The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MEMBER’S COMMENT

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I draw to your attention that the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has taken his place. I know you have reviewed the circumstances involving his statement directed towards me in this House. It is my strong feeling, sir, that since you named him yesterday and he withdrew from the House for the remainder of that session, the situation has not been cleared up.

The rules say that accusing another honourable member of uttering a deliberate untruth -- and he called me a liar -- is against the rules and, certainly, against the accepted practice of this House and any civilized group.

The fact that you have, in a form, punished him by expelling him from the House for a few hours may, in the minds of some, be sufficient. But I would bring to your attention, sir, that his statement still rests on the record of this House. I would suggest to you, as moderately but as strongly as I can, that until that statement is withdrawn it is extremely difficult for us in this House to carry on with the business as we should.

There are times in the heat of debate and argument that things are said, whether they’re regrettable or not, but are withdrawn with honour so that the business of the House may progress. The member for Sudbury East has been given two opportunities by you, sir, to do that. He has refused. This, in my view, simply makes the situation more intolerable. I would suggest to you once again, as moderately but as strongly as I can, it is not a question of some sort of punishment for using an unparliamentary word of this type. It is simply a rule that the word may not and must not and, in my view, cannot be allowed to be used in this House without being withdrawn. I put that to you, sir, and it is with some deep and personal concern that I do so.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has placed before the House the sequence of events as I myself recall them. As a result of the events of yesterday afternoon, I looked myself, and I had advisers on parliamentary precedent look into the precedents, having regard for the standing orders of this House and every other jurisdiction upon which we rely for guidance from time to time.

There has been an offence against the standing orders here. I must remind the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk the sanctions that can be imposed by the Speaker are very limited. They’re limited to the powers of suspending a member who has offended, not so much another member in this House but the rules of parliamentary procedure. So, in effect, the House has been offended by what transpired last week and, again, yesterday afternoon.

I have looked for precedents and my advisers have looked for precedents and we have come to the conclusion the Speaker’s authority is restricted to that and one of suspension. That was done within the rules of the House. I suppose all I can say to the honourable member is that since the House itself has been offended, any further action will, in all likelihood, have to come from the House and not the Speaker. The Speaker has done, in my opinion and in the opinion of my advisers, everything that can be done under the existing standing orders, not only in this House, but going back to other precedents. These include Erskine May whom we consider, and have considered for a good length of time around here, the Bible with regard to parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point of order, I would like to make several points, with your indulgence. While I made an accusation, sir, there is a rule in the rule book, standing order 19(d)(9), which says a member cannot impute false or unavowed motives to another member.

I draw your attention to an exchange that occurred in the Legislature. I only want to quote one sentence, with your indulgence. It’s Mr. Nixon speaking: “I wonder if the minister could inform the House, or the members of the resources development committee representing his party, of the urgency and complexity of this matter, because his members” -- and get this; this is the significant part -- “because his members and members of the New Democratic Party have voted to postpone any consideration of this matter by the committee.”

I don’t know how else to say that is not what transpired. It is not even a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of record. All there was on the evening, one week ago Tuesday, was a request to the committee chairman on behalf of this member to rule a motion presented by the Liberal Party out of order. The chairman of the committee ruled, after an hour’s debate, that the matter was out of order. His ruling was challenged. We upheld the chairman’s ruling. We then immediately moved a motion establishing a steering committee in an effort to establish the order of business the resources development committee would deal with.

That was subsequently upheld and they immediately met on Wednesday morning to consider the order of business. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk came in here Thursday afternoon, almost 48 hours later, and said to this Legislature, “because his members and the members of the New Democratic Party have voted to postpone any consideration of this matter by the committee.”

Sir, it’s not what happened. It is not in dispute. That is imputing motives to the party across the House and to this party, that we were trying to obstruct the consideration of a matter which my friends to the right considered important. We too considered it important, and that is why the steering committee met Wednesday morning, 36 hours before my friend raised this matter in the manner in which he did.

I say to you, sir, that I do not get thrown out of this building readily. In 12 years, that was only my second time out. I don’t relish it, I’m sorry.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He almost holds the record.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell you, sir, that I think it’s time the Speaker might look at what transpired there and look to standing order 19(d)(9) to see if our privileges and our integrity have been kicked around, if I can use that term, by our friends to the right.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and to this Legislature, not because of what I said -- I’m sorry, I can’t do that. I apologize because I have made everyone feel uncomfortable; I have broken the great rules this place operates by. But I cannot sit by and accept that we tried to prevent a matter being discussed, and my friends to the right saying they are the only ones who want to look at it. I remind you, sir, that it was this party that fought the great battle of uranium in Elliot Lake and they didn’t join in. We didn’t get involved in that.

I just say that I cannot accept what he said. I will apologize to the House for what I have said, but I will not withdraw my remarks to that member.

Mr. Nixon: With respect, may I just speak briefly, Mr. Speaker? I’m sure you are aware we could have a lengthy, perhaps interesting, debate as to what the importance of the course of events referred to by the member for Sudbury East actually entailed. I don’t intend to involve myself in that at this time at all. There may be another occasion, but I doubt it.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, if you feel that something on my part was imputing motives, then it is obviously up to you to rule on it. It may or may not be brought to your attention by one of the other members. That is entirely your business. Then I will respond, as I see fit when that is brought to my attention.

With respect, I would put to you that what the honourable member has said is completely unsatisfactory at this stage. An apology to the House is one thing, but the business of the House must surely consider the position I find myself in and, really, it is a very difficult position indeed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Speaking to the point of order, I hope I can be relatively objective in that we are not involved in this dispute. I listened to the arguments and I think the member for Sudbury East is correct. It is uncomfortable for all of us in the conduct of the affairs of this House. There are occasions when, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said, we are on occasion provoked into making statements which, on reflection, we perhaps question. I may have done this on occasion myself. I can’t recall any occasion, but I may have done so.

As I understand the rules of the House, a member is entitled to say another member has made a mistake. It is quite proper for the member for Sudbury East to say to the House that in his view the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is in error. This is said to us five days a week and on weekends. I think that is quite proper. I would say with respect and perhaps with some personal urging to the member for Sudbury East that it is one thing to say an honourable member is wrong and that he has made a mistake -- which in this case could be right; I don’t know, I wasn’t at the committee. It is another thing to suggest that he is not telling the truth.

I wonder if in some way the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on reflection perhaps felt he was in error and if he then were to suggest maybe he had made a mistake, and if the member for Sudbury East were then to say, “I made a mistake in suggesting the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was not telling the truth,” to me this would perhaps be a potential resolution to the problem. I would hate to see this hanging over us for the next three or four days.

Mr. Speaker, your interpretation of the rules is correct. I am not sure there is anything further you can do under the precedents of this House or any other parliament. I would be very reluctant to have this become a matter for the House itself to deal with. I am just suggesting that if it is possible for those two honourable members to suggest that maybe one was in error and the other was in error in saying that the other wasn’t telling the truth, because it was in fact an error and not any attempt to tell something other than the truth, we would have perhaps a solution to this problem.

Mr. MacDonald: Before you reply, Mr. Speaker, the Premier’s comments compel me to rise. I have been thrown out of this House only once. Ironically, it was the day after my celebrating my 20th anniversary in the House. It was totally unplanned and I want the House to recall why, because it has a relationship to what has happened here.

I had raised with the then Minister of Agriculture and Food on a number of occasions statements he had made with regard to the bankrupting of BC because of its farm income stabilization plan. I got a letter from the Minister of Agriculture in BC indicating that that simply wasn’t the case. I read the letter in the House. I said to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: “If you continue to repeat that statement across the province of Ontario,” which he had been doing ad nauseam, “it will be tantamount to a lie,” which I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, was totally and wholly a factual statement beyond challenge. It would be tantamount to a lie because I had provided the evidence to show it wasn’t the truth.

I was thrown out of the House because I had used that little dirty word “lie.” I had said it was “tantamount to a lie,” if it continued to be repeated.

I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the parallel that is emerging now. The member for Sudbury East is convinced that what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said was not what happened in the committee. The member for Brant has repeated it, repeated it and repeated it. The member for Sudbury East says a repetition is tantamount to a lie, because it is not what happened in the committee.

Mr. Bolan: With you it’s either black or white.

Mr. MacDonald: There is no black or white. If a statement that is challenged repeatedly and then described as a lie is not the truth, it is a little precious that we in this House should suddenly use the use of the word “lie” as a trigger word and automatically the person is thrown out of the House.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to review what the powers of the Speaker perhaps should be, beyond just naming the member and sending him out if he does not withdraw it, I suggest there has to be some mechanism for examining the validity of the contention.

Mr. Bradley: In other words, we’re all allowed to call each other liars?

Mr. MacDonald: The proposition that a person should be thrown out of this House for describing an untruth as a lie, I repeat, is precious.

Mr. Cunningham: You’ve been here too long.

Mr. MacDonald: When you’ve been around here for a little while, you’ll learn some of the facts.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member for York South has presumed that the definition he would place on a certain word, or how it might be dealt with, has been raised in a way that I think somewhat clouds the issue.

It would appear to me that one of the things a member may not do, as is cited in item (d)10 of rule 19 to which reference has been made, is charge another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood. That is, I believe, simply a statement which every member in this House, all of our guests and those in the galleries understand.

Uttering a deliberate falsehood is lying; if that word is used, it must be withdrawn if we are to have any semblance of continuing order in this House. If that rule is broken, then the matter of using insulting language -- in item 11 -- or speaking disrespectfully of Her Majesty or of others in authority -- in item 12 -- or whatever it may be, will all come apart. We will have lost whatever civility we could hope to have in this House.

It is regrettable, just before the adjournment of what has been a lengthy and certainly a demanding session, that items like this have to come forward to strain the balance of goodwill that exists in the operation of this Legislature.

If I had to accept the view that words once used in that way must not be withdrawn, I for one would be very disappointed in the operation of the Legislature. It would be a disappointment which perhaps is beyond the ability of the Speaker to sit in judgement upon but one which I would hope all members would personally share.

To continue in this impasse is an embarrassment to all of us. If the member for Sudbury East believes, as he quite clearly does, that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was wrong, was in error, was inadvertent in his view of what went on in committee, was inaccurate, whatever it might be, that is fine. But to say that he believes the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk lied -- as he said -- is in my opinion, I regret to say, not an acceptable way of conducting parliamentary practice.

It is not just the use of one word, as the member for York South has said. It is a concept, the acceptance of which is going to be very destructive to the future of the House. I would certainly hope, in what experience I have had in this Legislature, that the member for Sudbury East would withdraw his remarks so the matter could come to an end. Those who wish to write a book on the subject and peruse the details of what was said in Hansard or in committee will be at liberty to do so, but at least the work of the House will be able to continue.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two or three points. One is to remind all of us that the remarks that have been made have been directed to all of us and it is the assembly that is being held somewhat in contempt by the remark of one honourable member but, in fact, it reflects on us all. You indicated, sir, in your ruling that you had looked through Erskine May and the standing orders and found that what had been done yesterday was to the full extent of your authority. But, I would say that you were looking at the precedents, as I understand, and I would draw your attention to page one of the rule book, item 1(b) which states: “In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders, the question shall be decided by the Speaker or chairman and in making his ruling the Speaker or chairman shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition.”

Sir, I have been in the Legislature now for 12 years. There have been many occasions when, in the heat of battle, one honourable member has accused another of deliberately misleading the House or has called someone a liar. It is my own personal recollection that there was not one single occasion during that time, or as far as I have been able to check before that, when such a remark was made that it was not withdrawn by the honourable member at some point or other. I stand to be corrected but certainly in the greatest number of cases, at least, that I can recall, that charge has been withdrawn.

Mr. MacDonald: You are wrong.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I would suggest, sir, that while I may be wrong in one or two isolated incidents, if we accept your ruling, sir, and the member for Sudbury East does not withdraw, we, in fact, are setting an extremely dangerous precedent for the future whereby any honourable member can break the rules, call any other honourable member any particular name, get himself thrown out and return the next day.

I say to you, sir, that I believe this to be an extremely dangerous precedent and one that we should not allow to happen.

