The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DONALD HILLOCK

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On October 31 Donald Hillock will retire as chief of the York region police force. Chief Hillock commenced his long and distinguished career in October 1960 as a cadet with the town of Aurora police force. Throughout his career, he held various positions with the York region police force, including responsibility for criminal investigations and, for six years, as deputy chief. On February 1, 1986, he was appointed chief of police for York region.

Chief Hillock leaves a legacy of compassion and humanity. Under his direction, officers were encouraged to get to know their community. There is a special emphasis in York region on community policing, which Chief Hillock firmly believes in. He served with integrity and good humour and, perhaps most important, loyalty to the officers who served with him. In particular, I recall on several occasions going with Chief Hillock to visit officers who were injured in the line of duty. He really cared about his people.

In 1990 Chief Hillock was inducted into the Hall of Fame of the Ontario Special Olympics after serving as chairperson of the law enforcement torch run for five years. He is also the immediate past president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

On behalf of the people of York region, I would like to wish Chief Donald Hillock best wishes for his retirement. I understand he plans to relax, travel and even try to learn how to play golf. Good luck and thank you for your outstanding contribution and commitment to our community.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In August during the review of the Housing ministry's estimates, I asked the minister why the estimates showed funding to the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons decreasing by $4 million. The explanatory notes said that the funding "was provided under the 1991-92 anti-recession program and is not required in 1992-93," even though the program has been in existence since 1987, long before the anti-recession program was created.

The minister responded that she had just allocated $15 million from Jobs Ontario Capital to fund the program for the next two years. While I applaud this funding decision, the government should give the program permanent funding so that its future does not depend on short-term, make-work, capital funding programs.

For the past three years I've had to ask whether this program will continue to be funded. In 1990 the Liberal government's Housing estimates showed that the program was being cancelled. The NDP provided a short-term rescue under the anti-recession program and again under the Jobs Ontario Capital program.

The Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons provides loans to home owners who are modifying their homes to increase accessibility for a disabled family member. It has a waiting list of 700 applicants and a waiting period of three years. Hopefully, this new funding will reduce the wait. I hope that in two years I will not have to stand up in this House again and plead for continued funding of this successful and necessary program.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Highway transportation is an important component of economic life in the province. It's an unfortunate fact that highways present hazards and far too many deaths keep occurring. There are also problems for people whose homes are close to highways. Highway 401 forms the northern boundary of my riding and there are residential areas where the nearby traffic has affected the quality of life. Noise causes constant stress and there is also the potential of such things as hearing problems and respiratory disease.

I note from reading Hansard that other nearby ridings have the same problems and that the case for barriers has been made here. When I drive along the 401 I notice how some areas have been able to have barriers constructed.

The area around Ponymeadow Terrace in Scarborough East is where there have been the most complaints for me and local residents have been seeking improvements for years. I'm pleased to report that some progress has been made and that in response to suggestions the Ministry of Transportation has agreed to deposit excess soil from nearby road construction to form a berm.

Although the technical advice is that the reduction in decibels will be modest, we feel that this has the potential for further improvements with the encouragement of natural botanical growth to cut down on noise further and perhaps also to improve the local microclimate.

One of the most major and measurable problems related to cars is the effect on air quality. It is vital that any road construction takes account of environmental impact. I would like to commend the Ministry of Transportation for its response to local concerns in this case and look forward to improvement of all busy arteries.

ONTARIO YOUNG TRAVELLERS PROGRAM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): As we look in the galleries today, we see young people visiting the Legislature. These are probably young people who are from within the area of Toronto, but there's a program in northern Ontario that helps students come from northern Ontario to visit us here at the Legislature and visit Toronto and the surrounding area. It's called the Ontario young travellers program.

I must say it's a program which allows them a learning experience not often experienced by many of our young people in northern Ontario. It's a program offered to grade 8 students who travel down here for that educational experience.

There is a problem, however. This year, now that school has been in for six weeks, the schools do not know whether this program is going to be offered to them. I hope that the Treasurer, the Minister of Education and those six ministers from the north are listening today because the trustees, the students, the administrators and the teachers want to know what's going to happen to this, a very important program to us in the north.

