The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ASBESTOS MONITORING IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised as to what is going on with respect to the building. Apparently on Friday last very late in the morning representatives of our negotiating team were called to a meeting on the testing that will go on in the building with respect to asbestos fibres. Apparently the government decided on April 3, through the Ministry of Government Services in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour that testing for asbestos would go on in this building.

A month went by in which the members of the Legislature or the other political parties or the staffs of the other parties, as I understand it, were not advised that testing was going to go on and in fact it has commenced this morning. I find it strange that the members would not be advised as to the concern. I find it strange that only one group of us would ask if there is not forthcoming some sort of explanation as to what is going on and why these people have been left out in the cold with respect to a decision which could adversely affect a lot of people.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you could look into this matter and report just why the actions that were taken were taken in the manner that was done without informing this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I wasn’t aware that any such initiative was being taken until early this morning. I saw no reason to object to a monitoring to assure us that everything was safe. With regard to the other matters you speak of, I will look into it and report back to the House.

Mr. S. Smith: If I may just speak on this point, Mr. Speaker, I received a note from one of the people on our staff saying, “Please be advised monitoring is going on today.” Certainly I take no offence at that. It seems quite reasonable. I have no objection whatever. If there is some aspect of this that perhaps I don’t know about, then of course I would like to hear it. In general, if they wish to monitor the air why shouldn’t they?

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I understand the member for Sudbury East rose on a point of personal privilege earlier today wondering why the caucuses were not notified of the testing for asbestos in these buildings. I must apologize. I gave a directive to my staff that each caucus was to be notified. When I knew this question had been asked, I called my deputy and he, in turn, checked and found it had not been carried out. I gave strict orders that, if this ever happens again, that employee will not be in that position. All I can do at this time is apologize and say it will not happen again.

TELEVISION COVERAGE

Mr. Nixon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Toronto Sun today refers to you as “acting like a tin-pot tyrant” in putting forward the regulations which will govern the debate taking place on the special motion. For anybody who is interested in this, I feel I should make it clear that all three House leaders participated in the regulations, and perhaps those from other parties would want to verify this. Whether it is tyranny or not, it is modelled on the procedures in other Houses and is on an experimental basis.

In this connection, we were advised that the television coverage would be made more complete, particularly since many speakers address you, Mr. Speaker, if there were a camera in the press gallery. As you know, although we requested the right to put it there, that was refused by the press gallery.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I too want to join with the Liberal House leader. In fact, if I had had my way, I would have put a camera up there anyway. I say that to the press because what we were trying to do was provide the best coverage we could, and I thought it was rather small that the press would say we could not put a camera up there. We were advised that it would give better coverage of those of us at this end who will face the Speaker on this occasion more directly than we would if it were an ongoing debate across the floor as we are wont to do occasionally. I find offensive some of the comments in the article, and I would hope that it does not reflect the attitude of the rest of the press gallery.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to confirm what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said. When the House leaders approached the Speaker and asked that a full electronic Hansard be provided for the special motion that we are debating this week, they asked us to get together guidelines that would be appropriate for the proper coverage.

We immediately contacted Ottawa, which has had considerable experience in this field, and the guidelines referred to in the article were the guidelines that were provided to us by our counterparts in Ottawa. They were agreed upon by the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. When that was done, they were submitted to the House leaders, and they became the guidelines that OECA wanted and they were quite happy with them.

I think that is sufficient explanation for anybody who is concerned about the nature and the flavour of the article.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY SUPPLIES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), and I am advised informally that he will be here. Perhaps I will address my first question to the Minister of Energy, but if one of the assistants would be so kind as to try to rouse the Minister of Labour, I would be grateful.

In view of the meeting which the Minister of Energy held with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in which both ministers were all smiles, can the minister say whether they discussed the matter of Petrosar and the attempts by the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission to take control of more oil in such a way as possibly to be prejudicial to the interests of Ontario-based refiners and users of crude oil? Can the minister report whether progress was made on Petrosar, and can he say exactly what the plan will be for dealing with the threat which seems to be perceived as coming from Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I had a very full discussion with the federal minister on Friday morning; a number of items were discussed, and the one to which the Leader of the Opposition makes reference was one of them.

I think we are both prepared to accept for the moment the fact that Petrosar would appear to have its supply situation in hand, and we are taking at face value the statements that are being made by officials in Alberta in this regard.

However, we did go on to talk about the advantages of heavy fuel oil upgrading and were encouraged by reports which we both have received from Petrosar and other interested companies with respect to the interest that they are taking in order to look after this particular operation, which will result in more efficient use of the feedstock from Alberta.

Mr. S. Smith: Agreeing that haste should be made as rapidly as possible in the upgrading of the feedstock, could the minister tell us what statements he is referring to when he says he is satisfied to take certain statements by Alberta officials at face value in terms of the security of supply for Petrosar? There may well be such statements which may have escaped my attention, but I think the House would like to know what these statements are so that we too can monitor them and determine for ourselves whether they are statements upon which we should rely or whether further action is required.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am referring particularly to statements made on at least two occasions by my colleague the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources for Alberta.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, has the minister held any discussions with Petrosar regarding its proposals to upgrade heavy oil in order to produce gasoline or other types of fuels used in Ontario industry and transportation? Has the government considered having that as part of Ontario’s policy to move towards greater self-sufficiency, because if the heavy oil can be turned into gasoline in this province, we will need less gasoline or lighter oil from western Canada or from abroad?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the answer to both those questions is yes. I have met on two or three occasions with Petrosar and was joined by the Premier (Mr. Davis) at one of those meetings. I am encouraged by the work that has gone on so far to try to put this particular project in place. I don’t want to mislead the House. Obviously, there are still some details yet to be considered, and the whole question of the economics is being weighed quite carefully by those who are giving some consideration to this project.

I repeat that the answer to both those is yes. I have had the opportunity on two or three occasions now to mention this in chatting about this whole question of self-sufficiency as we seriously reflect upon it and to include in speeches the point, with which I am sure we are in solid agreement with our friends in Alberta, that we have to move to the more efficient use of this particular resource.

Mr. S. Smith: I could save a supplementary by just asking the minister, if I might, to send me the statements by the Alberta Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

JOHNS-MANVILLE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister investigated suggestions that were made to him by union officials more than two weeks ago that Johns-Manville Canada Inc. might have the intention of closing its Scarborough plant due to increasing compensation costs resulting from a poor health and safety record? Has the minister looked into these suggestions which were recently reported in the press? Does he have anything to tell this House with regard to the attitude which the firm is taking and the attitude which his ministry is taking vis-à-vis these reports?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is true I did have a meeting with two representatives of the particular union involved and on a subsequent occasion with representatives of the company. That wasn’t the particular issue, but naturally it was mentioned. There was no suggestion made to me that the company had any present intentions of closing the plant.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary: The minister doesn’t explain whether he specifically asked about this precise matter. Would the minister agree, therefore, that the system by which we operate, wherein a company with a very poor health and safety record indeed is punished only to the extent that its premium is raised for the Workmen’s Compensation Board payments, a system which is designed to encourage companies to clean up, might in certain instances like this one, if the record is bad enough and the premium high enough, serve only to convince the company it ought to leave?

In this instance, although one might see them go without much sorrow, the people of Ontario will be left picking up the bill and people will be left without employment. What is the minister prepared to do to make sure the company cleans up its act, instead of attempting to leave Ontario and dump the bill on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to get into discussions about who is cleaning and who is not. As a matter of fact, the fibre counts done last November at Johns-Manville were all well below even one fibre and, to my recollection, the majority of them were well below 0.7 fibres per cubic centimetre. In terms of the capacity of the company at the moment to comply with present or even improved standards, it is more than in compliance. It is not a matter of a company at the present time flagrantly disregarding any of the occupational health and safety standards which, I might say, are reviewed very frequently. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) reviewed the external aspects of it from a pollution point of view.

As to whether I have asked for meetings specifically to ask whether they are or are not leaving, I haven’t. But in the course of a conversation a few weeks ago, the subject came up tangentially and there was no indication, to my knowledge, of any suggestion the company intends to leave.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: So that Ontario won’t have to try to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, that is, after Johns-Manville may have left the province, is the minister prepared to bring legislation into this Legislature in order to ensure that any costs of occupational disease or retraining which are incurred by workers after a plant shutdown are borne by the corporation, rather than being left to be picked up by the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the third party knows, the whole question of the workmen’s compensation is at present under review by Professor Weiler and, as the honourable member well knows, under the present act costs that are incurred as a result of occupational illness, should a company close for one reason or another, are covered under that act. If there is to be another approach to it, then that is something I will be pleased to discuss with Professor Weiler and get his views on.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell us exactly the amount of the premiums that Johns-Manville Canada of Scarborough now has to pay? Is it true, as reported in the press, that, whereas the average for the industry is some $2.50 per $100 of payroll, their record is so bad they are now paying a premium somewhere in the line of $40 or $50 per $100 of payroll? If in fact that is roughly the range, does the minister not see that the present system could in some ways be an incentive to a company like that, especially in a multinational situation, simply to walk away from its responsibilities?

What is the minister now doing to make sure that doesn’t happen, apart from noting that a threat to walk away did not happen to come his way tangentially in a previous conversation? What is he doing now to make sure that the system works in such a way (a) to recover the funds from a company like that, and (b) not to be an incentive for them to walk away from their responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I understand it, the rating for that particular industry last year was something like $4.70 per $100 of salary, and in 1980 it is to be about $4. I am advised that in 1979 Johns-Manville did pay a differential for experience rating. I don’t have the exact figure at my fingertips, but if the honourable member wishes it I would be pleased to get it for him.

Again, the member well knows, as I do, from reviewing the Workmen’s Compensation Act that there is nothing in the act at this time that allows any recovery of money from individual corporations in the way that he notes. He and I have talked about this before and I have already put that question to Professor Weiler to have him consider it in his review.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Is the minister aware that in the current negotiations the company is insisting on only a one-year contract and refusing to deal with severance pay in any manner whatsoever as a corporate decision? Does this not underline the fear people have that this company may cut and run?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I know negotiations are still going on. I don’t know the exact details of them. I know the major issue between the parties is a monetary one and I know that mediators today are in touch with both parties to arrange further meetings this week.

HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour surrounding the continuing delays in bringing uranium miners in Elliot Lake under the protection of Ontario’s Bill 70, which requires federal action. What action has the minister taken in order to set the federal Deputy Minister of Labour straight when he suggests the federal provisions on mandatory committees are equivalent to those in Ontario or when he suggests the right to refuse granted under the former Ontario law would be equivalent to what will come when those workers are brought under Bill 70?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member will recall a few months ago I read into the record a letter I had written to the federal Deputy Minister of Labour outlining our position very clearly and outlining the need to clarify the whole matter. I also indicated that telephone conversations had been taking place between my deputy and the Deputy Minister of Labour in Ottawa and as recently as last Friday further conversations took place. I still have reason to believe the matter will be resolved this month.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister taken issue with the federal authority’s statement that it may in fact bring in new regulations over the heads of the union and not in consultation with them? What action will this minister take to ensure the new health and safety provisions for uranium miners in Elliot Lake are, in fact, taken with the co-operation of the union rather than trying to ignore it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the latest information I have following a conversation last week is that that is not the nature of the conversations taking place. I have every reason to hope the regulations and the bill will apply.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say when we can expect the provisions of Bill 70 to apply to uranium miners in Elliot Lake, bearing in mind the impasse which appears to exist right now, and bearing in mind the fact that in Saskatchewan the union estimates it took about six years before the federal government finally came up with an adequate and acceptable set of working regulations for miners in uranium there?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have never suggested there was an impasse. I suggested the word we had from the Ministry of Labour in Ottawa was the matter would be resolved this month and that is still the information I have.

2:20 p.m.

ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Minister of the Environment surrounding the conflict between federal and provincial regulations with regard to the nuclear industry. Does the minister intend to appeal the decision in provincial court last Friday which effectively exempts Eldorado Nuclear Limited from any environmental regulation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the honourable member a full response to that question. I haven’t had a chance yet to discuss it with staff. It is of significant importance to us and I would like to take that question as notice and respond on it, I hope, tomorrow; if not, it will have to be next week.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since this question has been at issue for some months now and since Eldorado Nuclear has been running roughshod over Ontario’s environmental regulations in such matters as the spills of radioactive material from tailings in Port Hope and its air pollution emissions in Port Hope, is the minister saying right now that he has no position? Can he tell the House how Ontario citizens can be ensured that our stronger environmental regulations will be applied to Eldorado Nuclear rather than the weaker federal standards?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am more than pleased to acknowledge that ours are stronger. But no, there were two court decisions last week that are of great importance to us: one in Mississauga, as the honourable member probably also knows, and the Eldorado one. I think both of those deserve very careful consideration because, from our point of view, those court decisions are extremely important. It is not a matter of not having a position; it’s a matter that we must give great consideration to because of the long-term significance of both the one in Mississauga and the Eldorado one, and we will.

I don’t wish to deal in a superficial way with the question, which is, I think, extremely important. I would like to have the time necessary to look into it very carefully.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister is reporting to the House, would he be careful to explain to us what implications the court decision may have for Eldorado’s new uranium hexafluoride refinery which is now being set to be gone ahead with in Blind River?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be pleased to make that a part of the response.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the difficulties that are so clearly evident in the protection of uranium miners in Elliot Lake because of the conflict between federal and provincial regulatory powers, and given that the protection of the environment from Eldorado Nuclear is also in question because of the conflict between the two levels of government, will Ontario undertake to seek from the federal authorities full authority for the environmental protection of the people of this province and for the protection of workers of this province when they are affected by the nuclear industry or working in the nuclear industry, so that this charade does not continue?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, fortunately on Thursday and Friday of this week the council of Ministers of Resources will be meeting in Halifax. I will be glad to raise that and a couple of other issues as well. But certainly that is one I will be glad to speak about to my colleagues there on Thursday and raise the issue as the member would have me do.

DISCHARGE OF PATIENTS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Does the Minister of Health approve of the system now where hospitals discharge patients who have had their extended-care application approved and yet the hospitals are allowed to send them out either to a rest home or to a private home and in that way they do not get proper care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the decision to discharge any patient is a decision of the attending physician. We don’t, as a ministry, get involved with approving or not approving discharge planning procedures of a particular hospital. I am confident though that no doctor would knowingly discharge anyone to any situation that would result in the deterioration of the patient’s condition or inappropriate care.

If the member has a particular individual about whom he is concerned, or a particular hospital, I would hope he would first have taken it up with the hospital or the physician in question. If he would like to pass it on to me, I will take it up with them, if he has a particular concern, but those are the facts.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I do not think those people would appreciate having the three or four names brought out. I am wondering, when the pressure is so great on the hospitals to get more beds, if the doctor feels he hasn’t much choice. Those at the hospital, and the administration as well, are putting so much pressure on the doctor to get the patient out. In effect, they have no alternative, they claim, but to put him out because he needs extended-care coverage.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, again we are talking in general terms, because I do not know the hospital about which the member is concerned or the physician or whatever. I agree, I do not like to bandy people’s names around either. I would be glad to follow up on it if the member likes, but I think every physician is well aware of not only his or her ethical responsibility but his or her legal responsibility, and I know of no physician who would knowingly discharge anyone into a situation where he or she would be at risk.

CARE OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding community-based housing for physically handicapped people who are currently in chronic-care hospitals. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that since March 12 there have been 12 independent community living places in the Three Trilliums Community Place within the Dufferin-Gwynne housing development which have been standing vacant because of the jurisdictional wrangle about funding between the province and Metro? I want to ask him further whether he is aware that today is the deadline for coming up with a solution that will preserve that housing for physically handicapped people who are in chronic-care hospitals, and whether he has a solution to the impasse that has existed now for about six months?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation the honourable member describes. It has been a source of great disturbance for me that our largest municipality in this province has remained intransigent in the face of opportunities that do exist for physically handicapped persons to live in the community, and that they have continually refused to participate in the cost-sharing of the support services for those programs.

