Journal des débats 1987-nov-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I call the attention of the House to our visitor at the table, Gregory Putz, Clerk Assistant of the Saskatchewan Legislature, who is on attachment to the Office of the Clerk.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: It is interesting to see the Liberals and the Conservatives tripping over each other here in their haste to shine the shoes of the private insurance companies. Do I ever welcome the chance to answer yesterday’s attack on the western public auto insurance plans by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman).

I do not dispute his figures, but let us put the issue in perspective. He talks about Manitoba’s $52-million loss. Does he not know that Ontario auto insurers claimed to have lost $330 million last year? The difference is that Manitoba had accumulated rate reserves to cover its loss, while Ontarians, according to the insurance companies, had the loss taken out of their property and liability insurance premiums.

For the last two years, the annual rate of increase has averaged two and a half per cent in the public plans. In Ontario, it was 20 per cent each year.

Including the recently announced rate increases in the west, the total six-year increase in British Columbia is 35 per cent, Manitoba 37 per cent and Saskatchewan six per cent. By comparison, Ontario’s six-year increase was over 70 per cent. Including the new increases, average rates in BC will be $482, Manitoba $405 and Saskatchewan $251. I think Ontario motorists would just love to pay those rates instead of the average $640 here.

If the minister in charge of insurance believes all the Conservative member said yesterday -- he is nodding his head -- would it not be wonderful to do that in-depth, independent comparison of the rates, efficiency and fairness of the western public plans with Ontario’s private system? I challenge the minister to have it done.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Harris: Today, the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) Conference on Northern Business and Entrepreneurship winds up in Thunder Bay. Two weeks ago, I pointed out to this House that one of the problems with the conference, from a northeastern Ontario perspective, was that the conference was supposed to be on entrepreneurship yet few entrepreneurs could afford $1,000 and four days off to attend, so most of the representations are government employees or taxpayer-sponsored. Regrettably, nothing was done to correct this.

Last week the government issued a selectively biased report against free trade, but even it indicated the resource industries in the north would benefit. The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), when asked, had not even read his own government report and did not know what was in it. Why were not he or his ministry involved in it right from the beginning? One wonders what is going on.

Recently, in addition to the resource industries of the north, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association came out in support of free trade and said it wants “the Premier to stop opposing the deal. “But press reports indicate the Premier said in Thunder Bay that the resource sector would not benefit, contrary to what his own studies say and contrary to what the industry says.

We have to wonder who in this government, on this issue as on many others, is going to speak up for northern Ontario.

FARM CHEMICALS

Mr. McGuigan: I want to share with present members and especially with the new members the value of this time before question period. It is an opportunity for us to make a statement and sometimes initiate action not only within the government, but also we can use our influence as members of this forum to generate public or private interests in a personal observation.

Today I am pleased to report I have experienced such a success. In May of last year, in a statement to this House, I reported on a series of farm chemical thefts in southwestern Ontario. I pointed out the serious implications this trend could have on the agricultural industry if not put in check. My statement prompted action by a group of concerned citizens from the farm community and chemical manufacturing and distributing industries. Further statements and questions in the House helped the group advertise itself and its reason for being.

The co-operation of the then Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), and the Ontario Provincial Police was very beneficial. The then Solicitor General took time to speak to the group when the cabinet was meeting in Chatham.

Recently the farm chemical anti-theft program announced a net decrease in losses of 65 per cent in only one year. Using ingenuity and initiative and the combined efforts of the OPP, industry, individuals and the press, a self-help program was designed and is working. I am proud to have been involved in such a success.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Miss Martel: Since May of this year, residents of Old Wanup Road in Dill township in my riding have been living with the world’s largest outhouse in their backyard. This is an intolerable situation where untreated human waste is being dumped into the site, which was once a gravel pit. Concerns about site suitability, the potential contamination of the area, the results of ministry testing and the legality of the sanitation company’s permits to transport and dump there have all been raised. The situation involves the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment and, most recently, the Ministry of Government Services.

In September, agreement was reached to dump on a site on the Burwash property and this was approved by the Ministry of the Environment, but the dumping at the Wanup site still continues. The Ministry of Government Services is dragging its feet in getting the Burwash parcel sectioned and transferred to the Ministry of the Environment.

Concerns about the suitability of the Wanup Road gravel pit have now intensified with the winter freeze. Any filtration of the waste will now certainly not take place and we can well imagine the effects of this accumulated waste with the spring runoff.

Despite more questions regarding the validity of the sanitation company’s transportation permits, the MOE has not halted the dumping pending the transfer to the Burwash site, and this raises several questions. Should dumping not have been halted at the Wanup site until the Burwash site became available? Will the Ministry of the Environment undertake extensive testing of the soil and the water in the spring, for the benefit of the Wanup Road residents? Finally, why cannot the ministries of Government Services and the Environment get their acts together when the health of 300 residents is at stake?

CHRISTOPHER CARTER

Mr. Eves: As most members are probably aware, two-year-old Christopher Carter from British Columbia successfully underwent surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children on Tuesday to remove a nonmalignant tumour from his face and neck.

I am sure all members of this House will join me and our party in offering our sincere best wishes to Christopher and his family. The courage the Carter family has exhibited is to be admired.

I would also like to offer my congratulations to the doctors and staff at the Hospital for Sick Children. Their dedication and experience has made the hospital not only a world-class institute but also a caring institute.

1340

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Philip: As our party’s critic on government spending and a member of the standing committee on public accounts, I am alarmed at the fact that every single year since 1983 the Provincial Auditor of Ontario has found some form of mismanagement at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

In the auditor’s report released yesterday, there is a stinging criticism of the board’s failure to efficiently manage its inventory. The auditor estimates that over $70 million was tied up in excess inventory. He states that the excess in inventories could be costing the board between $3 million and $7 million in interest costs per year. In addition, one must add increased costs related to warehousing, transportation and so forth.

In 1983, the LCBO was criticized by the auditor for having excessive inventories. The standing committee on public accounts reported in the same year that the board had promised to conduct a study to determine the optimum inventory levels to be warehoused.

On Monday, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), in what can only be considered a pre-emptive attempt to neutralize criticism, delivered a statement once again promising that the LCBO would improve its control of inventories.

I and other members of the public accounts committee are tired of seeing the same old faces making the same old promises. It is time for the minister and his staff to involve themselves in cleaning up the LCBO. I hope that my comments today will have a sobering effect on both the minister and the LCBO.

JOHN LANE

Mr. McLean: I want to bring to the attention of the House that our colleague John Lane, who is retired, is in Women’s College Hospital for a short period of time. I know that he will be watching the proceedings of this House today, and I know that his colleagues here would all like to take this opportunity to wish him well. I am sure that when he watches what takes place here in this question period, it will bring back a lot of memories of this establishment, where he spent so many years enjoying it and working for the people of the province.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Harris: Unaccustomed as we are to getting four statements, I will try to proceed as quickly as I can.

The effort of combining St. Joseph’s General Hospital of North Bay and North Bay Civic Hospital into one hospital and the funding for the same are an issue that has been ongoing for a good number of years. A lot of planning and a lot of detail have gone into it. It was ready administratively to fund about January or February 1986, and we still hear it is going to be next fiscal year before anybody even looks at it.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Harris: It is a disgrace on behalf of this government --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to announce a motion to establish the select committee on constitutional reform. I do so with a deep sense of the historical significance of the constitutional accord reached last June by the first ministers.

Ontario governments have for many years had a constructive relationship with our sister province of Quebec. One hundred years ago last month, the then Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, Honoré Mercier and Oliver Mowat, met at the first interprovincial conference.

Cette conférence signalait la renaissance d’un esprit de collaboration et d’entente entre les provinces de l’Ontario et de Québec, telle qu’elle existait dans les meilleures années du Canada-Uni.

Another Ontario Premier, the Honourable John Robarts, hosted the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference 80 years later. That conference, which opened exactly 20 years ago this week, provided Premier Daniel Johnson of Quebec the opportunity to explain Quebec’s aspirations to Canadians from across the country. It was widely regarded as having initiated the period of constitutional reform which led to the current accord.

More recently, in 1980, honourable members will recall that an Ontario select committee was struck to deal with the question of constitutional reform. The select committee concentrated on proposals to secure individual rights and to promote national reconciliation--proposals that are reflected in the 1982 Constitution Act and the 1987 constitutional accord.

The 1982 document accommodated many interests in our country and brought us a patriated Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter protected individual equality, aboriginal and minority language rights and our multicultural heritage.

Yet the constitutional reform of 1982 did not resolve the fundamental question of the place of Quebec within Canada.

It was in the spirit of trying to complete the unfinished business of 1982 and to rectify the omission of Quebec from our constitutional consensus that the first ministers agreed a year ago to discuss five items proposed by the Bourassa government as essential elements of an agreement.

It is my view that Premier Bourassa’s proposals were consistent with the national interest. They were a constructive approach to the reconciliation of Quebec within Canada as a whole and the basis upon which the first ministers reached an agreement at Meech Lake.

This accord is a vital step in nation-building.

Cette entente répond aux inquiétudes des Québécois, tout en promettant à tous les Canadiens de saines relations intergouvernementales.

The accord secures the voice of Canadians from across the country in our central institutions and it does so, I believe, while preserving the basic rights already enshrined in the Constitution.

We recognize that no consensus is perfect, but the accord does represent a solution in the best Canadian tradition. It is a viable accommodation. In both symbolic and practical terms, it is the kind of agreement that has characterized the building of this country.

The entrenchment of the 1987 constitutional accord will remove one of the main barriers to a constructive approach by the whole country to the political and economic challenges ahead of us. The accord unblocks the constitutional reform. When it is enshrined, it will establish a new confidence in reform among all Canadians and a new attention to the Constitution.

This accord should not be seen as the last effort at amending the Constitution. The accord’s passage will make possible initiatives on related constitutional issues. We propose a select committee with the twin objectives of completing past commitments, assessing the terms of the accord in the light of the need for national reconciliation and looking forward to the needs of the future.

Constitutions must be living documents, fashioned with the informed participation of all interested citizens. The hearings on the constitutional accord are of vital importance for this province in its participation in national affairs. This government is committed to a process that is open and accessible -- a process which respects the right of all individuals and groups to express their views.

I welcome the opportunity for all Ontarians to participate in this significant development in Canada’s future.

STOMACH BITTERS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to inform the House of the government’s intention to revoke section 60 of regulation 581 under the Liquor Licence Act in order to take stomach bitters off retail store shelves and restrict their sale to government liquor stores.

As members know, stomach bitters have always been exempted from the requirement for sale in Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores because they were unpalatable and considered to have some value as a digestive aid. For years, this exemption caused little concern and even fewer problems but in recent years stomach bitters have become the available and affordable drink of choice of some people.

I am sure the members are also aware of a Toronto coroner’s jury recommendation on Monday that the sale of bitters be restricted to the LCBO.

Even though the jury found that consumption of bitters may have been only incidental to the hit-and-run death of the man in question, its recommendation to remove bitters from unrestricted sale is a reflection of growing community concern. This government must be responsive to that concern.

I am sure no one in this House is so naive as to think that the removal of bitters from retail store shelves will significantly alter this human tragedy. The real problem is alcohol abuse, not bitters.

1350

Alcohol is a controlled substance in Ontario and bitters has rapidly evolved from being an obscure digestive aid sold in small quantities to become one of the major sources of cheap and available liquor for some individuals. The time has come to bring bitters under control.

The regulatory changes will require that all stomach bitters be removed from retail store shelves as soon as reasonably possible. A reasonable phase-out period for store sales is required to give manufacturers and importers time to reposition their products and follow through with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s listings procedure. As well, importers, distributors and retailers must all be given a fair period of time in which to dispose of existing stock and arrange for the new distribution process.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to announce details of the increase in operating funds for Ontario hospitals in fiscal year 1988-89, as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) reported last Wednesday.

In keeping with this government’s commitment to continued sound fiscal planning while maintaining the integrity of our hospital system, I am pleased to announce that Ontario hospitals will receive an overall increase of about 6.9 per cent in operating funds for the next fiscal year. The hospitals will receive a basic grant increase of about 4.4 per cent in this period. In addition, the budget increase allotted by my ministry will feature a further 2.5 per cent for growth in hospital programs.

The base on which the increase will be applied has yet to be determined. That will be done once the ministry and the Ontario Hospital Association complete the review of the disposition of funds normally allocated by the ministry for the employer contributions required by the hospitals of Ontario pension plan.

The 2.5 per cent increment for growth in hospital programs will be used for new programs to be started in the next fiscal year as well as ministry-approved programs started or expanded in 1987-88. The funds will be used for growth in life-support programs in designated teaching hospitals and other major hospitals. These programs include renal dialysis, cardiovascular surgery, chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition, interocular implants and perinatal health.

The increase for growth will also include funding for workload increases due to hospitals treating more patients and an additional one per cent for hospitals with fewer than 50 beds.

The increase will enable hospitals to meet inflationary pressures as well as the usual costs associated with growth. We would also hope that hospitals will be among those groups that will be submitting proposals for the special programs referred to by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) when he announced the multi-year, $100-million innovative health strategies fund.

The increases I am announcing today will bring total ministry spending on hospitals for fiscal 1988-89 to approximately $5.4 billion.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As members may be aware, the chief of police of the Niagara Regional Police Force this morning announced that he would not be laying charges as a result of the extensive investigation into allegations of wrongdoing within that force. I had earlier indicated that a determination as to whether or not charges would be laid was a precondition to any consideration of a public inquiry into the force.

The board of commissioners of police, as a result of the determination that charges would not be laid, has renewed its request that an inquiry into allegations of improprieties by members of the Niagara Regional Police Force be conducted. A decision has been made to accede to that request.

I believe that such a course of action is now in the public interest. It will be necessary to consult with the Niagara regional board to determine the appropriate terms of reference for the public inquiry. We will do this with all possible haste, having regard to the need of careful delineation of the scope of this inquiry.

RESPONSES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the statement made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today with respect to Meech Lake. I have to say to him, however, that I think most people would regard with scepticism his talk about participation. The fact of the matter is that he himself has participated twice in an event which was attended by nobody other than himself and 10 other first ministers. To talk now of participation smacks to me of some pretty hollow rhetoric.

We have a reality which is, in my view, a most unfortunate one where we have basically been left with a complete fait accompli by the Premier and by the other first ministers. They have negotiated one agreement and then proceeded to make some minor changes in other negotiated ones.

Native people were not at the table. The representatives of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were not at the table. Indeed, it is fair to say that no one else in the political process was at the table. To turn around now and say that the establishment of this committee is going to be some kind of an exercise in participatory democracy is a rather sad joke in the light of the reality that the Premier and other first ministers have signed the document and basically told us to take it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

I can tell the Premier that is not the way in which we intend to pursue this; that there are changes in the accord which are necessary; that we discussed those changes when he came back to the Legislature twice in the spring of last year; that he knew full well that a minority Legislature would have led to a quite different kind of participation than the one we are permitted in the current circumstances of the House.

I can say to the Premier that if he regards this as any kind of example of participatory democracy, he has a very different understanding of democracy and participation than we do on this side.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Reville: Responding first to the announcement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) of increased operating funds for Ontario hospitals, may I say that the big numbers and the clever arrangements of percentages do not disguise the fact that this is very much a business-as-usual approach to a health care system which is not working well enough. Nothing has been done to address the imbalance between the funding of teaching and nonteaching 1400 hospitals or to assist hospitals in improving their accountability to our communities. It is altogether a rather disappointing statement.

STOMACH BITTERS

Mr. Reville: Turning to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), may I say I am very pleased to see that the minister has taken the action he has taken, getting the bitters off the counters of the corner stores, where they have become a magnet for those who are vulnerable.

I should point out that while we are aware of the most recent coroner’s jury recommendation, members of the House will know that previous coroners’ juries had made the same recommendation that the government is now belatedly implementing. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and I were raising this matter in this House two years ago. I regret to say that we have had to have further deaths before the government could see its way clear to take the appropriate action it has now taken.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: I want to reply to the comments by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). The first thing I want to do is to commend her and congratulate her for proceeding with the public inquiry.

It is five years since I first called for a public inquiry in this House. Her government cannot be faulted for not implementing it during those first three years. I suggest it can for the last two. I suggest to the minister that a lot of problems that have existed in that force over the last two, three or four years would not have existed if we had had that public inquiry when it was first asked for.

I know the great majority of the police officers themselves will welcome this public inquiry. A great majority of them, of course, are good police officers. They will welcome this opportunity to have themselves cleared, and all of the other officers, but those who may be bad eggs within the force and should not be there will then be revealed through this inquiry. I think this is the final move towards improving the public image and the reality of an improved police force in Niagara.

One final thing I say to the Solicitor General is that this public inquiry must be real. It cannot just be a facade; it must be a real public inquiry by an independent head, perhaps an independent jury.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Brandt: I too would like to comment on the statement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with respect to the establishment of a select committee on constitutional reform. I find somewhat surprising the comments the Premier made on the last page of his document where he indicates, “This government is committed to a process that is open and accessible -- a process which respects the rights of all individuals and groups to express their views.”

I say this because it was our party that pressed, I think in a very positive way, for such a committee to be established. There was no comment about that in the Premier’s release today, but the fact of the matter is that we did call for such a committee to be established, I think for good and valid reasons.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He does not like it.

Mr. Brandt: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), the Premier says, does not like it. The reason the Leader of the Opposition does not like it is that he has the same concerns I have about the way this committee is going to be set up.

Is the committee going to listen to those groups that feel they have been alienated in some way or left out of the process as it relates to the Meech Lake accord? Are their views going to be heard? Is this going to be a committee that will accept any amendments? What will the process be for forwarding these amendments to the other premiers and the Prime Minister of this country if, after study, they are proven to be valid?

We recognize full well that Ontario as the largest province has a particularly sensitive role to play. Former premiers and nation builders in this province, such as Premier John Robarts and Premier William Davis, played that role in a very sensitive, careful and thoughtful fashion because they recognized in many instances that what was good for the rest of the country was good for Ontario as well.

We agree with the Premier in his statement that Quebec has to be brought in as a full working partner of Confederation, but we say to him that it is absolutely paramount that this committee work in an effective way to get input from native groups, women, the territories and others who want to express their concerns about the accord and to have their views heard and then carried forward in a positive way to the next stage of this process.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). What the minister has really told us here today is that her basic increase to hospitals at large in Ontario is 4.4 per cent. If a hospital has a particular program that qualifies in one of these specifications she has laid out on page 2 of her statement, then it may be lucky enough to get some of the other 2.5 per cent. I want to make it clear that what the minister is really telling the House and the hospitals in Ontario today is that they are getting a basic increase for inflation of 4.4 per cent.

