The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Chiarelli: Today I will be introducing a bill which will give municipalities the power to enact bylaws to control the importation of garbage.

It was disclosed last November that Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc, owner of a landfill site in Ottawa-Carleton, had been transporting in excess of 100 tons per day of Toronto garbage to its site, in addition to unquantifiable volumes of contaminated soil. Ottawa-Carleton does not want Toronto's garbage. However, there are other municipalities with existing capacity which seek to import nonlocal garbage.

Unfortunately, the NDP government has put Ontario in a garbage straitjacket. They have no provincial policy and the hands of the municipalities are tied.

I strongly urge the government to prove that it is serious about the environment by endorsing this bill.

When will this government take the garbage straitjacket off Ontario's municipalities?

OAKVILLE-TRAFALGAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Carr: Several years ago, the previous government promised Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital capital funding grants for expansion of both its acute and chronic care beds. Promises were made, plans were submitted, fund-raisers were held and revised programs were drawn up. Everything was finalized to ensure that a plan was in place to take care of the future health care needs of the people. Private industry and the local population worked extremely hard to raise their share of the necessary costs.

Everybody sat back to watch their hospital grow. They are still waiting. In fact, they are beginning to ask for their money back.

This government has not forwarded the necessary funding, and this is a prime example of discouraging private investment in health care services. The same situation exists in other parts of the province.

By 1995, Oakville will experience a nearly 20% increase in its population. The Oakville-Trafalgar hospital will by that time be seriously unable to handle this increase without an expansion of its facilities.

I urge the Minister of Health to have the structures in place to meet the needs of the people of Oakville South. Let's be proactive in planning for our growth instead of merely reacting to waiting lists when people are sick and unable to get the care they need.

BILL HUMBLE

Mr B. Ward: It is with sadness that I rise to acknowledge the passing of a former labour leader in the city of Brantford, Bill Humble, in his 78th year. Mr Humble was very involved in making Brantford a better place to live for working people.

He was past president of the Brantford firefighters association, past president of the Brantford and District Labour Council. He served on the executive of the Dunsdon Legion. Mr Humble was also a Second World War veteran.

Mr Humble's lasting legacy to the city of Brantford and the citizens is our civic centre. Mr Humble and his leadership spearheaded in the early 1960s a community fund-raising effort that raised the capital necessary to build our civic centre.

Too often local labour leaders are forgotten by their communities. I am pleased today to announce that on the 24th anniversary of the opening of our civic centre, the labour council will be proposing to our city council that Mr Humble's portrait and a plaque be installed in the centre itself. This action will ensure that the memory of Bill Humble and his contribution to the citizens of Brantford will not be forgotten.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Cleary: I rise today to urge the government of Ontario to take immediate action to deal with the rising unemployment in eastern Ontario caused by cross-border shopping. The retailers in my riding are not afraid of fair competition, but they need help from the provincial government to level the playing field so that they can compete on a fair basis with American business.

One of the main problems facing the retailers in eastern Ontario is the high cost of gasoline. Cheap gasoline on the US side of the border is a prime example of shoppers going from my riding, and the price difference between Cornwall and the US is higher than it should be. Gas prices in the east fluctuate between 6 cents and 12 cents a litre higher than in central Ontario.

I notice this morning that the people of Toronto are complaining because a recent gasoline price war has ended and the price is up to 55 cents a litre. Well, many motorists in Cornwall are not complaining, because they are paying $1.08 in the US. I sure urge the Treasurer to take note of this.

The NDP has made a commitment to equalize gasoline prices in the north and south. Not only has the current government failed to follow through with this commitment but, as usual, it has forgotten about eastern Ontario.

The loss of jobs in service stations is just the tip of the iceberg. It also means store closings and job losses among retailers. I urge the government to launch an investigation into gasoline prices in eastern Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Cunningham: I find it interesting that during the community college strike two years ago various members of this government made numerous statements in support of the students affected by the strike.

In fact, on 18 October 1989, Richard Johnston said: "The minister well knows that the reason that we are having a strike at the moment is not the particular matters that are on the table, but this is a system which is feeling very much under siege. It is the minister's funding which is making it impossible for the two sides to come together on this matter."

On 26 October 1989 he said, "There is a real need for the government itself to involve itself...so that this strike can be ended as quickly as possible and the lives of these students will not be unnecessarily jeopardized."

Now we have another strike facing post-secondary students in Ontario, yet the minister has been strangely silent on the issue. Students at Trent University have now been out of school for more than three weeks. Both sides attempted to resolve the situation this past weekend, but it appears now that there is no resolution in sight. If a solution is not found this week, the students at Trent University will lose their academic year.

Two years ago the solution was readily apparent to the New Democratic Party, yet today we have had no commitment to examine the underfunding of our postsecondary institutions by the minister. It leads me to believe that that was then and this is now.

1340

ANNIVERSARIES AND TRIBUTES

Mr Malkowski: Today, I would like to recognize the 170th anniversary of the independence of Greece on 25 March 1821. It is important to recognize the birthplace of democracy and the principles cherished there and the longstanding challenges and the hard-won fights once lost and now regained. We wish to recognize the many important contributions of the Greek community in Canada and especially to the province of Ontario.

Another important date of 24 March 1890 is the birthday of Agnes Macphail. We had the pleasure yesterday of hosting a brunch as the first annual Agnes Macphail commemorative brunch in York East, and I wish to acknowledge that date. It is important, as we look back, that Agnes was the first female elected to the House of Commons and was also the first woman in the Ontario Legislature, from York East from 1943 to 1945 and again from 1948 to 1951. I am very proud to carry on the tradition of equality, social justice and economic justice and democracy.

I also wish to recognize the contributions of Vi Thompson and Kay Macpherson for the contributions that they have made to feminism, to social justice, not only for the people of York East but also for all of Canada and all of Ontario.

CAT SCANNER

Mr Bradley: I would like to draw to the attention of the House, and particularly the Minister of Health, the very great need for a computerized axial tomography scanning machine in the Niagara region. As members of the House may know, at the present time there is one machine which exists at the St Catharines General Hospital and that machine is taxed to a very great extent by the usage by those in the medical profession who want to ensure that their residents and those who are in need of this service are indeed receiving it.

The Niagara District Health Council has made representations to the provincial government. I had directed a letter to the Ministry of Health last summer to indicate this great need.

The health council would indicate as well that the cost is somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million. We have had experience in St Catharines previously in raising the capital funds necessary. Archie Katzman headed up a campaign a few years ago which was very successful, which received a lot of public support -- of course, what was required at the time, that indeed there be an approval given by the Ministry of Health.

At the present time we recognize that the CAT scanner is an essential tool in dealing with the diagnosis of emergency situations and of potential diseases that can exist. There are a number of hospitals in the Niagara region which have indicated a willingness to be the host of this particular machine, including the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and hospitals in Welland and Niagara Falls.

LEGISLATIVE ACADEMY AWARDS

Mr Stockwell: It is Oscar time in Hollywood and also here at Queen's Park. While we do not have any nominees for any lead roles, since no one in government has shown any leadership, we do have a few prizes to award.

To the Premier, for his inaction on the York land development issue, a best supporting Oscar for The Silence on the Scams.

To the member for Welland-Thorold, a special award for his powerful performance in Guilty by Suspicion.

For the way in which he cut off the Red Hill Creek Expressway, an Oscar to Edward "Scissorshands" Philip.

On behalf of the mayoralty candidate Jack Layton, who could not be with us today, a best supporting actress award to the member for St Andrew-St Patrick for her bit to help make New Jack City.

To the Minister of Natural Resources, an award for his work on Dances with Moose.

To Ontario's own housewrecker, the Minister of Housing, an award for his performance in Home Alone.

A very special award to our friend in the official opposition, the member for Timiskaming, for his continuing role in Sleeping with the Enemy.

To the member for Oakwood, a special mention for his role in Ghost.

To most of the NDP cabinet, an Oscar for their performance in Postcards from the Edge -- of Obscurity.

To supporters of the NDP government for their part in their Hunt for Red October, November, December, January and so forth.

To the Treasurer, Sleepy Floyd, who watched a $30-million surplus turn into a $3-billion deficit, a best director Oscar for Reversal of Fortune.

MARINE ACCIDENT

Mr Jamison: I rise today to recognize the tragic loss which has befallen the Lake Erie fishing community of Port Dover. On Monday of this past week, 18 March, the trawler Captain K was returning from a day's fishing on Long Point Bay when it was struck by the Canadian Coast Guard vessel the Griffon in heavy fog and sank. Local fishermen joined in an immediate search effort with crews from Transport Canada, National Defence and the US Coast Guard. However, today there is very little hope for survivors. Lost and feared drowned are Captain Gary Speight and his two crew members, Dean Falker and John Walsh. An investigation into the events of the collision is being conducted by the Transport Canada safety board.

These men were part of the largest fresh water fishing fleet in the world, which sails on Lake Erie, and Long Point Bay itself is one of the busiest shipping lanes on that lake.

As a fishing community, the people of Port Dover live with these realities every day. They understand that fishing is a lifestyle like no other. It offers unique challenges and rewards, yet as we were reminded a week ago today, it holds its own dangers. We recall with sadness that in 1984, just eight kilometres from where the Captain K sank on Monday, two local fishermen were lost when their boat, the Stanley Clipper, capsized in a storm. This is not to say that as individuals we can ever be fully prepared for the events such as the loss of the Captain K and its crew under such tragic circumstances.

I wish to take this opportunity to express to the friends and family of the crew of the Captain K my own deepest sympathy. I know these men will be greatly missed and I join with the whole community of Port Dover in grieving their loss.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS / COUPURES BUDGÉTAIRES À RADIO-CANADA

Hon Mr Marchese: I would like to inform the House that this government submitted on 28 February a formal presentation to the CRTC on CBC cutbacks. Today I will be tabling this government's position on the CBC service reductions announced last December under the guise of restructuring and expenditure reductions, as submitted to the CRTC.

As minister responsible for both Culture and Communications in the province of Ontario, I shall begin by stating that the CBC cutbacks are an attack on both culture and communications at a local, regional and national level.

Canada is a federal state. As such, it requires a national broadcasting service that both informs and links the various regions and diverse cultures that make up this country. Canada needs this service not only so that we can communicate with each other, but so that we can define ourselves to the world.

Le mandat de Radio-Canada découle directement des objectifs établis dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. La détermination tant du mandat de Radio-Canada que des crédits budgétaires qui lui sont accordés est la prérogative du gouvernement du Canada. Par conséquent, il importe que le gouvernement fédéral finance le mandat qu'il s'est donné, qu'il ne néglige pas ses responsabilités ou qu'il ne les transmette pas à d'autres.

There are three issues that affect the people of this province that are of fundamental importance to us: democracy, cultural expression and cultural sovereignty.

In order to approach the issue of democracy at the basic level, I think it would be useful for us to think about the principles and values which are necessary to give meaning to the right to seek, receive and impart information, as it is written in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1350

Without public consultations, the CBC's board of directors decided to close some of the public's local television stations across Canada. A national broadcasting system without local and regional partners is profoundly undemocratic in that it denies the people of this country the opportunity to participate. We are returning to a centralized Toronto/Montreal-dominated communications pattern that does not reflect the interest, expressions and cultures of the rest of the country.

In a democratic society, the ability to participate in the public broadcasting system should be a right, not the exception. We need to increase the diversity of sources of information in Canada and we need to expand the production base of different kinds of programming. In short, we need to recognize the universally public character of communications in democratic public life in the same way in which we recognize this character in the fields of health and education. A public broadcasting service is a service for the public, not for those in the CBC who manage and control it, nor for those in the federal government who would like to destroy it.

Si nous avons à coeur l'épanouissement de notre société, nous devons avoir un concept des valeurs, des perceptions et des visions de notre population afin de mieux nous connaître et de mieux nous comprendre mutuellement. Nous devons exprimer et diffuser nos cultures diverses de sorte que nous puissions apprendre et partager notre diversité. Nous avons tous besoin de réfléchir également sur notre propre culture.

In Ontario, the CBC has denied access to the public broadcasting system to Franco-Ontarians by closing down CBLFT. At a time in the history of this country where the voice of francophones outside of Quebec is of the greatest importance, the CBC has silenced one of the few means for them to speak to one another about issues of critical importance. Equally important, it has silenced their capacity to speak through the network to the RadioCanada television audience in Quebec, an audience that badly needs to hear what francophones outside the province have to say.

In effect, the corporation is furthering the assimilation of francophones in Ontario into the predominant anglophone cultures and isolating Quebec from the rest of the country. This, from the national corporation that is charged with the responsibility of contributing to a shared national consciousness, is totally counterproductive in the view of the government of Ontario. For almost 400 years francophones have lived and made valuable contributions to every facet of life in Ontario. They must not be denied the right to cultural expression.

Issues of cultural sovereignty are familiar to most Canadians because of our proximity to the United States. The constant deluge of US books, magazines, feature films and TV news, sports and drama has made us aware of the importance of protecting and nurturing our cultural identity.

In Windsor the CBC has closed the only Canadian TV station, leaving Windsor and area residents to the Detroit broadcasters for local news. When the free trade agreement was announced, the country was promised that our cultural sovereignty was not at risk, that our cultural institutions and industries would not be threatened. While many of us decried the free trade agreement as a major step towards Canada's economic integration with the United States, we also feared the social and cultural integration that could follow.

The role of TV as a means of cultural expression and identity cannot be underestimated; it has become a major form of communication. To hand a large chunk of southwestern Ontario to the producers and advertisers of the US TV industry is an act of wilful neglect and incomprehensible stupidity.

The government of Ontario is not willing to see parts of the province delivered solely into the hands of foreign broadcasters. We need the federal government to make the commitment to renew and enhance public broadcasting, particularly at this time when it is of undeniable importance to every Canadian.

The government of Ontario has made its representation to the CRTC, along with many other governments, organizations and individuals. The responsibility for the current crisis lies directly with the federal government, for it must fund what it has mandated.

RESPONSES

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Henderson: This very pusillanimous motherhood statement masquerading as a ministerial statement seems to me to bring the processes of this Legislative Assembly to a new low.

This statement is notable for what it does not contain. We knew six months ago something about what this government was promising to do in the area of culture and communications. We know less and less with each succeeding month, and we know less still now.

Let me quote to the minister some of what his party and his government promised in the area of culture and communications six months ago. They promised: "We would promote the utilization of artistic resources throughout the entire range of government services. New Democrats would increase government support to culture and the arts to at least the rate of inflation on a yearover-year basis. New Democrats would move to ensure income security for artists. New Democrats would ensure a method of payment for public use of art. New Democrats would exempt artists' materials and their work from the provincial sales tax." It will be interesting to see how that one works out. "New Democrats support funding for artists' co-operatives for the practice, production, performance, exhibition and sale of their work. New Democrats are committed to funding the development of local venues to support both local and touring artists. New Democrats would ensure that the arts become integral to Ontario's education system."

From those promises, one rather came to expect a network of drive-through art and culture centres scattered about the province of Ontario. What has the government in fact done? At a time when a $540-million Ontario film industry is waiting for an answer from this government -- about 1,000 or so jobs and the continuity of those jobs -- the government has cancelled funding for the Ballet Opera House Corp and, oh yes, incidentally reminds us about the mandate of the CBC and disagrees with the cutbacks.

There have been no significant ministerial statements since this government came back to this Legislative Assembly. The moose tag legislation is looking bigger and bigger with every succeeding day. To say that this ministerial statement is too little, too late, would be flattery. It is in fact nothing too late.

Mrs Marland: I thought we were actually dealing with ministerial statements. This, however, is simply ministerial posturing. I think we have to be very concerned about this position by this minister.

I would have expected this minister to make some specific program initiative announcements, which is what is usually done during ministerial statements. I am certainly disappointed, because there are all kinds of things waiting for action by this minister; the Ontario Heritage Act might be a good example. Certainly we have been expecting an announcement now for the last month to save the Ontario film investment program, which is just that: It is an investment into the economy and jobs in this province. This is what this minister seems to be sitting back and lacking; he lacks a total understanding of what we are dealing with.

This is no new announcement. In fact, it is simply an attack on the federal government. Is that not particularly interesting when you look at the position of the Premier of this province at the moment who says he wants to exercise restraint, he does not want to spend money? We certainly agree with that. But how interesting: When the federal government takes the same position as the Premier of this province, one of his ministers turns around and argues against the position of the federal government.

I think it is really quite revealing that we have a position here where the federal government is using restraint, is using judgement, albeit some of the areas of its decisions we do not necessarily agree with. But is it not ironic that the government turns around and criticizes it when its own Premier is saying he has to use restraint; that is why he cannot keep his Agenda for People promises? Frankly, I think this has been purely a political stump speech.

1400

When the minister looks at his own responsibilities with TVOntario, I have to ask, are we going to see the native outreach programs and perhaps the drug program scrapped in order to honour the collective agreement which has to be made with the people who are employed within TVO? The member for Etobicoke West is very concerned that Polka-Roo may not even be able to sleep well tonight, based on the minister's statement today.

We are very concerned about this kind of statement coming from a minister who chooses not to act in the best interests of art and the film industry in the province today which are crying out for help. They are crying out for an investment of $10 million or $15 million which in turn brings back a return -- that is factually accurate -- of in excess of $90 million.

We simply ask this minister: Is it his intention that we let something like the Ontario film investment program in this province die because they do not want to make the investment to keep it going, not recognizing the tremendous return which is dollar for dollar a worthwhile program that should be kept?

Mr Villeneuve: I find it very sad to hear the minister forgetting that he is in government and indeed acting very much like someone in the opposition. That is exactly the rhetoric that we used to hear from these people when they were on this side. They had all of the answers and they found fault with everyone. Well, they happen to be in government now. The sanctimonious, pompous statement that was just made that had nothing in it positive really is not worthy of having been said in this House.

I belong to the group called Friends of TVO and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, there is a group --

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. Could we have the banner removed, Sergeant? Remove the banner, please.

The clock was at 50 seconds. Would you continue?

