The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PORT HOPE FRIENDS OF MUSIC

Mrs Fawcett: Last Wednesday 20 March, Donald Scott, a constituent of mine from Port Hope, was one of the proud recipients of the prestigious 1991 Outstanding Achievement Awards for Excellence in Volunteerism. His work with the Port Hope Friends of Music has transformed this rather undefined amateur organization into one of the best concert series presenters in Ontario. Few volunteer arts organizations ever achieve the artistic standards and integrity, the financial and business stability and the wide popular support this group has attained under his leadership. In this, its 16th anniversary season, it is one of the largest and strongest volunteer organizations in Northumberland county.

Port Hope Friends of Music has a large number of subscribers and donors, which continues to grow because of the quality of the concert presentations. I have personally enjoyed a number of these concerts, and year after year audiences are treated to internationally famed artists and groups, such as the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, the Boston Camerata and the American Boys' Choir, to name only a few. Mr Scott's dedication and expertise have had much to do with attaining this high level of wide-ranging entertainment for Port Hope and area.

Our gratitude and congratulations are extended to Mr Scott for all he has done and continues to do to provide top quality entertainment which has indeed touched many lives. I would ask you all to join me in recognizing the work of Donald Scott of the Port Hope Friends of Music.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I hold in my hand four letters I have written to her which she, to date, has failed to answer. They all are related directly to her decision to grant an emergency certificate and allow six North Simcoe municipalities to haul their garbage to the dump in Wasaga Beach. Her shortsighted decision could have disastrous consequences for the tourism industry in this Georgian Bay community. Her cavalier treatment of the environment sends out the wrong signal to the people of this province who are genuinely concerned about the environment.

The minister has failed to respond to my four letters, to my statement in this Legislature, to my numerous requests for a meeting and to the four letters written to her from the mayor of Wasaga Beach, but she was quoted in the 11 December issue of the Collingwood EnterpriseBulletin as saying she hopes the county of Simcoe will get going as soon as possible on hydrogeological studies to determine the effects on Wasaga Beach's landfill site and the sixfold increase to its waste stream.

I am told these studies have not yet begun. I am sure the minister is aware that a hydrogeological study such as this one takes a great deal of time to complete. She has already exercised poor judgement by issuing Simcoe an emergency certificate for the Wasaga Beach dump. If she refuses to reverse this decision I want her to begin assuming responsibility for the environment and to assure this House that she will rescind the emergency certificate if the hydrogeological studies are not on her desk by 30 April, as she promlsed.

NANCY SWEETNAM

Mr Drainville: I am pleased today to speak about a very inspiring young woman in my riding, Nancy Sweetnam, a grade 12 student at Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute who has been setting new swimming awards around the world. Just last week, Nancy won a gold medal and set a Canadian and Commonwealth record in the 200-metre individual medley in Sweden. She also won the gold in the 400-metre individual medley.

Nancy is just 17, and she has already been named the female athlete of the year in her own community. Earlier this year, she captured the gold at the Commonwealth Games when she set a new record in the 200-metre individual medley. Then Nancy took the gold in the 200-metre event while at the World Aquatic Championships in Perth, Australia.

This is by no means the total list of the awards bestowed on this young woman in recognition of her gift and her drive. What I find interesting is that Nancy's coach is also her mother, Miriam Sweetnam, who was recognized in Victoria-Haliburton this year at the CKLY sports awards as coach of the year. In 1990, Miriam was named the Canadian swimming coach and the Ontario coach of the year for all sports.

Like all amateur athletes, Nancy and Miriam are working their way towards the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, and we hope their work there will proudly represent Canada and the riding of Victoria-Haliburton.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF YORK REGION

Mr Beer: Tomorrow the Minister of Community and Social Services will be meeting with representatives of the Children's Aid Society of York Region. The purpose of this meeting is to address the current problems facing the society because of the dramatic population growth of the region and, in particular, of the children in its care.

The minister is aware that the York Region Children's Aid Society has responsibility for the fifth-largest child population but has the 13th-largest budget. This compares with 10 years ago, when it had the 11th-largest child population and the 12th-largest budget. During the 1980s, the region has more than doubled in size. This population growth over the last decade and the impact of the recession are placing the society under severe stress.

There are two basic issues facing the ministry and the society. The first is how to cover its current deficit of nearly $2 million. I believe there is a process in place which can ensure that the deficit is covered. However, it is now time to deal with the second issue, which relates to the base budget of the society. We must recognize that unless that is done, the current problem will be repeated again next year and the year after that.

I believe, after numerous studies and reviews, the government must recognize that the society is operating as effectively and efficiently as it can, but unless its base budget more appropriately corresponds to the needs of the region, there will have to be major cutbacks, and this the region and its children cannot afford.

Tomorrow the minister must recognize the dilemma the York region society faces and state clearly her intention and that of her government to help ensure that York region's children will receive the support they need and deserve.

ST JOSEPH'S VILLA

Mr Jackson: I rise to call the attention of the House to the plight of St Joseph's Villa, a distinguished charitable home for the aged in Dundas in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

In June of last year, the former Liberal government told the villa to convert 99 residential beds to the extended care level without providing the necessary funding for the increased care requirements. As well, 29 chronic care beds in the villa were underfunded. The villa's executive director, Paul O'Krafka, warned the government of the day of the severe consequences for the residents as a result of the underfunding crisis to which the Liberals had subjected the residents of the villa.

But what has changed under the new NDP government? Like the Liberals, the NDP has reneged on its election promise to provide 70% funding of the incurred deficit that is hampering the ability of St Joseph's Villa to provide quality care to its residents. Like the Liberals, the NDP has continued to ignore the villa's pleas for funding of its extended and chronic care beds, and like the Liberals, the NDP government is now forcing the villa's board of trustees to go to the residents and their families and tell them that unless the funding situation improves, drastic measures will have to be taken by the villa, including the discharge of residents requiring specialized care back into the community.

I again remind the NDP government that health care was an important issue that collapsed the once mighty Liberals in the last election. The seniors of Ontario have had enough political rhetoric. They want to know when they will finally see some meaningful action on the part of this government to address the crisis situation which is currently gripping homes for the aged like St Joseph's Villa in Dundas.

1340

STRATHROY WOMEN'S AUXILIARY

Mrs Mathyssen: I rise today to tell the House about an important milestone for the members of the women's auxiliary, Sir Arthur Currie Legion Branch 116, of Strathroy in the riding of Middlesex. On Saturday 16 March I was invited to a Royal Canadian Legion dinner to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the auxiliary with the men and women of the Sir Arthur Currie branch, who have built a strong, viable legion that not only serves the war veterans and families of veterans, but actively serves the community. The contributions of this legion to the community surrounding Strathroy are many. Those I shall name are just a sampling of what these women and men have given.

In 1989 the legion made a generous $14,000 donation to the intensive care unit of Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital for the purchase of a defibrillator. The women's auxiliary also hosts an annual chicken dinner for seniors at Strathmere Lodge. The legion provided the cadet corps with a meeting place when it was in need of accommodation and, with local service clubs, helped finance new lights at the Head Street playing field of the Strathroy Minor Soccer Association.

In 1990 the Strathroy boy scouts received eight new canoes, $3,000 was given to Strathroy hospital for a diagnostic mammograph machine, and when local seniors were moved out of their community centre by their landlord, the Sir Arthur Currie legion provided these seniors with a place to meet and socialize.

The men and women of the Strathroy legion are extraordinary. Their commitment to community is unquestionable. Please join with me to extend congratulations to the auxiliary president, Eileen Harnett, legion president Sandy Sandford, and all legion members for their dedication to the people of Strathroy and area on this occasion of their 60th anniversary.

WETLANDS

Mrs Sullivan: I would like to bring to the attention of the House a proposal by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Canadian Environmental Law Association which could save us all both money and natural areas.

Although a draft wetlands policy statement was released for consultation some 18 months ago and the previous government was ready to act on that, to date no final policy has been issued by this government and needless destruction of provincially significant wetlands continues unabated.

While we wait for direction, government and public interest groups are forced to appear before Ontario Municipal Board hearings. These hearings are expensive and are often conducted after much damage has been done. The lack of a wetlands policy statement means that in practice Ministry of Natural Resources district offices are not handling threats to wetlands in a consistent manner.

The FON and CELA have requested that the Minister of Natural Resources issue a final wetlands statement by the end of April. This would mean that a policy and wetlands classification system would be in place before the spring construction season.

The minister should also bring forward natural areas protection legislation which would include protection for wetlands, areas of natural and scientific interest and other ecologically sensitive areas. Protection of these areas will reduce the number of OMB hearings and environmental assessment requests.

At a time when money is short and public expectation of environmental protection is high, the Minister of Natural Resources should act. These measures would do much to save the government money and to protect the environment.

SKYDOME

Mr Stockwell: In my statement of 29 November 1990 to the House, I called upon the Treasurer and the Premier to instruct the Provincial Auditor to make public the agreements which have been struck between the consortium members and the Stadium Corp of Ontario, which led to the consortium members reaping profit from the Dome operation while the taxpayers of the province carried the ever-increasing debt load.

I called for public disclosure of all those agreements, but to date this government has been silent. Recently, Bob White announced that it was highly likely that the taxpayers' 51% ownership of the Dome will be negotiated away to the private sector. What was not said was at what cost.

The people of Ontario were led to believe last summer that the Premier was a different type of politician and, if elected, would be a different type of Premier. All this House has seen to date of the Premier is indecision, broken promises and procrastination. When confronted, the Premier hides behind the state of the economy. The state of the economy has nothing to do with openness in government. The public should know why construction costs soared and what profits are being reaped by consortium members and what costs the taxpayers will suffer negotiating away ownership.

Bill Davis planned this Dome in secret, David Peterson built this Dome in secret, and the Premier is selling this Dome in secret. Some difference.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mrs Haslam: In light of the cross-border shopping situation, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the members of this House to promote the purchase of Ontario-grown and -processed foods to their constituents.

Agricultural production and food processing is a $16billion-a-year contributor to Ontario's economy. Some 72,000 Ontario farmers work to feed domestic and international consumers. Our food processing companies account for 40% of Canada's food processing industry, employing some 85,000 people.

I think it is our duty to promote the purchase of Ontario products to keep this important sector of our economy viable. Members of the House will agree on the importance of preserving our agricultural land, but if we want to save farm land in Ontario, we have to buy Ontario produce. Now that spring has arrived, grocery stores will soon be offering the high-quality produce and food products for which Ontario is renowned. Whether we purchase greenhouse vegetables at this time of year or asparagus next month, tender fruit in the summer or canned and frozen vegetables grown in Ontario, we will be supporting the thousands of men and women of this province who work to put food on our tables.

All members of the food chain, from the farm gate to the retailers and their employees, deserve our support, and that support is best shown through where we choose to buy and what we choose to buy with our grocery dollars.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

The Speaker: Yesterday, the honourable member for Parry Sound raised a point of order regarding the appropriateness of a statement made by the honourable Minister of Culture and Communications according to our standing order 31(a). I undertook to look into this matter and report back.

Our standing order 31(a) reads as follows: "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed."

Members will realize that the terms of this standing order tend to be on the non-restrictive side, and therefore it is difficult for the Speaker to interpret strictly what can or cannot fall under the confines of the standing order.

As far as the statement made yesterday is concerned, l find that it was in order, and I appreciate the member having raised the matter with me.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COURT SYSTEM

Hon Mr Hampton: On 18 October 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada used clause 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to rule that delays in the criminal justice system were unreasonable and that the rights of accused, victims and the public to a speedy trial were being denied. This has placed Ontario's justice system in a critical position. I would like to update the Legislature on the progress we have made to date in addressing this serious situation.

Since the Askov ruling came down six months ago, 205,995 criminal charges have been dealt with by Ontario's justice system. Of this total, approximately 15%, or 32,254 charges, have been stayed, dismissed or withdrawn as a result of the Askov decision.

1350

When I became Attorney General in October 1990, 74% of all criminal charges in Ontario Court (Provincial Division), or more than 150,000 charges, were put at risk by the Askov decision. I am happy to report to the Legislature today that preliminary results indicate that through the efforts of the entire justice system it has been possible to reduce the 75% at risk to the point today where approximately 35% of charges are at risk.

The Ministry of the Attorney General is continuing to make every effort to save as many charges as possible by moving cases forward and by double booking courts. We have also considered less serious charges for withdrawal in order to free courtroom time to allow serious charges to be heard. I am happy to report to the Legislature that approximately 96% of all new charges entering the system are now being scheduled within six months for trial dates.

Let me be clear: We will never be able to schedule all cases within six to eight months. The Askov decision itself recognized that more time is required to prepare for complex cases. In November I announced to the Legislature a government commitment of funds of over $39 million to reduce delays and backlogs in the courts by appointing judges, hiring crown attorneys and support staff, improving court facilities and implementing further initiatives.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to be able to tell you today that we have appointed 18 new provincial court judges, and in the upcoming weeks I expect to appoint the remaining nine. The 27 appointments will help us to achieve a more representative provincial bench. Of the 18 appointments to date, 11 of these judges are women, including Canada's first woman native Canadian judge.

In November I wrote to some 1,200 women lawyers inviting them to apply to become judges. As a result, more than 40% of applications for the new positions on the provincial bench came from women, compared to 12% of applications in previous competitions. The trend in judicial appointments is clear: No longer will we hear the argument that there are not enough eligible women who want to become a judge.

In November I asked the federal Minister of Justice to appoint 12 new judges to the Ontario Court (General Division). On Friday 22 March the Honourable Kim Campbell announced the appointment of five new judges to the General Division to help reduce the court backlog in Ontario; seven other appointments were announced to fill existing vacancies.

I have instructed ministry officials to ensure that employment equity guidelines are strictly adhered to in all hiring. Of the six crown counsel and 29 assistant crown attorneys hired, 6% are francophones, 14% are racial minorities and 54% are women. An additional 41 assistant crown attorneys and six crown counsel are still to be hired. One hundred and thirty-nine support staff have also been hired; 101 completed a voluntary employment equity survey. The survey shows that 73% fit into one of the five target groups of employment equity.

Our focus is to provide the people of Ontario with a system of justice which is responsive, efficient and timely. We have made good progress, but we still have a lot to do. We are developing a number of strategies in consultation with the judiciary, the defence bar and police. Efforts are being made to strengthen programs where disclosure of the crown's case will be made available to the defence at an early opportunity so that the merits of criminal charges can be assessed by both crown and defence shortly after charges have been laid.

In addition, we are developing a post-charge screening program whereby crown attorneys will review all criminal charges laid to determine whether a prosecution of the charge is in the best interests of the administration of justice, and the Toronto region General Division will begin implementation of a dedicated court system effective 1 April 1991. The initiative, developed through the leadership of the General Division judiciary, is aimed at improving the flow of cases and scheduling in the Toronto General Division courts.

The dedicated system will provide each of the four areas of Metro Toronto with specific courts. Metro west, Metro north, Metro east and Metro central will each hold these dedicated courts at 361 University Ave. A specialized team of judges is responsible for handling cases from each location. Disclosure, pre-trials, scheduling, case-flow management and disposition of all cases committed for trial from the four courts will be handled in the dedicated courts.

In November I asked Chief Judge Sidney Linden to consider implementation of specialized or blitz courts in backlogged areas to expedite the handling of specific classes of charges such as impaired driving. The chief judge is currently looking into the feasibility of specialized courts for certain locations. I have also asked the chief judge to look into tiered courts, which would overcome shortages of court space by allowing two judicial days to be accommodated in only one day.

I am happy to report that the tiering of family courts will take place in Oshawa. In addition, in Newmarket a pilot project for evening sessions of small claims courts will begin in mid-April. I recognize that this is just a first step, but other areas are currently assessing the feasibility of implementing specialized and tiered courts.

I want to inform the Legislature that we have also increased the number of delay reduction committees from 6 to 25. These committees use co-operative management and case-flow management techniques to cut delays in scheduling.

I have said that I recognize the enormous impact the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has had on victims of crime. I announced in November that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board would consult representatives of the community and government. I am pleased to tell members today that this important initiative has begun. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board organized a two-day conference at the end of February to discuss issues of concern to victims of crime. Others have since sought participation in developing guidelines for the government. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is ensuring that all voices are heard. I expect to receive its report in June.

We are very aware that there are still cases scheduled beyond eight months. There is a lot of work ahead of us. This is both a difficult and challenging time for everyone involved in the justice system, but the end result will be a more caring, responsive, humane and quality justice system.

RESPONSES

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Bradley: What is most interesting about this announcement is, in effect, that it is a non-announcement, a rehash of information that has been available to the public and to the House for some period of time. It really demonstrates clearly that this government has no particular agenda. When all it can do is come into the House with essentially old news for members of the Legislative Assembly and the public, one has to wonder what the agenda is of this government.

The minister takes some pride, he says, in the fact that he has reduced the backlog. I think everyone in the province who is aware of this issue recognizes that he has reduced that backlog on the backs of people who have been very interested in the field of drunk driving, for instance, or in the field of sexual assault, where we have seen some serious cases which in fact have been dropped. What should have happened, of course, immediately when this happened, is that he should have sought some advice from a superior court on the best way to address this issue immediately after the judgement was handed down.

I watch each minister getting up each day with these announcements. While there are many problems that are confronting the province of Ontario and while the minister may wish to extol his own virtues in this field, I remind him that he has other colleagues who do not rise in the House to tell us what they are doing to solve the many problems that exist in the province of Ontario.

We have a deficit which is ballooning out of control. We have unemployment which is at the highest rate it has been in years. We have jobs which are fleeing the province of Ontario. Real and genuine human problems are confronting us. We have Varity Corp allowed to escape from the province of Ontario and head south of the border. We have Consumers' Gas falling into foreign hands, even though the Premier of this province just a few months ago had some rather interesting comments to make on that. We have the Minister of Health who is inadequately funding the hospitals and the health care system in the province of Ontario. We have, in addition to that, a Minister of Education who now does not know what 60% of the cost of education is in terms of funding education at the rate of 60%, and we all remember that.

1400

We have a food bank problem which is growing in the province of Ontario. We have an environmental agenda which is at a standstill. We are moving very slowly in the province of Ontario in terms of public transit. Even though there were some significant announcements which were made in the previous year in public transit, we see no significant movement in that field. We have farmers who are facing bankruptcy in this province, not only in my part of the province, the Niagara Peninsula, where they are being forced to sell off good agricultural land, but of course right across the province of Ontario. Instead, we have some studies, we have the dog-and-pony show, the NDP caucus going around pretending they are listening, but we are not seeing any significant action emerging from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

We have Colleges and Universities which is attempting to reach out to get additional funding to carry out its responsibilities, students who have a difficult time meeting their financial obligations, and the answer of the Rae government is to increase their tuition by some 8%, having said that it was going to abolish tuition fees. We have dithering and squabbling within the NDP cabinet and caucus over the issue of automobile insurance in the province of Ontario, with some taking one stand and some taking another stand. Meanwhile, we have uncertainty out there in the private sector, where there are in fact existing companies who are delivering a service and those people are wondering how long their jobs are going to be available in the province of Ontario.