Mr. Renwick: I rise with some considerable reluctance but my understanding is that the matter has been now transmuted into a challenge of the ruling of the chair by the Liberal Party. If the member for Kitchener or the member for Rainy River wish to challenge the ruling of the Speaker that the rules of the House have been complied with, will they please say so and not continue to exacerbate the situation. If they want to challenge, there’s a procedure for challenging the ruling of the chair.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If I may, I am not challenging the ruling of the chair --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member --

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- I am only asking that the member for Sudbury East would do the honourable thing.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said and I want to thank all honourable members who have contributed their views and their sentiments on this impasse.

The explanation given by the member for Sudbury East I find doesn’t help me one bit, inasmuch as he bases the reason for his action on something that happened elsewhere, in a committee. It’s not within my purview, as the Speaker, to decide what happened or what did not happen, or to place an interpretation on events and happenings elsewhere.

I don’t think you would want the Speaker to intervene in something that took place in a committee and the problem we are facing now is a difference of opinion between two honourable members of this House about something that happened elsewhere. I hope members appreciate that the chair can’t be, nor would you want it to be, involved in deciding the right or the wrong or the proper interpretation of something that happened elsewhere. So I find that the explanation or the intervention by the member for Sudbury East does not help me one bit.

[10:30]

In the generosity of spirit demonstrated by all honourable members around here almost all of the time, I thought the contribution made by the Premier offered a solution to the problem. We do have differences of opinion. This is the place for airing those opinions. Quite often they are quite divergent, even with the same set of facts. The kind of conclusions drawn from the same set of facts can be diametrically opposed; we appreciate that. But it requires civility, it requires a certain generosity, and the only thing I can do is see that the rules of the House are lived up to.

I can only remind the member for Sudbury East that the rules of this House have been offended and ask if the honourable member does not wish to reconsider, in the interests of having an orderly House, so that we can leave here at one o’clock today, saying, “It was resolved; there was an accommodation made,” and so that we can come back here on Monday, saying, “It is business as usual. We feel a lot better about it.”

Just to repeat what I said earlier: If you wish the chair to intervene any further, these are your rules, they are not mine; I interpret them to the best of my ability. My advisers have concurred that there is nothing I can do at this point, and I have nothing further to say.

Mr. Nixon: If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, you indicated in your comments that you felt the Premier had offered a solution. I listened to the Premier carefully, as I did to the other people who expressed their views. He indicated that perhaps if there were a withdrawal from myself, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, it could be followed by some sort of withdrawal from the member for Sudbury East. I say again, I am prepared to withdraw any terms, sir, that you felt were unparliamentary or incorrect, and I do that without equivocation.

You also said, in your first reference to this, at the time the member for Sudbury East left the House, that we must presume -- and I will tell you, sir, in this particular instance you are, as usual, entirely correct -- that we must presume a member believes he is saying and doing the proper and correct thing at the time. However, the use of the word “liar” is something entirely different. Without feeding that particular fire, I assure you, the member for Sudbury East and all others that if there was some reference in my question or some action in a committee which was incorrect or unparliamentary, I withdraw those comments and apologize for them.

I have already said to you, sir, that having searched my mind and not being brought to order for imputing motives or any other matter, I am and was satisfied that those positions were correct. But if I have offended an individual, then certainly I do not want that offence to continue, because I agree with my colleagues who have indicated clearly the business of this House will otherwise either disintegrate or begin to disintegrate.

How can House leaders consider the business of the House in the future, how can we meet with the special committee of the election expenses group to consider these matters, when one member has said another is a liar and will not withdraw it? Surely your advice to us all to settle this -- and this was probably our last opportunity so to do -- must not be allowed to slip past.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern that originally provoked this matter on behalf of the member for Sudbury East, and that is that we were finding great difficulty in working out a means by which we could bring to the attention of the House, and get corrected, information which was wrong or incorrect. If I hear the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk correctly, he is now saying that the information he gave to the House was wrong and he is prepared to withdraw that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not what I heard and I am sure that is not what the honourable member intended to say.

If members are going to make any reference to anything that happened outside the House, I must reiterate it is not within my purview to settle it. I hope members will restrict their remarks to the thing that is distressing the House here this morning, as opposed to something that happened elsewhere.

Mr. Cassidy: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the House the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk made reference to what had happened within the committee. He has just said if there was anything he said in the House which was incorrect or unparliamentary, he is prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. MacDonald: And he imputed motives.

Mr. Cassidy: When I said just now does that mean he is prepared to say he was wrong, there was a great uproar on behalf of the members of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s because you didn’t understand.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems to me, as the Premier has suggested, if the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is prepared to correct a statement he made in the House last week, which started all this off --

An hon. member: Either you can call a member a liar or you can’t. That’s the question, right there.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and to state that it was incorrect, at that point he opens the door for my colleague from Sudbury East to also clear this matter and allow us to get on with the regular business of the House. I call on the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to proceed with what he appeared to offer to do just a minute ago.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my statement is clear. You are the person who is the judge. There really can be only one other speaker and that is the member for Sudbury East. If he does not choose to speak, I would suggest we proceed with our business.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Come on Elie; just say he was wrong.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the Premier and I have listened carefully to my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and the thing that disturbs me and that I ask you to look to, is item 9. I am not asking you to look at what transpired outside but what was said in this Legislature. What was said in this Legislature is what I consider to be erroneous. That is, “because his members and the members of the New Democratic Party have voted to postpone any consideration of this matter.” That was said in the Legislature, and that did not happen.

Mr. Rotenberg: Say he’s in error.

Mr. Martel: How do you expect me to withdraw? It was very deliberate; he was in the committee with us.

Hon. W. Newman: Be a man for a change; try and be a man.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I would prefer to be kicked out every day than to withdraw --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said I cannot, nor will I, discuss anything or place an interpretation on what was done or said elsewhere, or place an interpretation in this House of something that was done elsewhere. There is nothing more I can do. Any other action will have to be taken by others than this chair.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Roy: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: My point of privilege involves the question I raised on Tuesday last with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). She will recall I asked about the position taken by the four school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area pertaining to the creation of her French-language board.

Reporting on the discussions that had taken place, the Ottawa Citizen quotes the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) as having said, “The only reason the four boards in Ottawa-Carleton voted in favour of a French board was that French-language education is a nuisance.” He went on to say, “Their motives for wanting a French board are not altruistic; they just want to get rid of French-language education.”

I checked with the chairmen of the four boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area and all four chairmen deny these statements, saying they are complete fabrication. They say the statements by the member for Carleton are untrue.

Having made these statements, I think it important that the member for Carleton know that such statements are an insult not only to the members of the board, but also to the parents and children -- French- and English-speaking -- in the Ottawa-Carleton area who are involved in this program. I would think the member should apologize to the members of the board, as such statements are an embarrassment to all of us, including, I am sure, the members of his own party.

In these circumstances I think if the member has any honour he should withdraw and apologize to the members of the board. Otherwise, I think he is really raising questions about his ability to represent one of the Ottawa-Carleton ridings.

Mr. Speaker: It is usually customary when a member has something of that nature where he calls into question a statement by another member, to do that member the courtesy of withholding comment until he is present, so we may get both sides of the situation. There is nothing the chair can do under these circumstances.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DISCOUNT PRACTICES

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with your request yesterday, I have an answer to a question which is rather lengthy, so I will do it as a ministerial statement.

The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) asked me two questions about two weeks ago and I would like to answer them. He has referred to press reports concerning the inquiry into discounts and allowances.

As I have already indicated, staff of my ministry are attending the royal commission hearings and if it appears that any of my ministry’s regulations are being broken, appropriate action will be taken. The apple commission was notified by the Farm Products Marketing Board immediately of the gist of Mr. Warnock’s comments at the inquiry. Later, the actual transcript of the comments made by Mr. Warnock, president of M. Loeb Limited, was forwarded to the apple commission for formal comment.

I will be receiving a report from the Farm Products Marketing Board as soon as the board hears from the apple commission. Apparently there was some delay in getting the full transcript, and this has now been looked after.

The member raised a supplementary question concerning the sale of juice apples by apple packers. I am sure the member is aware that for the sale of fresh apples to packers, growers make their own contracts with the packers. The terms and conditions of a contract are strictly between the buyer and seller. The commission is not involved in the arrangements being made. The contract is for the sale of fresh apples and any apples culled are a byproduct.

Culling is an expense to the packer. The price recovered from apples sold for juice will often do no more than offset the expense of handling. If a grower believes he should receive compensation for culled apples, it is his responsibility to make such arrangements with the packer at the time of contracting. Most if not all growers are aware of this part of their contract with packers.

The apple commission, including directors and committeemen, met recently and decided against changing the present method of contracting. There have been no direct complaints to the apple commission from producers, or raised by directors to the commission. The Farm Products Marketing Board has received no complaints.

However, the commission will be holding local meetings in each of the districts prior to its annual meeting in July. If the member believes other growers share his concern, he should raise it at these meetings with the producer-directors of the apple commission.

Marketing boards are set up and run by producers in a democratic framework. If producers, like the member for Kent-Elgin, believe changes are necessary, it is within their power to make them. So far, apple producers apparently do not feel the need for the changes the member for Kent-Elgin would seem to suggest.

VALENTYN MOROZ

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House because of the other issue that took some time, I thought I would presume to make a brief observation and introduce a very distinguished person to the members of this House.

[10:45]

I think we in our own province and throughout Canada really do cherish our freedoms and the opportunities they provide to us, both for ourselves and for our families to grow and to realize our goals and potential. I think that is why we can all feel sympathy and concern for the millions of people behind the Iron Curtain and elsewhere where freedom of assembly, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion and freedom to dissent are really mere illusions which are betrayed in day-to-day oppression and lack of respect for human dignity. That is why we all understand and hold great respect for those very noble individuals whose humanity and love of freedom and dedication to human dignity transcend everything else.

In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, we are honoured with the presence of such a man. Valentyn Moroz is a symbol of freedom, civility and dedication. Recently released from the Soviet Union, Mr. Moroz is visiting our country to thank the thousands of Canadians who worked in so many ways to help bring about his release from the Soviet Union and the prisons he knew and endured for so many years.

He is a constant reminder of the importance of public pressure, pressure to secure and advance international human rights. He is also a reminder to all of us of the need for constant vigilance to preserve the freedoms which we in this particular country enjoy and perhaps too often take for granted. As long as the human rights of individuals are threatened anywhere in our world, and as long as the cultural, the religious and political freedoms of any human being are constrained, then the freedom of all of us to live in freedom and dignity is jeopardized.

Valentyn Moroz is a man who has placed human dignity above everything else, including his personal safety. The Ukrainian community of Ontario is especially proud of his efforts, but I know that all Ontarians join the members of this Legislature today in extending a very warm welcome to our distinguished guest.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a few remarks on this occasion and in respect to this hero, this fighter for freedom of people throughout the world, I would like to address some in his native language.

(Translation:)

As Leader of the Opposition and the Ontario Liberal Party, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I welcome you, Mr. Moroz, to our province and to the free world.

(End of translation.)

I want to say that today is a very important day in my life because of the visit of Valentyn Moroz. This is a man who has spent a third of his life in the most dreadful of Soviet prisons for no crime other than to be a historian who believes in the nationality of the Ukraine and who believes that people should be free to express their view of history and should be free to tell their fellow citizens of their origins and their past and to help them aspire to a free future.

He has been treated to the worst indignities imaginable. He has been sent to the Worst prisons in the Soviet Union. Psychiatrists acting in the employ of the state have been used to try to create a form of imprisonment under the guise of treatment or diagnosis, and yet he has survived, and his spirit has survived. The efforts of people throughout the world to secure his freedom have finally paid dividends.

Everyone is honoured by having in our presence a man who has suffered more than any of us have ever suffered or should ever have to suffer. He has done so for us, not just for the people of Ukraine, but for everyone who believes in dignity and in freedom. We are greatly honoured, every one of us, that he should be with us. I think we should pay tribute to those hundreds of thousands of people of Ukrainian origin and of all other origins who fought so hard for his release.

