately, because of the death of his mother, who will be buried tomorrow. I just would like to have that on the record.

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Rae: I just want to say on behalf of the government that our thoughts and feelings are with Mr Wells at this moment. I cannot think of anyone who has given more to this province, represented us more effectively in London, and I can only imagine the pride which his mother must have felt all her life for the extraordinary contribution he has made to our public life. Our thoughts and prayers are with Mr Wells today.

Mr Harris: I did not realize Mr Wells is here. I saw him last night, and I thank the member for Wilson Heights for pointing that out and for giving us an opportunity to thank him for his time and effort and service on behalf of this province and this country. As has been pointed out, he is one who would, I think, have enjoyed the discussions today and was heavily involved in these discussions, not throughout all the history the Leader of the Opposition gave us today but through a great deal of it; he did not quite go back that far.

We too extend our sympathies to the family on the reason Mr Wells is here, the passing of his mother.

I meant to ask last night and I still want to ask him: How does Britain function without a written Constitution at all? I mean, we have all these problems in Canada. When he goes back there, maybe he can help us with that.

The Speaker: This concludes consideration of the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation by the House. It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1804.