We have housing starts. We heard all of these stories about housing starts. This was the government that was going to deliver on low-cost housing for people in the province of Ontario. Instead, we have a woefully inadequate number of new starts in the province of Ontario, and yet all of the announcements we get are piddly rehashes of what the government has already announced. Now --

[Applause]

Mr Bradley: Well, they must be applauding for the 1,600 jobs a day that are being lost in the province of Ontario.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that some of the people on the opposite side could not abide listening to the reply by the member for St Catharines, but he is clearly allocated five minutes to be heard in this Legislative Assembly and there was certainly not an opportunity to be fully heard. I expected you to call the people to order who were trying to drown him out.

Hon Miss Martel: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: The five-minute response time is just that, to respond to the statement made by the minister, and there was not more than five seconds of that kind of response. So when you are dealing with this matter, I suggest you look very clearly at how long the member spoke to the matter at hand, because it was not very long.

The Speaker: I did take note that the member for St Catharines' response elicited an interest around the chamber and what I was not sure about was whether or not the member had completed his remarks. We were at approximately 12 seconds on the clock when there was considerable noise that drummed out the member for St Catharines. I take it that he was at the point of winding up his remarks. If he has a few more brief remarks to make, he has the floor.

Mr Bradley: The other would have been in the field of long-term health care, where in fact we have had a virtual standstill on the other side of the House. So when they are making announcements I hope that we will have some with substance and some with innovation, rather than the rehash of old material that has come before the House previously.

Mr Harnick: In response to this statement, I think it is an incredible thing that someone who has watched almost 35,000 cases be tossed out of court, who has had to look victims in the eye when they have not been able to seek redress and have watched the accused leave the courtroom free, stands up here today and congratulates himself. I cannot conceive that anyone would brag about cleaning up court lists because 30,000 cases were eliminated. The victims certainly are not standing up congratulating the government that sat around for about two months waiting to decide what to do with Askov and delayed because it was too difficult to get judges and courtrooms working full days. To congratulate himself in that circumstance amazes me.

There are other interesting aspects to this statement. I notice that in November the Attorney General was asking for new federal judges, federal appointments. The reason there were no federal appointments before that time and the reason there were no federal appointments until the middle of March is because the Attorney General had not appointed a person to the judicial council, so those appointments could not be made. When I wrote to the Attorney General in January and I asked, "When are you going to make that appointment?" I got a letter back that said: "Oh, well, we'll write you later. We don't know the answer yet." That is the response that I got. It would have been very simple to make that appointment, and these judges could have been picked and in place three months ago.

It is also interesting to note that there has been hiring based on the accolades of employment equity. We have hired francophones, racial minorities and women, and I think that is all very good and it is all very proper. But it seems the one thing that the Attorney General never talks about any more when it comes to appointments are appointments based on the number one criterion for our court system, and that is ability. That criterion has gone out the window and I think that in future, when he lists these things, ability and experience have to be included in the list of other admirable qualities. But hiring does not include ability any more. It only includes all of the other things. I do not deny that the other things are good things and I do not deny that they are proper.

The other thing of great interest is that we hear about all the things that the Attorney General is doing on the criminal side. There is no mention of what he is doing on the civil side, other than the fact that he is going to try something new with a tiered court in Newmarket. What is happening with the Unified Family Court system? What is happening with the small claims courts? The small claims courts have gone from having 13 full-time judges to eight. The limit is $3,000 in Toronto. Everywhere else it is $1,000. Why are we not making the right reforms to that court, the people's court?

1410

The other very interesting area is the Attorney General's discussion about victims and the conference that he held in February. It is interesting that he held that conference on the same day that the standing committee on justice had subpoenaed those witnesses to come before it. What the Attorney General effectively did that day was derail the process of a standing committee. The standing committee had those witnesses arranged, the witnesses were to appear before the standing committee on justice, and where did they go? They ended up at a hastily called conference that was set up for no other reason than to derail the standing committee. Not only did they have that meeting; it was a closed meeting to boot. This statement, this self-congratulatory statement, leaves a lot to be desired.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing, members may wish to welcome in our midst today a former member from the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, Doug Wiseman.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Daigeler: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: we have had rehashed announcements by ministers, we have had no announcements by ministers, and then we have had announcements by ministers that were made outside this House instead of inside this House.

Today, the Toronto Star is reporting that the Minister of Colleges and Universities announced yesterday at a conference that $21 million are being allocated to make room for more visible minorities at our colleges and universities.

It has been the tradition of this House that major government initiatives, major government announcements are made during ministers' statements. Twenty-one million dollars is a significant amount. Therefore, the minister should have made his announcement right here in the House. Would the Speaker, therefore, please review this matter and make a ruling whether it is appropriate, according to our parliamentary traditions, that major government initiatives are made public before they are announced here in the House.

The Speaker: First of all, the member should be aware that that is not a point of privilege: it is a point of order which you have raised. It is a point of order which I dealt with last week and a statement was made to the effect that statements made by ministers outside the House are certainly not out of order with respect to our standing orders in this assembly. It has been ruled on previously. You may wish to refer to Hansard.

MEMBERS' MAILINGS

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like your opinion on a document that I have which appears to be a householder sent out by the member for Guelph, to all constituents in Guelph. There is a question in the householder that I would like to refer to the Speaker for a railing -- or a ruling, rather. l am getting a little -- what would you like?

Mr Stockwell: You do the railings, he does the rulings.

Mr Mahoney: Well, these guys have got us on a rail with all this nonsense and I am personally getting tired of constantly rising in my place to ask you to rule. If the Premier would set some standards for his back bench to follow instead of going out and doing polling, "I would like information on the following political party," right-out questioning, getting his constituents to do polling to get information on a political party, paid for by the taxpayer -- I think it is outrageous. I would like the Speaker's ruling.

The Speaker: If the member would be so kind as to forward that to the table -- perhaps a page could obtain it, please -- I would be most pleased to take a look at it and I will report back to the member as soon as possible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FUND-RAISING

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Premier, and it also involves his capacity as leader of the New Democratic Party, having to do with the involvement of the party in municipal elections. The Premier will be aware that the media day by day gives further evidence of the concentration of the NDP on winning municipal office. There is nothing the matter with that other than they might be successful, God forbid.

But I have noticed particularly that some of the Premier's cabinet colleagues have moved forward in a prominent way to take a role in municipal elections on behalf of the NDP. Without spending a lot of time on detail, I think the one that took my attention mostly was three cabinet ministers and three other members of caucus in Hamilton sending out a fund-raising letter for their morality candidate which says as follows: "He has done everything possible for the New Democratic Party. Now it's our turn to help our political friend." This is the same candidate who received the special information about the cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

I would say to the Premier by way of question, since he has established very high standards for his colleagues in respect of their responsibilities here, is he prepared to announce what his position is in providing guidelines particularly with respect to fund-raising for cabinet ministers and other caucus members covering their activities in municipal campaigns?

Hon Mr Rae: I am troubled by the Leader of the Opposition's question. I have not seen the details of the letter in question. If he would care to send me over a copy, I would obviously appreciate it.

But I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the notion that upon entering cabinet people stop being politicians or stop playing a role in their constituencies and that we completely cease having any political identity of any kind whatsoever strikes me at first blush, I must confess, as quite strange. There is no suggestion that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition of any kind of conflict. The only suggestion that has been made is that somehow it is inappropriate for us to express a view as to who our preferred choioe would be for a candidate for federal office or for municipal offioe.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that his leader campaigned in the last federal election, his leader campaigned on behalf of candidates in the last federal election, his leader endorsed many Liberal Party candidates in his own riding and elsewhere. When the next federal election comes up, I am going to be a New Democrat, the Leader of the Opposition is going to be a Liberal, the leader of the Conservative Party is going to be a Conservative. l see no distinction between that.

Mr Stockwell: Don't bet on it.

Hon Mr Rae: Maybe I am being unfair. Maybe I have assumed too much. The fact that there are some people who are identified as New Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives at the municipal level and have the support of other people who are New Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives is not exactly news.

Mr Nixon: The honourable Premier would be aware that my question had to do with cabinet ministers participating in direct fund-raising for their NDP friends and that this would lead, in my view, to a certain conflict when it came to the discussion of issues.

On a related matter, is the Premier aware that article 8.07 of the collective agreement between his administration and his caucus support staff states as follows, "Where authorized by the member during a municipal campaign, those employees who work full-time in a constituency office during a campaign in that riding shall be entitled to four days' paid leave"?

Given the fact that the NDP has decided to participate extensively in municipal elections, can he ensure that the public purse is not going to be funding NDP workers in Hamilton, in Toronto, in Ottawa, in Sudbury and in Brantford and other areas where the NDP is taking a leading role?

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I can.

Mr Nixon: That is good.

I have an interesting publication. I will send a copy of it to the Premier, although he probably has it. It is an announcement of an NDP seminar to assist those people in the community who want the following questions answered about the NDP: "Who are they? What motivates them? How do they make policy? What factors influence its decision-making process? How are they organized?" This invites people in the community to listen to leading members of the New Democratic Party, of which the Premier is the leader, to take part for a fee. The registration fee is $750 per person, plus GST of course, which is $52.50, for a total of $802.50.

1420

I would like to ask the Premier if, as leader of the New Democratic Party, he has authorized this tollgate on the community at large when, in a widely quoted address, he said: "If you want to spend money to get access to the Ontario government, it's your money. If you want to burn it, it's your business. If you don't need the money and would like to give it to someone like a food bank everyone would be much better off."

Hon Mr Rae: This seminar has absolutely nothing at all to do with my government, nothing. No, it is a party function. The parties opposite have functions. They raise money at their functions. They have seminars.

Mr Nixon: The question is directed to the leader of the New Democratic Party, who is the Premier of the province and who is now disavowing --

Hon Mr Rae: No, no.

Mr Nixon: The Premier cannot separate his position --

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. The Leader of the Opposition may choose to go bananas, but I am still going to answer his question. Before he goes bananas, let me just say to him that the idea that a political party should somehow be prevented from having a seminar or from raising money in a way that is perfectly open and perfectly aboveboard -- every political party in the province does it. The Leader of the Opposition now is so desperate for a headline and so desperate for news that he is actually talking about nothing of any significance at all.

Mr Nixon: The leader of the New Democratic Party is so desperate for bucks that he has got an $800 tollgate on the people of the province so they can have access to the government.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Nixon: I have a question for a minister who will give me a much more sensible answer, I know that, and that is the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Yesterday, the minister indicated that she was making progress in ensuring that the benefits of the government's anti-recession package were targeted towards the lowincome and unemployed people of this province. Today, the Daily Bread Food Bank will be launching its Easter food drive. Perhaps, as a matter of fact, the money that would be going to the Bob Rae fund can be redirected to that food bank as he suggested.

The Daily Bread's own statistics show that almost 120,000 people in Toronto receive groceries or emergency meal programs every month, a 48% increase over last year. Children under the age of 19 account for almost 52,000 of monthly food bank users, an increase of 73%. How does the minister reconcile her claims that the NDP government has moved, in her words, quite a distance in getting people back to work with the statistics and the facts that demonstrate that the very opposite is true?

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, in fact, the very opposite is not true. It is a fact that there has been an increase in the case load, and that increase has resulted from unemployment, the recession itself, the fact that the federal government continues to pull out on its supports to people, and this of course means that more people move very quickly to the social assistance and are increased on that load.

We do address the program and, of course, if you look at the newspaper and you read it more carefully, you will also recognize that they have reported that there has been a decrease, that some of the people have been taken off the food bank since the increase in social assistance has taken place. We continue to move and to put our funds in areas where the case load is very high.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister was good enough to indicate that the utilization of the food banks dropped slightly when SARC recommendations were first established in the budget before the last one. Since that time and since she became minister, there has been only a 2% increase in the funding of those people who are substantially in need in this particular area and across the province.

In response to a question in the Legislature last November, the minister asked us to give her three months to plan for but not study the NDP government's approach to social assistance reform. As I remember it, and perhaps this is taking her slightly out of context, she said, "Give me three months to abolish poverty."

I would like to ask the minister, since the three months are up and in the interim the Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation has recommended that $5 million be invested in pilot projects for opportunity planning, in other words, putting people back to work, how she has responded to these specific recommendations to solve the crying need that she is aware of and we are all aware of.

Hon Mrs Akande: Let me first of all correct a bit of an error here. There seems to have been some kind of difficulty in the member's receptive language. Actually, that was not what I stated. I did state that it was necessary for us to have some time to study the problem. I want to correct another error. We did actually make more than a 2% increase. We also increased the increase by 5% on the shelter, the area which had significant influence on the use of the food banks. Then of course we have used our $51 million of the anti-recession fund to address the needs of those who were put out of work. I might say that those 35 projects are all in areas where the social assistance increase is greater than 30%.

Mr Nixon: With over half a million people out of work in the province right now, and I think the latest figure that we have from the ministry is about 894,400 individuals on social assistance, with the situation that came to a head with the report of the Daily Bread Food Bank in the newspapers today, will the minister explain something that frankly I put to her yesterday, how she relates her responsibilities with the announcements made by the Premier and the Treasurer of the allocation of special funds when we are aware that the welfare cases in York region are up over 100% in one year, in Victoria county up 83%, St Thomas has an increase of 81%, with Elgin county in general over 100%? These areas have received little if any of the special funds announced by the Treasurer which are to be spent in the next fiscal year. Does she have a role in correlating the expenditure of these large amounts of money with the special problems of those people who are not only unemployed but are in receipt of welfare?

Hon Mrs Akande: May I say that in fact we have moved to address the problem. We have done it in two ways. I want to specify what those ways are. First of all, we have decided on the focus of that money, on where to put those anti-recession programs according to the viability of the program, the financial viability and the areas most impacted by the recession. We have addressed some of the needs in Elgin county. We have looked at those areas that had an increase that was greater; that meant the social assistance recipients were 40% or greater of the population.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. During the weekend he was quoted, I think in the Toronto Star, as saying, "Changes to Ontario's Sunday shopping law won't be coming soon, Premier Bob Rae says." Also in that quote, when he was articulating his and his government's policy in response to Sunday shopping, he said that it could be at least a year before his government makes a decision on the issue of Sunday openings. I wonder if the Premier would share with this House just what it is that he is planning to do that could possibly take a year.

Hon Mr Rae: I never said that introducing the legislation could take as long as a year. What I said in my speech -- and it was clearly stated in the speech that l gave -- was that there would be a process of consultation, and then there would be legislation. Then there will be, in all likelihood, public hearings, if that is what the House decides it wants to have, and then there will be final reading. That is the way the process works. The leader of the third party knows that if we were not to consult, he would be the very first to criticize. So the minister is responsible now for leading the consultation. The legislation will be forthcoming, and when the legislation gets to the House it will be dealt with then. But there is every inclination on our part to consult. There is absolutely no desire on our part to delay this matter.

1430

Mr Harris: Surely, when we are after consultation on some issues, it is indeed to receive public input. There are other times, I would suggest to the Premier, as example after example after example, that he is using this call for consultation as some form of excuse because he still does not know what he is going to do. I do not even know why he called the House back. If three months was not enough to get his act together, why does he not recess for another month so that we can find out what it is he wants to do?

Clearly, the people have been consulted on Sunday shopping. Last week when I asked a question, the Solicitor General said: "I can tell you what the workers are going to say. I can tell you what the union's going to say," and he is right. We all know, because they have been consulted to death. Quite frankly, this government has beaten the consultation process, or excuse, on this issue to death.

If the page can come in, I will show the Premier the type of consultation that his Solicitor General has been through. Here is the documentation. This is the result of months of consultation. These are the submissions right here from 522 groups -- unfortunately, it covers my whole desk including my question -- 522 groups and individuals from across the province who testified before the last committee studying the issue. This is a committee that the Solicitor General sat on. He has heard it all.

We have now had nine months of self-regulated Sunday openings. I would like to ask the Premier, what is it that he possibly thinks he is going to hear that he has not heard already?

Hon Mr Rae: I must confess to a degree of surprise with respect to the question from the leader of the third party, because his party is the very first to accuse us of railroading things and of wanting to ram things through and not talk to people. I say to him that I think that the government is taking the wise course. He well knows that, sure, there were hearings before, and he knows the experience of the previous government which did not listen. This is a government which intends to listen. We also intend to act, and I want to give that assurance to the House and to the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I do not know. The first one on top: Here is the Ontario Public Service Employees Union brief on Sunday shopping. It will not change, I can assure the Premier of that. We have spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably in the millions of dollars, looking for this answer, consulting with the public. There were two major committees before the one in 1988. As members know, we had our own task force that went out and did the same thing because we did not think we could ever convince a government to consult.

There is one thing that has changed: We have had eight months of self-regulation. That has changed, for the first time in the history of this province. I would tell the Premier if in fact he is telling me he wants to study and analyse the results of that, that the sky did not fall in. If there is something that all those who predicted would happen happened, if that is what he wants to do, I can understand it, but to tell me he is delaying to consult the people on what their views are is strictly stalling. Is the Premier really not making a mountain out of a molehill on this issue, because there is no issue out there and there has not been for the past eight months.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the leader of the third party that in my view there is another thing that has changed, and it has changed about four times in the last three years, and that is the position of the leader of the Conservative Party with respect to the issue of Sunday shopping. Now they are consulting as to whether it is five times or four. I am not sure whether it is five or six or four.

I want to be fair to the leader of the third party, and maybe it is important for us to hear from him again, but I say with great respect to the leader of the third party that I do not think it is improper for the Solicitor General, having received the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario, to talk with people who are affected by whatever decision this government takes before we make any announcements and before we introduce the legislation into this House. I think that is appropriate. I think it is what the people of this province want. I think it is what the people of Ontario need. It is the kind of government which we are going to continue to provide to the people of the province.

Mr Harris: We may have had four different opinions; we have also had four different leaders in the last five years. They, however, have had the very same leader. What can I say?

Mr Mahoney: How about the next five?

Mr Harris: We may have five more in the next five years too. I do not know.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Premier. In the Premier's agenda for the election, he promised to make $100 million worth of financing available to farmers at the government's borrowing cost. This was a commitment the Premier made during the campaign. He said he would use the borrowing cost and he would make $100 million available. I wonder if the Premier could tell me, at the time he made that commitment, how he thought and envisioned that this program would work.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the leader of the third party that the government will be having an announcement to make with respect to the question of farm financing reasonably soon.

Mr Harris: A year ago this week, the member for Algoma, who now sits in the Premier's cabinet, introduced a resolution calling for a farm interest rate reduction program, something similar to what the Premier announced in the campaign, although he had a unique way in the campaign. He was going to use the borrowing power, and I was hoping he could give us an explanation of how that would work.

I wonder if the Premier could tell the farmers specifically, who are making planting decisions now -- and needed to know last week, quite frankly, but need to know now some of these costs and some of these answers to these questions -- what reduction, if any, they can expect on their interest charges this year, and perhaps he could go back to the first question and just tell me how he envisioned this program would work, using the borrowing credit of the province.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to assure the member, as I assured the Leader of the Opposition last week, that this is an issue that the government takes very seriously. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has been extremely effective in bringing forward the case on behalf of farmers who have never really come out of the recession and who are now in some real difficulty, and as I have said to the leader of the third party in my first answer, he will be having something to say about that quite soon.

Mr Harris: We have heard all this "quite soon" stuff, and farmers --

Hon Mr Rae: No.