(Translation:)

I wish you every success, Mr. Moroz, in your difficult task, but may we both live to see a free Ukraine.

Long live Ukraine.

(End of translation.)

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, in one of Canada’s other non-official languages, I want to say:

(Translation:)

Valentyn Moroz, I was appointed by the leader of my party (Mr. Cassidy) and my colleagues to welcome you to the Ontario Legislature.

We have 125 members and three political parties, which do not on occasion agree with each other. Despite that, this parliamentary institute stands and works, and democracy works.

I know and all other people who are members of the Legislative Assembly know about your life under oppression. We also know how you fought for the Ukrainian people and how you have suffered for that under the Soviet authorities. At the time when you were locked up, my colleague, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) and other members were sending telegrams to the Soviet authorities demanding your freedom. We are very happy, therefore, that you were able to come to Canada and be with us today.

Finally, I and all the other members of the Legislature wish to extend to you best wishes in all your endeavours in your life.

(End of translation.)

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this Legislature and a Canadian of Ukrainian heritage, I’m very pleased to join with our Premier and the opposition parties this morning in welcoming our distinguished guest, Mr. Valentyn Moroz, in the Ukrainian language.

(Translation:)

Mr. Moroz, as a Ukrainian member of the government of Ontario it is a great pleasure to welcome you to the great, free land of Canada.

We of Canadian-Ukrainian heritage cannot express in mere words our feelings to you for the amount of pain and suffering you experienced for the rights and liberties you believed in and the cause for which you would not give up.

We are very happy that you were freed from the clutch of Moscow and that you are now here in this country. Our prayers to God go with you in the undertaking of your great work to further the cause of all the Ukrainian people.

We with the best for your wife and daughter and hope you will soon be reunited with them. May the good Lord bless you.

(End of translation.)

ORAL QUESTIONS

HANDICAPPED PERSONS’ RIGHTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, if I might just have her attention for a moment.

In Hamilton, there is a young lady by the name of Emily Seigel who has multiple sclerosis and has worked as a secretary-bookkeeper with a particular store. She has just been fired, and it’s her contention that she was still quite able to do her job. She wants to know what recourse she has, to whom she might appeal to indicate the fact that she is capable of doing the job and to rule on whether or not she has suffered discrimination.

This is a case very similar to that of Mr. Morrissey, the diabetic teacher who was refused employment in Sudbury, I believe, and the case of the truck driver which, of course, comes under a different act that I discussed with the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

What shall I tell Mrs. Seigel? Is there any recourse? How can it be that in the province of Ontario, two years after the model Ontario human Rights Code was propagated here and brought to our attention there appears to be no legal recourse for a person of this kind?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable member, I am as indignant as he is to find that in this day and age there is not that degree of understanding amongst those who do employ handicapped people. Of course, there is the recourse to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but I would like to take this on in a very personal way. If the information can be directed to me I will certainly see what can be done to ensure that this kind of thing will not continue to happen to those people who suffer any degree of disability.

Mr. S. Smith: Recognizing the humanitarian concern of the minister, is she unaware that the human rights commission has no standing in matters of this kind because, in this day and age, her government has still not brought forward the amendments to the Human Rights Code promised for years now which would give the human rights commission some reason to look into these matters and some power to compel that the person be rehired in an instance where it turned out that the person was discriminated against?

Why must we wait in the cases of both Mr. Morrissey and Mrs. Seigel? Why must we wait any longer in Ontario before debating amendments to the human rights code in this House which would make it absolutely illegal to discriminate against a person based on a handicap when that handicap has nothing to do with the ability to perform a given job?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think we’re all eagerly awaiting that day when it is enshrined in the human rights code that, indeed, there will be no discrimination against any handicapped person in this province.

Mr. Warner: Bring in the amendment. It’s the minister’s job to bring it in.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As the member knows, the ministry is considering recommendations and, hopefully, they will be brought forward in the very near future.

Mr. Warner: The minister sounds like a member of the opposition.

Mr. McClellan: The minister says, “In the near future.” Mr. Speaker, we had the report Living Together, I think, two years ago. Let me ask the minister to give the members a simple and unequivocal commitment here today that the very first piece of business in the fall session will be the amendments to the human rights code which have been promised, and promised and promised and never delivered?

Mr. S. Smith: Why wait until then? What about bringing them in on Monday?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows I’m in no position to give any such commitment.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the reference, may I redirect a supplementary to the Minister of Education?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Does she intend to take any action with respect to the decision concerning Richard Morrissey given that a school board and a teaching position are involved?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, as a result of attempts to investigate this matter, that the school board itself has not dealt with the problem at this point. It will lie dealt with by the board at its first meeting next week. This has been a personnel policy established by the personnel staff of the board and it has not been, in fact, addressed by the board itself. It will be, I think, on Tuesday of next week.

We have asked for further information about the problems which, apparently, this young man is having in terms of whether there is any reason to suspect that the potential problems with his vision, and which I gather was the matter concerning the personnel officers most acutely, could or would impede his capacity as a teacher.

[11:00]

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I would like to redirect the question asked of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development to the Premier. Will the Premier undertake that either now or as the first piece of business in the fall, we will have before us the amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code for which we have been waiting for two years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of redirecting going on this morning.

Mr. di Santo: But no commitments.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Provincial Secretary for Social Development has already answered that question.

Mr. Warner: Yes, she’ll do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She didn’t say that.

Mr. Warner: But she will do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought the member would have learned a little something from some of the discussions earlier today; I thought perhaps he might have learned something from the things that were said.

Mr. Warner: I learned a lot. I learned that you won’t do anything to amend the human rights code.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t say to me that the provincial secretary said nothing, because that is not what she said.

Mr. Warner: She will do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She did not say that.

Mr. Warner: She did not make a commitment to bring in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere just be quiet?

Mr. Warner: “Be quiet” is better than “resign.”

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Resign.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This question really had been asked previously as well, if memory serves me correctly. The very excellent document that was read to members of this House a short period of time ago contained references to proposed amendments.

Mr. McClellan: An historic document. We remember it well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Those amendments will be forthcoming.

Mr. Warner: When?

GM SETTLEMENTS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, stemming from his comments regarding the General Motors of Canada Limited engine matter and how this minister certainly wasn’t “going to sell the consumer down the river,” and so on and so forth. He may not have sold consumers down the river, but he has left them precious little with which to paddle.

May I ask the minister why it is he prefers to have the individual consumers clog the courts with 1,100 individual law suits and why they should have to go through the expensive, difficult and costly process of taking on this giant corporation one person at a time? Why has the minister not instead instructed his director to take action against the company to obtain restitution on a mass scale for all those who have purchased these engines under false pretences? Why has he not speeded up the class action matter in Ontario, given the fact that would be by far the best way to proceed and yet he knows no substantive class action has ever won in Ontario because of the fact it is so difficult to proceed under the present rules?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I must inform the Leader of the Opposition he is badly mistaken. There is a rather substantial case which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ontario. His Lordship, Mr. Justice Dubin, was one of the justices in the Firenza case, and the court certainly did exactly what the member said it didn’t do. I commend that case to the member.

Mr. S. Smith: I know the case very well.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Why would you say a thing like that, if you know the case very well?

To come back to the original question, the member might bear in mind that the 10 Attorneys General of Canada -- each provincial Attorney General -- discussed this matter and had a common position. They were all being asked to sign this immunity from any action for General Motors. At that time the financial end of the matter was being negotiated by my director, but notwithstanding that, the Ministry of the Attorney General had the overall direction. That’s why we didn’t enter into things.

In terms of what we may do in the future: The member may have put his finger on what I may or may not do. I will tell the member this. We are not going to get into the same situation as the United States, where New York state peddled early for a very minor amount and then some other states came along and peddled for a higher amount. I believe California is now in exactly the same position as we are.

With regard to the remarks I made yesterday about the individual owner, all I am saying is that the individual person who bought such a car, notwithstanding what we have done to this point and notwithstanding what we may do in the future, is in no way precluded from taking any action whatsoever. He may decide that the compensation being offered by General Motors is not sufficient. Indeed, we are very concerned.

What happened to the person who had to have that Chevrolet engine in the Oldsmobile car constantly repaired? Who is going to pay for that? The remainder of 36,000 miles isn’t going to pay for it.

So there are a great many areas. In no way, shape or form are we suggesting that each one of these people go into the courts.

The member is quite right; it would clog them up. But if they want to, surely the Leader of the Opposition isn’t suggesting to me or to my colleague the Attorney General that we preclude them from doing it. We can’t.

By the same token we are not going to give General Motors of Canada immunity from trying to peddle a no-name car under the name of Oldsmobile, Buick or Pontiac.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, of course General Motors should not be given immunity. But why stop there? Why doesn’t the minister protect the 1,100 owners by taking action such as he says I might have put my finger on -- I am not sure what he means by that. Why doesn’t he have his director take action on their behalf to obtain restitution?

Second, why does he not speed the matter which was referred, I believe, from the Attorney General to the Law Reform Commission -- the matter of improving the possibility of class action in Ontario? Surely he is not satisfied with the present situation which, according to Professor Jacob Ziegel, the consumer law expert, has never succeeded on a substantive basis in Ontario. Why does he not speed that matter so that the 1,100 people who have those engines will be able to take action as a unit rather than one at a time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I thought I explained that. First of all, until very recent times, the Attorneys General of the 10 provinces had a common front. They were handling the matter. I said we were negotiating and dealing with General Motors on the economic side

-- I will say it for the third time -- because the Attorneys General of the 10 provinces of Canada were deciding a common approach against General Motors on the issue.

In terms of class actions, I don’t buy Ziegel any more than I buy a lot of people. But I would also suggest the matter of class actions for people or consumers in general is a matter for the Ministry of the Attorney General, not for this ministry. I don’t think the honourable member is suggesting I can change the law.

To put it very clearly, and I hope this meets the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition, neither I nor my director of business practices is satisfied with the offer of compensation General Motors has made. We do not think it meets the needs of the 1,100 people we know of. The Attorney General, even this morning, has informed me that under no circumstances will he, as Attorney General, ever sign that document. Under no circumstances will I ever sign a secondary release, and finally under no circumstances will the Attorney General, in his capacity as Solicitor General, sign that document.

What that means is General Motors had better come in to see me and see that what they are going to do for those people is acceptable. If they don’t come in, we will do something that will get pretty swift justice for the 1,100 people.

Mr. S. Smith: What? What are you going to do?

Hon. Mr. Drea: You knew that before you asked the question.

Mr. Renwick: Would the minister clarify for the House the nature of the grant of immunity General Motors has requested, apart altogether from the civil aspect of it? Is this an intrusion into our jurisdiction of the American practice of a grant of immunity from prosecution, both criminal and quasi-criminal, that was asked for? Would the minister, or his colleague at the minister’s request, table the form of the document setting out the immunity that is requested so we can look into the matter?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not a solicitor, but they have asked for three things: one of the releases I would have to sign is that we would never investigate; second, the Attorney General has to promise in the bulk of his release no criminal or quasi-criminal prosecutions, and then in the last paragraph it says no civil --

An hon. member: This is blackmail -- nothing but blackmail.

Mr. S. Smith: You can’t assure that anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order, just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is what I said yesterday. That is what they have suggested -- not only suggested; it has been typed and sent to us. As a matter of fact, they don’t even give this minister his right title. They treat the whole matter with an air of aloofness. It is sent to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because they presume this is the title used by most ministers across Canada, so we can fill in the blanks.

I presumed somebody might very well want these documents tabled. The Attorney General, I understand, released certain correspondence yesterday. There is a letter of March 23, 1979, from General Motors of Canada directed to both myself and the Attorney General which sets out the proposal in detail. Incidentally, it comes from a gentleman who calls himself their director of government relations.

Then there is the “Minister of Consumer Affairs” document and another document from the Attorney General to fill in the blanks. There’s another one for the owner and there’s the final release. Would that be sufficient for what the honourable member wants?

Mr. Renwick: For the time being that would be quite adequate. I think it probably would answer my question.

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism which relates to the government’s buy-Canadian policy and relates in particular to what the minister told me back on May 31, when he said, “If you have evidence to the contrary,” that the 10 per cent procurement policy has been violated, “I would like to receive it.”