The students must get on with fund-raising. As we know, the program only offers a portion of the moneys that are needed to get down here to southern Ontario and the students want to know whether they should get on with their fund-raising projects, how they will raise that money, their personal moneys and those raised by the students as a whole. Flights must be booked and the study groups must be organized in order that students can come down here and know what they're looking at.

What I'm looking for today is a yes or a no from this government so that these students can get on. Whether it be a yes or no, that will be for another day, but we must have a decision on this need today.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last week I advised the Minister of Natural Resources that because of the restrictions being placed on conservation officers, proper game and fish management will soon become a thing of the past. I warned him that without protection for our fish and wildlife, harvests will no longer be regulated and species will decline or may become extinct.

The minister said that the facts have not been reported correctly, that officers will continue to respond to emergencies and other situations which will require immediate attention. He also maintained that he is determined to put an end to poaching in this province.

If the minister is so concerned about poaching and if the minister really feels that his officers should be enforcing our game and fish laws on evenings and weekends, why does his ministry make it impossible for them to do so?

Anyone calling the MNR office in Owen Sound on a weekend will have to wait until Monday morning for an answer, as there is no night line, no one in the office to take the call and no message service. What is the point of having officers ready to answer an emergency when no one can find them when the emergency arises?

The minister likes to pretend that our wildlife is not in danger and that commercial poachers will not thrive, but I've seen nothing which will convince me of this and neither have the concerned citizens of my riding in Grey.

1340

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Although it is not necessarily a provincial matter, I feel that we as MPPs should be aware that it is very difficult for many of the residents living in our communities to become Canadian citizens.

I represent the riding of Yorkview, in which many of the residents are immigrants, hoping to become Canadians. I encourage this and have gone so far as to offer citizenship classes in my riding office for anyone who is interested. For some, becoming a citizen is easy. However, for those who have come to Canada to escape persecution in their homeland, becoming a Canadian is a matter of life and death.

A resident of my riding of Yorkview, Mr Gobin Singh, is one such individual. He first came to Canada in 1988 with the hope that he and his family would not be beaten and harassed because of their political views. Though a teacher by profession, Mr Singh has found work as an assistant maintenance manager in order to support his family. He's very active in his church and the community. Mr Singh faces deportation. His request for citizenship has been denied. Upon his return to his homeland, he knows he will be killed. I have written to the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration but have not had a response.

I ask the members of this House to simply be aware of the plight of all those like Gobin Singh and, when appropriate, to take action to help them.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am continuing to receive from a number of constituents letters on a very important subject. One of the letters which I quoted previously says:

"I am writing to express my concerns regarding the government's proposed Ontario Investment Fund Act. As a member of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, I rely heavily on the performance of the plan to provide me with a secure pension that will see me through my retirement. I am appalled to learn that my provincial government is planning a scheme that could very well affect the security of my retirement savings."

All those of us in the opposition agree. A preliminary view of the government's proposal does little to alleviate our concerns regarding the OIF. According to the NDP, the fund's objective is to invest in value added industries and foster deeper links between capital markets and business. We believe the primary objective of any pension fund should be to protect and build upon the hard-earned pensions of the employees.

We're also concerned that the government's objectives for the fund do not place the appropriate emphasis on a market rate of return on investment. Instead the NDP intends to introduce complex social objectives into the investment decisions of fund managers. The potential result of this proposal is a fund which places the retirement savings of countless public servants in jeopardy.

My colleagues and I in the Liberal caucus will vigorously scrutinize the OIF proposals, and I encourage people across the province to do the same and to bring their concerns with respect to the OIF to the attention of the Treasurer of the province of Ontario.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I direct my statement to the Treasurer. On October 1 the retail sales tax on the purchase of used vehicles came into effect. I've had a lot of letters with regard to that very issue since that tax was brought in. A letter from an Alex Hunter says:

"I am writing to protest the Ontario government's latest tax against the poor: namely, the scheme to collect sales tax on the so-called book value of used cars. The 'book value' is considerably more than anyone pays for a used vehicle, but that's not all. Two cars of the same make and year don't sell for the same money."