1440

Mr Harris: Well, we have. I mean, in the campaign it was "right away." They had the answer on Sunday shopping. They had the answer on automobile insurance. Now it is going to be "quite soon."

Meanwhile, farmers have been waiting since they have been elected, for six months. I suggest that it is not just the farmers who need boots these days, because it is getting pretty thick right in here in this Legislature on issue after issue and promise after promise.

The Premier made a promise to the farmers, who helped get him elected, clearly. We see no evidence of that bearing fruit. He has his own travelling show, the famous three, who did not talk about this at all as they travelled around the province, and by the time his Treasurer plows through everything and comes up with a response, clearly it is going to be too late to help farmers this year. There will not be any seeds in the ground if they are relying on him for the announcement.

Last year he had an answer. Last summer he said it was simple and it would not cost anything. He would just use the borrowing credit of the government. If it is so simple, why has he waited some six months, put farmers through this agony and put them through this position where they cannot make these planning decisions?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to give the leader of the third party my assurance, as I have in each of the two answers that I have given him so far. First of all, I think that the discussion that was led by the member for Essex-Kent, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, was a good one and an important one. But I also want to give the leader of the third party the assurance that this government is fully intending to provide the kind of support to farmers and to agriculture that they need, and we are going to be making it very clear to him and to others just how strong that commitment is.

FOREST SPRAYING

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will be aware that his predecessors, the member for Fort William and Mr Kerrio, committed the ministry to a policy of using only the biological insecticide Bt. He will also know that spraying Ontario's forests with pesticides is of course of great concern to people right across the province. Could the minister confirm today that only the insecticide Bt will be used while he is minister, and second, will he introduce a screening process to regulate Bt use in areas where endangered or rare species or their special habitat exist in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to assure the member that the position of the ministry and of the government has not changed from the previous government.

Mrs Sullivan: We appreciate that. We would like also to know further information from the minister relating to herbicides, such as 2,4-D and glyphosate, where they are the herbicide of choice in Ontario's forest operations despite much concern among the public. I wonder if the minister could explain what plans or initiatives he may have to restrict the use of herbicides such as 2,4-D and glyphosate, but not necessarily restricted to those two herbicides.

Hon Mr Wildman: We take the view of those who are concerned about the use of herbicides, particularly aerial spraying of herbicides in our forests, very seriously. As the member will know, as outlined in the throne speech and the commitments that we have made in the House, we will be bringing forward this spring a sustainable forestry program which will involve comprehensive forest management policies, one of which I suspect will involve the question of herbicide use and the question of aerial spraying as opposed to manual tending or ground-level spraying. We will be carrying on as part of that thrust investigation and research on alternative ways to manage our forests to limit the use of herbicides in Ontario's forests.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware of the widespread and growing public concern about people living in co-ops and receiving subsidized rents who can afford market rents. The net effect is that taxpayers are subsidizing those who do not need it, thereby denying housing to those truly in need.

The Ontario Corporations Act allows co-ops to receive subsidies for 30 years. At the end of that term, the tenants own a valuable piece of property for which they owe the taxpayers nothing. Clearly, this is unfair to taxpayers. Is the minister prepared to change the Corporations Act to require co-ops to account for the public money they have received at the end of the term of the subsidized mortgage?

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to refer this question to the Minister of Housing.

Hon Mr Cooke: This government shares the same philosophy that previous governments have shared and that the member's federal government shares, and that is that we do not believe any longer in building public housing that has 100% rent geared to income. We believe in integrated neighbourhoods and I am surprised -- well, l am not surprised that the Conservative Party continues to use this issue in a political way instead of trying to work with this government and other people in this province to build integrated neighbourhoods and affordable housing across this province.

Mr Runciman: That is a bunch of baloney and the minister knows it. He talks about us using it for political reasons. We do not have a lot of Progressive Conservatives living in subsidized housing in this province, unlike his party. We brought this issue up many months ago, before the current minister and Jack Layton and a multitude of other NDPers were living in subsidized housing, subsidized by the taxpayers of this province.

We are talking about flips, and I want to ask this minister if he agrees with the concept of the taxpayers of this province subsidizing those kinds of people, people who can well afford market rents and at the end of 30 years can flip their units and make significant profits on the backs of taxpayers. Does he agree with that?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think if the member wants to give an honest interpretation of tax laws that are used in this province and in this country, he will look and say that there are a lot of subsidies that exist in the private sector as well. We have to use the tax laws and we have to use housing policies to provide a range of housing. I would reiterate what this government feels very strongly, and that is that co-op and non-profit housing should be integrated with a range of income levels in this province. We stand by that commitment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr Christopherson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be pleased to know that although my question is on another Hamilton-Wentworth transportation project, this one is not quite as controversial as others we have dealt with here, although it is just as important.

Residents of Hamilton are distressed, as I am, that we have had no word on the progress of the environmental assessment for the Hamilton downtown GO train expansion. Given this government's commitment to public transit, when can we expect the ministry to complete its review of this assessment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am so glad somebody asked. I can understand the frustration that people have felt with the environmental assessment process. It does take too long. I am pleased to be able to tell the member that the review of this particular environmental assessment is almost completed and I would hope that we would soon have an announcement as to the public consultation.

Mr Christopherson: My supplementary would be first of all prefaced by thanking the minister for finally moving this assessment along. We have been waiting a long time to get this project moving. Given the fact that it did take over a year for this assessment to go through the Ministry of the Environment, what assurances can the minister give this House that the government is committed to improving the environmental assessment process?

Hon Mrs Grier: This government is firmly committed to the environmental assessment process and to making that process effective, efficient and timely. As I told the members of this House last November, l would release the discussion paper that was prepared for my predecessor, the member for St Catharines, that looks at making improvements to the Environmental Assessment Act. The Ontario Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee is undergoing public consultation around the recommended improvements to the act that were contained in that paper, and it is certainly my hope and intention to have amendments to that legislation before this House as soon as I can.

Mr Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to make it clear that the member for Hamilton Centre charged the Minister of the Environment with interfering with the Environmental Assessment Board. That is what he said, that she sped up the process. That is what he said. She did not deny that, and therefore I think that requires an explanation by the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton, I do not believe that is a point of privilege, but it certainly is of interest to you and many others. We have a question from the member for Mississauga West.

1450

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Mahoney: I need your patience, Mr Speaker, because my question is directed, if you could just follow me, one, to the Minister of Citizenship; two, to the minister responsible for race relations; three, to the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission; four, to the minister responsible for disabled persons, and finally, if there is any time left at the end of the day, to the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs.

As the minister knows, the previous government established the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs and I think with the size of her portfolio, we could consider her indeed to be the mother of all cabinet ministers over there. My concern is that since the minister took office last October, however, there has not been one substantive announcement made on behalf of senior citizens and indeed she seems to be placing our senior citizens on the back burner.

I would point to the example that all of the minister's staff, from the deputy on down, work for the Citizenship ministry. I have a business card, a policy analyst. I will not mention the name, but it says "Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs." However, it is printed on Ministry of Citizenship business cards. Clearly that ministry seems to be taking a priority.

I can see that it does not bother the Premier that the seniors of this province are being ignored and lumped into a group of five separate responsibilities. I can see that the Premier has no concerns, but perhaps the minister does, and she indeed is who my question is directed to.

What I would like to ask is, who in the minister's government and at the cabinet table indeed speaks for senior citizens? Who speaks for them and when will they, whoever they are, speak for them on issues such as mandatory retirement, long-term health care and the quality of life for our senior citizens, whether the Premier cares about it or not?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I will try to address the question a little bit more succinctly. What I would like to say to my colleague in the opposition is that, yes, I am the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs and I would like to say, yes, we have had some announcements, and I am sure that he is aware of them.

We announced in December a bill that I was very pleased to announce, and that is the Advocacy Act. That takes into account the fact that we waited in the community, the opposition member will know, for many years to hear what was going to happen. We had lobbied the previous government to work on that particular bill and it was shelved. We had to dust it off and we did. We dusted it off very quickly and brought it to this House.

Yes, we have been working on long-term care as well and we have been working very hard. I spend many hours of my week working on that particular, sole issue, and I am very pleased that when we come back to the House with our final deliberations, the member will see what has changed to make sure that the seniors live in their own community not only independently but with dignity.

[Applause]

Mr Mahoney: I think the back bench should applaud, because I have a suggestion that I think a lot of them would like, and that is that the minister ask the Premier to seriously consider appointing one of them to be responsible for senior citizens' affairs to put some attention towards issues. I mean, the minister has a few. Maybe the member for Durham East, who just announced he had obtained the ripe age of senior citizen status, could be the next minister, someone who understands what it is like to ride the buses free and to get the breaks that the senior citizens deserve. I think that would be an excellent suggestion for the Premier.

But I do not see anyone in this government doing anything to address issues of serious concern to senior citizens in this province. In my opinion, this minister with regard to senior citizens is missing in action without any doubt. Would she support this Premier appointing one of the backbenchers to become the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, or is she happy to continue doing nothing on behalf of seniors in this province?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am deliberating very carefully in answering this question because quite frankly I have done quite a bit for the seniors. I must seriously ask the member of the opposition what the previous government did for seniors when we waited so long for the Advocacy Act and it did not happen in the community. I would also like to say that it is entirely up to the Premier whom he appoints to cabinet, and I will leave that to his good judgement, as he has done previously.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Treasurer. Could he please advise the members of the House just how much new money has been recently allocated to the Minister of Community and Social Services to buy out commercial day care centres that are experiencing financial difficulty in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not know the answer. None that I know of.

Mr Jackson: On 12 February I raised this issue in a general way with the Minister of Community and Social Services, and she freely admitted in Hansard that a fund exists, that she has received those funds from the Treasurer and that rather than honouring the Premier's election promise that we pay for pay equity enhancement for day care workers in private day care centres, $30 million was given to non-profit day care centres, but the profit centres were not funded at all. Because of that discrimination, some of those centres will collapse. The minister indicated that she had received the necessary funding from the Treasurer, not in order to give the money to stop the discrimination against these workers, but she had the funds to buy out these commercial day care centres that are already paid for. The Treasurer had given her the money to buy them and convert them into non-profits.

Why is the Treasurer paying for something with taxpayers' dollars that is already paid for and yet continuing with his policies that blatantly discriminate against 8,000 women who work in commercial day care centres in this province? Why has the Treasurer got the money to buy out commercial centres but he does not have money for the women who work in them? It is in Hansard.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think I understand now what the member is getting at. There has been for some time, as I understand it, a conversion program for child care centres, but I am not sure what the member is trying to extract from me, because we have announced the assistance for pay equity for the non-profit centres, but we have not made any announcement or decision on the balance.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Huget: My question is to the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy. Yesterday in my riding I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Chippewas of Sarnia reserve to discuss a new substance abuse strategy they have developed for their reserve. They, like many other groups in my riding, are striving to deal with the complex problem of drug and alcohol abuse and are trying to identify treatment needs for the community.

I am aware of an advisory committee report on alcohol and drug treatment and I am also aware that the public has been asked to provide input into this report. Can the minister provide me with an update on the public's response to this very important issue.

Hon Mr Farnan: The task force travelling the province is seeking public input on the advisory committee's task force, A Vision for the 90s. There has been a tremendous response. There are very positive, supportive comments for the recommendations of the task force, and as of today the task force will have visited 10 communities. It will visit 12 communities in all. It will finalize its tour on approximately 15 April. We anticipate that between 160 and 180 oral presentations will be made to the task force. What is very encouraging, I have to tell the members, is that a very wide variety of interested parties representing thousands of Ontarians will make presentations -- individuals, detox facilities, Addiction Research Foundation offices, district health councils, individuals with disabilities, native peoples' organizations and treatment facilities. Following the task force completion of the tour on 15 April, it will be putting together its reflections in the form of a report which it will submit to me, and I in turn will discuss that with cabinet and bring forward recommendations in good order.

1500

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. In a recent letter to a North York tenant leader, the Minister of Revenue made the following statement, "Contrary to the claims of the city of Toronto report, the ministry will only reassess apartments and other properties when these have increased substantially in market value due to new construction or major renovations."

If the minister could say those words, I truly believe she does not know what is happening in her own ministry, because contrary to what she has stated, apartment buildings across Metro, particularly in the city of Toronto, have been reassessed where there has been no new construction and no renovations done. Thousands of tenants have had their buildings reassessed and face rent increases because of it.

I would like the minister to tell us what exactly her policy is regarding the reassessment of apartment buildings.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I am aware that there are assessors out in the city of Toronto, and what they are doing is updating their records; they do this throughout the province. At this time I am also very aware that the city of Toronto is very upset with the assessors out there because it feels it has something to do with market value assessment that has been asked for of the Ministry of Revenue. This is just an update of their records. They do it throughout the province and they do it when the records have become outdated.

Ms Poole: This confirms my statement that the Minister of Revenue has absolutely no idea of what is happening in her own ministry. We are not talking about updating records. We are talking about apartment buildings which have been reassessed where there has been no new construction, where there have been no renovations, major or otherwise. Her assessors have filed new assessments on those buildings and tenants are paying rent increases because of it.

If she does not believe me, let me give her a few examples: 1435 Bathurst Street; 39 Pembroke Street; 77 Pembroke Street; 90 Adelaide Street East; eight buildings on Lonsdale Avenue; a group of buildings on St Clair Avenue West; another set of buildings out in the west end of Toronto, low-income buildings. These are buildings which her ministry has reassessed, even though there has been no change in the improvements in those buildings.

Now that the minister has been advised that this is going on, that it is happening, when is she going to put a stop to it, because it flies directly in the face of her very own policy statement? Second, will she give us her assurance that she will not oppose the rolling back of these improper assessments at the Ontario Municipal Board or the Assessment Review Board? Will the minister give us those guarantees?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I am aware, as I have said, that the assessors are out in the city of Toronto. They are updating the records because the records are all outdated. When those records are updated they will not have to reassess those apartments until there are changes in the area.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Harnick: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. It was reported on the CBC news today -- and I know from yesterday's ministerial statement how much the government reveres that source -- that her election campaign was financed in large part by donations from individuals with a strong connection to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Before her election she was the head negotiator of the union in its dealings with the government. Now she is the head negotiator for the government in its dealings with her union. Even the tiniest imagination says this reeks of conflict of interest. How does she respond to this?

Hon Ms Lankin: I will resist responding to the comment about the tiny imagination. However, let me say that with respect to the campaign contributions, the report that was on CBC did not say, first of all, that in large part the campaign contributions came from people I worked with at OPSEU over the 10 years I was on staff there. At that point in time it would have been a far stretch of the imagination to have contemplated that, first, we would be in government; second, that I would be in cabinet; third, that I would be Chair of Management Board or Minister of Government Services. There is absolutely nothing wrong with receiving campaign contributions from individuals, particularly from long-term friends. I see no conflict of interest. I see what the member is doing is sheer politicking.

Mr Harnick: I have to bite my tongue not to ask whether the minister is serious, because on 21 February she appeared before the standing committee on administration of justice to discuss the proposed conflict-ofinterest guidelines. I asked her at that time about her perceived conflict of interest. Today, the public began asking the same question. On 21 February she told me she could leap the bounds of conflict because, "I am a New Democrat."

The public does not buy this explanation. I do not buy it and public perception does not buy it. Only the Ontario Public Service Employees Union buys it. Will the minister not admit, at the very least, that her prior life, compared to her current life, admits the perception of conflict of interest?

Hon Ms Lankin: I want to correct the record at this time, as I did in front of the justice committee when this member suggested that my response was simply that I could overcome perceptions of conflict because I was a New Democrat. If he understood that from my comments, I explained to him at that time that in fact that was not what I had intended, that was not the statement I made. He again repeats that as if it is a truism. I want the record corrected on that. I would think that would be an outrageous position for any cabinet minister to take simply because she was a member of one political party over another, so I would like that record corrected.

With respect to a conflict of interest, this question has been asked several times now in the House and it has been asked by members outside of the House in private conversations with me, members from the opposition parties. I spent a number of years working in the trade union movement, particularly with OPSEU, as a negotiator, and in a number of other positions as an equal opportunity co-ordinator and an economic researcher. I gained tremendous skills during that period of time and a knowledge of the inside working of governments and labour relations, which helps me bring to this job, I think, a background and experience beyond that which many of our other colleagues at this time, and members on the other side of the House, have.

The job I have as a corporate employer at this time goes far beyond dealing simply with the bargaining unit. I am responsible for directions and policies for all employees, 90,000 employees, not just bargaining unit employees. I see no conflict of interest. I ask to be judged on the actions with which I carry out the duties of my job.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the answer from the Minister of Revenue, who has shown she neither understands the question nor indeed knows what is happening within her own ministry. I would ask for a late show at 6 o'clock.

FARM ANIMALS

Mr Mills: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I ask this question, and I am sure there are many people on all sides of the House who are great animal lovers, as I am. I have had the opportunity to visit a farm that raises small calves for the gourmet meat market. I must say the visit was very upsetting. These little animals had neither room to lie down nor stand up, and they had no straw. In fact, as an animal lover, I found the whole experienoe very upsetting. My question to the minister is, is this an acceptable practice for keeping farm animals in Ontario?

1510

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am sure the member and the members of the House realize that this is a very sensitive issue. There is a code of practice in Canada for the production of veal. It is a code of practice that was developed in consultation with agricultural people, with scientists, and it was agreed upon by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, which laid out standards for the size of confinement areas and laid out some guidelines as to what is acceptable in the production of veal.

By and large, as far as I know, that code of practice is adhered to by farmers in Ontario. The Ontario Farm Animal Council does inspections of farms, visits farms any time there are complaints, or does random visits to farms to make sure the code of practice is complied with. We in the Agriculture and Food ministry believe that all farmers are doing their best to adhere to that code of practice. If they are not adhering to it, I would very much like to know about it.

Mr Mills: I would like to suggest to the minister that his ministry perhaps take the protection of the animals one step further. I refer to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. On 1 January 1990 they issued a regulation called the welfare of calves regulation, and this regulation is intended to ban the veal crate and applies to all calves in the United Kingdom. It says that from January 1990 it will be a punishable offence to keep a calf in a single pen unless: (1) the pen is wide enough; (2) the calf is able to turn around without difficulty; (3) it has adequate dietary iron to maintain it in full health and vigour; and (4) from two weeks old it has sufficient fibrous food for the development of the digestive system.

My supplementary to the minister is, would your ministry consider taking a look at that type of regulation to introduce in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to inform the member that there are no plans at this time to deal with that. However, I have a meeting set up in the very near future with the Ontario Farm Animal Council. We are going to be discussing animal welfare, livestock welfare, and I am always willing to listen to concerns of different groups, agricultural and otherwise. We will be having a meeting and no doubt that will be one of the things they will wish to bring to my attcntion.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon Mr Allen: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It was, earlier in the question period or just prior to it, alleged that I had made an announcement of a government program outside this House. I want to make it clear, first of all, that I take my obligation to do that kind of thing very seriously here before the members before anyone else hears about it.

Yesterday at a conference sponsored by my ministry on methods and techniques of improving equal access for all underrepresented groups in the university system, I referred to a holdback of $21 million on the transfer announcements. Later, speaking with a reporter, I indicated to her that I will be making some announcements in the future around programs that would enable access to better take place for visible minorities. She put the two things together as though it were a formal announcement. It was not such an announcement. When those announcements are ready the member for Nepean, like others, will hear about them in the proper fashion.