I have now had a chance to look at a submission by Canadian Applied Technology with reference to the rejection of their tender for the Nanticoke equipment which was raised in the Legislature yesterday. They point out specifically that their project was 82 per cent Canadian content compared to 30 per cent for the project that came from Texas. They point out specifically that the evaluation committee which rejected their submission on technical grounds made a visit to Radian in Texas, a company that had not done business in Canada with the ministry before.

Mr. Speaker: Could the honourable member frame his remarks in the form of a question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I’m just concluding, Mr. Speaker. The committee did not even visit the Canadian company to assess its technical competence. In view of that gross oversight by the technical evaluators, and in view of the policy the minister enunciated in this House, and it has been enunciated before, will the Minister of Industry and Tourism intervene in order to ensure this particular tender is called again so the Canadian company can get a fair chance to get that contract and build up its ability to serve the Canadian market for pollution control equipment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say to the leader of the third party that I know he’s very concerned in this matter, as indeed am I. I had the opportunity to go back and look at the file in some depth yesterday, or at least a portion of the file that related to my ministry’s efforts, which were quite extensive I might add, to ensure the interests of that company were protected. I might say, having gone through that file I think I could do a fairly adequate job in assuring the House and making it easier for me to assure the House our Shop Canadian program is in place.

However, if I were to do that, I must say to the leader of third party that in order to give an effective defence of the decision made, it would probably not be in the best interests of the Canadian company to go into extensive detail as to some of the severe reservations the government had in making that decision. In that spirit, I would be pleased to make available on a totally confidential basis to both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party, most of the information we have at hand, or at least that portion which is not confidential from the company. Then he might make his own judgement at that time, as to the extent to which he wants to debate certain of the conclusions reached on the floor of this assembly.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Rather than trying to bring the leader of the opposition and myself into his confidence, in view of the questions raised and in view of clear indications the buy-Canadian policy of the government has been forgotten in this particular case, why will the minister not agree to get the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) to call the tender again to ensure that the technical competence of this company is evaluated by a direct visit rather than by just looking at some documents, and to ensure that Canadian suppliers in the pollution control industry are not permanently shut out by ministry policies in violation, in fact, of recommendations that have been made in reports to the government as recently as last fall?

[11:15]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say that I am quite satisfied that every appropriate opportunity has been given to that particular company to try to convince the persons making the decision in this government, all of whom were unanimous, that its product met all the standards required by the ministry. That included visits by an evaluation and selection committee to represent a cross-section of the relevant discipline. The membership was as follows: a representative of the Ministry of Government Services, computer services division; a representative of Environment Canada; and three representatives of the air resources branch of the Ministry of the Environment. Further work was done; I have several pages outlining the process, which involved extensive senior staff participation of my ministry. The final conclusion, which was unanimous, was the one that was made: for very good technical reasons, the firm Radian should be awarded the contract.

I only want to repeat to the member that every opportunity was given to the company to come in and make its representations. The company did that. It had several meetings. It clearly did not go away satisfied -- but every effort has been made to satisfy our staff that the company had a chance to present its case. Indeed, it was incumbent upon us and the Ministry of the Environment to check out the operation of Radian, with which they were not that familiar, and so they made an on-site visit there.

Again, before the leader of the third party suggests that we reopen the bidding, I have to say to him that if there were evidence it was not carefully scrutinized, then that might be appropriate. I might also say to him that I am not trying to take him into my confidence in a large way, but I think I do trust him enough to give him some details with regard to the reservations that the technical experts had about the proposal of this company. If he does not want that information, I will not send it over, but I think he should see it before he pursues this matter a heck of a lot farther. He may conclude that pursuing this a heck of a lot farther on the floor of the assembly may not be in the best interests of the company. He may conclude they are, but he may conclude they are not. Perhaps he will wait until he gets that information.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: The minister has referred to a unanimous decision. Is he aware that it is the company’s view that it was told by officials of the Ministry of the Environment, after the bidding went in favour of the Texas company, that its system was adequate to do the job, its bid was the lowest and its references from previous contracts were as good as those of the winning bid? That was a direct quotation from these people.

Given that, would the minister not agree that the company ought to have the right to decide whether the matter should be made public? The minister has made a sort of veiled threat that it would hurt the company’s interests if all these matters were to be made public; that the company would not like it. Why should the company not decide? If the company decides that it should be made public, will the minister make public the reasons for accepting the bid of the Texas company rather than that of the Canadian company, instead of leaving the company sort of accused of having something dreadfully wrong with it but having no opportunity to hear what it is and to answer it publicly?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that the company has had every opportunity to hear what the reservations were. It had every opportunity to meet those reservations. It knows very well, and to the last detail, the reasons given by staff. It was told all of the reasons given for rejecting its proposal; so the company has all that information.

If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take up with the company the reasons it was given and come back here Monday or Tuesday and raise with the Minister of the Environment and/or myself the validity of those reasons -- which the company has already -- then he may feel free to do that. I was just assisting him in obtaining that information.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the first question: How can the minister say there is no evidence that the government has violated the procurement policy and the 10 per cent factor when we know that Microfilm Recording Company Limited, a wholly Canadian-owned company, has been able to sell its readers to only three ministries after putting pressure on the Premier, and when the president of the company, Mr. Pickett, says his company’s readers are much lower in price than the American readers that the government is buying right now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, the member is expanding the entire question to certain other proposals, which he hasn’t even specified, made by one particular company which alleges it should have got a contract under the procurement policy. I can really only repeat that the fact that a company bids on a project and the fact that it is the lowest bidder and the fact that it is Canadian is not the entire story.

Obviously there are questions of suitability and quality that come into play, and I know the member would be criticizing this government, quite properly, if machines were purchased or facilities purchased which didn’t suit the particular project in mind. If the member has any specifics I wish he would send them over and I would be pleased to take them up with my colleagues.

MEMBER’S COMMENT

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of personal privilege with respect to what transpired this morning and in the last couple of days. I want to make just one point, Mr. Speaker. I want to make the point that I think what my friend, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), said in the Legislature the other day was totally -- was factually incorrect, let me put it that way, inaccurate, and I think wrong, but out of consideration for all of my colleagues in this House I want to withdraw the use of the word “liar.”

TEACHER LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister must be aware of the very large number of layoffs of teachers across the province as a result of the cutbacks policy which has been decreed by the Ontario government, such as the layoff of 214 elementary teachers and 181 secondary school teachers in the North York Board of Education. Does the minister not agree that the quality of education in this province is being undermined by the cutbacks which are being imposed because of this government’s policies?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not simply a matter of restraint in the area of funding of education; it is a very real matter of declining enrolment, a matter which is of concern to both boards and to the teaching federations.

The statement that the cutbacks in teacher employment are the direct result of only one of those problems is not factually correct. Boards are, of course, having to look at the way in which they staff the programs for which they are responsible, and in most instances I believe that most boards are doing this quite responsibly.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: If I can be quite specific about the Bathurst Heights Secondary School in the borough of North York, where the enrolment is dropping by 10 per cent --

Mr. Rotenberg: The city of North York.

Mr. Cassidy: -- from last September, but where 21 out of the 85 teachers on the staff are being laid off, effective in September, and that is a quarter of the teachers; where 17 regular courses are being discontinued in September, including history, geography and art in grade 13, politics in grade 12, business organization, basic auto mechanics and grade 10 Italian; where the number of students in each science class will go from 25 this year to 36 pupils per class in September, and where 10 of the English-as-a-second-language programs are to be cancelled because of this reduction in teachers, does the minister not agree with me that in the case of that particular secondary school the quality of education for those 1,050 students will be seriously undermined because of this government’s cutbacks?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would think that the decisions which have been taken by the board, if those are the final decisions which the member is reporting -- and I am not at all sure that they are, because I have not had any such information from the North York board -- are probably based upon sound and factual information, upon the requests for programs, upon the requirements of the students within the area, and I think that they have probably been taken with due consideration of all matters that need to be examined.

Mr. Rotenberg: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre referred to the borough of North York. I would point out to him it is now the city of North York.

Mr. Speaker: That is really not a point of order.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Education keep any kind of record of the school boards across the province -- the Ontario Teachers’ Federation has identified two or three of them -- which are reducing their staffs at a considerably higher level than the number of students is declining? There are cases where there is, for example, a four per cent reduction in students and an eight or nine per cent reduction in teachers. Is any record of that being kept?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware the projections which are made are just that -- they are projections. The final decisions regarding the staffing patterns will not be made until later in the summer when the enrolment is more clearly available to the boards, the requests for courses and programs within the schools have been established a bit more clearly, and the boards know how much flexibility they have in terms of providing the appropriate numbers of teachers for the programs which are required.

That information will be available to us when the boards provide it to us. What is being said right now is that they are projecting what they may be doing.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister monitoring it now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That will not be factual information until the end of the summer.

Mr. Cassidy: No, the decisions are being made now and they won’t be reversed.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would remind the leader of the third party, the final decisions about staffing and program in North York have not been made at this time.

Mr. Grande: Final supplementary: Does the minister agree that the needs of children in this province at this time -- in terms of special education and English as a second language -- are not going to be met in September in the light of the firing of the teachers that is taking place at this time?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the special needs of children specifically, if one is a member of a school board, and if one attempts to make decisions based upon the needs of the children, then I think the right decisions will he made. I think that is what most boards are attempting to do --

Mr. Cassidy: No, because of your cutbacks. Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- as a result of the activities which they have been carrying out. Mr. Grande: Who is responsible for education in this province?

ABSENCE OF MINISTERS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I want to defer to one of my colleagues but first, I know, for instance, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is here and possibly some of the other ministers but they are inside the lobby. I would suggest a message be sent to them that we have some questions. I defer to my colleague from Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan).

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I might, several of my colleagues are with Mr. Moroz. I see the Premier (Mr. Davis) has returned so I suspect they will be back very shortly.

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, perhaps I might complete the record: I am reminded by someone back here that I failed to address one very important part of the leader of the third party’s questions with regard to whether or not anyone visited the Canadian Applied Technology facilities. I wanted to correct that; I forgot that part of the question.

Those facilities were visited three times by Ministry of the Environment staff and Ministry of Government Services staff both before and during the tendering process. All of their products were seen, both in preparation and under test prior to delivery. So the site was visited on three occasions.

FOREIGN PURCHASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: In his recent investigation of the foreign land sales in Kent county and in Huron county he presented a figure showing a percentage of land that is held by foreigners. But I would suggest to him that a more meaningful figure is the percentage of recent sales that have gone to foreign owners. I would ask if the minister would investigate this aspect of it.

[11:30]

Hon. W. Newman: We did do figures in 1976. We updated those figures to about a month ago. The report is being written and I will be glad to table it in the House, next week hopefully, so that all can see it. I also know there is some concern which was brought to my attention yesterday by an honourable member who feels there might be somebody looking at buying considerable quantities of land. We hope to look into that also next week as soon as we can contact the person. We are watching it very carefully on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary. Does the minister not realize that when our land is bought in this manner, excessive prices are paid for the land and that therefore makes it very difficult for our own citizens to buy land due to the new value established. Why doesn’t he make a firm commitment to the people of Ontario that he is not going to allow the wholesale sale of our very important resource, our farm land, to people outside of our borders? Why doesn’t he make a commitment and a statement to the people of Ontario instead of being wishy-washy on this most important issue?

Mr. Warner: Make it part of the buy-Canadian program.

Mr. Riddell: You’re selling out Ontario by selling farm land.

Hon. W. Newman: It is great how things can get blown out of all proportion by references to wholesale selling off of the province of Ontario’s agricultural land. We have done a study, and when it comes out it will show that less than one per cent of land has foreign addresses -- not necessarily foreign owned. A lot of people from Canada could be living outside of the country and still own the land here. Just keep that in mind because that will be in the report.

Mr. Mancini: The study will show it’s all sold.

Hon. W. Newman: The member talks about the excessive prices they are paying for land. When the report comes out, it will show that anybody who is buying land is paying approximately the same prices as the Ontario farmers are paying for the land they are buying. Not only that, we have a 20 per cent land transfer tax in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some members opposite were opposed to that.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, they were opposed to it.