I note that in the fourth paragraph on page 1 of the minister’s statement she makes reference to “once the ministry and the Ontario Hospital Association complete the review of the disposition of the funds normally allocated by the ministry for the employer contributions required by the hospitals of Ontario pension plan.” l hope the minister will take into account the concerns of hospital workers expressed last week in the media with respect to that plan and how their funds are being used.

This statement is really nothing more than a statement by her predecessor which made a great to-do about hospital capital allocations. Then we found out that what he had really done was take the 1985 capital allocation and flatline it for the next five or six years. We do not think that is acceptable over here. This does not provide an increase of funding. It just accommodates for inflation.

STOMACH BITTERS

Mr. Runciman: We on this side are naturally pleased with the announcement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) with respect to the withdrawal of bitters from grocery stores. I guess we also have to be critical, as we have been over some period of time, along with the New Democratic Party, about the delay in taking this kind of action. I know the minister’s predecessor took this to cabinet some time ago, but in my view it was delayed for purely crass political reasons last summer. After three coroners’ inquests, we finally have action. They failed to take action last year because it drew attention to their ludicrous policy of putting beer and wine in grocery stores. They have now backed away from that. We are very pleased and we welcome the action, but it comes at least three deaths too late.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Harris: With reference to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I was surprised there was no operating grant announcement for the new joint hospital in Nipissing. This is a hospital that has been sitting there waiting for the last five years. When is she going to announce that funding and the capital to go along with it, if, as she says, she increases the capital?

ORAL QUESTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. B. Rae: There is a question about Meech Lake I would like to ask the Premier. He talks in his statement today about the importance of “informed participation of all interested citizens” and that he welcomes “the opportunity for all Ontarians to participate in this significant development in Canada’s future.” Is the Premier saying when he says this that he anticipates the possibility that the committee will recommend some changes to the document he signed, and if that is the case he will accept those changes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will tell the member what I anticipate. I anticipate this will be widely discussed in this province. The committee may make a decision to go and have consultations in other provinces. They will want to gather up the best information they can about the national mood and the consequences of the Meech Lake accord, legally, politically and in terms of our relationships with the rest of the country.

If they come to the conclusion that there is some serious error that could be fixed, then obviously they will make that recommendation to us. They will assess that in the light of the political realities of the country, the positions of the other provinces, and they will make their recommendations to us on that basis. I look forward to their advice. That is why we are having the committee hearings.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the Premier can explain a couple of what I think most people would now regard as rather serious problems with the accord. If I can ask him to address one, I wonder if he can explain to the House and to the provinces, as they begin this process of participation, how it is that the creation of new provinces and the admission of them into the family of Confederation as full participating members will now require the approval of all 10 provinces, which, as the Premier will know, is completely different from the situation up to 1987?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Leader of the Opposition is right. Presumably, the committee members will look at that question, they will have advice from all quarters and they will give advice to the government on that matter. I am not sure what the problem is that the member is raising.

Mr. B. Rae: The problem I am raising is that the Premier has participated in the process, a basically secret process that he was involved in over two nights, which resulted in an agreement with which many people have problems, including those who expressed their concerns at the federal level when they moved motions to amend that were not accepted by Mr. Mulroney because Mr. Mulroney said, “The deal is signed and that is it.” If we have the same attitude here in Ontario, what we are going through is just going to be there for show, not real.

I am asking the Premier to explain why he personally signed a document that basically means that the Yukon and Northwest Territories will not be admitted as provinces because it gives a veto to every single province in the country.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say with great respect to my friend that he is not necessarily correct. He is correct in terms of the new rules that would be applied to the admission of new provinces, but he is not correct in prejudging the results of that. I do not think his interpretation in that regard is fair.

Let me carry on for a moment. The member suggests some secret meetings and the suggestion that it was signed in stealth in the middle of the night. Let me tell my honourable friend, and I am sure he followed this debate -- starting with Maîtriser l’avenir, a document put forward by the Quebec Liberal Party -- and as someone who follows these matters, I am sure he was informed about it, as this went through rigorous public discussion for a year or two. Lots of people had an opportunity to express their points of view. I admit there were many who were astounded that a deal was at all possible. There are lots of us who had input into that particular document.

I am not standing in front of the member telling him it is perfect. It has to be assessed in terms of its effect on our future.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Can it be changed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course it can be changed. In response to my honourable friend’s question, albeit from the benches, of course it can be changed.

The unanimous veto in the accord applies only to a very limited number of issues, i.e., institutional reform. The general amending formula still applies to the vast majority of the items under constitutional reform. I invite the member to look at it in detail.

I have heard a lot of people express reservations about the accord, and I say to them as charitably as I can, I think some of them do not understand exactly what is in it. They are reacting to some perhaps quick assessment that is not accurate. I say to the member, we will now have the time to debate it through, as his federal colleagues did, and he will put forward any ideas he and his members may have to improve it. They will ascertain whether it is possible to do that and then make a decision whether to support it or not to support it.

Mr. B. Rae: If I may say so, the Premier is starting out the process of consultation with a rather condescending, patronizing approach in which he says that people who disagree with the Premier are uninformed. That is really a refreshing way in which to start out this process.

1410

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: My question to the Premier has to do with the question of free trade. I gather the Premier has now said outside this place that it is not the intention of the government to enact the sections of the free trade agreement having to do with the distribution and sale of wine. Can we take it from this statement that it is the intention of the government not to enact any legislation or orders in council which would have the effect of implementing the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At the moment, I am not aware of any other areas specifically that require complementary provincial legislation. We have asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to do a complete constitutional audit in that regard and give us his advice. At the moment, I do not have that advice. The member will know that, unlike himself, I like to think these things through very carefully before I just jump out and then have to change my position 16 times as my honourable friend does.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) started this style last night. The style of personal insult is one that I think ill becomes the government. It ill becomes the Premier of this province and the Deputy Premier. If that is the way they want to start conducting the business of the province, fine, but let us be quite clear who is setting the tone around here. It is the Premier, and if that is the way he wants it to go, that is the way it will be.

I would like to ask the Premier a question specifically with regard to the question of the auto pact, which he did not choose to mention in his comments yesterday. Can we take it from what the Premier is saying that he is prepared to take steps with respect to wine -- that is, prepared to say that Ontario will not move -- but that that is as far as it goes? What precisely is he prepared to do on behalf of those auto workers, hundreds of thousands of whom heard his very clear message in the campaign that there can be no agreement that guts the auto pact? He agrees the agreement does in fact gut the auto pact.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that we are looking at those areas where we have jurisdiction. The auto pact, as the member knows, was originally negotiated by two sovereign governments: the federal government of Canada with the federal government of the United States. The province was not involved in that particular negotiation.

Now we have honed down the issues. One at least we know is under provincial jurisdiction. I have said very clearly that the wine provisions in that agreement would wipe out our wine industry and we are not prepared to accept that. We have sat down with the wine industry, the grape growers. We have worked out with them a package we think is acceptable to keep them competitive, to bring them into a better position than they are at the present time. We believe, assuming the federal government can negotiate this properly, which the member may want to raise questions about, that we can save the industry, that we can keep it competitive and respect our multinational trading obligations, something my friend opposite obviously does not respect from the comments he has made so far.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier will know that there are five weeks to go before the agreement is to be signed by both the federal government and by the President of the United States. The Premier has announced one step which Ontario is in a sense not prepared to take. That is the only announcement he has made with regard to this agreement which has any impact on the agreement, apart from the statements and speeches he has made with regard to the overall agreement.

Time is running out. The House will be adjourning in the middle of December and, for all we know, in view of the timetable put forward by the government House leader, we will be lucky if we get back here in 1988. Can the Premier tell us what other specific steps Ontario plans to take to make sure that the free trade agreement simply does not happen?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will respond to the question. I have been asked this on many occasions by the member and by his colleagues. We do not announce steps that we want to take if in fact we cannot take the steps. It requires a very thoughtful look at where all of our jurisdiction lies.

We have done that. We have done that with respect to wine, and that is the one area where it is clear, in my view at least, it is under provincial jurisdiction. It is not clear in other areas that legislation for implementation would in fact be required.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Your party misled the public.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member’s friend to his right is still quite bitter about September 10, and I can understand that, but he keeps yapping about the same thing. I say I do not think the public believes that. He may -- and I understand the personal bitterness he is going through at the present time -- but I think we are exercising the power and responsibility we have in a constructive and positive way.

We will continue to do that. We will continue to make our views known. As the members know, we are starting meetings this afternoon and this evening with our federal colleagues in that regard, but they know very clearly that we are not prepared to implement those provisions of the free trade agreement with respect to our wine industry.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Premier. He will be aware that a number of different groups in Canadian society, such as native groups and women’s groups, as well as prominent Canadians such as former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Senator Eugene Forsey, have come out in opposition to and have concerns about certain parts of the Meech Lake accord.

He will also be aware that closer examination of the provisions of the accord has demonstrated some areas of very crucial concern, especially as they relate to the opting-out provision and the implications of declaring Quebec a distinct society.

Given the concerns that have been raised and given that members of his own party have expressed similar concerns, would the Premier be prepared to state publicly and uncategorically here today that the select committee on constitutional reform, which will be appointed today, will have as part of its mandate the requirement that it propose and adopt and be able to adopt meaningful and constructive amendments to the Meech Lake accord where individual members and their own free conscience -- without a party whip vote; a free vote -- think it is required? Will the Premier agree to that here today as a means of strengthening our country and the accord itself?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not believe it will strengthen our country, and the answer to the question is no.

Mr. Eves: Why would the Premier not be prepared to commit himself to a free vote by the members of his party on such a very, very important procedure? I presume the reason this committee is being appointed is so that this Legislature and the elected members in this Legislature can have some meaningful contribution to this process. I presume it is not just a sham he is throwing up to meet a commitment he made several months ago, after he has already made a deal.

I am not sure that the Premier recognizes the importance of this accord. It was conceived in greater haste than the free trade agreement and has some greater implications for the future of this country.

I ask again, will the Premier agree to grant the committee that right, and will he indeed acquiesce to the recommendations and findings of an all-party committee in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We discussed this on many occasions before, the matter of having a committee hearing. We think it is important. Some of the other provinces have chosen to do the same thing.

One can look at the accord, and I agree with my honourable friend there is lots of difference of opinion, including in our own party; and his own party, obviously, because he takes a different view, I gather, from his federal leader on this matter.

I recognize this, and this is a matter for all Canadians, but I tell my honourable friend as well, as frankly as I can, I am not prepared to opt out of my responsibility to try to build a stronger country and I believe, on balance, that the accord is in the interests of a strong and united country.

Mr. Eves: The Premier will be aware that earlier this month Jean Chrétien, a co-signator of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a former Liberal cabinet minister in Ottawa, urged the Premier to move an amendment to the accord that will declare, without question and without fear of judicial override or disagreement, that the Charter of Rights has supremacy over the Meech Lake accord. As a straightforward and common-sense request, it is an amendment that I think every member of this House, every Ontarian and indeed every Canadian supports.

1420

Will the Premier make the commitment today that these and other amendments that may be made in committee will be adopted to protect, without question, our Charter of Rights?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member’s question points out what a difficult debate, indeed what a strange debate in many ways, this whole discussion has become when he quotes Jean Chrétien as an authority on the matter, and I end up quoting Brian Mulroney. It just shows how bad things have got in this country.

I understand the opinion of M. Chrétien and a variety of others, and I have applied my mind to this question as well. I believe, as I said, that on balance it is very much in the national interest. I invite the member, as he gets his leader to appoint him to that committee, to travel the country and get a sense of the country. He should figure out the ramifications of this. My honourable friend may come back with a little different view than he has at the present time. This can be an extremely positive experience for everyone. It can be an extremely constructive exercise in nation building.

I think the honourable member will want to ask himself the consequences of putting forward amendments that could wreck the deal. He will ask himself that personal question before he puts his imprimatur on his recommendations, whatever they happen to be.

Mr. Speaker: It is time for a new question.

Mrs. Marland: I wonder why we are entering into this debate at all, if amendments will not even be considered.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As this minister knows, the opting-out provisions of the Meech Lake accord jeopardize the possibility of a national day care program, a consequence I am sure the minister must consider very serious.

Will the minister withhold his support for the Meech Lake accord until the select committee on constitutional reform has an opportunity to report on the possible impact this opting-out provision will have on a national day care plan?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member may be aware of the fact that on December 2 and 3, next week, social services ministers from across the country will be meeting with the federal minister in Ottawa. At that time, we are going to be given the details of the national plan and the way in which it impacts on the various provinces, the various sections of the country.

I am obviously concerned about a national standard and national objectives, but I think the honourable member would also be aware that my first responsibility has to be to be able to put into place in Ontario, as we outlined last June, the program we think meets the needs of our citizens. I must say to her that if, in fact, I am presented with that kind of a proposal, I will support it.

Mrs. Marland: The minister is saying this meeting is taking place on December 2 and 3. I find that an interesting statement in the light of today’s date, because in the Toronto Star on November 20 the minister stated that he would probably support the federal day care plan. He was, in fact, quoted as saying, “The signal we’re getting from Ottawa is they’re favourably disposed to what we want to do here in Ontario.”

The minister having made that statement, I would like to ask him if he will tell this House what the specifics are that he heard from the federal government regarding the amount of funding, the time frame for the implementation and the scope of the federal program. lf he does not have that information, I do not know how the minister can make the statement that what he hears is good.

Mr. Speaker: The member has already asked three questions.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not have the details the honourable member is requesting. My response at that time, and I will repeat it again, is that we have been given an understanding that the kinds of conditions Ontario set forward in its own program last June are generally acceptable to our federal colleagues. It was on that premise that I made the statement I did.

The honourable member will remember that we clearly identified what we intended to do with respect to access, affordability and wages, how we intended to deal with the profit nonprofit problem and, more than anything else, as far as the federal government was concerned in terms of cost sharing, to allow Ontario sufficient flexibility to do all of these kinds of things.

What I am hearing, without knowing any of the details -- I can quite candidly say to my honourable colleague, I do not know any more of the details than she does; if I did, I would share them with this House and with her -- without knowing those details, the sense I am getting is that Ontario probably will not be very disappointed with the national proposal. I am hoping what I am hearing is correct. If what I am hearing is correct, I will support it.

Mrs. Marland: I suppose it is a matter of the interpretation of the word “hearing,” because I do not know how the minister can hear and yet not know. It is interesting that he is choosing not to reveal any specifics on the federal day care plan, because obviously the negotiations are ongoing. I stress that he “chooses” not to reveal anything that is making him think the way he does, because earlier this week the Premier (Mr. Peterson) set a precedent when he revealed details about this government’s position with respect to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations.

Again, I ask the minister to reveal the details of these negotiations. I would also ask what his intention is with respect to allowing the maximum flow-through of all federal moneys to the entire day care sector when the federal program is made public.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not sure I fully appreciate the last part of the honourable member’s question, but if she is asking if I will give a guarantee on behalf of our government that all of the moneys which come to us for that reason will be used for that purpose, I can tell her that my cabinet colleagues have made that very clear.

Mrs. Marland: To the entire day care sector?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Yes, to the entire day care sector. That is the point I have made.

The honourable member will be aware of the fact that two of the significant changes we wish to make and have announced we will make, to the extent it is possible, are: first, providing direct grants to all centres that are now in existence and in the future for only the nonprofit; and, second, that we move from needs testing to income testing for all families. That is the desire of Ontario.

Under the present cost-sharing arrangement, we would not be able to carry out either of those initiatives in the profit sector. We cannot do that. It is that kind of flexibility we have advised our federal colleagues is so important and necessary for Ontario. That is the reality of Ontario. That is the reality we have to deal with in Ontario. Roughly half our families and, obviously, half the children who currently use the two sectors of the system have to be, in our judgement, treated fairly and equitably. So if that is what the honourable member means, the answer is yes, but I need that flexibility on behalf of all members in this House and on behalf of all the citizens of Ontario. At the present time, we do not have it.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Treasurer, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), and because the Treasurer has been speaking so much lately about the high standards of funding given to the universities of this province.

I have just shared with the Treasurer a memo sent out last week from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations to all its member associates and all the universities in the province. OCUFA indicates that the overcrowding problem is now so severe that it is getting requests back from their staff faculties about whether the staff is liable in case there should be any problem with a fire or other kind of emergency caused by the overcrowding.

The memo, as I share with the House, indicates they have a legal opinion that there might be liability. They advise the following steps: contact university safety authorities, contact university administrators to attempt to rearrange classes, contact or have faculty association contact municipal building and fire inspectors, and cancel classes.

Can the Treasurer please tell me why it is that we have come to this point in our universities, if he is providing the kind of funding that is dealing with the overcrowding situation?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am providing adequate funding to look after the students who present themselves and are accepted at our provincially assisted universities. On the other hand, I think the advice given by OCUFA to its members is reasonable, up to the point where it suggests they unilaterally cancel classes. It seems to me the responsibility would lie with the administration of the institution.

In the case where there is a problem, we have statutes of the province that can obviously be brought into play. I sincerely hope that is the course of action that would be taken and that the administration would bear the responsibility in this regard.

1430

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I realize the Treasurer has just received instant legal advice on this. I do not want to debate the niceties of whether their legal advice is appropriate or not. The fact of the matter is that day in and day out in our universities now the building code and the fire code of the province are being ignored in order to conduct classes on a day-to-day basis. Somebody is going to be liable, including this government, if there is a major tragedy.

Will the Treasurer guarantee us that he will provide enough money, and explain how he is going to do that, to make sure the building code and fire code of this province are adhered to in our universities, as they should be, now in this year and especially next year when the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions program means there will be many more students going to universities than there are presently?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the universities are adequately provided for, not to the extent of services the members of this House would wish, but on balance with other substantial responsibilities we have, we feel the universities are adequately provided for.

CONFISCATED FIREARMS

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Recent reports indicate that a number of municipal police forces in Ontario engage in the practice of selling confiscated firearms to weapons dealers. Is the minister aware that section 18 of the Police Act permits police forces legally to sell confiscated firearms?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I thank the member for the question. Yes, I have only recently become aware of this practice and that it is in fact legal. We have no present universally applied directive or policy in this regard and I will be looking into this matter.

Mr. Eves: Given the realities of the situation, there is the distinct possibility that some of these firearms could fall back into the hands of the criminal element in society. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of police forces in Ontario voluntarily choose to destroy rather than sell these firearms. I hope the minister will agree with me that this is too serious an issue to be left to choice. Can I then count on her support for my proposed amendment to the Police Act this afternoon to eliminate the sale of these firearms by municipal police forces?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member will be happy to know that I will be looking into this for myself and without his assistance.

Mr. Eves: I am sorry. You are too late.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: He is free, of course, to enter anything he wants.