The Speaker: The members should be aware that it is a point of personal explanation and a point of privilege. The member for St Catharines has the opportunity to place a question and proceed now.

CAT SCANNER

Mr Bradley: My question is for the Minister of Health, regarding the need in the Niagara Peninsula for a computerized axial tomography scanner, a need which has been present for some time. The minister would likely be aware that the Niagara District Health Council made a recommendation last year that there be, in fact, a second CAT scanner placed somewhere in the Niagara Peninsula, either at Greater Niagara General Hospital or at the Welland County General Hospital or at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

At the present time about 7,000 scans take place in a year, and the backlog for elective scans is about five months. This, in effect, means that people have to go to Buffalo to get a scan or out of the region. The need is genuinely there.

Could the minister inform the House when we could expect an announcement from her to approve the placement of a second CAT scan machine in the Niagara region under the auspices of one of those hospitals, in recognition of the fact that I am sure the local community, as it does in these instances, would be prepared to raise the necessary capital funds if the operating funds are forthcoming and the approval is given by the minister?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I have to inform the member that I cannot inform him at this time when an answer could be given him on this question, but I have asked the ministry to provide me with information about the situation as he describes it and to give us an assessment of exactly where this would be in terms of priorities for the installation of a new CAT scanner.

MOTION

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Miss Martel moved that standing order 85 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr29, 38 and 52 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 27 March 1991.

Motion agreed to.

PETITION

ABORTION

Mr Jamison: I present this petition with over 1,800 signatures of residents of the riding of Norfolk who call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact laws to protect the rights of the unborn child and to withdraw its decision to fund abortion clinics in Ontario.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker: Just on a point of order, pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Eglinton has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Revenue concerning the reassessment of apartment buildings. This matter will be debated at 6 o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

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

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, we have agreed again to share the time among the three parties.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: C'est un grand plaisir de participer à ce débat aujourd'hui. I am very pleased to be able to say a few words in appreciation of the work of this Legislature's report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I think it is a important report and I hope its value to the current discussion of the future of the country will be recognized by people in this province and people across Canada.

It is a modest report, just over 30 pages in length, but I have read it with a sense of pleasure and hope because I think it gives us a good sense of the seriousness and concern with which people in Ontario are thinking about our collective future. It tells us about the very real attachment we have to this country. We have been through periods of exasperation, of anxiety, of irritation and of downright fear, but we maintain a commitment to the being of Canada, to its existence for us and for the world and to its continuance as a distinct and wonderful homeland for our children.

In its modest and typically Canadian style, the report tells us that hundreds of Ontario residents are ready to talk about the future of our lives together as Canadians because they deeply wish to see Canada continue to exist. When I think back over the years of struggles which have brought us up to this point -- and we are now talking of a full three decades -- I can truthfully say that I believe the tone and the seriousness of constitutional discussion has reached a new and better level.

There have been many points, and last summer was surely the most painful, when we might have despaired that people in this country could have ever come together with enough positive feeling to create a new and better framework for how Canada works.

1520

But this report, taken along with discussions which we have seen recently during the joint Commons-Senate committee hearings on the Constitution and some of the discussions generated by the federal Spicer commission, gives me a much more hopeful feeling about the possibilities for progress in rebuilding this country of ours.

Having followed the course of national debates on the Constitution for nigh on to 30 years, I do not want to be overly optimistic. We are in the strange and troubling situation of beginning to make progress just as time is fast disappearing. But we must not fail because we lack courage and we must not fail because we lack faith.

The first report of our Ontario select committee encourages us and inspires us. The Ontario residents who gave us their views through the committee have told us the job is worth the effort and that they want to be part of the effort. They have given clear voice to the wish and the will to be included in the process of re-creating Canada. They express some divided views about what the new Canada should look like, but they are of one mind about the requirement that Canadians, all Canadians, should have the opportunity to express themselves on the shape of the new Canada, and that is a very hopeful sign.

It is also a sign that we have rarely seen before in this strange and singular country. We may have grumbled and complained; we may have wondered and even whined; we have, in isolated instances, actually rebelled, but for the large part, and very consistently, we have permitted our leaders to describe us to ourselves, to define our loyalties for us and to define our values as citizens of Canada.

It is not that now we are rejecting leadership or history or regional concerns of a traditionally based nature; it is that we are beginning to be ready to move ourselves forward with our own energies, to weigh our values and our fears on scales of our own making and to say what we truly care about with our own voices.

During the fall and throughout this winter, I have tried to learn as much as I could about how people in this province were feeling about Canada. As I listened to them talk and as I exchanged points of view, I sensed a very deep feeling of sadness. People were shocked, people were discouraged and people were sad.

I think it is often the case that human anger is not a primary emotion but that human anger is a cover for hurt and fear. In an important way, I think we may have turned the corner on hurt and fear in this country. We have been able to speak to each other about our sadness instead of covering it with anger.

That is not true of everyone in Ontario or in Canada, but it certainly is true of an enormous number of people in Ontario and in Canada, and it is to me a very hopeful sign. It may be true, as Joni Mitchell's song says, "You don't know what you got till it's gone," but I think an overwhelming number of people in this country feel very deeply that the being of Canada, the existence of Canada, is almost gone and that they are not willing to let it go. They know what we have got and they do not want to let it go.

If that is true then we can begin anew, and it will have to be anew. The old kind of leadership, the old histories, the old regional loyalties, the old ways of defining ourselves and this country all will have to give place to new values and new ways of expressing values.

In practical terms, this will be very, very difficult to achieve. We have no recipe to follow. There is no formula at hand. We will have to summon all our individual and collective resources and focus them as carefully and reflectively as we can. We will have to question our own positions, develop the patience to understand others and think very carefully about the effect of what words we use.

As we do and as we make the effort to re-create what we have come so close to losing, we can take heart in knowing that hundreds of Ontarians who have been heard and millions who have not yet been heard are ready to join in that process, and that millions of Canadians who live in other parts of this fair land are prepared to do the same. This may be our last chance. It may also be our best.

M. Grandmaître : Je voudrais terminer le débat que j'avais commencé hier. Je crois qu'il me reste trois minutes pour conclure mes remarques. Alors, je voudrais simplement profiter de cette occasion pour parler de la cause franco-ontarienne : le rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.

Je crois que l'Ontario a toujours été très bien représentée lorsqu'il y avait des débats constitutionnels. Si vous pouvez retourner dans l'ère de M. Robarts, de M. Davis ou de M. Peterson, la province a toujours été très bien représentée. Maintenant il appartient au présent premier ministre de l'Ontario de prendre la relève, chose qui n'est pas facile, je l'admets, et je lui souhaite bonne chance.

Par contre, depuis le 6 septembre la stratégie du nouveau premier ministre de l'Ontario en était une de ces --

Le Vice-Président : Vous avez eu l'occasion hier de vous adresser à la Chambre, et peu après ça a été au tour de M. Allen qui vous a remplacé. À mon point de vue, vous n'avez plus l'autorité maintenant de discuter du même sujet. Alors, je crois qu'il y a certainement une erreur.

Perhaps I should repeat what I have said. The member for Ottawa East had the opportunity yesterday to debate on this issue. He finished his speech and the Minister of Colleges and Universities replaced him. So in my opinion, according to the information that I received from the table, he is no longer allowed to debate on this issue.

Mr Elston: The individual had, when he took his turn, about eight minutes left on the day's debating. He was the last Liberal to speak. We had assumed there was an ability to spend up to about 10 minutes. Because we ran out of time on the day, we felt that he could start our time on the next day. It seems possible to me that he should be given the remainder of that 10-minute understanding. We did not mean him to be cut off. It was merely a fact that we ended up with 8 minutes instead of the full 10 at the end of the time.

The Deputy Speaker: I will just consult the table.

If there is unanimous agreement that we allow the member for Ottawa East to finish his time, we will do so. Agreed?

Agreed to.

M. Grandmaître : J'apprécie beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Maintenant que nous avons l'ordre, j'espère que le premier ministre ne mettra pas si longtemps à prendre une décision en ce qui concerne la Confédération, ou les amendements dont on a besoin à la constitution. Alors, je veux simplement glisser un message au premier ministre et même lui lancer un défi : que les FrancoOntariens sont à l'écoute. Les Franco-Ontariens s'interrogent présentement de leur avenir parce que le premier ministre de l'Ontario désire présentement se tenir à l'écart de tout débat constitutionnel. Comme je l'ai mentionné hier, le premier ministre a refusé de rencontrer les premiers ministres et le premier ministre du Canada pour en discuter.

Alors, je dois dire que depuis cinq ou six années les Franco-Ontariens ont connu beaucoup de progrès en Ontario et nous avons l'intention de maintenir cette orientation et ces tendances. Maintenant, c'est la responsabilité du premier ministre de l'Ontario de prendre la relève de M. Robarts, de M. Davis et de M. Peterson, comme je l'ai mentionné tantôt.

Les députés savent que le premier ministre de l'Ontario a souvent livré des discours très passionnants concernant la dualité ou la reconnaissance des Franco-Ontariens. Je dois souligner qu'il appartient maintenant au premier ministre de l'Ontario de garantir aux Franco-Ontariens, si jamais la séparation du Québec survenait au Canada, que les services en français en Ontario seront respectés et même améliorés.

Je veux encore glisser le message au premier ministre que l'avenir appartient à ceux qui sont prêts à le défendre. Maintenant, c'est au tour du premier ministre de l'Ontario -- et je le répète, qui s'est tenu à l'écart du débat -- c'est maintenant sa responsabilité à lui de défendre les droits non seulement des Franco-Ontariens, mais de tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes. Merci bien.

1530

Mr Carr: I am very pleased to rise on such an important occasion to speak on the report, and I very quickly want to thank all the members of the committee for their work. I understand it was quite an experience. I was one of those who was hoping to get on that committee. I understand that they worked extremely hard, so for that, we thank them.

I believe it is a very important issue. Canada is about to redefine its structure and its methods of operating. Quebec, through the Allaire report which was tabled, has articulated its position. On one hand, we have a vision of a decentralized Canada through the Allaire report; now it is the other provinces' turn.

As the largest and historically most powerful province, now Ontario must outline its position. I would urge that, although we must be thorough in the context of history, the time will be short. Nine other provinces, indeed all Canadians, are questioning our present system.

Can it be done better? One province has reported that its time frame will be 18 months and then it will hold a referendum that may include separation or sovereignty-association. Dialogue must continue, but our dialogue must now move away from the emotional side and move to the more practical side.

How do we in Ontario see Confederation in terms of the powers between the federal and the provincial government? Page 4 of our report talked about the feelings, values and concepts that are important to the people of Ontario, and now what we need to do is to decide whether the federal or the provincial government can best articulate those concepts, values and feelings. Now we need in-depth analysis of specific issues. This will be a difficult and, I might add, probably a highly intellectual process: What does Ontario feel about the Senate? What about appointments to the Supreme Court? Should those appointments be made by the provinces or by the Prime Minister of this country?

On page 6, we talked about the need for greater voices for various groups throughout our province, and now the question must be asked: Who best speaks for those individuals? Which level speaks for the groups? Is language to be a provincial responsibility? What about culture? Which level will deal with the native issues? Will it be the federal government, the provincial government or both? A clear, concise definition of the powers, with no overlap, will eliminate the mindless finger-pointing that has gone on.

Historically, provinces have always criticized the federal government. This can be eliminated if we define very clearly which level of government will have the powers. It will eliminate the problem where the provincial government in some cases has abdicated its responsibility by blaming the federal government, and this is what has made politicians cynical in the eyes of the public. It happens at all levels. The municipal levels blame the provincial level. The provincial levels blame the federal level. A clear division of powers and taxation authority would eliminate that. Allowing one level of government to have a say in another level of government's area of responsibility has inflamed the finger-pointing process which, again, has made the public so cynical.

Modern management practices teach us to have clear lines of authority, but in government we have two Environment ministers, two Labour ministers, two Solicitors General. Then we wonder why we have turf battles. If we simply clarify responsibility, we will do more to improve the relationship between the provinces and the federal government than all the goodwill in the world. We now spend more time negotiating cost-sharing programs than we do ways of trying to control cost and eliminate waste. Regardless of what your vision is in any area, one must first decide whose vision counts. Who has the authority and responsibility to govern in what area?

On page 7 of the report, we talked about compromise by all parties, and that is what is going to be needed. Anyone who has negotiated knows you basically have three positions. The first is your "like" position, the second is your "intent" position, and the third is your "must" position. We must very clearly articulate our position, knowing full well that our "must" position, if it does not agree with some of the other provinces', may result in the disintegration of the greatest country on earth. We know Quebec's "like" position in the form of the Allaire report, and the Bélanger-Campeau report which will be coming out tomorrow will again articulate a very decentralized Canada. Fundamental questions need to be asked. Do we insist that all provinces have the same powers and, very clearly, what would those powers be?

Ontario must take a leadership role in the renewed Canada. To take a leadership role, we must be prepared to face the gut-wrenching decisions which until now have been avoided because of political expediency. Canada is too important to worry about public opinion polls. As Martin Luther King said about leadership, if you want to move people, it has to be towards a vision that is positive for them, that taps important values and gets them going on something they desire, and it has to be presented in a compelling way that they feel inspired to follow.

Canada and Ontario, like never before, need leadership. How do we reconcile the historic conservative nature of the west with the rest of the country? New parties are springing up, very different from the three political parties of today. How do we deal with the westem alienation without losing more control through the province of Ontario?

I am reminded of what Christopher Columbus said during his voyage: "I don't know where we're going, but we're getting there fast." Let's be results-oriented in this process. Let's spell out very clearly what we would like to see. Let's see our vision so that then we can take a look at the other provinces and settle it once and for all. The world is passing us by. Let's decide who has the power to decide what to do. I want my children to be able to say that they, too, grew up in the greatest province in the greatest country in the world. Please, let's not let them down.

1540

Ms Harrington: I wish to address the Legislature on several aspects of the report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I was honoured to have been chosen by the Premier to sit on this committee. I travelled with the committee to northwestern Ontario. We went to Kenora, Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie before, unfortunately, I was called away to another important task, that of steering Bill 4 through the treacherous waters of the standing committee on general government.

I wish to give you some personal perspectives of my time with this committee. Throughout the northwest, aboriginal people spoke of their culture, of their respect for the land, of living in harmony with the land. Native attitudes of traditional stewardship of the land for future generations are attitudes that we can try to absorb and integrate with our current environmental concerns. Less desire for material goods, less competition, more sharing -- indeed, all of these are concepts we all need.

In the Ministry of Housing, we are beginning now to work with native communities on providing housing, in a process where they will tell us what is appropriate for them -- not we, the non-natives, imposing our values on them.

I learned from the native communities, secondly, how fragile language is. Almost 50 native languages are now in the process of disappearing, and this cannot be reversed. They will be gone for ever in just a few short years; 10 years at the outside. Language is indeed fragile and very easily lost.

The Franco-Ontarian community in northern Ontario is very much a part of Ontario and has always lived here. Their linguistic heritage could be lost also if there are not active, rather than passive, preservation efforts.

Let us, the English-speaking Canadians, for a moment picture ourselves in a role reversal. How would we feel living in the province of Quebec, surrounded by a vast majority of French-speaking Canadians? Would we not be at risk of losing our language and culture? How would we feel after several years? Would we feel like putting up barriers of language protection? There is a saying from the native community, "We can't make true judgements until we have walked a mile in their moccasins."

Third, our discussion paper asked what values we share as Canadians. One strong answer that came out was that Canada is a country which respects and values diversity. If we are able to do this, it really does show, I believe, a leadership to the whole world. It is not something that is innately easy or natural for human beings to do.

Look at the history of European domination over the past 500 years. We the people of European heritage were always right. We knew how to do everything. We had the correct technology, we had the correct religion and we knew what was right for everyone else. In fact, North American culture was built on "bigger is better." That is our way of doing things -- progress at all costs. Only now are we realizing that there must be a balance, a harmony in our relationship with nature, with our earth and with other cultures, that we certainly do not have all the answers. We are learning respect for the earth, we are learning respect for the abilities of women and we are learning respect for other cultures. I believe that is precisely why we have legislation in progress and also in the past, and we are totally committed to environmental protection, pay equity, employment equity.

Failure to recognize multiculturalism has real consequences here in Ontario. There are young children growing up in Ontario and in Canada feeling like secondclass citizens. There are young people facing barriers to fully participating in society. We all know this. Laws against discrimination must be enshrined not only on paper but in our hearts and in action. Let us show the world that Canada is indeed a country which respects and values diversity; and I do know how very difficult that is to do. I submit that equality does not always mean treating everyone equally. Equality may mean the sensitivity to treat people differently or uniquely.

This select committee found that Canada is extremely important to the people of Ontario, and Ontario must, I submit, play a leadership role in negotiating a renewed Canada. I hope, as one of our previous members said today, that we have in fact turned the corner on hurt and fear and we can work together.

Mrs McLeod: As I think back on the intensity and the divisiveness of the constitutional debate over the past year and as I now listen to the voices being raised in Quebec, in other provinces across the country and here in Ontario, I want to take a moment out from the sound and the fury and reflect on the most basic of the issues that have led to this debate. I have decided that I would like to take these few minutes not to discuss the range of options that must be considered as we face the months ahead, not to analyse the impact of those options, but simply to acknowledge, perhaps emotionally more than intellectually, the depth and the significance of the challenges of these times.

Some months ago, my 17-year-old daughter wrote a song that I believe captures the questions of a generation of young Canadians. I would like to share just the words of the refrain with members of the House, as my daughter asks:

Where is the home that I love?

How come I don't feel so proud?

Where is the unity?

Is tolerance obsolete?

Will the nation crumble?

When will these days end?

If members could hear the words and the music, they would know that this is a song from the heart and soul of a young person who loves this country and cannot understand why its very existence is threatened.

I am a parent concerned about her daughter's future. I am a Canadian concerned about my country's future. I am a legislator with a responsibility for leadership, so I must find the strength and the wisdom to respond to my daughter's questions. It is not enough to say, "I care, but I don't know what to do." This is not a time to say to Quebec: "We care, but if you must go, we'll let you go gracefully. We can part as friends."

We are more than friends and neighbours. We cannot simply be business partners. We share a country. Together we have built this nation in good times and difficult ones, with pride and sometimes with despair, with both love and resentment. Good relationships are never easy to create or to sustain, but we have all of us shared a vision together, a vision of something different, something we have been creating from our own struggles, from our unique experience of evolving nationhood, of growing together. We cannot give it all up now, even if we are too weary, or too angry, or confused and unsure of what to do next.

Our relationships with each other across this country have certainly not always been managed well. We are of many different cultures and our realities from region to region are not the same. Different realities, different perspectives and therefore different needs have led to many misunderstandings. Anger over the misunderstandings has led to distrust, distrust has too often become resentment and it is now only too easy to retreat to the fortresses of our own defences.

This is no longer a question, and it probably never has been, of the relationship between English and French, between Quebec and the rest of Canada, between the federal government and the provinces. The relationships under siege are the relationships between all regions and governments and communities of people across this nation. Let us indeed acknowledge the west's resentment of central Canada, Newfoundland's constant frustration, the prairie farmer's sense of neglect, the aboriginal person's despair, the isolation of the north. We are a nation of differences. Understanding and accepting these differences can be difficult, yet if we fail in this, unity is an impossibility.