Mr Villeneuve: There is probably more in that banner than the whole statement by the minister anyway.

The Cornwall area has been pleading for a low-power transmitter for TVO for several years. There is a whole area of southeastern Ontario that does not receive the TVOntario signal. I have petitions and I will be bringing them to this House, asking for a low-level transmitter to cover the Cornwall-Long Sault-Ingleside area that right now does not receive TVO. I find it sad that the minister takes the time of this House to attack the CBC and the federal government when he has a lot to do right in his own neighbourhood and his own backyard.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you, as Speaker, to look into whether or not the ministerial statement today complies with standing order 31(a), which reads as follows: "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy," -- meaning provincial government policy -- "ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed." I would ask you to carefully consider the minister's statement -- I do not expect a reply today, Mr Speaker -- and come back to the House and inform us whether in fact this does comply with standing order 31(a).

The Speaker: I appreciate the point of order which you have raised and I will consider it and I will report back to you later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, if I may. The minister will be aware that since he has been appointed he has presided over the worst job creation in Canada, comparing all of the provinces on a per capita basis. Since the NDP took office an average of 1,600 jobs a day have been eliminated. Bearing in mind the Treasurer's commitment in this regard and the minister's vociferous views expressed over many years in opposition, while we are not calling for an apology from him, can he explain the total ineffectiveness of his initiatives in this regard so far?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition will know that Ontario is the manufacturing heartland of this country of ours and that Ontario is the area that has been hardest hit as a result not only of the free trade agreement but also the high dollar and the high interest rates.

I think that we have taken some actions. The Treasurer has moved to put $700 million in the capital works fund as a useful attempt to try and deal with that specific problem. I can also tell the member that, in our announcements on the labour adjustment fund just a few weeks ago, we set up an office of the labour adviser in the province of Ontario. That office alone has already, just since the announcement, set up committees in 29 plants to help the workers in those plants, which makes a total of 77 working labour adjustment committees we now have in place in the province of Ontario. We are in the process and will be shortly bringing in additional safety-net legislation in terms of the wage protection fund.

In terms of the actual job creation, that is a much broader issue, and I am not sure it is totally the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

Mr Nixon: I quote from the NDP Agenda for People, its commitments made before the election:

"The recession is here. We want to provide relief for those who need it most, protecting people's investment in their farms, their small businesses and their jobs. We propose adjustment and training measures to protect jobs today and in the future, all of those concepts that are universally supported and in fact were supported by just under 38% of the electorate."

Since that commitment was so clearly made and accepts the concept that the recession is here, would the minister not feel a matter of concern, statistical or otherwise, when he would think that during the one hour of this question period 200 more jobs will be lost statistically as Ontario continues to suffer at the hands of whatever is causing the recession? Would the minister not agree that he simply cannot say that this is a matter that is too big for Ontario or too big for this province or too big for this $45-billion provincial budget, and accept some of the responsibility that he was so quick to bring to the attention of those of us who had the responsibility of government when in fact the province was growing and not receding?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition will also understand that it is a little easier when the province is growing than it is when we have got the kind of a situation that his government left us in the province of Ontario. I think the very fact that we have put $32.5 million of new money into the retraining programs, into the labour adjustment programs, that we have added money to the transition fund, that we will be very shortly down with additional protection for workers in these situations, is a clear indication that we are trying to respond to the issues that we are facing in the province of Ontario.

Mr Nixon: The Treasurer and the Premier, in response to similar questions, have said we have the largest and most effective job creation program in Canada. You would be aware, Mr Speaker, that the province of Quebec, for example, has committed $1.5 billion to money that is already flowing and is not waiting for the next fiscal year. Would the honourable minister not recall the following quote that came from him on 29 November 1988 when he said, "Action on additional worker protection, plant closing justifications, additional severance, workers' benefit and pension protection and retraining and occupational adjustment programs cannot wait or be fluffed off to the feds."

1410

I simply put that to you, Mr Speaker, because you would know that the honourable Minister of Labour has all of the labour bosses, all the presidents of the unions, eating out of his hand. As a matter of fact, I think they have breakfast and lunch in his office, when they are not eating in the cabinet room. Under these circumstances, why cannot this minister, who was most vociferous in bringing forward his proposals and private member's legislation, get off the dime at least in small measure and bring forward some announcements, perhaps some legislation which is going to accomplish the aims that he put forward so strongly when he was a member of the opposition for all those years and which were echoed by the agenda of his own political party before it took office?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition should know that I agree with him: that we cannot fob it off totally on the federal government. I think he should also know, however, that I am proud to sit down with the labour leaders in the province and try to discuss the issue with them and I do it on a regular basis.

I think he should also be aware that I have sat down with as many business leaders as I have with labour leaders over the last two or three months in my office and in my boardroom as well. I think he should also know that the province of Quebec has spent its money over a much longer period of time than has the province of Ontario.

In addition to that, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that he, I think, will be quite pleased. I am gathering from what he says that we will not find opposition to the very measures he is talking about that we will be coming forward with very quickly.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister has been shaking his sabre for six months and we will look forward to some action, other than some sort of a footling attack on the CBC and moose tags.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services and it is relating to this same thing, because surely we would all agree that the approach to the expenditure announcements from the Treasurer and the action that the Minister of Labour might have taken, and he says will take some time in the future, are supposed to be reflected in the responsibilities that the Minister of Community and Social Services bears directly, that is, serving those people who are unemployed and have run out of unemployment insurance benefits and who are swelling -- those people who have had to apply and many of whom are receiving the welfare benefits that she administers or assists the municipalities in administering.

Can the minister indicate how closely she is working with the Minister of Labour in seeing that the commitments of dollars that have been repeatedly announced by the Treasurer and his colleagues are going to have some effect in reducing those who are running out of unemployment insurance and in fact are presently in receipt of welfare assistance through a variety of programs?

Hon Mrs Akande: In actual fact, we have moved quite a distance along in getting people back to work and addressing the needs of those who have moved very quickly from the unemployment insurance rolls to social assistance. We have been assisting in making sure that the municipal and the provincial are actually working not only in getting them back to work, but also in supporting them in their needs in terms of child care, in terms of services for the disabled, to address their particular needs, and in terms of providing those additional costs which in fact support their being back in the workplace.

Mr Nixon: Perhaps this would clarify the question a bit, but I am asking the minister to indicate to the House what the linkage between her responsibilities and those of the Treasurer and the Minister of Labour is in that the resources, the scarce resources of the government of Ontario, are directed into those communities which are suffering the most from unemployment and the concomitant increase in the welfare rolls.

Hon Mrs Akande: I have said and I will say again that I am working closely with all my cabinet members, including the Minister of Labour and the Treasurer, in seeing that the direction of those back-to-work programs does serve the needs of many who are on social assistance rolls or who would be on social assistance rolls if those programs were not implemented.

Mr Nixon: The only information we have on these matters is that which we are able to gather and hear from the various statements and from the media, from statements made by a number of ministers. For example, the welfare case load growth in Dufferin county has been 120% year over year and yet the allocation from the Treasurer's $500 million, which is the announced amount, has been zero. The Elgin county welfare case load has grown by 104% according to the statistics that are publicly available and yet the allocation, as nearly as we can determine, from the $500 million that has been announced of the $700 million that has been promised of the $1 billion that the Premier refers to has been less than 1%.

In Hamilton-Wentworth, the welfare case load has grown not by this 100%-plus, but by 56.7%, a significant load for that municipality, and yet the commitment even in that important area, well represented by people who have the labour leaders eating out of their hands, etc, is about 1%. It is difficult for us to see a relationship between the responsibility that the Minister of Community and Social Services has and the $1 billion that the Premier is referring to that is going to be spent in anti-recessionary measures.

I wonder if she could clarify that matter and give us some additional information that would verify her statement that there is a relationship, however obscure that appears.

Hon Mrs Akande: In actual fact we are addressing the needs of people in the communities to which the member refers. I have not the actual numbers of those who have been served, but certainly there is a direct attempt, through the Minister of Labour and through the Treasurer and through all of us, in fact, to make sure that those needs are met and that those people are absorbed within the back-to-work program and that they receive the assistance that is required in order to enable them to take advantage of those particular opportunities.

WOMEN IN FILM

Mr Runciman: My question is for the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I want to wish her well in her new responsibilities, with some reservations, of course.

My question relates to something I am sure she is familiar with and that is the decision recently announced by the Ontario Film Review Board with respect to its refusal to restrict the distribution of triple X videos, videos that contain explicit sex. I am wondering if the minister can explain to us her views with respect to this matter, whether she considers this kind of material pornographic or art, and if she considers it pornographic, what does she intend to do about the film board's decision?

Hon Ms Churley: I unfortunately will not be able to answer the member's question directly today. To nobody's surprise, I am aware of the situation that the member has asked the question on and I am not going to give my opinion today and I am not going to answer my question today. I spent the day being briefed on the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, etc. I have yet to meet with the film board. I will be doing that shortly and I hesitate to answer on this particular subject until I have met with the film board, but I would be very glad to answer the member's question very soon.

Mr Runciman: Perhaps the minister would like to refer that to the member for Welland-Thorold. I am sure we would get an answer. I find that surprising. Obviously the new minister has been subjected to a crash course from the Premier's office on how to refuse to answer a question in this Legislature. It is strange that she has no opinion when we have the former minister turfed from cabinet for appearing fully clothed as a Sunshine Boy in the Toronto Sun. This minister was close to tears on Metro council when she had a motion to ban bikini contests in Toronto, and she said, quote: "It sends out the wrong message to women. You can get by on how you look, how big your breasts are." Well, what she is saying apparently is, "Bikini contests, no; explicit sex, yes," or at least, "I do not have an opinion." I ask the minister, what has changed? Why does she not have an opinion on this today? Let's see some action.

1420

Hon Ms Churley: The member will see some action in the very short future on this. I certainly do have opinions on certain issues and members will be hearing about them shortly. I believe, as I think we all do, that there is a difference between sexuality and sensuality and the exploitation of women's bodies as sexual objects, and that is the area I will be looking at. It is a very sensitive area. I will be talking to the film board about this area, but as I said, I will get back to the member and answer the question more specifically in the near future.

Mr Jackson: This issue has been of quite a bit of concern in the last few years and it has been raised in this House. On 27 February 1989, I raised the question in the House with the then government and I tabled order paper questions about the link between pornography and violence against women. The government gave the exact same answer the minister did, that it was unaware or it did not want to make a public statement.

In the order paper question based on some of the research data we shared with the government, the government of that day clearly stated that there is a link between pornography and violence against women. We are asking the minister a simple question because the imperative is there. We have a company that has just opened up in this province. It has opened 20 triple X adult video stores. Two of them have opened up in the community of Burlington. One of the conditions is that people have to come in the front door and they have to sign a letter which says that they personally support the freedom of an Ontario adult to rent or purchase adult videos. It goes on to say that they have the support of the Ontario Film Review Board. The minister can answer this House today because I have heard her comment on this in the past. Does she believe that there is a link between pornography and violence against women? If she agrees, what is she doing about these video stores that are opening up in my community and communities all across this province?

Hon Ms Churley: It is a very important question and a very important statement today, one which, as the member knows, I take very seriously. I do believe that there is a link between pornography and violence against women. There is no doubt that I believe that. I believe that everybody in this House knows that.

Regarding the question as to what I, as the new minister, am going to do about this particular problem, I must say at this point I do not know enough about the issue to be able to answer today. I want to be able to give a clear and concise answer about where I am going to take it. I do not want to give any information today that tomorrow, after talking to the film board and other interested parties in this issue, I will have to turn around and redefine. It is a very important question and I take it very seriously, as does my government. I will be getting to this very soon. It is a personal priority of mine, as the Speaker knows and the House knows, and I will be looking into it very, very quickly.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I appreciate the numerous notes I have received, and members may wish to welcome at this time in our midst a former member of the House, a longstanding member for the riding of St George, Margaret Campbell.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is for the other new minister, the Minister of Financial Institutions, and it deals with automobile insurance. Last week, it was suggested in the Toronto Star, and I am not sure if this government is as close to the Toronto Star as the former government was, but in any event, the Star suggested that the minister or the government plans to introduce an auto insurance plan similar to that of Quebec. There will be a meat chart to determine how much compensation is given to accident victims. In November 1988 the Premier and then opposition leader told the House how he strongly opposed the use of a meat chart in determining workers' compensation benefits. The Premier told the House, "The idea is not acceptable that a bureaucracy would have the power unilaterally to say: 'This is how much you are going to get. This is what your finger is worth. That is what you are going to get and you have no right of appeal.'"

Clearly, the Premier opposes meat chart justice. Therefore, will the minister assure the House that his auto insurance bill will not be a meat chart plan similar to that of Quebec?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member for Leeds-Grenville is well aware that the government is in the midst of developing its legislation on auto insurance, which we hope to introduce this spring. I am not aware that the government has made a decision, and therefore the story in the Star last week is obviously incorrect in terms of precisely what this government will introduce in terms of legislation some time before the end of June.

I can assure the member for Leeds-Grenville, however, that it is our intention to deal in a very full and thorough way with creating a public auto plan in this province that is both fair and that deals with the issues that have been debated here in this House.

Mr Runciman: The minister used twice as many words as the other new minister to say he does not have an answer or he does not know. I want to say that the minister is on the record just last December, just a few short months ago, as voting in favour of the right to sue for innocent accident victims with my legislation. He probably very much regrets that 60 seconds he took in the House that day. In any event, he is on the record. He told us he was voting for the restoration of the right to sue because it deals with the most offensive part of Bill 68, the threshold.

Given the minister's stated policy, will he assure the House that he will restore the right to sue for innocent accident victims, a position he took a few months ago?

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me first of all say very clearly that I in no way regret the short time that I spent on my feet during the debate on the bill of the member for Leeds-Grenville last December.

Second, the question that the member has raised is a question which does not deal with the problem. The question of tort is a solution, not a problem. Innocent victims are what have to be dealt with. This government is pursuing a whole range of options to deal with not just one issue that we found at fault in the Liberal auto insurance legislation, but closer to 100. We will be introducing legislation this spring that will deal with, hopefully, all 100 of the major problems we found with that legislation.

Mr Runciman: That is a very disturbing response.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The question posed by the member for Leeds-Grenville has certainly brought about a great deal of interest from even his own colleagues; and I think, to his own colleagues, he would like to place another supplementary.

Mr Runciman: I was wondering about that myself, Mr Speaker. I want to say, though, that that response is very disturbing, given what I and the member for Welland-Thorold went through last year. We went through months of very moving testimony, probably the most moving testimony that I have heard in my years as a legislator -- witness after witness testifying about concerns about innocent accident victims in this province, people who had no vested interest, someone like Jeremy Rempel, who appeared before us in a wheelchair and seriously injured. He had nothing to gain but he was very much concerned about the Liberal legislation and about innocent accident victims in the future in this province.

Now we have this minister standing up and his colleagues and the Premier abandoning a principle they fought for in this House, filibustered in this House, ran an election on. Now they do not have the guts to stand up in this House and say, "We still support that basic principle." I am asking the minister simply to repeat what he said in December, "Yes, I support the right to sue for innocent accident victims." Let him say it right now.

Hon Mr Charlton: We share the views of the member for Leeds-Grenville regarding innocent accident victims and we intend to remedy the problems of innocent accident victims in the legislation we set out. It is unfortunate that the member for Leeds-Grenville, although he was in the cabinet for a very short time in the spring of 1985, seems to forget that governments do not stand up in this House and announce their legislation to the questions of opposition members.

1430

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mrs Caplan: I have a question today for the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding the minister's refusal to act expeditiously on the issue of municipal conflict of interest in time for this fall's municipal elections.

Last spring, almost one year ago, the Liberal government announced its intention to legislate comprehensive reform to municipal conflict-of-interest legislation by the 1991 municipal elections. An article in this morning's Globe and Mail about the sale of Fairbank Memorial Park, which the minister also refused to take action on, questioning very seriously some of the proprieties of members of that council, speaks to the urgency of this matter. An 18 January news release announcing the introduction of new municipal conflict-of-interest legislation next fall quotes the minister as saying, "Municipal politicians have a right to know exactly what is expected of them and the people have a right to expect a high standard of behaviour from their representatives."

However, under the NDP's timetable for completing the new bill, municipal politicians will not know what is expected of them and the public will not know what standards to judge candidates by until after November's municipal elections. Will the minister explain today why he is not introducing his new legislation before the end of June so that it can be fully discussed and be in place for the November fall municipal elections?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member will be aware that under her minister, Mr Sweeney, a committee was to be established to review a report on conflict of interest at the municipal level. He never proceeded with the committee, so we have proceeded with that committee. We have put a time limit on that committee to report back to me by the end of July so that we can proceed as quickly as possible this fall with new conflict-of-interest legislation.

But I can say to the member that whether it is under the existing conflict-of-interest legislation or whether it is under new conflict-of-interest legislation, I do not believe that any of the activities in the city of York that have been reported in today's paper would be acceptable under any circumstances, so the new conflict-of-interest legislation is not nearly as important as addressing some of the concerns that exist in that city and all of us in all three parties indicating that that type of behaviour as reported in the paper today is completely unacceptable to all of us.

Mrs Caplan: My question to the minister is, what in fact is he doing about it? So far he has done nothing, and in fact his news release of 18 January stated that most of the committee members were appointed last summer to begin that consultation. That is in his own news release.

He stood in the House last fall, almost six months ago, and stated that he had a number of concerns about the actions of city of York council and the sale of Fairbank park. He said he was concerned about the loss of park land, he was concerned about the way the council had sold the land, he was concerned about the lack of public consultation on the sale of that park land, he was concerned about the refusal of the city of York to acknowledge even that it had a problem, but he refused then to take any action and to this point he has taken no action.

Last spring, the Liberal government introduced Bill 152, regulating the disposal of municipal assets and requiring open municipal meetings. This legislation would have prevented any future secret deals, such as the Fairbank park sale, from occurring and ensured that all council meetings were open and accountable to the public, as well as ensuring that any land sales went through a fair and open tendering process.