I had a call last week from one of the reporters on the Midland paper. He bought a car for $80, a 1978 model that he and his friend wanted to make into a stock car. To get the licence transferred at the licence bureau, it cost him $240 sales tax for that transfer. The book value of that vehicle was $3,000. This is nothing but a ripoff for a lot of these cars that are being sold.

What about the cars that are transferred within the family? It's once in 12 months that that's allowed to happen, but the book value of that may be different from what the value is on the car. It's nothing but a used car ripoff for the taxpayers of this province.

AURORA LODGE SOCCER TEAM

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I rise today to pay tribute to the Aurora Lodge soccer team of Cambridge. The Aurora Lodge soccer team has had an outstanding season which has culminated in its being recognized as the Cambridge team of the year. Cambridge, no doubt, is very well represented in all sports.

This particular club not only made it to the Ontario championship, but what is very important is it lays such emphasis on the reasons why it made it there. The reason they attributed this success to is the fact that the schools are contributing to soccer and the universities are contributing to the soccer programs. Indeed, the Cambridge minor soccer program is one of the most pre-eminent of the minor soccer associations across this province.

The people of Cambridge are proud of this fine club that has represented our community so well, and we are proud of the up-and-coming stars of Cambridge who will continue this great tradition. I'm sure all the members of this House will join me when I salute the Aurora Lodge Soccer Club of Cambridge.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will know that on Friday the unemployed people of Ontario, in fact all the people of Ontario, received more bad news. As you know, Treasurer, the unemployment numbers came out, and for the information of the people of Ontario the unemployment rate went down in every single province in Canada except Ontario. In the month of August, you will remember that Ontario's unemployment rate rose and that the rest of Canada's unemployment rate dropped. There were, I think, 555,000 people unemployed over Thanksgiving.

My question to you is this, Treasurer: How do you explain to the people of Ontario, when Ontario's economy was supposed to be in recovery now, why Ontario's unemployment rate continues to deteriorate while the rest of Canada's unemployment rate gets better? Why is that different?

Interjection: It's a good question.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Yes, it is a good question. It is no secret, and I've been saying, certainly for the last couple of years, that the recession has hit Ontario harder than any other province in this country. That is no secret to anybody. Ontario is the manufacturing heartland of this country and it's also no secret that manufacturing has been hard hit in this recession.

There are a number of reasons why Ontario has been harder hit than other provinces and that includes the fact that our manufacturing base is here, and, let's not kid each other either, that the free trade agreement has not helped the manufacturing sector in this province. As well, global competition itself is having an impact.

I think, in conclusion, the recession has hit Ontario harder than any other province, and while I'm not happy with the unemployment numbers -- how could any of us be happy with them? -- I'm not as surprised by them as some might be.

Mr Phillips: I would say to the Treasurer that you knew about the free trade agreement when you prepared the budget and the budget is only six months old, you knew about the GST, you knew about the challenges to our manufacturing sector, you knew all those things, but in the budget you said we would be seeing economic recovery by now. You said that we would see the unemployment rate dropping by now and you said that the government would create a net 125,000 jobs this fiscal year. You knew all those things. You promised the people of Ontario those things in the budget, and Bob Rae got up and said he had a plan for economic recovery.

My question to you is this: Do you continue to stick by the promises in your budget -- economic recovery, unemployment rate dropping -- or is this another broken NDP promise?

1350

Hon Mr Laughren: It's a bit ridiculous for the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to talk about the performance of the Ontario economy as a broken promise.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): We're talking about the performance of your budget.

Hon Mr Laughren: And for the member for Oriole, who continues to talk when she's not supposed to.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Oh, that hurts.

Hon Mr Laughren: It's -- well, I won't say it. The fact remains that despite what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt seems to imply in his questions, the government cannot solve all those problems out there.

The members of the opposition stand in their places and make it sound as though, "If only the government would do something else, all the problems would be over." One minute you're telling us that, and the next minute you're telling us we're spending too much money, and the next minute you're telling us to spend more money, and now you're saying it's the government's fault because there's a recession in Ontario that's hit this province harder than any other province.