As the member knows, when they took that position last year, the understanding was there would be a period of review of cost-share programs between the province and municipalities. At the conclusion of what we thought was the intent of that exercise, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto then maintained that they thought that was just the beginning. They wanted a complete rationalization of the number of cost-shared programs before they would embark on sharing with us in the cost of services to the physically handicapped.

I had made a commitment to get the two projects at present under way in Metro started by agreeing to pay 100 per cent of the support costs to the end of the last fiscal year, on the understanding that at that point Metro would be in a position to agree, I hope, to cost-share from that point onwards.

Since they have refused, I obviously was not going to see that terminated for those persons who are already in community living with the support services, so I have again continued to fund those particular units at 100 per cent. But I am not prepared at this point, and I regret very much having to say this, to allow Metro’s intransigence to whiplash us into a situation where, by virtue of being forced into paying 100 per cent of the costs to appease Metro, we would thereby be depriving handicapped persons in other parts of the province of the opportunity when their municipalities are prepared, as a number have indicated, to cost-share on an 80-20 basis.

I would implore the honourable member and anyone else who might have any influence upon the members of the social services committee of Metropolitan Toronto or the regional chairman, or anyone else who is in a decision-making position, to bring whatever pressure they can to bear upon them to shoulder what I think is their appropriate responsibility in meeting the needs, in cooperation with us, of the physically handicapped.

We have advised the persons involved with the Three Trilliums and others who are interested and supportive of the program, that we stand by ready with our 80 per cent to go ahead immediately.

2:30 p.m.

The problem is not us, and it’s not really a question of our creating any unexpected hurdles for Metro. It really is a question of Metro trying to establish what I think they perceive to be a new approach to support services for certain groups of people, while other municipalities, and even Metro, have in the past provided these kinds of services on a cost-shared basis.

If the member for Bellwoods can assist me, or if he can assist the handicapped persons, along with me, to bring any pressure to bear to move the Metropolitan Toronto council to alter its decision, I would be ready to start tomorrow.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary -- and I wish the minister would please not ask me to try to deal with the government puppet, Godfrey -- in view of the fact that the ministry itself estimated in 1978 that there were 700 disabled people who are currently in chronic-care hospitals but who could, if places were available in the community, live in independent living facilities, such as the Three Trilliums Community Place; in view of the fact that the province is probably paying between $17 million and $25 million a year in chronic-care hospital payments, at 100 per cent, surely it makes sense to the Minister of Community and Social Services, not simply on compassionate grounds but on financial grounds as well, to provide these facilities at 100 per cent funding and get on with the job of building community-based housing instead of squabbling.

How can the government build 700 places if it can’t even build 12?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the logic of the honourable member once again is escaping me. I think he understands, as well as I do, the problems that exist in terms of trying to extricate that kind of money from one program and put it into another. It just doesn’t work that way -- and he knows it doesn’t work that simply. One has to move into a new program area like this on the basis of new resources.

It’s true that if the individuals were to leave the chronic-care facilities and move into a community setting, beds would be freed up, at least temporarily. But I’m sure the member knows there are other persons who are in need of chronic-care services in a hospital setting and who would move in immediately, therefore there would be no cost saving involved.

I would point out to the member that I suspect this very dilemma I’m faced with at the moment is indicative of the fact that Mr. Godfrey is certainly not any more my puppet than Mr. Cressey is the member’s, and he happens to be chairman of the committee.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. I have just sent him a copy of a letter from the Canadian Environmental Law Association regarding funding groups that are opposed to various undertakings.

I wonder if the minister would respond to the first three of the questions; there are some six in number, but I feel the first three are quite important. They are: Who decides if experts are needed, and who would choose the experts? Whose witnesses would these experts be? Would there be a right to full cross-examination of these experts by all parties?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to all three questions is yes.

I’m sorry; that’s hardly fair. To the last question, the answer is yes. I got carried away, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The minister can answer in any way he pleases but I’m sure, on reflection, that wouldn’t be an appropriate answer to the first two questions.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That’s right. Who decides if the experts are needed and who would choose the experts? The Environmental Assessment Board would.

Whose witnesses would these experts be? Those experts would be the witnesses of the public, in the truest sense of the word. We would want those witnesses there so all of the information that is available on any given question could be given. We have opened up the process a great deal to public participation, and this is an extension.

The answer to the third question is yes.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the lawyers for the citizens’ groups under the conditions we have been talking about have the responsibility of leading their own witnesses, rather than the board doing that process?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to think there would be some of both. I suspect the major thrust might come from the solicitor for those in opposition. At the same time, I think the board fully knows it is our policy that we want all of the information looked at. That is why we have encouraged them to support bringing in witnesses or experts on any area where they think their knowledge is deficient. It would be up to the board to make a final decision, not only through the witnesses, but as to whether they were satisfied with the testimony that had been presented.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister whether, if the board decides that a request for a particular witness should not be granted, there would be any right of appeal either to the minister or to any other body against that decision of the board.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I do not think so. I think the board should make that decision. The decision of the board is appealable to cabinet if the hearing is held under the Environmental Assessment Act, or to the appeal board and then to myself if it is under the Environmental Protection Act. I think a decision of this matter would not be appealable per se. The total decision would be, yes, but not on whether or not an expert witness was or was not qualified or whether the board had been given enough testimony.

ROLPH-CLARK-STONE DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Would the minister explain why a company which insisted on joint negotiations with the Graphic Arts International Union, namely, Rolph-Clark-Stone Limited of Brampton, can reach agreement with the other shops involved, including its own Montreal plant, and then, apparently with impunity, refuse to settle at the Brampton plant with clear evidence of bad-faith bargaining, including advertising the jobs of the employees on a legal strike? Will the minister now involve himself in an effort to end, with some justice to the workers, the longest strike in the history of the riding of his colleague the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- over one year now?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize because I do not have the immediate details of that particular strike at my fingertips, but I will be glad to look into it and report to the member.

Mr. Mackenzie: As a supplementary, would the minister also consider the merits of legislation which would impose an agreement where bad-faith bargaining charges are upheld and require those who insist on joint negotiations to be bound by the settlement?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think the member will agree that in the Radio Shack case the Ontario Labour Relations Board showed that in the face of bad-faith bargaining it has a variety of remedies open to it which can and did, as in Radio Shack, result in a settlement.

The member knows my feelings and this government’s feelings about first-contract arbitration. I don’t think there is any need to repeat them.

DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING

Mr. Peterson: In the absence of the Premier, I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The minister is no doubt aware of the discriminatory legislation introduced in the legislatures of both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia with respect to hiring practices in the oil and gas exploration business there. What is this government’s view of this kind of legislation? Has the minister undertaken any entreaties, either formal or informal, with those governments about that legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am aware of that particular legislation which limits the mobility of people across this country. It is indeed disturbing. We were having discussions about it the other day and it is an issue I intend to look into.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister to come back to this House with a full and complete statement about Ontario’s position, which I think is important at this time? Has he ever contemplated referring this to the Supreme Court on a reference for some determination of this kind of legislation which, in our judgement, is in no one’s best interest across this country?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No. The Minister of Labour of this province has not contemplated such an application before the Supreme Court because we don’t have a direct involvement in it. Yes, I will be prepared to give consideration to the suggestion the member has made.

2:40 p.m.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. One of my constituents, Bianca Polsinelli, who is an injured worker, received a decision from the Workmen’s Compensation Board one year ago with no explanation. After the minister’s intervention, the board sent her to a specialist for a second opinion. Despite the fact she was examined on January 2 by Dr. Vanderlinden, and despite the fact that my office has been writing the Workmen’s Compensation Board repeatedly, today, one year after the decision, she doesn’t yet know the board’s final decision. Doesn’t the Minister of Labour think, not only as a minister or a lawyer, but simply as a human being, that delaying for one year such a decision is a total denial of any human justice?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member for Downsview and I did talk about this lady’s problem last fall, I believe it was, and, not from my intervention but from my suggestion, a further referee was selected and a further examination obtained. That is the last I heard of the case until I saw that the honourable member had written me the other day. I will be pleased to look into it and report.

Mr. Di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister of Labour realize it is the common practice of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to neglect to answer letters? If the minister wishes, I can show him numerous letters which go back to February 2, putting us, the members, in a position so we cannot represent our constituents.

Is the minister also aware of the fact the board used to send out slips with payments, like the ones I showed to the minister? A payment for February 26 to March 26, 1979, for $29.92 was sent with no explanation to an injured worker whose decision was rendered on March 21, and his claim was accepted by the board. Does the minister think this is the way the board should deal, not only with us, but with injured workers? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if the member has further information about any undue delays which substantiate what he says, I would be pleased to have it. I have regular meetings with the board to discuss matters such as this.

ASSISTANCE TO AUTO WORKERS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, recognizing that it would be equally appropriate to ask this question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). Would the minister comment upon the possibility of his intervention, or the intervention of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, with General Motors of Canada Limited to give favourable consideration to a suggestion by Local 199 of the United Auto Workers that the plant in St. Catharines be allowed to go on a four-day work week with all employees working for four days and supplementary benefits being paid to compensate for the fifth day when the workers didn’t work? Does the minister feel this is a reasonable suggestion, and if he does, will he be prepared to use his good offices to persuade General Motors to give favourable consideration to that suggestion?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of flexible work arrangements is one that we are going to see more and more of as the years go by. I would be pleased to discuss the matter with my colleague and get back to the honourable member.

Mr. Bradley: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the minister, recognizing that the General Motors supplementary benefits are probably in better shape than, perhaps, those of Ford and certainly Chrysler, would he be prepared to extend that to other auto-making firms in Ontario, specifically Ford and Chrysler, as one of the considerations in certain other specific cases where it would be applicable and reasonable?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, we must remember that collective bargaining remains in the hands of the parties and I don’t think we really want to change that. What the honourable member has asked me is whether I would have discussions with my colleague about that as a possibility that one might make suggestions with regard to. I would be pleased to have those discussions, but I don’t intend to do away with the collective bargaining process.

INCO EMISSIONS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment with regard to the proposed new control order on Inco. We all know that under the present legislation Inco has the right to appeal a notice of intent when it is issued on this subject. Will the minister extend this right to appeal the proposed order to the people of Ontario, whose environment will be degraded by the failure of the ministry to impose tough standards on Inco to meet the growing threat of acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the member would have understood the Environmental Protection Act better than that. I am sure she knows that would require an amendment to the act. If she wants us to go through all those procedures, then the exact opposite will happen to what she claims will happen. We will not have the control order and its accompanying benefits to the people of Ontario but a dragged-out process which would harm the people -- just the contrary to what she suggests. I am sure it would require an amendment to the act, and we are not considering it.

Ms. Bryden: Will the minister give the Legislature a commitment that the appeal procedure will be opened to the people who may lose their entire forest industry and tourist industry if acid rain is not stopped?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not think any change in the act should be considered on one aspect only. We talked about amendments to the act last year when we did a small bill on the pesticides matter. Those considerations are still under consideration.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that despite the laudatory comments by the federal minister, all of which were intended primarily for American consumption so as to start negotiations with the Americans, even now it is still the opinion of the federal minister and all his officials that Inco is capable of a 60 per cent cleanup to something less than 1,000 tons a day within four years without paying a severe economic penalty?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, having discussed this matter at some length with the federal minister, both present and past, we agree that what is needed now -- and this process was started some time ago -- is a very definitive study on what is and what is not possible. That is one of the significant things we put forward last Thursday, that the task force will take into consideration not just a study of the hit-and-miss, random-selection variety but of all the information now available and that which might be put forward because of the federal-provincial arrangements that have been made to study acid rain.

Indeed, I think we have progressed a long way in co-ordinating our abatement procedures, our technical knowledge, and more particularly our studies, and the task force will do that very job. We should not underestimate the extreme value and importance that task force -- representative of federal, provincial, and the public at large -- can render to the people of this and other provinces.

Mr. S. Smith: I asked whether you know whether he disagrees with you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, that is not so.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment having to do with the decision of the divisional court upholding the Mississauga bylaw prohibiting the burning of PCBs in that municipality. Is the ministry going to appeal it? If not, what might the ministry do if other municipalities pass similar bylaws having to do with either the transportation, the burning, or the storage of PCBs?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a very significant court decision that was rendered on the Mississauga bylaw, upholding the Supreme Court of Ontario. We have not decided yet whether the better approach is to appeal or not. Certainly it is one of the things we are contemplating right now. I cannot tell the member how significant we consider that court’s decisions. It has a profound effect and we will have to certainly address this very carefully. We will certainly be doing one of two things -- either appealing or amending legislation. But which is the better of those ways at the minute and which in the short term and long term would give us the better solution, I am not sure. We will be making that decision well within the appeal period granted to us.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not consider alternative 2(a), which would be to make a commitment to the development of the plasma arc furnace, which could be used, to convince the municipalities that the burning on site, rather than the transportation and storage, would be cheaper, effective and safe?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will do as much as we can in that regard, and it is something that I personally hope to spend a little more time on during this next week to 10 days. I think it deserves that kind of attention, and I will make every effort to sort out some of the problems that have surrounded it because, from what I know about it, it is an exciting possibility and would alleviate the PCB problem for communities. I do not think it would deal with the other, and I guess greater, issues that flow from that court decision, as well.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the possible appeal. Perhaps this is a legal point, but could he clarify my understanding that an appeal would be based on new information or at least more likely be successful on new information rather than just appealing for the sake of appealing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add much to my previous response. I am aware of the significance of the decision. We have not fully investigated the court decision. Personally, I have not read it yet, I have only seen excerpts from it and so it will be some time before we finalize a decision. I am not going to argue with what the member has said. It is just that I am sure we all realize that has a very significant impact, not only for my own ministry, but also for other ministries, when that kind of bylaw is upheld.

CARTIER SQUARE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a new question to the Minister of Government Services: Now that the United States has decided to accept an alternative site for its new embassy in Ottawa and to move the proposed embassy from the Cartier Square area, would the minister be prepared to accept the city of Ottawa’s offer of a comprehensive planning study for Cartier Square which would be undertaken within the next 90 days and which would be similar to what the ministry’s own architects say they would need before they could proceed to detailed design plans of the new courthouse?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I tried to get hold of the Hon. Paul Cosgrove to see if the American embassy had decided to move to another location; I have heard rumours of that. I hope to have a call back from him later today or tomorrow morning. At that time I will know, and I will have a chance to discuss the matter further with him. If the honourable member were to ask me the question on Thursday, perhaps I would be able to give him a more detailed answer.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), the member for Ottawa South, has suggested an alternative provincial use for the teachers’ college, which is next door to the proposed courthouse, does that mean the government now is prepared to review other possible alternative uses for the teachers’ college? Specifically, is the province prepared to sit down and talk seriously with the municipality of Ottawa about its proposal to make a civic museum in the teachers’ college rather than cutting it completely off from any public use by leaving it as an officers’ mess?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I have had discussions with Mr. Cosgrove in the past about the possibilities for the teachers’ college and for the American embassy when we thought it was going there, and I have not been told officially whether it will be moving from there. We were going to present the full picture to the National Capital Commission at that time. We told Mr. Cosgrove, as he had promised the citizens’ committee, that they would have a chance to review it along with his advisory committee for the capital commission. I would imagine I would have a more detailed answer on Thursday after I had a chance to discuss it with him.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he would give this House his undertaking that, if he does accede to any request for further studies as to the location of a courthouse in Ottawa, such study will not delay for one minute the construction of a new courthouse in Ottawa which, as he knows, we fought for so long and is so badly needed.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, to answer that question, to the best of my ability I will try to hurry that project along, because I come from that area and I know how badly needed that courthouse is.

DEATH OF STEVEN YUZ

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a question for the Minister of Health. It concerns the recent inquest held concerning the death of young Steven Yuz at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. I wonder if I could ask if the minister has anything further to report concerning the part of the in- quest which states that it was also revealed that 68 pages from a hospital ward blood specimen book, two entire books, and several doctor’s order sheets are missing? Has he anything he can report to the House concerning this part of the inquest?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker. I regret that I cannot. I understand at the time that portions of the book were found to be missing, it was reported to the police. I am afraid I have nothing more I can report to the member at this time. As I learn more about it, though, I will be glad to report that to him.