I agree with him that there have been very serious allegations that the standard of behaviour is unacceptable, that the level of cynicism in our society and the concern about members of public office must be addressed and must be addressed quickly. This minister has done nothing, and I would ask him why, after six months in office, he has not at least tabled the legislation, Bill 152, so that it can be in place before the municipal elections.

Hon Mr Cooke: That question is almost as long as the member's answers used to be.

I would agree with the member that there were a number of initiatives that had been announced by her government and that we are reviewing, but she must understand as well that we had five weeks or six weeks in session before Christmas and these have to be seen as an entire package. We are bringing in the new conflict legislation, we are reviewing the open-meetings legislation and the disposal of public lands, but in the immediate future I certainly intend to re-examine the whole city of York issue and see if there is some action that we can take as a government to restore public confidence in that local government.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: The minister's own committee of NDP members on farm financing recently stated, "Ontario farmers continue to experience low incomes and economic uncertainty." Farm income is expected to drop by some 15% to 20% here in Ontario again this year, the fourth year in a row. Over the last year, farmers have worked with the provinces -- and I underline "farmers have worked with the provinces" -- and with the federal government to develop a pair of linked, complementary safety net programs known as GRIP and NISA, gross revenue insurance plan and net income stabilization account. The minister has announced that Ontario will participate in the first, the GRIP. Could he tell us when he plans to announce that we will be participating in the NISA?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The NISA the member alludes to is under consideration by my ministry. We are looking at a number of other programs as well. There are some other urgent situations in the farm community that need addressing. We have put together several programs. We have asked the Treasurer for funding for some of those programs. We will be reviewing our priorities. We would like to make sure that the money that we have available to this ministry is spent in the best possible way. NISA is on the list, and I am not sure whether we will be announcing participation in NISA or whether we will be announcing some other program that may serve farmers who are in greater need.

Mr Villeneuve: This was set up by farmers and it was in conjunction with both levels of government and it is intended that GRIP and NISA work together. They support and complement one another as a program for agriculture, and if the minister goes with only one and not the other, he is eliminating a number of sectors within the agricultural community. Will the minister now announce that he will not overlook any sector of Ontario agriculture and tell us that he will be participating in NISA as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It is not our intent to overlook any sector. GRIP, although it is a long-term, 15-year program, is intended to serve the needs of farmers in the short term, to help them get over the hurdles in the short term. NISA, as the member suggests, is a longer-term plan that I believe would serve agriculture and farmers well in Ontario, and it is certainly a plan that I can support in the long term.

However, the way the plan is set up, it suggests that farmers would have money to set aside in a plan which would act as a savings plan, what they would have for a rainy day, and the provincial and federal governments would match the dollars that the farmers put into that plan. I would say to the member that at this point in time we have other farmers who do not have any money to put aside, who in fact need money to go into the planting season with, and we would like to probably address their needs first, very much keeping in mind, though, the need of farmers to have NISA for the long term.

1440

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Martin: Cross-border shopping is a sensitive issue, especially in constituencies like my own, Sault Ste Marie. Due to poor economic conditions, in order for consumers to shop cheaply they turn to the United States market. Now the retail markets in border towns like Sault Ste Marie are suffering due to excessive cross-border shopping. My question today is to the Minister of Revenue. In light of the federal government's plan to fastlane border crossings, what is the Ontario government planning to do to relieve the economic impact on communities affected?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I, like the member for Sault Ste Marie, come from a cross-border community and am very aware of the difficulties that we face being a cross-border community. I should add that my federal counterpart did not consult with the Ontario government on the new pilot project. I have asked officials of the Ministry of Revenue to get back to me on details of the new pilot project that they are launching so that we can look at it and assess the effect this program has on cross-border shopping and our retail sales tax.

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Brown: My question is to the Premier. I want to raise with the Premier today the issue of Elliot Lake. The Premier would be aware that unemployment in Elliot Lake is running at about 62%, he would be aware that we have lost 2,500 jobs in the mining sector and he would be aware that in January 1990 the Minister of Natural Resources urged the former Premier to buy 100% of Ontario Hydro's uranium needs in Elliot Lake. He would be aware of all those things. He would be aware that he himself confirmed this promise in August of this year and he would be aware that his own party's convention just three weeks ago confirmed the commitment.

Yet we were quite surprised that last week the Minister of Energy said that the Ontario government will not direct Hydro to pay the price that Denison Mines wants for its uranium and went further, to say that this company is just not viable in this province. My constituents are confused, my constituents are frustrated. Is the Premier going to honour his commitment and buy 100% of Hydro's needs in Ontario or is he not?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say directly to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, as I spoke to him last week -- and I have spoken to the mayor, I have spoken to the members of the trade unions involved, I have spoken to the leadership of the community as much as I can and we have also been talking to Ontario Hydro. The Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Natural Resources are scheduled to go to Elliot Lake next week to have some more discussions, and the member is certainly going to be invited and involved in those discussions.

I would just make one observation to the member, and that is to say that the difficulties that the Denison company has now and has had for the last while really have nothing to do with Hydro. They extend well beyond the boundaries of this province, as he will know. They have to do with developments in British Columbia; they have to do with developments overseas as well. The company's difficulties are very real and very significant and are not directly related to the question of the Hydro contract.

So I would say to the member that, obviously, previous statements that have been made and objectives of policy that have been made are important to us. We also have to take into account the realities with respect to the situation at Denison. We also have to take into account the realities of the costs of the contracts as we have now discovered them to be, because we have an obligation to do that. I can only tell the member that he will be very much involved as we come to a solution of this issue.

Mr Brown: I appreciate that the Premier will keep us all involved and that the Premier is concerned and that the Premier is concerned with the diversification, but I would tell the Premier that when Algoma Steel is in trouble, he goes to help Algoma Steel. I would tell the Premier that we have grave difficulties in Elliot Lake, and what he is telling me is nothing new to either me or the people of Elliot Lake. I would tell the Premier that we need some time in Elliot Lake. We need four or five years to make sure the diversification plans can come together and the people of Elliot Lake will have jobs.

They made a specific promise to the people of Elliot Lake, a very specific promise, and the promise demands an answer today. Is the Premier going to buy 100% of the uranium in Elliot Lake, and if so, Elliot Lake lives, or if he is not, should we get the U-Haul trailers out now?

Hon Mr Rae: That kind of comment really does not help the people of Elliot Lake. It does not help the problem. No, it does not. It does not deal with the issue.

I can say to the member, when he was in government he may not have been aware of the Denison contract. He may not have been aware of the Rio Algom contract. He may not have been told about that by his colleague the Leader of the Opposition and by others.

I can only tell him what we are doing for Elliot Lake. We are taking the same approach that we have taken with Algoma, and that is to say that we are going to sit down with everyone. There has already been an announcement of $15 million for the community of Elliot Lake announced this Christmas, and I can say to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin that we are going to be doing everything possible to see that the community has a strong and diversified future. That is precisely the direction which this government wants to take, but I can say to the honourable member that it would be absurd of us to take action without the kind of consultation which needs to take place with Hydro and with the community and with everyone, which is precisely what we are going to be doing.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister and all members of this House should be aware that tourism is Ontario's third-largest industry and Ontario's largest private sector employer, employing some 16% of the Ontario workforce. The minister should also be aware that Ontario's tourism industry is in crisis. Ontario has lost between $360 million and $380 million over the past year in retail sales due to cross-border shopping and visits to this province by American tourists have substantially declined. Would the minister please tell this House what specific action he has taken to address these problems?

Hon Mr North: On the issue that the member speaks of we have talked at length to a number of different tourism groups and we have asked them their thoughts and we have been trying to gain some simple knowledge as to whether or not they feel that there are things we can do that are viable. Some of the things they have asked us to do is they have asked us to bring a working committee together that would help them to give presentations to the Fair Tax Commission or other groups which government feels it is going to develop, and that will give them, they feel, the opportunity they need to address this problem in a way that is beneficial to them.

Mr J. Wilson: It is fine to keep going around the province making tourism industry groups feel good, taking helicopters and making announcements in northern Ontario, but what the industry needs now is action.

The minister will know that several months ago the federal government introduced a $4-million marketing initiative strictly for southern Ontario, and it is the first time in the federal government's history that it has earmarked money specifically for a region. It has also over the last year doubled its marketing budget and its commitment to the industry.

The minister was quoted in the 9 March edition of the Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin saying: "I back the federal government's new campaign. It's a shot in the arm for the region. Southern Ontario has been hit hard by the declining auto industry. I've been on the phone to the federal minister anticipating a discussion meeting with his office."

I suggest that the exact opposite is true. In fact, I have had discussions with the federal minister where he tells me that some two months ago he tried to get a meeting with the minister and he has not returned his phone calls. He has not co-operated with the federal government in order to address the problems of the tourism industry. It is a three-way street. It is federal, provincial and private sector. When is the minister going to get off his butt, phone the federal government and co-operate with its new initiative?

1450

Hon Mr North: I would like to address the member's concerns. First of all, I would like to say that we have been in contact with the federal minister's office. Members of our office have been in contact. We are very interested in initiatives that the federal government brings forth. We have actually spoken to cabinet and caucus about these issues and we would like to entertain any other offers that he wishes to make.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Drainville: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Mines, if I might. As the minister obviously knows, there has been a significant slowdown in mineral exploration in the northland. We also know that numerous companies have been closing their mineral exploration offices, that there have been cutbacks in the number of personnel they have. In 1990 it is estimated that $200 million will have been used for mineral exploration, which is 15% down from 1989 and 40% down from 1988. I would ask the minister, in light of these very difficult statistics and the very difficult time that the people in the north are having in the mining industry, what the minister and his ministry will be doing.

[Applause]

Hon Mr Pouliot : Quelle modération. You are right, Mr Speaker, I will not refer the question. In fact, it is the most interesting and insightful question because it deals with the 40% of note.

We are talking about 60 operating mines, no less, 80,000 to 85,000 direct and indirect jobs, putting $170 million, by virtue of a production surpassing $7 billion, in the pockets of the Treasurer of Ontario to afford social programs such as health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, education services.

But wait. The money is coming back. Through the prospectors' assistance program, what we are doing is we are putting money in the pockets of prospectors before they even have a chance to put rocks in the box. We are also supplementing, for people who have been given a chance to dream, the mineral incentive program. It is being augmented to the tune of $2 million to give a further chance to get closer to the day where production will be achieved. We are on the verge of concluding an agreement with the federal government that will produce an entitlement of some $30 million in a collective spirit.

Alas, not all is well in mining, for it was these people at the federal level who pulled the rug with the flowthrough share system. We are doing all we can in Ontario.

The Speaker: I hesitate to ask if the member would like a supplementary. No? Thank you.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Offer: My question is for the Minister of Inaction. I notice that I think all of them opened up their briefing books, but I will place it to the Minister of Labour.

The minister will remember, as we do, the announcement that he and the Premier made in the aftermath of the Massey-Varity sellout of plans for a wage protection fund. Last week bankruptcy statistics showed that, with the recession, Ontario is also in a deep bankruptcy crisis. All we have seen of this promise is the minister's directionless discussion paper, which lists literally dozens of options for what will be covered and how it will be paid for. They refuse to act at a time when action is necessary. People do not know what to expect or when.

Will the minister today confirm that any legislation he puts forward -- and that is a big "if," but if he does put forward any legislation -- will he commit today that there will be an opportunity for business and labour, public consultation on that legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member I would think knows that we have gone through a consultation process with the options that are there. The member should also know that when we bring in the legislation, and we will be taking a look at the options and presenting that legislation in this session of the House, at that point in time it will probably go out to committee and there will be a chance to participate in the discussions on that bill.

Mr Offer: The minister will then be aware, by his own admission, that the very earliest time for getting a wage protection fund in place will either be late fall or early winter of this year. That is the very earliest time, as the minister has now committed to public consultation after the tabling of this legislation. The Premier told workers in October to start lining up for their cheques. Thousands of workers have taken his advice. They have stood in line this past fall, this winter and, by his own admission, will have to continue to stand in line spring, fall and winter of this coming year.

Bankruptcies in this province have shot through the roof, and the minister has raised the roof even higher with expectations that he will keep his promise. Thousands of workers are now asking the question, when will the minister be bringing forward this legislation, and will he be bringing forward this legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member was not listening or he would have heard me say that he will see the legislation in this session of Parliament. We would like to see it through --

Mr Offer: You said that last session also.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No, we did not say last session. We would like to see it through before the House adjourns in June. We will make that effort. If I heard correctly from the member's leader, maybe we will be able to get it through the House by June, but he will see the legislation very shortly and we will see how fast we can work it through the House. That will depend to some extent on the members opposite.

INMATES' ACTIVITIES

Mr Carr: In the absence of the Minister of Correctional Services, I will address this to the Premier, if he could wait a quick moment. On the front page of the Toronto Star today there is a headline about eight convicted criminals who were sentenced to perform community work actually played volleyball during that period of time. Neither their agency, whose job it was to find the men work, nor the probation office knew the men were playing volleyball every Monday for three hours. Ad hoc volleyball games are breaking out across the province.

My question to the Premier is this: Will he instruct the Minister of Correctional Services, if the Premier does not believe this is appropriate, to review the procedures to eliminate this type of practice?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I am sure you will appreciate that the minister is very much in charge of this and I will refer the question to him. I obviously will bring it to his attention when I see him some time this week. I am not sure when he will be back. Obviously it is something of which he will want to be aware.

Mr Carr: I will then ask a supplementary to the Premier that hopefully he can answer. It is now spring in Ontario. There are a lot of things that need to be done in this province. There are river banks that could be cleaned up, there are trees that could be planted, hospitals and seniors' homes that need assistance, not to mention some border crossings that are looking for someone to direct traffic on Sundays. Will the Premier instruct, under the circumstances, the Minister of Correctional Services to have the people deal with some substantial issues and not spend time serving volleyballs?

The question comes to the fact that we have in this province a situation where people, when there are actual jobs that could be done by some of these people serving sentences, are in fact playing recreation. Will the Premier give us the commitment today that he will make sure they get off the court and get out there and do something constructive with their time?

Hon Mr Rae: As I said in my answer to the first question, I think the fairest way to respond is simply to say that I will raise it with the minister.

1500

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Cooper: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The government of Canada has decided to participate in the proposed North American free trade negotiations. The federal Minister for International Trade, the Honourable John Crosbie, is firmly behind these negotiations and feels they will produce a positive result for Canada.

I come from an area in Ontario which up until two years ago had the lowest unemployment rate in all of Canada. Many of the unemployed workers, especially in the automotive sector, feel their job loss is a direct result of the Canada-US free trade deal.

Would my colleague please tell the Legislature how Ontario views these negotiations and what Ontario will be doing in support of Ontario constituents when these negotiations commence?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: You're looking well rested.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I thank the member for Mississauga West.

The federal government has led Canada into yet another round of free trade and it is a direction which Ontario does not support. There are several reasons for this position in terms of trade and the likely economic gains for Ontario are minimal at best. We view the trilateral negotiations as an extension of the Canada-US free trade agreement, and that agreement has not worked for the people of this province.

Quite frankly, we do not see how this trade agreement with Mexico can be other than an exacerbation of what has already been an unfortunate circumstance for the workers and many companies of this province. We feel and have concerns that these negotiations could lead to even further concessions which would translate into increased adjustments for Canadians. To support these negotiations would be to imply that the federal government's performance to date in helping workers adjust to these layoffs and job losses has been okay, and that too has not been all right with this government nor is it likely to be. We are in fact not at all satisfied with the results of that free trade agreement.

However, I want to indicate to the House that the government is not opposed to multilateral trade and quite frankly supports GATT initiatives and the kind of trade liberalization which all of us have enjoyed in the past and hope to foster into the future.

Mr Turnbull: What are you going to do about it?

Mr Stockwell: Rip it up, just like you were going to do with the GST.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can understand that the opposition does not want to hear particularly from this side --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. Would you stop the clock, table. Would you restore 30 seconds to that, please. That is the time that I had stopped. It would be helpful if we try to have succinct answers to questions that are posed. Do we have a supplementary?

Mr Cooper: I understand that the President of Mexico, as well as the leader of the opposition in Mexico, will be paying a visit to Ontario early in April. Given the Ontario government's obvious opposition to the proposed trilateral negotiations, would the minister tell the Legislature if he intends to raise Ontario's concerns with these two visitors?

Hon Mr Pilkey: In light of the Speaker's very sage direction, yes, the Premier and I will be doing exactly that.

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr Cleary: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Can the minister clarify for this House whether or not he supports the St Lawrence Parks Commission's call for business partners in order that the five parks closed in February 1990 be opened and operated in a financially viable manner?

Hon Mr North: I appreciate the question from the member. Presently we are working together with the commission on some joint ventures, and one of the things that we are interested in is looking at ways that we can keep these parks open. We are very disappointed at the aspect that the parks have been closed. They were not closed, as members will understand, by our government, but we are doing everything that we can at this point, working with the commission, to look at the options that are available, and hopefully we will have something in the very near future. I thank the member for the question.

Mr Cleary: Can the minister guarantee for this House and for the people of eastern Ontario that the parks will be open this summer?

Hon Mr North: I will try to be as polite as I can about this. We are not the people who closed the parks. I am sure the member will understand and know who closed the parks.

Mr Bradley: But you're the government now. You have got the limo. You have got to give the answer.

Mr Runciman: This is a pretty big flip-flop.

Hon Mr North: You will understand, Mr Speaker, that they closed the parks; that was then. We will try to open the parks; this is now.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga South.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South was recognized before time had expired on the clock. I will allow her the opportunity to place a question and for a response.

ONTARIO FILM INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications and it concerns the Ontario film investment program, which he and I both know expires on 31 March unless this government renews the funding.

The minister also knows that the $15 million spent by the government on the program in the fiscal 1990-91 year generated $120 million worth of film production. In other words, the program creates jobs and stimulates the economic activity. He also knows that without an incentive program such as the Ontario film investment program, Ontario cannot compete with other jurisdictions like Quebec, which offers generous tax write-offs to investors in film production.