It's not just Ontario. Let's face it: Every independent forecasting agency, the banks, other states and the federal government have all had their economic forecasts for the recovery from this recession miss the mark, every single one. So stop pretending, in the interests of honesty, that's it's only this government that is missing the mark on when the economy will recover.

Mr Phillips: I am quoting from your budget; I'm not making this up. You wrote the budget. In the budget you said -- and this budget's only six months old -- the unemployment rate would be dropping, you promised jobs and you said we'd be in an economic recovery. I'm not making these things up. I am just repeating for you what you said.

My problem is that people, believe me, are desperate out there. They want to believe you. They want to believe you are going to fulfil what you said in the budget. But it's not happening and don't blame me for that. It's your budget. You said it would happen.

We saw on the weekend, "'Desperate' Jobless Turn to Begging." Every one of us in our constituency sees case after case, individual after individual, tragedy after tragedy. I just want to know from the Treasurer, what hope do you give to those people that you are going to deliver what you said you would do in the budget, and that is to create jobs, reduce the unemployment and help the people who are unemployed in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is mad at me because the economic recovery isn't occurring as quickly as I thought it was, he must be mad at the entire world, because everyone's economic projections have missed the mark. For the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to say he's mad at me because the economy hasn't recovered the way everybody hoped it would simply doesn't make any sense at all.

We have put in place, for the first time, a long-term economic program that I believe will satisfy the long-term needs of this province. Gone are the days when governments can simply respond to every blip on the scope by creating a lot of make-work projects in the short term.

That's why we've put in place the kinds of programs we have under what we call Jobs Ontario, which is investing in the infrastructure of the entire province, which is investing in training which is in the long-run best interests of this province as well. We have made a massive and unprecedented commitment to the housing industry in this province that no one else has ever made in the history of Ontario. So don't tell me we're not trying and not putting in place the programs that will serve Ontario well in the long run. We are.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Chair of the Management Board. The facts are that every working day in Ontario, 547 people lose their jobs. We've heard that 85% more people are going to food banks since the NDP took power. Yet the only plan this NDP government has come up with so far in this session is one for the forced unionization of up to 9,000 of its employees, Ontario's public servants. Clearly, Bob Rae's government has no economic plan except one that helps the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

What's wrong with the minister and his cabinet buddies on the other side of the floor? Why is the forced unionization of civil servants more important than the economy in these desperate times in Ontario?

Hon David S. Cooke (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, I would suggest that the member actually read the policy paper that was put out by this government. She can say whatever she wants to say in the House, but that doesn't make it correct. There is no policy of this government that would force 9,000 civil servants to unionize. That is absolute nonsense. It is irresponsible for the member to make that kind of accusation in the House when it's absolutely and totally untrue.

Mrs Caplan: This government, as usual, is saying one thing and then doing another. This time they say they are not forcing anyone into OPSEU, and yet the minister admits in his paper, which I have read thoroughly, that 2,000 employees will be forced into the union without any right to choose. He says the other 7,000 will get the right to choose whether they want to join a union, but we're afraid that under pressure from his union pals, he's going to go back on his word. Minister, will you guarantee those 7,000 public servants that they will have a secret ballot vote on whether or not they want to join any union?

Hon Mr Cooke: I mistakenly would have thought that the former Chair of Management Board would understand that there are about 2,000 employees who have been wrongfully excluded from joining the Ontario --

Mrs Caplan: You're forcing them into unions. You're forcing them to pay union dues.

Hon Mr Cooke: Perhaps if you'd listen you might understand, since you obviously didn't understand this when you were in the position. The fact of the matter is that these cases have been dealt with on a one-by-one basis by going to arbitration at a cost of millions and millions of dollars to the taxpayers of this province. Instead, we have decided the more fiscally responsible way of dealing with it is to take a look at those positions and include them in OPSEU. If people disagree, they have an appeal procedure. There is an appeal procedure as part of the policy announcement that I made last week, and those 2,000 employees who have a right under the current law -- not under a change in law that we're proposing -- to be part of OPSEU will be able, under this government, to exercise that right. That's all we're saying.