Mr. O’Neil: Could I ask whether the Minister of Health has consulted with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and whether he will look further into this matter and report to the House?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will report back. The officials of my ministry are in touch with the Hospital for Sick Children today to discuss with them what plans they have to follow up on the recommendations of the coroner’s jury and on specific items like this. To the best of my knowledge though, at this point it is in the hands of the police, but I will report back on that aspect.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the Order Paper. I guess it is not printed yet. I would ask the Minister of Health whether he himself or the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) could provide each of the opposition parties with a transcript from the inquest into the death of Steven Yuz so that we will have the same material that the minister has at the time he makes his report back to us.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we in the Ministry of Health, to the best of my recollection and knowledge, do not receive copies of the transcripts. We receive the reports of the coroners’ juries with their comments and recommendations. If we want copies of the full transcript, we have to pay for it, which either party opposite could do from their research funds.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Ontario, in concert with the Algoma Steel Corporation Limited, is apparently backing out of the agreed procedures worked out for filing accident reports and claims for scarfers’ back injuries there to bring them in line with the approach used at Stelco Inc.?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the matter the member raised.

Mr. Wildman: If the minister is not aware, is he prepared to investigate the claim of a Mr. Miskew of Local 2251, United Steelworkers of America, who filed an accident claim in November 1979, but whose claim was treated by the WCB as a recurrence of a previous claim and thus he was denied any benefits?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would be pleased to ask the board for information about that.

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Stong: I have a question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Now that it is becoming more evident and more accepted that learning disabilities are a physio-psychological disorder and hence a medical problem and that special education programs can, at best, teach students to cope with their disability rather than remedy it, would the minister consider initiating remedial programs such as are in existence at the Tomatis Centre and include those programs under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan provisions to make them more accessible to everyone?

3 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: There is no end to Liberal restraint.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker -- yes, I am reminded of the speech the leader of the member’s party gave in Kingston last year about no new programs, not five cents or something to that effect.

Any new programs that are added under OHIP are added on the basis of their proven clinical merit. In that case I have to tell the member there is considerable dispute in the professional communities about that process. At this point there are no plans to include it under OHIP.

THIRD-LANGUAGE CREDITS

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

I am certain the minister is aware that there has been a proposal at York University to allow one of our other languages to be used as a credit for obtaining a degree. If an individual goes to a university with a good facility in one of the other languages, would the minister consider this and push the universities to consider it as part of a credit for obtaining a bachelor’s degree?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, because of the existence of the heritage language program in the province for the past several years, we have a growing number of students entering secondary schools with facility in a third language. Because of our concern about the maintenance of that facility and the use to which it may be put, this is an item which the secondary school education review project will be looking at very carefully during their year’s study of secondary school education.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARINGS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The present Ontario Municipal Board hearings in Niagara north are costing municipalities, land owners and public interest groups hundreds of thousands of dollars. Considering that and the fact that the Ontario Legal Aid Plan saw fit to provide assistance of up to $40,000 for the Preservation of Agriculture Land Society to assist in its participation in the hearings, does the minister feel it is legally feasible to terminate these hearings and settle this problem by getting the groups together on an informal basis and save all of this money being spent? If it is possible, does the minister feel it advisable to handle the situation in that way?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that before we refer anything to the OMB we try to find some degree of understanding or compromise between the various parties, those for the zoning or those against the zoning or whatever it happens to be.

We spent considerable time with the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), with the mayors of the various municipalities and with some of the other groups which have been involved as well as with their legal counsel, trying to find some solution to the problem before it went to the Ontario Municipal Board. Even after it was referred there, we continued to meet with the various groups to try to find a solution. After numerous hours of discussion we could not find a compromise that was acceptable to the various parties involved. I think the member is aware that the minister is not in a position to withdraw from the Ontario Municipal Board unless he gets the concurrence of the two parties recommending that it go to the board for hearing.

As far as the cost is concerned, I am aware of the decision that was made by the Legal Aid Council of Ontario, and I am having it reviewed to make sure it was within the terms of reference of assisting organizations in appeals.

Mr. Bradley: If my understanding is correct, that ultimately the final decision will be made by cabinet, would the minister inform the House the degree of emphasis he would place on recommendations of the OMB in ultimately reporting to cabinet and coming up with a final decision on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The only reason it would get to cabinet would be if one of the two parties did not accept the Ontario Municipal Board recommendation at that time. I am not about to make any predetermination of the OMB recommendation or whether they would even find a compromise that would be acceptable to the two parties. At the time it is referred there, the OMB’s suggestions and recommendations will be reviewed and a decision of cabinet will come forth.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this further with the Minister of Housing. Is he looking at any new systems as an alternative to these kinds of Ontario Municipal Board hearings which the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) has said are costing fantastic amounts of money -- in this particular case somewhere between $1 million and $2 million -- and which ultimately almost all comes from the taxpayers, either through the municipalities or the provincial government? Is he looking at any other systems, such as public advocacy, or perhaps more leadership from the government itself in these matters by setting some serious guidelines about land use in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the member is fully aware that guidelines have been established for land use in this province. Indeed, at the moment we have under review a new Planning Act, which indicates --

Mr. Swart: Is your government there supporting them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Does the member want to listen to the answer, or does he want to continue to ask a question?

Frankly, with the food land guidelines that were issued, as in any regulation, there will be two different sides taken in relation to those guidelines.

I have been in this ministry for a little more than two years, and I have listened to arguments from PALS and from other groups relating to the land use, and on two different days you can have two different opinions. Some groups have used the food land guidelines and, indeed, this Ontario Municipal Board hearing in the St. Catharines area, as a whipping boy to get their positions put forward very clearly, use some very interesting appeal procedures. They really do not want to appeal the zoning on certain lands, but they find it a great whipping boy.

I agree with the member; if there is one area that does upset the government and, indeed, should upset the taxpayers at every level, it is the fact that certain groups will use certain appeal procedures to bring their case forward to the public regardless of how much it costs. We are in the process of reviewing the Planning Act, and one thing for which we have had strong support all across this province from public organizations --

Mr. Cassidy: You lined up with the developers 10 years ago, and you have never changed.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Ottawa Centre is again yakking when he should be listening.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Ontario Municipal Board is the one body that was fully accepted by all outside parties as being one that should be retained. We realize the cost that is incurred in going to a municipal board hearing, but let’s not get the idea that it is only the private sector that requests municipal board hearings; they involve the public sector as well, that public sector being the municipal level and sometimes the provincial level, requesting a review of the zoning, the official plan and so on. The costs are there. They are part of the cost of governing.

If we were to change the guidelines or to find another process, I could guarantee that there would be groups who would appeal that decision and they would eventually get back to the Ontario Municipal Board. With the new Planning Act, we hope we will find a procedure that is more in keeping with the costs incurred in trying to give the public the opportunity to present their case, the elected people their opportunity and, indeed, to reach a decision that meets the food land guidelines of this province.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWN OF GRIMSBY ACT

Mr. Hall moved first reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the Town of Grimsby.

Motion agreed to.

3:10 p.m.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER AND GOVERNMENT MOTION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answer to question 133 standing on the Notice Paper. I am also tabling government motion 11.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on Thursday, April 24, I rose on a question of privilege, asking about an answer to a written question that had been tabled on April 10 and that should have been introduced on April 24. At that time you indicated you would have your table officers investigate.

Subsequent to that, I received a response from the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to question 110 which was tabled on April 25. The question had been directed to the Ministry of Health and to the Ministry of Northern Affairs. I have as yet not received any answer, nor has it been tabled in the House, from the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Speaker: I will take another look to see whether or not there has been any infringement of the standing order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DEBATE ON CONFEDERATION

Hon. Mr. Wells, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. S. Smith and Mr. Cassidy, moved resolution 11:

That we the Legislative Assembly of Ontario commit ourselves, as our highest priority, to support full negotiation of a new constitution to satisfy the diverse aspirations of all Canadians and to replace the status quo which is clearly unacceptable; and, further, we affirm our opposition to the negotiation of sovereignty-association; and, therefore, we appeal to all Quebeckers to join with other Canadians in building this national constitution; and, further, we hereby appoint a select committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on constitutional reform to consider and report with dispatch on ways to achieve this objective.

L’honorable M. Wells, en l’absence de l’honorable M. Davis, appuyé par M.S. Smith et M. Cassidy, a proposé:

Qu’il soit résolu que, nous de l’Assemblée Législative de l’Ontario nous engageons, en priorité de première instance, à appuyer la négociation complète d’une nouvelle constitution pouvant satisfaire les diverses aspirations de tous les canadiens et pour remplacer le statu quo qui est clairement inacceptable; de plus, nous affirmons notre opposition à la négociation de la souveraineté-association; en conséquence, nous lançons un appel aux québécois pour qu’ils se joignent aux autres canadiens dans l’élaboration de cette nouvelle constitution nationale; de plus, nous nommons par la présente un comité spécial de l’Assemblée Législative de l’Ontario sur la réforme constitutionnelle pour qu’il prenne en considération les moyens d’atteindre cet objectif et qu’il nous fasse un rapport dans les plus brefs délais.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks on the motion, first let me say that the Premier (Mr. Davis), who was speaking in London today, had hoped to be here, but unlike usual days with statements and points of order, et cetera, we’re starting a good 15 minutes earlier than perhaps we would normally have started the debate. He will be here in a very few minutes.

Further, I would like to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for not being in the House at two o’clock when the point of order was raised concerning the column in the Toronto Sun this morning. I understand the House leaders for the other two parties commented on it. I would like to add my words of support to what they said. The arrangements for TV that were outlined in the memo to all members were agreed to by all House leaders. There is no way you should bear any particular vendetta or campaign against yourself for having sent the memo out on those particular recommendations.

I think we all agreed that this was a good debate upon which to try this type of television coverage of the House. The arrangements which were detailed in the memo that the members received very much parallel those which are practised in the House of Commons. I wanted to add my support to the other House leaders and say that I thought the column in the Sun was out of place and not called for.

The resolution we have heard, moved by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party, represents very clearly and very simply the position of this party, the government party in this province, and I’m sure the other two parties and all the members of this assembly. It’s a message we want to send today and this week from this historic place, in this historic debate, to the people of Quebec. It’s a message from the people of Ontario. The message that is phrased in this resolution is a message from 124 members of this assembly who represent 8.5 million Ontarians. It’s the message we want to transmit to all those people who live in the great province of Quebec.

It’s not often this House has the opportunity to address itself to a resolution such as this, the significance of which I think extends well beyond our accustomed mandate and the familiar boundaries and extents that we usually talk about. It extends well beyond this province to all parts of Canada. It is not often that the elected representatives of the province and the people of Ontario have before them a resolution with the implications of this one, the implications of such fundamental concern, a very basic fundamental concern -- the preservation of Canada itself. This is a rare and unusual moment for all of us, and the future may say it was a historic one.

The last time this House dealt with a significant resolution such as this was on May 18, 1967, when this House supported on a vote of 70 to 1, the proposal that the government convene a Confederation of Tomorrow conference. That conference was held six months later, in November 1967.

There are many members here today who were present when that motion was debated and voted upon in this House.

If this resolution passes -- and I believe it will -- and if we then take up our task, as indicated in it, and if we apply our best efforts and energy; and if we inspire and encourage the goodwill and co-operation of others; if we remain throughout dedicated and determined -- as I believe we will -- this will be a historic moment in the history of the Ontario Legislature, since it well could represent the turning point in that prolonged and protracted, and very often frustrating, long period during which we’ve been seeking to renew and strengthen our Confederation.

This could be part of the turning point. Only history will be able to record that for sure, but I have a feeling that we are embarking here today, and in this week, upon a historic debate which will have great ramifications for this country of ours -- Canada.

What is said here is as important in this present circumstance as what we’re setting out to do. We’re setting out to pass a resolution, and I believe we will do so. Equally important is what is said. It’s no less important than the spirit of our intent, as we express to those who speak, and to those to whom we are speaking, what this resolution means to us.

We would do ourselves a great disservice if we don’t very forcefully, and in very unequivocal terms, put forward to those to whom we are speaking, not only to our fellow members of this House but to the people of Quebec, our sincere belief in the motion we are being asked to vote on -- which we will pass -- and which we say is our message to them at this very important time.

3:20 p.m.

There is really only one issue before us in this great debate: What actions are we prepared to take to keep Canada together? We will be known by our deeds, not our words. Our words are important at this time but, ultimately, it will be by our deeds we shall be known as a people and as a government that have put down a new foundation for national understanding. I think that is very important. What actions are we prepared to take? It is those deeds we do from here on in that will count, not just what we say, although at this time in this debate what we say is important as our message flows through to the people of Québec.

It is important since there are some who do not share our commitment to Canada and who look rather hopefully towards Ontario for some sign of resignation, some sign of wariness and some sign of uncertainty on this issue. There are those also, as I found in a recent visit I made to Quebec, who believe, or would like to believe, that Ontario is reluctant to explore fully and willingly the possibility of significant constitutional change, much less champion it. I found there are those who really do not believe us when we say we are prepared to follow through on significant constitutional change. They have to be shown that all of us here in Ontario will not only say that but will champion it.

They don’t quite believe us because they see us as the principal beneficiaries of the status quo. The view that we in this province are likely, if not certain, to be selfish and self-seeking in the search for a new constitution and a renewed federalism would come very naturally to those people who do not see themselves first and foremost as Canadians and who do not see their future in a united Canada because the present arrangements within Confederation, it can be said, have served Ontario well in the past. The argument proceeds from there to the conclusion by some of these people, therefore, that Ontario simply now wants to keep things as they are.

That opinion is more useful to those who express it than it is really factual. For as long as I can remember, Ontario has been a province and a people in the vanguard of reform. We have pioneered social reform in this country. We have supported it. We have supported many constructive initiatives in constitutional change from many sources.

What other province in Canada in the last dozen years or so has given so much of its time and attention and has spent so much of its resources on the subject of a renewed Confederation as has Ontario? When I look around my office and the offices in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, there are mountains and mountains of reports and papers representing weeks and months of work, of deliberate thought, of study, all directed towards constitutional change and reform.

Anybody who looks at those reports and studies these reports and our positions would be deprived of the thought that we are reluctant to abandon the status quo. Surely, to any reasonable mind, it would suggest just the opposite. We are not for the status quo. I think that message must be very thoroughly said. We in this province are personally and, I say, collectively committed to refashioning this country in such a way as to heal our major historical wounds. I would say we will not cease in pursuing this number one national priority until that task is successfully completed.

The status quo is as unacceptable to Ontario as is sovereignty-association. That, I think, must be said very clearly and in a very straightforward manner to everyone at this time. The resolution of this House does that.

Our commitment to constitutional reform is real and determined. We recognize and support the clear call for change that is coming from all across Canada. We are determined to advance that cause because we want to strengthen all parts of Canada. I believe a strong argument could be made that in prior discussions to advance the cause of Quebec within Confederation, Ontario has probably been one of Quebec’s greatest allies.

Much has been said recently by the proponents of sovereignty-association about the struggle Quebec has had to wage within Canadian federalism. We have not been reminded, however, that Quebec has rarely been alone in its fight. It has rarely been alone in its fight within Canadian federalism as it struggled to get a better deal. If you make even the most cursory survey of the evolution and development of Canadian federalism, Mr. Speaker, you will see that Ontario and Quebec have, more often than not, been partners in shaping Canada.

From 1867 to the present our two provinces together have resisted repeated efforts by the federal power to undermine provincial competence in fields of jurisdiction which the Fathers of Confederation clearly assigned to the provinces. On some occasions Quebec led the fight and Ontario weighed in with its whole-hearted support, while at other times Ontario led the way and Quebec offered its solidarity in the cause. The result over time I believe has been a stronger, total country with governments better suited to respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of the people.

This debate on Confederation gives us the opportunity, I believe, to review our rich and fascinating history as a people. Our growth from perilous beginnings to enviable prosperity, our growth from perilous beginnings to the peace that we enjoy today, comes alive for us once again as we think of our history.

Our development should not be viewed only in the abstract and dry vocabulary of constitutional discussion, or of economics and so forth. Instead, I think we should look at our past and see it come alive in the flesh and blood of the powerful builders of this country. I think of the great champions of Quebec such as Mercier, Lesage and Johnson. Their strength and dedication shaped Quebec and it shaped Canada.