We cannot simply try to save what we have. I do not believe that what we have has ever been good enough. If unity is to be preserved, it must be rebuilt on a much stronger foundation of mutual understanding, respect and a willingness and ability to respond to those very different needs and realities. There will be a willingness to make the effort that is needed only when we are able to affirm the values that we share: a love of this country that we have been shaping, an emotional commitment to the concept of a land stretching from sea to sea, a pride in our tolerance and in our many hard-won distinctions.

No debate has been more divisive in this country than that which took place over the Meech Lake accord. Yet the terrible irony is that a majority of those who supported the accord and of those who opposed it not only cared very deeply about the future of this country, but also shared a common belief in the importance of a strong and continued federation.

1550

We differed in our beliefs about how to achieve the goal, but we did not differ in our values, however those were allowed to become distorted and misunderstood on all sides. Now, if we care -- and all of us do -- there is no choice but to start again. There is only one place to begin again, and that is with an understanding of the essence of this nation.

The Canadian nation is unique because it has been built from its beginning on a respect for one another, an acceptance of differences, a willingness to live and work side by side, celebrating our differences as a source of pride and strength, not trying to submerge them. From the commitment at the time of Confederation to the acceptance of two cultures and two languages has come our continued commitment to valuing our evolving, multicultural identity, and from our commitment to mutual respect and acceptance we have grown to be a nation regarded throughout the world as a place unique for its tolerance.

The debate about the future of Confederation cannot be simply rational and analytical. It must begin with an emotional recommitment to what we are and what we want to be. It must begin with a willingness to reach out to each other and say, "Let us stay together," and we must care enough to make the effort for what must be done next, to re-examine the most fundamental structures of our relationships. Changes in our traditional arrangements can serve the purpose not of undermining our unity but of building a stronger federation based on that respect of our differences, the most essential of our shared values.

If we fail to do this, if we cannot listen and understand, if we cannot distinguish what we have been from what we must be, if we simply disengage from the debate, we fail those who have struggled to build something truly unique in this nation and we fail the sons and the daughters who depend on us. They depend now on our leadership.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this debate on the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I felt very privileged to serve for a week on this committee when it made its foray through southwestern Ontario, through the communities of Windsor, London, Kitchener, Brantford and Hamilton, and I would like to congratulate the committee, especially the member for Dovercourt, for the report.

Today I would like to confine my remarks to how I feel we in this assembly should approach this debate. The report, I feel, is a demonstration of goodwill to the rest of the country, a conciliatory message that Ontario values and respects the concerns of all Canadians. It is the message that the rest of the country needs right now, for we are as fragmented and in as bitter a national mood as we ever have been in my lifetime and, in my knowledge of history, in history.

Canadians are disillusioned with us, their elected representatives, suspicious of our motives and our actions. They have lost confidence in their governing institutions. If we as legislators are going to be involved in this debate, and we will be involved in any restructuring of the federation, we have to re-earn our credibility, in my feeling.

What must be our response to this debate? I think people are right now crying out for renewed political leadership. We legislators must find inspiration to inspire others that this country is worth saving. Recently I have found inspiration in the writings and speeches of President Abraham Lincoln who, like us today, was faced with a divided country, a country whose greatness was inhibited by its internal divisions. Now, God help us, we in Canada will never resort to civil war or armed battle to resolve our problems, such as was the case in the United States in the 1860s, but I think we as legislators can look to the past to find guidance for our future.

President Lincoln talked in his first inaugural address of something he called the "better angels of our nature." What he meant was our better selves, how Americans of his day needed to find within themselves their core values of caring, tolerance, honesty and responsibility and constantly strive to bring these forward and set aside -- we could call them their lesser angels -- their partisanship, their willingness to take the expedient route, the most politically acceptable stance, set these aside in favour of the better angels.

All of us in this Legislature must do this on a day-today basis if we are to regain the trust and the confidence of those who sent us here to represent them. If each of us does this, we will regain the credibility to act on behalf of our constituents while constitutional changes are considered.

Another of Lincoln's most famous addresses, his second inaugural speech, included the plea that his country unite with "malice toward none, with charity for all." We need to promote this idea now in Canada, a generosity of spirit towards Canada, putting Canada first and our own narrow self-interest aside whether they be provincial or regional or economic or cultural or based on ethnicity or sex. We must not lose sight of how richly blessed this country is: the freedoms we enjoy, the rich cultural heritage we have, our economic opportunities that relative to many other places are far superior.

In closing, I would like to mention how one of the great historical strengths in this country has been its optimism. Whether we look back into our history to the pioneer settlers of this country who came with little more than optimism, to Prime Minister Laurier when he talked in his 1904 speech about the fact that in his feeling the 20th century would belong to Canada, to the incredible optimism of my parents' generation, the postwar generation, where we felt that the world could be ours, we must recapture this optimism, for without it the country may be lost.

Mr G. Wilson: I am very pleased to rise to speak in this important debate on this committee's report on Ontario's place in Confederation. I was privileged to participate in the committee's hearings as it went from Ottawa to Toronto in its last week of hearings and was impressed with the capable efforts of the committee members, the need to be vigilant and to be resourceful. Certainly, they were guided by the capable Chair, my colleague the member for Dovercourt. I think that they achieved a great deal in their perseverance.

I want to say too, though, I had the feeling that we were invigorated by the presenters, and certainly the ones whom I saw represented a great range of opinion in Ontario. I want to say too that although passion sometimes was not, I guess, inspired with wisdom, most of the presentations reflected a great deal of work and thought on what Ontario's place in Confederation should be. Not entirely that -- there were a lot of presentations that spoke in more limited ways -- but certainly one of the purposes of our constitutional arrangements is to speak to questions of the place of minorities in our province and subjects like economic justice.

I want to look for a moment at the range of presenters, because in one way they certainly represented all ages, but I think the other remarkable thing was the groups that the presenters represented, people who, I think, felt they were left out of previous constitutional discussions. I am thinking of the aboriginal peoples, for instance, and women and people who are differently abled. They came forward to speak to us about the importance of this project that we were undertaking and to make sure that their voices are heard when it comes time to look at the arrangements we are going to go forward with, because I think it is accepted that Canada is at a crossroads here and the discussion that we are undertaking here and the submissions that we are taking in this committee are crucial to how we resolve this impasse that we are at.

1600

I want to refer to an anecdote that I think is close to the Canadian experience when we think, what does it mean to be a Canadian or an Ontarian? Of course there is a wealth of experience, but one simple example is something that occurred to me when I was heading back to my riding of Kingston last week. Leaving Toronto it was a fairly nice day, a good spring day. There was no rain and the snow had all gone. But just west of Belleville we ran into a totally different world and the hubbub that the car, the coach of the train, had become up to that point suddenly ceased and a hush overtook the passengers. Of course we were thinking about how suddenly things could change in this Canadian spring, how what looked to be a normal spring day had suddenly become a spring snowstorm.

It occurred to me that as we were thinking about this, in our silence, people were using different languages in doing this. Certainly I was thinking in English, my colleague to the left was thinking in French, from our discussions later, and I felt that that was the one thing that kept us in touch with our foreparents in this country, that the way we look at things as simple as a spring snowstorm, the things that can unify us in taking us out of our other kinds of conversations, suddenly take on an added importance. When we look back to how our forerunners handled these things, I think it has kept us in touch with what this country is about.

But I think it is significant too that I was on Via Rail, which is also a way of combining us, or uniting us, I should say, something that is threatened and something that I think we can work together to hold, and that would help us hold together as a country.

I think from the hearings and from looking at the report I took away a feeling that Confederation has not worked for a lot of Canadians. I think this crossroads that the committee has identified has offered us a chance to try again at making a Confederation that will help all groups in our society and that certainly the government's approach in this matter has given them the opportunity -- and again, I mention the aboriginal peoples, women, people with different disabilities -- to come forward to give their point of view.

This is only an interim report. I hope that this committee will carry on this very fine work to sharpen the images that these groups are bringing forward and help us with our way forward at this important time to make Confederation work for all Ontarians. I think, as I say, that the committee has done well in its first part and I wish it well in the rest of its work.

Mr McGuinty: I too would like to begin by thanking the members of the select committee for the valuable service they have rendered in preparing their interim report. We would do well to recognize the long hours of work spent by the members on the road, away from their families, and in their final preparation of the report. They have made a valuable contribution to an important process, which is only just beginning.

It is my pleasure and privilege to speak today on the matter of the constitutional debate which is once again coming to the fore in our province. This debate has many intricate facets and I am hopeful I will be able to contribute something of value relating to one of those facets. Specifically I wish to speak to the leadership which is called for in the matter of Ontario's role in a changing Canada.

The challenge before us is both formidable and daunting. Some of my fellow members may, like me, feel personal inadequacies in approaching what I believe will be the single most important issue we will wrestle with during this Parliament. We might begin by asking ourselves what experience it is that we have in this business of lending shape to a country undergoing change. In the practical order, most of us have little, if any, experience in matters of this nature, but that is not to say we come to the process with empty hands, with nothing of substance to contribute.

On the contrary, by virtue of being Canadians we have a magnificent array of tools for use in matters just like these. We have inherited these tools from our forebears. They are the same tools used by the Fathers of Confederation to construct our national foundation in 1867; the same tools used in reshaping Canada to accommodate the six provinces and two territories which later joined our Confederation; the same tools used to build space for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have over the years chosen Canada as their home; the same tools used effectively over the past 124 years in meeting challenges to Canada, challenges emanating both from within and from without; the same tools which have made of our country a great country and of our province a great province.

The tools which will enable Canadians to do all this, the tools which have served and can continue to serve us well, if only we use them, are these: compromise, tolerance, respect, caring, compassion and love. If we use these tools in our efforts to meet the challenge presently before Ontario and Canada, I have every confidence that we will meet with success. If we put down our inherited tools and instead rely upon indifference, selfishness, intolerance, contempt or hate, then we will seal our fate, because these are not tools for construction but rather implements for destruction.

When times are tough, and these are tough times, the innate response of people, the response which comes to us most naturally, is one which causes us to lose our charitable spirit. The tendency is for people to look inwards, to look out for themselves. In the Canadian context, our differences, differences based on language, place of origin, colour, religion and culture, differences formerly seen as a source of our national strength, are suddenly perceived to be our source of weakness.

If ever there was a time that called for this government to exercise leadership, now is that time. This government must not shrink from this responsibility. Leadership is not an option for this government, it is an obligation.

There are those who would argue that in the matter of things constitutional, politicians show little, if any, leadership. Many of these people are levelling legitimate criticisms at the process surrounding the Meech Lake accord, and particularly the lack of opportunity for public participation.

I think it is important for us not to exaggerate this criticism beyond its legitimate bounds. This criticism rightfully calls for much greater opportunities for public participation and constitutional debate. This government has and will, I trust, continue to afford the people of Ontario with such opportunities.

But I believe it would be a tragic mistake for any of us to interpret the Meech Lake aftermath as dictating that we, the members of this House, are not to show leadership in matters of constitutional debate. If we misinterpret Meech Lake in this way, we are confusing our public's revulsion for deception and manipulation with their rightful expectation of sound leadership.

We should also recognize a political reality connected with both the subject of our constitutional debate and the leadership role to be played by this government. That reality is that the issue of our Constitution is one which arguably attracts more avid interest from more vocal and disparate interest groups than any other single issue. In simpler terms, no government can effectively deal with this issue, can show leadership on this issue, can make choices on this issue and not risk alienating sizeable segments of our population in one fell swoop. Constitutional matters have become the hottest political potatoes of all.

Is that a justifiable reason for this government, or any government in Canada for that matter, to avoid assuming a leadership role in the matter of constitutional debate? Absolutely not. The risks are too high; the stakes too high. Leadership, strong leadership, in this matter is not an option for this government. It is an obligation. Furthermore, by virtue of our very history, by virtue of our strength, our province is commissioned to show leadership in matters of the Constitution. If this government does not show strong leadership, if it merely presides over events as they unfold around us, it will be shirking a solemn duty owed not only to Ontarians but to all Canadians.

The question that now presents itself is this; when should this government begin to show leadership? I believe that hour is now upon us. Our select committee has completed its first stage of work. The federal Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future has filed its interim report. The Bélanger-Campeau commission has completed its hearings, and I understand tomorrow it will be tabling its findings in the Quebec National Assembly. The Allaire report has been adopted by the governing party in Quebec.

Canada, Ontario included, is not unlike a ship adrift in a constitutional fog. Until we found our bearings, it would have been foolish, possibly even dangerous, to set sail in any given direction. But now that we have our bearings, it is time for the Premier to chart a course and to set sail. The course may have to be altered somewhat as we proceed, but that is to be expected. What is important now is that Ontario get under way, that this government, rather than the federal government or other provincial governments, assume responsibility for our course.

1610

In exercising its leadership in its efforts to build upon our Constitution, it is essential that this government make use of our inherited tools, those of which I earlier spoke: compromise, tolerance, respect, caring, compassion and love. This government must act explicitly to counter those darker forces which gain prominence in any society experiencing difficult times. Rather than turn inwards, we must continue to reach out for those less fortunate, those whose rights are easily trampled underfoot. We must remain ever vigilant against selfishness and intolerance.

Toujours dans ce sens, il y a un message particulier que le gouvernement devrait transmettre immédiatement et de façon claire et nette. Ce message devrait s'adresser à tous les groupes minoritaires en Ontario. Il s'agit d'un message de réconfort et de sympathie. Il devrait refléter ce qui sera, je l'espère, l'engagement du gouvernement, que les droits des minorités, y compris ceux de la minorité francophone, ne feront en aucun cas les frais de négociations constitutionnelles. Nous devons rassurer nos minorités que leurs droits ne sont nullement en jeu, que leurs droits sont inaliénables et ne dépendent pas du rapport qu'entretient l'Ontario avec le reste du Canada.

I was saying that we must assure our minorities that their rights do not hang in the balance, that their rights are inalienable and not dependent upon Ontario's relationship with the rest of the country.

I have an abiding faith in the collective wisdom and goodwill of Ontarians. If this government is to show true leadership, true leadership in the constitutional debate, it will tap and draw upon these resources. Sometimes, especially when we are angry or when we feel threatened, we can give the impression that we lack these resources. For example, in the heat of the Meech Lake discord, some of our municipalities declared themselves unilingually English. The net effect of these declarations was to send a hurtful message to francophones everywhere in Canada. If we are to find failing here, surely there was failing on the part of some of our municipal leaders to show true leadership, and true leadership, then as now, means our elected representatives must tap and draw upon our collective wisdom and goodwill, resources which, although not always evident on the surface, remain below waiting to be tapped. True leadership means bringing out our best, not reflecting our worst.

I indicated at the outset that the challenge before us is both formidable and daunting, but it need not be insurmountable. I believe that if this government exercises true leadership, the kind of leadership about which I have spoken today, Ontario will be able to successfully meet the challenge before it. We will meet it from a position of strength tempered with compassion. We will bring to it both firm resolve and understanding. We will bring to it optimism without illusion. We will bring to it our collective wisdom and goodwill. In short, we will bring to it our best, and when we are at our best, there is no challenge to which our great province is not equal.

Mr Turnbull: I would like to add my comments to those of my fellow members in the House today and share my views on the future of the country.

First of all, let me state unequivocally that I believe in federalism. I believe we need a strong federal government to maintain national standards across the country in such areas as health care, social services and post-secondary education.

As we all know, Quebec has proceeded with a commission of inquiry to decide on its future within or without Canada. It is my belief that the relationship between francophones and anglophones should be more positive. I think we must tell Quebec, "We want you and we need you." We should make it clear that the failure of Meech Lake was not a rejection of Quebec by the rest of Canada.

I would like to suggest that an all-party delegation of Ontario MPPs visit the Quebec National Assembly and put our case directly: "We want you to stay. We want to work out a solution."

All thinking Ontarians are ashamed of the image of a few people who trampled the Quebec flag. That image, captured on TV, was shown over and over again in Quebec by those who favour separatism, and it played right into their hands.

It is no secret to anyone in Canada that Quebec's language and culture is and always has been special. Most of the people of Quebec are French-speaking, but they are not shaped by France. They are French Canadians, shaped by the geography, climate and history of the new world. Their traditions and culture have evolved in response to a unique set of circumstances not shared by the people of France. They belong in Canada because their roots are here, and their language and culture have made Canada unique.

Canada is a country strung out along the northern half of this immense continent, a country which defies logic but is held together by a belief that people are important and that people should help one another and that people care about each other.

It must be said that the balanced and reasonable dialogue on both sides is necessary, but this is more than a rational dialogue. It is an emotional debate. Our hearts as well as our minds are engaged in these discussions. Canada is much more than the sum of its parts. Although the country is divided by geography, it is united by strong emotional ties.

There are many issues to be discussed. We have to work at finding solutions and we must listen to each other. It will take time and it will not be easy. We need everyone's participation so as to have the broadest possible base of decision-making.

Canadians are known for their capacity to compromise, to find a reasonable solution. After all, Confederation was based on compromise, and there is nothing wrong with that. Life itself is a compromise. No one gets everything he wants when he wants it.

During a radio program on Sunday discussing this crisis, someone wondered what the Fathers of Confederation would say about the situation. One hundred and thirty years ago, there was no cut-and-dried solution. It took two years of talking and consultation before a decision was reached. They were two busy years of public meetings, people talking to each other, prolonged debates in provincial legislatures. They thrashed things out, agreed, disagreed, made compromises, but they had the same goal, to uphold their common ideals and find strength in unity.

We need to update Confederation, which may mean the realignment of federal and provincial responsibilities. We must work to eliminate needless duplication of costs, and equalization payments should be reviewed, with special consideration of needs and fiscal responsibility.

It is important to keep Canada together, but not at any price. We should not bribe Quebec to stay. If in the long run Quebec does separate, we must let it know now, in no uncertain terms, that Canada insists on communications corridors and complete access to the eastern provinces. The question of ownership of the northern part of the province, added to Quebec by the federal government early this century, must of necessity be reviewed. Indeed, native rights and aspirations must be considered in any talk of separation and their legitimate concerns addressed, and Quebec must assume its proportionate share of the national debt. Although we cannot ignore the negative, I do not want to dwell on it today.

Canada is a nation of immigrants. Everyone except our native population came here from somewhere else. My wife and I arrived here 22 years ago. One of the most attractive features was the cultural and linguistic diversity. We love this country and we have made Canada our home. Our children are Canadians and none of us wants to see the breakup of the country.

1620

There was an article in the Globe and Mail this morning about William Stinson, chief executive officer of Canadian Pacific, who had been in London, England, meeting with British business people. He said everyone he spoke to was incredulous that a country like Canada, with so much going for it, is considering breaking up. "'People in the rest of the world can't understand what we are doing,' he told reporters."

In closing, I want to reiterate the need to tell the people of Quebec how much we value them and urge them to stay. We have a wonderful country, the envy of the world. We can, indeed we must, look at our similarities instead of our differences, build on our strengths while working on our weaknesses. With determination and dedication, we can do it.