I advise the member that the Ontario Provincial Police, which does come directly under the venue of the province, does have a policy on this and does destroy guns. This policy, which has been in effect for some time, would present a reasonable starting ground for discussion with the police forces that have not already adopted it. I foresee very little trouble in probably getting their opinion that this should be a universal method.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the conversion of apartment units into hotel units at 25 Wellesley Street East here in Toronto. She has known about this for some time since the bill was introduced. Can it possibly be true that the reason she has even ceased to investigate this, even though she knows these are apartment units now already converted into hotel units, is that in a year and a half her ministry has been unable to find an apt description for a hotel room?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The legislation dealing with the conversion of apartments into apartment hotel or apartment suites does look into the whole question of definition. I am not aware of exactly the decision that has been made at 25 Wellesley Street, but if there are any concerns about any buildings the member knows of, he should please bring them forward to us and we will look into them.

Mr. Breaugh: I am going to start looking for a staff job in the ministry.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is what we understand.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Put your money where your mouth is, Nixon.

Mr. Jackson: And then there were 18.

Mr. Breaugh: Paul Coffey and I are in the same league.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: When the government introduced this, it said it was aware of the general problem. The minister of the day said: “We want to act now. We want to act immediately.’’ These people are under fire in a number of ways -- rent review, being evicted; 20 of the 46 units are already hotel units. Now they are advertising openly, publicly. The government can see exactly what they are doing. There is no question. They have already converted these apartments into hotel units. How does the minister explain to these people -- and I have copies of their letters, so I know the ministry is aware of it -- that the problem here is that with all the minister’s wisdom and all of her staff, she cannot define a regulation that defines a hotel room?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I will make no comment on the honourable member’s job prospects with the Ministry of Housing.

Regarding the question of the apartment hotels, let me just say that we are very concerned about people not losing their accommodation and we are committed to making sure they do not lose their accommodation. There are, however, a variety of ways of describing accommodation: hotel suites, apartment hotels and apartments. The member will know there is a legitimate role for apartment hotels in a city like Toronto to which people come and where they stay for significant periods of time. We are looking at the matter of 25 Wellesley Street and we will make sure that people are protected.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday the minister implied, in response to a question I posed, that the Environmental Assessment Board has a say in determining the future energy needs of the province. He knows, or he should know in any event, it is Ontario Hydro and his own ministry that are responsible for this. The Environmental Assessment Board has nothing to do with it. Ontario Hydro has been telling us the future energy needs of this province will be outlined in its demand-supply options study, which we all know is now more than a year overdue. It has been reported that this study was completed last summer. What does the minister say? Is it complete or not and when will it be released to the public?

Hon. Mr. Wang: I understand the Hydro board will be reviewing the DSOS shortly, if it has not done so already, and I expect we will have it for the House soon.

Mr. Runciman: I do not know what “soon” means, another year perhaps, but over the past year we have had conflicting statements from the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who says there is no crisis, and the chairman of Ontario Hydro, who says there is a crisis regarding the future energy needs of the province. Will the new minister settle this dispute? If he will not freeze Hydro’s activities, as I asked yesterday, will he at least tell us whether his government intends to follow the recommendations reported to be in the demand-supply options study, and that is to build another multibillion-dollar nuclear power plant?

Hon. Mr. Wong: In order to answer the honourable member’s question properly, as I indicated yesterday, it is necessary to have all of the information in order to make such large billion-dollar decisions which cover such a long time span.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Jackson: This is what is keeping you out of cabinet.

Mr. Callahan: It is the members’ time. We will wait.

Mr. Jackson: Oh, now you want to be Speaker. Thanks.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Callahan: This government has consistently indicated that food banks are not the solution for providing adequate food for those people who are unable to afford proper food for themselves or their families. The minister has also been on record as favouring some other proposal. I recently asked the minister if he would discuss with his cabinet colleagues -- more specifically, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) -- the possibility of some plan being allowed through the marketing boards to provide for surplus goods to be sold at cost to some permanent facility that could then distribute the food in a more humane and perhaps more dignified way to people who are unable to pay for it themselves.

I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to confer with his colleagues and perhaps could report to the House whether that is possible and whether he would consider developing a plan of that type.

1440

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have spoken to the Minister of Agriculture and Food about the potential reaction of marketing boards to allowing farmers to produce beyond their quota and that excess production being made available, for example, to food co-ops, of which lower-income -- and I said “lower,” not “low” -- families might become members. The minister’s response was that he was not sure himself how they would react to it but that he as a minister would be quite prepared to discuss it with them. He has had no initial negative reaction to it.

It has not gone any farther than that, but I would be quite prepared to co-operate with my colleague in Agriculture and Food to see whether there is any merit in that and whether we can get together the food producers and the food users in this province in a way that is helpful to both of them.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question to the Attorney General in his capacity as the Minister responsible for native affairs in the province. Would the minister agree that the Meech Lake constitutional accord is indeed a setback for the recognition of the constitutional rights of the aboriginals of this country and this province and for the guarantee of Indian self-government?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not of that view now, but I would be glad to hear the honourable member’s view.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister clarify what his view is? It seems to me that in the previous constitutional amending formula, even with that formula, we were unable to reach a definition of aboriginal rights through four conferences or to have an agreement of all the first ministers of this country.

Now, with the unanimity rule, would the minister not agree that it is even more unlikely that we will be able to reach a definition of aboriginal rights and an entrenchment of those rights and the rights to Indian self-government in the Constitution of this country?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would ask the member to observe two points. First, there is a notwithstanding provision in the Meech Lake accord which applies to protect all existing constitutional or other rights of aboriginal people, notwithstanding what the Meech Lake accord may say. That is a very full protection indeed.

Second, on the question of general constitutional reform, he well knows that the native people felt very aggrieved that their efforts to obtain a constitutional amendment respecting self-government was not achieved last year.

One of the practical reasons I believe it was not achieved is, as the member knows, since 1981 Quebec did not participate in the constitutional renewal process until the renewed Constitution that Prime Minister Trudeau had promised that province was to be made available. I believe if Quebec had seen fit to participate in that process, we might have had a different result. One of the good things about Meech Lake is that Quebec is now participating in the constitutional process as a result of this renewal.

FUNDING FOR HIGHWAYS

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. On page 5 of the Provincial Auditor’s report, which was tabled this week, it says:

“The provincial highways program is to provide and maintain a highway system that will satisfy the needs of the people of Ontario. Expenditure on capital and construction activities totalled $214.7 million in 1987. In our view the determination of construction priorities was questionable in several instances. We also felt that some priorities should be established on a province-wide basis; all are now decided on a regional basis.”

In view of the fact that many rural municipalities throughout Ontario feel their highway networks are not satisfactory to them or to the people who use them, would the minister tell us here today that he will see to it that they have additional funds in 1988 so they can go ahead and plan now to upgrade those roads and not let them go further behind?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the figures the honourable member mentioned were in fact from the 1986 auditor’s report. The figure he mentioned is, I think, the highest capital budget the Ministry of Transportation has ever seen, certainly in the last 44 years, as a percentage. We thank the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for his generosity in meeting those needs and addressing those needs, and we are working on 1988.

I could tell the member further that some of the changes we did make when we took over this responsibility was to work very closely with all the municipalities across this province in longer-term planning and funding of their and our mutual needs.

Mr. Wiseman: I go back to the Provincial Auditor’s report, which says the provincial highways program is to provide and maintain a highway system that will be satisfactory to the people of Ontario. I ask the minister to talk to his House leader, who I know has visited many of the municipalities that I have. I have read some of the reports the reeves have sent me, with a copy to the minister’s House leader, at which time they said they are not satisfied with the amount of money they have and that their road networks are falling farther and farther behind.

The minister did mention the $215 million that was put into the program in 1986, but most of that money, as he knows, did not go into rural or county roads. The Ontario Good Roads Association convention is coming up. Would he consider again letting those people know he is going to put an infusion of fresh dollars in, so that they can plan their work for 1988?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member would know that the figure he is mentioning is the highways capital allotment to the ministry, not the amount of money we transfer to the municipalities, which is in excess of $1 billion in total from the ministry.

Certainly, I would be the first to suggest that we inherited a very fine highway and road network in this province, and it has improved dramatically in the last two and a half years.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Provincial Auditor noted that in 1985 the Minister of the Environment had had information on only 147 of the 300 companies that discharge directly into Ontario’s waterways. Of that 147, only 39 reported results of toxicity tests, and of those 39, 31 failed the test.

Earlier this session I drew to the House’s attention the ministry’s 1986 report on industrial direct discharges. In 1986, the number of companies reporting had increased from 147 to 154. Can the minister tell the House how many of the 154 reported toxicity tests to the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member may be aware from her detailed knowledge of this, toxicity tests essentially apply only to very specific industries. For instance, the pulp and paper industry is one category of mill which is involved in toxicity tests. It is the one I would say is the most often used in terms of the toxicity test.

The member would know that as a result of identified problems with this particular problem, that is the toxicity test, we appointed an expert committee of three individuals, scientists and engineers. These people are experts from universities and from the private sector who have travelled to places such as Finland and Sweden, across Canada and in the United States to determine the best method of avoiding the kind of toxicity which is produced.

I am pleased to report to the member that some of the initial results they have been looking at, some of the initial programs that have been put in place in other countries, have in fact offered some hope that we can avoid even producing these toxins by changing the process.

1450

Mrs. Grier: I tried to ask a very direct question that required merely a number as a response rather than an explanation of what toxicity tests were.

Mr. Speaker: Try it again.

Mrs. Grier: I will try as many times as I have to, but we on this side of the House are finding the minister’s rambling and imprecise answers very tiresome.

As a result of a morning’s work on his 1986 report -- because he does not tell us very directly how many toxicity tests were performed or what the results were -- we find that of the 154 companies that reported in 1986, 50 reported toxicity tests and 12 passed. So we are no better off in 1986 than we were in 1985, and only eight prosecutions were launched in 1986. Can the minister, who boasts so frequently that we have the toughest environmental laws in North America, tell the House when he is going to begin enforcing those regulations?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would know -- again, she is expert in this field -- that the problem is the system. She has identified the problem. I have identified the problem. That is precisely why I have brought in the program called the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. The problem is that we have guidelines at the present time --

Mr. Jackson: It does not include the secondary effluents.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member who interrupts would know that his government put guidelines in effect. Why, I do not know, because whoever puts them in effect knows they cannot be enforced.

Mrs. Grier: Enforce the guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You cannot enforce guidelines in the court; you can enforce standards. The whole purpose of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is to get standards we can enforce.

As part of her question, the member mentioned prosecutions. I can tell her that in 1984, there were 54 prosecutions and 57 convictions. Last year, there were 179 prosecutions and 138 convictions by the Ministry of the Environment, and in the first six months of this year we have initiated 114 prosecutions and obtained 83 convictions. It is moving up every time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham is waiting patiently for a new question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Another late show?

Mr. Cousens: Could be.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing to welcome her back after taking a day off. It has been some 58 days since this minister has been appointed to cabinet and since that time there has been no announcement, there has been no statement, and no action.

Yesterday morning, it is said, she met with the mayor of Toronto, His Worship Arthur Eggleton, who presented a 22-page report on the housing crisis in Toronto. As a result of that meeting, I was hoping the minister would have made some kind of an announcement, and maybe she can now. Did either of them touch on the need to determine an emergency plan for the homeless for this winter?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The situation of the people in this province and in this city who do not have a place to live is a very serious one. I have visited some of the places where people who currently have no place to live get shelter for the night. All members who have done that know how dreadful those places are and how much help the people who are currently homeless need.

The mayor did not raise this question in his discussions yesterday. What we discussed was a general approach to solving the housing situation in Ontario. In particular, he raised his concern that our approach be one that took into account the various areas that make up the greater Toronto region. This is exactly in line with the work we have been doing and with the announcement in the throne speech of a greater Toronto co-ordinating committee looking at the problems of the greater Toronto area in a unified fashion.

Mr. Cousens: I am very surprised that the mayor did not raise that as one of the issues on the important and urgent problem we have in Metropolitan Toronto right now.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: It is obvious the minister did not raise it with him, either.

From the ministry’s own statistics, approximately 45 people will die this year in Ontario because of homelessness. Our hostel network is overwhelmed. People are living in tents and makeshift homes, all because they cannot find decent, affordable housing.

Will the minister not consider our party’s suggestion of establishing an emergency housing directorate so that, at the very least, we can prevent such unnecessary deaths in the months to follow?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: To begin, may I simply correct the suggestion made by the member that I had a day off yesterday. I spent yesterday afternoon meeting with the Ottawa groups and with the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants’ Associations.

As to the question he has raised, we are now actively working to find emergency housing for any of the unfortunate people who find themselves on the street. The people from the Metro Toronto Housing Authority and the people from the Ministry of Community and Social Services do indeed go to those people and find them emergency shelter as a matter of course now.

What this government realizes is that no short-term answers will work here; that finding someone a bed for the night is a necessary but not sufficient answer to his or her difficulties. Our commitment is to make sure that there will be housing in place, decent housing which people can afford, so that the people who have to be on the street some of the time now will find permanent accommodation, because that is the only answer to this problem.

NURSING HOME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of the process that is going on in St. Thomas, where Caressant Care, which bought Rest Haven Nursing Home on September 6, 1986 -- this issue has been raised in this House before -- will be moving the 40 nursing home residents from Rest Haven Nursing Home to its Caressant Care facility and moving 50 rest home residents from the Caressant Care nursing home to Rest Haven, which they are now going to convert into a rest home.

I would like to ask the minister if she is prepared to use her power under the Nursing Homes Act to not allow this forced relocation of residents, and whether she has reviewed the literature that indicates that forced relocation of elderly people in nursing homes or rest homes is very detrimental to their emotional and physical health.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In response, let me say that I am not familiar with the specific case that the member raises in the House today, and I would be pleased to have an opportunity to look into that case.

Having said that, I would like to state that I am committed to allowing not only residents of nursing homes but the elderly population generally to live as independently as they can and with dignity in those homes when they require those kinds of services.

I will acquaint myself with the issue the member raises today and I hope in the future, when he asks the question again, I will be better able to respond.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I asked the minister's predecessor the question and he never bothered to respond. His ministry officials have been involved in this issue for a couple of years and they have not been able to resolve the issue. In fact, at this point they have approved the forced relocation of these residents in this nursing home.

I would like to ask the minister also to make herself aware of the fact that this nursing home chain, Caressant Care, owns 661 nursing home beds in southwestern Ontario. It is becoming a large monopoly, along with the other chains that exist in this province. Does the minister not understand that one of the major problems in this community, in St. Thomas, is that when her ministry approves the purchase of Rest Haven by Caressant Care, this type of thing is bound to happen with a monopoly? They own all the nursing home beds in the city of St. Thomas.

Is she prepared again to use the power granted to her under the Nursing Homes Act to stop the buying up of nursing homes by these large chains and increasing their power in the province in various communities and regions?

1500

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: To respond on a philosophical basis as opposed to a specific given in this particular case -- and I do make the commitment to the member to listen to his concerns and I will do what I can to familiarize myself with the particular instance -- on a philosophical basis, my concern is that patients and residents in nursing homes receive the highest quality of care that we can ensure they are able to receive.

My commitment for the future and the announcement from this government is our approach to expansion of the nonprofit sector in the nursing home environment. He will be aware that in his own community we have been looking to fulfil that commitment to ensure that we do expand that sector wherever possible when we receive proposals where we can approve non-profit nursing home beds. I am happy to let him know that I will take a look at the specific he has raised in the House today, but my approach is one of quality of care for patients as the number one priority.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I know he is aware there is a very large, important meeting taking place tonight in the Pickering High School. Will the minister confirm whether or not he has received a formal application from Metro Toronto asking for an exemption from the environmental assessment process for the proposed Brock South landfill site and does he have any comment on that application for exemption?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have not received it personally at this time and I am not aware if it is in the Ministry of the Environment at this time. I have, as the member has followed through the news media, the proposal that was made, the vote that took place at council. I think there were three or four resolutions that were before Metro council. I am aware that they have an intention of doing that. I have not received it yet in any form and I am not in a position to be able to comment on it until I have received it.

I want to ensure, as I know the member would, that we have a full evaluation of the circumstances surrounding any proposal that Metropolitan Toronto would put forward. They have indicated that they have a garbage crisis, as they would refer to it, and they are looking for ways in which to handle that garbage crisis. The member, being from Mississauga, will agree with me that one of the best ways of doing that is to implement a full recycling program in Metropolitan Toronto and all of the incentives are there and all of the upfront money is there for them to become involved in that. I think that would serve to alleviate part of that problem, but specific to the member’s question, I have not received that yet.

Mrs. Marland: The minister knows there are three bases upon which an exemption to the environmental assessment process can be made. The first one is environmental insignificance, and we certainly know that is not so in this particular site. The second is public interest, and we know what the people think, especially those in the Durham region who live in close proximity to this proposed site. The third is an emergency.

I heard very clearly the minister’s comments where he was talking about the fact that they may have a request for an emergency based on what he has heard so far, albeit through the media. I would ask the minister if he considers there to be a real emergency in view of the existing facilities -- and we certainly are aware, through the same sources I suppose, that the existing facilities have in fact about another 12 years for Metro Toronto. But in view of the existing facilities, what will the minister do when Toronto makes that request and claims it is an emergency when, as he has just said himself, they have not begun to explore their garbage recycling alternatives?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am aware that a former Minister of the Environment, Bill Newman, indicated he was denouncing the previous government’s handling of that particular site, Brock landfill site, and said there had been misinformation provided in that regard. I am aware of that and I understand he will be speaking on that tonight.

I am wondering if the member is advocating, for instance, that the Keele Valley landfill site should run 24 hours a day. One of the problems I guess when they look at all of the other alternatives -- and I simply look at all those alternatives. I would have to be convinced in any case. As former ministers would know, if there is ever an emergency, a minister has to be assured in his or her own mind that in fact there is an emergency, and our ministry officials would, of course, have to evaluate that circumstance.

But when you look at the various alternatives, I heard the member mention 12 years, and l think she would have to know that if she is thinking of Keele Valley, you run the trucks 24 hours a day in and out of there.

PETITION

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have a petition signed by approximately 568 residents of the city of Windsor and addressed to the Legislature, petitioning the need for legislation of mandatory programs for child abuse therapy offered by the children’s aid society.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The main purpose of this legislation is to implement changes to the unconditional grants program for 1987 which were previously announced by my predecessor in November 1986. The legislation will also make two housekeeping amendments to the act.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Grier moved first reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Grier: The purpose of this bill is to aid in the enforcement of the rules of the road as they apply to bicyclists. It adds the requirement that bicyclists provide identifying information to police of ricers who request it, and I commend the legislation to the government.

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED WOOD ENERGY TECHNICIANS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. McGuigan moved first reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Association of Registered Wood Energy Technicians of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Explanation?