Ontario too is proud of the contribution of its leaders, such as Mowat, Ferguson, Drew, Frost, Robarts and, today, Bill Davis. If these leaders of both Ontario and Quebec had not shown the capacity to work together, would Canada have attained the quality of life that is the envy of much of the world today? It is this co-operation between our two provinces and the benefit that this has brought that I would like to examine a little more closely.

Our relationship goes back years, of course, before Confederation. Whether it was Mackenzie and Papineau, or the Ontarian Baldwin who was elected in Quebec while the Quebecker Lafontaine was elected in Ontario, the history and peoples of the two provinces have long been joined together.

When the Fathers of Confederation created this country in 1867, they wrote a constitution that reflected this history, taking into account both the duality of its two cultures and the economic and social diversity that existed in the four original provinces. Sir John A. Macdonald threw himself into the task of nation-building by creating a national economy, and binding together the various regions of this country by a network of railroads and canals. But Sir John A., Mr. Speaker, sometimes overstepped the bounds of the Confederation agreement itself, and when he did, when he overstepped the bounds of that agreement, Oliver Mowat of Ontario was always quick to point out his lapse.

Mowat was Premier of Ontario from 1872 to 1896, and I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, he is considered the father of provincial rights in Canada. But Mowat’s resistance to federal encroachment was not based on parochialism and it was not based on want of vision. No, he believed that the best way to develop a new nation and a new national spirit was by encouraging its growth out of the older, deeper loyalties that were embodied in the provinces which constituted Canada. He asserted provincial control over natural resources and carried through to victory in the courts many constitutional challenges.

3:30 p.m.

When Premier Mercier of Quebec called the first interprovincial conference in 1887, Mowat backed him up. Together they fought to preserve the right of the provinces to legislate in areas assigned to them by the British North America Act and to collect the revenues necessary to accomplish these ends. Canada in the late 19th century was as much shaped by these two tough-minded Premiers, Mercier and Mowat, as by their better-known federal counterparts.

Let me read a quote from part one of the book, The Canadians. It says: “The exuberance that prevailed on the purely provincial scene in Ontario was given increased emphasis by the success of the contest over Dominion and provincial powers that Mowat waged with Macdonald. The great Conservative chieftain, largely by the judicial exercise of Ottawa’s powers of patronage, had been able to keep the smaller provinces in accord with the policies of the federal government. But Ontario proved her bigness by an ability to fight Ottawa. Mowat was the first of a long line of Canadian provincial Premiers to acquire great repute by boldly and successfully challenging the government in Ottawa. He was joined at the time and joined well together by Premier Mercier of Quebec.”

The spirit of co-operation and solidarity which these men created between Ontario and Quebec has passed on to succeeding generations of leaders in both our provinces. In the 1920s Premier Taschereau of Quebec and Premier Ferguson of Ontario united in urging the development of hydro projects on the Ottawa River and in scuttling the federal government’s plans to amend the constitution unilaterally.

The Depression and the Second World War prompted the federal government to move aggressively into social welfare and tax fields that were really within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In the reconstruction period following the war, and throughout the 1950s, it was Maurice Duplessis of Quebec and George Drew and Leslie Frost of Ontario who sought to redress the imbalance in Canadian federalism that had been caused by economic calamity and war.

Mr. Nixon: We must correct that record.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think it is a very enviable and good record.

Mr. Nixon: Duplessis and Hepburn were the ones who stopped King.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member is right and there is another example, Mr. Speaker, that I could add to my list.

The provinces were faced with growing demands for education, health care, pensions and other social assistance programs. But the federal government had appropriated the tax fields which should have provided the revenues for these services. Throughout the late 1940s and the 1950s, Ontario and Quebec demanded a greater tax share that would enable them to fulfil their responsibilities for their citizens. It was through their joint efforts that some fiscal relief was finally provided.

With the election of Jean Lesage in 1960 began a decade of intense debate on difficult federal-provincial issues. But again, Ontario and Quebec were united, I say to members, in common cause. Premier Lesage resumed the long-dormant practice of holding interprovincial conferences and all the provinces were able to come together and were more clearly able to see the problems they all shared.

Premier Robarts also recognized the danger inherent in the increasingly difficult relations between Quebec and the federal government. Calling on the long tradition of mutual support between Ontario and Quebec, he refused to see that province, Quebec, isolated in its demands for tax reform and control over social programs, both of which were properly within provincial jurisdiction. As well as these problems, Ontario also recognized the challenge posed by Canada’s cultural duality and the need for fundamental constitutional renewal.

Therefore, I mentioned the Confederation of Tomorrow conference. In convening the conference in 1967, Premier Robarts gave concrete expression to Ontario’s and Quebec’s shared concern about this country’s future. That conference was a bold move and one whose ramifications continue through to today.

As Premier Daniel Johnson said about the conference: “I am confident that this conference will be a starting point for a new Canada in which linguistic and cultural duality will no longer be a source of misunderstanding and conflict but a factor for co-operation, mutual enrichment and assertion of our Canadian identity.”

Perhaps at times it has looked as if the Confederation of Tomorrow conference and all that came out of it was not really successful, but I say to the House, as we come through the present times, the conference will be seen as one of the starting points of this total process that I believe will successfully build a greater and better Canada.

The shared perception of our two provinces was further reinforced in June 1969, when John Robarts and Jean-Jacques Bertrand, then Premier of Quebec, signed the Ontario-Quebec agreement for co-operation and exchange, and the Ontario-Quebec permanent commission was set up at that time. This body has carried on many joint activities between our provinces in a cultural and educational sense, and that group still exists today.

Now we move on to the 1970s, a decade marked by serious efforts to achieve constitutional change. From the Confederation of Tomorrow conference, we moved to a period of real concerted attempt to bring about constitutional change. A variety of new and different economic issues emerged in our federation, which issues also became large in the 1970s.

The decade began, I remind you again, with the nearly successful talks at Victoria. Ontario’s delegation at that very significant meeting was led by the present Premier of this province, William Davis, who patiently and skilfully worked with the Prime Minister and the other provincial Premiers to produce the most comprehensive constitutional document in a century. I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was there, as also was I in my role as Minister of Social and Family Services. Perhaps other members of this House were present.

Mr. Renwick: And the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).

Hon. Mr. Wells: And the member for York South. I remember the former leader of your party was there, was he not, and the member for York South also.

Mr. Martel: The member for York South was the leader.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Was the member for York South the leader then? Excuse me.

Those of us who were there I think will attest to what I have said of that conference. It, and the work that preceded it, made up one of the most concentrated efforts at constitutional reform, and we came so very close to an agreement on a new constitution. Perhaps in retrospect today what we had agreed to may not look as good as it did then. The fact remains, and the Premier will remember because he led the Ontario delegation in an excellent manner, that those people believed when they left Victoria that they had achieved what many said could not be achieved and that a new Canadian constitution had been arrived at. The work was intense and the work was significant.

Unfortunately, the event was not to come about. For reasons known only to itself, Quebec decided not to ratify that new constitution, but I would say it was not for want of effort on the part of this province or any other province that that effort failed. We all worked hard on it, and I guess many of us wish that had been a success in the early 1970s. Perhaps the course of events through the late 1970s and now the 1980s would have been changed.

In spite of that disappointing setback, we did not cease in our efforts to maintain a close working relationship with our sister province of Quebec. Although it did not agree with the new constitution that came out of Victoria, we still carried on through the 1970s in our close working relationship with Quebec as a province within Canada.

3:40 p.m.

My purpose today in sketching this quick review of part of our history is to remind us of our shared heritage. I think there is a real danger today, and it is being practised by some people today, in highlighting only the difficulties that Quebec has experienced within Confederation and only its differences with the rest of Canada. Those who do so have their own motives and they are certainly free to highlight only these difficulties and differences. But I want to appeal to Quebeckers to recall not those difficulties and differences but a more positive tradition, namely the close co-operation that Ontario and Quebec have traditionally enjoyed as a part of Canada.

The roots of our shared experience lie very deep in the past, as I hope I have shown the House. Our respect for each other has grown through shared adversity and shared good fortune. It is a tradition that must continue to nourish us in this country of ours, Canada. But this is a tradition that can only be shared by Canadians and it would not continue between a province of Ontario and a sovereign Quebec.

Ontarians will not calmly accept the dismemberment of their country. The people of this province would not be and are not of that nature. They wouldn’t accept the dismemberment of their country and then sit down willingly and work out economic and other arrangements with the very government that caused the rupture in the first place.

As I have noted, Ontarians have worked closely with Quebeckers, as have their governments, on many matters of common concern to us all as Canadians over the years. Even though we would continue to be geographic neighbours, it would be very naive to expect the same spirit of co-operation would automatically continue. I think that must be emphasized. I think that’s a very important point today.

I believe I speak for the vast majority of Ontario residents when I say that no kind of separation from Quebec would be amicable. The Parti Quebecois is fooling itself if it believes that life would be business as usual after such a dramatic event as separation from Canada. Ontarians are not unemotional when challenged on matters over which they deeply care about; and the people of Ontario deeply care about their country, Canada.

This absolute rejection of sovereignty-association means it is of the utmost importance that Ontario respond clearly and positively to the calls for change to our federal system which have been coming from Quebeckers for years and are now coming from all over this country, from many other provinces. We must not be just negative. We must also be positive and we are positive because we say that we are now for changes to our constitution.

I want to use this occasion to reiterate in clear and simple terms to the people of Quebec that Ontario is prepared to go to the negotiating table at any time and at any place to achieve constitutional reform within a united Canada, and we are prepared to go in a sincere and determined manner. Ontario is prepared to negotiate and bargain on any constitutional matters. It is prepared to give ground, as others must do, and it will negotiate in good faith.

But Ontario will not give ground on Canada or the preservation of a nation from sea to sea, a Canada with a common citizenship and the free movement of people and the free movement of goods and the products of the people’s creative energies across this country among all provinces and all jurisdictions. We will not give ground on Canada.

I know we have a good base to negotiate a new constitution. We have a base that is buttressed by studies done by our task force on Canadian unity, our advisory committee on Canadian unity headed by Ian MacDonald. We have the report of the Pepin-Robarts task force on Canadian unity. We have the Quebec Liberal Party beige paper. We have other excellent studies that give us a good base. Buttressed by these and other studies we will do, I believe we can arrive at a fundamental restructuring of our constitution.

There must be no doubt left in any mind as to this question. While there is no item that would be excluded from the agenda under the heading of constitutional change, I again emphasize to you we would not be negotiating sovereignty-association. Ontarians would simply not negotiate anything which would bring about the destruction or fragmentation of their country.

Out of this experience it is absolutely clear to me that if there had been any support for the status quo in our evolving federation it has certainly vanished. This government and all governments in Canada, with the possible exception of the Parti Quebecois government, are now solidly committed to devising a new constitution for Canada.

Our message is no to sovereignty-association, no to the status quo and an emphatic yes to a new constitution for Canada strongly supportive of all parts of Canada. That is what our resolution says -- no to sovereignty-association, no to the status quo and an emphatic yes to a new constitution for Canada supporting all the parts and regions of Canada.

We want all the governments of Canada to sit down as soon as possible to negotiate that constitution, perhaps within four to six weeks after May 20. We want a government to be there from Quebec negotiating a new federal constitution because we believe we can do a better job if that government is there. Whether that happens or not will depend on the vote on May 20.

We are not here in this House today to tell the people of Quebec how to vote on May 20; that is for each resident of that province to decide for himself and herself. But I think, based on our long-standing friendship, our long-standing co-operation, we want them to know how deeply we feel about this matter, and what we do feel.

They have a very important decision to make on May 20. I would like to say to them, and it is a small but important semantic anomaly, that those who vote yes in the referendum will negate the thrust of constitutional change, while those who vote no will all but guarantee its success. In other words, there is no better way of ensuring the certain preservation of the status quo in this country for years to come than a yes vote in the referendum.

That, of course, is the reality of our opposition to sovereignty-association as expressed in this resolution today, a term which the Premier of Ontario has properly described as separatism by stealth.

For myself, and I expect others agree, I would like to say, after having given it great thought, I would not remain as member of any government in this province or be a supporter of any political party which would negotiate what would amount to the destruction of Canada as a nation. I say that because I do not think there is any other of the 124 members of this House who would say anything different. I think that is the ultimate practicality on this matter.

The possibility of this or any other government of Ontario agreeing to negotiate the dismemberment of Canada does not exist within the reality of Ontario politics. That is the bottom line, and I think that is the message we want to give to our friends in Quebec.

3:50 p.m.

The resolution before us today appeals to our fellow citizens in Quebec not to be negative but to join with us in the task of creating this new Canadian constitution, and that is there in the words of this resolution. It is going to be a long and a difficult process, but it will be not as long as the alternative proposed in the referendum, nor is it so impossible of achievement as the alternative of sovereignty-association.

Ponder those thoughts. Creating a new Canadian constitution will be a difficult thing, but it will not take as long as will the establishment of sovereignty-association, nor is it as impossible of achievement. I really believe that. So far as we are concerned as one party to the deliberations, as one party in this House, it will represent our highest priority. That also is in our resolution, because it asks all of us to affirm that this is our highest priority.

As I said a few minutes ago, I hope that when we sit down at that negotiating table very soon we will be sitting down with a government representing the province of Quebec together with the other provinces and the federal government, because we need the goodwill and encouragement of the people of Quebec which we traditionally have had over 113 years. I hope that, speaking as a Canadian, we will be able to give that encouragement from this debate to the people of Quebec.

As a citizen of Ontario and as a member of this Legislature, I look upon this period of history as one of challenge and one of opportunity in which each one of us has a very clear role and a very clear responsibility. I would not want to look back upon these times, some time in the future, and find that we had lacked the will and the spirit to respond and that, as a result we had in reality failed our country. I would not want to look back and find that.

All the members of this House, I am sure, have had the same experience as I have. I entered politics in the belief that there was some service I might render, first to my constituents and then to my province as a whole, that there would be policies which I could advance and support that would improve the lot and the lives of those I represented. I think all of us have felt that way, and I think all of us have been able to live up to that very high hope. I believed that, when there was a worthy cause, I would champion it and I believe that all of us have championed worthy causes in this House. If there was one cause that was not worthy, I could oppose it, and I believe that all of us have opposed causes which we felt were not right.

In speaking in support of this resolution and very mindful of the tensions and the uncertainties abroad in our country, one can only conclude that what we do in the weeks and months ahead will be as vital in its consequence to Ontario and Canada as anything that most of us have so far experienced. It is, therefore, important that Ontario speak and act in singular accord of mind, spirit and heart as a signal to all Canadians of our united resolve to help find a more harmonious and a more creative partnership here in a renewed and united Canada.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, Monsieur le Président, I am extremely proud to lead off on behalf of the Liberal Party in Ontario in our full and unanimous support of this resolution.

I have listened to the address by the member for Scarborough North, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), and it is obvious some thought has gone into his address. He expressed himself with compassion and sincerity and as one who has understood the national perspective of what Ontario’s place is within Confederation.

I think he will be well received because through the years, and especially as Minister of Education, he has acquired a reputation as one who truly understands the national perspective, not only of the minorities within Ontario, but also of the country.

It is fitting as well that I congratulate all members, and especially our colleague the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who participated with the minister and myself, along with our respective House leaders, in drafting this resolution. Undoubtedly, it should be put on the record that this resolution, by and large, has the support and input of many members from all sides of the House. That should be emphasized.

It is important, and I am extremely proud of the fact, that we are taking the time and making the effort in Ontario. After all, as one of the original partners in the agreement, it is only fitting that Ontario have a say, that the wishes, the intentions and the motivations of Ontario of the past and for the future be given and be told to people in Quebec so that one partner, at least, can express its views at the same time as another partner is in the process of questioning the whole partnership.

I am extremely proud to participate in the debate and to lead off on behalf of my party. I do not want to say this to the exclusion of the other parties. I am sure my colleagues will take advantage at some time or other to mention the accomplishments of their respective parties. However, on behalf of my colleagues, I say that the Liberal Party of Ontario, by and large, has had a national perspective.