Mrs Caplan: The minister did not answer my question, and my question was very clear. Obviously, the NDP's agenda on this issue has been clear from the start. They've made a backroom deal with OPSEU to force people to pay union dues without giving them any say about it, and he's just admitted that for over 2,000.

He said the other 7,000 will have the right to choose. I ask him to assure them that this is not just a political payoff. We know that the forced unionization of up to 9,000 people will generate $7 million in new union dues for OPSEU, and so I ask him again, will the minister guarantee to the 7,000 public servants that they will have a secret ballot vote on whether they wish to join any union?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I can indicate to the member very clearly is that the statement that was made last week will be lived up to, that those employees will have a choice of whether they want to unionize, and if they want to unionize, they will have the choice of deciding which union they will belong to.

Mrs Caplan: No secret ballot vote. You've sold them out in a political payoff to your pals.

Hon Mr Cooke: There is one addition that --

Mrs Caplan: You sold them out.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You asked the minister a question. Please pay attention to what he has to say.

Hon Mr Cooke: There is one issue that I think I left out of last week's statement and I would like to share that bit of information with the member. Last week, when I made my statement, I thanked the previous chairs of Management Board, Frances Lankin and Tony Silipo, for the development of the policy. I should have also included Murray Elston, because he was developing the policy that we have acted on before we were even in power.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Solicitor General. Minister, our police officers in Metro have taken a job action, not against their chief, not against the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, but against you, your Premier and your government. While I don't condone their tactics, I have to say, Solicitor General, that there is no doubt that the actions and the policies of your government have driven them to this.

Solicitor General, you have it within your power to end this impasse. The police are asking for a meeting with the Premier. Will you today, Mr Solicitor General, as the top cop in this province, commit to personally speaking to the Premier on behalf of the police to arrange a meeting?

1400

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): Basically, there were two elements in the question that was posed by the leader of the third party.

First of all, I disagree totally with his assertion that the actions and policies of this government have somehow created this circumstance or have not been supportive of police. Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to report to you, as objective members of this House well know, the actions this government has taken, whether it be on resourcing the OPP in terms of dollars or 241 officers, whether it's the change of extending political rights activities to all police officers of this province, whether it's with respect to endorsing new code-of-conduct regulations, additional training, resources and circumstances so that we might further enhance and have a better police force in this province, to give the men and women of this province who serve us even greater tools at their disposal; all these positive things have occurred. So the notion that the government has somehow been negative I think is not exactly an objective comment.

In terms of the second question about a meeting, I've already met with Premier Rae with respect to this issue. I believe the Premier's position is that if the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association wishes to stop this illegal job action, he is quite willing, as he has been with a wide variety of organizations and community leaders, to meet with them on this particular issue.

Mr Harris: The police feel and the perception they have is that when it comes to legislation, draft or real, when it comes to a change in regulations dealing with crime, with law and order, with policing, Dudley Laws can get access within a half an hour, criminals are being listened to, but victims are not and indeed police officers are not. That's how they feel.

The police association is simply asking for a meeting. You did not give them a meeting. You did not listen to them before you made a whole host of changes and policy decisions. They are asking now to be listened to.

Mr Solicitor General, I suggest to you that, particularly now, given what has gone on, this is not the time for an us-versus-them attitude. We should all be on the same side -- government, politicians, police, fighting crime -- not fighting each other. Mr Solicitor General, instead of entrenching two sides that should be working together in polarizing positions on opposite sides even further, you and the Premier have it within your power to bring an end to this impasse, to put an end to the perception, "We'll listen to anybody except those on the front lines, except the police officers." Will you bridge the distance between your government and our police officers and arrange today for a meeting with the Premier?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The leader of the third party is woefully and sadly misinformed. The suggestion was that I have not met with police associations. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, the fact of the matter, because it obviously escapes members opposite. We have consulted on an ongoing basis, formally, informally, over supper, in offices, at offsite meeting sites, with the Police Association of Ontario, the chiefs of police of Ontario, the police services boards, all the police stakeholders. We involved them directly in the development of this particular regulation. I made accommodations after representations from some of those organizations with respect to this particular issue. Those meetings are ongoing and go on all the time.