Mr. McGuigan: The purpose of the act is to set up rules and regulations to govern the --

Mr. Speaker: Sorry. Is this a private bill?

Mr. McGuigan: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, no explanation is allowed. That can be made in committee.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Eves moved first reading of Bill 48, An Act to amend the Police Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Eves: The purpose of this bill will be to prohibit police forces from selling or trading abandoned, lost, stolen, confiscated or seized firearms. The bill would require police forces to destroy all abandoned, lost, stolen, confiscated or seized firearms when those firearms were no longer required for the conduct of a legal action.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Peterson, resolution 5:

That a select committee on constitutional reform be appointed to consider and report on the 1987 constitutional accord, signed at Ottawa on June 3, 1987, and tabled in the House on November 23, 1987 (sessional paper 74), and matters related thereto; that the committee submit its report to the assembly before the end of the spring sitting of the First Session of this parliament, provided that if the House is not sitting, the committee have authority to release its report by depositing a copy of it with the Clerk of the assembly and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the chairman of the committee shall bring such report before the House in accordance with the standing orders; that the committee have authority to sit concurrently with the House and during any adjournment of the House, subject to the approval of the three party whips; and that a full Hansard service be provided for all of the proceedings of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On behalf of the government, it is a great honour to join the debate in support of this particular resolution.

Honourable members will know that in the spring of 1980 our fellow citizens in Quebec were asked in a provincial referendum to vote whether they proposed or not to continue as part of the Canadian Confederation. They were promised in the course of that referendum by our national leaders and by leaders from all across the country that a vote for Canada was not a vote for the status quo, and the people of Quebec were assured time and time again that in return for a no vote in that important, perhaps critical, referendum, Canadian federalism and our Constitution would be renewed.

Ontario and its leaders at that time added their voice to those promising change to Quebeckers and on May 9, 1980, in this Legislature by a vote of 111 to zero, the Legislature approved a resolution calling for “a new Constitution to satisfy the diverse aspirations of all Canadians and to replace the status quo which is clearly unacceptable.”

A short 11 days later after a hectic referendum campaign, the people of Quebec delivered their part of the bargain. Quebec, by its vote, put its confidence in the Canadian Confederation and just as important in the assurances of constitutional change that had been solemnly made by all of us to it.

But in the constitutional changes which brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, two years after the referendum, the historic concerns of Quebec were, as everybody conceded, not addressed. On the other hand, concerns relating to equality rights -- section 15 of the charter -- multiculturalism, aboriginal rights and minority-language education, all mentioned in the charter, were given constitutional recognition; only the concerns of Quebec were left out.

The 1982 Constitution failed to make good on the promise we had made in the referendum that there would be adequate protection for the distinct identity of Quebec. When we promised that, those words caused no difficulty. Rather than having its distinctiveness within Canada recognized and protected in 1982, Quebec saw its powers reduced by that Constitution without its consent.

The sentiments in Quebec following the events of 1982 have been graphically described by a number of people, but among them Solange Chaput-Rolland, a member of the Pepin-Robarts commission and one of the leading campaigners for a no vote in the referendum. After the 1982 round, here is what she said:

“English Canada could not care less one month after, and it stung me, and it stung all of us who fought so hard to remain in Canada; and to find ourselves outside of Canada, you know, it was a very dramatic gesture when Mr. Lévesque put the flag of Quebec at half-mast on the day you were all celebrating here. But our hearts were at half-mast too that day, because we were out in 1982 of a country we had chosen to remain in.”

The exclusion of Quebec by the 1982 negotiations, which she so graphically described, had serious consequences for all of us. Within Quebec, the provincial government refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The National Assembly inserted clauses in each of its laws purporting, pursuant to section 33, to override the charter.

Further, Quebec refused to discuss future constitutional changes, a point I made to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) today. This meant, for example, and this is only one example, that when first ministers met last March in an attempt to entrench an aboriginal right to self-government in the Constitution, the government of Quebec refused to participate. This, of course, made it virtually impossible to secure adequate support for an amendment. As we know, that meeting, regrettably, ended in failure.

Quebec’s exclusion as a result of 1982, notwithstanding the referendum of 1980, was a deep and nagging wound for all Canadians and for all of us. It was a wound which, if left unattended, might some day threaten again the unity of the nation in an even more profound way.

In order to heal that wound and to restore Canada to a measure of political and constitutional health, first ministers met earlier this year and eventually arrived at the constitutional resolution which has been laid before the House today. Its genesis was a public speech made by representatives of the new Quebec government about a year and a half ago and its five proposals were widely debated across the country in the proceedings leading up to the first ministers’ meetings.

The key to the agreement was the decision by provincial Premiers in August 1986 to limit the discussions to that list of five proposals which had been put forward by the strongly federalist government of Quebec. These five proposals were widely recognized across Canada as being moderate and constructive. I believe that Quebec’s proposals made a year and a half ago should be recognized as an act of profound political courage and national statesmanship.

This government believes that the constitutional resolution laid before the House is demonstrably in the national interests. In our judgement, it represents an essential and historic act of national reconciliation. It will bring to an end what we regard and what we must regard, all of us, whatever our views, as an intolerable situation: the constitutional isolation, in theory, in law, in fact, of Quebec from the rest of Canada. In the judgement of the government, it will do so while maintaining individual and group rights under the charter to which we are all also committed.

This government wants a full and open scrutiny of the terms of the accord. That is why the government proposes that the constitutional resolution be referred to a select committee on constitutional reform and related matters. The committee will have an opportunity to hear the views of the citizens of this province and report back to the House.

Like all statecraft, the Meech Lake accord is not perfect, but neither was the Constitution Act of 1982. That is demonstrable. Nor, indeed, was the original Confederation compromise of 1867. That was demonstrable. Canada, like all non-revolutionary societies, has been built and sustained through political compromise rather than abstract theorizing. The 1987 constitutional accord is not the end of the journey but another milestone in the continuing process of nation-building. I believe the accord is firmly within the Canadian tradition. It respects and honours the delicate balance between the unity and the diversity of the Canadian nation.

1520

Let us take some parts of it, the “distinct society” provision, for example. Clauses 2(1)(a) and (b) of the constitutional resolution provide that the Constitution is to be “interpreted” -- that is the word used -- in a manner consistent with the existence of language duality in Canada and the fact that “Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.”

This section does not confer any powers whatever. It is an interpretative provision which will be used by courts where other constitutional provisions are unclear or ambiguous. This clause, so widely debated, therefore confers no power and is an interpretative aid alone. It instructs courts in cases of ambiguity to take into account the existence of language duality and distinctiveness in the process of interpretation.

The clause is finely balanced. It recognizes the existence of the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities in other provinces and affirms the role of governments in preserving those minorities.

A second important point is that this clause does not override anything in the Charter of Rights. Since it is merely an interpretative provision, it is subordinate to the charter. All Quebec laws, including those passed in order to preserve linguistic duality or promote the distinct identity of Quebec, must comply, like any other laws, with the charter. If a law violates the charter, then the law will be invalid.

The government of Quebec, in entering into the negotiations that produced the Meech Lake accord, has affirmed its acceptance of the Charter of Rights. M. Gil Rémillard, the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs, indicated in his speech at Mont-Gabriel in May 1986 that the charter is a document which Quebeckers can be proud of.

M. Rémillard has pledged for his government, “We want the fundamental rights of Quebeckers to be as well protected as those of other Canadians.” Thus the Meech Lake accord, far from undermining the charter, ensures its solemn and symbolic acceptance by the government of Quebec.

Take a second example about which there may be debate or concern, the federal powers and their reach as a result of the accord. One of the criticisms of the accord has been that the federal government has sacrificed too many of its powers to the provinces.

It should be noted, first of all, and there is a specific provision to this effect, that nothing in the accord diminishes the legislative power of Parliament. All existing federal powers remain intact and untouched under the accord. The accord does clarify and constrain the use of the federal spending power, which was not previously a power explicitly granted to the federal government, but the constraint is a relatively narrow one.

Federal spending is only limited in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and the limitation only applies to future shared-cost programs. It imposes no limit on existing programs nor does it apply to federal funding provided directly to individuals or institutions.

Finally, even in the case of shared-cost programs undertaken in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provinces are required to undertake programs or initiatives compatible with objectives defined by Parliament in order to receive compensation. I believe it cannot be demonstrated that any program initiated by the federal government in the last 40 years would have failed to meet the test that the accord stipulates.

At the same time, the spending provision makes plain that the federal government has the constitutional right to attach conditions to money it offers to provinces within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I emphasize that because it was a point worthy of debate, that nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government given the power to spend money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is now provided for, and it is a matter of right that the federal government can attach conditions to moneys it offers to provinces within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

In the government’s judgement, this represents in totality a reasonable compromise between those who argue for an unlimited federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial responsibility and those who would impose much more severe limits on that power. It is a much narrower restriction on federal power than was proposed, for example, by the federal government itself in the 1960s. We have not gone as far in the Meech Lake accord as the national government of that day proposed to go in relation to spending power.

Moreover, the principle that provinces should have the right to opt out of federal programs is by no means novel. In fact, the major shared-cost programs that have been undertaken since 1960 have made provision for a provincial variation in the nature of the programs delivered, and this amendment will permit provinces to tailor programs to the needs of their residents while meeting program objectives defined by the federal government.

A third matter that will be referred to is, of course, the amending formula, and the resolution provides for two changes in the amending formula. The Constitution Act of 1982 had provided that the province could opt out of certain constitutional amendments and apply for compensation if the amendment related to education or other cultural matters. Under the Meech Lake accord, this right to apply for compensation is broadened to apply to any amendments transferring powers from provinces to the federal government.

The second change to the amending formula involves amendments to certain federal institutions, as the Senate and the House of Commons, and to amendments creating new provinces. Formerly, those amendments required the consent of the federal Houses and seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population. Under Meech Lake, the consent of all provinces would be required.

Here we see, I believe, an important example of the delicate balancing of federal and provincial interests in pursuit of national reconciliation. The class of amendments subject to unanimity involves matters which have important effects on the country as a whole. Further, the Meech Lake process itself is testimony to the fact that unanimity is, as indeed it has been in Canada for 120 years, a workable requirement.

Mr. Laughren: Is that how the other provinces got in?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Of course that is precisely how the other provinces got in, by requirement of unanimity.

The accord also provides for a provincial role in future appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada. In future, the federal authorities will make appointments from lists of candidates submitted by the provinces. These proposals will not grant provinces undue control over these national institutions. No appointment can be made unless the candidate is acceptable to the federal government. Further, once the appointment has been made, the appointee is not subject in any way to provincial control.

Here, as elsewhere, there is a realistic balancing between provincial and federal roles and responsibilities. It is this sense of balance and proportion which Robert Stanfield, for one, emphasized in his overall assessment of the accord when he said: “It is not a matter of making concessions to Quebec. It is a matter of the participants of the accord, the federal government and the provinces, reconfirming that English- and French-speaking people have to live together in mutual respect if this country is going to work.”

Let me turn to the matter of the hearings that are referred to in the resolution. The accord, as a result of this resolution if it is passed, will now be the subject of public scrutiny and debate by the citizens of Ontario. Two things, I believe, need to be kept in mind during that debate.

First, I believe that the accord cannot be analysed against some purely hypothetical or abstract alternative. The accord must be analysed in the light of the absolute necessity of achieving national reconciliation and discharging our promise of 1980. It is not sufficient to ask whether there is an alternative set of proposals which might theoretically be superior to the accord as written. The real issue is not one of theory; it is whether there is an alternative set of proposals which can accomplish in fact the critical and overriding task of national reconciliation.

1530

I think it is worth remembering that if English Canada refuses to proceed with the accord, we will continue to live with the serious political consequences associated with Quebec’s isolation from Canada. Moreover, I believe English Canada will appear to have said no to Quebec for the second time following the referendum in this decade.

When members of this House and citizens of the province come to consider the accord, I would ask that we might all remain mindful of the paramount objective of national reconciliation. To those who propose amendments -- and many will when the committee considers those amendments, we might keep in mind the following questions.

First, how serious is the alleged flaw? Second, must the flaw alleged be corrected immediately, or is it possible the problem can be corrected at some future time, possibly by including it on the agenda for immediate attention by the first ministers at the 1988 first ministers’ conference? Third, is the harm identified so significant that it would justify putting at risk the broad consensus we have achieved in pursuit of the overriding objective of national reconciliation?

In addition to these particular questions, there is a second general consideration that I hope might be kept in mind in the provincial debate on the accord. The issue for Ontarians is not simply whether to amend or to reject the accord. There is also a larger important question relating to the future of constitutional reform, which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) referred to earlier during question period in a slightly different context.

Much of the criticism of the accord has focused on the process through which it came about, and one of the questions the select committee may well want to investigate is ways in which that process might be improved. The committee may also want to investigate future substantive initiatives for constitutional reform. It is for that reason its mandate is to inquire into the Meech Lake accord and related matters.

In tabling the constitutional resolution before the House today, the government reaffirms the commitment it made on June 3 in Ottawa. We are confident the proposal is an honourable and historic reconciliation of our fellow citizens in Quebec within this country. We are now proud to ask the House and the people of Ontario to participate once again in this exercise of nation-building.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to start by saying I find it curious, to put it mildly, that we would be addressed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at 1:30 on the importance of participatory democracy and giving the people a chance to have their voices heard, and that the Premier would then choose to be absent for the initial discussion of the reference of this matter to the committee.

I might add that this is the second such occasion on which the Premier, among many others, has chosen to be away. He was not here for the reply to the speech from the throne, either by myself or by the leader of the Conservative Party.

This may well be the precedent he is trying to set, that he does not take this place seriously and does not take discussions here seriously. That may well be the attitude he chooses to reflect and to express. There is not much any one of us can do about that, except to comment on it.

I recall well, when I first came here, that there were times when Mr. Davis was not here, but there was never a time when he was not here when he did not take the trouble to speak to the leaders of other parties and say that he could not be in the House for an occasion such as this. Never, not in my experience. This is the sign of a government that has completely lost its sense of proportion and its sense of the importance of this place.

Either this place is going to be an assembly that will have the chance to debate things and have those views heard or it is not. The fact that the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who is after all the first minister in the House, chooses to be absent or away for debates on occasions such as this is, in my view, reprehensible. It shows a contempt for the House, a contempt for the views of other members and a contempt for the perspective of other parties. It does not bode well for the kind of give and take we normally expect to see in the House.

It shows a particular contempt because one of the problems that I think even the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) recognized, since he said it is one of the issues that has been identified by people who are concerned about the Meech Lake accord, is the criticism of the process. That is a criticism I raised today in my questions to the Premier and in my reply to his initial, very brief statement to the House. It is something that I think we have to address.

In my initial reaction to the first tentative agreement from Meech Lake, I spent some time speaking to this question when I spoke to the House back on May 26. I do not want to be accused of quoting myself but I did spend some time then talking about my experiences as a private member in Ottawa during the earlier constitutional negotiations and my experiences here with this question of constitutional reform.

At that time, the Premier referred to the events that took place at Meech Lake, and subsequently at the Langevin Block, as being an experience of national reconciliation and national bonding. I must say I find that description of what has taken place rather offensive. What we have is a process in which the people have not been involved, in which indeed even the legislatures have not been involved. Our only involvement has been absolutely post facto.

It is true that governments may have been involved, and it is certainly true that they have had an opportunity to discuss the meaning of each clause, why some clauses are there and others are not. But whenever I have asked questions in the House on this matter the Premier has not been particularly forthcoming, as he was not today, in explaining why it was that certain changes were made that have had a serious effect on the accord itself.

I want to make it very clear. I will say what I have said before about this. It is extremely important in the history of this country that Quebec be a voluntary signatory and participant in the Canadian Constitution. That is an extremely important fact of life. It is one that differentiated my response to the Meech Lake accord from that of Mr. Grossman when he was the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Grossman and I were on television in a debate during the previous election campaign which the Premier did not choose to attend, again perhaps a harbinger of debates to come and of attitudes to come. The Premier chose not to attend that.

We had a very full discussion of Meech Lake, and I put forward my concerns at that time. I want to put them forward again today, but I want to put them forward against the background where I say to the Attorney General that he does not have to give us a lecture on this side of the House about the importance of including Quebec in the Constitution.

There is no question about that. I for one am not going to accept an argument that says if we raise a single question, if we point to a single flaw, if we raise some major concerns, that even in doing that, we are somehow engaged in an act of quasi-disloyalty towards the country in this process of national reconciliation.

I hope we do not get into this business of the kind of attitude expressed by the Premier this afternoon where he basically implied that anybody who did not agree with him was somehow less of a Canadian patriot and less someone concerned about bringing the Constitution together than he is. That attitude is not going to do. It is an attitude which we will not accept.

There are a great many people in this province and in this country who have concerns about the Meech Lake accord. They are legitimate. They do not stem, as the Premier has said, from people not understanding the accord; they stem from people having a different point of view.

1540

I hope we have not reached the stage in this debate where everybody who has a different point of view is immediately going to be seen to say: “You are not expressing the view of Canadian solidarity that is appropriate.” I certainly do not intend to take that attitude, and I am very deeply disappointed that it seems to be the attitude of the Premier.

I think the Attorney General in his remarks today did put forward the case for the Meech Lake accord in a way which reflects the legal scholarship and sense of constitutional history which the Attorney General, quite rightly, reflects in the province, but let me also say there are some other points of view which need to be addressed and which, in my view, the government has not addressed particularly directly in its responses.

First, with regard to the “distinct society” clause, I do not take the view that the clause in and of itself reflects a threat to the country and to national unity. I read the remarks of the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), who spoke at some length about Meech Lake in the throne speech debate. I must confess that I do not share his view, and I gather that neither do the Premier and the Attorney General, that in somehow recognizing the “distinct society” clause, we are giving a special status or a separate status to Quebec that is totally and utterly different from that which we accord to other provinces.

I do not take that view. I take the view that what we are doing in the “distinct society” clause is simply recognizing a sociological and cultural reality of our time. When people say Prince Edward Island is also different, York South is also different, some other part of the country is also different, some other community is different, that is true; that can well be said.

But it would be denying our history as a country to fail to recognize the distinct character of Quebec in this country and in the history of North America. It would seem to me to be only appropriate that our Constitution express that. For that reason, I have never been able to understand or appreciate -- and I am still trying to, because I respect his views -- the really vitriolic view which was expressed by Mr. Trudeau with regard to the impact of this clause.

It seems to me there is, however, a broader point that needs to be made. My concern about the clause in which the phrase “the distinct society” is contained is not that it sets Quebec apart. My concern is that it is in a sense, as the Attorney General has described it, an interpretative clause that is designed to aid the courts in their interpretation of the entire Constitution. In that sense, as an interpretative clause about Canada, what troubles me with this whole section is not that it sets out something with respect to the question of Quebec, which I think it is only appropriate that it should do, but that it does not touch on other matters.