It is a very serious economic and cultural decision that this government should have made before this deadline expires, and we simply ask the minister today, will this government make a commitment to renew the Ontario film investment program in order to ensure that Canadian films continue to be made in Ontario and the revenue and jobs are generated that are so much needed?

Hon Mr Marchese: I am very well aware of the benefits of the film industry, in Ontario in particular. In fact, it generates $220 million worth of investment, so it is not a matter that we are not aware of.

We have met with all of the different industry people who have told us about the needs and the benefits to this government. I recognize those benefits. I also recognize that this film investment program was sunsetted for two years and we are now having to deal with this in terms of renewal. I can assure the member that we are looking at it with respect to all of the needs of the people of Ontario. I hope to be able to have an announcement very soon.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr Hansen: I present this petition on behalf of 214 residents of Lincoln. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to strongly urge the Legislative Assembly to enact laws which would protect the rights of the unborn child and to withdraw its decision to fund abortion clinics in Ontario.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

Mr Villeneuve: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" -- this is a petition signed by 356 people petitioning the government and the Ministry of Transportation to keep the licence-issuing office open, office number 440, 2nd Street West, in Cornwall, Ontario, and I agree with them.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill 41, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

M. Chiarelli propose la première lecture du projet de loi 41, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Chiarelli: The bill would amend the Environmental Protection Act by giving municipalities and, in territory without municipal organization, local service boards, the authority to make bylaws prohibiting the depositing of waste from outside the municipality or board at sites within the municipality or board area. The bylaws could prohibit this either absolutely or unless certain conditions set out in the bylaw were met.

The bylaws would be effective even in the case of a waste disposal site in respect of which the owner or operator had previously obtained an approval from the director under the Environmental Protection Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION / RAPPORT PROVISOIRE DU COMLTÉ SPÉCIAL SUR LE RÔLE DE L'ONTARIO AU SEIN DE LA CONFEDERATION

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

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

Hon Miss Martel: There has been an agreement among the three parties to divide the time evenly

Hon Mr Hampton: I am honoured to have this opportunity to address the Legislature on the future of Canada. It is indeed a privilege, as Attorney General, to participate in discussions which allow us to define the direction of future constitutional debates.

The report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation provides us with the framework of issues that need to be addressed as we talk about the future of Canada. I would like to commend the committee on the fine work it has done to this point. I know that their future work will contribute significantly in defining Ontario's role in helping to build a new Canada.

The constitution of any country cannot remain static. This is especially true in a country like Canada, where differences are encouraged, indeed celebrated. A constitution must reflect the changes that occur as a country evolves and as international influences are brought to bear upon our lives. The status quo is no longer acceptable. The events of the last year clearly pointed out that changes must be made.

A united Canada by necessity must include the first nations and Quebec. This is the cornerstone upon which all discussions must be rooted. We must be committed to working towards making the fundamental structural changes necessary to keep Quebec in Canada and accord the first nations their legitimate position in this country.

With this debate, Canada has the opportunity to build a new Canada that is based upon what we share in common and at the same time recognizes the unique perspectives that exist in this country. We have an opportunity to have our constitutional laws, conventions and practices reflect our goals for social and economic justice.

Canadians have a lot in common. No matter where we live, whether it is a large urban centre like Toronto or a small northern community such as the one I come from, we all deserve a certain quality of life and believe that standards should be shared by all. This quality of life includes things like food on the table, shelter, security, friendship, dignity and accessible and affordable health care. These form the basis for the common values that bring us together and define our identity.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982 is one expression of our shared values. However, it is important to recognize that respect for fundamental rights did not begin in 1982. Prior to 1982 many provinces, including Ontario, had passed human rights codes and, of course, the federal government had enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights. The charter succeeded in securing for the people of the country rights which could not be legislated away by any government of the day.

Let us not underestimate how important Canadians view those rights. Without question, Canadians have a real sense of the significance the charter plays in their day-to-day lives. I believe it is important to continue to pursue not just constitutional means of securing our fundamental rights but also through expanding protection through legislative initiatives such as the human rights codes and pay equity. The notion must be reflected through changes made to the institutions that govern our lives.

The committee emphasized the importance of involving women in any process of change, as well as the importance of affirming gender equality as a fundamental value shared by Canadians. The equality of women is fundamental to their continued meaningful participation in society and is recognized in section 15 and section 28 of the charter. With 52% of the population in Canada being women, it is simply unacceptable to consider constitutional negotiations without full and complete representation of women from all backgrounds at every level of future discussions. This alone is sufficient reason to oppose constitutional amendments drafted solely by male first ministers. Women must be at the table.

J'aimerais prendre quelques minutes pour parler de certaines des différences que nous célébrons en tant que Canadiens. Dans son rapport, la commission d'enquête affirme l'importance de la protection des langues des minorités. J'appuie l'affirmation de ces droits importants. Ici en Ontario la Loi sur les services en français garantit certains droits et services aux citoyens francophones. Nous devons continuer à bâtir sur cette importante initiative.

The committee points to the important contributions made to the development of this country by individuals of other cultural and racial heritages than aboriginal, English and French peoples. The importance of Canada's multicultural heritage has been recognized in the charter, which makes clear that it is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. These guarantees are important and need to be affirmed.

The committee also, through a number of presentations by disabled individuals, was able to obtain a better understanding of the barriers they face to full participation in society. Although the charter specifically guarantees that individuals with disabilities be treated equally, there are structural, institutional and attitudinal changes that must be made in order to secure full participation in our society. I fully support the committee's initiative to continue to explore these issues.

1520

As we build a new Canada, respect for and affirmation of both individual and collective rights will continue to be a central shared value. Collective rights and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. It is important that we reflect upon and recognize that there must be both a balance between competing rights and a balance of individual rights in the interest of the broader community as expressed through democratic institutions.

I would like to discuss another important issue. No debate can take place without the active participation of the first nations and the consideration of their legitimate position in this country. I am pleased to see that the matter of justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples was one on which there was the widest consensus before the committee. Aboriginal peoples had functioning societies for thousands of years before we Europeans arrived, with their own social and justice codes that worked well for them. We recognize that aboriginal people have the inherent right to self-government based on their occupation of the land prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Within days of becoming government, the Premier formally recognized the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. Self-government is more than a land claim agreement. It is more than a piece of paper. Self-government means community control over all aspects of everyday life, including not only those decisions that address physical needs but also those decisions that embrace the spiritual needs of a people.

Governments have for too long adopted a paternalistic approach towards aboriginal peoples. We who are responsible for creating geographic prisons must now ensure that control over the institutions and services that affect the lives of the people of the first nations is returned to them. The first nations must be at the table. I believe that future constitutional discussions must address the entrenchment of the principle of aboriginal self-government. I believe that aboriginal peoples must fully participate in the important decisions that affect them.

We must address issues such as protection of traditional values, quality of life, resources, language, education, family relations and the care of children, economic opportunities, land claim negotiations and the administration of justice. After the first nations have defined their priorities, we must work with them to identify the resources necessary to enable them to develop their own solutions. Indeed, the consensus that the select committee heard across the province provides a strong mandate to this government as it pursues its agenda on self-government, land claims and improvement in quality of life within aboriginal communities. I repeat, no debate can take place without the first nations.

Another area I wish to address is the issue of regional disparity. I admit that my comments reflect in great measure my own experience as an individual who comes not from the heartland of Ontario but from the hinterland of Ontario and the hinterland of Canada, often referred to as one of those have-not regions. Where I come from, the public sentiment most frequently expressed is that of being on the outside looking in.

I grew up watching television, listening to radio and reading newspapers from Winnipeg, which expressed western Canadian views and political grievances. I have great empathy with the often expressed view that too many important decisions in our country are made from the central Canada, southern Ontario and Quebec perspective, while the rest of Canada is asked to tag along.

As someone from northern Ontario, I know well the struggles faced by people living in regions that do not include Metro Toronto. Most discussions regarding regionalism in this country focus on five distinct geographic areas -- the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and the territories -- but in fact the northern region of this country, from east to west, shares a way of life which is completely different from that which is experienced by 80% of Canadians who live below the 49th parallel. A person who lives in a town in northern Ontario shares more common values with a person who lives in northern Quebec than with a person who lives in Toronto.

Regional disparity is not an interprovincial issue. Residents in northern Ontario, in this richest of provinces, suffer from chronic underemployment and reduced opportunities. Have-not regions are not only financially poorer but their economic base is more narrow and more fragile. As a result, there needs to be extra attention paid to what elsewhere might just be weathered as a downturn in the economy.

Since the time of Confederation, governments in Canada have been aware of the disparities in services, rights and opportunities that exist between regions of the country and between regions within a province. Although sharing has long been a fundamental value to Canadians and an active government role in promoting equity between persons in regions has been a persistent theme of our history, the assistance has been ad hoc, piecemeal and often tardy.

In 1982, we took a major step forward. All governments agreed to enshrine in the Constitution, through section 36, an open-ended recognition and commitment that all Canadians, wherever they may live, enjoy equal economic opportunity and essential public services without an extra tax burden. Section 36 has been given little more than lipservice by past and present governments, and that is a very sad fact. One only has to look at northern Ontario to ascertain the devastation brought about by the loss of federal financial commitment to national programs and the special impact of constraints in economically vulnerable regions as we struggle through an economic slowdown.

As the committee examines the relationship between constitutional and economic change, economic disparities must be given a full hearing. We need to determine what type of national structure, operating under what rules, will help us to meet our goals for social and economic justice.

Let me repeat: Canadians have a lot in common. They have a common right to quality of life that must be ensured and protected through a strong central government. Our national institutions must be strong enough to protect our quality of life, yet be flexible enough to allow for the redefinition of particular needs and concerns that are evident in the different regions of our country.

We need a strong Canada. It does not and cannot exist in isolation. We must be assured that Canada, through institutional means, represents and protects our interests in the international arena. Canada must be a strong participant within the context of the global community as it evolves. It seems out of step to consider fragmenting into a number of isolated regions while other nations are grouping together to form strong and protective alliances. At the same time, we have to consider the type of changes necessary to ensure that regional differences and concerns are represented in our federal institutions.

As we debate again what it means to be a Canadian, we must ensure that we identify the economic, cultural and social values essential to us as Canadians. As I read the report of the committee, I saw time and time again the awareness of the people of Ontario of the complexity of the debate. The majority of people in Ontario care deeply about Canada remaining whole. They understand the importance of affording the first nations their legitimate place in Canada, accommodating Quebec's special needs and maintaining a vital and productive economy in the face of American economic power. Many contributors, especially from northern Ontario, expressed the need for our constitutional discussions and reforms to address the worsening plight of the have-not regions of Canada. The message is clear: Any constitutional reform package must address the current manifestations of the dominating themes of Canada's history.

1530

I believe that to a great extent we find ourselves in political and constitutional difficulties now because too many of our political leaders over the past 25 years have either not understood or too frequently ignored the depth and breadth of our constitutional fabric. Consider, for example, the alienated message that is inherent for agriculturally based western Canada when a Prime Minister elected from the heartland of Canada tells western farmers that he has no responsibility to help sell their wheat in the midst of a severe 1970s agricultural recession. Consider also the tears in our constitutional fabric that resulted when the federal government of the day in 1980 insisted that it had the right and power to unilaterally amend our Constitution without regard to the opposition or aspirations of dissenting provinces, the first nations or our minority communities; or again, the implementation of a Canada-US trade agreement on the basis of a narrow economic agenda while trying to ignore the impact on some of our most symbolic national institutions. This cuts to the heart of our sense of what it means to be a Canadian in the shadow of American economic power and political ambition.

I believe, likewise, that there is much that we can learn and must learn from the failure of the Meech Lake accord. We must appreciate that the process surrounding the 1982 amendments to our Constitution and the Constitution Act of 1982 itself substantially altered the constitutional reform process for the future. Canadians who had never been heard from before, or whose voices were easily ignored in the past, became passionately involved in our constitutional process. Women, aboriginal people, multicultural groups, language minorities and people with disabilities entered the 1981-82 debate and spoke with a strong collective voice. Their place in Canada could not be ignored.

After people fought long and hard from 1980 to 1982 for important constitutional changes, it was a critical error to believe that they could be excluded from the Meech Lake discussions. The public reaction to the closed-door, backroom boys approach was negative and became overwhelmingly so when attempts at public participation in the Meech Lake process were rebuffed.

I believe the public's opposition to the Meech Lake closed-door approach has been well documented by the committee. The committee report states:

"The need of the people of Ontario both to participate in constitutional discussions and to be kept informed of their progress was raised time and again. Closed-door meetings of first ministers were strongly criticized There can be little doubt that the Meech Lake process left people with a profound sense of disenfranchisement."

I believe that the committee is absolutely correct in its view that in its next stage it must find innovative ways that ensure effective public participation in the whole of the constitutional reform process. Failure on the part of Ontario or other provinces to find creative ways to ensure meaningful and effective public participation in ongoing constitutional reform discussions is bound to lead to the same public backlash that surrounded the Meech Lake accord and ultimately led to its defeat.

The committee report on page 26 states:

"Many witnesses commented on Ontario's role in negotiating and creating a new constitutional arrangement. It was argued that Ontario should play a leadership role in constitutional negotiations both because of its historically close relationship with, and proximity to, Quebec, as well as its size and economic strength within the Canadian Confederation."

The committee's position, as stated, is: "We agree with those witnesses who argued that Ontario should promote...native and language issues; cultural diversity; and free trade."

I want to argue that Ontario, because of our history and geographic location, has a unique and perhaps even a critical role to play in the ongoing constitutional reform discussions. I believe there is much that English-speaking Canada needs to say to Quebec. We need to point out to Quebec that the failure of the Meech Lake accord was not intended as a rejection of Quebec and should not be regarded as such by Quebec. This is a very difficult task -- some would say it is an impossible task -- but someone must attempt to do it, and Ontario may be in the best position to make the statement.

For a number of reasons there is a great deal of misunderstanding across our country as to the meaning of the constitutional processes and events that have occurred in Canada over the past decade. Ontario must attempt to lead the discussion on the different interpretations that exist across Canada about those constitutional processes and events. While it may not be possible to achieve agreement on what has happened in the decade of the 1980s, it may be possible to at least achieve some common understanding.

As Attorney General, I look forward to the process that lies ahead with a sense of excitement and not a little trepidation: excitement because of the potential to build a new Canada which reflects the shared values of 25 million Canadians; trepidation because so much is at stake: the very future of Canada. I am honoured to play a role in this endeavour, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make these preliminary observations today.

Mr Sorbara: It is a pleasure for me to join in this debate, particularly following the Attorney General. I want to say to him that I listened carefully to his remarks and I want to congratulate him for what he has had to say today on the issue of Canada's Constitution. It appears that he worked on remarks that were appropriate to the occasion, and I am reminded that the Premier has said on many occasions, and other premiers before him, that this issue really is not a partisan issue; it is one that we all join in together, trying to find, in this case, solutions that are appropriate for not only our province but this great nation.

I want to begin by congratulating the members of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, and in doing so, to say a specific word of congratulations to the member for Dovercourt, who as a new member of the assembly took on a very challenging responsibility as he chaired that committee. The other members of the committee, each of the members of the committee worked diligently, I am told, from very early in the morning until very late at night, for days and days and days, and travelled on a schedule that I think no other committee in the history of this Legislature has matched.

I want to say a specific word about the contributions of our own members of that committee, that is, the member for York North, the member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for Mississauga North. As it turns out, given that we have just come out of an election some six months ago, those members, along with the member for Parry Sound, really represented on the committee the voice and the ears of experience. I think what they did, besides listening diligently and questioning thoroughly the witnesses who came before that committee, is they shared their own experience as to the conduct of select committees and therefore, I think, helped the new members of the committee, those from the New Democratic Party and from the third party as well.

1540

I just should say in that regard that the first report of the select committee will add significantly to the debate that is now going on in Canada on the question of the future of the Canadian Constitution and amendments that are to be made thereto. I do, however, look forward to the committee's second report -- I presume that that will be its final report. I say that because this first report, as thorough as it is, sets down some basic principles that the committee thinks must be taken into consideration as we continue to examine this question. We will look forward down the road to the comments that the committee will have after its next round of work and the investigations that it will be making in conjunction with that next round of work.

I must say that in order for the committee to do that work effectively, there will come a time -- I would suggest to the Chairman of the committee and to the members of this House -- very, very soon when this committee, the members of this House and the people of this province will have to hear from the Premier of the province of Ontario and have to hear from the government of the province of Ontario what their views are in respect of constitutional change. I do not think that issue and the question of where the Premier is coming from can come any too soon.

There is a long history in this province, a history summed up as eloquently as it could ever be done by my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand in a speech about a month ago to members of our own party --

Mr Nixon: A great speech.

Mr Sorbara: It was a great speech, indeed, I say to my leader. But in that speech the member for Brant-Haldimand made it perfectly clear that there is a powerful historical tradition in the province of Ontario of premiers of this province taking a strong leadership role whenever this country has been confronted with constitutional issues.

In recent memory, David Peterson fought very strongly right across Canada to try to ensure that the Meech Lake accord was passed. He was one of the key players in the negotiation of that accord and one of the key players in the attempt to have the Meech Lake accord passed. As my leader said a month ago in that speech, he paid the political consequences for taking that leadership role.

If you go back a few years before that, Premier John Robarts and the establishment of the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference really set the agenda for almost 20 years and, I think, took the steps that led directly to the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 under the leadership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

So the committee and the province await word from the Premier of Ontario as to where he stands and what he thinks needs to be done in order to get us beyond the current constitutional impasse that seems to be impeding progress in Canada. This issue cannot be underestimated, because until we hear from the Premier, all of the rest of the work that is going on in Canada is going to have to await final resolution.

The work of the Bélanger-Campeau commission is about to be presented in the province of Quebec. We know very well where Jacques Parizeau stands on the Canadian Constitution and we know well where Premier Bourassa stands on the Constitution.