Ms S. Murdock: It gives me great pleasure to add my comments today to the debate on the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I would first like to commend the efforts of those involved in the committee for reaching out to all the people of Ontario and all the people of this province, people from all walks of life, and for asking them to come forward and vocalize their thoughts and their feelings on a very wide range of issues.

It has been noted in this report that we are at the crossroads. The importance of taking the pulse of the people of Ontario at this critical time to determine where we are and where we want to go cannot be stressed enough. Above all, we have to recognize those people who came forward and took the time to make submissions to this committee. They cared enough about this country. They are concerned enough about its future to take the time and make the effort to express those very thoughts. It is heartening that there were so many submissions communicated in so many different ways, from the Cree language to American sign language.

This process of reaching out to the people and considering their views, truly considering them, is a continuing effort on our part in order to find viable alternatives for Canada's constitutional crisis. The wide range of issues discussed in this report truly reflects our rich, diverse heritage. Canada has been called a nation of paradoxes, an experiment. Indeed, the general picture of Canada is that of a vast nation of people unified as one country while at the same time maintaining separate cultural identities. The challenges we have faced because of our unique approach to Confederation are well documented in all our history books.

I think we all agree that it has not been easy. It was not easy and it is not easy to keep this country of ours together. As Canadians we share similar values and a common heritage which binds us together that is worth keeping and that is worth fighting for, because this is not just a question about Ontario's status in Confederation, nor Newfoundland's, nor Prince Edward Island's, nor British Columbia's. This is Canada's future.

I see my riding of Sudbury as a microcosm of this nation as a whole. We have our French-speaking people, our Italians, our Finnish, our Irish all coexisting in the same community. Differences and difficulties of course arise. We are also in the north, where we experience a similar sense of isolation as the other regions in this country because we see ourselves on the periphery, distant from all the decision-makers who affect our daily lives. But Sudbury's and the north's and what seems to be the presenter's message is that we want input and a sense of fairness in decisions that affect us.

As mentioned in the report, there is a wide range of issues discussed quite poignantly. As I read through the document, a simple message came through quite clearly. The people of Ontario are trying to tell us in all of their different languages, in all of the varieties of subjects, that they simply want fairness. Aboriginal people, Frenchspeaking people, people with disabilities, women, working people of this province, indeed throughout this country, simply want fair treatment, and when that is not forthcoming, then they want to be assured that they are a part of the process in which change can be made in the way they are treated.

Clearly, a large part of this problem facing us is that the people of this province feel isolated from the political process. To survive the challenges facing us now we must ensure that the people of this province, no matter who they are, no matter how they choose to express themselves, no matter where they live, no matter what their concerns, must feel assured that their government will listen and that their government will respond.

The interim report on the select committee is just the start of our government's decision to listen and to effect change. I would just like to take a few moments now to touch on a couple of issues that are of particular importance to me.

This country was built on the spirit of compromise, and in that spirit as a nation we have made significant achievements of which we can be proud. We must not put those achievements in jeopardy. Our health care, education and social welfare services characterize us as a progressive nation that takes care of its people and especially looks after its most vulnerable citizens. These are common values that we share, the ties that bind.

We must continue to ensure that these programs are not endangered in any way. In fact, we must always strive to improve these systems and to renew our commitment to countrywide objectives and national standards. So while we must try to accommodate Quebec and the needs of that province, this must not be done at the expense of the national symbols which truly identify us as Canadians and of which we are so proud.

The separation of Quebec would mean the end of Canada as we know it. At the same time, accommodating Quebec in any new arrangement is also an end to Canada as we know it. So one thing is certain: Canada is definitely at a crossroads and change is imminent.

Let us not forget that one of the reasons we are here today discussing this report is the failure of the Meech Lake accord. The rejection of the accord, in my view, should not be seen as a rejection of Quebec but rather as a rejection of the process that effectively shuts out the views of ordinary Canadians. We cannot make the same mistake twice. I hope we have learned that meaningful, democratic, constitutional change can only materialize when everyone in this province is on an equal footing, with voices of equal strength. Before we start to talk about constitutional change, we have to make sure that everyone has a chance to take part in the conversation.

Constitutions arising from anything else are obviously not reflective of the people they are supposed to represent. They are empty illusions. Our ability to rise to the challenges facing us is a true test of our strength as a nation. As I close, I just want to use words I wish were mine, but they are of a greater man, Tommy Douglas, when he said: "Do not measure the strength of a nation by the depth of its gold reserves or the height of its skyscrapers. Rather, the true measure of a nation's greatness lies in what it offers its people within it and what it does to better the condition of all the peoples of the world."

Mr Sola: I would like to first of all congratulate the members of the committee and thank them for the long hours they have put in. However, I have a different outlook on the result of the work of the committee. Having read it, I found it to be a series of motherhood statements on what we would like Canada to be. I found the mandate too general, too wide. In my opinion, it should have been more specific, something in the order of: Do we have the will to work for a united Canada with all its constituent parts? Are you willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve unity? Because without the will it is a waste of time considering constitutional change.

1630

I would like to just take as an example the Soviet Union. They have a new Constitution. The central powers have one opinion of which way the country should go but the constituent parts have a completely different opinion, for example, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Ukraine. They do not see any salvation in a new Constitution, because the Soviet Union was put together by force. Therefore, there is no love lost between its constituent parts.

On the other hand, Canada was put together by compromise, and therefore I think the constituent parts have a lot more in common than any comparison with the Soviet Union. I brought the Soviet Union up because lately I have noticed in the newspapers comparisons to other multi-ethnic countries such as Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and I think there is no comparison whatsoever, because the other two I mentioned were put together by force of arms, by the will of large powers to simplify their problems by grouping together various nationalities so they would only have to deal with one central government.

We were put together after the end of the American Civil War out of a fear of becoming Americanized. If Canada was put together to prevent its Americanization, I would say that in large part we were successful. However, if Canada was constituted to retain it as a British entity or to remove the French influence, it was an abysmal failure, because I think today, in most instances, if we compare, we are much closer to the United States than to our two founding nations.

I would like to go to another point: leadership. I have not yet found in Canada the type of leadership we need to preserve this country. Where is the Canadian version of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who stated: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country"? We have heard some of our members here saying there has to be a spirit of compromise, that this is the Canadian tradition, but we have not had the leadership that has challenged the Canadian people to show the will to compromise.

The one leader who showed it was Premier David Peterson with his offer of the Senate seats. For that he was severely chastised by the people of Ontario, but I do not think he regrets it, because he showed he was willing to offer something -- whether tokenism or anything -- was willing to give up something for the common cause. I would challenge the premiers of the other provinces, our federal leaders, our present government to come up with something to show we are willing to give up something to maintain Canada.

The other thing upon reading the report is that I found it to be something like a shopping list. What is Canada? A shopping list of demands by special interest groups who will buy at the store called Canada, Canada with Quebec, Quebec or Canada without Quebec, depending upon who offers them the best prices. That is not my version of Canada.

The other thing I found is that Canada is merely an accountant's balance sheet. Add up the pros, add up the cons. If the pros outweigh the cons, stay in Canada. If the cons outweigh the pros, separate. That again is not my vision of Canada.

I find there is something missing in this report, and that is a feeling for Canada. Is there no emotion? Is there no attachment to this country? To me, Canada was the first place I felt I belonged. I spent the first seven years of my life in various refugee camps in Austria and Germany -- the country of my birth, Croatia, having disappeared in the aftermath of the Second World War -- having no identity, no culture, no nothing, as you would say colloquially, until I arrived in Canada. My parents, having pride in their heritage, pride in their culture, pride in their language, kept that alive in me as a private person, but I did not really feel part of anything in general until I came to Canada.

In 1951 when we arrived here, Canada was not the same tolerant place it is today, but we built upon what was available in Canada; that is, opportunity and hope for the future. My family, my community, maintained its distinct culture while becoming at the same time a part of Canada, feeling a part of Canada and developing a strong feeling for Canada.

All I hear in the newspapers, in the various reports we hear, are negatives about Canada. You hear the words "racism," "intolerance," "prejudice," "bigotry," "discrimination" and "rejection." This is not the Canada I know. If this is the true picture of Canada, I would like to pose this question: Why are there lineups of refugees, of immigrants, at every one of our embassies throughout the world? Why do we have a refugee board with hundreds of thousands of names on it? Are people coming here for this type of treatment? The people who are lining up to get into Canada are people of various ethnic backgrounds, various races, various creeds, various colours, and they all feel there is something special in Canada, something special in becoming Canadian. I think we have to accentuate the positive, try to eliminate the negative.

I think we have to take an overall point of view, step outside of Canada and then evaluate it for what it is. I have been an observer at the elections in Lithuania, at the elections in Croatia, at the elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the biggest compliment I could pay the people in those countries was to hope for them, after electing democratic governments, to become miniature versions of Canada. That is the biggest compliment I could give them. Therefore, when we are painting a negative picture about Canada, I think we are way off the mark.

I would like to go back in history a bit. If the negatives about Canada are for real, why did American blacks use the underground railroad to escape slavery, to come to Canada at a time when we were not as tolerant as we are today? Why did the Chinese come to Canada despite the head tax? Why did the Ukrainians settle the west despite the hardships involved? Why did the refugees after the First World War and the Second World War come to Canada? To escape the racism, the prejudice, the inequalities, the lack of opportunities in their home countries and to come to a country of opportunity, a country of hope. Therefore, I reject the negative picture that has been painted of Canada in all of our recent reports.

1640

I would like to point out one other thing. I think our multicultural groups are not informed enough about the history of Canada and therefore have a difficult time accepting the fact that the French in Canada have a special historic significance. Before Confederation in 1867, on three occasions, had the French decided that the English Canada they belonged to at that time was not to their liking, I believe today the 49th parallel would not be a border.

During the American Revolutionary War in 1776 the French decided not to get involved, and therefore the United Empire Loyalists had a place to flee when they found the situation intolerable in the 13 colonies. During the War of 1812, the French again did not take the side of the Americans and we prevailed. During the American Civil War, when American expansionism was quite prevalent, the French again did not join the Americans and we were able to prevail. Therefore, we have a historic debt towards the French in Canada, towards French Canada.

I think the multicultural groups that rely upon the length of their history, the richness of their culture and the length of their culture, have to accept the fact that there is such a thing as Canadian history, however short it may be, and Canadian culture, however short a time it took to develop. If they expect theirs to be recognized in Canada, they have to recognize and respect that Canada has the same qualities.

Tolerance is a two-way street and we must make sure we do not encourage intolerance by our own intolerance. When we are too quick to cry racism, when we are too quick to cry bigotry, when we are too quick to cry discrimination when somebody disagrees with our point of view, I think it is nothing more than a version of intolerance on the part of the people who do that.

We have to avoid becoming a carbon copy of the Soviet Union, because today we have a tendency in Canada to eliminate debate by painting somebody who opposes our point of view as a dinosaur and Neanderthal and various other terminology. When you look at the Soviet Union, the way they kept criticism in check was simple -- or any other communist country, for that matter. They found something to be anti-socialist, anti-people, counterrevolutionary, just to eliminate the fact that there may be some substance to the arguments. Even a bigot may have some proper substance to his question when he poses the question of cost, when he poses the question of the speed of implementation, because as we all know, we all resist something happening too quickly when we are not prepared for it.

So we have to pave the way for change. Canada has not been a perfect society, but with all its imperfections, when we look at the history of Canada, we have been able to change gradually yet change significantly to the point where today Canada is the envy of the world, much to our own chagrin, because people who live outside of Canada cannot understand how we can place such a negative view on our own country.

The price of separation, in my opinion, will mean the disappearance of both Canada and Quebec, because we are both threatened by American pop culture. For those who pooh-pooh the idea that Quebec can feel endangered within an English Canada, may I point out that France, in Europe, feels threatened by the Anglo pop culture, and France has a much longer, much stronger, much richer tradition than Quebec. Germany feels the same threat on its sovereignty, on its culture, on its traditions. So it is natural for Quebeckers to feel threatened, but at the same time they must not take out the threat of American pop culture on the rest of Canada, because I can assure them that America after separation will not be as tolerant of Quebec as Canada has been.

In closing, I would like to just say that I hope that every Canadian, every province, every territory, every group is willing to sacrifice something for the good of Canada and for their own good, because I think we are in much better shape as Canadians than as Americans. As I said before, the Canadian-American border is the longest undefended border in the world. I would like to keep it that way. I would not want to erase that border.

My final word is to paraphrase George Bush and say that one definition of Canada is that it is a kinder and a gentler version of America.

Mr Tilson: The remarks that I wish to make this afternoon are very brief and perhaps of a procedural nature. There is no question that the member for Dovercourt, as Chairman of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, and the members of his committee have worked very hard. They have spent many exhausting hours. You certainly have to admire the members of the committee, and I congratulate them for that. However, the report, in my view, says nothing about the constitutional choices, the direction that this province is going in.

People in my riding at least, people whom I have spoken to in my riding, want to know where this government stands. They want to know where this government stands on the Senate, where it stands on aboriginal rights, where it stands on Quebec, where it stands on a whole slew of issues. None of these options has been set forth. In fact, the committee that has been going around the province has a budget of $2 million. I think it has spent in excess of $250,000, and all for naught. I asked constituents in my riding what they think, and they do not know, because they do not know where the government is going. They do not know how to respond. I will say that, in my view to date, the debate has been unilateral. There has been no debate other than, of course, the debate in the last few days in this House.

My constituents, as I say, have no idea where the government is going. There is no question that the interim report has been a major disappointment. There have been no statements. I gather the Premier is going to be making a few remarks tomorrow, and I hope he does show some leadership so that we on this side of the House and the people of this province will know where the government is going, what the alternatives are that they are suggesting, so that we can properly give direction.

This province has a great opportunity to show the leadership that it should in this country. I think that people in this country are looking for the province of Ontario to show that leadership, and I hope this government will do that. Certainly, as far as its population is concerned, its great wealth, it has a great opportunity to show that leadership.

1650

To date, there have been no opinions, as I say, with respect to Senate reform. The Senate powers of this country have not changed since 1867, except in respect to an amendment to the Constitution. Originally the Senate was expected to put an end to what the Fathers of Confederation called the excesses of American democracy. It was meant to be a chamber of sober second thought based on the British model. Clearly, it has not turned out to be that. It has blocked much of our legislation, including money bills. This has constituted a precedent that senators are not accountable to Canadians, unlike the elected members of the government. That is the principle of responsible government in effect since 1848.

The question is: What does the province of Ontario think? What does the government of the province of Ontario think? What do we think as far as what the Senate of this country should be, or indeed should there be a Senate? Should the Senate be a replica of the House of Commons? If a senator is elected by all of the people of the province, does he have more legitimacy than a Premier who is only elected by the people of his riding? All of these are questions on which I hope the government will put forward alternatives for us to consider.

There is the issue of the economic issues. If Quebec separates -- which I hope it does not, and I hope that the majority of the people of this Legislature and the majority of this country do not wish that Quebec will separate -- what will it cost us? What will it cost the people of the province of Ontario? What will it cost the people of the province of Quebec? I think those are all relevant issues that must be determined before we sit down and talk with the people of Quebec.

Again, I hope the government will be putting forward what its procedure will be. Is there going to be a referendum? How are we going to make our decision? What are the terms of that referendum? When is it going to be held? Is there going to be a free vote by members of this government? What is the concept of how we are going to come to the decision as to how we are going to deal with resolving this very serious issue in this country? Basically, how is Ontario going to market its decision?

I will say that certainly I am a Canadian first and then an Ontarian. l hear too many people in this country saying, "I am a Quebecker first and then a Canadian, if indeed that," and that troubles me, or, "I am a westerner first." I think that we all have an obligation. I believe that this is my country. I have the right to go from sea to sea. It is a beautiful country; it is a wonderful country. As one of the earlier speakers has said, it is the envy of the world, and we should fight to respect that and to continue that process.

I need to know where the province of Ontario is going so that amendments could be made to perhaps offer suggestions of change so that we can reach a general consensus. Is the province of Ontario going to be more centralized? Is it going to be more decentralized? All of these are issues which we have not heard a word on. I believe that the province of Ontario should be clarifying the overlap of jurisdiction that has developed since 1867, including that of fisheries and the environment, because clearly there are overlapping areas.

I believe that the federal government should have the overriding powers. I believe in a strong central government. In 1867 our forefathers all agreed that we would have a strong central government for the reason, if anything, of preventing the breaking up of the country to the United States. Things have not changed. I believe that we all want the country to stand together. As the song goes, "United we stand; divided we fall." I think that throughout this debate we should remember that.

There have been groups that have developed over the years, and more recently there is a western group, there is the Bloc québécois, there is the Parti québécois, all of whom have advocated the breakup of this country. Ontario must show the leadership to prevent that from happening. The people in my riding want so much to participate in this debate, and I hope that all of us will go among our constituents and listen to what they have to say. It will not cost $2 million to do that; it will not cost that at all. I think that once we hear where this government is going, we will be able to properly listen to our constituents. We are concerned with maintaining our standard of living in this country, in this province and throughout the entire country. I believe that if we are allowed to break up, that standard of living will deteriorate very quickly.

As I indicated earlier, I think that the government of the province of Ontario must set forth its position as to what the Canadian identity means. What position does it take on bilingualism and biculturalism? Where does it stand on aboriginal rights? What does self-determination mean? Does it mean that they want separate countries, that there are going to be separate borders, their own armed forces? All of these issues really have not been debated in this House or presented to this House as to the position of the province of Ontario.

Those are my remarks. I know the Premier is speaking tomorrow and I hope we will start to hear a little bit as to where he and his government will be going on this very important issue.

Hon Mr Pouliot: In my humble capacity as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, I want to address some serious matters. I would like to remind, with respect of course, my friend across the way that humour does not become him and this is not the time. This is very, very ill timed, because I recall very vividly that when I was with the opposition I never did contravene 20(b) of the standing orders.

Nous sommes très heureux des observations contenues dans le rapport, qui se dit en ce moment provisoire, du comité spécial qui a été établi concernant le rôle de notre province, et notre rôle en tant qu'Ontariens, bien sûr, dans la Confédération.

Vous connaissez, Monsieur le Président, parce que vous y étiez, le Règlement 17 et la Loi 8 de 1986. Eh bien, vous savez que l'Ontario a fait du chemin. On a avancé. Je me souviens aussi que j'étais en Chambre pour ce vote, pour ce moment historique. Je me souviens très bien qu'on avait fait l'unanimité en 1986 -- nous n'étions que 125 en 1986 ; nous sommes maintenant 130 députés -- l'unanimité à l'intérieur du comité concernant les rapports de la commission.

Comme vous, Monsieur le Président, j'ai confiance que le comité spécial qui a été dirigé par le député de Dovercourt, appuyé au titre de la vice-présidence par celui de Cochrane-Sud, saura guider les députés de l'Assemblée législative dans les jours, dans les mois et dans les années à venir concernant ce dossier important.

Mais je suis tout aussi fier de la participation des Franco-Ontariens, de ces femmes, ces hommes qui par douzaines, par centaines ont su apporter leur appui, leurs revendications légitimes devant la commission Silipo. Mais il faut bien faire attention ; les consultations ne sont pas finies. Nous n'en sommes pas à la fin de l'échéancier. Elles continuent et dans les mois qui suivront, j'invite tous les Ontariens, tous les citoyens et toutes les citoyennes à continuer, à oeuvrer, à se faire entendre, à se présenter, à se tenir debout et à aider les membres de la commission Silipo dans leurs délibérations.