I have real difficulty, and I think many people do and I hope the House and the country do eventually, with an interpretative clause that is completely silent on the subject of our native people -- our first citizens, as Jack Stokes used to insist they be called. I have real difficulty with what I think has been one of our chief failures as a country, and what business that still remains to be done, and that is that if you want to talk about national reconciliation, you cannot just talk about it in terms of Quebec. National reconciliation, if that phrase is to have the meaning it needs to have, includes Quebec, certainly, but it also includes others.

I know the Attorney General will say these are subjects for another day. Ultimately, that may be a conclusion I reach as well. I have not reached it yet because I am not as persuaded as he is that we have to see the accord as unamendable or unchangeable. Not having been involved in the process, it is inevitable that I would have that point of view, but I think I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that we do not share the view that this is the end of the road and that there is nothing useful we can do in trying to change it.

It has been the subject of a very extensive debate within many communities. The member who shares the northern part of my constituency at the federal level, Mr. Marchi; the member who shares the middle part of my constituency, Mr. Nunziata; and the member who shares the southern part of my constituency, Mr. Witer -- all from different political parties -- have raised the question of our sense of ethnic identification and, if we were interpreting the Constitution and drafting an interpretative clause that gives colour and substance to the entire Constitution of this country, whether we would not really want to say something about the fact that we have all come here from many different cultural traditions and reflect those cultural traditions in our life and work. To use the phrase, we are not a melting pot as is the United States; we are a country that takes great pride in not only recognizing but also nourishing, protecting and encouraging ethnic diversity and a sense of ethnic history and ethnic identity.

I think all of us have come to see this. Certainly in our political lives, as we get to know different parts of the province and many different communities, I think we all realize that this is not just a matter of folklore, that it is not just a matter of speeches that one gives at various banquets; it is a matter that speaks very directly to the meaning of this country, that we reflect a different kind of immigrant community than others do. We have chosen as a country, very creatively, and I think very courageously, to recognize the histories and the diversity of the country.

Therefore, I think the interpretative section is flawed. I will get to the question of how deeply flawed, but I think it is flawed, not because it includes Quebec but because it does not include other people. If I can make a general point about the Meech Lake document, I think its flaw is that it speaks only to the Quebec agenda, and does not speak to some other agendas which in my view are also extremely legitimate and important; and because of its rigidity it does not provide for a good enough process to deal with this question of how we include others who have not been included in the deal or who have been very directly excluded from the deal. That, I think, is the fundamental question which the House is going to have to address, which we are going to have to address and which the committee is going to have to address.

I want to make a couple of other points before l come to this question of rigidity.

I am not one of those who comes from the school of what I would describe -- and I do not mean this uncharitably -- as those, principally within the Liberal Party itself, who have been most critical of the deal because it fails to give absolute primacy to the Charter of Rights. I have said this before and I will say it again, l am not one of those who thinks that the failure of the Constitution in 1982 to make the charter absolutely pre-eminent in all respects was a mistake. At the time -- and I am prepared to confess mea culpa -- l was critical of the “notwithstanding” clause. I would not be so critical today.

To those who say we are not covered by the charter adequately, or it is possible that governments may do something that will in a sense affect the charter one way or the other, I can only say it seems to me from my brief experience in political life and public policy, admittedly always from this side of the House, my observation is that it is probably wise not to give either the courts or the legislatures the absolutely final word in these matters. It is probably wise to have a kind of dialectical approach where we say, “Let us hear what the courts have to say and let the legislatures consider whether that is really what they want to do,” to give some kind of flexibility, which makes us different from the American Constitution, but which I think preserves the sense of democratic input and some broader concepts of rights that we as legislators might have and that courts from time to time might not have.

To use a shorthand phrase, I think the “notwithstanding” clause is a very effective safety valve. I think it would be a mistake to get rid of it. I think the drafters are to be congratulated for having found it in 1982.

1550

I myself am now persuaded that those who say the problem with this whole Meech Lake accord is -- particularly, l think, this has been the view reflected in the women’s movements that have commented on the accord -- that it necessarily is a bad thing because it continues this process where provinces can, in a sense, move away from the charter. I am not persuaded that is a terrible thing.

I make the observation that the idea that the courts are necessarily going to be the best protector of anybody’s rights is a view I do not share. I think experience would tend to confirm that you need a combination, a chemistry, if you like, of courts and legislators and yes, the population, people fighting and determining to fight for their rights, and that kind of dialectic before we get the kind of result we want.

Nor am I, unlike many members of the Liberal Party, one of those who believes that the section of the Constitution with respect to the spending power necessarily limits or takes away from the rights of the federal House which it now has. I think there has been a lot of real misunderstanding about this one, and I think frankly a lot of debates which are really quite out of keeping with what has taken place, such as the allegation that was repeated again today by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) that it would be impossible to have a national day care program with this section of the Constitution.

I just do not share that view. I do not see that as part of what we have agreed to or what the Premiers have agreed to. I do not see that as being in this document. I do not see it as a necessary consequence of what the Premiers and the Prime Minister have agreed to.

I will be interested in hearing from people who feel that it is. Having spent a little bit of time thinking about it and reading about what various decisions have been and what the practice has been over the last 35 or 40 years, I really do not think it makes that kind of change. I know one rhetorically would like to think that it does or might want to make the point that it does, but I myself must say I do not feel that is what is taking place.

I think it is worth remembering the words of Pierre Elliott Trudeau before he was Prime Minister, when he was a law professor in the faculty of the University of Montreal. He was writing in a book in 1961 entitled Social Purpose for Canada, where the future Prime Minister talked about the meaning of co-operative federalism and what some of the advantages were of having the kind of flexibility that our federal system has.

I cannot quote verbatim because I do not have the quote in front of me, but I remember the passage vividly because it struck me as I read it as a student so many years ago. When I was hearing him now, I realized how very different his views are, which is fine, but I just think it is worth reminding people of what he said at that time.

The point he was making at that time was that what was great about the Canadian Constitution was that it was sufficiently flexible that democratic socialist governments -- I think I am using his phrase -- would be able to introduce reforms at a provincial level which could then be an example for other provinces to follow and that it was extremely important to have that kind of flexibility in the Constitution.

I think he was reflecting the history of the country up to when he was writing, because 1961 was, after all, before medicare. I doubt very much whether we would have had a national medicare plan if one province had not had the courage to put it in and say, “This is how it works. “ There had then been that -- if I can use the word again -- dialectical relationship where some people said, “Yes, it is working in this province, we can make it work here.”

I happen to think that is a good feature of our system of government. It is good for social policy. If we have to have absolute agreement among all provinces before we move in any area of social policy, we are not going to move very far. If we have to wait to move here in Ontario for people to agree in Alberta to the kind of day care program that we will want, we will never get it. I think it is extremely important that we reflect on that or remember that.

To those who try to say that, from a number of groups, and I think particularly I am speaking to those who say the charter should be pre-eminent, the national power should be pre-eminent in all circumstances and the federal spending clause is unacceptable, I just say I do not agree with that view of the country, I do not agree with that view of what the Constitution does, and I do not share the view that the accord somehow dramatically weakens federal power.

However, let me come to my last point. My problem with the accord and the reason I think it is flawed and the reason where I think -- the Attorney General asks the question of the tests he has applied, almost sounding like a judge. Now I am wondering whether he is not thinking to the future in terms of how he sets these questions. I mean, he is after all only one member. He does not set the tests; we all set them. However, let us take his tests.

How serious is the alleged flaw? Must it be corrected immediately? Is the harm identified so significant that it overrides national reconciliation? Those are the three questions he has asked us to pose and I want to look at the rigidity of the amending formula, particularly with respect to three issues which I think are of importance. The first is the question of aboriginal rights; the second is the question of Senate reform; and the third is the question of the admission of new provinces into Confederation.

I said this earlier with respect to the interpretative clause: I have real problems with what has happened with respect to our native people. I am deeply troubled that our definition of national reconciliation does not include them. It strikes me as offensive.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Hear, hear.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General says, “Hear, hear.” I am glad he is saying it because what I was hearing from him and what I heard in the speech of the Premier was that national reconciliation means Quebec. It does not just mean Quebec. It does mean Quebec but it also means, frankly, some other dramatically unfinished business we have to address.

Now, if the members want my view -- the Premier basically was telling us today that he does not but nevertheless he is going to get it -- for this document to have the kind of effect that the Premiers want it to have and that the Prime Minister wants it to have, it is essential in my view that it include an agenda for our native people.

I know the process was frustrating. We were certainly involved again by talking to all the parties and following the debates, as I have done, with a great deal of interest and by meeting with the chiefs both at the national and provincial levels, which I am going to continue to do. I know how frustrating the process has been and how difficult it has been, but I think that the fact the process is not even mentioned in this accord and that in a sense the whole question of aboriginal rights has been just left out in limbo for the future is a very, very serious mistake. I do not know how else to describe it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Is it a fundamental flaw?

Mr. B. Rae: You ask, “Is it a fundamental flaw?” Yes, I think it is because it allows us as a country to define ourselves in a way which excludes our first citizens, admittedly citizens who do not have the clout of a province from which to exercise some leverage and therefore without a veto in this scheme.

I must say I am very troubled. The federal government is supposed to be the government that is responsible for ensuring the interests of our native people at those discussions and I think the federal government failed. I tried consistently in the House, before the Premier went off to these various conferences, to get him to include it on the agenda. That was not successful. We are going to continue to raise this question. I know my colleague the member for Algoma is going to be touching on it in his speech. It really troubles me as a Canadian to think that we can have a process of constitutional reform and have the nerve to call it national reconciliation and exclude our native people.

I just think that is wrong and I have not heard an argument that tells me it is right. I have not heard an argument that says, “Now that this process is under way, you can bet your life that it is going to be right up there on the agenda and that we have a process to ensure that happens,” because I do not believe it; I just do not believe that is true.

Second of all, with respect to Senate reform, perhaps Premier Don Getty and Premier Bill Vander Zalm can explain it to me. I am a simple soul, but I would like to know how two individuals who are so committed to Senate reform that they insisted it be the next subject of debate, and how two individuals who are so committed to Senate reform that they made that being part of the next agenda one of their conditions for signing this document, could then say, “But we want to have an amending formula that gives to each and every province a veto over the question of Senate reform.”

I do not understand. I do not know who was advising them but they must have been alone in the room. I can perhaps repeat a comment on Meech Lake that I overheard at a conference recently where somebody said the reason Mr. Vander Zalm was there was to explain the complicated parts of it to Mr. Getty. l do not know whether that is true or not. That is an unkind remark and I am sorry to have repeated it, but there I have.

1600

Perhaps this thought has dawned on them by now too, I do not know, but it is certainly illogical to say, “This question is the one I want to get solved,” and then to say, “I want to give everybody at the table a veto before we solve it.’’ I do not understand it.

I am going to express a heretical view for members of my party because for 50 years we have advocated the abolition of the Senate. I am going to say I think the subject of Senate reform is not a dead subject, it is a very real subject. We have a federal institution, the Senate, which does not operate now as it should. It has no political credibility in the country. It is a kind of indoor relief department for the party that happens to be in power. It is as functional as a burnt-out appendix in terms of its role in resolving federal-provincial disputes.

Mr. Laughren: Abolition is a kind of reform.

Mr. B. Rae: “Abolition is a kind of reform,” the member for Nickel Belt says, expressing the fundamentalism which I have come to expect from him; and l respect it.

I think the question of Senate reform is one which Canadians should be concerned about. I think it is a problem. The fact that we do not have a Senate that works functionally in a system that is a federal system is, I think, one of the problems of our whole federal Constitution. We now have a situation where I think it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to get any meaningful Senate reform. We have basically given a veto with respect to the entire matter to 11 governments, not all of whom have an equal stake in seeing that the Senate reforms itself.

We may well have governments in place in various provinces that have a stake in simply maintaining the status quo for a whole variety of reasons. They may feel they are better off having federal institutions that do not work than federal institutions that do.

We have been through a time in our national life when for so many years in this country we had a government in Quebec that was not committed to the reform of federal institutions because it did not want them to work. That is a fact. Now, there is nothing that says the same atmosphere cannot pervade for a variety of reasons in any one of a number of provinces for a whole bunch of reasons.

I must say I am troubled by the fact that the Premiers who are most in favour of Senate reform, or who claim they are, are the ones who have done more to create a very rigid formula.

Finally, I want to deal with the question of the admission of new provinces. This is a subject that we are, naturally in our party, most aware of, again because of the visit yesterday to our caucus by the leader of the government in the Yukon Territory, Mr. Penikett. It is one, again, that we have raised on a number of occasions, and I have not heard an effective answer. As Mr. Penikett put it to me, he said, “You do not solve one set of regional differences by creating another set.” And he said: “You have no idea of the extent of this question of the unanimity rule, the requirement that all 10 provinces agree before any new provinces will be created. You cannot appreciate, living in Toronto, the extent and the depth of the feeling against that in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. You cannot understand the sense of grievance that exists because we were not even at the table when the Constitution was changed.”

That is something that I think is a very real and good point. The Attorney General says there is no difference in the way in which new provinces have been created. I do not think that is true. The reality, as I understand it in terms of constitutional life, is that in the creation of new provinces -- 25,000 to 30,000 strong in Manitoba when that province was created; 35,000 to 40,000 strong in British Columbia when that province was created -- they were created by acts of Parliament; they were created by the federal government. They are not, in my view, now federal institutions.

I do not think the Territories are federal institutions. They are, in a sense, provinces waiting to be born. Neither one of them has asked for provincial status; neither one of them has pressed for it, but I think we have to admit, not only the possibility but also the likelihood, that the time will come -- and frankly I hope it does -- when the structure, the sense of stability, the sense of growth and the financial wherewithal will be there that provincial status will be a realistic outcome of a natural process of maturity and growth.

What I think this agreement does is basically to say, “That cannot happen.” I do not think it is there because of an accident. I think there are reasons why the government of Ontario has gone along with it. I do not think they have had the courage to express them publicly.

It may well be that there are those in Ontario who feel they do not want to see provinces being created with small bases of population in a large resource base. It may well be that they say, “Look, we went through one very difficult period in the 1970s with huge surpluses being created in Alberta from the changes in oil pricing,” and they say they do not want that to happen with respect to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

If that is the case, we are entitled to have those reasons on the table, because members of the House should understand -- and if the committee travels to the Yukon and to Yellowknife, they are going to hear it directly and they might as well begin to reflect on it now -- that the enormous sense of regional grievance that exists is profound, is very real and has consequences which will be different from the consequences of other kinds of regional unhappiness, but will also be very serious. To this one could say, “Well, if a remedy is possible, we should be looking to a remedy which is possible without changing the foundations of the accord.”

Laissez-moi dire en terminant, Monsieur le Président, ce que j’ai dit pendant le débat d’il y a six mois, quand l’accord a été signé. L’accord est un événement historique, cela ne fait aucun doute. L’accord représente une reconnaissance de la part des gouvernements canadiens de l’importance d’inclure le Québec dans la famille canadienne, la famille constitutionnelle. Cet après-midi, j’ai touché à ces questions en exprimant une position qui n’en est pas une d’opposition, comme celle de M. Trudeau, comme celle de plusieurs dans le Parti libéral et dans l’autre parti ailleurs. C’est plutôt une position qui dit clairement qu’il n’est pas acceptable que 11 hommes politiques créent, en quelques heures, un document, et puis qu’ils disent aux législatures: si vous n’acceptez pas tous les aspects de l’accord, vous menacez la réconciliation rationale. Cela, c’est une chose que je n’accepte pas.

J’accepte, si l’on veut, l’idée que l’accord est un document positif qui représente un avancement important dans les débats sur les événements constitutionnels, mais qui n’est pas du tout le dernier mot; et, comme législateurs, nous refusons d’accepter la notion que nous devions absolument accepter tout de suite, sans question, sans débat, sans problème, tous les aspects des négociations entre les premiers ministres du pays. Ce n’est pas démocratique, cela ne reflète pas la notion de réforme constitutionnelle que j’aimerais voir dans la province, et cela ne respecte pas le droit des législateurs de faire franchement ce qu’ils veulent, ce qu’ils pensent nécessaire pour avancer les intérêts de la population de la province et pour avancer les intérêts du Canada tels que définis par les législatures elles-mêmes.

Voilà la question de processus qui est importante. Ce n’est pas quelque chose de technique, c’est quelque chose de très important. Si on veut vraiment parler d’une réconciliation rationale, ce n’est pas une question de réconciliation entre 11 hommes assis autour d’une table, c’est une question d’avoir la participation réelle des populations du pays. Nous ne pouvons pas avoir une participation si le message du gouvernement est: Ou vous signez, vous acceptez, ou bien c’est fini, c’est tout raté, cela ne va pas continuer.

1610

If I can conclude, we cannot have a situation where legislatures are basically told, “Either put up or the whole thing is gone.” I have never heard that view expressed by anyone in Quebec. I have never heard that view expressed by Mr. Bourassa. I hope I will never hear that view expressed by the Premier, though he came awfully close to it today, because I think it is quite inappropriate.

What we have is a proposal. In my view, the proposal is a historic step. It has some flaws. It would be profoundly undemocratic for this government or indeed any government to say, “It is either this way or the doorway.” No Premier has a right to say that. Certainly, the Premier of this province does not nor does the Premier of any other province. We have a right as a Legislature, as do the legislatures of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and every other province, to make a decision and to listen to the people of the province and try to effect some changes.

I hope what I have said in my remarks gives some indication as to what I perceive to be some important changes that can be made that will not in our view, and not in my view, in any way endanger the basic thrust of the accord. If the basic thrust of the accord is reconciliation to include Quebec, what does Quebec have to lose by including others? Nothing. What could Quebec possibly have to lose by seeing that others are included as well? Nothing at all. Is it really beyond the ability of the premiers and legislatures working together to devise an amending formula with respect to federal institutions that is less rigid than the rule of unanimity?

Is this country really saying that each and every province has a right to veto every major step we want to take with respect to constitutional reform? Are we really satisfied that we can stand up as members and say, “I am ready,” to that approach, when we know that in doing so we are creating a rigidity that is simply unacceptable and that, frankly, dooms us to the difficulties of constitutional reform that we have experienced as a country since 1867?

In conclusion, let us not forget how hard it was to get to 1982. How did we get to 1982? I am not a Liberal, but I will tell members how we got there. There was one man who was bloody-minded enough on behalf of his vision of the country to say, “This is the way it is going to be.” That is what he said and that is how patriation took place. Let us not forget that prior to that time it was not possible to get. There was a constitutional logjam.