Premier Frank McKenna has spoken out strongly about his views as to where we should be going. Premier Clyde Wells of the province of Newfoundland has made his views very clear. He has called on a number of occasions for the creation of a constituents' assembly in which we could vest the authority for leading us, guiding us, through the constitutional dilemma that we face right now. Other premiers, certainly, throughout western Canada have made their views clear. The Premier of Alberta has been eloquent in his call for and defence of a reconstituted Senate, the so-called triple E Senate.

Indeed, the Premier of the province when he was in opposition spoke eloquently and passionately and in great detail and with great intelligence as to where he thought Ontario should be going. I remember the standing ovation that he received in this very House when he explained to the members of this House and to the province generally why his party was supporting the passage of the Meech Lake accord. He received a standing ovation. It was a passionate speech. It was a brilliant speech and it was delivered with an understanding of the constitutional issues that this country faces of a level that few of us can ever hope to reach for.

The results and the realities of 6 September 1990 are that the Premier, who was at that time the Leader of the Opposition, has now assumed a different responsibility, and we anxiously await the direction that he can provide for the province of Ontario in resolving our constitutional dilemma.

While awaiting his direction, there are just two or three things that I would like to say at this point in time in the debate. Now that the committee has reported to the House, members of the House have an opportunity to make some few comments, and that is what I propose to do today in the brief time available to me.

I think there are two issues that we should remind ourselves of as we move towards a more thorough discussion in the House. Two myths in this debate desperately need to be corrected before we can make any real progress, I believe.

The first issue is that, in repatriating the Constitution and bringing to the Constitution a Charter of Rights in 1982, the rest of Canada did not reject the province of Quebec. In fact, as so eloquently described by the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau just a few days ago across the street at Convocation Hall, when he delivered, I think, an eloquent examination of the so-called patriation case that the Supreme Court heard in 1981, there was absolutely no rejection of the province of Quebec as the patriation process went from consideration in the House of Commons to legislatures to the Supreme Court of Canada and, finally, to Her Majesty the Queen for ratification.

In fact, Mr Trudeau in his speech reminded us that when the House of Commons voted for repatriation of the Constitution and the inclusion in it of a Charter of Rights, some 71 of the 74 members of the House of Commons from the Province of Quebec supported the address to Her Majesty for repatriation of the Constitution. Indeed, some 35 members of the Legislature of the province of Quebec voted in favour of repatriation as well, and as he pointed out, that represented on a weighted average 65% of all of the representatives from the province of Quebec, both federal and provincial, who expressed their support for repatriation of the Constitution.

Above and beyond that, as he pointed out -- I am just repeating here -- public opinion polls taken at that time, in 1982 in the province of Quebec, suggested that there was overwhelming support for bringing the Canadian Constitution to Canada, finally, after some 59 years of trying. That exercise was broadly and generally and strongly supported by the people of Quebec, so that in 1984, when the government changed in Ottawa and the new Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, started to suggest that an historic wrong had been done to the people of Quebec by repatriation, it was really the now Prime Minister of Canada that was foisting some deceit on the Canadian people. That, I think, is at the heart of the problems that we confront today.

The second myth that I think needs to be corrected as we carry on with this debate is the myth that goes as follows, that the failure of the Meech Lake accord was somehow a rejection by the people of Canada outside of the province of Quebec of the interests and the needs of the people of Quebec in that constitutional exercise.

1550

If we have a look at what happened during the Meech Lake debate, it is clear, at least in my understanding of it, that there was no rejection of the aspirations of the people of Quebec in the failure of Meech Lake. Indeed, this assembly and every other assembly in Canada but for the assembly of the province of Manitoba passed Meech Lake. Yes, in Newfoundland, under the leadership of Clyde Wells, that assent to the Meech Lake accord was rescinded. But even Clyde Wells was prepared finally, after the famous Langevin meeting, to accept the Meech Lake accord in the interest of all of Canada.

There was really only one legislator, in the province of Manitoba, who, in powerful, eloquent and passionate parliamentary style, brought about, I suggest, the demise of the Meech Lake accord. We have to accept that for better or for worse. I think that Elijah Harper, in doing what he did, was making a powerful statement about the status of aboriginal peoples in Canada, and we accept that. The Attorney General himself, who, I regret, has not been able to stay for the rest of this debate, made the point about -- I wrote down his remarks. He said there shall be no further debate without the participation of Canada's first nations, and I agree with that.

Elijah Harper took the opportunity to make a point, but he made a point within the context that every other Legislature was prepared to pass, in the case of Manitoba, or had passed the Meech Lake accord and had adopted it as a resolution of each of the assemblies in Canada.

It was a very difficult debate. Those of us who were here at that time remember what a struggle it was, not because of what was sought by the people of Quebec -- legitimate aspirations, I believe, each one of them -- but because in trying to respond to those aspirations, as every parliamentarian in Canada attempted to do and every province in Canada attempted to do and I think every individual in Canada attempted to do, there was increasing concern that it was inappropriate to have a so-called Quebec round. I think I can understand that. I think if one thinks about the history of our aboriginal peoples, one can understand why it was such an affront to think about having a so-called Quebec round.

If one thinks about the historic yearnings of other regions of Canada, including the western provinces and British Columbia, for significant and substantive constitutional reform, one can understand why some areas of Canada and some legislators in Canada and some parliamentarians felt that it was inappropriate to have a socalled Quebec round.

If we return to the first myth that I talk about, which is that Quebec had been rejected in 1982 -- it had not been rejected in 1982 -- we can understand why so many parts of Canada and so many of us felt that real constitutional reform would not happen by undertaking a Quebec round, but by undertaking a process that looked at a wide variety of constitutional issues that currently and still confront Canada.

So where are we to go from here? I would be presumptuous in the extreme if I suggested to anyone in this House that I had all or any of the answers, but I just want to put three points on the record.

First of all, I think that the government of Ontario, this assembly and the people of Ontario have to continue to exercise the role that they have historically exercised in Canada on these matters; that is to say, our interests have to go beyond our borders. If the government of Ontario takes a new approach, and that is to say an approach that puts the interests of Ontario first, we are in grave danger of having this debate deteriorate to an extremely acrimonious one.

Historically Ontario has articulated the interest that it has in Confederation and made that a part of the agenda, but has gone well beyond that to try to understand and explain beyond its borders the importance of a strong fabric for Confederation from sea to sea to sea. I plead with the Premier, as he reflects on the way in which he will articulate sooner or later Ontario's position, to remember that historic role, that the interests of Ontario do not stop at the borders of Ontario but spread right across this nation.

The second point I want to suggest to this House is that we ought not to fear a significant reform of the allocation of powers within Canada. That is to say that I do not believe that there is anything particularly sacred in section 91 and section 92 of the British North America Act. The division of powers such as they are, such as they were established in 1867 and modified through a variety of amendments over the past 124 years, has served us moderately well, but they are not sacred. There is nothing, I think, sacred in suggesting that property and civil rights must remain a so-called matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

For example, we regulate the Ontario Securities Commission exclusively in the province of Ontario now. I do not think it would be sacrilegious to say that in re-examining which government should do what, that we might want to look at allowing the federal government to regulate securities in Canada. I think we should consider doing that if it makes sense, given the way in which other jurisdictions organize themselves, to have constitutional responsibility for securities being vested in the federal government. I do not think that reforms of that significance should be considered anathema. I use securities just as one example.

I think that as we continue down this road, no document should be rejected out of hand. I heard some reaction, for example, to the so-called Allaire report suggesting that it was a recipe for the end of Canada. I am not attracted to the Allaire report. I think it has very significant weaknesses. I think that the powers that it takes away from the federal government and that the powers it wants to vest exclusively in the federal government would leave Ottawa with very few of the economic and social and cultural levers that are, in my view, necessary to ensure that there is a strong Canadian Confederation.

But let's not reject it out of hand. Let's invite further discussion not only on that document but on all of the other documents that are being generated, including the Bélanger-Campeau commission report when it comes out in a very few days.

The third point, the third principle that I would like to point to today is that in redefining ourselves as a people, rebuilding the foundation of this country, reconstituting ourselves, rewriting the documents that are the underpinnings for all of our other laws, I think it is important to remember that in the absence of a strong central government, each of the participants, each of the provinces and the territories and each of the regions of Canada are going to be, I believe, very seriously threatened by the kind of forces that are at work in the world today. The globalization of the economies of nations and the world community is such that Canada will need to have a central authority, a central government, that is able to bind us together and unite our regional economic strengths and our regional cultural strengths and the individualism of our various communities across Canada into a strong central authority. We need to be looking at our Constitution in ways that give us the ability to reconfigure ourselves to meet the world community in a way that allows us to be as significant and even more significant a player than we have been in the past. If we simply try to rewrite the Constitution to respond to the urgent pressures of today or the disaffections of today or the grievances of today and we fail to look at a longer-term and a stronger Canadian nation, then I think that we will be doing a disservice to our children.

1600

The constitutional law of the country is not like the laws that we pass here. Once we have torn away the foundation upon which all of our other laws are based, there is an urgent need to reconstruct that foundation to support all of the other things that we are going to be doing for decades and decades to come. I think that the process we are undergoing now provides each of us with a marvellous opportunity to reshape Canada into a nation that is not only the pride of our children, but the pride of every other nation in the world.

Mr Eves: It is a privilege and an honour for me to participate in this debate this afternoon, as indeed it has been a privilege and an honour to serve on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I am perhaps either luckier or unluckier than some other members of the House in that I have had the privilege of serving on the two preceding constitutional committees that this Legislature has had, one to deal with the Meech Lake accord and one to deal with the issue of Senate reform in the country.

I would like at the outset to compliment the Chairman of the committee, who I think did an excellent job with a very, very difficult time line, subject matter and logistically overwhelming task from time to time.

I would also like to congratulate the committee members, perhaps many of them more so than myself, because of the fact that many of them endured just about every, if not every, single session that the committee held throughout the province. I cannot stand here in the House and say that, although I think I did attend more than 50%. The member for Willowdale and others certainly did more than that and then some. It was indeed an arduous process, but one that I think was very worth while.

I think that the issue of the Constitution of one's country and related issues are really issues that should be and are appropriately above partisan political debate. If I had my way, and I have had this discussion with previous leaders in my party and I know that other parties have had this discussion as well, I do not think that there is a place for a whip to vote on an issue such as amending the Constitution of one's country. That certainly was the case in this House with respect to the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party in the last several votes that were been taken with respect to the Meech Lake accord and an amended version thereto, or companion resolutions, as they were referred to. I certainly hope that will be the tack that is taken in the future.

I think that the committee has barely scratched the surface, unfortunately for the committee members, with respect to this very important and overwhelming issue. I have the personal opinion that the time line given to this committee is too short to accomplish the very serious task that has been given to it. I say that in a very constructive critical fashion, not a political critical fashion. I think the time line for the interim report was quite arduous but, more important, I think that to expect this committee to deal with the issues that it has raised in its interim report and come to some conclusion or recommendation with respect to them by 27 June, I believe, of this year is going to be wellnigh impossible if it is going to do its task correctly.

I have unfortunately a slight sense of déjà vu about this because I can recall being placed in this position with the issue of the Meech Lake accord as well, with similar time lines. Although I must say that this committee has been somewhat more open than the previous committee on the Meech Lake accord was, I do not think that our efforts to date have been quite as focused as perhaps they could have been. Hopefully in the second phase of our deliberations we will become somewhat more focused with respect to the issues that we have to deal with.

I believe that before we can understand where we are going in this whole issue of the country and the Constitution, we have to understand where we have been, before we can fully appreciate the situation that we have before us and how we propose to deal with it. I might say that I was cheered by the enthusiasm that many of the relatively new members of the Legislature from all sides of the House displayed during our deliberations. I think that on one or two occasions perhaps some of the new government members were a little more partisan than they had to be; however, that is the way of the world, I suppose. Perhaps after they have served on some other committees they will come to appreciate that this committee is not the place to indulge in trying to score political points on political issues, especially when the issue that we are supposed to be focused on is the Constitution of the country.

During the Meech Lake process, there were several items that were not dealt with -- at least, I felt they were not dealt with -- appropriately in the Meech Lake accord. That debate started, as members will recall, in 1987. We voted on the Meech Lake accord, as it then was, in this House on 29 June 1988. I am proud to say that I am one of the eight members who stood in his or her place and voted against the Meech Lake accord on 29 June 1988 because of the serious shortcomings I felt that document had. In fact, I felt so strongly about them that I wrote a minority report which was signed by myself and the member for Nipissing, who is now the leader of our party. I would just like to repeat a few comments out of that minority report, because I think they are very, very relevant to the debate on the Constitution today. The issues that were overlooked then we hopefully will be addressing today.

"We begin our minority opinion by making it clear that we support the recommendations contained in the majority report. However, it is our view that they do not go far enough.

"We recognize that the recommendations contained within the report are not ideal. They are however acceptable to all members of the select committee and as such provide a vehicle through which the entire Legislature can indicate its concerns. The recommendations represent a first step towards addressing many of the concerns raised in testimony before the select committee.

"Our minority opinion is based on the response of the government members to the whole issue of charter rights. We believe the problem is a serious one, calling for more direct action on the part of the Ontario government than the recommendations in the majority report call for.

"The majority report clearly outlines most of the concerns which this committee heard on the impact of clauses 1 and 16 of the accord on the rights and freedoms within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will not repeat those concerns here.

"We would, however, like to make special mention of testimony of the various women's groups who appeared before the committee. Their concern that the accord would jeopardize those rights they had fought so hard to protect in 1982 was well articulated and deeply felt. They presented strong arguments that clause 16, by protecting two sections of the charter from any impact of clause 1, could create a hierarchy of rights in which those two sections would be protected from any adverse effect while the remainder of the charter would be vulnerable.

"They pointed out that the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Bill 30 Reference Case, ruled that the charter could not be used to prevent a government from exercising powers granted in another section of the Constitution, even if the exercise of that power did result in a violation of rights guaranteed by the charter.

"The groups suggested possible laws which could be enacted under clause 1 to preserve and promote the fundamental characteristics of Canada and the distinct identity of Quebec and which could adversely affect rights guaranteed by the charter. These scenarios caused us to be concerned about the potential impact of the accord, not only on equality rights guaranteed under section 15 of the charter, but on all the rights covered in the charter.

1610

"While we recognize that the 11 first ministers and many legal experts who appeared before the committee believed that nothing in the accord will negatively affect charter rights, we are also aware of the vast amount of expert opinion presented to the committee which indicates the opposite.

"We believe that there exists at the very least ambiguity over the issue. We further believe that the government of Ontario should take immediate steps to resolve this ambiguity. The issue of the impact of the accord on charter rights is an important one and, as such, the people of Ontario and Canada should not be left with a large constitutional question mark hanging over their heads.

"As a result, we proposed that the committee recommend that the government of Ontario refer the matter to the courts for an opinion. To effect this referral, we have put before the committee the following court reference drafted by Morris Manning, QC. We appreciate Mr Manning's non-partisan work on the reference and his willingness to take the time to assist the committee on this important issue.

"He has written an excellent reference. It clearly identifies all the major legal questions raised before this committee on the impact of the accord on charter rights and addresses the concerns about the nature of a reference raised by the Attorney General in his brief to the committee.

"Mr Manning framed the...reference in language similar in breadth to the questions in Reference re an Act to amend the Education Act (the Separate School Funding Case) (1986) and those in Reference re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada (the Patriation Reference) (1981)."

Unfortunately, if the province of Ontario had adopted that course of action back in 1988, I do not think that we would have had as much of a problem with the Meech Lake accord as we ultimately did, with the 11 first ministers, who absolutely refused to change one comma, one word in the document that they had agreed upon in June 1987.

Similarly, my colleague and I put forward -- and I am not going to read from the report word for word -- other resolutions about issues that we thought were important enough that they should be dealt with. They included aboriginal rights. We put forward a very succinct and direct resolution to amend the Constitution Amendment, 1987, to include the following clause: "the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada." That wording was not mine; it was the wording of the aboriginal delegations themselves.

We put forward a resolution similarly about the multicultural nature of this country that we call Canada, and it read as follows: "The recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that help shape Canadian society."

If we would have addressed those concerns -- instead of saying "we," I mean the province of Ontario -- back in 1988 and 1989, and if all 11 first ministers had not waited until the 11th hour to deal with an issue that was quite obvious to a lot of concerned people who appeared before the previous committee in the years 1987 and 1988, I do not think we would be standing here in this House today debating the Constitution and the constitutional dilemma that we find ourselves in.

I did not serve on the steering committee, so I perhaps should not say too much about this, but I was somewhat concerned about the fact that direction was given to a consultant firm with respect to an outreach program to encourage various groups to come before the committee. I guess I understand, because I understand the difficult time lines that the committee was operating under and I understand that especially during the first two weeks, when the committee was travelling extensively throughout northwestern and northeastern Ontario, it was important that the public be given notice of what was going on. I do not have much quarrel with that, if any.

The difficulty I have is that by selectively picking out groups in society that we are going to reach out to get to appear before the committee, we are effectively cutting off other groups. We are telling them, "You're not as important as native groups." My history on native rights speaks for itself, so I do not have to stand here and defend it in this House today, but that really is the message that they are indirectly, I think, giving to other people, and they are spending a considerable amount of taxpayers' dollars to do it.

I would certainly hope that when we come to whatever conclusion this committee comes to and whatever recommendations it makes, they will be debated, and voted upon, I might add, in a truly non-partisan and direct fashion in this House.

I was reading last evening with interest the results of the vote on 29 June 1988, when we voted on the first version of the Meech Lake accord presented to this Legislature. I read with interest because the names of the member for Rainy River and the member for York South appear voting in favour of the unamended, unaltered Meech Lake accord, and yet at the same time, members of that party -- which I think, as I have already said, is appropriate -- names like the member for Cambridge and the former member for Scarborough West, Mr Johnston, and the member for Nickel Belt appear among the eight voting against the Meech Lake accord. Mr Johnston, as I recall, delivered a particularly eloquent speech in the House that day about the concerns that he had about the Meech Lake accord, about women's groups, about native groups, about people in the territories being cut off and not being treated the same as other Canadians anywhere else and in different occupations, races or genders as other Canadians in society.