Interjections.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I just make the point that it is not what has happened; it revolves around what is about to happen in this province. I cite as an example --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, I have a question and I will put it very rapidly.

Since a major real estate firm has indicated that 30 out of 33 potential buyers were German buyers interested in buying farm land, since 500 to 600 acres have recently been sold to foreign buyers in the Collingwood area, and since 300 to 400 acres have recently been sold in the Simcoe area to German purchasers, does the minister not feel that this is rapidly developing into a major problem in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: For many years land has changed hands and people from other countries have bought land here. A lot of Canadians have bought land in other countries too across the world.

Mr. Gaunt: But not farm land.

Hon. W. Newman: There is a reciprocal arrangement between Ontario and the northern United States because they do buy farm land back and forth there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Canadians buy land in the south.

Hon. W. Newman: I suggested during my estimates, and I said it before, that I want somebody to come forward and give me evidence that this was actually happening or about to happen.

Mr. Gaunt: I have just given it to the minister.

Hon. W. Newman: This member did. He gave me the name of a real estate firm yesterday which we are trying to contact so that I can personally talk to them next week.

Mr. Gaunt: He wants to talk to you.

Hon. W. Newman: I want to talk to him too. We are trying to arrange a meeting. There has been a lot of talk going on, and our figures do not prove there’s any major problem.

COLLEGE DAY-CARE CENTRES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. I want to ask the minister if he shares my concern and the concern of my colleague --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He?

Mr. Martel: You said “he shares.”

Mr. McClellan: She. I said “she.” I couldn’t possibly say that.

An hon. member: Could there be any confusion in anyone’s mind?

Mr. McClellan: I want to ask her if she is concerned at the decision taken by the board of governors of Seneca College to close their day-care centres at both the Finch and the King campuses. If she has that concern, will she undertake to meet as quickly as possible with the president and governors of Seneca College and ask them if they will review their priorities, firstly, in an attempt to keep that day-care facility open, and secondly, as to whether there are some resources the ministry can provide to Seneca to enable this excellent facility to remain open?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have communicated with the president of Seneca College about this matter and was informed that as a result of an arrangement which Seneca was able to make with York University it did, at very low cost in terms of the provision of the program, decide to rent space at York in order to accommodate all of the students within the early childhood education program. The benefit of that being at York is that there are other programs which could be both complementary and supplementary to the early childhood education program for Seneca students.

At the same time, I was informed that York itself has a day-care centre -- within this complex at York -- which will provide the direct clinical experience, I suppose one might call it, for the students.

The decision taken by Seneca board at this point, I gather, was on the basis of the fact that they required more space at the Finch campus in order to accommodate more students in other areas. It was only by transferring an entire program --

Mr. McClellan: It’s a question of priorities.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- that they were able to accomplish this.

Mr. McClellan: Dubious priorities.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In actual fact, out of its own operating budget last year, Seneca spent approximately $100,000 in support of the day-care centre. Although there is a fee paid by those parents whose children are in the centre, that does not begin to cover the cost of providing the service. Seneca simply felt that unless it could extract that amount of funding from some other source it would not be possible to carry on with the centre.

The centre which they have established at the Finch campus is an excellent facility. It has provided an important service for the parents in the area of excellent care for those children. I think there are a number of parents within the group who would be very willing to attempt to provide the extra $900 per year per child which it costs at the moment to ensure that the centre remains where it is.

The students in the early childhood education program at Seneca are concerned as well because, while they believe they will have just as good clinical experience at their new site, they are aware that there is little alternative within the specific area of the Finch campus of Seneca for an alternative day-care program. Therefore, we’re exploring this on a number of fronts in order to try to solve the problem.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary: Surely it is the height of irresponsibility for any organization to close down a day-care centre accommodating, I think, 82 children, on two months’ notice. Surely the minister can speak with some urgency to the directors of Seneca College that they have no right to close facilities on which parents are dependent, without making provision for quality alternatives. Surely the minister agrees with that and surely --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, indeed, the board of Seneca College is attempting to ensure there will be alternative provision at this stage.

Mr. Warner: Yes, when?

Mr. McClellan: No, they’re not. Eighty-two kids are going to go to York.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I suggested alternative provisions within the area of the Finch campus.

Mr. McClellan: Where? Tell us where. Tell the parents where.

OTTAWA BEEF COMPANY

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I’m wondering, in view of the fact so many beef producers in eastern Ontario depend on the Ottawa Beef Company for the sale of their beef, and that company ceased killing there some two weeks ago, what is taking place now? I know the minister met with a delegation of beef producers from eastern Ontario about a week ago and I am wondering what has transpired since that meeting took place.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Renfrew South’s concern. There are other members who are very much concerned as well because there is not the killing capacity in eastern Ontario for beef. We have been in touch with the Ottawa Beef Company on a personal basis. I sent one of my senior officials down to talk to them. I will be sending them a letter today making some sort of suggestion to them in order to try to get the plant opened again so the farmers of eastern Ontario will have a place to send their cattle to be slaughtered.

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Attorney General and the acting Solicitor General.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I’m not.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister no longer the acting Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is the Solicitor General. Where have you been?

Mr. Roy: He is the Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think all members know to whom the member is directing his question.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I know, but the title is important. He is also the chief law officer for the crown.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: I’d like to ask the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, whether he agrees with the policy of his national leader, Prime Minister Joe Clark, that the RCMP will be allowed to break the law as long as cabinet approves? Would he advise the House whether he has that sort of policy in Ontario where police forces, OPP or others, will be allowed to break the law if he or the cabinet or a designated minister approves? Is that his policy in Ontario? Does he agree with the national leader?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that is the policy of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Roy: That’s what he said. Then what is his policy?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t believe for one moment that is his policy but I can assure the honourable members of this House, once again as I have in the past, that I have advised not only the RCMP but all police forces in this province acting within the jurisdiction of Ontario that if there are any breaches of the law they can expect to be prosecuted. We are not tolerating any breaches of the law whatsoever.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary: The new Solicitor General at the federal level -- someone the members all know; the Premier knows him well -- is dear Allan Lawrence.

Applause.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mention them all and we will applaud them all.

Mr. McClellan: You are applauding because he is gone.

Mr. Roy: I hardly consider that enthusiastic over there.

Hon. Mr. Drea: A great man.

Mr. McClellan: That was an applause of relief.

Mr. Roy: After his swearing in as the Solicitor General he was quoted, apparently in the Globe and Mail of June 5, 1979, as stating the policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: By whom?

Mr. Roy: By the Globe and Mail.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: By whom?

Mr. Roy: It’s from the Ottawa bureau. I won’t get personal. He was quoted and, in fact, I saw him on television.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member please put his supplementary or I’ll recognize someone else?

Mr. Roy: Yes, but they’re interjecting and I’m trying to give the details. He was quoted as saying he approves of that policy that the RCMP may break the law in the national interests provided ministerial approval is first obtained. The Solicitor General, Allan Lawrence, said that yesterday.

Having said that, is the minister prepared to advise him that the rule of law still applies in Ontario and if anyone breaks the law in Ontario, be it the police or anyone else, he will prosecute?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I just said that, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know what Mr. Lawrence has said on the subject as the new Solicitor General. I’m sure I will hear from him personally in due course.

[11:45]

There is one other thing I would like to mention. I indicated my position in relation to the law and the fact that the police must act within the law. The RCMP have assured me they will act within the law in this province. They have never suggested to me that it is necessary for them to break the law. I just want to make that clear.

Mr. Warner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I raised this issue more than a month ago with the Attorney General. I asked him to send a letter at that time to Joe Clark. Why did he not send a letter indicating that this government is opposed to the RCMP breaking the law and, further, that there should not be cabinet approval when illegal acts are committed by the RCMP? Why did the minister not send that letter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The national leader of the Conservative Party, as he was then -- and is now; but he is also the Prime Minister of Canada -- is well aware of the position of this government.

AUTO PACT

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that Canada’s auto trade deficit with the United States for the four months ended in April 1979 totalled $766 million, compared with $269 million in 1978, because of the decline in passenger-car shipments from Canada to the United States and a rise in the imported parts deficit, which in four months amounted to $1.6 billion, is the minister in a position now to express his opinion? Has the government developed any plan to correct the worsening situation in the auto trade? Or does he agree with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who said on June 5 that with the auto pact we have improved our position rather than making it worse?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer was quite right at that time, and the situation alters in cycles for a lot of reasons. The important thing we can do is to try to reduce the extent to which the cycles affect us.

I might add to the member that one of the things that was high on our agenda in our recent trip to Japan was to emphasize to the Japanese auto makers which are going to be locating assembly operations in North America -- we hope a couple will be in Ontario, but certainly there will be a great number in the United States -- that it would be only fair and equitable to do a great deal of auto parts purchasing from firms in Canada. That is the sort of positive government action which I think will serve to reduce that deficit which the honourable member is talking about.

Mr. di Santo: How can the minister say the Treasurer was right the other day when the minister knows the trade deficit has amounted to $7 billion since the inception of the auto pact?

In view of the fact that Mr. Julius Katz, US Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, questioned the other day about whether Canadians are getting a fair deal from the auto pact, and in view of the fact that the Premier of the province on February 14, 1978, at the first ministers’ conference, said if we had balanced the auto pact we could have created from 15,000 to 20,000 new jobs and a further 10,000 jobs with new investments, can the minister tell us, three months after his statement in this House on March 15, if he finally has a position on the auto pact?

Second, how does the minister think investments will come in this area, with the worsening of our trade position?

Third, how can the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The honourable member had a three-part initial question; now he is enumerating. I think he has enough on his plate right now. Does the honourable minister have a response?

Mr. Bradley: Yes or no will do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, the Treasurer was right. Second, I would remind the honourable member that his national leader, his provincial leader and his party have now agreed that the auto pact should not now be renegotiated. I think one of the reasons they have acknowledged that is that while --

Mr. Warner: That is not what he said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Your leader has; check it, David, check it.

I know one of the reasons they have concluded that is that while there is that overall deficit from the start, the fact is that most intelligent observers of the situation conclude we are substantially better off now than we would have been if we didn’t have the auto pact.

Mr. di Santo: I have a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. At no point did I indicate that we are asking that the auto pact be renegotiated, and I ask the minister to correct the record.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Has the minister had any ongoing negotiations or discussions with Chrysler Canada in an attempt to convince that company to manufacture or buy four-cylinder engines manufactured in Canada, rather than purchasing from the United States?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do plan to visit Mr. lacocca sometime in the next two or three weeks. Discussions have been undertaken. The president has agreed to see me sometime in that period of time. In fact, he indicated, notwithstanding how well the members know me, that he’d be anxious to meet with me. We hope to have that meeting in the next couple of weeks, as I say, with a view not only to that particular question but to get a better handle on what their overall future plans are for Canada to ensure we get our fair share of future assembly, production and sourcing.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: In the light of his concern for the number of accidents on Ontario highways and the resulting injuries and deaths, would the minister speak to his friend, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), in an attempt to persuade him to have routine maintenance on the Queen Elizabeth Way done at some time other than the daytime when the flow of traffic is very heavy, to avoid accidents, to avoid aggravation, to avoid the fact that once people have gone through from the three lanes into two lanes, when they get out of that they tend to speed up and exceed the speed limit and create the need for more law enforcement officers? Would he speak to the minister about that so that he will not have to have as large a budget for new police officers?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t understand the second part of the question, but I assume what the member for St. Catharines is stating is that these mechanical checks are causing problems when conducted at certain times of the day. In view of his statement I will discuss this matter with the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

GM SETTLEMENTS

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Earlier in the question period the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations made the point that there has been a successful class action in Ontario. I have in front of me the judgement. It is not in fact a successful class action at all. What it is is an action -- which is still being further appealed -- at the Court of Appeal as to whether or not a class could possibly be constituted in a certain instance.