I say with great respect that if we institutionalize rigidity in this way -- not by virtue of our history, not by virtue of something where we can blame the Brits, our colonial past or Westminster -- we have no one to blame but ourselves. We will be the authors of our own manacles if we institutionalize rigidity of this kind.

I plead with members to reflect on that. Admittedly, they are all going to be following the kind of party discipline that we see applied from time to time, but I would ask people to reflect for a moment on the importance of seeing the possibilities of change and recognizing that some changes are possible.

Finally, we put forward some amendments at the federal level. They were not accepted. The Prime Minister said he did not see any need to make any changes and he was not about to do so. I hope our Premier does not take the same approach, because I am sure we will have amendments that our members will want to be putting forward in the House when the resolution finally comes forward. I hope very much that the government of the day will be listening.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate, as I know a good number of my colleagues wish to join in it as well.

I want to go back in history a little bit and remind everyone that the Ontario Parliament has a history of honest differences of opinion on Confederation, differences which have traditionally fit within a consensus about the kind of Canada that Ontarians want and the kind of Canada that Ontario governments should push for, regardless and whatever their partisan affiliation.

We want to see Quebec join in the Constitution and the charter, legally, formally and willingly. We want to see the commitments with respect to free movement of capital, goods and people apply in Quebec. We want to see the other provisions of the 1982 constitutional agreement apply in Quebec, not simply because our courts indicate that they shall, as indeed the courts have ruled for the past few years. More significantly, the Meech Lake agreement in principle achieves political legitimacy as well for these elements in Quebec. That is important to Canada. It is important to our survival as a nation and it is important to our integrity as a people.

It was never our view, as well, that this kind of achievement could be made without some cost, if that is the right word, in terms of the final shape and scope of this agreement itself. I believe we are fortunate in having a Prime Minister who was able to reach out to premiers who are Liberals and New Democrats and Social Credit, as well as those within his own political party, to shape this agreement and to build this kind of consensus.

Very few Canadians in public life have had this success in the past or have the particular focus on the conciliatory role of national government that produces this type of success today. Members should recall the leadership exercised by Premier Robarts in seeking to open up the question of equality and substance of our Confederation in the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference, which he chaired and sponsored in 1967.

The process opened up a substantive and meaningful dialogue between Quebeckers and Ontarians which has thrived, despite odd difficulties, for the past 20 years. Two decades later, we counted among our successes on the broad question of Confederation the hard work and the determination of Premier Davis, whose efforts were instrumental in achieving the repatriation of Canada’s Constitution and the approval of the national charter in 1982.

I believe it is fair to say that in the time of Premier Robarts, Ontario tended to side more with the provincial argument. In the late 1960s and the 1970s, that was an appropriate counter-position to a national government which many Canadians viewed as overly centralist and insensitive to legitimate provincial aspirations and concerns.

However, with the great changes of the 1970s, including the emergence of a separatist government in Quebec, Ontario decided at that time, and rightly, to put strong central government and the survival of a national quality to our institutions at the top of Ontario’s list of priorities. There were some forces at work at that time in western Canada and in Quebec who would not have been displeased if the capacity of our national government to act on behalf of our nation’s genuine national interests were reduced. It has not been, so far.

It was Premier Davis who said there was no value in a Confederation that confined the role of the government of Canada to that of a travel agent for the provinces. It is still the philosophy of Progressive Conservatives in Ontario to support a strong central government for this Confederation and I believe that most Ontarians, regardless of provincial political affiliation, share a philosophy of nationhood in the Conservative sense.

We do not believe that our nation is merely a hotel in which provinces happen to be pursuing individual goals; neither is our nation simply a league. A nation begs no simile, but if it is like anything, it is a family which must act in concert to ensure opportunity, excellence and freedom.

1620

Often a quick agreement is not the best agreement. The quick accord is not always the right accord. In the rush of the Meech Lake accord, have we sustained the family home that was conserved so carefully by the fathers of repatriation or have we converted Confederation into a hotel where provincial guests check in and out at will?

In the rush of the Meech Lake accord, have we missed the essence of what Trudeau, Davis, Chrétien, McMurtry and Romanow spent two years considering and debating? I believe the country was better for a process that lasted two years, allowing discussion, development, analysis and understanding. One wonders whether their efforts should be altered overnight.

Do we know the price? Have we given away Senate reform? Have we given away national daycare? Have we lost the opportunity for a guaranteed annual income? Has freedom of movement for immigrants been restricted? Have we undermined minority language rights through the “distinct society” provision? Have we changed the family into a league, our nation into a hotel?

Is the national interest served by empowering a province with the population of East York to veto further constitutional developments? Is it in the national interest and is it served by restricting the spending power of the federal government? Is the national interest served by restricting the mobility of new Canadians?

I want to express my grave displeasure at the refusal of this government to allow public hearings last May before the deal was finalized and before it was signed. The Premier participated and was a major part of a very quick accord, a fast track to the signing of that accord, achieving in a night or two nights what was stitched together by Trudeau, Davis, McMurtry, Chrétien and Romanow over two years.

The Premier refused to allow public hearings last spring, which the House requested, as a matter of fact by a free vote. Quebec had two important weeks of public hearings before the final deal was signed. Manitoba had public hearings. But in Ontario, the supposed home of no walls and barriers, our Premier had no time or patience for those public hearings or input. Let me say that we objected, this Legislature objected and it did so at that time by a free vote.

I want to talk about some of the contradictions in this process versus the free trade process and I want to point out some of the contradictions and inconsistencies of our Premier. Many have criticized the methods by which the accord was drafted as being hasty and precluding public input.

The discrepancies between the Premier’s approach to the drafting of the free trade agreement and his approach to the drafting of the Meech Lake accord are rather alarming. For months preceding the free trade agreement, the Premier warned repeatedly against a last minute deal, negotiated in haste, under pressure behind closed doors; such a deal could not possibly be a good deal.

The Meech Lake accord was originally drafted on the weekend of April 25 at Meech Lake by the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers. The premiers were kept in the negotiation room and not allowed to consult staff. On June 2, the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers met in Ottawa to draft the final agreement, and while they were allowed the benefit of advisers at that time they entered into a marathon 20-hour bargaining session which produced the final draft. It was signed at noon on June 3. In the month between the first and final drafts, many groups had identified serious concerns with the first accord, yet the final draft did not reflect any of those concerns.

By contrast, the free trade agreement was negotiated over several months, allowing substantial time for groups to air their opinions and study the issue, including the Premier, who voiced his concerns repeatedly. He had his members participate in an all-party committee review of the issue. He had his ministries conduct impact studies and met with the principal players in Canada and the United States.

Our Premier has criticized the free trade agreement because it does not respond to the concerns raised by particular groups, but he himself ignored the concerns of many in the final draft of this accord. Our Premier claimed he needed an election to receive a mandate from Ontario on the free trade agreement, but he did not ever seek a mandate from the people to significantly change the Constitution of Canada. In spite of the fact that his party came second in terms of the number of seats in the 1985 election he apparently felt free to totally alter the nature of the country over the course of about 48 hours of negotiations.

Our Premier said the accord should be supported because it is good for Canada, whether or not it is good for Ontario is irrelevant. It is good for Canada, it is irrelevant whether it is good for Ontario. We should be prepared to act in the national best interest and bring Quebec into the constitutional fold. That contrasts fairly substantially with our Premier who says the free trade agreement is bad for Ontario and is therefore bad for Canada. He ignores the fact that the majority of the other provinces, Quebec in particular, support the deal. That is quite a contrast.

He wants time for public input on the free trade agreement. He wants time for it to be changed. He wants hearings. He wants to be able to make amendments. However, after the original drafting of the accord, he refused to hold public hearings here in Ontario, despite repeated calls for those hearings from our caucus and from others.

Even after we moved an emergency debate last spring on the need for public hearings, he continued to refuse. Members should remember, after that great statement today, how delighted he was to send this out to public hearings. Members should remember a little bit of history about when public hearings and amendments could have had substantial input and some meaning. Members should remember the Premier’s views.

It was not until June 1, 1987, the day the Premier left for Ottawa to sign the final accord, after having refused hearings in Ontario, refused to allow any public input, refused any meaningful debate, that he called for national public hearings on the accord, saying it was one demand he would make. It was not until after that -- and he was continually pushed by the media about how he could call for that when he had refused hearings in Ontario -- that he said he would hold public hearings in Ontario, after the fact.

Prior to the signing of the final accord in Ottawa on June 3, our Premier said the Meech Lake accord was a “delicate balance which could not withstand any changes.” Indeed, the changes between the draft and the final versions, as members will recall, were minimal. Immediately after the signing of the final accord, the Premier referred to it as an evolving thing. He said he believed small changes might be possible.

During the election campaign, our Premier said the accord could be “changed” and “amended” after public hearings in Ontario. By this time, the Quebec assembly had concluded its public hearings. It had passed the accord. Bourassa had called upon the other provinces to sign it without making any changes. The federal government has since followed suit.

There are other contradictions. The Premier and the Attorney General have since been sending out mixed signals on whether or not the accord can be changed. The Premier told the women’s groups that he would bring up their concerns about the accord at the first ministers’ conference that was held during the election. During the election he told the women’s groups, “I’ll bring it up.” However, the accord was not on the agenda, and the Premier did not request that it be put on the agenda.

1630

However, after raising the matter in a very casual conversation with other premiers, our Premier declared that there was no basis to the women’s concerns, that the accord did not need to be changed. After our Premier said there was no basis for their concerns, our Attorney General met with women’s groups and said there might be a basis for concern and he would look into the need to change the accord.

From April 30 to the present day, our Premier has demonstrated a singular inability to explain the meaning and the ramifications of the accord which he helped to draft and which he signed. He has yet to respond adequately to any of the concerns and the questions that have been voiced on this accord, and I want to touch on some of those.

Immigration: the first part of the Meech Lake accord deals with immigration. This part constitutionally enshrines the Cullen-Couture agreement signed between Ottawa and Quebec, which allows Quebec to screen immigrants using its own point system. This part also guarantees Quebec a share of immigration equal to its share of the Canadian population, about 25 per cent, plus an optional additional five per cent at Quebec’s discretion. The optional five per cent is to compensate Quebec for the loss of immigrants who initially choose Quebec but then move elsewhere in Canada. The right to enter into similar agreements governing immigration is extended, apparently, to all other provinces.

What are the concerns with this?

The point system used by Quebec under the Cullen-Couture agreement is very, very different from the federal point system, and it is heavily biased towards French-speaking immigrants

Under the Cullen-Couture agreement, the system is defensive only. If an immigrant qualifying under the Canadian point system chooses Quebec as his province of destination, then he must also qualify under the Quebec point system. Should he fail to qualify under its system, he is allowed to choose another province as his destination. In other words, acceptance into Canada is determined by the Canadian point system.

Under the Meech Lake accord, Canada guarantees Quebec at least 25 per cent of all immigration. This means that 25 per cent of all immigrants to Canada would have to qualify under the Quebec point system. Currently, about 15 per cent, on average, of Canadian immigrants are French-speaking, and not all of those choose Quebec as their province of destination. However, under the accord, an additional 10 per cent of immigrants must be French-speaking, and all must choose Quebec as their province of destination.

As a result, immigration from non-French-speaking countries must be reduced by the corresponding 10 per cent. Landed immigrants from non-French-speaking countries would have greater difficulty in reuniting their families in Canada because the potential amount of immigration spaces available to these people would be 75 per cent of all spaces rather than the 100 per cent that is potentially available now.

While all the provinces stand to lose immigration to Quebec as a result of the guarantee, let us face it, Ontario receives the lion’s share of immigration to Canada, approximately 48 per cent, and we therefore stand to lose the most.

The Premier denies that family reunification in Ontario will suffer as a result of the accord, saying that the family class is exempt from the accord. The family class covers only a husband, a wife and dependent, unmarried children under the age of 18. All other family members must enter as assisted relatives, and they do come under the accord. Even qualifying under the assisted-relative category is difficult, precluding many individuals who would normally be thought of as family.

For the first time -- I was just about to say Madam Speaker; I had it wrong all the time she was in the chair -- Mr. Speaker, a provincial quota founded on the basis of language will be established. Currently, the federal government does not even establish target levels for any province. When the Premier was first questioned about this, he replied that the accord simply repeated the Cullen-Couture agreement. When it became no longer possible for him to say this, he kept calling the 25 per cent “a target” until it was repeatedly pointed out that the accord said “guarantee,” not “target.” I think it was at that time that one of the Attorney General’s officials admitted to Lorrie Goldstein that it should have said “target.” Well, it did not, it said “guarantee.”

Multicultural groups are concerned as well about other provinces entering into similar agreements. Should every province establish its own point system and quotas, it would result in a checkerboard of immigration policies, robbing Canada of a national policy.

They also fear that the provincial point systems could be used to keep out selected groups or only allow in selected groups. Since Quebec’s point system does that -- it is highly biased, and understandably so, towards French-speaking immigrants--the groups fear that Ottawa would be hard-pressed to deny other provinces the same option.

These agreements would not necessarily have to be debated in Parliament or the provincial legislatures, allowing immigration policies to be determined in closed-door meetings. Agreements arrived at without public debate and consent would then have the force of constitutional law.

The other difficulty in allowing each province to negotiate its own agreement is that it would result in a pie of 105 per cent. If each province negotiated a quota equal to its share of the Canadian population, the additional optional five per cent for Quebec would necessitate a whole of 105 per cent.

I want to talk as well about the distinct society. The “distinct society” clause defines Quebec as predominantly French-speaking with an English-speaking minority and Canada as predominantly English-speaking with a French-speaking minority. It grants the Quebec government the power to “preserve and promote” this distinct society, and Canada and the other provinces the power to "preserve” its national character.

What are the concerns with this? Women’s groups, ethnic communities and natives are upset by the defining of Canada and Quebec solely on the basis of language spoken, feeling that they should have been identified as an integral part of the provincial and national character. Francophone groups outside of Quebec are upset that the provinces and the federal government are pledged only to “preserve” the dual nature of the country and not to “preserve and promote,” as Quebec has pledged to do. Anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec dislike being constitutionally labelled as a minority, fearing that such a description would give their minority status the force of constitutional law.

However, the major concern about the “distinct society” clause is the fact that no one can adequately explain what it means. For example, would Quebec have the right to eliminate the use of English in business or cut back on minority-language education in order to preserve and promote the French-speaking language majority and ensure the minority status of English-speaking citizens? Would Canada and the other provinces have the right to refuse French-language services and education to preserve the English-speaking majority? Could they establish immigration point systems which would be biased in favour of English-speaking immigrants?

There are a multitude of interpretations of this clause already. When the Premier was asked to explain what the clause meant, he replied that it would be interpreted by the courts. This response does nothing to quell our fears, does nothing to quell the fears and objections of the concerned groups. They do not want to have to engage in lengthy court battles, which they might lose, to determine what the clause in fact means. Either they want the clause more clearly defined or they want a guarantee that their rights and freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot be adversely affected by the exercise of powers granted by this section. I think that is reasonable.

1640

The accord promises that only two minor sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot be adversely affected by the exercise of powers under the “distinct society” clause: the section of the charter which says the rights and freedoms granted by the charter itself should be interpreted so as to recognize the multicultural heritage of Canada, and the section which states that nothing in the charter itself can be interpreted as limiting or restricting the rights granted native groups under the British North America Act.

So what are the concerns? This section was added to the final draft of the accord. The Premier said it was done to respond to the concerns voiced by groups after saw the original draft. However, it falls well short of the kind of guarantee the groups were looking for. They wanted a guarantee that all the rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, most notably democratic rights, mobility rights, minority-language rights, minority-language education rights and equality rights under section 15, could not be adversely affected by the exercise of power under the “distinct society” clause.

For example, could Quebec prohibit anglophones from outside Quebec from moving into Quebec under the “distinct society” clause because it would jeopardize the francophone majority status? Of course they could, anything can be interpreted to upset that.

When asked why the section simply did not state that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could not be adversely affected by the “distinct society” clause, the Premier said such a statement was not necessary. He did not say it was not desirable. He did not say it could not be done. He did not say it should not be done. He said it was not necessary. He said the section was inserted to respond to concerns that had been raised, that even the section as written was not really necessary. When asked why he had not opted for a more reassuring blanket section, since neither section, in his opinion, was really necessary, he could not or he would not answer. Of course, the concern is that taking the two aspects and mentioning them highlights by omission all the other aspects.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on separate school funding has since thrown suspicion on our Premier’s claim that nothing in the interpretation of the “distinct society” clause could adversely affect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the Supreme Court’s ruling was the exact opposite. The Supreme Court ruled that separate school funding did violate the charter but that the charter could not be used to prevent a government from exercising powers granted to it under other parts of the Constitution. Because the province had the power to extend public funding to education bodies under the Constitution, the fact that the way in which it chose to do so violated the charter could not be used to prevent it from doing so.

Applied to Meech Lake, such a ruling would mean that if the Quebec government exercised its powers under the “distinct society” clause in a discriminating manner, the individuals discriminated against could not use their rights under the charter to stop the Quebec government from pursuing the discriminatory policy, or any other government. The same would apply to the policies pursued by other provinces and by the federal government under the “distinct society” clause. This ruling, coupled with the Quebec government’s hesitation to repeal the French-only sign law, despite the Supreme Court ruling that under the current Constitution this law is unconstitutional, I have to tell you, has made anglophones in Quebec very nervous. They fear that if the Meech Lake accord passes as, they will lose even the leverage of the Supreme Court ruling in their favour.

I want to talk a little bit about the decline in federal powers. The accord allows the federal and provincial governments to enter into shared-cost programs and stipulates that money must be used in a manner consistent with national objectives.

The accord stipulates that judges and Senators will be named from lists submitted by the provincial governments. What are the concerns here? When the first draft was released, the Quebec government said that the wording of the shared-cost programs clause meant that a provincial government could take federal day care money and use it to build roads, because good roads would be consistent with national objectives. It was silly, I think. That is what they said.

When the final draft was prepared, the word “the” was inserted, so the section read that the programs would have to be consistent with “the national objectives.” The Premier has made much of this addition, claiming it greatly clarified the section. The Quebec government replied that the insertion simply made the English text read the same as the French text and it would still allow the spending of day care money on roads.

Many groups and individuals fear that this clause will spell the end of national programs. For example, women’s groups fear the clause will block, or could block, the establishment of a national day care program. But even if all the provinces do use federal money for day care, they will use it on provincial programs which will differ widely from province to province. As a result, there will not be a national program per se, and the national services available to individuals will be determined by the province in which the individual lives and, more likely, by the wealth of that province.

Many legal experts have said that the accord would have prohibited the banning of extra billing. I do not want to comment on that. Others fear that if the federal government sees its program money being spent in ways in which it was never envisioned, it will simply stop entering into shared-cost programs.