I have indicated that in this particular impasse my door is open. The Premier has or will indicate that he's quite prepared to meet with the associations once the job action has ceased. Therefore, I reject this notion that somehow this government has been insulated from police associations and their representatives. It quite simply isn't a fact and isn't true.

Mr Harris: Mr Solicitor General, when it comes to listening, meeting and consulting with Metropolitan Toronto police officers, your rhetoric about meeting with police commissions and Susan Eng doesn't cut it. It does not cut it.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): She doesn't represent the police.

Mr Harris: That is exactly the problem. The police officers, the men and women of the Metropolitan Toronto police, do not feel, for whatever reason -- and I can suggest 50 good ones -- that Susan Eng speaks for or represents their concerns. They have felt it necessary to take job action, job action which nobody condones. But they feel you have forced them in this position. Mr Solicitor General, when you look at the fact that in two years your government has brought in not one anti-crime initiative --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question?

Mr Harris: -- but you've brought in all kinds of new initiatives for police without consulting them, without consulting the front-line officers, you have to appreciate that they have a point.

I would ask you, since the onus is on you, not to leave the police officers hanging out there to dry any longer. The onus is on you and you have the power to end this impasse, to take it away from a "them versus us." It's not a winner-take-all; it's everybody loses until we end this impasse. Will you demonstrate the leadership required, talk to the Premier and call the police association in for a meeting with you and the Premier on constructively hearing and airing its concerns?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I want to tell you that the questioning from the member opposite is so badly off the mark that, from my perspective, it's almost unbelievable. His suggestion was that I've not met with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I have met, and have continued to meet, since assuming this ministry with the Police Association of Ontario, which not only includes the Metropolitan Toronto association but every police association in the width and breadth of this province.

As well, when he references meetings with Susan Eng, I didn't spend my time having discussions with Susan Eng; as a matter of fact, I can't recall that I've even had a meeting with Susan Eng on this particular issue. I spent my time discussing this issue with all the corporate umbrella representatives of the major police stakeholders. That's what I have done, not as the member opposite has suggested.

I want to tell you as well that the initiative we have taken for the advancement and training of every new recruit and of every uniformed officer in this province, through additional retraining and additional resourcing, which is really contained in this use-of-force regulation, I think is a very supportive action for this government to have taken. We will build upon the credibility and the fine job that our policemen and policewomen have always done for us in this province.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question on the same issue, but I'm going to direct it to the Deputy Premier. In this context I don't think that any of the forces related to the concerns of police in this province want to meet with the Solicitor General. They know this minister does not swing weight in respect to police questions; he has been bounced out of two portfolios. They want answers from the Premier. In the absence of the Premier, I'm going to pose this question to the deputy.

In the past, Mr Deputy Premier, your leader has not hesitated to meet with labour unions across this province on health and safety issues. Whenever a labour union wanted to talk to your party, your government, Mr Rae, your leader, did not hesitate. You've long fought for the concerns of labour unions. If you do not believe, Mr Deputy Premier, that this is a health and safety issue, perhaps you should go out and talk to some of the widows of slain officers who were carrying out a vigil under the Premier's office window today.

Mr Deputy Premier, why are you not prepared to discuss these matters of concern in respect to health and safety issues directly, through your office and the Premier's office, with the officials of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association?

1410

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): That question really should be directed, once again, to the Solicitor General, but I would simply say, since he has tried to very specifically address it to me, that I don't believe there's any reason not to meet with the police as long as it's done under the right circumstances and the right conditions. But I think you would be the first to agree that meeting as a result of a work action, while a work action is continuing, would not be appropriate. I would be --

Interjections.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): No communications while you are on strike. Is that it?

Hon Mr Laughren: Let me finish. I would be very surprised if the member opposite would suggest that's an appropriate strategy for any government to undertake in a situation such as this. I'd be very interested in hearing the member's response to that.

Mr Runciman: I think perhaps the Deputy Premier doesn't appreciate the frustration among police officers, and I'm not simply referring to the Metro association. I think this applies to police officers right across the province. If we just can look at the stats in Metro Toronto for 1991, homicide is up almost 38%; attempted homicide, up 19%; abduction, up 22%; sexual assault, up almost 11%; robberies, up 19%; drug convictions, up 16%. Clearly this is a very, very high-stress occupation with a lot of challenges facing the men and women officers, certainly in Metro Toronto, if not across this province.