I am pleased to say I have served here since 1971 under two leaders, and both of these leaders have had what I consider to be this overview. They have had a perception of what this country is about. I am extremely proud to be a member of a party which at times has taken the leadership and at times has taken positions which were not always the more politically attractive.

Some will say that the debate is too little and too late. Some will say that possibly we should mind our own business here, that this is a Quebec question, that the decision will be made in Quebec and that the referendum is being held in that province. First of all, let me say I do not think that when one is fighting for Canada and fighting for this country that it is ever too late, or it is ever too little.

I think personally the timing could not be better. More than a year ago, when we discussed having this type of resolution, I said to my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that we should try to have it at a time when it would have impact. Considering the multitude of verbiage that has taken place since last year, possibly the position of Ontario and the feeling of all parliamentarians in this Legislature would be long forgotten had the debate taken place a year or two years ago. This is the right time because this is the time that many things are being said about Ontario’s position, about the motivation of Ontario and about Ontario’s place within Confederation. It is important that the major partner within the system have a say and have a say at a time when it will have, in my opinion, maximum impact.

Building and sustaining a country are not a matter of one event or the actions of one individual, but a combination of the actions of many individuals and of many events. I think this is an important time.

4 p.m.

I’ve listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talk a bit about history and how historians will look at this event, and possibly, how some of us will. I don’t know how this is going to turn out. But looking at the scheme of things, I’m extremely proud to say that in Ontario in May 1980 we put aside a week to allow all members to participate in an important debate. We felt that all people in Ontario, represented by the members present from all sides, had the right and would be given the opportunity to say how they felt, and to make some contribution to the debate that is taking place in Quebec.

I’m extremely proud to say that in Ontario in May 1980 it was not business as usual. We put aside the ordinary business of this House and we took the time necessary to give this rare opportunity, not only to the leaders and the front-benchers and the ministers, but to all members of the Legislature.

All of us will be able to look back on this occasion, and when people ask us where we were and what we were doing at the time when an important debate was taking place concerning the future of this country, we can say, in the tradition of our ancestors, that when a crisis arose, when there was a challenge before us, at least we attempted to rise to meet the crisis, to meet the challenge, and we participated. We were not silent in Ontario. For that reason, I think it is important.

We are told that we should not meddle in the affairs of Quebec. I say that doesn’t make sense. If the question in Quebec was simply, “Do you want independence?” -- that doesn’t talk about association -- it might be one thing for Ontario to say Quebec should do this and it should do that. Maybe at that point people in Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada, should tell us to mind our business. But the fact remains the question is one of souveraineté-association. When we’re talking about association, we’re talking about association with us.

When Quebeckers are given a message about how we shall react, or why they should vote a certain way because Ontario, along with the other provinces, will take a particular position, it is important that message from this House be clear, unequivocal and unanimous as to what is our position on all this. For this reason, I am proud to be one of the people supporting this resolution. I think the resolution is simple, I think it’s direct and I think it’s to the point.

Possibly one of the major contributions that I can make is to address my colleagues in Quebec in their language. I can address the majority of the people of Quebec and tell them that I have had the opportunity and the privilege to represent the only urban riding in Ontario with a French-speaking majority. Since 1971 there have been many battles in this place and there have been many issues discussed. I think it is important that I address my colleagues in Quebec about how I perceive the situation.

I’m extremely grateful for this opportunity. I think it was very wise of the House leaders, and of you, Mr. Speaker, to provide translation facilities. I think it was very wise to give the public of Ontario, and I hope the public of Quebec, an opportunity to see what we have to say in this House through the medium of television. I want to address my confreres in the province of Quebec.

Monsieur le Président, j’ai eu l’honneur depuis 1971 de représenter le comté Ottawa--est, et je peux dire a mes collègues au Québec que j’ai eu l’occasion de vivre l’expérience canadienne.

Etant francophone, né en Saskatchewan, j’ai fait mon éducation au Québec et maintenant j’ai eu l’opportunité de compléter mon droit à l’université d’Ottawa, et maintenant représenter un comté, un comté important, un comté qui a une grande tradition ici en Ontario depuis 1971.

Certainement, les Franco-Ontariens, je suis sûr plusieurs Québécois, savent très bien que j’ai lutté souvent pour les revendications de la minorité dans cette province et à maintes occasions j’ai eu l’occasion de même critiquer le gouvernement et je suis convaincu que c’est pas fini, cette critique, que ça va continuer, mais tout de même, Monsieur le Président, je crois que c’est important que le Québec sache que mes concitoyens au Québec sachent quelle est la position des Ontariens, quelle est la position même des Canadiens-Français ici en Ontario, vis-à-vis le débat qui a lieu présentement au Québec. Et je dois leur dire que, d’après moi, cette résolution qu’on supporte d’une façon unanime ici représente la majorité, non simplement des Ontariens anglophones, mais des Canadiens-Français ici en Ontario.

Vous savez, Monsieur le Président, si les Québécois, si on demande aux Québécois aujourd’hui de choisir soit pour le oui, soit pour le non, je crois qu’il est important que les Québécois au moins fassent un choix judicieux, un choix qui est basé sur des informations qui ressortent en Ontario, qui sont correctes, des informations qui sont justes, et alors je crois qu’il est important par ce débat, et par cette résolution, que les informations, que les intentions de cette province soient claires et je crois que la résolution le fait. Et je crois que c’est tout à fait normal qu’un des partenaires importants et un des partenaires originaux à toute cette confédération, qui est cette grande province de l’Ontario, ait la chance d’exprimer sa volonté en même temps qu’une autre des provinces importantes, à grande tradition: la province de Québec, encore est offerte un nouveau choix pour changer la fédération qui existe présentement.

Et alors, Monsieur l’Orateur, Monsieur le Président, certains au Québec et même au Canada vont nous dire, écoutez, mêlez-vous de vos affaires, c’est pas de vos affaires, ce qui se passe, la situation, la décision va être prise au Québec, mais je leur dis tout simplement--ce n’est pas le cas. Ca l’est de nos affaires. Si la question est pure et simple, tout simplement « Etes-vous en faveur de l’indépendance? », je dirais, « Vous avez raison. C’est votre décision, vous êtes chez vous, c’est votre décision à prendre ». Mais ce n’est pas la question, la question est clairement basée sur un principe qu’on appelle « souveraineté-association ». Et cette association, Monsieur le Président, va avoir lieu avec une des provinces, la province principale, je crois que, unanimement, les Québécois seraient d’accord que l’Ontario va être une des provinces, un des partenaires principaux dans cette association. Et alors, c’est pour cette raison qu’on a notre mot à dire.

Vous savez, on fait la campagne au Québec, et la campagne référendaire, vous savez, Monsieur l’Orateur, est basée sur deux grands principes. Le Parti Québécois dit aux Québécois deux choses. Premièrement, il faut voter « oui », parce que si vous votez « non », vous votez pour garder le statu quo. Premier principe. En d’autres mots, ici en Ontario, vous savez, ils veulent garder le statu quo.

D’ailleurs, si je regarde, Monsieur le Président, les débats de l’Assemblée nationale, du 4 mars, 1980, je regarde ces débats, et je regarde la page 49-66, par le discours du premier ministre du Québec, qu’il donnait à l’ouverture du débat sur la question référendaire. Il disait à ce moment-là, qu’une réponse négative, elle, consacrerait à nouveau et pour longtemps le lien de dépendance du Québec par rapport à la majorité anglo-canadienne. Elle consacrerait de nouveau et pour longtemps le statu d’inégalité du people québécois, et puis encore une situation de plus en plus minoritaire au sein de l’ensemble fédéral.

4:10 p.m.

Ce serait la continuation sinon la perpétuation des conflits interminables, des cul-de-sac fédéraux-provinciaux, des chevauchements innombrables dans lesquels se dilue la responsabilité, et dans une stérilité sans cesse croissante se gaspillent tant d’énergie, de ressources et de temps. En d’autres mots, le premier ministre du Québec dit fermement aux Québécois « Votez oui, parce que si vous votez non, vous consacrerez le statu quo, et dans tout ça, l’Ontario est en tête de toute cette question-là.

Alors j’ai l’intention de dire à mes concitoyens québécois notre position, et d’ailleurs on le dit dans notre résolution ce qu’on pense du statu quo. En plus de ça, le premier ministre du Québec dit à ces concitoyens au Québec, ii dit écoutez, si vous votez oui à souveraineté-association, cette association va se faire.

Parce qu’il y a beaucoup de Québécois, Monsieur le Président, qui disaient que, pour une association, ça prend l’appui, ça prend l’approbation dos autres provinces, ça prend l’approbation de l’Ontario, mais, même si tous les premiers ministres des autres provinces--que ça soit le premier ministre Davis ici, que ça soit les premiers ministres Lougheed, Blakeney, et autres--on dit, même si l’on dit, « non, on ne négociera pas souveraineté-association », ce qu’on dit au Québec, c’est qu’ils vont négocier quand même. En d’autres mots, on donne des informations qui sont fausses. Et chacun dit en Ontario, Monsieur le Président, et tout simplement, écoutez, il y a 200,000 emplois qui reposent sur cette fameuse question-là. Alors, ils vont rester associés, ils vont négocier association, il veulent pas en Ontario perdre 200,000 emplois.

Et, c’est seulement dire, Monsieur le Président, ce que le premier ministre du Québec disait, ce qu’il disait durant le débat, encore le débat qui a eu lieu le 4 mars 1980, à la page 49-68, le débat de l’Assemblée nationale, où il disait, « Or, nous proposons justement le maintien de l’espace économique canadien, qui a été le fondement de cette réalité, et nous maintenons le maintien à peu près, tel qu’il existe ».

En d’autres mots, on ne change rien du marché commun canadien dont il parle. Nous voulons conserver intact l’actuel marché commun. Il nous apparaît évident qu’une telle proposition correspond à l’avantage de tous les Québécois, mais aussi des Canadiens des autres provinces, et sérieusement, il dit, je continue, en Ontario il y a 200,000 emplois, et davantage qui dépendent du marché québécois. Alors, voici la proposition, les informations qu’on répand au Québec. Monsieur le Président, premièrement, ceux qui préconisent que l’Ontario veut garder le statu quo, donnent la fausse information aux Québécois. Je n’ai pas l’intention, Monsieur le Président, de rentrer dans tous les détails. Le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales vient de nous donner un tracé détaillé des initiatives prises par l’Ontario depuis maintes années, surtout depuis 1967, depuis la conférence proposée par l’ancien premier ministre M. John Robarts.

Alors, Monsieur le Président, ceux qui disent que l’Ontario est pour le statu quo, et d’ailleurs durant tout ce débat-là, quand j’écoutais le débat à l’Assemblée nationale, vous savez, on disait toujours, c’est certain que l’Ontario vent garder le statu quo. L’Ontario, c’est la province qui bénéficie le plus de la Confédération. Et comme de raison, ils ne veulent rien changer. Je leur dis tout simplement, si vous regardez le record, si vous regardez les initiatives que l’Ontario a prises surtout depuis 1967, vous allez voir que l’Ontario, à différentes reprises, et même à maintes reprises, a supporté les aspirations constitutionnelles du Québec.

Et alors, Monsieur le Président, on l’a dit aussi, tous les partis politiques ici étaient unanimes à dire que la proposition du parti libéral du Québec (le papier beige) représentait encore une proposition dont l’Ontario et tous les partis politiques pouvaient se servir comme une base raisonnable pour commencer les négociations.

Je ne veux pas dire qu’on est d’accord avec tous les détails du livre, mais tout de même nous trouvons que c’était un document important tel que le document proposé par Pepin-Robarts, tel que d’autres documents proposés par cette province-ci. On a donné notre appui. Alors ceux qui disent qu’on est pour le statu quo, qu’on ne veut pas changer la constitution, faussent un peu la vérité.

Deuxièmement, Monsieur le Président, même si on ne nous croit pas, au Québec, même si on dit écoutez, vous parlez fort et tout ca, mais quand vient le temps des actions, vous ne faites rien, je dirais tout simplement ceci: même si on voulait en Ontario, même si on voulait garder le statu quo, il est maintenant impossible de garder le statu quo, la pression se fait sentir non seulement du Québec, mais aussi de l’Ouest.

Je vous dis, Monsieur le Président, dernièrement on était au Québec avec une commission parlementaire, certains de mes collègues étaient avec moi, et on parlait à certains de nos collègues en Colombie; il est très clair que les députés de la Colombie, qu’ils soient Crédit Social ou qu’ils soient NDP, ils ne sont pas satisfaits de l’arrangement constitutionnel. Ceux de l’Alberta ne sont pas satisfaits. Presque d’une façon unanime, toutes les provinces veulent des changements à l’arrangement constitutionnel qui existe. Et alors ceux qui prétendent que l’Ontario est pour le statu quo, je vous dis tout simplement, l’Ontario risquerait de tout perdre, si on essayait de lutter pour s’acharner au statu quo. Alors c’est fausser la vérité. Alors comme on le dit dans la résolution, et on le dit dès le tout début, nous de l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario nous engageons en priorité et en première instance à appuyer la négociation complète d’une nouvelle constitution pouvant satisfaire les diverses aspirations de tous les Canadiens et pour remplacer le statu quo qui est clairement inacceptable.

Et alors, Monsieur le Président, c’est la position de tous les partis politiques; alors ceux qui disent : Si vous votez NON, vous allez donner appui au statu quo, moi je dis qu’ils ne disent pas la vérité aux Québécois et acceptez-le de nous, ici, d’une façon unanime, nous sommes en faveur d’une nouvelle constitution.

Deuxièmement, Monsieur le Président, on dit que les autres provinces vont négocier une association -- ceux qui ont écouté les paroles de mon collègue le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales ne sont pas sans réaliser le sentiment que les Ontariens ont pour le Canada. Pur, clair et simple, ii s’agit tout simplement de dire, vous ne pouvez pas vous attendre que si un jour vous votez pour abolir à toute fin pratique le Canada, vous ne pouvez pas vous attendre à ce que le lendemain les Ontariens viennent s’asseoir à la même table que vous et négocier une nouvelle association. L’amour, l’acharnement que les Canadiens, non seulement les anglophones, mais tous les Canadiens à l’extérieur du Québec et beaucoup au Québec ont pour le Canada, n’est pas tel qu’un jour vous allez séparer le pays et le lendemain on va s’asseoir pour avoir d’autres négociations. C’est pour cette raison que non simplement l’Ontario, mais toutes les autres provinces sont contre cette souveraineté-association.

Quand le premier ministre dit qu’en Ontario ils vont négocier parce qu’ils ont deux cent mille emplois, le lendemain du référendum, que ce soit une réponse ou l’autre, il n’y aura pas de garde ou d’arbitres postés aux frontières des provinces.

Mais demandez aux Ontariens, demandez au gouvernement, demandez aux parlementaires s’ils votent OUI, parce que nous, et je comprends que plusieurs Québécois, et je l’entends chaque jour, disent: On va voter OUI parce qu’on va envoyer un message au Canada. On veut leur donner un message. Je ne suis pas pour l’indépendance, je ne suis pas pour cette souveraineté mais je veux envoyer un message. Vous savez, le parti Québécois a été fin là-dessus. Il a organisé son affaire de telle façon que c’est presque comme des syndicats, comme si on donne un mandat aux syndicats, le droit de grève, ils diraient, on n’envoie pas nos officiers négocier pour avoir le droit de grève.

4:20 p.m.

Alors ils ont fait une comparaison avec ces choses-là. Je comprends que plusieurs Québécois interprètent la question de différentes façons. II y en a qui disent que c’est pour réveiller les Canadiens, il y en a d’autres qui vont dire que c’est pour changer le statu quo, puis il y en a d’autres pour qui la question oui est pour l’indépendance.

Malheureusement, nous préconisons, nous ici en Ontario, qu’un oui serait clairement interprété par le parti québécois comme étant pour l’indépendance. Et pour cette raison-là, Monsieur le Président, comme a dit le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales, un oui créerait le statu quo, et c’est pour cette raison, et c’est pour ces raisons, Monsieur le Président, qu’unanimement nous rejetons en même temps le statu quo, mais nous rejetons aussi la souveraineté-association.