It is not in fact an instance where a class did launch a successful suit against a company; not one penny has been collected. It merely is a decision of a judge of the Court of Appeal that, in a certain instance with certain ways of doing it, there might be constituted a class, but it is not a successful class action. I think it’s very important to know that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not being a solicitor, I’m not going to get into splitting hairs on the matter.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Splitting heads, yes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The truth of the matter is in the Firenza case, which incidentally was General Motors, Mr. Justice Dubin, and I forget the other justice, in the Court of Appeal wrote one paragraph in there which, if it doesn’t legalize class actions and call for them, then I don’t know what does.

An hon. member: Are you going to lay an information for fraud against GM?

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file dissatisfaction with the answer of the Minister of Industry and Tourism because he did not address himself to the points that I raised in my question.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member can give the table reasons in writing for his dissatisfaction, and that debate will take place next Tuesday evening.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved that the general government committee be authorized to meet concurrently with the House on Monday, June 11.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Before orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 141 to 153, 182 to 184, and 204, and an interim answer to question 197 standing on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Before orders of the day, the member for Renfrew South has a point of something or other.

PRESENTATION TO PREMIER

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity of attending a reception, at which time the book written by Stan Obodiac, The Polish Pope and North America, was unveiled. Mr. Obodiac wanted me -- and I assured him I would -- to make a presentation to the Premier of one of the first copies of this great book autographed by Mr. Obodiac. It is very timely, because this week the pope has been visiting his homeland and has had a tremendous reception and acceptance.

Mr. Obodiac has written some nine books ranging from The Soul Speaks to Red Kelly.

The present pope is well known in Canada and the United States, having visited both countries in 1969 and 1976, and knows more about Canada and North America than any of his predecessors, because he met people mostly and not high officials.

At this time, it is my pleasure to present one of the first copies autographed by Mr. Obodiac to the Premier of Ontario.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

On vote 602, intergovernmental affairs program:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a very brief comment about the question of federal-provincial relations, because I will be required in that never-ending committee on the landlord and tenant bill.

I want to say to the minister that having read his comments -- not having had the opportunity to be here when he made his opening statement -- about the present course of the discussions on constitutional matters, they raise a very profound and deep discontent within myself about the exclusion of this assembly from any participation in the elitist constitutional industry of the country. That industry has now ground to a halt. We have all of the papers that are before us with respect to constitutional matters. I have a resolution standing on the order paper in my name with respect to a committee of this assembly to study those papers and to make recommendations to this assembly about what the policies of the government of Ontario should be.

[12:00]

The minister will be pleased to know that in the round robin that has been continuously going on, since I was had by the House leader and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs some weeks ago on the question of my private member’s public business, the resolution which now stands in my name will be transmuted on Monday into a resolution standing in the name of my colleague, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor).

It seems to me that to the extent that the rules provide we will have an opportunity in this assembly, either because the government adopts the suggestion put forward in that resolution that there be a committee of this assembly and makes that announcement prior to private members’ public business next Thursday, or my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, will be debating -- and I hope that I would participate in that debate -- the merit of having such a committee. I would trust that then we would have a resolution of the matter, the resolution of the matter being the approval of the assembly, unless 20 members of the government party stand for the purpose of blocking a reference of constitutional matters to a committee of this assembly.

I personally cannot understand why the government treats the question of constitutional change in Canada and national unity as, first of all, its sole prerogative and, next to that, the sole prerogative of the bureaucracy and the elitist academic community of Canada, and why it is not possible for this minister graciously to consent to this assembly being involved in those discussions in a meaningful and positive way.

I say further to the minister that if he believes that somewhere down the road there is going to be referred to this assembly some form of constitutional change or amendment which has been subject to the agreement of other governments in Canada and that we are to be made patsies in this assembly with respect to the approval of constitutional change, he had better disabuse himself of that thought.

I trust I have made my remarks clear. I have been extremely patient over some 18 months now, speaking to the Attorney General on the matter with respect to so many of the matters related to constitutional change, speaking very briefly in the estimates of this ministry last time, and having put the motion on the Order Paper on the understanding, as forecast in the throne debate and in the throne speech, that the government was going to put a resolution on the Order Paper with respect to constitutional change and national unity.

I have clearly indicated both to the government House leader and to the minister that it was our intention at the time when the government placed its motion on the Order Paper that the motion standing in my name would be withdrawn and reappear in the name of the leader of this party as an amendment to the government motion. Since that time we have had a game of footsie, or whatever you want to call it -- interminable discussions in a circuitous fashion, so that now we do not know what the position of the government is.

My colleague, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is in his place. The member for Ottawa East and I met with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just two or three days ago as the last stage of this ridiculous charade we are being put through. We put forward a very reasonable proposal. Nobody agreed to it, though I was prepared to agree to it. The proposal basically was quite simple, recognizing the exigencies and the demands on all of the members of the House with respect to committee work during the summer period.

The proposal was that before this House rises for the recess that such a committee, in substantially the terms of the resolution standing in my name, would be appointed by the assembly. It would be a small committee. Bearing in mind the demands made on all the members, we were thinking of perhaps two members from this party, two members from the Liberal Party and three or four members from the government party, or it could be larger if there are more members interested in that who have a sense of its priority over the demands of other areas of committee work.

That committee would be appointed. There would be an organizational meeting, or perhaps one or two meetings, simply for the purpose of seconding with the agreement of the minister the appropriate persons from his ministry to act as an independent staff for the committee and to give that staff an opportunity to work out how the various studies and proposals would be digested by this committee at an appropriate time. We could give them six or eight weeks to work out a plan and process for that committee and have the committee start its substantive and meaningful discussions at Labour Day.

That would permit the committee to make an interim report later on in the fall session, a report that would be of some significance. Whatever the government’s ruminations may be about its motion as proposed in the throne speech, perhaps at that time the assembly could not only debate the government motion, but could debate it in the light of a report having been made by members of this assembly with respect to all of the numerous studies of the governments of Canada, of various political parties and other interested groups in Canada, so that we in this assembly would have some sense of participation in what is going to take place.

There was a second aspect to my resolution which I have conveyed to the minister, to other members of the government and to colleagues in the Liberal Party. Another aspect was that this assembly as a representative assembly should have a committee which should go to the province of Quebec to meet with colleagues in the National Assembly for the sole, simple and uncomplicated purpose of sitting down with a counterpart committee from that assembly and saying, “Look, we want you to stay in the game, we want you to stay in Canada. Let’s talk; let’s exchange views.” More importantly, its purpose would be to indicate clearly from one non-partisan representative committee of this assembly to a representative non-partisan committee of the National Assembly that this assembly representing the people of Ontario wants the people of Quebec, through their representatives, to know that we give a damn about whether or not they stay in.

Those were the two purposes. What is wrong with that? What impedes the government continuously from accepting that proposal? Why does it constantly put up obstacles to any inclusion in a meaningful way of this assembly in this ongoing debate? Do we have any role or don’t we? If this reconstitution of the Confederation in Canada is of that kind of importance, surely this government could take its lesson from the Confederation debates at the time of the original Confederation of the country.

Then the Parliament of Canada and the members of the Parliament of Canada were fully involved, as anyone can see who reads the debates of the Parliament of Canada leading up to Confederation. Anyone reading those debates would know that members of that Parliament went to New Brunswick, to Nova Scotia and to Prince Edward Island. I don’t know whether they went as far as Newfoundland, but they met and talked with colleagues in various cities and places throughout those provinces to show them there were very real and tangible benefits for the Maritime provinces to join in Confederation and to unite in a united Canada.

What is wrong with this phlegmatic, passive, Anglo-Saxon community in Ontario getting up and demonstrating in some clear and unequivocal way to the National Assembly of Quebec that we have an interest in having them stay in the game?

I don’t want to go on very much longer because what I am now going to say is, in a very synoptic way, what I said in the budget debate, which I am certain the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has not read. Therefore, I want to repeat it briefly to him.

I am sick and tired of political leaders in Canada saying we are all agreed on national unity, therefore there is no need to discuss it. I tried to draw the analogy and I tried to say very clearly that we are all agreed that there should be full employment in Canada, but that doesn’t mean we don’t discuss how we achieve full employment. Different leaders in the political world express differing views about it.

We all agree that there should be economic growth in Canada, but that doesn’t mean that because we agree on the goal we are all agreed as to the way in which that goal is achieved or that debate and discussion of it are stultified by some suggestion that as we are all agreed on that goal, we don’t have to discuss it.

We are all agreed on many goals for the province of Ontario in this society, but the nature of politics is that you discuss how you achieve those goals. You try to do it either by persuading a sufficient number of people to accept your views or by reaching some form of consensus with respect to the procedures which are going to be followed to achieve those goals.

To the extent that it is possible for me to participate in a minor way through this assembly, I for one do not want to be in the position where from now until the time of the referendum there is no meaningful relationship between this assembly and its counterpart in the province of Quebec. For me, that means we are allowing ourselves to be mesmerized and placed in a rigid, inflexible, doctrinaire position which has no place in a political process of the sensitivity and importance that this renewal of Confederation has for all of us.

My final remark is very simple and very brief. I happen to be one of the persons who believe very firmly that you cannot divorce the fundamental economic societal problems from constitutional reform. I think it is fair to say that many of the economic problems, intransigent problems, that we are faced with in the province of Ontario, are a result of the structural design of Confederation which impedes the solution or the reasonable solution of those economic problems. This attempt somehow or other to divorce economic matters from the constitutional structure of the country and the way in which the various parts of the country relate to each other is, to my mind, an integral part of what we are about.

I think it may well be that all of us are faced in the constituencies that we represent with people who basically say: “We don’t believe any longer that anything can be done about the major problems facing us. We don’t really believe that any government can do anything about employment or inflation or any of those problems. We simply are now extremely sceptical, if not cynical, about the capacity of the political process to assist in relating to those major problems which are having such a debilitating effect upon the creative capacities of people in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.”

I have voiced my discontent and my frustration about the way in which the government has persistently and consistently treated this assembly on the matter of the involvement of members of all parties in matters related to the fundamental nature of Confederation. When it is all written, I don’t want it to be said that I sat in this assembly and had no part in that. I speak not only for myself, I am certain I speak for many other members of this assembly as well.

I want a definitive statement from the minister as to what the government’s intentions are with respect to this question. I do not want to be told that it is a matter subject to further discussion by the House leaders. The House leaders don’t make the policy; the government makes the policy. The government comes to the decision, and the House leaders of this assembly will in fact agree to such a committee if the government says it wants to have such a committee.

[12:15]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Do you want me to respond to these questions of an administrative, procedural nature before members go on with discussing the substance of some of the matters? Perhaps I will anyway.

I disagree with the last statement the member for Riverdale made. I think he simplifies the issue too much when he says the House leaders do not have any involvement in this matter. The House leaders do have a very distinct involvement in helping in the orderly running of this House. One of the matters that has to be decided is how many committees we can have in this House and what is the role of the committee. To some degree, and I realize my opinion may be different from my friends, this House itself is becoming completely irrelevant as everything goes on in committees. Our original thinking was that what we needed was a good debate in this House, a real debate in this House on this matter.

Mr. MacDonald: Why did you back off on that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We haven’t backed off; that’s still our opinion.

Mr. MacDonald: It was in the throne speech, and you backed off six or eight weeks ago. Don’t try to kid us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are two reasons why we haven’t had that debate yet. One of those particular reasons is the federal election was being held on May 22, and we decided among ourselves -- as I recall with the agreement of all parties -- that it would be better not to have the debate until after the federal election so that we would not become embroiled in some of the issues that were being discussed at that particular time.

Further, it was made very clear to us that, basically, the thrust of the third party was going to be to not have the debate in this House but to put forth a motion to send the matter to a committee. In other words, they were diametrically opposed to the kind of idea that we saw of a real debate in this House and wanted, rather, to have it go to a committee.

Mr. Renwick: Both.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Therefore, basically, we would spend our time debating the idea of a committee rather than debating the substance of the matter in this House. The member says both, but he knows that procedurally if you’re going to send a matter to a committee, if the resolution is put to send the substance of a resolution to a committee, and it passes, why would you then have a five-day or six-day debate?

Mr. Lawlor: The background, the structure; for a hundred reasons. We do it all the time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member for Lakeshore now says there are lots of reasons, but I can tell him that if that had happened the immediate response would have been: “Why are we going to waste the time of the House with a matter that is going to be thoroughly discussed in committee?” Within a very short time the matter would have been sent to committee, without a long debate in this House.