The government's record with respect to dealing with the police officers, and perhaps especially the Metro force, is painting them as bad guys, when the Premier immediately was prepared to meet following the shooting where Constable Robert Rice was involved, Mr Deputy, chasing a drug dealer through the back alleys and was confronted with a knife and there was a shooting. The Premier immediately met with some vocal minority groups who are well known as anti-police in their sentiments, and came out with a statement which was very condemnatory of police in Metro Toronto. He met with them two days following that shooting.

Now we're having this clear signal sent to you that police officers in Metro Toronto and police officers across this province are very concerned about your approach and the initiatives you've undertaken. I'm asking you again, Mr Deputy: Why are you not prepared, when you're prepared to meet with OPSEU, you're prepared to meet with CUPE, you're prepared to meet with the Steelworkers? Is it because the police association of Metro Toronto does not send its deductions to the NDP? Is that why?

Hon Mr Laughren: I regret very much the very sophomoric conclusion to the member's question.

First of all, I regard, and I'm sure everyone else in government, including the Premier, regards the action by the metropolitan police as very, very serious. When I think about the police force, which is paid to enforce the laws, engaging in this kind of job action, I worry a great deal about it, because I think it runs counter to everything that we in a democratic society believe in.

Interjections.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Don't give us that.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I'm telling you --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: What has been asked of the police is nothing dramatic, nothing radical. The very issues that are being talked about are ones that I understand have been in place in Halton region, for example, for some time now, and in Edmonton and in other places.

So, first of all, let's make it very clear that what the police are doing is very, very serious and should be regarded as such, not just by government but by everybody in this province.

Secondly, I would hope that no government could meet the demands to sit down and negotiate in the middle of such a job action. I think that would be most inappropriate.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): They're just following Bob Rae's example for civil disobedience.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Mr Runciman: This is another case of the government burying its head in the sand. You're not prepared to talk to the policemen and policewomen in Metro Toronto and across this province in respect to their concerns. Their concerns not only lie in respect to the unholstering of weapons; there is a whole host of concerns about the way this government is treating police officers across this province: dumping on them, continually badmouthing them, suggesting they're all racist or riddled with racists.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Are you kidding?

Mr Runciman: I am not kidding. Just look at the Premier's comments. Look at the comments of the parliamentary assistant to the Premier. It is a clear record in respect to what's happening.

I want to ask the Deputy Premier two specific questions: First, will he assure this House that his government's appointees to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board will not take arbitrary action against Chief William McCormack? Second, will he, as the Deputy Premier, indicate to this House if he and his government are prepared to refer these regulations to the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature for public hearings?

Hon Mr Laughren: I regret very much some of the language the member for Leeds-Grenville uses.

Mr Runciman: What about the parliamentary assistant to the Premier? You are not offended by that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You've asked a question. Please give a chance to the minister to give his reply.

Hon Mr Laughren: It certainly doesn't help relations with the police, who I think perform a difficult job very well in this province. It doesn't help the atmosphere when the member for Leeds-Grenville, and he's the only one I've heard, stands up and suggests that somebody thinks the police in this province are racist. That does not help anybody.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is not true. That does not help the police. That does not help society at large.

I can tell the member for Leeds-Grenville that this government believes, as I said before, that the police do a difficult job very well. But we also believe that they are accountable and they must be held accountable. They cannot write all the rules for themselves. That simply is not on and that will not be on.

I would encourage the member for Leeds-Grenville to use his considerable influence with the police to cool down the rhetoric and stop using the language that he uses in this chamber, because it demeans everyone.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Let me echo the concerns of the leader of third party and also the member for Leeds-Grenville. My question --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Curling: I will direct my question to the Solicitor General. The Metro police services board's Susan Eng had said that "the protest by Metro police is a demand to be heard," adding that "the provincial government must accept some of the blame for the crisis situation which has been allowed to develop."