Monsieur le Président, l’autre chose qui ne tient pas debout dans cette formule-là, c’est que le Québec dit qu’il veut négocier d’égal à égal avec le Canada anglais. Premièrement, le Canada anglais, ce n’est pas homogène. On a eu plus de chicanes, je pense, dernièrement, ici on Ontario, avec l’Alberta qu’on a eu entre l’Ontario et le Québec. Alors, si on dit que soudainement tous les anglophones vont être homogènes, qu’ils vont s’asseoir à la même table, pour négocier avec le Québec, ça tient pas debout. L’autre chose qui ne tient pas debout, c’est de demander à l’Ontario de se fusionner avec le Canada anglais, une province qui a plus de population, qui a plus d’économie que le Québec, puis leur demander de s’asseoir avec les autres provinces, puis leur dire que, bien, le Québec va négocier comme un égal avec tout le restant du Canada.

Cette formule, Monsieur le Président, ne tient pas debout. Alors, pour toutes ces raisons, ce qui est très clair, c’est qu’encore, d’un façon unanime, on rejette a l’Assemblée nationale la proposition de souveraineté-association.

Monsieur le Président, je voudrais parler à mes collègues au Québec et leur dire tout simplement, vous savez, comme Canadiens-Français ici en Ontario, il y a longtemps qu’on regarde cette situation au Québec, vous savez nos racines, non seulement les Canadiens-Français en Ontario, mais aussi ceux qui sont d’autres provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan et d’ailleurs, nos racines sont aussi au Canada. Ce n’est pas d’hier que nos racines sont d’ici. Certains de nos ancêtres, on peut commencer avec Champlain, on peut commencer avec les missionnaires jésuites, Monsieur le Président, depuis deux siècles, ont leurs racines en Ontario. Même en 1885, il y avait au delà de 100,000 Canadiens-Français qui demeuraient en Ontario.

Alors, notre histoire est rattachée au Canada. Elle est aussi rattachée à cette province et souvent le cheminement, Monsieur le Président, était pénible. Dieu sait qu’il y eut des moments parfois où on se demandait, la lutte était difficile. Je pense tout simplement qu’on peut retourner à Louis Riel, on peut retourner à la proposition 17 dans cette province et dans d’autres. Mais le fait demeure que l’épanouissement est fait, on a fait du chemin. Nos revendications ont été acceptées, pas d’une façon unanime, pas sans lutte, et pas même au complet. Mais le fait demeure qu’on a fait du progrès. Et pour nous, Monsieur le Président, le Québec, un Québec fort était un atout. C’était important pour nous d’avoir un allié au Québec.

Mais vous savez, il était important que nos amis au Québec sachent le progrès qu’on a fait. Parce qu’on ne veut pas le perdre, on ne veut pas perdre ces services-là, ces garanties. Alors, quand je regarde le progrès qu’on a fait surtout durant les années soixante, en éducation, combien de jeunes francophones fréquentent nos écoles -- près de 100,000 -- mais le fait demeure, qu’on entend surtout parler des problèmes d’Essex, de Sturgeon Falls, de Cornwall et de Penetanguishene, et on ne réalise pas que tout de même on a près de 100,000 étudiants. C’est important ça.

On ne veut pas perdre ce pour lequel on a lutté si fort et qu’on a acquis. Je regarde même au niveau universitaire, les cours qui se donnent à l’université d’Ottawa dans mon comté, je regarde à travers cette province, je suis convaincu que pas beaucoup de Québécois ne sont au courant. Des mille et des mille d’anglophones sont dans nos cours et apprennent le français, ce qu’on appelle total immersion. Combien en avons-nous de nos jeunes, des anglophones, qui veulent que leurs enfants aient cette opportunité-là d’avoir les deux langues.

Je regarde non simplement dans des secteurs importants comme Ottawa, mais je regarde, je parlais à un de mes collègues de London, Ontario qui disait qu’il essayait de faire entrer ses jeunes dans une école pour apprendre le français, il va avoir énormément de difficultés, il n’y a pas de place. On ne parle pas d’Ottawa, maintenant. Ce ne sont pas des jeunes gui veulent avoir des positions de fonctionnaires, il s’agit de quelqu’un qui vient de Londres en Ontario.

Et alors je regarde encore, il y a beaucoup de bruit qui s’est fait durant le procès de M. Filion si vous vous rappelez, Monsieur le Président, quand celui-ci ne pouvait pas avoir un procès en français. Mais combien de Québécois sont au courant que maintenant en Ontario, on peut avoir un procès au criminel du début jusqu’à la fin avec jury en français.

Encore c’est un principe, c’est un droit qu’on ne veut pas perdre, et je peux continuer, Monsieur le Président, à énumérer tous les services qui sont offerts dans cette province, parce que souvent, j’ai critiqué le gouvernement pour son manque d’initiative et comme c’est normal, d’après la presse, ce qui arrive c’est que souvent on donne énormément de publicité quand on refuse mais on ne donne pas tellement de publicité quand il y a accord.

Alors on a une situation où souvent au Québec on est sous l’impression qu’ici en Ontario on n’a pas grand chose et que c’est toujours des situations comme Penetanguishene. Alors je voudrais souligner qu’on a fait des progrès et pour nous, un Québec fort, un Québec qui a accepté le défi de l’avenir depuis les années soixante, a été un atout pour nous les minorités à l’extérieur du Québec. Cela a été important pour nous. Et alors, pour nous, Monsieur le Président, un Québec fort est indispensable à nos revendications. C’est indispensable à la continuité de notre survivance.

Mais d’un autre côté, Monsieur le Président, je dirais qu’un Québec indépendant serait le début de la fin pour les minorités au Québec. Et je dis à mes collègues au Québec, on n’oubliera pas, on ne veut pas perdre ce qu’on a acquis depuis tant d’années après tant de luttes. Et je vous dis tout simplement, mes collègues au Québec, un Québec fort est un atout important pour nous, mais comme une personne qui a vécu ici en Ontario et qui vit au Canada, qui connaît le Canada, je dois vous dire qu’un Québec indépendant malheureusement cela serait le début de la fin et tranquillement l’assimilation serait totale pour les minorités à l’extérieur du Québec.

Je dis tout simplement ça à mes collègues du Québec, Monsieur le Président, le Parti Québécois qui a eu son origine, le nationalisme qui se passe au Québec présentement, pour sauvegarder la langue et la culture, je comprends mal qu’un parti qui soit basé et qui ait eu ses origines là-dessus et qui veut sauvegarder la langue et la culture en Amérique du Nord soit prêt avec la séparation à perdre au delà d’un million de francophones à l’extérieur du Québec.

Cela me fait penser, Monsieur le Président, à ce qui est arrivé après les plaines d’Abraham, quand la France a totalement abandonné les soixante mille Canadiens-Français qui sont restés au Québec. Ils les ont abandonnés presque jusqu’à de Gaulle, qui s’est aperçu qu’il y avait des choses importantes qui se passaient au Québec.

Alors, Monsieur le Président, je demande à mes collègues au Québec, ensemble, on peut renouveler, on peut refaire ce Canada, mais séparés, vous le savez, je crois que ce sera non simplement la fin de nous, mais ce sera peut être la fin de vous, en ce qui concerne la langue et la culture.

4:30 p.m.

Monsieur le Président, certains de nos amis au Québec vont dire, on vote oui, non pas parce qu’on veut la séparation. J’entends cela à maintes reprises de la part des Québécois, on va voter oui parce qu’on vent réveiller le Canada anglais. Malheureusement, ce ne sera pas interprété de cette façon-là par les péquistes. Parce qu’il est très clair, et je le dis sincèrement, que les péquistes trouvent surtout important la réponse au lieu de la question. Ils veulent le oui à tout prix. D’ailleurs, c’est pour cela qu’on va poser une question si équivoque qu’elle veut dire différentes choses pour différentes personnes.

Je suis d’accord avec M. Trudeau, si vraiment ils veulent se mettre à cheval sur leurs principes, la question serait simple. Elle serait, êtes-vous en faveur de l’indépendance? Ou même, on demanderait une question simple, on dirait, êtes-vous en faveur de la souveraineté-association? Non pas une question qui dit êtes-vous en faveur de nous donner un mandat de négocier. De toute façon, je vous dis tout simplement, restez avec nous, on a besoin, nous les Franco-ontariens, d’un Québec fort.

Je dois vous dire, qu’en écoutant les débats, pendant trois semaines chez moi grâce à Radio-Québec à Ottawa, on capte Radio-Ontario, TV-Ontario, et Radio-Québec aussi, durant ces trois semaines, j’ai entendu discours après discours et les orateurs étaient fantastiques. Il y avait des discours bien composés, on voyait qu’il y avait un synchronisme de la part du Parti Québécois. Mais souvent, Monsieur le Président, assis là à écouter discours après discours qui disaient pourquoi le fédéralisme avait ralenti le Québec, qu’on avait rien de bon du Québec, du début jusqu’à la fin, qui disaient que l’Ontario était la seule province qui avait bénéficié de la Confédération et on donnait des choses qui ont été soulevées par Jean Chrétien qui disait qu’on a moins de chemins de fer au Québec qu’en Ontario, sans mentionner que 35% des travailleurs des chemins de fer sont au Québec. On faussait la vérité.

Le ministre des Finances du Québec, par exemple, disait pourquoi en finance, le Québec se faisait jouer. Puis le ministre de l’Agriculture disait que le gouvernement fédéral avait toujours favorisé l’Ouest et qu’on vendait beaucoup plus de blé que de lait, etc., et c’est avec énormément de frustrations gue j’écoutais ça, parce que je me disais que les Québécois n’étaient pas si dupes que ça.

Alors je crois, Monsieur le Président, que par moments, on faussait la vérité, et en tant que Canadien-Français qui ai vécu l’expérience canadienne, je suis fier d’être Ontarien, je suis fier de voir qu’au Québec on est fier d’être Québécois et je dois vous dire que si vous aviez été avec nous lors de notre voyage au Québec, vous auriez constaté qu’ils ont raison d’être fiers au Québec. Ils ont une province. Il n’y a aucun doute que cette province a un potentiel d’avenir extraordinaire. Mais un avenir et un potentiel extraordinaire au Canada aussi.

Je considère qu’en tant que Canadien, je dois dire que je me sens aussi à l’aise quand je vais en Colombie, ce sont nos montagnes, le Pacifique nous appartient, le Grand Nord fait partie de notre grand pays, l’Alberta et toutes ses ressources, le blé de Saskatchewan, toutes ces ressources font partie de notre pays. Pourquoi, je ne comprends pas pourquoi dans un pays qui offre autant de chances d’épanouissement, et qui est prêt à refaire une constitution, on doive fausser la vérité. Et je dois dire aux Québécois qu’ils ont le droit d’être fiers non seulement du Québec, mais aussi du Canada.

In closing, I have expressed as clearly as I can to my colleagues in the province of Quebec the way I feel and the way I think many of us feel at this time in our history. One thing is clear, we support the government and we, on this side, say that we will not negotiate the breakup of our country. That is clear, that is simple, that is the message that we are trying to send to Quebec.

On the other hand, we are open and sincere in our approach to the opportunities for renewal of our Canadian federation. By this unprecedented debate and by our unanimity in this Legislature, we are sending a ringing message to our fellow Canadians in Quebec: “We want to continue to work with you in building a renewed and revitalized Canada. We share your vision of a new Canada, a new partnership.”

This is our firm and unshakable commitment to our fellow citizens in Quebec as well as to all Canadians. We are proud to be Canadians. We are prepared to prove it by working with our countrymen to adopt a practical, imaginative, workable, acceptable constitutional reform that will answer the needs and aspirations of all of us -- francophones, anglophones, easterners, westerners, all together, all the minority groups who form a part of this great country, each of us benefiting immeasurably from the enrichment of our linguistic duality and cultural diversity.

Let there be reaffirmation of what we believe as Canadians. The Pequistes maintain that within Confederation francophones and anglophones are plagued by conflict, crises and tensions. Only in a sovereign and independent Quebec can there be an enriching dialogue, they say, and an equal footing between partners. Our commitment, our actions, both now and in the immediate future, must show them to be wrong.

Let there be no doubt about it, the Parti Quebecois used the public opinion polls often enough and are wise enough and are smart enough to try to ask the question they have -- and that is something that I have had some difficulty with, I must say, in understanding this whole process. That question, which is so vague and which can mean so many things to so many people, how they can get away with asking that sort of question?

The fact remains that if the Parti Quebecois felt most Quebeckers were in favour of independence, that is the question they would be asking. If they felt they were even for sovereignty-association, do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the second question in their referendum would be asking something like, “Do you wish to give us a mandate to negotiate?” They wouldn’t be asking that question if they thought they could ask a direct question, but the question is purposely vague so that it means different things to many people.

That is why the message coming out of this House must be clear and must be unequivocal, because as you speak to Quebeckers you get a different interpretation from different people and that is the beauty of the question according to the Parti Quebecois. I hear so many of my colleagues in Quebec saying, “No, I am not for independence; no, I am not for sovereignty, but I am going to send a message and I understand collective bargaining, and I never send my people to that table to start negotiating without the threat of strike.” That’s the way they have equated this provision in the referendum. So, to some people the yes will mean sending a message, “We are not for independence but we want to shake them up, we want to change the status quo.”

To some others, it means renewed federalism. Even some people from the Parti Quebecois camp are using renewed federalism when it is obvious if that was on the ballot, it would win overwhelmingly. Of course, to the nationalist it means independence and that is a fear we have; that is the reason that the resolution we are supporting here today must be clear and unequivocal. It must be clear because a yes will be used by the Parti Quebecois for their own purposes.

4:40 p.m.

In other words, they are far more interested in the answer than they are in the question. They want that yes, and that’s part of the process that we call “étapiste.” And so, if you don’t achieve independence, if you don’t achieve it today, you will achieve it at a later time, you will achieve it in due time, but it will be step by step, and this yes is important to the Parti Quebecois. It is important that we in Ontario send a clear message to our colleagues in Quebec.

I have already noted that in this debate an entire week will be devoted to discussion of Canada’s future and that is unprecedented in the history of this Legislature. I’m very proud to participate in this. We in the Liberal Party have decided to use this unique opportunity to co-ordinate our individual contribution to the debate in order to make a comprehensive presentation of our hopes for Canada, our concern for its future, and our commitment to renewed federalism with our fellow Canadians.

This evening and tomorrow several of our members will discuss various opportunities for renewing federalism. Following them, we will review some of the progress that Ontario has made in the provision of French-language services. Starting tomorrow evening, throughout Wednesday and most of Thursday, our members will present some of the main reasons for maintaining and strengthening the close and fruitful link that Ontario and Quebec have historically enjoyed.

Finally, before our leaders wind up and the Liberal contribution on Friday morning, some of our members will issue personal appeals to specific groups in Quebec to stay in Canada.

We hope this serious and co-ordinated approach to debate adds to the message of concern and sincerity that we are all trying to convey to the people of Quebec and to the rest of Canada.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, already one fascinating aspect of this debate has emerged. As I listened very intently to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and to the leadoff speaker for the Liberal Party, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), there were inevitable nuances in interpretation of the experience that Canada has had and the problems that we face today. There were nuances of difference in terms of emphasis and interpretation with regard to the resolution, and I suppose by the time I’m finished, the perceptive will think that they see nuances of difference in what I am saying from the other two leadoff speakers.

I think it is well that those nuances should be there. I think it is going to enrich the debate. Nobody has any illusions that we all are totally of one mind with regard to Canada today and the future of Canada, but let nobody have any doubt that in the central thrust of the resolution that is before the House -- a resolution that has been drafted by a lot of blood, sweat and tears, by people involved from all parties and people within their caucuses back of them -- there is agreement within this House as we speak at this historic moment.

I was interested in the comment of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that the last time we had a debate of this nature was back when the resolution was brought in by the government to authorize the holding of the Confederation of Tomorrow conference back in 1967. I think I’m correct in saying, however, that never before, even during the war years, has this Legislature set apart a whole week to debate a matter of urgent national importance.