I’m not saying there isn’t merit in having a committee, that may be so; but we thought on this particular matter there was merit in having a real debate in this House -- something of which, incidentally, we have very few.

Mr. MacDonald: Agreed. It’s the equivalent of second reading and then sending it to a committee to get into the detail.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have very few real debates in this House; perhaps it’s time we started getting back to real debates where we debate matters rather than all coming in with our prepared speeches. The only time we really have real debates is on estimates material and on some of the bills.

In other debates it’s a series of prepared speeches, which are good in their place but which are not the essence of real debate on a subject as important as this.

We really were saying we wanted a real debate in this House, and we have not moved from that position. Somehow the impression around was that what we were suggesting was an afternoon and an evening. It was certainly never in my mind that we would have a limited debate such as that, but if it took five days or six days or seven days, we would continue on until every member of this House bad a chance to express their views.

That debate is still planned, and I think most members agree we should have it.

Mr. Lawlor: I think you should convene a special summer session.

Hon. Mr. Wells: A lot of us agree it probably should be a little closer to the referendum in Quebec, and the fall would probably be a better time to have it.

I want to say that I do not -- and I want it very clear -- I do not believe that the members of this assembly should be excluded from the discussions on these very important matters; referendum strategy, constitutional reform and all those matters that are of uppermost concern to us today. I happen to be one who agrees wholeheartedly with the member for Riverdale on his premise that there is a relationship between the economic problems we face and constitutional reform.

I do not in any way agree with the statement that some people put to me, that goes something like this, and we’ve all heard it: “Don’t be worrying us about constitutional reform and those things. What we need is just to worry about jobs and getting the economy back on the rails.” Certainly that’s one of the uppermost problems we face today, but it is related to constitutional reform, which is related to the situation in which we find ourselves in Canada today and the effects that situation is having on the economic growth of this country.

So it’s a big circle. There are two completely unrelated issues that can be separated and placed in separate compartments, with one put on the shelf and left with nothing done about it in the hope that the other will solve the problems. They are interrelated, I agree with that; which is why I consistently have believed we must pay just as much attention to where we’re going in a restructured federalism to what we see as a strategy vis-à-vis the Quebec referendum and what we see as a future constitution for Canada, because what happens in economic matters is very related to these particular questions. Therefore the whole idea of debating these matters and concerning ourselves with them is of just as much importance as the concern with economic matters.

I believe this assembly should be involved in these matters, and indeed just a few months ago during the consideration of these estimates last year we had what I thought was a very good debate on this particular vote at that time. It was with that thought in mind that we put the proposition forward in the throne debate that this assembly should have a further full debate on the matter.

I might say also that because we believe this assembly should be involved, we try to make available to the members of the assembly all the material that comes to our attention. With that in mind we sent out a memo recently to all members of the Legislature asking what various reports and documents they wished so they would have background either for the debate or for their own use. It disturbs me that only one member of the Legislature has replied so far and asked for the material. I know the members who will probably speak today don’t need to reply to the memo because they already have the material, that is those who are most directly concerned with constitutional matters; friends such as the members for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) and for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) and others, I know, have already most of the documents. Still, we received only one reply from the members of the Legislature. I hope others will avail themselves of the opportunity to get the documents: the best-offer drafts that came out of the constitutional meetings, the various reports of our advisory committee, the Pepin-Robarts report, the Canadian Bar Association; all of these things are available. We have them in the intergovernment affairs secretariat, whose vote we’re now discussing. They’re there to assist all of us in being better informed on these matters, and also in formulating our own opinions and putting forward our own positions.

In finishing up, Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is that we haven’t, at this point, said no to a committee. I think that the first proposition was that a committee should sit over the summer. We did not think that was a good idea. I think most of the members of this House felt there were enough committees which would be sitting over the summer and to have another would not be a possibility in practical terms.

The thrust for another committee came out of a meeting I had with the member for Ottawa East and the member for Riverdale. As I said to them both this morning, it has gone to the House leaders, because the House leaders do have a responsibility, along with those who organize the business of this House, to find out what times the House sits and whether there are possibilities for other committees and so forth. Based on the kind of discussion that comes back from that we will have something definite. Certainly, on behalf of the government, I will give a definite opinion as to our feeling regarding a committee. If it is physically possible to do it, I have no objection to sitting down and discussing these matters with any members of the House at any length of time.

We could look at it in two lights. It has been suggested we need a committee so that committee could go and visit the members of the National Assembly in Quebec. That would be a possibility.

Another possibility that could be explored, quite apart from a special committee, is the idea of an interrelationship between this assembly and the National Assembly in Quebec so we can understand each other, member for member; so they can understand our feelings, desires and hopes for what they will do, and so they, on the other hand, will try to tell us what they feel and think should happen. But that could be organized on a much larger scale by the House itself organizing exchanges. If our ministry could facilitate that, I would he most happy to do that. I am separating that from committee studies.

I was thinking the other day we could organize an exchange involving all those members, even those who do not have the time or really a first-priority interest in that committee as a permanent committee they might want to sit on but who would be very interested in visiting the members of the National Assembly. Perhaps some time in the fall we could organize an exchange visit between the members of the Legislature -- not the government -- and the members of the National Assembly. That could be done through the Speakers and their offices, with them providing the exchange vehicle so that it does not become an intergovernmental affair but one of one legislative body to another. That would be my reply to the member for Riverdale at the present time.

As I say, on the matter of a committee, it was my understanding that our House leader was going to discuss it with the other House leaders; perhaps we will have some response on it next week.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments pertaining to the comments made here this morning by the member for Riverdale and the minister.

First of all, responding to the minister’s comments about sending out a questionnaire to members of the Legislature: considering the volume of paper we get, it is quite possible that is not the most effective way to gauge the interest of members of the Legislature in constitutional reform or in a constitutional debate. The minister will recognize we get questionnaires ad infinitum. It may be, with so many of them coming in, that some of our staff is engaged to send those directly to the wastepaper basket. I would hate to think we were gauging the interest of all members of this assembly by the response to that questionnaire.

The second thing I would like to mention is that I was pleased to hear the minister talk again about the question of constitutional reform, saying that it is an important topic and, with the economic problems being solved, we will have no further problems in this country. I must say to the minister -- and I think I have said it on a number of occasions since 1976 -- that the interest of the government has not always been such that it has been altogether encouraging for us who have taken a deep interest in national unity and constitutional reform. The approach taken by the government, except in the recent past, has not been one to make us all that enthusiastic.

[12.30]

I would remind the minister that the election of the Parti Quebecois took place in November, 1976 and we’re approaching the third year of that government. It’s only for a year now that we’ve had a ministry that is going to start focusing on that. This is only the second set of estimates dealing with the administration of intergovernmental affairs. Before that, the ministry was a mish-mash that included Treasury, Intergovernmental Affairs and all of this. We felt at that point there was insufficient focus.

I would remind the minister as well that the position taken originally by the government and by the Premier (Mr. Davis) after the election of the Parti Quebecois was not one to enthuse too many people in the House; there was confusion at first and the position of the government was not all that clear.

I recall, if not this minister then certainly some of his colleagues and members of the cabinet, clearly saying that once we solved the economic problems there would be no further problems and that we would for all intents and purposes have taken care of the unity of the country. Constitutional reform was not going to be a problem if we solved the question of inflation and if we solved the question of jobs. There has been confusion, and I’ve been extremely critical of the government on that score.

I congratulated the minister at the time he was appointed because he was someone I felt would perceive the overall implications of this. I am pleased to hear the minister say that solving the economic problem will not solve our constitutional problem at this time. Those who think that solving the economic problem is going to resolve everything in this country should think back to when the rise of nationalism in Quebec took place. It was in the better years, in the 1960s when unemployment was low and when inflation was not a problem. Those who think solving the economic problem is going to satisfy those who crave constitutional change in Quebec or elsewhere are confused indeed. Look at the province of Alberta, which wants constitutional change. Certainly it doesn’t face economic problems that are of much concern as compared to those of some of the other provinces.

I would go a step further in speaking to those who feel that the economic solution is a solution to all our problems. Those who think they can contain the rise of nationalism or the craving by the majority of Quebecers or other Canadians to have constitutional reform, those who think they can curtail that desire which is often expressed in nationalistic terms by either economic reform or economic reprisals are misled indeed. In fact, when there is that craving based on nationalism, it’s not going to be economic threat or economic reform which is going to satisfy that sort of appetite. We have too many precedents in other countries, on other continents, as evidence of that.

Talking first of all about the resolution, I was one who felt we should have been debating these issues in the next session immediately after November 1976. We should have been involved in that; unfortunately we were not. This matter has dragged on and on. Apart from occasional debate on a bill where all members participated, we’ve had very few discussions dealing with constitutional reform in this assembly. Considering the priority of things and considering how we spend our time here, I felt that issue should have merited, and should have warranted more attention on the part of the government and on the part of the members of the assembly.

Having waited all this time, I felt that if we were going to discuss a resolution, then let’s discuss it at a time where it’s going to have maximum impact. It seems to me that the maximum impact one can have out of a unanimous resolution coming out of this assembly would be at the time of the referendum, when they are discussing the referendum. I don’t know if my colleagues agree with me on the frustrations that as Canadians we are just sitting back looking at what is happening in the province of Quebec. We have a party whose main principle is independence, and this independence is based on what they call souveraineté association. Association, of course, involves association with Ontario; we should not just sit back and let a particular spokesman, Levesque in these circumstances, interpret what the association is going so be all about while we, in Ontario, who are the main partner of this association, would just sit back and not say anything.

I felt that it was important, extremely important, that having waited this long, for God’s sakes, let’s have the resolution at a time when the message can be clear to the people voting on the referendum in the province of Quebec. My suggestion has been, first of all, let’s not have it at a time during a federal election when again that issue would be clouded, the waters would be muddy, it would be confused and maybe lost in the overall debate of a national election.

Secondly, as I said, we can expect the referendum this fall. We should have it at that time so that for those who are discussing the various options in the province of Quebec the electorate in that province be well informed as to the position of Ontario, of the members of the assembly representing the people of this province, at the time they are going to make a decision on the referendum.

Moving from that point, Mr. Chairman, to the issue raised by the member for Riverdale about his committee, I felt and I agreed with the minister that, first of all, the resolution should not be debated here for a few days and then sent to a committee and at that point the impact of it, I felt, would have been lost.

Having said that, I have always agreed and I have told the member for Riverdale, and my colleagues I think are in support, that the idea of a committee looking at constitutional reform, studying the various options and reports that have been forward now for the last two years, both at the provincial level, or Pepin-Robarts at the national level, the Canadian Bar Association report and so on, was something that was worthwhile.

The member for Riverdale has said we have committees on every conceivable topic, some of which I must admit -- and my colleagues may not agree with me -- that on a priority list I would certainly not list as high as constitutional reform. We should have a committee, and the importance of this committee, as I see it, is that we in this assembly would be saying, as the government has said repeatedly to Levesque: “If you are proposing something like souveraineté association, independence and association, we in Ontario” -- as the Premier has said -- “if you are talking independence, association is not an option that you can be discussing with your people because we are not for it.”

The importance of the committee would be so that we can have something positive, not only negative; that we just don’t say: “Look we are not interested in association,” but that we make it very clear from this committee that we have something positive to offer, that we in Ontario really believe in constitutional reform and that we are not satisfied and that we are prepared to listen to those who are not satisfied with the status quo, we are prepared to listen to them as long as the option, as Ryan has said repeatedly, is based on federalism.

I agree with the setting up of the committee. We have heard here this morning the various views as to the practicality of having the committee at a particular time. As I understand the discussions that have taken place, both the minister and I expressed to the member for Riverdale that we were in favour of the committee. The problem with the committee this summer, though, is that with all the committees that have been structured we just don’t have the bodies to be on that committee in the summer.