We have an example of this: the federal government’s increasing reluctance to increase transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education because it believes that the provinces are not passing the money through to the institutions.

Many fear the appointment of senators from provincial lists will result in a quasi-elected body who feel their first allegiance is not to the country but to the province, and who will believe they have an obligation and a right to resist federal initiatives which do not reflect the views of their current provincial government.

Many fear the appointment of Supreme Court judges from provincial lists will result in the interpretation of national legislation in the Constitution in ways compatible with provincial priorities, not national priorities.

Others fear that, for example, should the Parti québécois ever regain power in Quebec, the Supreme Court could end up with no judges from Quebec, because the federal government might refuse to appoint judges submitted by a separatist government.

I want to talk about the amending formula. The accord stipulates that the following amendments require the consent of all the provinces and the federal government: amendments affecting the Queen, the Governor General, the Lieutenant Governor, the Senate, the principle of proportionate representation, the minimum number guarantee for representatives in the House of Commons contained in the Constitution Act, 1982, the use of official languages, the Supreme Court of Canada, the establishment of new territories or provinces and any amendment to the Meech Lake accord. Those require the consent of all the provinces and the federal government. All other amendments fall under the current requirement of support by the federal government and two thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the national population.

1650

What are the concerns here? Groups are concerned that any future amendments in the areas mentioned above will not be possible because the likelihood of getting complete agreement is remote. We have already heard and we know that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are particularly upset.

Premier Bourassa has asked that the remainder of the provinces pass the accord without amendment, and that amendments, if they are to be made, be made later. However, once the accord is passed, unanimous agreement will be necessary to amend the accord, because Meech is in that category as well. Unanimous agreement would be necessary, and the likelihood of Quebec or some other province, or all 10, agreeing to the changes people want is nil.

Our Premier points to the fact that everyone did agree to this accord as proof that unanimous amendments are possible. However, since this accord was drafted, a new government has been formed in New Brunswick and the new Premier seems to oppose the accord, jeopardizing its adoption and highlighting the difficulty in obtaining complete agreement on constitutional matters.

Native groups have one additional concern on the accord. In the Constitution Act, 1982, a series of federal-provincial conferences on aboriginal constitutional rights was pledged. The last of these conferences was held in the spring of 1987 and, very regrettably, no agreement was reached.

Native groups are upset that over the course of five years the provinces and the federal government were unable to agree on aboriginal native rights but were able to agree on Quebec’s rights over the course of 48 hours of total negotiations. While they want aboriginal constitutional rights spelled out in the accord, the very least they have asked for -- and I do not know why they have stated that they would accept this -- is the establishment of a new round of federal-provincial conferences on the subject.

My colleagues will be pointing out a number of concerns that they have as well and a number of concerns of other groups in some of the sections. I have tried to point out today a few of those which have been identified by many people across this province.

In concluding, I want to say we applaud the goal. We applaud the objective of bringing Quebec into the Constitution in a formal and in an active way. The very serious question is, at what price? We are critical of the process, as I mentioned. We are critical of the Premier’s role in this process. We are critical of the part the Premier played in what appears to me to have been a case of holding the federal government hostage on this deal. It appears that in their eagerness to grab whatever powers they could some premiers -- Ontario’s Premier included, if he did not lead the way -- have jeopardized what they really attempted to do.

Some of the compromises the Prime Minister was obviously forced into making have nothing to do with Quebec’s conditions for signing the Constitution, and that was the reason for all of this; that was the whole purpose of Meech Lake. If members read the Premier’s motion that he has asked us to consider before the committee, the whereases and the preambles are all that, “Whereas Quebec was not part, and whereas we want Quebec to be part of it.” Some of those compromises really indicate to me that the premiers in fact did not entirely put Canada first, and I find that regrettable.

We have many questions and concerns that have not been answered. We have had those questions and concerns, I might point out, since last spring. Last May, our leader and our caucus offered our total co-operation, goodwill and earnest commitment to work with the government and all parties in the House in a non-partisan way, to provide whatever time was necessary -- whether it was evenings, whether it was weekends -- for hearings, for input and consultation before the final deal was finally negotiated and signed on June 3. The Premier refused. Regretfully, that was the time for this exercise, not now.

In spite of that and in spite of our concerns that the Premier’s mind appears already made up, we will support this motion for the referral to a select committee. We will work diligently in a very constructive way and in a non-partisan way to ensure that this process will work as well as possible, given the limitations I have outlined today.

Mr. Cordiano: Indeed it is a pleasure for me, in my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Peterson), to speak on the motion to establish the select committee on constitutional reform.

I was listening very attentively to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the member for York South, the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, this specifically refers to the comments made by the member for Nipissing. There was never any doubt that hearings would be held on this question. I am delighted to hear that the member for Nipissing, in his final remarks, was very much in favour of coming forward and being constructive on the committee, making his views and those of the members of his party felt, and having a very constructive approach to this motion that has been put.

Every member of this House will have a role to play in furthering this discussion in the committee and perhaps, at one point when the resolution is put to the House, will have an opportunity to have his say and his viewpoint heard. It is a very important question.

The motion proposes that a select committee be created to consider a report on the Meech Lake accord. That agreement, which was signed by the first ministers in Ottawa last June, is indeed a historic document which addresses several long-standing concerns of the government and people of Quebec about their place in Confederation.

All of us who sit in this chamber really understand that governing a country as large and as diverse as Canada is an ongoing challenge. Throughout its history, our nation has searched for the delicate balance between the perspectives of the federal and provincial governments, the aspirations of our linguistic and cultural communities, and the economic and social interests of our regions. This really is a balancing act and this balancing act is the burden that Canadian political leaders must bear. But it is from this challenge that we have learned to adopt creative and practical solutions to our fundamental problems.

Canada is a great nation because its leaders and its peoples respond to the claims and needs of each other with a great deal of generosity and a great deal of understanding. The agreement reached at Meech Lake is the response of the current generation’s political leaders to this ongoing challenge. It really reflects our search for a workable balance among our national identity, sharing economic prosperity and opportunity across all regions, and reconciling the needs of two linguistic communities.

This accord contains no radical departure. It reflects the basic Confederation settlement of 1867. It builds on the constitutional reforms of 1982. It will confirm in the Constitution important principles which are fair and equitable to many different communities in Canada.

The Attorney General has directed his remarks to the “distinct society” clause, the spending-power provision and the proposed changes to the constitutional amending formula. I wish to address certain elements of the accord which are of particular interest to me, both in my capacity as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and as a strong believer and ardent supporter of multiculturalism.

1700

The accord provides for at least two annual meetings of first ministers, one on the economy and one on the Constitution. These meetings have been held on a regular basis for several years, but when entrenched, they will become a key mechanism by which governments can sit down and co-operatively work out intergovernmental problems.

Tomorrow the Premier will host his fellow ministers at the annual first ministers’ conference and will take a constructive and statesman-like approach to the problems of the day.

By constitutionalizing this vital mechanism of co-operative federalism, we can ensure that our national policies better reflect the aspirations of all Canadians. The Constitution is a living breathing, organic document. It must be able to grow and change as Canada evolves. The agreement to meet annually on the Constitution includes a commitment by the first ministers to consider constitutional reform in the areas of the Senate and fisheries. The Senate is really a national institution of particular concern to the western provinces. Consideration will be given to such matters as its roles, functions and powers the method of selecting senators and the distribution of seats.

Finally, the first ministers have recognized in the constitutional accord that immigration is an important element in Canada’s cultural enrichment, economic growth and demographic composition. These factors all affect provinces, but they are particularly critical in Quebec. The Meech Lake accord will confirm that the federal government may sign agreements with provinces on immigration matters, and for greater security, such agreements may be given constitutional status. In all cases, Ottawa will retain the power to establish broad immigration policy, and immigrants will have the constitutional right to relocate anywhere they wish within Canada.

I am particularly proud that Ontario was able to play its historic role in facilitating this constitutional accord. Our province has always been committed to nation building. As one of the founding provinces, our people are concerned about the health and vitality of Canada as a whole. We can point with pride to John Robarts and his visionary Confederation of Tomorrow Conference in 1967. His leadership role in devising and hosting this vital meeting 20 years ago laid the foundation for the succession of constitutional discussions which have culminated in the 1987 accord.

The agreement in November 1981 to patriate the Constitution was a very proud achievement in nation building for Bill Davis. His commitment and skill at key points helped bridge the gap between contending approaches to constitutional reform.

Earlier this year, the Premier continued the tradition of constitutional achievement set by Ontario premiers. The Premier played a key role in the negotiations at Meech Lake and in the Langevin Block. The agreement reflects in several places his personal commitment to fairness and the rights of individuals from across Canada.

Governing Canada fairly and effectively is a continuing process of forging the national interest from different views and needs. Every generation must face the same basic challenges in the particular circumstances of its own time. Each must find its own answers to these challenges. The accord constitutes a reconciliation of the national interest and the aspirations and concerns of all regions. It represents a triumph of political will. It is living proof of a strong commitment to Canada.

The select committee whose establishment is proposed today will provide an opportunity for a broad cross-section of Ontarians to participate in the process of constitutional renewal. The issues to be addressed are critical for Ontario and for the entire country. Our hearings on the accord will be open and accessible, and I am looking forward to the contributions of many citizens and groups.

Mr. Wildman: I enter this debate fully aware of the seriousness of the issue at hand, and I would say at the outset that I fully support the efforts made by the first ministers of this country to bring Quebec into the constitutional family of this country. I think that the previous agreement made among the provinces, which ignored Quebec and which was reached without the knowledge of the government of Quebec, was a most unfortunate event and one which could only lead to further division within our nation.

I am concerned, however, as my leader indicated, about some of the weaknesses that the current accord brings to our Constitution. I think the premiers and the Prime Minister of this country seem so happy about reaching this arrangement to bring Quebec back into the constitutional family that they are attempting to ignore the weaknesses.

The Attorney General in his presentation to the House indicated that we should consider very carefully whether or not those weaknesses were of such magnitude that they should be dealt with immediately, before we determine whether we should move amendments to the accord as it is presented to the House and to the committee for consideration.

I think there are some serious weaknesses that must be dealt with immediately. As a northerner, albeit a northerner from this province, I am most concerned about the fact that the political future of Canadians living north of 60 has been effectively blocked by the Meech Lake accord.

I do not see how we, as Canadians concerned about our fellow Canadians, can accept a situation where the possibility of forming provinces in the Yukon, or perhaps at an even later date in the Northwest Territories, cannot be achieved without the unanimity of all of the provinces, because in effect I think that makes it impossible.

There is a tremendous feeling of grievance in that part of our country, and I think it is a legitimate one and one that should be addressed not just by the people living in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories but by Canadians everywhere in this country and by us, as legislators in Canada and in this province. I call upon the members of this House and the members of the committee to take very seriously the grievances that are felt by the people living north of 60. I will not go on at length about that because I want to deal particularly with the question of aboriginal rights.

I do this very carefully, because I sincerely believe that the aboriginal peoples of this country and their organizations can speak very well for themselves. I look forward to the day when perhaps there may be representatives of the aboriginal peoples sitting here in this assembly so that they can speak directly to the issues presented to this House on behalf of the native people of Canada. But at this time there is no one here of native ancestry, so I take it upon myself and I hope other members will do as well to put forward what I believe to be the genuine concerns and grievances of the first nations of this country. I do that keeping in mind that I believe in the self-determination of peoples around the world and particularly of the first nations of Canada. And I do not presume, as a white of European descent, albeit with some Indian blood a few generations back, I do that very carefully.

I am very concerned that the first ministers of this country could reach an accord to bring Quebec back into the constitutional family and at the same time ignore the unfinished business of aboriginal rights. I do not see how we, as the legislators in Ontario, can accept an accord which does not include the guarantee or at least a way of defining aboriginal rights and then enshrining them in the Constitution as part of the agenda for the continuing constitutional discussions.

We accept that there should be discussions of fishing rights and fishing on the east coast; we accept that there should be discussions of Senate reform; but we ignore the first nations of this province, when all of us recognize that, over four conferences, there have been attempts to define what aboriginal rights mean, what the right to Indian self-government means. We have not been successful, and yet for some reason those same ministers who were dealing with those issues in those conferences could ignore them when they reached an accord on Quebec.

1710

I believe profoundly that by bringing Quebec into the constitutional family we should not be shutting out anybody. We recognize in this accord the distinctiveness of Quebec society. l fully recognize that, keeping in mind the Franco-Ontarians and their contribution to the cultural and social development of this province. But how can we accept the distinctiveness of Quebec society when at the same time we ignore the distinctiveness of the aboriginal peoples of this country?

We all realize that those cultures are perhaps even more distinctive than any other in this country in terms of what it means to be North American. They have distinct languages that are not protected, unlike the two official languages of this province. The Amerindians have occupied these lands for thousands of years, since time immemorial. We all recognize the unfortunate situation that many of those societies are facing social breakdown, truncation and even assimilation into the white society, assimilation in a “half” way, where it seems that, unfortunately they absorb and become absorbed in what is the worst in our society and never achieve the best, or very seldom.

I think that we as a Legislative Assembly must recognize that the native peoples, the aboriginal peoples, must be given the resources to preserve and develop their society and their culture in ways they wish to do it. We as legislators must be prepared to allow for Indian self-government. We must be prepared to allow Indians to make mistakes, because they will be their mistakes. They have had to live with our mistakes for far too long.

I believe they will not only make mistakes but in fact will be able to develop an important element of our society, a great contribution to our society, by preserving their unique and distinct society and culture. They cannot do that unless they are also given economic and political rights to control their own affairs. As an assembly, as a nation, we must recognize the right of self-determination for our native peoples.

It is my view that the Meech Lake accord makes this unlikely. I believe the Meech Lake accord is a setback for the recognition of the constitutional right to self-government for the Indians and Inuit of this country, and particularly for the Indian people of this province.

As I said earlier, we have had four national conferences on aboriginal rights. Those conferences involved not only the first ministers of the provinces but also the territories and the aboriginal organizations, the Assembly of First Nations, the Metis, the Inuit Taparisat. They were unable to reach a definition of what are aboriginal rights. They were unable to agree on how Indian self-government could be enshrined in the Constitution. I think they were unable to reach those agreements because there was not the will to do it.

I know it is difficult. There are difficult legal and constitutional issues to deal with, but there never was and never has been the will to work together to define those rights and to work out an accommodation for how they could be included in the Constitution at all. There was a will, and I am glad there was a will, to work together and make compromises to ensure that Quebec could be brought back into the Constitution; but I wonder: why was there that will and yet a willingness as well to ignore the aboriginal people? Why?

I do not think it was at the behest of Quebec or the Quebec government, because the Quebec government has dealt with its own aboriginal peoples in a way that I wish some other provinces -- and I am not necessarily talking about Ontario -- would emulate. So I do not think it was because of Quebec.

I do not understand why the federal government, which is responsible for the Indian rights and aboriginal rights in this country, did not fulfil its responsibility to stand up for the aboriginal peoples in the conference of the first ministers. I do not understand it, and I do not understand how this government or this assembly could accept an accord which ignores the fundamental rights of the first citizens of this country.

It is said that bringing Quebec into the Constitution may in fact help to resolve this impasse because the unanimity rule does not apply to an amendment which would recognize Indian self-government, and by bringing Quebec into the Constitution it would make it easier to deal with the recalcitrant provinces, and I do not hesitate to name them. They are the western provinces: British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

That may be the case. It may be the case that by bringing in Quebec we can deal with those issues more easily at some future date. But if that is indeed the case, then why was the issue of aboriginal rights not put at the head of the agenda, or at least along with fishing and Senate reform?

I submit that the reason it was not put on the agenda is that there is no real desire among the first ministers to have it put on the agenda. If that is indeed the case, then we should reject that aspect of the accord. We should be prepared to move amendments here and accept them here not to vote en bloc to reject them but to accept them.

I feel this personally. I, as an individual legislator, want to vote in favour of an accord that brings this nation together, but I say quite categorically, I will have serious difficulty in voting for an accord which does not include on the agenda for future amendment the recognition of aboriginal rights and a guarantee of Indian self-government in the Constitution of Canada. To do less would be to accept -- I hesitate to say it -- a racialist approach to this country, and I cannot accept that.

I call upon the members of the House to consider very carefully an amendment that will in fact include aboriginal peoples, the recognition of their rights and the enshrining of the right to Indian self-government in the Constitution of our country. I think we have an opportunity; I think we have an obligation to do that. I do not think by saying this that I am denigrating in any way the importance of bringing Quebec into the Constitution. I believe the people of Quebec would agree with us that in including them, we do not have to exclude our first nations.

I hope the government will seriously consider amendments that will be put when the resolution comes before the House after the committee hearings.

1720

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this Legislature today on a matter of great concern to me and, I know, of great concern to many other members here at Queen’s Park and to the people they represent throughout Ontario. As a Canadian citizen living in Ontario, I have serious doubts, I have grave concerns and I have a great many questions about the Meech Lake constitutional accord, which has been considered in the federal Parliament in Ottawa as well as in numerous provincial legislatures across the country.

Like many of my colleagues here in the Legislature, I consider this to be a worrisome document which usurps the democratic process in Ontario and Canada. I am extremely uneasy about the Meech Lake constitutional accord because I fear it will have numerous unfortunate consequences for our people and the future of this country and this province. This matter is far too important to be simply rubber-stamped by the provincial legislatures across Canada. After all, if the Meech Lake accord cannot be amended now, how on earth can we honestly hope it can be altered for the better in the future?

The Meech Lake accord proposes to bring the province of Quebec into the Canadian family. I applaud that move because Canada is not whole unless it has all its parts functioning on an equal basis. However, I firmly believe we should preserve that applause for a later time, because the Meech Lake accord does not treat each province of Canada on an equal basis. That saddens and worries me a great deal.

The major grey area of the Meech Lake accord that concerns me the most is the section dealing with Quebec’s distinct society. I would like someone to tell me if clause 2(1)(a) provides legal grounds for the minority language group in each province to go to the Supreme Court and have it impose minority-language rights and services legislation upon each province. Just what does subsection 2(1)(b), “the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society,” mean to Ontario and the rest of Canada?

The obvious answer to me would be that owing to its French culture and language, it constituted a distinct society. Logically, if Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada because of its French language and culture, then the rest of Canada must constitute a second distinct society because of its English language and culture. I cannot in all good conscience consider enshrining in our Constitution two separate groups of Canadians or, for that matter, two separate Canadas.

Instead, as Canadians, we must be sufficiently flexible and tolerant to provide for a Canada that respects anglophones and francophones equally and fairly. I cannot support bringing Quebec back into the Canadian family if that means special treatment for only one member of that family. As far as I am concerned, special treatment will only lead to mistrust, intolerance, jealousy and hard feelings among the other members of our Canadian family.