This is not only a historic debate, this is an extraordinary debate, a debate in which this Legislature is going to devote some 25 hours to the issue of the referendum and the related matters in reference to constitutional reform in Canada. This is almost as many hours as were devoted by the Quebec National Assembly when it debated the issue not very many weeks ago.

It is well, therefore, that we members of this Legislature should realize fully what we are about and the potential importance of this exercise. In my view, this debate is the first public step, with the whole Legislature taking the lead -- not just the government, with all parties in support -- in working out Ontario’s blueprint for a renewed effort at nation-building in this country.

One hundred and fifteen years ago, as we all know from our history lessons, the elected representatives of the united Canadas engaged in what have come to be known as the famous Confederation Debates. They initiated a process of discussion, and that discussion was followed by negotiation, which was carried on not only in Ottawa, but in Charlottetown, in Quebec City, in Westminster, across the ocean and in every town and village across the land.

Political foes sat down together. Regional and religious and linguistic differences were set aside in favour of achieving the overall well-being of the nation. As a result, a new nation was born, a nation that extended quickly from sea to sea. With all the faults in its creation, faults which have emerged and which we can perceive now with the benefit of hindsight, the Fathers of Confederation wrought well.

Our task, 115 years later, as the elected representatives of the wealthiest and the most populous province in this federation, is to launch our contribution to the same process of discussion. Beyond the debate we are launching here, picking up on what has gone on behind the scenes in intergovernmental discussions, as the minister has pointed out to us, there will be negotiations beginning as soon as possible after the vote has taken place on May 20 in Quebec.

At the end of those negotiations, the fathers of reconfederation -- whoever they may be -- will sit down and sign, on our behalf, a new constitution, made in Canada, amendable in Canada, I hope providing new means for resolving the grievances of all the regions of Canada and providing the prospect of fulfilling the diverse aspirations of all Canadians.

Let me pause for a moment for a very personal comment. I come to this debate with profoundly mixed emotions. I was born in British Columbia. I was raised in Quebec. I taught school for five years in Quebec and worked for a couple of years as a journalist in Quebec. I had my university education in Ontario, and I have lived and worked in this province for the last 35 to 40 years. I have had the extreme good fortune, in all of that work in various fields, of being able to move and to have contacts with fellow-Canadians in every province, in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.

In addition to all of that, family associations have broadened and strengthened what I would like to describe as my Canadianism. My father was the grandson of a Scotsman who came out and carved a farm out of the bush, some 35 to 40 miles south of Montreal. He, like many young men, went West and homesteaded on the prairies, and subsequently moved to British Columbia. My mother was the daughter of an English miner, and came out to the coal mines of southeastern BC, and I was born in BC. My wife is French, born in Montreal. I have two daughters, one of whom is married to a Jew, the other of whom is married to a native Indian, a member of the Six Nations reserve.

4:50 p.m.

The House will understand, therefore, why I love this country. I love it in all its richness and diversity. Having said all that, I have to confess that Ontario is home. All parts of Canada to me are an inspiration: Cape Breton, where most people think I must have come from but did not, all the rest of the maritime provinces, the vast expanse of the prairies, the even greater unlimitedness of the Northwest Territories, the majesty of the Rockies, all the excitement of Quebec. I can get inspiration from all of that, but Ontario is home. I am proud to have been a member of this Legislature for some 25 years.

I am fascinated with the work in my own riding, a riding which originally was basically Anglo-Saxon, but by the process of redistribution and of the ever-moving of peoples in this great metropolitan area today has an added mix of Italians, Polish, Ukrainians, Maltese, Portuguese, Latin-American, Caribbean, East Indians, Pakistanis and now Vietnamese. It is a microcosm of the world. You will understand, therefore, for very personal and political reasons in my political work, Mr. Speaker, why my vision of this nation is a little broader than Ontario, but it is centred in Ontario.

We are all painfully aware that there are some very difficult problems within the Canadian family we have to resolve. The popular perception is that these problems are centred primarily in Quebec where they have reached a point of aggravation to a point where the province is considering wanting to separate from Canada, or in the Atlantic provinces which have been economically disadvantaged for the last 100 years in their whole experience with Confederation, or in the western provinces, short-changed by Confederation, alienated and now, with a growing economic strength, determined to redress the historic imbalance. All of that is true. All of that sort of sums up the problems within the Canadian family. But dare I suggest for our consideration in this Legislature that our major problem, if not the major problem, in restructuring Confederation today lies here in Ontario and not elsewhere.

Traditionally, we have been satisfied with the status quo. If others wanted change we were willing to listen but, basically, we were quite satisfied and content with what we had. That was Ontario’s posture in the 1960s, and it carried on into the 1970s. Only recently has it changed. As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has stressed and as the spokesman for the Liberal Party has underlined, only recently has it changed, so recently that the rest of Canada has difficulty in believing there really has been a change. They wonder whether it is just rhetorical rather than substantive. Suspicions die slowly. If we want a rather painful reminder of how slowly they die, read William Johnson’s article in this morning’s Globe and Mail about the impact of our Premier’s visit to Quebec this past week.

Let me quote John Robarts in an article by Duart Farquharson of the Southam News, as reported in the Brantford Expositor: “‘I said years ago that Ontario could function with the British North America Act but it was prepared to change it if other provinces wanted,’ former Premier Robarts recalled recently. ‘That’s not my attitude now. We have to make some fundamental constitutional changes in a way that can be seen to be done.’”

That is the kind of 180-degree turn that has been made by one of the leading spokesmen for Ontario in the last decade or so in terms of our relationship with the rest of Canada. The time has come, and this is going to be a little painful for us in Ontario, for us to step down off what is perceived to be our smug pedestal as the major beneficiary of Confederation and face the grim realities of a rapidly changing Canada. With economic developments in the west and the prospect of economic developments in the east, Ontario has become a have-not province, dropping below the national average in terms of per capita revenue. Eighty per cent of our energy requirements are from other provinces or other lands.

Ontario traditionally has been the accepted leader of English-speaking Canada. As Ontario led, particularly its relationships with Quebec, the other provinces were willing to follow. Not so today. Ontario today is odd man out at federal-provincial conferences. That is driven home in an editorial comment in the London Free Press on March 21 -- put rather brutally, but not inaccurately. It said, “It is unrealistic to expect a country to survive and prosper when the main unifying force seems to be, as Newfoundland’s Premier Brian Peckford has observed, everyone’s hatred of Ontario.”

It kind of stops one in his tracks as a member of the Legislature to realize that a paper and another provincial Premier say that one of the unifying forces of today has become the hatred of Ontario.

There is no point in Ontario sulking or being hurt or protesting this new kind of situation it has to face. I was interested in listening to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs this afternoon repeating essentially the same thing he said to the Glendon seminar on constitutional change just a few weeks ago. He said, “I am therefore somewhat surprised and more than a little perturbed by the number of references I have seen in the media and elsewhere to Ontario being in favour of the status quo. This is just not correct.”

It may not be correct, but I repeat, the change has taken place so recently that an awful lot of Canadians wonder whether it is rhetoric or whether it is substance. Their suspicions are going to die very slowly. Canada is faced with a very difficult period of readjustment to new circumstances. My point is that no part of Canada is faced with greater difficulties in this connection than is Ontario.

I want to focus for a moment on Ontario-Quebec relations. I do so because it has long been my conviction, which I think can be documented from history, that Ontario-Quebec relations are the key to English-French relations in Canada as a whole.

C’est en effet, Monsieur le Président, le rapport entre l’Ontario et le Québec qui est la clef même des relations entre le Canada français et le Canada anglais. Que le Québec et i’Ontario se mettent a résoudre leurs différences historiques -- voilà l’issue qu’acceptera volontiers le reste du Canada. Voilà le moyen qui a réussi par le passé et qui peut réussir encore, même à l’heure du renouveau nationaliste de nos compatriotes franco-canadiens.

C’est une solution qui ne devrait pas nous étonner. Les relations entre l’Ontarlo et le Québec sont géographiquement et historiquement uniques. Elles se distinguent de toutes les autres provinces. Nous sommes nés des voisins. Nos deux provinces se sont faites de la même histoire. C’est par un parlement commun que nous nous sommes gouvernés, comme les Canadas Unis entre 1841 .et 1867.

5 p.m.

Cette collaboration entre l’Ontario et le Québec est devenue la base méme de la Confédération -- base à laquelle se sont ajoutées les provinces de l’est, puis celles de l’ouest. La sensibiité de John Robarts à l’essence unique des relations entre le Québec et l’Ontario l’amenait à jouer un rôle particulièrement important à faciliter leur progrès. C’est ainsi qu’il pouvait heurter de front les préjugés anti-québécois qui menaçaient dans quelques regions du Canada.

Malheureusement, pendant les années récentes, l’Ontario a cessé de poursuivre cet exemple. Il est temps de reprendre notre ancien rôle. C’est même la condition essentielle de l’élaboration d’une nouvelle confédération.

Applause.

Mr. MacDonald: I appreciate my colleagues’ applauding the deficiencies rather than the fluency.

Let me emphasize the point I have been making by going back to a conference or seminar, a rather elitist little group that my friend from Ottawa East and myself -- I think the only two members from the Legislature -- were invited to, along with some 50 Canadians, at Queen’s University a few weeks ago. It was called by Dr. Corry, who is the principal emeritus. It involved many other Ontarians from the industrial world, people like John Robarts and people from the media. The thing that was fascinating in that conference or seminar was the message that Quebec has not been persuaded that English Canada, and notably Ontario, is committed to meaningful reform.

I hope it does not pain the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for me to repeat this, because he has said so emphatically this afternoon we are committed. But the message came through clearly in many ways, by people with contacts from Quebec, that they are not yet persuaded. While my leader was speaking in the throne speech debate a few weeks ago, he made the point that last year the throne speech had envisaged a debate in this House on a resolution presumably something like the resolution we are debating today, but that was not held. He was expressing his concern and his regrets that the debate was delayed. The Premier (Mr. Davis) intervened, “I think the timing is going to be very good.” I was interested to hear the Liberal spokesman this afternoon say he thought the timing was very good.

With respect to both the Premier and my colleague from Ottawa East, the timing is tragically late. I agree that holding a debate now, in the middle of the referendum, is going to capture attention, and that is fine. But I note with commendation that the Legislature in Saskatchewan has debated a motion of this nature in each of the last three years. We could have done it in earlier years. If we had done it in earlier years, it is just possible we would have got through to the people of Quebec with regard to where we stand.

This debate, I fear, is too late to significantly affect the referendum vote in Quebec. There are going to be thousands, as the Liberal member for Ottawa East has pointed out, even tens of thousands of federalist yes votes in Quebec. People are going to be voting yes not because they are in favour of independence, not because they want their province to separate, but because they think it is necessary to jolt the rest of Canada into a belief and acceptance of the need for meaningful, fundamental constitutional reform. That point has not even got across yet, as William Johnson of the Globe and Mail pointed out this morning.

We know, as has already been pointed out in the debates this afternoon, that Ontario has done many things of which we can be proud. We know, for example, that we have developed the opportunity for an education in French which now is being availed of by some 100,000 students in Ontario. We know that, while two or three years ago the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) said it was impossible to provide court sessions in French, today it is a reality. While sometimes we protested that we could not get services to minority groups, even though they were a significant minority or even a majority in certain parts of the province, we know that we now have done so. All that has been done but, tragically, all of that has been lost in the last few months in the message to Quebec, because one thing and one thing only has been heard: Penetanguishene.

Thank God we have resolved Penetanguishene. But why did we do it so late? Why did we blow, as it were, all of the political advantages of a relationship and the convincing of the people of Quebec with regard to our determination to establish a linguistic educational right by doing it so late? Why, after we have done it on Penetanguishene, do we now have opposition, for example, to full-time kindergarten classes in French?

For years I have engaged in debates in this province, ever since the bilingual and bi-cultural commission back in the middle of the 1960s, as to how we can get an effective bilingual program in this province. We have anguished over the proposition that older people cannot pick up another language, that it is a painful process, but if it is done with the children they will pick it up as part of the whole natural process of acquiring even their initial language. It is just a natural development.

I thought everybody agreed this was the way in which we would achieve bilingualism. In Ontario, we have 8,000 children in bilingual kindergarten classes, including 3,000 of them in Ottawa. Why is the government on this, as with Penetanguishene, so slow in facing up to the common sense of funding that? Not only does it merit funding in itself, but also it is the most symbolic, convincing proof of our determination to provide these opportunities and to cement these relationships.

The rhetoric of constitutional reform is not enough. The minister said earlier we have to follow with action. He is dead right. We have had an awful lot of rhetoric. We have had some action. Unfortunately, some of our action has been contradictory, and that is the only part that gets reported; so the public image is not the kind of image we would like it to have been.

I come back to focus on the resolution. Let me read from the resolution:

“That, we the Legislative Assembly of Ontario commit ourselves, as our highest priority, to support full negotiation of a new constitution to satisfy the diverse aspirations of all Canadians, and to replace the ‘status quo’ which is clearly unacceptable, ... and, therefore, we appeal to all Quebeckers to join with other Canadians in building this national constitution; and further, we hereby appoint a select committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on constitutional reform, to consider and report with dispatch on ways to achieve this objective.”

Clearly, our overall objective is that we want this Canada to remain united. We recognize that if we are going to be able to retain its unity, so it can grow and prosper in the years to come in the fashion that it has over the last century, we must have a renewed constitution. In that process, we are opposed to sovereignty-association, because sovereignty means Quebec would become a separate country and, therefore, the unity of this country would be shattered. Economic association, at least as proposed by Levesque, is not acceptable to the majority of the people and to all the provincial and federal leaders because, as the western Premiers pointed out in their recent meeting just two or three weeks ago, economic association, certainly for western Canada, simply has no meaning, no benefits.

5:10 p.m.

However, if we wish to appeal effectively to the people of Quebec, not just during this referendum debate, but after it, we must make it clear that Ontario favours pursuing with vigour and with dispatch constitutional reform after the referendum, whatever be the result. I wish that had been spelled out more unequivocably in the resolution. It is implicit there. One cannot read the resolution without coming to that conclusion. I think it could have been spelled out more unequivocably.

One thing that disturbs me more than anything else during this debate is the posture today of the federal government in Ottawa, particularly of the Prime Minister of the country. Let me put on record, just to get the feel of it, a quotation from a Canadian Press dispatch carried in the Toronto Star on April 24:

“The federal government will heed the call of the western Premiers for a constitutional conference after the May 20 referendum in Quebec, but only if sovereignty-association is rejected, Energy Minister Marc Lalonde says.

“Addressing the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Lalonde was cool to the possibility of holding a conference if the yes forces win the referendum.

“‘A yes vote will lead to a complete impasse for the possibility of renewing federalism in Canada,’ Lalonde said.”

I hope I can say without any fear of contradiction that all members in this House, irrespective of party, do not accept that approach. I note particularly the next paragraph of that Canadian Press dispatch: “Progressive Conservative Leader Joe Clark, Roch LaSalle, the only Tory MP from Quebec, and Jake Epp, Conservative spokesman for federal-provincial relations, all urged Lalonde to call a conference regardless of the referendum results.”

I would like to say with emphasis that is the approach of everybody in this House, irrespective of party. A likely scenario for the first meeting after May 20 will be something along this line: If there has been a no vote, we will move quickly. The minister said earlier “within four to six weeks.” He has extended it by two weeks since his speech at Glendon College a month or so ago. He was going to have it within four weeks then. He now has a little elasticity in it -- four to six weeks. Fine.

If, perchance, the vote in Quebec is a yes vote, the Premier of Quebec is going to come there with an obligation to say he has a mandate to discuss sovereignty-association. Every other spokesman at the conference will say: “We have no mandate to negotiate the dismemberment of this country. On to the next point in the agenda.” That is inevitably the kind of thing that will happen.

If the government, or anybody, should have some concern about us being most emphatic in terms of a willingness and a desire and a determination to move towards this discussion and negotiation of a new constitution, I would like to remind members of the House of the polls taken by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. After a little pressuring, they have become available to all members of this House including the public.