I think that if there is one thing this committee has heard, it is that indeed those concerns are still out there. Those people have grave concerns about what this country means to them, how this country treats them, whether they have the same rights as all other Canadians have.

I must say that I was very impressed by the sincerity and the feeling that many individuals and groups brought to the committee hearings in these deliberations. I think, if anything, it certainly restored my faith in tolerance. At least, the majority of the delegations that appeared before the committee certainly restored my faith in the level of tolerance that the average Ontarian has for his and her fellow person in society today. Surely if we all exude that type of goodwill and willingness to find a reasonable compromise to this issue, that is not an impossible task by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like, before I talk about the report itself, briefly to touch upon a couple of comments the member for York Centre made a few moments ago. He may well be correct that rejection of the Meech Lake accord was not a rejection of Quebec. I happen to believe that, but unfortunately not everybody believes that, and unfortunately not everybody in the province of Quebec believes that, including perhaps, I dare say, the Premier of the province of Quebec and the leader of the official opposition in the province of Quebec; hence, I think, the problem that we have in the country today and some of the problems that have arisen or manifested themselves in the Allaire report.

1620

The other item that I would like to discuss that was commented upon by the member for York Centre is about the 1982 Constitution Act. As we know, Quebec was not a signatory, and I disagree with the member for York Centre, because I think that particular piece of legislation or that act was indeed a deal. It was a deal made among 10 first ministers. It was the best that they thought they could do at the time. But I have to say that the one major concession that was made, and I can understand the former Prime Minister of Canada being highly sensitive about this issue, but the reality is that the "notwithstanding" clause has caused this country no end of problems ever since.

It has caused a problem with respect to Quebec language laws.

It has caused, in my opinion, an overreaction by the rest of Canada in responding to the same, and I think that is very unfortunate, but I do not think you can divorce one from the other in this debate. I think they are all encompassed in the same problem, and I think we have to understand and direct our attention to what has gone on in the past and how we can avoid those mistakes, as I refer to them, in the future if we are going to have any hope of proceeding on an amicable and worthwhile basis to resolving these dilemmas.

Members will recall, no doubt, that after it looked like the initial Meech Lake accord was not going to fly, at a relatively belated date the idea of companion resolutions became more and more acceptable to the federal government and others, including the government of the day in the province of Ontario, and some of these concerns were quite similar to the minority report in this House but went a little further.

Perhaps the Premier of New Brunswick was the most eloquent in voicing what he thought could be a reasonable compromise to a very difficult situation by way of companion resolutions. He dealt with the issue of women's equality. He dealt with the issues of territories having the ability to become provinces. He dealt with the issue of the individuals living in the territories having the right to be appointed to the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada. He dealt with the issue of promoting minority language rights across the country. He dealt with the issue in his own province of having the official bilingual status in New Brunswick recognized. He dealt with the issue of regional disparity. He wanted to deal with the issue of Senate reform, and he wanted to deal with the issue of aboriginal rights.

As a result of that, an amended version of the accord, or the proposed amendments to the Constitution of 1867, were debated in this House and that was the vote that took place in June 1990 here. It talked about including the territories. It talked about an amendment to the New Brunswick act. It talked about participation of aboriginal peoples and their guaranteed participation in the future. It talked about eliminating the ambiguity over women's rights. It talked about in some sense -- not as well as I would have liked, but in some sense -- the issue of Senate reform.

How unfortunate it is that we waited until it was too late, as hindsight has it now, to deal with these issues. If those 11 first ministers, and they cover all political stripes, I believe, would not have been so dogmatic and so entrenched in their position in 1987 through to 1990, I think we could have resolved this issue. If we had seriously sat down and thought about dealing with the issue in the years 1988, 1989 and the beginning months of 1990, we would not be standing in this House today debating this. We could have found a compromise and an accommodation to all those groups that would have been satisfactory to them. I hope that we have all learned a lesson that we will not repeat out of that exercise.

I want to talk about the findings of the interim report of the committee. The first section in the committee report talks about values, and I think the values that were most prevalent were certainly expressed through tolerance and understanding. I think that most of the groups that appeared before the committee agreed that Quebec was different. They recognize the fact that the province of Quebec is different, and the majority of those groups say they want to do something about that. There may be a divergence of opinion as to how far one should go or what one should do to try to address that distinctiveness of the province of Quebec, but I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority want Canada to remain as it is in terms of the 10 provinces and the federal government, that they want to accommodate the province of Quebec in that country called Canada.

The next issue that the committee reported on was that of aboriginal peoples. They talked about the inclusion of aboriginal peoples in the discussion around constitutional reform and they talked about the issue of self-government of aboriginal peoples. They are both issues whose time is long overdue in this country and I think it is about time, as Canadians, that we address these very real concerns instead of just paying lipservice to them. I think we have to sit down and start in a very real sense to deal with these very difficult issues, these inequities that have been part of our system for all too long now.

I talked about the province of Quebec and how witnesses I think overwhelmingly want to accommodate the people of Quebec. I do not think anybody has the answer right now as to how we hope to achieve that, but I again would somewhat differ with my colleague from York Centre in that I do not think the Allaire report was a starting point for anything. I do not regard this as some kind of a political poker game where we will ask for 22 things hoping we will get these six or seven and the other side offers two or three. I think the time of that political poker-playing in this country is over and I think it is about time we started dealing very honestly and directly with these issues before us, because this is far too important an issue to be political about.

The French and English languages: I think indeed there has to be accommodation and recognition of minority language groups throughout the country, and it has been suggested by some participants or witnesses who appeared before the committee that perhaps individual provinces are the more appropriate level of government at which this issue should be decided. I think that perhaps we at least should consider that before we dismiss it out of hand. Just because it has not been the way that it has been done in the past does not mean that it should be cut off from future discussion.

We talk about the issue of multiculturalism and the recognition of perhaps an accommodation in the Canada clause. That is really all, I suppose, that the Premier of New Brunswick and others were trying to do when they tried to deal with companion resolutions in the Meech Lake accord document. It is exactly the same thing.

We certainly have a much different makeup in this country today than we had in 1867 and I think we have to recognize that fact. I think that is one thing that makes Canada the great nation that it is, that we are so tolerant of diversity and of differences among us, and I think it will be sad day indeed if we fail to recognize that fact in the Constitution of our country.

1630

Women's groups have addressed the committee, talking about concern about jeopardizing their rights, rights that they fought so hard for for many years that were included in the charter in 1982. They were very concerned that there was even the slightest or remotest of possibilities that those rights may be open to question as a result of the Meech Lake accord. I would implore the province not to forget those concerns of women's groups.

Our committee talked about the disabled. I am proud to say that I think I learned a great deal through the participation of the member for York East on this committee and the many concerned witnesses who appeared before our committee during its deliberations. That is an issue that perhaps has been overlooked in deliberations today and one that should not be overlooked any longer.

We talked about the economy. We talked about free trade. We talked about interprovincial trade, which I think is a lot more related to the Constitution than free trade, but that is just my opinion. l can understand the frustration of many of the witnesses who appeared before our committee, but I really do not think anything is going to be accomplished in our constitutional deliberations by bashing the Prime Minister or the federal Minister of Finance or the federal government. That is not going to help us solve the problem that we have before us today.

The issue of interprovincial trade is certainly an issue that I have long felt was an extremely inequitable and, l would go so far as to say, even somewhat ridiculous arrangement among the 10 provinces of Canada. To think that we are talking and trying to deal, especially in the world today -- the world has become a much smaller place, yet we here in our own country of Canada cannot trade freely between boundaries of provinces. That is a somewhat ludicrous proposition, I would suggest, in the year 1991.

The role of federal and provincial governments was a large issue and will be a larger issue in these entire deliberations. I have already given members my thoughts on the Allaire report. Many suggestions were made before the committee and reiterated in the committee's report about perhaps giving provincial governments across the country the sole right to determine matters of language, culture, communications and, some suggest, immigration.

I think we heard, again from an overwhelming majority of people who appeared before the committee and groups, that they want a strong central government. They want a national government that can provide programs with national standards. I think we have to think about that before we talk about transferring 22 powers that are currently, somewhat at least, controlled by the federal government over to provincial governments, because I think if we took the Allaire report to its natural conclusion, we would not have much of a country left at all. What would the federal government really be doing besides being a tax-collecting body for 10 other governments?

I think we very much need to sit down and rethink provincial, municipal and federal powers. Many of the citizens out there who appeared before the committee are extremely frustrated with the overlapping, the waste, the duplication, in some cases the triplication, of efforts at various levels of government. I think that is an issue that we certainly have to address and deal with in a very forthright and direct manner, without individual governments here, there and everywhere being concerned about how much of their turf they are going to lose.

We had suggested to us on several occasions the idea of referenda in dealing with this constitutional issue. In fact, many witnesses went far beyond that, not just the constitutional issue, and talked about the use of a referendum or referenda on many issues. Now I do not think I would go that far, because it would become somewhat difficult, to say the least, for any government to try and operate on the basis of referenda, but I do think that we should not close the door on the idea of a national referendum if needed with respect to the Constitution of Canada.

That brings me to the issue of what our alternatives are, and I am not saying this in a critical sense at all. The Premier of the province has said that he wanted to wait until the interim report of the committee was introduced before he spoke on behalf of the province at any great length on the issue of constitutional reform and I respect that, but I do think that perhaps now we should be starting to address some of these issues in the province of Ontario.

I had the privilege of attending a luncheon of the Empire Club on 21 February of this year when the Honourable Frank McKenna, the first minister of New Brunswick, was the guest speaker. Although I and, I am sure, not all people would agree with most of his remarks, he made some very interesting and thought-provoking suggestions during the course of his remarks.

He talked about our facing constitutional uncertainty and our national focus fading, because in his opinion we do not have any defined national vision in this country. I am going to quote from him at various points and paraphrase what he said at other points.

He said at the outset of his remarks:

"As citizens of one of the greatest nations on earth, we must immediately stop our whining and complaining. Everybody is claiming alienation. Nobody really knows why and nobody knows what to do about it. We have become a nation of perpetual navel-gazers, with our natural confidence and optimism rapidly being replaced by gnawing anxiety."

I hate to say it, but a lot of those remarks hit home.

He goes on to say that we must get control of our constitutional situation, and the first thing he thinks is wrong, instead of dealing with the substantive issues, is to fix the process, because we cannot even agree upon that.

He refers to the current constitutional process as a straitjacket. He calls the current amending formula impossible to affect fundamental change.

"It is impossible for the Constitution to grow and respond as envisioned by the Fathers of Confederation. How do we fix the process? Our constitutional shores are littered with the wrecks of past efforts. Attempts were made to find a new amending formula in this country in 1927, 1935, 1950, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981." Are those enough constitutional meetings for members? Here we are in 1991 and we are still talking about the same thing.

Initial success was achieved in 1964 with the Fulton-Favreau formula and again in 1971 with the Victoria amending formula. Both proposals unfortunately eventually failed.

Premier McKenna goes on to say, "It is time to resolve this issue once and for all," and he who perhaps is one who has most to lose because of the region of Canada that he comes from says that he is proposing the adoption of a regionally based amending formula to amend the Constitution. In other words, we do not need all 10 provinces. We need the province of Quebec, which he refers to as a region, the province of Ontario, and we need two out of four Atlantic Canada provinces representing at least 50% of their population and two out of four western provinces representing at least 50% of their population to amend the Constitution of the country. Worth while considering, I would suggest.

1640

He goes on to say that the issue of amending our Constitution has perplexed our nation for over 100 years and he thinks that it is about time that once and for all this issue was dealt with. He says that he is willing to consider the issue or the point or the method, I should say, of a national referendum on the amending formula to deal with the issue once and for all. He says that because he does not think that legally, constitutionally, there is probably any other way around the problem now that we have adopted an amending formula that requires unanimous consent of all provinces and the federal government, because he does not think we are ever going to get it.

He talks about the Fathers of Confederation in 1867 not being able ever to have envisioned the evolution of our country as it is in the world today. They could have never anticipated the sophisticated communications, aeronautics, the rising tide of environmental concerns or many other issues that confront our nation. He goes on to say, in a rather bold statement, that the time has come to wipe the slate clean and redefine the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the government of Canada and the provinces.

This exercise should not be conducted for the exclusive benefit of Quebec. It must be conducted for the benefit of all Canadians. Quebec is not the only province with grievances. Confining the debate to Quebec's concerns will only serve to further infuriate other Canadians and patronize Quebeckers which, he is sure, they do not want.

He says that he is receptive to a whole range of possibilities as to how we might accomplish this, ranging from a founding convention, a series of task forces, to a national constituent assembly. But he says one thing is definitely certain: We need extensive and thorough public involvement to be required to effect any future constitutional change. That is why I come back again to the point I made at the outset about the time line being set for this committee.

He goes on to talk about dozens of areas where duplication of effort costs taxpayers money and undermines the main objective. He talks about dizzying layers of bureaucracy, overlapping programs, unemployment insurance, manpower training, workforce reintegration, literacy efforts, environmental legislation, regional economic development, research and development, communication and transportation.

He talks about administration of agriculture involving federal boards, provincial boards, marketing boards, agricultural associations, where in his words the efficiency of the industry is prejudiced.

Taxation is a nightmare -- federal, provincial and municipal measures -- and he goes on to say that surely common sense demands a rationalization of responsibility, whether Quebec continues to be a member of the Canadian constitutional family or not.

He goes on to talk about his national vision, which he thinks the country severely lacks, and he thinks of three things that we could do as Canadians to address the issue of lack of national vision. His number one priority is education. He goes on to say that Canada must aspire to have the highest quality of education in the world and that this is certainly not the situation in this country today. For example, 44.4% of our population does not have a grade 12 education in Canada today; 17.3% is not literate. By comparison, Japan has a literacy rate of 94%.

In Canada we spend an average of 163 days per year in school; in Japan the average is 243 days a year. Much of the world is closer to the Japanese average than to Canada's, he says, and by the time a Japanese student has completed grade 12 or the equivalent, he or she has been in school for two more years than a Canadian student.

The dropout rates for Canadian students is 30%. The dropout rate in the United States of America, which we love to criticize, is 12%. The dropout rate in Japan is 2%. Interestingly enough, he goes on to point out that in 1965 the dropout rates in Canada and Japan were the same.

The second area he thinks Canadians should be concerned about is that he proposes we should strive to become the most environmentally progressive country in the world. He goes on to give many examples of what he thinks could be and should be done with respect to the Canadian environment, and he talks about the unbelievable amount of garbage that Canadians produce annually, some 30 million tons, representing more than one ton of garbage for every man, woman and child in the country. Only 10% of this amount is recycled.

The third and final element he deals with in his remarks -- I presume the Treasurer will certainly not agree with his remarks, but I am going to put them out for thought in any event: "The third element to a national vision provides an extraordinary return on investment which is not immediate, which is not sexy and which is not popular. It is vital to every other issue that I have raised today," he says. "The final element that I am proposing in a national vision very simply is that we live within our means. I say unequivocally that a major part of our current constitutional dilemma stems from our fiscal situation. Borrowing money on current account is a fool's game. The leader of today enjoys the popularity of dispensing bought favours. The leader of tomorrow must devote all of his or her energies and ambition to paying the bills.

"It should now be painfully obvious to Canadians that we cannot trust current leaders" -- and bear in mind that he is one of them -- "with our long-term future. The leaders of the 1960s and 1970s have placed a first mortgage on the future of Canada. The leaders of the 1980s and 1990s are placing a second mortgage on the same asset. There is no equity left. We must once and for all put an end to the suffocating debt load that we are placing on the backs of our children. Governments must conduct themselves like private citizens -- borrow, if necessary, for capital assets such as a new home, but pay as you go for current expenditures, like the groceries.

"Should we prove unable to exercise the leadership to accomplish this objective, I would support a legislative requirement for a balanced-budget current account by our governments. This should not be done on a single-year basis, because it would not allow us to respond to contingencies of extraordinary events such as recessions. It could, however, be based on a rolling average of the normal term of a government, which is four years. In other words, each government would be legislatively required to produce a four-year balanced budget. No leader could buy popularity today with the dollars of tomorrow."

I read those words into the record, because I think part of the frustration of a lot of witnesses who appeared before our committee about the economic quagmire we find ourselves in -- they really were talking about what the Premier of New Brunswick is talking about. They would like to see elected representatives deal with these issues far more frankly and openly than has been the case in the past, and far more directly.

I look forward to the second stage of the committee deliberations. I think we will indeed be making a grave mistake in Ontario if we do not hear what other parts of the country are saying. It is all well and good for us here in Ontario to find out what Ontarians think, but surely that should only be the first step in the process. If we are operating in a vacuum, if we do not know what the people in Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and all other regions, if we do not know what the other people of Canada are thinking, then this entire exercise is for naught. All it does is define what Ontario wants out of Confederation, and I do not think that has ever been nor should it be Ontario's role in Confederation.

1650

We have had a great tradition and history in this province, no matter what party was in power, of assuming a lead role in keeping this country together. I think it is vitally important that we continue to operate in that fashion, or indeed the country, let alone the Constitution, is doomed to failure.

If we as legislators can reflect the tolerance and the understanding that many of the people who appeared before our committee did, then I think we will go a long, long way indeed.

I wish to conclude my remarks there on this interim report. I look forward to dealing with these vital and difficult but very important issues in the future, and I look forward to dealing with them in the non-partisan atmosphere that has been the reputation not only of this committee but its predecessors.

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to start by thanking the member for Ottawa-Rideau for her kind remarks about me when she spoke last week. As she mentioned, we ended up being the only two women on the committee. At times it was a bit of a burden, because we wanted to make sure we did not miss one presentation, and between us we certainly did not. I congratulate her as well on her physical and mental strength for keeping up through the whole however many days it was of travel.