I personally have agreed with the member for Riverdale and I certainly have no objection that we name the committee now, that we decide about the structure, that we have meetings possibly to decide the structure of this committee, the number of members to sit on the committee and so on and that the committee start its work in the fall. I think that the suggestion is a good one. I am convinced the House leaders will look at this option and will see fit to accept it if it is the will of the members of the assembly.

I can understand the frustration of the member for Riverdale. I see no reason why a commitment on the part of all parties should not be made to say we are going to have the committee and that its role will be as the member outlined in his resolution. I agree with the member for Riverdale that in the past the government has not involved the members of the assembly very much in constitutional reform. That is something the government has basically decided on its own.

I will just give an example: it has continually been the position of this government that repatriation of the constitution should not be done unilaterally by the federal government. That position was changed only in the last conference in February of this year. That was quite a 180-degree turn, but none of us had ever been aware of that --

Mr. MacDonald: Not even Joe Clark was told before they made the announcement.

Mr. Roy: Yes. Of course, I can understand --

Mr. MacDonald: Quite an exercise in cooperative federalism.

Mr. Roy: I can understand they would not advise him, because at that time Joe Clark was pretty confused as to his constitutional position.

Mr. Lawlor: What do you mean “at that time”?

Mr. Roy: Nevertheless, it is an indication the government has not involved us very much. I think this committee is one way members of all parties can be involved. Let’s look at those reports. I think it would be extremely helpful to the government. I would think the government should jump at this chance to get input from all members of the assembly.

But I want to make it very clear I don’t agree with accusations that the minister somehow has delayed the resolution. I was one who discussed it with him and said we should not have it during the federal election. I don’t mind putting it on the record that I felt the resolution should be put forward at a time when it would have maximum impact in Quebec. I felt the closer to the referendum the better it would be. If that happens to be this fall, then I am all for it.

So I am not going to be one who is going to accuse the minister for agreeing with suggestions that I made to him. But I would say we need a commitment on the part of all parties in this House that this committee, as the member for Riverdale has said, be structured and that we participate in it.

In deference to some of my colleagues, I, as a member -- and I think many people are aware of my priorities -- don’t see many things more important than that issue in the coming years here in this country. I think this committee is an excellent idea, and if we can set it up, talk about the general terms of it and have it start working in the fall, then we are all for it.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, since the inception of the Party Quebecois in office, there has been a recurrence in stirrings of quite a deep alienation. We have done damned little, as English-speaking people, to mollify that, to come to terms with it, to seek accommodations; on the contrary, we have always sat on high horses and scowled.

But coming closer to today, what the honourable member has just said is perfectly true. For three years, for mysterious reasons, the government has scouted, circumvented, hung back, truncated, not dealt with, this issue in this House. The occasions upon which we have been asked to make any contribution to the matter have been rare indeed. It has been even rarer that the minister has made any. It is past the initial phase where we held olive branches out, where we said we wanted to keep the country in its integrity and that we were prepared to make overtures and go to some length in order to do that -- these were vocables, mere words. They had to be said and thank heaven they were, but they have to be fleshed out too; they can’t be left as empty gestures.

[12:45]

What you did the other day was part of the same act. You repudiate, as we all do, sovereignty association. We may have to come to terms with it some afternoon, but we do so most grudgingly. We seek the alternatives, but do we seek the alternatives or have we sought the alternatives?

Two reports have come forward. I leave out the bar association report; I haven’t studied that one. There are two reports to which I wish to give high praise, something which hasn’t been done.

Again, we have had a whole federal election campaign. How much and to what extent by any party in that campaign would you have anticipated there would have been some debate on this whole issue of the powers of the constitution? You wait upon events. You expect something to happen. What happens? An emptiness. They circumvented the issue again. Why? For a hundred reasons. Because it is not opportune. It is never opportune to deal with tough issues that are going to burn or wound some element in government.

Since this is the only forum in which one can speak to any extent, let’s deal with your government. You got a report by the name of the Pepin-Robarts report back in January. A Future Together, it is called. I put it to you, that is an excellent report, in this sense at least: It is the foundation, the thing we have been looking for, in order to put our teeth into the issue and come to something concrete rather than the sentimental gestures going around at the present time. You do not seem to be prepared to address yourself to anything else.

I would have thought Johnny Robarts would have held prestige, and would have had impact on this government, but apparently not. Apparently he is on the shelf too. In this area, I just don’t know the minister’s thinking. I respected Robarts in this House for his astuteness and his integrity. He got on the commission working with Mr. Pepin, and to give as many points away if you will, not giving points away, but as I see it, he came to a rational revision in the light of human history 100 years after the event, a reallocation of the pie. You may not like the particular tenor, the particular division and the concurrences they have set up, but at least they tried. They put some definition into the issue for the first time.

Let me just mention before I forget that a few months after, there was a report from Ian Macdonald, previous Deputy Treasurer of this province, now president of York University. He introduced a small report with respect to the Senate and matters of that kind which are, for my money, quite peripheral to the real issues involved here. Then, in April, he came along with a major report which I have here in front of me.

A most curious thing happened. What that Macdonald task force, which was financed and promoted by this government, came up with was curiously coincidental with Pepin’s and Robarts’ findings. These reports complement one another; sometimes they reinforce one another; they certainly don’t run contrary to one another as one might possibly expect.

With respect to the increase of provincial powers, they recognize the tenor in this country. It may be somewhat regrettable that if this country is to hang together, there will be some erosion of federal powers. It is a price that has to be paid as I see it. It is not even a high price. It is mostly in cultural matters that it has to take place.

No one, for instance, in the area of taxation, I would think, would take any issue with the fact that the provinces might have both forms of taxation, direct and indirect. The stuff founded on John Stuart Mill and imported into our constitution, giving full amplitude to the one government, the feds, and keeping the provinces in a position of subordination in this particular way, is out of date, silly. And, not in force; we trespass upon it constantly. Gasoline tax is a case of quite indirect taxation.

To recognize the facts of life and the economic impacts in a developed economy in the light of a contemporary world is the first task of this report and the first task that we have to carry forward.

Therefore, a committee of this House is necessary. It’s almost impossible, it’s too intricate to debate it here -- I want to do a bit of it before I’m finished. To get the picture, to work one area, for instance, the powers of reservation in the federal government, or the multiple powers under the BNA Act as they stand at present, and to play one against the other to see how they dovetail, fit in or even clash, and where the resolution will lie, that all has to be done in a committee among people who are interested.

I agree as far as timing on the thing is concerned. I think my colleague, the member for Riverdale, has indicated that that committee should not convene until after Labour Day when the other committees of the House are completed -- or when there is a certain amount of elbow room -- but convene it should and must, and I would ask for the minister’s full participation and assistance in seeing that it does.

Many of us are intensely interested in the problem. We think we can make a contribution. We think that a certain amount of unanimity in that kind of a committee will certainly eventuate. We think that what will be said coming out of that committee would have some kind, we trust, of impact upon the province of Quebec and those who totally dig in their heels and are recalcitrant in this way. They don’t even believe we’re very intensely interested. They haven’t very many grounds so to believe. As I say, throughout the whole election campaign there was hardly a whisper.

When do we address ourselves to the hard facts and the difficult issues that are involved in a way that shows we mean business? Gestures and empty mouthings have lost their effectiveness at this time in history. We would have to indicate what kind of a constitution we would be prepared to negotiate.

I suspect that with some tough negotiation we could come to very substantial agreement with even elements of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec as to the distribution of these powers. They have conceded certain things in monetary policy. Sure, they want to exercise vetoes which is inadmissible, but in the areas of immigration and of trade, there are all kinds of possibilities, but no articulation has been made. We have left it all up to them and their saying, “Well, we’ll do this.” But it’s too narrow and the debate has to be opened up. We begin opening up debates by opening up ourselves, by opening up debates here in this particular forum.

At some point I would suspect we should send a delegation down. The New Democratic Party, from our own caucus, has had members on two occasions make goodwill visits to the province of Quebec to meet as many people as they possibly can, people in high positions in that province, to indicate that here in this assembly there are numerous individuals who are deeply concerned, even some people quite wracked over the possibilities of the issue.

And there is this cursed business of philistinism in the English-speaking press, of doing everything by numbers -- the numbers game:

“A poll was taken and only 24.6 per cent said they were in favour of independence.” Then all the complacency sets in. We twiddled our thumbs.

That minority there is a concentrated, dedicated crew. The people who run the world are such people. It’s those who make up their minds with grim determination, come hell or high water, that a certain end is going to be achieved, who move a populace. In the modern world, where people seem so preoccupied and lackadaisical over so many issues, that’s exactly what happens. We have to forfend and offset that and have people of equal dedication holding this country together. All the flatulency and all the ingrained complacency which I feel is involved in this thing is quite by the board.

Again, I ask the minister to share, in this sense, whatever the statistics may show, we are in grim peril in terms of the integration and the holding together of this country. If the future possibilities of this country begin to disintegrate, it will disintegrate. It is a very difficult country to govern. There are artificialities. We have tried to engender an internal spirit, which has no definition yet. Our writers and artists have not been able -- as happens with other nations -- to delineate the fundamental attitudes of this people, its temperamental references, its emotional tenor as a nation. I’m sure it’s there, but it’s there in a state of quiescence. It’s bubbling in Quebec a bit, but the sense of quiescence in the rest of the country is deeply disturbing.

As I said, I want to make some reference to points in the Robarts report, because I don’t want to be accused of the thing I’m accusing you of -- namely, that I’m not getting down to business and putting my finger on elements that have to be discussed and that I’m avoiding discussion for whatever reason.

When the Pepin-Robarts report came out it was received with faint praise. It got very little press. It got very little attention. In Ottawa, you could well understand it. Trudeau simply put it in the bottom vault. It didn’t say what he wanted it to say.

His ideology -- and at least it rises to the dignity of a concept -- is that a very powerful, continuous central government is necessary, and there will be no sacrifice of powers at the central focus whatsoever. The provinces may howl around the door, but he is going to hold at the Ottawa focal point the primary powers in this country -- economic and otherwise. There’s a certain lordly air about that, the crown prince of Bessarabia is going to run the show. He’s been repudiated for that imperial stature. We all find that.

But the report has also helped to alienate Quebec and to sharpen the issues of division in this country; there’s no question about it. You just don’t approach that. When the glaring facts of life with respect to fisheries policy, with respect to language rights, with respect to immigration -- as to who has control and who doesn’t -- with respect to television, in the French language or otherwise and the auto-determination as to who produces the programs and with respect to the whole gamut of the constitution are in question because of technological change and because of the changing evolution and tenor of our people, you just won’t come to terms with it.

[1:00]

What happened to you fellows, what happened to the Ontario government, with all the prestige that I would have anticipated John Robarts would have brought to this thing? You too have sat enormously quiet about it. Probably the reason for your doing so is that you’re not quite sure. It’s not because, as I say, your thinking has risen to the dignity of a concept. It’s not conceptual yet. We’re trying to give it substance, form and meaning. Besides, it didn’t suit your purposes.

To the extent that it had any articulation at all, it ran counter to certain basic, emotional feelings, the subterranean kind. I call it the United Empire Loyalist complex. It might offend certain segments of this province to give any cognizance to, or even to weigh the possibilities of Pepin-Robarts, and it will. It can’t be helped. You have to make your choices. Do you desire to keep this country in some form and know in which way you’re willing to negotiate and offer? The whole position of the Parti Quebecois ought to have been well anticipated by this time by saying, “This is what we’re prepared to do.”

I say to you, what we’re prepared to do at the end of the day, and I would hope it would come out of such a committee as a recommendation, would go a long way to consolidating this nation and to meeting the legitimate demands of the recalcitrant elements in the province of Quebec. We haven’t even tried. We’ve done nothing. And when people inveigh, as they have done, in the House against the failure to call a debate, the failure to deal with the issue over a long period of time now, it’s a part of that tenor, a part of that flow of events moving in your party.

You’re usually fairly forthright and you come forward with fairly developed policies. At least you give us something to sink our teeth into. In this issue --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t wish to interrupt the member but I do draw his attention to the time. I’m enjoying the remarks, and I’m sure the House is enjoying what you’re saying too, but I do draw your attention to the time.

On motion by Mr. Warner, the committee of the whole reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1:04 p.m.