Here is some of the evidence that emerged in those polls. Seventy-one per cent of Ontarians, or more than seven out of 10, feel that it is very important or somewhat important that we revise and reform our constitution. That gives a fair basis of operation: 71 per cent. Seventy-two per cent say they are somewhat committed to keeping Quebec in Confederation. That is a fairly massive majority opinion. Eighty-two per cent say they would care if Quebec were to move out of Confederation. That is an even more significant indication of Ontario’s desire to have Quebec stay in Confederation. Sixty-eight per cent, still better than two out of every three, say that Ontario would be worse off without Quebec in Confederation.

Perhaps the most significant poll of all is not one that came out of the Goldfarb effort for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. It was a poll taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its so-called quarterly report released this year on April 25, in which 70 per cent of the people polled agreed that a no vote would be no less a vote for constitutional reform than a yes vote. Where and why is the hesitancy to say without one iota of equivocation that whatever be the results of the referendum on May 20 English-speaking Canada, with Ontario taking the lead, is going to be moving to start the process of constitutional reform?

We say to Quebec: “We respect your right to decide your own future, but because your decision profoundly affects the rest of Canada -- therefore, us in Ontario -- we state our conviction that the aspirations of Quebec can best be met within a renewed Confederation. We, therefore, express the fervent hope that you will join with all Canadians in rewriting our constitution to meet our future needs. Whatever be your choice on May 20, we intend to sit down with you to pursue that goal.” We can say that with confidence and we say it without equivocation.

Que je répète, Monsieur le Président: les Québecois ont bien de droit de décider de leur propre avenir, sans contrainte. Mais c’est notre plus grand espoir qu’ils se joignent aux autres Canadiens dans l’élaboration d’un nouveau Canada -- mais c’est à eux de choisir.

Richard Simeon, who is perhaps the leading spokesman today in terms of federal-provincial relations, the head of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s University, has put it quite poignantly. He has said we are going to have to sit down and come to the bargaining table right after the vote, regardless of the outcome, and that failure to respond effectively to Quebec’s commitment to change would be a scenario for disaster. I think that is it, a scenario for disaster, because it would really confirm what many people in Quebec think, that English Canada is not willing to move and that a no vote would put it back to sleep again. In doing that, we have confidence we have the backing of the people of Ontario.

I was interested in noting the summary of the poll done for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. Let me put some of it on the record, from page nine of the document which was made available to us, on Attitudes Towards Constitutional Reform. This is a summary of all the various nuances and the various Ontario reactions to many individual aspects of constitutional reform.

“Constitutional reform is not an unimportant subject in people’s minds. There is evidence of a collective feeling that some kind of constitutional adjustment has to be made to satisfy Quebec and other parts of the country as well. People are prepared to see some changes made. They see a need for some rethinking of the current constitutional arrangement as a basis of resolving conflicts and problems and strengthening unity. Although unwilling to have Ontario go on record as receptive to the concept of sovereignty-association, they are willing and anxious to see constitutional reform take place to foster unity.”

5:20 p.m.

Finally I’d like to go back to Dr. Corry at whose knee, figuratively speaking, I sat as a student years ago at Queen’s University before he had emerged as perhaps the leading constitutional political scientist in this country. For many years Dr. Corry believed that the task of rewriting the constitution should not be attempted; he thought the risks and frustrations were too great. But he has changed his mind, as has John Robarts, as have so many other people. Dr. Corry is now convinced that whatever the risks of acting boldly and decisively, the dangers to Canada of doing nothing are far greater.

I am confident in an expression of the feeling of everybody in this House that we are determined we should move forward into that constitutional reform just as quickly as the referendum debate is over and we can get conferences drawn together with adequate preparation to pursue the task.

To return to this debate, for years the question has been, what does Quebec want. How many times have we heard that? What does Quebec want? Now we know. Certainly we know what the Quebec government wants. We will get some clarification as to what the people of Quebec really want when the votes are counted. We also have plenty of evidence as to what the west and the Atlantic provinces want.

But there is an unresolved question, a real question. I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs it is not a question that has been clarified in spite of all the tomes that come from his offices and the offices of Queen’s Park over the last many years. What does Ontario want?

Now that we have forsaken our contentment with the status quo, now that we are committed to meaningful constitutional reform, what exactly do we want? What do we want by way of changes in the constitution? How can we preserve the central benefits of Confederation while satisfying the demands of those who challenge the system, whether it be from Quebec or the Atlantic provinces or western Canada? How can we reaffirm our support for the basic duality upon which this nation has been built and yet move to acknowledge the reality of the multicultural nature of Canada? How can we rebuild our historic working relationship with Quebec so as to provide the key to English-French relationships throughout this country.

Those are the questions but we haven’t got the answers. I go back to one of my earlier points: I view this debate as the first public effort with the whole of the Legislature being involved in a search for the answers to those and related questions. And the New Democratic Party accepts its role in this whole process.

Within the New Democratic Party we have a national constitutional committee, chaired by Ed Broadbent, our federal leader, which meets quite frequently to co-ordinate the efforts of all the various parts of the country. We have underpinned that national committee with a constitutional committee within our caucus here in the Ontario Legislature, a committee that I have the honour to chair.

That committee involves some 13 or 14 of the 32 members in our caucus -- I exclude the Speaker who is there and yet not there. Some seven or eight members have prepared papers on various aspects of the full constitutional problem and those are now being discussed. We are attempting to clarify in our own minds what we think are the particular requirements of Ontario, faced with these very fundamental changes not only in Canada as a whole but more particularly in Ontario’s position within Canada today, attempting to clarify what we think are the best means by which we can meet the needs of the nation as a whole but at the same time meet the particular needs of Ontario.

Ironically, in the past, as somebody once said, Ontarians always thought as Canadians because they presumed that they were Canada. They were the main beneficiaries of Confederation. We didn’t have to go out and fight for ourselves, fight for the particular needs of Ontario, because as the main beneficiary of Confederation, we reaped many of those benefits automatically. Ontario’s role historically has been a peacemaker, as the honest broker of Confederation, trying to resolve the differences between others.

I hope we can regain something of that role, but Ontario’s role inevitably in the future is going to be as a vigorous protagonist on behalf of its own interest, to be able to counter a presentation of views from Alberta and perhaps even, not too far down the road, from Newfoundland and so on. We have something of a historic role to recapture but we also have a new role. How do we do that? More important, how do we reshape a constitution so it is more reflective of the reality of the day when Ontario is an equal rather than a dominant force within the Canadian federation?

That is what we hope to do within the framework of the New Democratic Party. When the committee this Legislature has set up and instructed -- when this resolution has passed -- to come back with dispatch in presenting our view of what Ontario wants and needs in terms of constitutional reform, we will have made our input along with all the other members across the Legislature.

I want to move briefly into at least one aspect of the constitutional changes that need to take place. It is the one that I have been particularly interested in because of my background academically and otherwise, and because of the work we’ve done within our constitution committee.

The search for means of achieving more effective regional and provincial input into the central government decision-making is our real problem today. For reasons of election results such as now, we have parts of the country which feel they don’t have adequate input into the decision-making process. I speak of the west in relationship to the Liberal government which has no seats in the three western provinces.

That isn’t unique. In varying degrees, there has been that sense of alienation or the sense of feeling in many parts of the country that they didn’t have adequate and effective means of input into that central decision-making.

Proposals have come forth for coping with this problem, both in relationship to the House of Commons and in relationship to the Senate.

There are many organizations in this country which act as ties that bind the nation together, bind a nation that is 4,000 miles in expanse, covering so many diverse, geographic conditions as well as democratic differences. One of these ties that binds a nation together is a political party, or the political parties, because it brings together people who have, if not the same ideological approach, at least the same traditional attitude in relationship to a party, and they work in partnership with people from all across the country, within the party of their choice.

The problem today is we have no national parties in this country. The Liberal Party is blanked in the three western provinces. The Conservative Party is woefully underrepresented in the province of Quebec. The New Democratic Party has no seats in many areas, some of them where there is a fairly significant vote but yet no seats to represent that vote.

5:30 p.m.

That’s a problem. It’s a problem that Ed Broadbent, the leader of the New Democratic Party, addressed as far back as two year ago in the sessions of the joint Senate-Commons committee as they were taking a look at Bill C-60, the government’s proposals for constitutional reform.

There was a proposal that the House of Commons should be topped off with 50 or 60 -- in the initial presentation, Broadbent said 100 seats -- members who would be chosen from lists that would be prepared by the parties, but they would be chosen on the basis of the popular vote given to that party all across the country. Therefore, while more than half of the House of Commons would remain as a House elected by people who came from individual constituencies, with the traditional tie back to the people who had actually chosen them, the other proportion -- 50 or 60 or 100, I haven’t heard anybody suggest it would go more than 100, in a House which has now 285 seats -- would be provided as a result of the popular vote.

If that kind of thing had happened in the last election, William Irvine from the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s University, who has prepared perhaps the most definitive document on electoral reform in Canada, pointed out that if 60 seats were made available to top up the House of Commons, on the basis of the popular vote the Liberals would have got 26, the Tories would have got 20, the New Democratic Party would have got 12 and the Social Credit Party would have got two.

What would have happened to those? Twenty of the 26 seats that the Liberals would be entitled to would have gone to the western Canadian provinces. In those three western provinces where the Liberals got 22 per cent of the vote and no seats, and, therefore, nobody from whom to draw to shape a cabinet, nobody to have representation in the House on behalf of those areas and the ruling party, 20 seats would have been from those provinces in western Canada.

The Conservatives would have got 10 seats from Quebec, so that Roch LaSalle, in his loneliness, would have had at least some colleagues in the House from the province of Quebec. The New Democratic Party would have had more seats from Ontario, to acknowledge the reality that it got significant votes in northern Ontario, for example, although it lost all its seats. The New Democratic Party would have at least three seats in the province of Quebec and one in Nova Scotia.

The Prime Minister, therefore, would have had an opportunity to choose a cabinet without having to resort to the political discards who have been cached away in the Senate. He would have had people who would have been chosen because they were active and involved in the problems of the various provinces and who could speak for them as eloquently and as meaningfully as the people who were elected from the various constituencies.

That kind of thing is not going to meet any particular need of the province of Ontario. As somebody has pointed out, one of the remaining benefits Ontario has in Confederation, as it exists today, is that it is the province which mainly makes and unmakes governments. When Ontario voted for Joe Clark last May, he was elected. When Ontario voted against Joe Clark this February, he was defeated. Ontario is not the province that is going to benefit most by that kind of situation.

Let me read something to you, Mr. Speaker, a paragraph from the Pepin-Robarts report. “Our research of experience in other federations indicates that when party membership in the central parliament becomes concentrated in regional blocks, it is an advance signal of eventual disintegration.”

Perhaps we should take it as a fair warning, with the disintegration of national parties so they don’t provide the normal tie assisting in binding the nation together, and with the increased tendency of blocks of various parties to be in certain areas without any reflection of the significant number of people who have voted for other parties, that in the experience of many other federations that is a step along the road to disintegration. That kind of change, which I personally, as the House will note, feel rather enthusiastic about, although others may have their reservations, is one we should take a serious look at.

When we get to the second chamber, the Senate, there is unanimity that the Senate should go, that it has outlived its usefulness.

An hon. member: It never had any.

Mr. MacDonald: Somebody interjected and said, “It never had any.” Theoretically it is a reflection of the regional interests, but since Sir John A. Macdonald reminded us that the Senate was also to provide an opportunity for the minority and the most consistent minority is the rich, they are the people who have been in the Senate and whose interests, perhaps, have been most looked after, I agree that it has not served its original purpose of reflecting regional input into the decision-making of the central government.

It is interesting to note that whether it be Pepin-Robarts, the Liberal government proposals in 1978, the Quebec Liberal Party proposals or the Ontario advisory committee report, they have all suggested a restructuring of the second chamber: not its abolition, but a fundamental restructuring. It would have a limited legislative role. It would have the right to veto a decision that was taken in the House of Commons, but it would be a suspensive veto that would not be operative for more than three months, six months or until it had been passed once again in the House of Commons. There are a variety of approaches.

In virtually every instance the proposal is that the restructured Senate should be appointed by provincial governments so that the people who went there, no matter who may be in the actual delegation, would be speaking on behalf of the government and they would be committed to speak on behalf of the government. Eugene Forsey, in his inimitable fashion, has described it as the potential of provincial hatchetmen in the second chamber.

Trudeau, in his proposals in 1978, came up with an interesting alternative to that, namely, that half of the restructured second chamber should be people appointed by the House of Commons on a proportional representation basis for all parties in accordance with the popular vote in the previous federal election, and that the other half of the restructured Senate should be appointed by each of the provinces on a proportional representation basis reflecting all of the parties on the basis of the popular vote they got in the provincial election.

The Ryan proposal is an interesting one and, philosophically, a somewhat different one. Ryan said the Senate should be abolished. He then said we should invent a substitute for it. He calls it the federal council. It is not to be a legislative chamber as, at least in theory, most of the other proposals concede the restructured Senate could and should be. It should be primarily an agency for representing provincial views, the views of provincial governments under the direction of provincial governments, so that there would be that input into the decision-making of the central government.

He clearly concedes that the House of Commons is going to have certain areas of jurisdiction, and the Senate’s jurisdiction is going to be limited to those areas where the House of Commons oversteps federal authority in terms of the spending authority within a provincial area, and things of that nature.

The federal council would have a dualist committee made up equally of francophones and anglophones so that one would be able to hive off, as it were, a group which would be able to deal with the vexing problems of linguistic and related matters in connection with the basic dualism of this country.

Interestingly enough, in my chats and listening to spokesmen of the Pepin-Robarts task force, I discovered that some of the leading people on that task force feel that the Ryan proposal for a federal council is an even better proposal than the one they had in their task force report, that it is an improvement over what they made. At the present time, without having come to a definitive conclusion, I too confess to thinking that this is maybe the area where we can come up with the most satisfactory kind of an answer.

5:40 p.m.

They also confess to being rather attracted to the Trudeau proposal of 1978, namely, that the personnel of the restructured Senate should be people chosen on the basis of popular vote, representative of all of the parties, half by the House of Commons on the federal vote and half by the provincial governments on the basis of the various provincial elections in each of the provinces. There, it seems to me, one would have a genuine input, reflective of all of the parties, rather than just of the governing party which may be, as in the case of the government we have in Ontario at the present time, a government which got 40 per cent of the vote. What about the other 60 per cent which is reflected in the opposition parties? Have they not a legitimate place in the impact on decision-making at the central government?

However, the point I want to make in conclusion is that I have expressed a mix of views with regard to the possible reform of political institutions. My colleagues are going to be dealing with many other aspects of constitutional reform. During the course of their presentations, you are going to hear from some of them, Mr. Speaker, views that they may hold personally. None of those, as far as I know, is a view which has yet been adopted by the New Democratic Party.

There may be alternative, even conflicting views on issues, because we do have genuine differences in that area today. There are people today who genuinely feel that individual rights can and should be protected by ensconcing them in the constitution, while other people think that is a mistake, that individual rights are a process of legislative action and that there we can achieve the sensitivity that each jurisdiction wants to apply to the guaranteeing of individual rights.

We are going to have a variety of views, but I repeat that I view the process which we are starting this week in the Ontario Legislature as a process of discussing various aspects of constitutional reform. After we have thrashed them through at this stage and after we have set up our committee, and the members from each of the parties can sit on the committee, we can refine our views. It is to be hoped we can come out of that process with a clear picture of what Ontario wants, because nobody at the moment is clear on exactly what Ontario wants in terms of constitutional reform or, I think we can say quite unashamedly, what Ontario needs in the new Canada in order to protect our interests.

That process is going to go on. It is a process which in this century is going to be a duplication of the process that went on in Canada from 1864 to 1867. That was a process in which the elected representatives of the united Canada sat down, political friend and political foe -- George Brown and Sir John A. Macdonald, to put it bluntly, hated each other’s guts -- in order to achieve a new nation and a constitution that would be able effectively to reflect that nation’s needs and aspirations for the future.

There were regional, linguistic and economic differences. They were set aside as they established the new Canadian constitution. That is the challenge that faces us today: to do it as well as they did. They did it for a hundred years; it needs to be redone. We now have the challenge of reconfederation.

The House recessed at 5:44 p.m.