For me it was a unique opportunity, and I have been very honoured to sit and serve on this committee. At first I was a bit alarmed about the amount of travel involved, and in fact it was difficult to come home on weekends to our families and our work left behind. But the experience not only of flying on Bearskin Airlines -- which was a lot of fun, actually -- and the experience of hearing from so many people all over Ontario has, I can say, categorically changed me. I now have a better understanding of Ontario as a whole than I did before, and I certainly would recommend the experience to anybody. I am sorry I am not on the committee any more, but I will be keeping a close eye on the second stage.

I just want to say briefly that I am not sure what the member for Parry Sound was talking about when he said there were times when the non-partisan aspect of the committee was not working. I felt particularly good about this committee. Being new here and having experienced question period in this House, I have to tell members that those committee meetings were a joy. I felt we really worked well together and stayed away, on the whole, from partisan politics. There may have been a little federal bashing at times, and perhaps that is what the member was referring to.

The outreach of this committee was very important. The outreach worked in that it was a very short time frame, and it was so important to this committee to get in not only the people who tend to like to come out and speak to committees, the kind of people who pay attention to what is going on. We wanted to make sure those people came out, but we also wanted to make sure that we reached out to a diverse group of people: women, aboriginals, labour. The chamber of commerce, I suppose, would have been out anyway. But we were looking at all kinds of groups, and we did get quite a cross-representation of people, and that was very helpful to us.

I guess I only have a few minutes. I would like to say to the member for Parry Sound that in a non-partisan way we have split this debate equally between three parties, and I only have a few minutes today for that reason, so that all parties can get a fair representation in speaking.

I could speak about asymmetrical federalism or rebalancing federalism or decentralized federalism or Quebec secession and all of these things. I do have some views on them. I have learned a lot. I still certainly do not have the answers. I do not think anybody does yet.

What I would like to do today is speak from my heart a little. You can see that here in front of my microphone are two little paddles. Our first day in Kenora, we were treated at our very first meeting to an aboriginal traditional ceremony: drumming, prayers, and we all got to touch or smoke the peace pipe afterwards. I think that was a very fitting way to start. It got us into a very good spirit of the thing. Afterwards we were given these paddles by the Ojibway Tribal Family Services, which gave a very good presentation about self-government and aboriginal rights and gave us those paddles to help us on our very difficult journey. I carried them with me throughout.

As has been said before -- I do not need to go into it again -- the need and the desire by all Ontarians to have all levels of government move ahead on aboriginal rights is there. The rhetoric, including my own government's and other governments', has to stop, including the people who will be affected by aboriginal rights, land claims, etc. The rhetoric is not enough any more. We have to move forward.

My colleague from Ottawa spoke quite eloquently and well and quoted from a lot of women who presented to us. I just want to reiterate what many people have said, that women were left out of the Meech process, women were going to be left out of the charter. Women have made it very clear that they want to be part of the process and have a very important role to play.

The other issue that was mentioned a few times was the environment, our natural environment, and the fact that our environment is something that we as Canadians all hold in common and our environment is in trouble. Not only do we have a specific local jurisdiction over the environment, but we all have, Ontario as well as the rest of Canada, an international responsibility to the environment. There have been recommendations, and I would like to see it explored further by the committee, that the environment and how we deal with environmental assessments and policy around the environment are taken into consideration.

I only have another minute. I am sorry that some of my colleagues could not be here today to hear this, but I would be remiss if I did not mention Labrador, because Labrador became a bit of an issue when we were up north. I come from Labrador, I grew up in Labrador, and I could not resist at times forgetting that I represented Ontario when I was up north, because it made me very nostalgic and I referred to it quite a bit.

Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, I feel in a bit of a unique position. I was born, in fact, not in Canada; I was born the year before Newfoundland became part of Canada. I was kissed, as I said before in this House, by the only living Father of Confederation, and I grew up hearing from my grandmother about what it was like to become part of Canada and how important it is.

Speaking from the heart, I am very proud to be a Canadian. I am very worried about the present situation we are in, but I am very optimistic because of the huge number of people who came out to speak to us and the number of people who want this to be an open, ongoing process. I feel that is the key to these problems. It is a very difficult situation we are in, but people have spoken loudly and clearly. They want to be involved. I believe the process right now is a fundamental key for us, and other people have spoken to that, that we must keep people in the process. I am very pleased to see that the second stage of the committee will do that.

1700

Mr Daigeler: Although I am not a member of Ontario's select committee on Confederation, I wish to make a few comments as we receive the committee's report. The subject is simply too important not to put a few thoughts on the record. My remarks today will restate some of the points that I made during our Meech Lake accord debate, but I will also touch on some new developments that have arisen since then.

Let me begin by making a few comments on the hearing process itself. Frankly, I question the usefulness of the exercise we have just witnessed. True enough, Ontarians should have many opportunities to speak their minds about Canada's future, yet we cannot just talk to each other. If we are interested in Quebec remaining a part of Canada, we must talk to Quebeckers. If we want to find a more workable political framework for our aspirations as a country, we must find ways to let people from across the country talk to each other. For obvious reasons, the need is especially urgent for dialogue with Quebeckers.

For the most part, I disagree with Premier Clyde Wells's constitutional position. Nevertheless, I share his criticism of provincial hearings to date. At a federal fundraising dinner in my riding two weeks ago, he explained why Newfoundland will not set up its own Confederation committee. "A provincial committee will only bring out the interests of one province," he said, and I agree. We need a discussion mechanism where people from different parts of the country can hear and debate each other.

Why, I ask, has Ontario's Premier failed, at least so far, to promote interprovincial discussions? Today is not the first time that I am arguing for encounters beyond the narrow confines of our own province. Soon after I was first elected in 1987, I sponsored a motion during private members' hour calling for exchanges and partnerships between different groups in Ontario and Quebec. The motion was passed all right, but unfortunately nothing much happened. I guess -- and the backbench members on the government side will soon realize this -- this is the fate for most backbench ideas. To some extent, though, I blame myself. If you are convinced of an idea, you must keep pushing.

Post-war Europe has found exchange programs an excellent means for strengthening the bonds between nations. Anyone who has ever taken part in international visits knows how useful they are for learning about other cultures and their unique qualities. I myself was fortunate enough to have spent time in several European countries. From these stays I have gained a deep appreciation for other peoples and their different but legitimate aspirations.

Madam Speaker, if you permit me, as an aside I would like to mention that I learned about other cultures in very practical and beneficial terms. In Switzerland I met a charming Canadian girl who brought me back to Canada as her husband.

Mr Grandmaître: Saved. You were saved.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you.

True, exchange programs probably can no longer impact on the current debate about Confederation, but in my opinion it is never too late to help Quebeckers, Ontarians and other Canadians learn more about each other, whatever the outcome of the current discussions. Such contact will stymie a further deterioration of what is already a very strained relationship between different regions of the country.

What about the Spicer commission? Does it not accomplish my objective? I do not believe so, for it too has only people from similar parts of the country talking to each other. During the commission's first weeks of hearings, there was an attempt to have people from Quebec talk simultaneously with people from other provinces. Unfortunately, modern technology did not seem sophisticated enough yet to permit such exchanges.

With enough political will we should be able to let at least Quebeckers and Ontarians talk to each other. After all, we are neighbours. To begin with, we should pursue discussions with our own parliamentary colleagues from Quebec's National Assembly, an idea that I have been promoting for some time. I was therefore very pleased when I heard the Premier argue for the same concept during the recent Speaker's dinner for MPPs.

When I talk about meetings between politicians, I include encounters in my own area of Ottawa-Carleton. Can you imagine that in the nation's capital there are no structures to bring together local or provincial leaders from both provinces? We all live in splendid isolation. Why should we be surprised then that we fail to understand each other?

My first venture into the exchange field was not successful, but I have not give up yet. On 11 April my policy committee and I are holding a discussion forum for Nepean people to let them share their feelings and thoughts on Canada's future. As a basis for discussion, we will use the questions put forward in the select committee's working paper. Hopefully this first effort at debate will lead to further meetings in my riding, meetings that will eventually include visitors from Quebec.

Opinions about Canada and Quebec's role in it are strongly held in my riding. Many Nepean residents have little patience for what they perceive as Quebec's unreasonable demands. The following quote from a recent constituent's letter may serve as an example: "Canada will do very well on its own, once there is not one Quebec MP in our House of Commons. As long as there is one, Canadian priorities will be skewed and misinterpreted." Further on, my constituent writes: "I suggest that Ontario MPPs increase efforts to co-operate with the west, especially Alberta.... Quebec at this point is irrelevant. Nothing Ontario can do will affect what they decide to do."

As I see it, we cannot be satisfied with such an outlook. We have a responsibility towards past generations of Canadians and, may I add, towards the international community, to make another valiant effort at reform. Regrettably, ethnic strife is on the increase all over the world. As Canadians, we should show how different cultures can live together in mutual respect and for their mutual benefit. If Canada, a country blessed with peace and prosperity, cannot find political formulas that guarantee equal chances for different cultures, how can we hope for harmony in other countries where the economic and historical circumstances are far less propitious?

As much as I rejoice in the new-found freedoms in eastern Europe, I am weary about the resurgent tensions between nationalities. Ethnic conflict is a volatile mix that has brought great harm to many people in this century. As Canadians, we should take pride in showing the world how different cultures can respect each other, achieve their distinct goals and, at the same time, benefit from the economic, social and other advantages of a larger political unit.

One avenue to protect the group's specific interests of minorities is to include a certain proportion of minority representatives in the leadership of a country's major institutions. During my student days in Switzerland I came to appreciate the usefulness of this political mechanism. The Swiss not only guarantee minority groups a certain membership percentage in all major institutions; they also rotate the top leadership among the various ethnic groups and cantons. This system ensures that no culture or canton is left out for long: Its time will come to shape society's structure.

1710

To some extent, this principle is already operational in Canada. However, in my opinion, these arrangements of convenience should be formalized and extended to as many institutions as possible. No doubt, recognizing the distinctiveness of Canada's English, French and native founding peoples implies much greater constitutional change.

During the March break, I read a most stimulating though rather heady book by the University of Toronto philosophy professor, Will Kymlicka. In his book Liberalism, Community and Culture, Professor Kymlicka argues for entrenched minority rights on the very basis of fairness and equality. He argues that equal treatment for all citizens of a country can go hand in hand with special status for minority groups. In a multi-ethnic country, he says, special conditions are needed to ensure the survival of its different cultures.

I feel Kymlicka's argument is cogent and timely for our current constitutional debate. I agree that uniform treatment of all citizens in our multi-ethnic society eventually leads to cultural imperialism by one group. What may seem at first glance as privilege and preference is really none other than equal growth conditions for a cultural community. I recommend Professor Kymlicka's book as an excellent in-depth analysis of the vexing problem of how minority rights can coexist with liberal principles of equality.

My comments today are obviously not the final word which I wish to utter on this question. There will be other opportunities to develop my ideas further.

Whatever constitutional arrangement we arrive at in Canada, we will be watched closely by the international community. As Canadians, let us search for peace and prosperity among all cultures and nationalities. Let us be creative in our search and not give up in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Our children will be thankful, and nations from around the world will appreciate our efforts. Let us find political structures that make different cultures feel at home in one country called Canada.

Mrs Cunningham: It has been brought to my attention, I think, that we probably have less than four minutes with regard to our speaking order and so we will waive our turn and the member from Mississauga will begin tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Agreed.

Mr F. Wilson: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this report, into which I have put much time, effort and emotion these last few weeks. Because of the short time I have been allowed, I will confine my time to the input to that report. While I have the opportunity, though, I wish to pay tribute to the Chairman, the women and men colleagues in this place who were and are a part of that committee that presented this report. It has been both a pleasure and an honour to have served with them and to continue to serve with them in the task before us.

The people of Ontario placed their trust in our committee to consider their ideas and their hopes for a better Ontario and to ensure they never again will be shut out from participation in the constitutional process. By so doing, they charged our committee with the task of preparing Ontario to participate in what may be our most precarious and yet courageous time in the long history of our country.

When we left the confines of this place to meet with the people of Ontario, we were equipped only with our varied life experiences, our intelligence and a certain amount of good looks and charm. We returned over a month later, haggard, bedraggled, near physical and mental exhaustion, but more important, we returned enlightened and informed of what Ontario wants, what it fears and what are its frustrations.

All that enlightenment has gone into the document before members today. It is the culmination of our efforts, an amalgamation of the hopes and the determination of the people to live side by side in dignity and respect.

The document is not the definitive précis on Confederation. It is a guideline of what this province wants for itself and for Canada. It demonstrates the determination of the people of Ontario to achieve economic and cultural equality, equality in education and equality before Parliament, no more and above all no less.

The simple format of this document does not describe the power and the energy placed within it. It is a combination of the hopes and dreams of our native sisters and brothers and their determination to live with us in dignity and respect and equality. It contains the dreams and aspirations of the Franco-Ontarians to that same respect and that same dignity, and the same wish to serve and to enjoy Ontario. It tells of the courage, intelligence and determination of the disabled of this province and by extension of Canada, to assume their proper place in education, in business and in the workplace. This we owe them if society is what we believe it to be.

In this document, women speak of the pride in their gains these last decades, of the fragility of those gains and the inconsistency of their application, of the fear that they hold that it could all be swept away, of their demand to live, work, dream and succeed as equal partners in all things Ontarian and all things Canadian, and to do that with dignity and respect and to do so without fear.

In addition, we heard from the vast array of multicultural organizations, people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds operating in business, labour and education and many other fields, all with one common theme: that the Canada and the Ontario they traded their homelands for, the Canada and Ontario they dreamed about and told their children of, this their adopted land must be preserved. Each individual, each group that came before us pledged what they had, what they could give to this task of preservation.

Last -- and I have deliberately left this for last -- we heard from those many Ontarians frustrated and virtually disfranchised by our political process, those Ontarians whose forefathers' efforts and whose own efforts have made the Ontario which allows for such diversity and which allows the entire mosaic of our province to exist. Those people, angry, frustrated and shown so little understanding, ignored and disdained by those who should have known better, said to us: "Save our country. Save Ontario."

Lest members misunderstand, and there is absolutely no place for misunderstanding here, Ontario is at a crossroads. We have perhaps one final chance to make the right choice, and there is no certainty that once we embark upon our chosen path, we will not be confronted by another crossroads and perhaps another one after that. For once, we must be honest and admit we do not have all the answers. No person or one group has all the answers. We have seen the result of a process that thought it had all the answers. But I have learned, as I hope many members have, when one does not have all the answers, one must rely upon determination, courage, intelligence, pride and confidence to carry one through.

Therefore, I charge each of us with the following duties: To polish our pride in Ontario and Canada and shake off despair and cynicism; to sharpen our intelligence and our thoughtfulness and seek knowledge from each other; to forestall panic and focus all of our energies on this task to preserve our nation; to roll them all together into dedication and help us lead the people of Ontario upon the chosen path that, wherever else it leads, leads into our future.

1720

Mrs Sullivan: Just as we continue, I wonder if there is agreement that we could share the time that the Progressive Conservative Party has made available between the other two parties.

The Acting Speaker: There is agreement.

Mrs Sullivan: I think that as we returned to the Legislature this session many of us had the opportunity to speak with members who sat on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation and to talk to them personally and informally about their reactions and responses to the weeks of hearings and the hundreds of presentations which were part of their process. I think each member has described the emotion, the passion that witnesses transmitted to them in relation to the questions that were before them and also the sense that Canada itself is in jeopardy.

Witnesses talked with sincerity about the urgency with which we must come to terms with a new crisis in national unity and protecting the underlying values as Canadians in our democratic state. They talked about feeling disfranchised, and many other members who participated in this debate so far have addressed that question. They talked about feeling left out of recent constitutional discussions.

Yet as I looked at the report, I saw an apparent dichotomy in the views expressed, because there was also a demand that governments show leadership in identifying and promoting a national vision of Canada. There was certainly a sense through the report that change and accommodation and adjustment are necessary in our national institutions, in the division of constitutional powers and in the way that we ensure that regional interests are taken into account in national decisionmaking, so that all provinces can have confidence that legislation that emanates from the federal House is accountable to local needs.

It seems to me that there was a vitality in the debate about the underlying values that people see as Canadian and worth protecting: equality and equity, social justice, the recognition of fundamental rights and freedoms, language rights, and that diversity rather than uniformity was to be celebrated. It struck me that the values that people wanted to protect and enhance were those very values which were enshrined in our 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was entrenched in that document, the basic principles of a liberal and democratic state that could not be unilaterally altered by either the federal House or an individual provincial Legislature.

The desire to maintain those values is clearly not limited to Ontario's provincial borders. The Spicer commission, also conducting hearings, is hearing Canadian after Canadian from other provinces enunciate those same views, and so those common objectives clearly must be safeguarded in the course of any constitutional change in this country and reflected in our laws and our institutions. People will not accept anything less.

The development of the Canadian Constitution has evolved over 125 years, by formal amendment, by custom, by legal interpretation, and as it has evolved, there has been an understanding that any change which comes must last for a long time.

The sense of permanence is necessary since legal authority derives from the constitutional base. What is not clear is whether we are ready to say today, as Ontarians or Canadians, what constitutional arrangements we want to put into place for the next 25 or 30 years. There may be a consensus for change, but to date there is a clear lack of consensus on what change, what kind of a new vision of our country will replace the current and how the consequences of change would be as valid three generations from now as they are today.

The aftermath of the Meech Lake debate showed that in Ontario there is a conception of Canada with a strong central government, but witnesses before the Ontario committee indicated "a sincere desire that Quebec should remain within Canada." The committee was told that Quebec is a crucial part of our Canadian identity. They insist that efforts should be made to reach an accommodation with Quebec, although the nature of that accommodation was much less clear. If Quebec gets more jurisdictional powers, other provinces should be treated equally, they said, but there was not a substantive opposition to changing powers of decision-making or service delivery.