The Meech Lake accord is flawed, in my humble opinion, in that it completely ignores the rights of Canada’s women and native people. That fact alone should give enough concern to our first ministers that they send the accord back to the drawing board; or, at the very least, we in Ontario should come up with some suitable amendments to remedy this serious affront to the women and native people of Canada.

Are we to believe that, under the Meech Lake accord, the women and the native people of Canada will cease to exist? Are we to believe they do not have a rightful place in our Canadian society? I think not, and I am sure my colleagues in this Legislature find such a thought to be thoroughly distasteful and disagreeable. The Meech Lake accord leaves Canada’s women and native people out in the cold. It is time we bring them in by amending this document.

The Meech Lake accord relegates Canada’s territories to the role of bystander in any future development in this country. Their role in intergovernmental relations and in determining their own future has been seriously diminished, if not wiped out altogether, under the Meech Lake accord. The accord would give every Canadian province a veto over the creation of new provinces and the extension of provincial boundaries into the territories, but it does not provide for any role for the territorial governments. The federal government says it will speak for the territories on these matters.

Prior to 1982, the creation of new provinces had been under exclusive federal control. Currently, under the 1982 constitutional changes, it is subject to a seven-province, 50 per cent approval formula, which was strongly opposed by the territories in 1982. The further change in the Meech Lake accord totally destroys their chances of ever achieving provincial status, should they ever wish to do so.

The territories’ current court challenge to the Meech Lake accord seeks retention of the seven-province, 50 per cent formula, because they see it as the lesser of two evils. I cannot help but agree. History tells us that this country’s 10 provinces were all given the opportunity and choice to join in the creation of Canada, and I believe the territories should be given that same opportunity and choice, should they opt for provincial status at some future date.

Another area of concern to me is that this Meech Lake accord appears to usurp the democratic process in that it appears to give judges the power to impose legislation upon provincial governments without giving the people a say in the matter. Every government enacting any piece of legislation should be able to be held accountable for that legislation by the voting public. If this accord, with its vague wording and ambiguous meanings, is entrenched, the courts will have not only to interpret but also to define legislative intent and consequences as well.

We in this Legislature were elected by the people. We are accountable to those very same people. Judges are appointed and are, therefore, officials who cannot be held accountable by the electorate for their actions. A judge’s purpose is to interpret laws enacted by elected representatives like my colleagues in this Legislature and other provincial legislatures who are accountable to the public. It is up to the politicians to enact laws, and it is not the purpose, duty or responsibility of judges to do our work for us.

The Meech Lake accord contains numerous serious flaws. These flaws must be corrected now, before this document is etched in stone. It should be sent back to the drawing-board, but if our federal politicians refuse to make the necessary corrections, then it is up to us to do their work for them by putting forth suitable amendments.

The Meech Lake accord should not contain a distinct society clause for Quebec. It should enshrine rights for women and native people; it should strengthen the role of the territories in the areas of intergovernmental relations and in determining their own future; and it should not allow judges to impose legislation upon the provinces.

We need more time and a great deal of debate in the elected legislatures of Canada before all the kinks in this accord are straightened out. We will straighten out those kinks if we put party politics aside for the benefit of all Ontarians and all Canadians.

I ask my colleagues in this Legislature to be ruled by principles when it comes to amending the Meech Lake accord, and not by politics. We must all refrain from sticking each other with political knives. We must form a united front to ensure that all Canadians get an accord that does not threaten their rights, their distinctions or their freedoms. We must work together in a sincere spirit of co-operation at a time when rubber-stamping will just not do.

1730

It is the duty and the responsibility and the purpose of my colleagues in this Legislature and all provincial legislatures throughout Canada to suggest amendments we can live with. After all, we are going to have to live with this Meech Lake accord for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be very brief in putting a few words on the record of my concern with regard to the Meech Lake accord.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to take a few minutes, if I might, to speak on this resolution.

In 1981, I was a member of our select committee on constitutional reform with James Renwick, the member for Riverdale at that time. We travelled the country and listened to the views of legislators in other parts of the country about the development of constitutional change at that stage.

It has always struck me -- it struck me at that time and it strikes me again now -- that we deal with constitutional change in this country in a very bizarre way. It is as if it is such a dry and intellectual matter that even common legislators in the provinces should not have a major impact on constitutional decisions. I am pleased to see here the government House leader who also served on that committee. It was a great education for many of us.

At that time, we had the Parliament of Canada making decisions and provinces and legislators individually not really feeling like they had a great deal of control over the agenda themselves. Now, this time around, we actually have the strange situation of 11 leaders gathering together and treating this sort of like a labour relations matter. By the process of continual discussion and negotiation through the evening hours, when people get tired and want to have some kind of resolution, they came up with the Meech Lake accord which the rest of us now, we are told, one way or another are supposed to fall in line with. We are not to use our role as sovereign legislators to have an impact on what may be one of the most important things to affect our country in a long time.

It is ironic. If you think about it, there are many people who have sat in this Legislature who have never had a chance to discuss the constitutional future of their country and have never had a chance to be there at a moment in time when their economic sovereignty was being threatened by something like the free trade pact. We have both of those things happening to us as legislators, but we are being asked, it almost seems, in both cases to sit back and not take action, to follow party lines and to believe that somehow we should feel constrained in terms of the amendments we might wish to proffer.

As somebody who has been in favour of special status for Quebec since about 1963, often at odds with people in my own party about that over the many years, I find it strange and somewhat aggravating to have to get up and be defensive about my support for the inclusion of Quebec back in the Constitution now. I have to start off as other speakers, my leader and the member for Algoma, have done to say, “Look, of course we favour reconciliation with Quebec and that is vital to us,” and then use “but” and “however” as if somehow we have been put in this position of almost being blackmailed around the idea that if you have any problems which you consider to be as significant with this Meech Lake accord as the notion of the importance of the reconciliation of Quebec, then somehow you are being disloyal to the future of Canada.

I refuse to accept that personally, given my own record on this issue over the years, and I refuse to have that dumped on a party like ours which has also been so much in the forefront of recognizing the distinction of Quebec society within Canada. I just want to dismiss that out of hand and say that of course that is our position.

But if the members think about their roles now, as individuals elected to deal with a constitutional matter, a constitutional matter which I would suggest to them has not ever found its way into the party policies, in strict terms, of any of the parties here assembled, it is not something writ so much in stone that they cannot exercise their own individual volition at this time.

I think the members have to look very seriously at what the Attorney General was asking in his last few questions today about the seriousness we should give to looking at amendments. I think he was putting them forward on the notion that we should not bring them forth frivolously. Not only that, but probably there is no call that is strong enough for an amendment, in his view, to risk any potential rupture of the accord. I would suggest to the members that there is potentially that serious a conflict in terms of constitutional reform, that we, and they as individual members, should look at it very seriously.

The first point to which I will just refer is the speech from the member for Algoma. Surely, if the members think of themselves now as people who can have a hand in the construction of our future Constitution, they as legislators and we as a collective in the Legislature have the right to state our opinion as a sovereign assembly. It is incomprehensible to me how we can have a reconciliation with Quebec at the expense of not having a reconciliation with our first nations.

The member for Algoma made the point extremely clearly that that is contradictory. It is not possible for us to do it on those terms. If we do it, then I really do think, although he was nervous about saying it, we have to look at what may well be a very racist underlying of that decision. It is not Quebec that has been excluded from the Constitution for its entire history. It has been just a few years that it has not been party to the most recent decision about the repatriation. Our first nations have been excluded from our Constitution from the very beginning of this country. If there is a need for reconciliation, it should surely have at least equal status with that which we would give Quebec.

The second point I want to raise and spend a little bit of time on is what is being done to the north. I think it may be hard for us, as central Canadians, to understand this. But if the members consider what it must be like to be living in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories at this point and to understand that, for the first time in our history, Prince Edward Island will have an absolute veto over whether the Yukon or the Northwest Territories will ever be brought into Confederation, they have to see just how alienating that is going to be for an area of the country which already feels it is not receiving the kinds of rights it deserves.

If we think about the territories as a federal institution, then that, perhaps, is an easy thing to deal with. But if we think of these areas as potential provinces, much as Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta were many years ago, and even our own immigrant and recent society, members can surely see how offensive it is to have them suddenly shut out of any real possibility of entering Confederation as full provinces.

Not that they are requesting this: I think it is really important to remember that. That is not what the people from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are saying at the moment. They do not want to enter tomorrow, but they do not believe there should be the need for total unanimity for them to enter Confederation. When Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta came in, they came in as acts of federal Parliament. That is all it took. There was no requirement for any of the other provinces to have any say in it.

1740

In recent years, there was a decision in the 1982 agreement that there should now be involvement of seven out of 10 or over 50 per cent of the population of the country, having some say in terms of new provinces. Most members probably do not realize that before Meech Lake was actually decided upon, the agenda of the first ministers had been changed in such a way as to try to eliminate that step, to say that even the seven out of 10 was inappropriate. That was what was on the agenda. All of a sudden after Meech Lake and the all-night sessions, that disappeared and all of a sudden it takes unanimity.

I suggest to the members again, as legislators in an assembly which has sovereign rights in a province which has developed an awful lot of power from its early days, to figure what it must be like to be siding in the assembly in the Yukon right now and understanding that we are, if we sit passively by, agreeing to the fact that it should be excluded for ever.

What a very short-sighted notion of our nation that is. I say to the members that there is an awful lot of pressure on us as a Legislature just to go through perfunctory hearings, hear what people have to say about it, have the opposition parties move amendments, defeat each of them because we cannot jeopardize the agreement and let it go at that.

Our lives are fairly short as politicians. Our institutions go on, for ever one would hope, but at least for a long time. The average stay of a member in this House is about six years. I do not know what the members think their contribution is going to be in the period of time they are here, whether they are here for one term, two terms or more, but this is a moment in history when members should not just sit passively by and allow themselves to believe they do not have the right and in fact the obligation to try to have an impact on the constitutional future of our country.

I ask all the members to understand that this should not be an exercise that they go through, but should be one of the most important things they will ever have a chance to participate in as legislators. They should do so to the full, and when amendments are proffered they should deal with them on their merits for what they consider personally to be the best future for our country.

Mr. Runciman: I too appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important debate. As the House leader indicated earlier, we are going to support the motion to establish what essentially appears to be a toothless committee. In any event, we hope it will at least serve the purpose of conclusively exposing some of the flaws in this agreement. If it can do that, it will indeed be worth while.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: I have some concerns about the agreement but I will wait until the conversations subside. I cannot even hear myself.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr. Runciman: The member for Algoma is --

Mr. B. Rae: No, it is not. It is the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Runciman: Oh. The member for Nipissing and the member for Algoma.

The Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, sir.

Mr. Runciman: I should have known better.

Mr. Laughren: He is going to be your next leader. We are going to speak to him.

Mr. Runciman: You never know.

As I was saying, I do have some concerns but I tend to want to support the accord if for no other reason than a review of the people opposing it, people like Jim Coutts, John Roberts, Jean Chrétien and, worst of all, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the most disastrous Prime Minister ever visited upon this country. If the accord does not agree with Trudeau’s vision of Canada, it cannot be all bad.

My point is that virtually all the opponents of this agreement are Liberals and I suspect many in the large government caucus also oppose the accord but lack the intestinal fortitude of the member for Downsview (Mr. Leone) and the member for Etobicoke-Humber. The Premier entered into this agreement with undue haste, probably for a couple of reasons, number one being his long-term federal aspirations, and he is obviously going to drag his trained-seal caucus along with him.

I note that some of the Liberal opponents are suggesting that this accord may sound the death-knell to universal day care. If that is the case, again, it cannot be all bad; this may halt our slide into the socialist abyss.

All that aside, I do have some concerns, primarily the designation of Quebec as a distinct society. I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Etobicoke-Humber that Canada has many distinct societies and that we should be defending the cultural and linguistic distinctions of all provinces, not just one.

The long-suffering anglophone minority in Quebec -- which I think represents about 18 per cent of the population, versus Ontario’s francophone population of five per cent as a contrast -- that minority is once again abandoned by all political parties tripping over themselves in an attempt to appease Quebec. There is no doubt that Quebec’s Bill 101, which is profoundly discriminatory towards anglophones, receives a boost of legitimacy from the accord, and that is shameful -- nothing less.

I also have concerns with the Senate appointment provisions. I am one who supports the idea of an elected Senate. The Premier says that the accord is a start on Senate reform. Unfortunately, it is also probably the end of Senate reform.

Supreme Court appointees: Again, I think we are moving in the wrong direction. We are going to have some serious cases before the courts in the next number of years. They are going to deal with the regional questions. I think the fact that we are going to have appointees to the Supreme Court sitting, really, because of their connections, if you will, with the various provincial governments is going to perhaps have a negative impact on the decision-making of that body. So I also want to express my concerns in that respect.

I agree with the member for Etobicoke-Humber with respect to his comments regarding veto powers. I think he makes reference to the number of constituents in his riding numbering more than the number of residents of Prince Edward Island. One has to ask if the veto-power provisions of the accord are really serving the national interest. I think not.

Several members have mentioned the role of territorial governments and their aspirations to future provincehood being denied by the accord. Until 1982 the entry of a new province into Confederation was a decision between the federal government and the people affected, but with Meech Lake every single province would have to agree. At the same time, residents of the Northwest Territories or the Yukon are given absolutely no say.

Approval of the existing provinces was not required when Prince Edward Island joined Confederation in 1873, or Alberta in 1905, or Newfoundland in 1949. So why should every Canadian have a voice in the territories’ fate, except those who live there? I think that is an important question.

One dealing with the territorial question again has to wonder, based on the constitutional discussions that went on a number of months ago with respect to the territories, if indeed the motives behind some of the western provinces in their efforts to exclude the territories from the Constitution are appropriate. I think there is a feeling within the territories that a number of the provinces, perhaps up to four, have aspirations to swallow the territories at some future date, and the Yukon. By not providing for their aspirations to attain provincehood within the accord, they are indeed serving their own purposes and not the residents of those areas of this country.

1750

The accord obviously represents a different view of Canada in terms of what Mr. Trudeau and many members of the Liberal Party across this country understand as a view of Canada. Mr. Trudeau’s is one of scepticism. There is no question about that. Despite its flaws, this accord really is looking towards the provinces to sustain, on their honour, commitments to nationhood. I am one who would opt to take that approach rather than that of Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Coutts, Mr. Roberts and so on, which is one of scepticism.

Like the member who spoke before me, I hope the government will entertain amendments which I am sure will not be frivolous but will be well-meaning and certainly will be put forward with the best interests of all Canadians at heart.

I have just been passed a note, “Can you talk until adjournment?”

We might review some of the points brought forward by the member --

Mr. Laughren: That did not come from your own colleagues.

Mr. McCague: From Pierre.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, from Pierre.

We might put on the record some of the points brought forward in an article in the Toronto Star, a well-known journal, by the member for Etobicoke-Humber. I would remind some of the other members over there, prick their consciences perhaps, to stand up for liberalism. I think it was John Munro -- what a prestigious Liberal -- who was saying, “The vision of Meech Lake is fundamentally antithetical to the view traditionally espoused by the Liberal Party” That is from no less a Liberal than John Munro. That should really bother the members opposite and to my left.

The member for Etobicoke-Humber was also indicating, in terms of the federal courts, that the notion of federal and provincial jurisdictions must be sharpened. He is indicating again his concerns about what I outlined in terms of what might happen in the courts in the future with respect to appointees coming from recommendations from the various provincial premiers.

He also expresses the concern that any province opting out of federal programs gets its share of federal program funds if it carries on a program compatible with the national objectives. Again, this talks about something like extra billing, which is rather strange with respect to the position this member took in the extra billing debate, as many of the members will recall.

He is talking about provinces being able to opt out of the extra billing requirements that were essentially placed on them by the federal government in terms of their fund transfer powers. As many members will recall, under the Canada Health Act, I believe, the federal government was withholding transfers unless the various provincial governments complied in terms of extra billing restrictions. This is a point that the member is making, and I mentioned earlier the question of universal day care.

Again, as a good Liberal he is making the point --

Mr. Wildman: That is a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, the member is right.

In any event, an agreement like Meech Lake could make a major difference.

The member goes on to talk about legislating English in Manitoba. It is hardly incompatible with legislating French in Quebec, and both are quite compatible with the national objective of linguistic enrichment.

Here is the issue baldly stated: Should a province have the power in a federal state to opt out of federal programs and get the money anyway? Should it have the power to choose the best side of every issue? Should Canada be balkanized into a community of provinces who take whatever portion of the federal pie they choose? What is meant by a “distinct society”?

Every province contains many distinct societies, each with customs, rights and perhaps privileges not enshrined in any Constitution. Few of the distinct societies are recognized by law, much less recognized in our Constitution, nor need they be. Should United Empire Loyalists have been enshrined as a distinct society in Upper Canada? We might want to talk about that one.

By the terms of Meech Lake, multicultural and aboriginal rights must be shored up against this “distinct society” provision.

The reference to multiculturalism also brings us to a position taken by the member for Downsview who, I think, was the first member of the government caucus to express his opposition: “Liberal MPP Set to Defy Peterson.” The member’s primary concern is in respect to the protection of multicultural rights. His colleagues the member for Lawrence (Mr. Cordiano) and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) have indicated they do not share those concerns. Of course, they, unlike the member for Downsview, may still hold some aspirations to become members of the executive council at some future date. Who knows?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Their chances are about as good as mine.

Mr. Runciman: The member can always cross the floor. Look at the member who is now the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay). I would suggest the opportunity is there.

In any event, this gentleman has indicated his very valid concerns about the weakening of multicultural rights. He again is one of the few sitting members in this Legislature on the government side who has indicated a willingness to speak up for what he believes in, rather than simply following strict party lines and adhering to the party whip. We on this side have to admire him for doing that, although we may not agree. We admire him. We admire the member for Etobicoke-Humber for his stand on this issue and the stand he very courageously took on extra billing last year.

On motion by Mr. Runciman, the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Recognizing that it is very nearly six of the clock, I would like to indicate the business for tomorrow.

Before I do so, just as a matter of explanation, I paid close attention to the comments made earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition and I want the record to show that there was a communication from the government to the whip’s office in the New Democratic Party, indicating that today, because of the first ministers’ conference convening in the city of Toronto, the Premier would not be able to stay beyond question period and that he would be making a ministerial statement about the establishment of this committee. I just want the record to show that communication was made. It is certainly our intention to be as helpful in these communications as we can be, as the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) knows.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to indicate that the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) has adjourned the debate. Tomorrow, after routine proceedings, this debate, the debate on government notice of motion 5, the motion establishing the select committee on constitutional reform, will continue and that will be followed by the debate on interim supply, to be followed by the debate on the Ontario Loan Act.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

25 novembre 1987