Je suis aussi heureux que ce rapport souligne l'importance de l'égalité de toute la population canadienne : «une voix égale dans les décisions qui les touchent, un accès égal aux services, une chance égale de participer à la vie de la société et une protection égale à la loi». Ceci est vrai pour toute la population canadienne d'un océan à l'autre et bien sûr à l'autre aussi.

Peu importe ce qui se passera au Québec, l'Ontario va continuer en tant que fournisseur de services, sous la tutelle au chapitre de la Loi 8. Elle continuera d'aider les Franco-Ontariens, ces Franco-Ontariens qui sont 543 000, qui résident un peu partout en Ontario, la plupart étant nés en Ontario. On y ajoute un nombre toujours grandissant d'amis, nos amis les Somaliens, nos amis les Éthiopiens se joignant aux nombreux Vietnamiens, Cambodgiens, Laotiens, aux pays d'Europe, aux pays d'Afrique, aux pays d'Afrique du Nord, qui viennent s'ajouter à nous en nous payant le compliment de leur visite, de leur séjour, de leur séjour en permanence.

C'est donc dire que la famille franco-ontarienne s'agrandit ; elle va de l'avant. Naturellement, elle demande des services. Nous sommes 543 000. En ce jour d'attente on veut être comme les autres, on veut se faire entendre, nous aussi on veut notre place, la place qui nous revient, la place sous le soleil. Nous sommes en Ontario depuis 350 ans, trois siècles et demi et nous espérons y être pour bien plus longtemps.

1700

And now if I may share with members of the community that is the community of Franco-Ontarians, I mentioned a few minutes ago that we at present are 543,000, a number that is increasing. It is roughly 6% of the population. You will find them in small communities, by and large. You will find them less fortunate, in large part. The number of people, the percentage of illiterate people, people who cannot defend themselves in society and cannot cope because they simply cannot read and write, is double the rate of Ontario as a whole for non-francophones.

In northwestern Ontario, for instance, if you are a Franco-Ontarian -- 46% of them have to rely on the soup of the day and the daily special at the local restaurant. Most of us are fortunate. That is the key. That is where it begins. This is us. Union-paying jobs -- members know very well that most Franco-Ontarians work for small companies. Small companies, by and large, tend to be nonunionized, and if they are non-unionized, statistics will attest that you will work for less money. And guess what? Yes, you have guessed it. When you have less money, you also have less fringe benefits and you are among the less fortunate, therefore, in society. The average Franco-Ontarian woman makes less than $10,000 a year.

Remember, one of the richest jurisdictions in the world, on the planet -- a legacy. People that have made a contribution for 350 years. The majority of FrancoOntarians were not born elsewhere. They were born in Ontario. They were born in northern Ontario, in small towns and villages, in Orléans, in Hawkesbury, in Vanier, in southeastern Ontario. Of course.

Quels sont les défis ? I am advised that we must all participate, many of us, in the debate and, therefore, so much has been said and yet so much has to be said. And I can spend some time talking about the less fortunate, about the people who have been marginalized. I am not going to do it; it is not my role here. My role is to give a few examples, illustrate some of the challenges; to inform us, as repetitious as it might be, of the opportunity one more time that is given to us. What are we going to do in the months, in the years ahead in this great country of ours?

I had the opportunity this morning to spend an hour -- very precious -- I had a good time with the Deputy Premier of the sister province of Quebec, Mme Lise Bacon. The reason for the meeting was that we share a good deal of information regarding mining. I scared you, did I not, dear colleagues? We shared a good deal of information regarding mining.

The opportunity was not given, nor was it the time to discuss about Confederation, about where we are going, because nobody really seems to know. But we spent some time, because like I am, she is a strong federalist. She too believes that there is only one thing on the menu, that you can send it back to the kitchen umpteen times, dozens of times, the cook does his thing and it comes back. There is no place else to go.

We have to once and for all get together and move on, because economically we -- you know, we want to leave some emotions. We do not want to come here and begin to stoop and say, one more time: "I have been Quebecked out: I have been Meeched out." That is not our role. Our role is to put money into people's pockets, because that is what my constituents tell me. They want a good job with a good boss. They want to put this most important subject matter behind them. But they are appreciative that before the wheels at the factory get going full blast, get working overtime, generate real well so we can afford all the social services, all the programs that the population so rightly deserves, we must give ourselves an opportunity to put this catalyst, this vital and crucial dossier, behind us.

As we roll up our sleeves and engage in yet one more debate, we have two choices. Let's do it in real terms. Let's do it twice. Let's do it for the first and the last time in a meaningful way so that we can move on.

I speak with extreme confidence. As I reach inside for reason associated with the -- or deterrent, I should say, the whys and why nots, the pros and cons -- I keep coming back to the fundamentals of this country. You do not have to be a mathematical genius emanating from Harvard. You do not have to have travelled all five continents and met with people who speak myriad languages. You have to look at the mirror and say: "I am so-and-so. I am a Canadian." The other person does it, and then you mix into one another's mirrors and you say, "My friend, more important, how are you?" A situation of compromise, a real chance to grow. Opportunity is passing. Ontario will seize the opportunity collectively; indeed, a better place to live.

1710

Le Président suppléant (M. Villeneuve) : Je désire remercier l'honorable ministre des Affaires francophones ainsi que le député de Lac-Nipigon.

Mr Mahoney: It is indeed a pleasure to follow the -- I think he said the humble member for Lake Nipigon, and I say that in friendship. He gave a very eloquent specch in both official languages and, I think, made some very valid points in talking about the francophone community in this province and I congratulate him.

I too would like to congratulate the Chairman and all members of the committee for taking such a difficult issue and maintaining non-partisanship, from everything I saw in the work of the committee. I think a lot of the credit for that probably goes to the Chair, but it should be shared, I am sure he would agree, with all members, because there is always a tendency, with the attitude that sometimes permeates this place and this job, to be a little more partisan at times than perhaps we should. I say that not as an apologist for that, because that clearly is our role and a role that I enjoy performing from time to time, but there are times when it is important that we rise above that and we recognize the significance of the issue. I think the committee performed that in that way. I thank them for doing that on behalf of the people I represent.

I had a limited opportunity one day to substitute on the committee in Orillia and in Collingwood and fight through one of the more difficult snowstorms that I experienced this summer.

Mr Grandmaître: This summer?

Mr Mahoney: Last summer, last winter. Well, we may get snow this summer, the way things are going. We are not quite sure when summer is going to come.

I went to Orillia and I want to share with the members of this House one of the people who came before the committee and who I thought summed it up, I thought was remarkable. It was a real interesting coincidence that I was there, because she put forward many of the views that I have put forward and shared with people in my community.

It was a lady in Orillia by the name of Ms Agius. She represented a group of single moms. Unfortunately, her entourage did not arrive and she got moved up early on the schedule, but I have got the quote from Hansard and I would like to share it with other members who perhaps did not get an opportunity to read it. I thought she really summed up my feelings of Canada. She said:

"We love this country of ours. We liken it to our own families. Within the family of Canada we have got to realize that the provincial children are quickly growing up. Like children, they each have their own distinct personalities. Just think of this: Ontario the stockbroker; Quebec the lawyer; British Columbia the young businesswoman; Alberta the mining engineer; Saskatchewan and Manitoba the farmers; and the Maritimes the fishermen.

"Quebec, as the lawyer, has always talked the most and therefore has been given the most consideration. We are proud of BC, of Alberta, with its handsome wild streak, the others are steady and true, but Ontario can always be depended on to come up with the ready cash.

"As Canadian parents, we have got the right to be proud. As we watch our family maturing, we must realize each of us has earned more responsibilities. As wise parents, we should grant those freedoms, knowing that the family will stand strong." And this was a very important quote. She said, "As every mother knows, if we were to lose one we would be devastated."

I thought that Ms Agius's comments really just cut to the quick from where I stand. I must tell the members I got involved with a group of Canadians last June. We worked on an idea of writing and having performed -- I can assure the members I was not part of the performance -- a song. We tend to look to songs when we talk about -- whether it is child poverty or hunger or wars or whatever, we find a song. We put our concerns and our thoughts to music. We ended up writing this song, written by a high school teacher from Ottawa named John Stott. The song had been written a number of years ago but had never been properly put in context of anything. I want to share with the members some of the lyrics of that song. This was done last June and how it fits in with the comments in Orillia I think makes a lot of sense.

Just very briefly, the lyrics go, "I think I've found just what it is that places me in your indebtedness." It is a love ballad to the people of Canada, and indeed we should be indebted to this country, all of us. It goes on to say: "It's something about your point of view,/ You keep your sights on things outside of you." And the chorus is the most striking. It is a beautiful song actually. It was played throughout Newfoundland on all the major radio stations and television stations, because there is a video that goes with it and it was on for the entire summer. It goes on to say that, "People like you can make people like me into different people somehow/ And people like you can change people like me/ And I'm feeling better all around." Then it says, and it was translated of course: « Les gens comme vous feront aux gens comme nous un monde de différence/ Les gens comme vous changeront les gens comme nous et on se sent tellement mieux. »

[Applause]

Mr Mahoney: Merci beaucoup.

What it really says is that people like you in Newfoundland can change people like me in British Columbia and people like you in Quebec City can change people like me in Toronto, or Mississauga, or Sault Ste Marie, or wherever. I think it really sent a message out that has been very close to my heart. When I look at the comments from the lady in Orillia and I think of my own family and what we may be leaving them, it causes me a great amount of concern.

It is a shame the member for Oxford is not here because I think he was at the University of Western Ontario last year. I have a son at Western who is probably sitting with all his buds having a Bud right now watching his dad on TV. I am sure they have nothing better to do than to sit around. I think they call it Tiny Talent Time. Well, they get a few kicks, and every once in a while I go down and have a pop with them and talk to them. I am very concerned about what I am leaving Aaron and Matthew and Christopher and all of their friends. I think we have not only a responsibility but an opportunity to really leave them something that matters.

I get concerned when we fail to recognize that we have such a thing as French Canada in this country and we have English Canada in this country and I say vive la différence. I say let's celebrate the fact that we have that distinctiveness. If anyone can tell me that when they cross the border at Ottawa they have not gone into a different culture, I think he must be asleep in the back seat of the car or he is not paying attention. It is a wonderful culture and so is our culture wonderful. Why can we not, as Ms Agius said in Orillia, recognize that our provincial children in this country are growing up and maturing and allow them to have certain authority and certain powers and certain statements and not get hung up on words that seem to be destroying the fabric of our nation?

I am very frightened. I am generally an optimist -- you would have to be to stay in opposition -- but I am very concerned that the country is in very dire straits and I wish more people could listen to a song like People Like You or hear Ms Agius from Orillia and understand how important it is to really settle things down and stop the rhetoric.

I think there have been some soldiers who have passed on as a result of this, what can be termed a war in many ways. Some of them are very good friends of mine. I think David Peterson lost his position as a result of the great, courageous stand that he took, a non-partisan stand, supported by the current Premier and the leader of the third party. I think that it cost him tremendously and it cost our party, but that is life. We will survive, and it was a noble cause to fight for, Noble.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You caught that. Good to see you are paying attention.

1720

There are many others who went down to some sort of defeat or who fought a battle with a particular interest, but there is somebody I want to -- I kind of lost track of where I started time-wise so I will try to wrap it up, but I want to pay a particular mention and tribute to a member of this House in the last sitting of the Legislature who, in my view, went down not to defeat but went down of his own volition as a result of the tremendous problems of the French-language issue and the English issue in his riding, and that is the former member for Sault Ste Marie, Karl Morin-Strom.

I have sat in this House while he stood here and I watched him give a speech in probably the worst French I have heard in a long time, and I told him that. It sounded like John Wayne. But the courage that it took for him, who is not a francophone, to stand there recognizing that he had difficulty walking down the street in my home town, I might add, Sault Ste Marie, without having to cross the road to the other side to avoid people who were creating such a tough time for him -- not all the citizens of Sault Ste Marie, because I can tell members, with the many family and friends I have in that community, that they did not all share that, but the vocal minority did, and they caused him such grief.

He sacrificed himself politically for his party, but more important, he gave a speech that sacrificed his career in our country's second official language, which is not his native tongue, in this Legislature and I was really quite proud of it. In fact, I phoned him, and I say this in all fairness, I did not consider Karl a close personal friend. We did not have many opportunities to become friends as such, so I considered him a close colleague and someone who I think showed more guts than frankly most of us in this Legislature would do under similar circumstances.

I am not under any illusions, and would say to the Chair and all members of the committee that I hope they are not either. This report, as important and significant as it is, is not going to resolve the conflict in our country. It is perhaps one block in the building foundation of a new Confederation of a new country, and we have to send a message to all Canadians and to our federal counterparts in all parties that really says that we have to build something together that may be different from what we know now, that may indeed vest more powers in the provinces, that may indeed recognize certain distinct situations or distinct societies within our country, distinctiveness of many of the peoples of this country. But we think of the freedom. I listened to my colleague the member for Mississauga East speak earlier, and I have been to Yugoslavia, and you see the conflict and you see them solving their problems with guns. Indeed they are not solving them. When I see that kind of thing happening, and the fabulous opportunity that we have as elected representatives in this province and this country to try to solve it by talking to one another, I pray to God every day, for the sake of all of us and our kids, that we will be able to solve it.

Mr Cousens: We are into a very important debate for Canada and the province of Ontario is participating in a very worthwhile way, but I have to say there are three points that I would like to make today.

The first has to do with the context of what we are really trying to establish here. If there is anything that is the goal of the members of this House, and I sense it strongly, it is that we want to make sure that Ontario plays a very important role in maintaining a strong Canada, and through our own efforts and through the efforts of all the people of our province and across this country, may there be a discussion that takes place from coast to coast with all and sundry, all who care, all who have something to say to participate in this important debate. I think it is something that is very important that we do immediately. Let's not procrastinate and delay. Let's get this behind us and get on with the business of running this country and making it a strong economy and a place for people to live and to enjoy life.

The fact is, if the first draft of a new Constitution is not right and has flaws in it, then live with it for a while and rewrite it. They are doing that in eastern Europe. We may well have to go through some iterations right now that require a whole new approach to constitutions. Instead of being locked into things, let there be that dialogue, that we are able to carry it through and yet carry on with life and carry on with commerce and living.

My second point has to do with the fact that we nccd leaders today. In 1885 Sir John A. Macdonald weathered a storm far greater than what we are going through now. Hc sent troops out to quell the Riel rebellion. The country was almost bankrupt with the building of the CPR. Quebec was seriously influenced by the hanging of Riel. We had a heavy trade challenge at the US. Yet Sir John A. Macdonald was able to persevere. He did not let adversity wear him down, and we are in the same kind of situation today where we need someone, not only from within the province but from across the country, a number of leaders, to stand up, leaders who will help people believe that they can be effective in what they are doing, leaders whose goals can be accomplished, leaders who believe in a strong and better future for our country, leaders who can move forward and believe in themselves and believe in us.

We also need to develop a statement of principles, a series of criteria and guidelines that will somehow be the whole setting for the dialogue and discussions that will take place over the next couple of years.

First of all, let's not forget that Canadians have been tolerant in the past. We have that as one of our traits. We are a tolerant people, we like to work with other people, we are trusting and we respect other people's views, so let us then in this constitutional debate that will take place have tolerance as one of those founding principles that we will live by so that there will not be the constant judging of another person's point of view and criticizing it. Let us sit at the table and let us then work through the issues. Let tolerance be a continuing and guiding light to all Canadians.

Another principle I would like to see that stands tall and loud and clear for all the discussion that goes on is that we are a monarchy. The Queen is our queen, and I think it is very sad in some cases when there is no oath to the Queen. The Queen is the symbol of justice and order. The Queen is one who ties us together as a country, and I think in the discussions, as they evolve and develop, may there be a strong statement of support to our monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and her successors.

A third point of principle is that of language. The language issue is ever important to this country, and I do not believe that we can legislate language on people. We are declared a bilingual country. I accept that. Quebec and New Brunswick are French. Ontario is English. I believe that in Ontario we can continue to respect the rights of multicultural groups and respect the rights of other language groups, and where French are in numbers that warrant may we continue to provide services for them, but I do not see as an issue in this constitutional debate an effort should be made to make Ontario bilingual. I do not support that. I do not feel it is historic and I do believe that we are in a position now where language does not have to be part of this great debate. Canada is declared bilingual. Let us leave it at that, and may Ontario continue to have the right to speak English and to provide services where numbers warrant for other peoples.

A fourth and guiding principle of the discussions that could take place has to do with Canada being separate from the United States. The free trade agreement has created problems and issues that are affecting many of our people in this province today with this recession that we are enduring, but none the less I respect the fact that we may have economic ties. We may have political ties that take place in many ways, because it is good to share and work together, but may we, when we are developing our new Constitution and a new Canada, understand that Canada is going to be separate and distinct from the United States of America.

My fifth point and principle that should be part of the context of the discussions and debate that will take place is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have established in this country be something that is available for all the people of this country. Somehow or other we have to deal with that "notwithstanding" clause. We have somehow got to make sure that all the people in this country enjoy the same rights and freedoms.

1730

My sixth principle that I would like to see part of the discussion is that which is the involvement of people in an ongoing way in politics. People are feeling more and more alienated from our political system as we have it today, and that becomes another reason why I would like to see a new approach to politics.

I do not think it is working necessarily in this House, where you have the opposition constantly trying to criticize the government and you see the exact reversals that go on when parties are in government and out of government, and "That was then and this is now." What I would really see as important is a new approach to referendum politics where people on an ongoing basis can then cause the government to rethink its positions if between elections the government has lost sight of its promises or lost sight of what the people really want it to be doing.

My seventh point of principle that I would like to see included is that the federation of provinces be strongly united together with a strong central government. We need a strong central government, but at least let this federation from sea to sea be closely brought together through some kind of central government. Now, whatever that is -- I might go for a strong central government and someone for a lesser one, but at least may we be sharing a common government through a central agency.

My eighth point is property rights. Persons cannot be alienated from what they own, and somehow or other our present Constitution fails to include that.

There are a number of other issues that could be part of the debate and the discussions that go into making a new Canada and maybe other people can come forward and suggest what those principles and guidelines and criteria can be as the discussions take place, but may they take place. May we be involved in that discussion. May Ontario continue to play an important role in making this a strong country. We are Canadians first, Ontarians second, and may we find the leaders who will stand up with optimism and belief, not only in themselves but in our country, and carry that message out to all the people. Finally, may those discussions be brought together so that we do it with tolerance and understanding of one another and understanding a certain fundamental set of principles.

M. Drainville : Je suis heureux d'avoir l'occasion de m'adresser à l'Assemblée et de prendre part au débat sur l'avenir de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.

Lorsque nous avons été élus, nous avons tous apporté ici avec nous nos propres croyances, perspectives et bagage personnel. Et maintenant, plus que jamais, nous partageons du plus profond du coeur l'orientation que nous espérons prendra l'Ontario au moment où s'amorce une fois de plus la restructuration de la Confédération à laquelle nous avons appartenu au cours des 124 dernières années.