Ontarians as individuals seemed to be speaking for Quebec in Confederation with their hearts. We must ask, who is speaking for federalism in Quebec?

The report which was prepared by Jean Allaire for the Quebec Liberal Party has been best described by the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson as confederalist, seeking political sovereignty with limited institutional arrangements with the rest of Canada. It calls for the elimination of the Senate, an end to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in Quebec and a requirement that equalization payments shall be paid by the wealthier provinces to the poorer ones, including Quebec, even under a new formula. As a supposed federal document, Jeff Simpson concludes that it makes neither political nor economic sense.

From what I have heard from my constituents and others, the Allaire formula for constitutional change is not seen at this time as acceptable in Ontario, in whole or even in a major part. It is time for us to say so and to define not how we feel about Canada but how we want to define our nationhood as we move to the year 2000 and beyond. The Premier must speak. The Premier must articulate a substantive position on where the government stands today and where it is prepared to go.

In another debate, some 25 years ago, Pierre Trudeau suggested -- and I would just like to quote from a position paper that he wrote in 1967 on a different constitutional question -- that he saw "an excessive preoccupation with the future of language that has made certain people forget the future of the man who is speaking it." What he was discussing at that time is that a debate on constitutional issues can mask real problems whose solutions lie not in changes in constitutional arrangements but changes in political action.

We cannot change our geography, but political leaders must take stock of certain facts about the fabric of our nation. For politicians, there is a responsibility to analyse the real relationships between the forces that unite or divide us. People in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta must understand that constitutional change will not solve problems that are substantially political, whether economic, social or cultural.

We live in a time where continental and international forces ignore national constitutions and borders, where the deployment of capital, technological innovation and productivity will matter more to the individual than the most finely crafted legal phraseology in a constitutional document.

Our economy must be fundamentally sound to ensure a strong and progressive social policy. The action that will ensure that is political. Our social structures and programs, whether education, health care, pension plans, social services, and the political decisions which add to, maintain or subvert today's standards, matter very much to Canadians. The constitutional words speak to a fair distribution of wealth, but the action that will ensure that is political.

The select committee on Ontario in Confederation, in the next phase of its work, must further define where constitutional action is required to give effect to people's aspirations and where political action in fact is the answer. It must explore further, and with greater definition, the nature of change that people see as necessary in our institutions, and the timetables and the mechanics for that change, to meet the needs not only of Ontarians but of people in western provinces, in the Atlantic provinces and indeed even in Quebec.

It must also explore how people in Ontario feel about a Canada without Quebec or if people in Ontario would accept a Quebec on substantially different terms than those shared by other provinces.

1730

What will we tolerate as Canadians in forging new relationships? Where do we say yes and where do we say no? What will be the cost in social and economic terms of a structural change that is brought about by Quebec saying no to Canada? And what political actions must be taken over and above any constitutional change to forge a new and dynamic nationhood that represents, with equity and equality, all people in Canada?

The committee has a daunting task. I wish its members well as they proceed into the next phase of their process.

Mr Winninger: I would also congratulate the Chair of the select committee on the future of Ontario in Confederation, the member for Dovercourt, and my fellow members of the committee, who served so admirably over the last two months into the mandate of this committee. I would also commend the members of the committee on the spirit of camaraderie and non-partisanship displayed throughout our hearings.

Clearly the process of change in Canada has been exceedingly complex and fraught with perils for those brave souls who take the leadership in federal renewal. After a number of failed attempts to patriate our Constitution and define an amending formula, Pierre Trudeau succeeded in 1982 in patriating our Constitution and entrenching a Charter of Rights. This, alas, was not an arrangement in which Quebec could be a partner, due to its unique cultural and linguistic needs.

The Meech Lake agreement represented, as it were, a flawed attempt to bring Quebec back into the fold. Numerous reasons have been cited for the failure of the Meech Lake process. Whatever the reasons, Meech Lake failed and once again our leaders must meet to discuss change that can accommodate Quebec's aspirations while at the same time meeting the needs of other provinces. The select committee was mandated last December by our Premier to explore the economic and social needs of the people of Ontario and what model of Confederation can best meet those needs.

I was privileged to serve on the select committee with 11 other members of all parties, and I can say in all honesty that the select committee has offered me an extraordinary opportunity to hear from ordinary people across the province from all sectors of society: to name but a few, the young, the old, working-class people, professionals, women, natives, disabled and multicultural groups. They have sung to us. They have recited lyrical poems. They have challenged us. They have cajoled us. They have remonstrated with us. They have shared their hospitality and their visions with us. A very rich tapestry has been woven of human emotion and thought, and those people who have shared with us their innermost visions and dreams and feelings for Ontario and Canada cannot be forgotten.

Discussion was facilitated through a public discussion paper entitled Changing for the Better: An Invitation to Talk About a New Canada. This paper acknowledged that Canada is at a crossroads and to obtain a consensus on the emerging issues government must return to the people for guidance. The paper asks that citizens of Ontario recognize the common values that bind us together in the midst of diversity. Other issues the people of Ontario were asked to come to grips with involved our economy, the respective roles of federal and provincial governments and justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples. Further, Ontarians were asked to comment on the role of the English and French languages in Canada, Quebec's future and regional identity. Some delegations that appeared before us questioned why the issue of women was not delineated separately in the discussion paper.

There has been an overwhelming response by the people of Ontario to this consultation process. Unfortunately, there were many individuals and groups that could not be heard in the course of our public discussions. However, they were invited to submit papers and to participate in our future consideration of Ontario in Canada.

To facilitate open and frank discussions, the select committee chose to meet in schools, senior citizens' centres, Legion halls and community halls. The committee at times broke into subgroups to visit with specific groups on behalf of women, the disabled, the francophone community, to name but a few.

Generally, people were very pleased that this government wanted to hear what they had to say, and given the time constraints, I will not repeat some of the observations already well expressed by other members of the committee. The member for Dovercourt has spoken on multiculturalism, the member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for Riverdale on women's rights, the member for Cochrane South on francophone aspirations and the member for York East on the disabled. I would like to say a few specific words, however, about aboriginal people.

There is a consensus that our first nations need to be heard. They have much to teach us about progressive models of government, conservation of the environment and the relevance of values such as harmony, respect and self-reliance. I think the vast popularity of the movie Dances with Wolves, which I understand is up for an Oscar for best picture tonight at the Academy Awards, is a testament to the widespread interest there is in native traditions and culture.

Native people want to be full participants in the process of constitutional renewal, not excluded as they were during the Meech Lake process. People have spoken to us of the concept of two founding nations, English and French. However, members of the first nation have said that they were never lost, so how could they be found?

Many delegations have asked that native people be given self-government and have their land claims settled more expeditiously. There is a collective sense of guilt concerning the victimization of native peoples in the past and the desire to ensure that the quality of life of our native peoples be drastically improved. This extends to the building of economic infrastructure so that our indigenous people will not be so dependent on federal and provincial assistance. Further, natives off reserves have specific needs that demand attention. In short, native people need to gain a broader measure of control over their lives, which will hopefully solve some of their social ills, including a very high rate of suicide, infant mortality, family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, to mention a few.

Economic justice looms large in the concern of Ontarians, and the adverse effect of the free trade agreement, which the federal government is seeking to extend to Mexico, has threatened job security. Many question the existence of interprovincial trade barriers while Canada continues to negotiate free trade on the North American continent. Some would prefer to see stronger trading links with Europe as it moves towards economic unity in the 1990s. Our ever-increasing multicultural mix can assist us in pursuing these trading links with other nations.

The dismantling of our national institutions, such as the CBC and VIA Rail, and the privatization of Canada Post have caused grave concern for the unity of our country. At a time of recession when people are acutely aware of unemployment and poverty, there is a consensus that issues of economic justice must be brought to the bargaining table, including the right to housing, employment and a minimum income entrenched in our Constitution. These economic issues will be explored further.

Attention has emerged about the need for a strong federal government to steer the economy, ensure national standards, shared-cost programs and equalization of opportunity for the regions. Counterbalanced is the need for greater autonomy for the provinces, including Quebec, in response to regional differences. While some people feel that Quebec should have special powers to protect its language and culture, what some have called an asymmetrical federalism, others believe that all provinces should enjoy such powers. Whatever may be the constitutional arrangements following a restructuring of powers, there is a will that all levels of government co-operate more fully with each other and be more fully accountable to the people.

On a constaté le désir que le Québec continue de faire partie du Canada. C'est qu'il faut attendre un arrangement avec le Québec. En même temps, le Québec est une partie cruciale de l'identité canadienne et aussi une communauté distincte au sein de la fédération canadienne.

1740

Nous sommes liés avec le Québec par des liens historiques, géographiques, linguistiques et commerciaux. Nous croyons que la séparation du Québec aurait des conséquences sérieuses tant pour le Québec que pour l'Ontario et le reste du Canada. Nous souhaitons fortement que le Canada demeure uni mais il y a lieu d'apporter des changements si l'on veut que le Québec continue à être un partenaire de la Confédération.

As we stand at the crossroads to chart the future of our province and nation, we must be ever mindful that public participation in the process of national renewal is essential. Never again must executive federalism be played out behind closed doors in a manner that shuts out the public. Natives, women, disabled and multicultural groups must play more of a role in the constitutional changes that will affect them. Whether we have a more representative Parliament, a reformed Senate, a Council of Canadian Economic Union, as some have suggested, once there has been a restructuring of our government institutions, they must remain open to public scrutiny.

Many people have expressed a view that Ontario, being the wealthiest, the most populous and the most proximate province to Quebec, must take a leadership role in future negotiations.

The call for the government of Ontario to assume a leadership role in constitutional talks has met a vigorous response from our Premier. He has called for the first ministers to meet to discuss constitutional reform to ensure the survival of Canada. The process should include Quebec. The public must have a sense of participation as well. The needs of our first nations and the various regions of Canada will have to be respected.

We know that change has been sought by the Allaire commission. While presently divided, the Bélanger-Campeau commission will soon be rendering its report. We have yet to hear from the Spicer committee, as well as a multitude of other provincial constitutional committees. Obviously there will have to be a meaningful dialogue between these committees to carve out our collective future. This dialogue will continue, and has to continue.

At the same time, I have asked the constituents in my riding of London South to participate in the second stage of the select committee's investigation of the future of Ontario in Confederation. I trust that the constituents of other ridings across Ontario will continue similarly to make their views known as we explore the different alternatives for our mutual future. We will continue to be good listeners and eagerly anticipate what the public will have to say.

Mr Grandmaître: First, I would like to congratulate the chairman. Let's call it the Silipo report. I thought it was a great report. Personally, I did not think that the member for Dovercourt's committee could accomplish so much in so little time. I did not really believe that such a report could come before us after three, four, five weeks, and I think some of the recommendations in the member for Dovercourt's report should accommodate every Ontarian. Will it satisfy the needs of all Canadians? That is another thing, another debate. We will have to wait for other commissions to submit their reports.

Mr Speaker, I know that you will not hear partisan speeches in this House on this debate, for the simple reason that every member of this House believes that we Ontarians are ready and willing to negotiate with not only the province of Quebec but every province in Canada. l will use some of the quotes taken from the report: "To promote dialogue with Quebec in order to identify and respond to the desires and aspirations of Quebec."

I repeat this is not a partisan speech, but I must criticize the present government for not showing the leadership that other premiers in this province have shown in the past. I know that the Premier has promised us to deliver a speech in this House on Thursday and also another one on 5 April in Ottawa. But this province is used to leadership when it comes to constitutional debates, and we have not heard from the Premier of Ontario as of today.

Another quote: "Ontario is in a unique position" to play "a leadership role in negotiating a renewed Canada." I remember the great speeches from the Premier of this province in this House when he was in the opposition. He had all the answers to the Meech Lake debates, closed door debates; never attended one of these meetings, but he had all the answers. I find it difficult to stand up and congratulate a good leader when it comes to constitutional debates, because I have heard the Premier pronounce some of the best constitutional speeches in this House, and yet he has been mute, has not said a word.

Ontarians are waiting for his leadership. He should tell us what he expects to do for us. I respect the consultation that has been going on. The Premier has been saying, "I want to consult my people before I go public." The Premier had all kinds of ideas for the last 10 years on constitutional reform, and he had to wait for the report of the member for Dovercourt. I think it was a stalling tactic.

Also, in the last six or six and a half months the Premier has not travelled across Canada. I know he has been busy keeping an eye on his own cabinet, but he should have visited every province in Canada, at least to find out where it stood on constitutional changes, because I think he can and will bring his own views. Again, I am not trying to be partisan or critical, but I must say -- it is difficult, but I must say it -- he has not shown leadership.

Another quote: "Ontario must act as a mediator between the regions of Ontario." The committee did consult with the different regions or different parts of Ontario, but not the Premier. The Premier did not want to be exposed to maybe some criticisms. I find it very difficult, because when I introduced my Bill 8 in this House, one of the greatest supporters of Bill 8 was the Premier. I know that he believes in the founding nations, natives, English- and French-speaking people of this province. But again, the Premier has chosen to be quiet on the issue. I would like to know why, after delivering all these great speeches, again we have not heard from him. That was then, I suppose, and this is now.

So I am disappointed, but I am pleased that the Silipo report will now resolve some of our differences and I am pleased that most of the Ontarians who appeared before the committee expressed their need for changes to recognize the native people, to recognize English-speaking people, Franco-Ontarians, women, disabled people. All Ontarians should be reflected in a new Constitution.

1750

For too long we took native people for granted in this province. I remember when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs I had the opportunity to talk about self-government for native people. I believed it then and I still believe today that native people should have their own government.

Mr Speaker, I think it is very important that this province, that your government, the NDP government, shows leadership, for the simple reason that we do not have a strong central government at the present time. Every province in Canada is doing its thing, and I think we need the leadership of the Ontario provincial government to tell the central government, "This is what we want," after consultation with the other premiers.

So if we believe that the future generation should enjoy Canada the way we have enjoyed Canada, because I think we all benefited from being Canadians, I think the future of our children is at stake and I think it is time that this government, the government that had all the answers to the constitutional problems in this province, speak up for Ontarians.

Hon Mr Allen: This country and this province face probably the most serious moment in their history since the debates that were begun to resolve the Confederation question in the middle of the 1860s. Quite frankly, in response to the previous speaker and in defence of my own leader, I want to say that perhaps it is wise, when there are so many voices saying so many things, so many reports being written and made, that someone perhaps holds it back a bit and does not get so much into the fray that he gets overcommitted, that too many messages go out that are too firm, before we really see what the ultimate lay of the landscape is going to be.

The Premier has spoken in general terms recently about the latest phase of constitutional discussion in this country. As the previous speaker said, he was very eloquent about the proportions of the issue that confront this country constitutionally speaking. He has not in that respect changed one iota. His insight remains keen, his intent to speak and to act on behalf of this province is clear and he has taken a very deliberate and sensible course. That course is to follow the advice that everybody I have heard speak has commended, and that is the course of consulting and understanding what this province really wants.

This province has not been used to asking itself what, as a province, it wants out of Confederation because it has always, throughout its history, identified itself with Ottawa and with the federal enterprise. Ontario has been "Ontario" and "nation" at one and the same time in its own eyes. It is time for us to step back from that too and ask ourselves a critical question as to what is the specific need of Ontario in Confederation before we can then take that step forward and address the whole issue of the whole country.

It would be very easy to say why Ontario wants and needs national unity, Ontario wants and needs a national economy, but those are pretty vague things. One can get a lot of rhetoric going about national unity concerns, but what does it mean in terms of the reality of Ontario's need and what does it mean in terms of how that intersects with the whole context of the needs of other provinces and of the need for a nation that will hold the province of Quebec in the confines of a national structure? That was, in the course of all earlier debate, a very difficult question. It remained a difficult issue all the way through the Meech Lake debate.

It remains a very difficult issue today, and I submit to members that it is more difficult now, when time is running out, than it has ever been, because the agenda that is resulting for all of us is a much more complex one. Meech Lake confronted the fact that there were some significant groups in our society that felt their needs had not been addressed. In the course of the consultations that committees and commissions have undertaken, it is quite clear that the input and the range of involvement has expanded, that the numbers of groups that feel themselves attached to this enterprise and want something out of it have grown, and therefore the issue becomes even more complex and more difficult. I do not think any of us should fool ourselves that that is not the case.

What have we got? We have got something like 15 months by the calendars that are set ticking by the Bélanger-Campeau and Allaire reports and the decision of the Liberal Party in Quebec to accept the Allaire commission report.

I just simply want to say in conclusion -- because there is not a lot of time to talk about this big issue; we are approaching 6 o'clock -- that I want to remind all of us and all of those who are listening to this debate how critically important it is that we achieve a new structure in this country that does make it possible for the real aspirations of Quebec to find their fulfilment in the context of something we call Canada.

Oddly enough, I grew up in British Columbia and as a little boy, in my sixth grade, some of my great heroes were who? Champlain, Talon, Laval, Frontenac. How does that happen? There has obviously been in this country a culturing process which has made people like me, born on another coast, somehow identify with the history of a people who were thousands of miles away.

On the other hand, I have a book here by Christian Dufour, a Québécois who grew up in the Saguenay region of Quebec and who says he and his brothers were astonished when they discovered at six years of age that there was anybody in this country who spoke English. They were overwhelmed when they were 12 years old to discover that the majority of the people spoke English.

So we have got a really difficult country to keep together -- and that is an old observation; it is not new -- but we must at all costs maintain the capacity of a dynamic and increasingly vigorous province of Quebec to play its own role, find its own destiny and to do it in the context of something we can still call Canada.

I want to compliment the committee for the work that it has done to date. Under the leadership of the member for Dovercourt it will go on and tackle, I think, a much more difficult job than it has yet tackled, namely, looking at the structural questions as to how you embody the values and concerns of Ontarians that it has discovered in a proposal that will have some force in commending itself to us for our further debate on this question. I look forward at that time to taking a further part in that debate.

I suppose I should observe that the clock has 6 o'clock and adjourn this debate.

The House adjourned at 1800.