En tant que personne dont la famille a été établie en Nouvelle-France en 1650, en tant que personne née à Joliette au Québec avant le début de la révolution tranquille et en tant que personne qui a été le témoin des changements sociopolitiques significatifs qui ont modifié la société québécoise, je crois que j'ai un point de vue particulier à exprimer des besoins, au moment où nous abordons la question de l'orientation future de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.

I would like to say that indeed these are days when we have to be very careful about the future of our country, for that future is in peril. Let it be stated: I as a person who has been raised in Quebec and was born in Quebec, speak to my family -- and my family was almost to a person supportive of the federalist cause through the 1970s and 1980s -- but now I speak to my family in Quebec and what I hear is support for sovereignty-association and in some cases for separation.

The time is upon us, and the time is upon us as members of this Legislature, to take seriously the needs and aspirations of all Canadians, particularly in this province, as we are here to do business on behalf of those people who have elected us.

I remember the words of F. R. Scott, a great Canadian, who wrote: "There are two miracles of Canadian history. The first is the survival of French Canada and the second is the survival of Canada." We have survived. We have survived regional differences; we have survived linguistic differences; we have survived cultural differences. In some ways we can say that those differences have been the basis for the unity that we have felt, because there has been unity in diversity, and we have affirmed that through 124 years since Confederation, and even before that.

But now the questions need to be asked: What direction is this country to go? Where is the sense of nationbuilding and nationhood which we yearn to see in our leaders, in this Legislature and across the country in the people of Canada?

I want to affirm there is no question that the select committee has gathered in its interim report some fundamental principles that need to be adhered to and supported: the sincere desire that Quebec should remain in Canada, that Quebec is a crucial part of the Canadian identity and that Quebec is a distinctive community within Confederation. Those need to be affirmed. They are principles that we need to begin from in the hope that we will be able to maintain the federation in the future.

But let us be clear that the divisions in Canada are brought on not only by linguistic and cultural realities but also by the fact that there are inequities in terms of economics. We have concerns in Canada. We have in Ontario 285,000 children in poverty; 588,000 people are on social assistance. We have unemployment statistics across this province from 5.8% to 11.9% and going up. Native people have the highest rate of suicide in Canada, in the whole of the world.

These social problems beg questions about the kind of economic union we have and the need for us to take seriously that as we negotiate about our political institutions, so we must negotiate around the economic institutions. Let us say also that in terms of those institutions, we must endeavour this next round of discussions to enshrine for the first time in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that there will be economic rights for Canadians.

We have too many people who are homeless, too many people who are impoverished. The split between the rich and the poor in the country is daily growing. We need to ensure in effect that there is housing for people, that there is employment for people, that there is food and clothing for people and that these be rights given to all, every Canadian.

Now in my few minutes of speaking I am not able to touch on all the issues, but let me say that there is a question that we must keep uppermost in our minds and that is, what if failure? As we look to the future we cannot any more allow ourselves to be timid, apathetic or self-interested, but we must be courageous, committed and co-operative. We must be ready to use the imagination that we have to dream the dreams of nationhood, to live together in a society which will be uplifting and upbuilding for all people. If we do this, then we can be proud to be serving in this Legislature and proud to be working for the people of this country and this province.

1740

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parkdale has 28 seconds.

Mr Ruprecht: I would certainly be delighted to participate in this important debate on the Constitution. I wish to thank the committee for the great work it has done for this country and for Ontario, and follow in the footsteps of those who have already made eloquent remarks today. But since you are informing me, Mr Speaker, that I only have 28 seconds left, I would like to continue tomorrow, with your agreement.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the member for Parkdale that this is not my decision, as you know so well.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have an article here, "Duelling in the Dark," from the Globe and Mail Report on Business, which is a survey revealing deep divisions and dangerous misunderstandings between the business solitudes of Quebec and Canada over the future of a foundering federation.

I think that comment "duelling in the dark" not only applies to the business solitudes in Quebec and the rest of Canada, but also could probably well apply to the media and politicians across this country. I think a lot of this debate is reflective of that duelling in the dark, if you will.

I have only got eight minutes, so I want to get right to the point and make a couple of concrete proposals. The first is a clear response to the Allaire report. The report, endorsed by the Quebec Liberal Party, amounts to the almost complete dismantling of the federal government and the creation of a federal system in which no sensible Ontarian could want our province to participate.

This report, or anything similar to it, could never be the basis for any constitutional arrangements that Ontario would agree to, and we owe it to all Canadians, including Quebeckers, to make that clear now. The Quebec Liberal Party and all Quebeckers should understand that if their goal is massive decentralization or, failing that, separation, they may as well seek separation right now. It will do no one any good to have constitutional negotiations drag on for a year more, and then have all concerned realize that the whole process was a farce because the parties' respective positions were irreconcilable from day one. Such a course is a recipe for prolonged economic uncertainty and regional acrimony.

The Premier's response to the Allaire report has been an abdication of leadership. His comments have been evasive on the issues at stake and politically incoherent. The Premier seems to be saying that every constitutional issue is open to discussion except unilateral Quebec separation.

It is time for Ontario to stand up for what we believe in, and do it publicly. We can no longer rely on the Premier of Newfoundland to tell Quebec what Ontario really thinks. It is time to stop the happy talk and start the plain speaking with Quebec. We as a people must start to stand up and advocate what we believe in and stop hiding our own convictions because they might offend somebody.

The second step -- and I have done this in conjunction with a friend of mine; we tried to sell this to the op-ed page of the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star a few months ago with no success, and I am going to put it on the record in any event -- is to call for the creation of an Ontario Commission on Constitutional Options. It should be a commission of non-partisan experts who would tell us the advantages and disadvantages, the feasibility and the likely form of our options. Its function should be only to define the options, not to comment on their merits. A decision on which option to take must be made ultimately by the voters themselves.

The commission should study the full gamut of options from best case to worst case. The options are, as I see them: (1) a Canada with 10 provinces; (2) a Canada with nine provinces; (3) Ontario as an independent country; (4) Ontario as a state of the United States. My first preference, and I am sure it is of all in this House, is a 10-province Canada, and my last is to see Ontario as an American state. But in a situation as serious and uncertain as the current one, it is vital that we understand the ins and outs of all our options.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: Someone booed across the floor. I want to say that Gary Doer in Manitoba is now doing exactly this. The Manitoba NDP apparently is much more cognizant of what may happen to this country than the current government in Ontario.

There is a strong possibility that Quebec will be leaving Canada. There is no guarantee we can successfully resolve to mutual satisfaction the real and long-standing grievances that western Canada has with us. For those reasons, we must look at all possibilities now, unpleasant though some of them are.

The commission would provide answers to the following: Is there a politically realistic basis on which the 10 provinces can be reconciled, and what is that basis? Can the nine English-speaking provinces be reconciled, and on what basis? Is Ontario viable as an independent country? What political and economic relationships would a viable independence require us to have with others? On what terms, if any, might we become part of the United States, and what would be the economic, social and cultural effects of statehood?

We owe it to ourselves and all Canadians to get all the facts and possibilities on the table so that all of us can start making some sensible decisions. Quebec has spent much time and effort in defining the ins and outs of its options, and we must do the same. The fundamental problem Canada faces as a nation is that most French Quebeckers, who have always considered themselves Quebeckers rather than Canadians, have now concluded that it is both feasible and desirable to be politically independent.

The Allaire report is further evidence that there is little possibility of finding common constitutional ground between Quebec and the other provinces. This problem is compounded by the fact that economic pattems in the west are much more north-south than they are east-west. As a number of insightful commentators have pointed out, no amount of constitutional tinkering is going to alter these basic facts.

The blunt truth is that we are on the edge of fundamental changes in the political relationships our province has but have no serious analysis of the options and have not considered which of the choices are best for us. In the past we have tended to mute our voice for fear of offending public opinion in Quebec. That strategy has not worked and is politically bankrupt. Now is the time for us to consider what is best for us and for all Canadians in these circumstances and then vigorously advocate that position.

Mr Rizzo: Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your election to the chair. I wish you every success. Sorry, those were my notes of five months ago; better late than never.

Today I would like to say a few words about our province's role in Confederation. These are very crucial times for Canadians and Ontarians alike. As we face a period of constitutional reform, not since Confederation has Canada endured such heated debates, our charter questioned, our future unclear, our people confused.

As Canadians we are experiencing the worst institutional and political crisis of our times. As elected representatives we have the duty to respond to the needs of our people by temporarily setting aside our political differences and pooling together all our energies to lay the foundations for a Constitution that will satisfy the needs of a country so profoundly changed from its creation; a country where many of its people today are neither from English nor French descent, a country where the diversity of its people and the variety of its cultures is an asset and not a liability, a country which, thanks to its resources, should be able to feed and shelter all of its citizens, a country where words such as "homeless", "food bank", "poverty" and "unemployment" should be meaningless.

Instead, because of the political shortsightedness of many in our midst, we are at risk of throwing away years and years of human toil and sacrifice devoted to the building of this beautiful country of ours.

Now is the time to do things differently, and we can start by understanding that a nation's Constitution is meant to preserve and enhance the rights of its citizens, to encourage the development of individual talents in the context of a social fabric whereby all groups and individuals feel perfectly at home. Particularly for us Canadians, a Constitution should be the instrument that would allow us to stay united and prosper together, while at the same time celebrating our differences. Divided we all lose, including our own Canadian identity, and all Canadians from coast to coast should realize that. Only in unity everyone wins: Everyone can benefit economically, socially and politically.

1750

Mr Stockwell: I have some concerns I would like to express today with respect to the report and how it came forward and the context in which we received it today.

I believe there was a considerable amount of public opinion out there that was brought forward to this committee which is not reflected in this report. Whether one agrees or does not agree with that public opinion is academic, in my opinion. This committee was struck to go out and seek public opinion and report back to this House. There is a considerable number of people out there in this province who either do not care if Quebec separates or would just as soon it would. The difficulty I have with the committee is that it simply chose to deal with the facts that it found most palatable, most acceptable, and it put them down on paper and brought them before this House.

Three lines or four lines were left in this report to these people. It said, "A few witnesses felt that the separation of Quebec would be a painless, clinical exercise and that it would largely be a case of adjusting borders, debts and assets." That was it.

If you took into consideration the number of groups that came forward which were solicited on our behalf by the consulting group we hired for nearly $200,000, and then you took into consideration the number of organized groups that came forward representing the point of view of an organization, cut away those from the 600, you may well have ended up with some few hundred people who came out as individuals, as citizens of this province, to express their opinion. I think those people who were representing just themselves hold a majority opinion in this province. Not that I agree with it, not that I disagree with it, but the fear I have is that this government and this House are going to be rudely awakened when these people respond at a time when this debate is in a highfevered pitch.

There will be no time during the negotiations for us to step back and re-examine. If we are going to go into negotiations with Quebec and the other provinces and the federal government, we must have all our information before us. I think we need to commission a public report on the impacts, both cultural and economic, for this province should that eventful day happen that Quebec separates.

I think it is very important, because I do not believe this government will have time to backtrack and reassess its position. This committee started out with what I considered to be a reasonable mandate. I think it turned into a travelling love-in, and basically no political party wanted to breach the confidence of the others. Even today, when truly partisan politics gets involved, which sometimes happens, there are catcalls. That is a fact of life, and it is going to happen when we go out on the road to try to sell this package, or whoever goes on the road to sell this package.

There are a lot of people in this province who will not agree with this, will not agree with it at all. In fact, one person who came before the committee in Peterborough said, I recall very clearly: "I don't want this committee to go back to the House and simply report the facts it wanted to hear. I want this committee to go back to the House and report what it heard." In my opinion, they did not report what they heard. They reported the facts they wanted to hear. That is a flaw all of us have. They may be unacceptable; they are not pleasant facts; but it does not change the issue. They are still facts.

There are a number of people in this province who would not agree with this report and a number of people in this province who showed up before the committee, a great percentage who showed up before the committee, and said completely different things than this committee has reported out. They were relegated to three lines, and these are throwaway lines that I do not think are going to deal with the issue when the time comes to deal with it.

If you are ever going to get the people of this province to get out of this apathy they have reached -- and there is apathy out there. When you talk to the people in your constituency office, unless you are in a completely different riding, nobody is talking to me about the Constitution. They are talking to me about unemployment and taxes and the Leafs, as sad as that seems. Constitution is the lowest number of calls you get in your constituency office, or at least that I have in my constituency office. They are apathetic because they are tired and they do not trust politicians and they do not believe when politicians say they are going to do something.

This was another line in a long line of committees that went out to receive public input and then did the most basic error that public committees do: It ignored them. They ignored them. They know they ignored them. Thcy know they showed up and said things that are not in this report. As I said before, they were not pleasant things they suggested, but those opinions they brought forward were none the less opinions that they held and a vast number of people out there hold.

Do not tell me they did not. In Collingwood, Orillia, Kingston and Peterborough, in all kinds of locations across this province they were saying some things I do not personally agree with, but they were saying them. If we ever come to the day when we have a referendum, there is going to be a shocking awakening of public opinion, because we have not dealt with the issue.

In closing, as I see the clock is running, the most important thing this government can do today in my opinion is to educate the public. They are going to be in for a cultural and economic shock should Quebec separate, a cultural and economic shock that I do not think they understand. The funny thing is, the one issue that may hold this country together is the debt, which, as crazy as it sounds, may be the most compelling reason to maintain your status as a country, because I doubt very much any province could afford to absorb its portion of the debt. That is apparently more important to the people in my riding, in my constituency, than this entire debate.

I would caution the backbenchers to speak with their leader the Premier, because if he believes that a vast majority of people in this province agree with this report, he is very sadly mistaken, and if he agrees that the Chairman and the members of this committee went out and gathered accurate public documentation, he is very sadly mistaken. People either do not care or are opposed. There are some sections within that would support this, but I would not suggest it is the vast majority.

My recommendations would follow the previous speaker from our party with respect to getting the information, informing the public, because it is totally uninformed with respect to the economic and cultural impacts. In my opinion, the one very great difficulty, as I said before, with this committee report is that they have gone out to seek input from the public and once again a government has ignored the input.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

l800

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Eglinton has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given today by the Minister of Revenue. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Ms Poole: Today in the House I asked the question of the Minister of Revenue that I thought was quite a simple, straightforward one. But indeed the answer that I got from the minister showed that the minister not only could not answer the question but had no conception of the issue in her own ministry. This was notwithstanding a letter the minister had written on 14 February 1991, not that very long ago, where she had defended her ministry's record on the reassessment of apartments.

To refresh the memory of the House, this afternoon I quoted from the minister's letter to a North York tenant leader who was concerned about the reassessment of apartment buildings. The minister wrote back and said, "Contrary to the claims of the city of Toronto report, the minister will only reassess apartments and other properties when these have increased substantially in market value due to new construction or major renovations."

What the city of Toronto interim report had advised the minister was that reassessments of multiresidential buildings, or what we would commonly call apartment buildings, was occurring across the city of Toronto. These assessments were being done by Ministry of Revenue assessors, and they were not using the minister's guideline. There were no renovations, major or otherwise, there was no new construction, yet Ministry of Revenue assessors were going in and, on the basis that the rent-to-assessedvalue ratio had changed, were actually raising the assessment causing an increase in taxes.

I cannot believe what the minister's reply was. She completely avoided the issue -- as I said, I do not really think she understood it -- and said she was aware that there are assessors out there in the city of Toronto and what they are doing is simply updating their records. They are doing this because this is a province-wide thing that the Ministry of Revenue does, and she knows that the city of Toronto is upset about it, but that is what they are doing to update the records.

I would like to make it perfectly clear. We are not talking about the updating of records. I am extremely upset and distressed that a Minister of Revenue of this province would not know the difference between an inspection to update records and a reassessment of a property which was directly related to an increase in taxes for that property.

I even tried to help the minister out in the supplementary by giving her a list of properties within the city of Toronto that had already been reassessed but not by the criteria she outlined to Mr Gosschalk in her letter of 14 February.

These properties, such as 90 Adelaide Street East, 1435 Bathurst Street, 39 Pembroke Street, 77 Pembroke Street, eight buildings on Lonsdale Avenue, buildings on St Clair Avenue West, buildings in the west end, are all instances where there were not renovations and major changes in the capital structure. Yet her ministry has, over the past year or so, gone in and reassessed these.

If the minister wants to say that actually that was the old policy and the new policy is that they do not do that any more, I would point out to her the example of 39 Pembroke. The reassessment of 39 Pembroke Street was one that happened under her ministry while she was minister, and happened very recently.

I hope I can get a more prompt reply from the minister than on a previous occasion when I wrote to her. On 6 February I wrote to the minister and I asked her to stop the site-by-site reassessment of all properties in Toronto. She had made it clear that she had not made a decision whether to go ahead on market value assessment, and my point to her was: "Why are you wasting $12 million of the taxpayers' money doing the site-by-site reassessment when you have not even decided to go ahead?"

That was seven weeks ago, and to date I have not received a reply. I am hoping the minister can not only give me a response to my question about apartments and how she and her ministry currently are going to reassess them, but also tell me at the same time in what month or year I may expect a reply to my 6 February letter.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: The member for Eglinton complained that some tenants in certain apartment buildings in Toronto face rent increases because of reassessment. The point of my answer, which I stand by, is that tenants should not be alarmed by the work of assessors who are currently updating records on properties in Toronto. Perhaps the member was unaware of this activity of updating records.

She also complained that the rent increases to which she referred were contrary to letters I had written and that I seem unaware of these developments.

First, it is very unfair to assume that I would have the assessments of every property in Ontario at my fingertips during question period. If the member for Eglinton was really interested in a substantive answer about the assessment of specific properties and not just partisan politics, she should have given me notice and I am always happy to provide answers. In fact, in less than three hours since the member posed her questions, officials in the Ministry of Revenue have looked into the assessments of some of the properties the member mentioned.

Here is what they found: 39 Pembroke was renovated and reassessed in 1984 for 1985 taxation. Two added units were not assessed until 1990. This accounted for the apartment's increased assessment. All the properties on Lonsdale Avenue have been renovated, and 90 Adelaide East is now before the Ontario Municipal Board, therefore I will not comment.

I would be happy to have my officials check into the other properties mentioned by the member for Eglinton if that is what she wants. The assessments for these properties increased as a result of renovations that increased their assessed value.

I want to point out that these renovations came to the attention of the ministry because someone else, someone I believe who is well known to the member for Eglinton, invited comparisons with other properties in appealing assessments. This resulted in inspections by ministry assessors who duly reported on these renovations and their affect on the value of these properties.

These actions are completely consistent with the letters on this subject I have sent to tenants. If some tenants feel that their rents have been unjustly raised, they can seek redress to the rent review system. If the landlords feel they have been unfairly assessed, they can appeal to the assessment review board. Of course, this minister, meaning I, will not personally intervene in any case before this independent tribunal. If the member for Eglinton feels that tax increases should not be passed on to tenants, she has the opportunity to put forward that position when this House considers the new rent control legislation.

If the member for Eglinton has any information on any other property that she would like my officials to check, I would be happy to pass it on.

The Deputy Speaker: There being no further matters to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. The debate is ended.

Ms Poole: I just hope it will not take another seven weeks --

The Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. The debate has ended. There being no further matters to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

The House adjourned at 1808.