I want to know what specific and immediate steps you, the Solicitor General, will take to repair the police-government relations which the NDP has so terribly and so badly damaged.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This is a work stoppage by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. The matter is being handled by Chief William McCormack and the police services board, and I want to say that I support both Chief McCormack and the board in their efforts to resolve this particular situation.

Beyond that, as I have indicated, my particular door is open with respect to this issue. I have met and will continue on an ongoing basis to meet with all major police stakeholders on this and other policy issues as they impact policing in this province.

1420

Mr Curling: Yes, the Solicitor General's door is always open, but nobody's home. They feel that he's not listening. Your delay tactics, the way you introduce your bills has caused havoc among the police and their concerns. We want to know, are you prepared to meet with Art Lymer and the police association?

This government really has lacked the credibility to build the kind of partnership between the government, the police, the community, the modern police requirement that is needed in this province. Will you meet with these officers and members of the association?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member for Scarborough North's comment is in error. We have always, on an ongoing basis, prided ourselves on being able to have dialogue, discussion and consultation with the major police stakeholders. Primary among them is the Police Association of Ontario, and discussions with respect to this regulation I believe reach back to some 18 months ago.

I want to say as well that during the process of consultation with them and other community leaders, I did in fact make an accommodation, at the request of the Police Association of Ontario, with respect to the regulation on filing a report when weapons are drawn.

More particularly, they had a concern, which was voiced here and in many corners of the province, with respect to the circumstance where officers who were out perhaps late at night and had to go into an empty warehouse in the dark accompanied by only their partner, but there was no public presence.

If they drew their weapons, would they had to file a report in that circumstance? They felt they should not have to. I agreed to their request, and they in fact do not have to. Only in a situation where weapons are drawn, when lethal force is drawn in the presence of the general public is a report required.

The notion that we have not listened, that we have not made an accommodation or are not willing to make accommodation is fallacious.

TAXATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Treasurer. Mr Treasurer, in order to increase investor confidence, will you put to rest speculation that you intend to introduce an inheritance tax in the very near future?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question. The member opposite will understand, I believe, that as part of the directions given to the Fair Tax Commission was one that asked it to look at the whole question of wealth taxes in the province of Ontario. The Fair Tax Commission has not at this point reported, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to make any kind of commitment until somebody who's had a serious look at the issue has reported back to me.

Mr Sterling: When the Treasurer was considering the 63 new possible ways of raising taxes, he was quite willing to put aside several of those, notwithstanding that the process was going on. His answer is not in tune with that.

Mr Treasurer, with regard to investor confidence, it's obvious now to anyone who is looking at the Ontario scene that your budget is way out of whack. When are you going to introduce a new one?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's an interesting supplementary. I can't understand why that particular member would be concerned about a wealth tax, so I do appreciate the question coming from him.

I should tell the member for Carleton as well that there is no intention to introduce a budget before the normal time. We are making final preparations for the release of an economic outlook document which will indicate any revised forecast we might have at this point.

Of course then there will be, towards the end of the month or early November, the second-quarter Ontario Finances, which will bring everybody up to speed on the latest numbers, but we have no intention of introducing yet another budget. I'm surprised that you would want another one.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is also for the Treasurer. Mr Treasurer, I understand there's a high-level committee operating under your direction with a mandate to propose major spending cuts for the next fiscal year. This causes a great deal of concern for many people in the social service agencies and others, especially in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. Mr Treasurer, can you tell this House and certainly the people of Ontario about this committee and its mandate?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Yes, there is indeed a committee functioning, a committee consisting of senior deputy ministers and legal staff from various ministers' offices that are looking at ways to make sure we are able to meet our fiscal targets as laid out in the budget.

Members opposite will recall, I hope, that last spring, prior to the 1992 budget, we struck a committee that also looked at what we call program reviews -- reviews of all the programs in government -- with the intention of seeing where savings and streamlining could take place, because that hadn't gone on under the previous government at all. They just kept layering one program on after another, so we felt we should take a look at that.

As a result of that exercise last spring, we were able to reduce the growth in expenditures $4 for every dollar that was implemented in tax increases. It was a very successful committee and we've cranked it up again because we know we're going to have to work very hard to review all those various programs if we're going to meet our fiscal targets as laid out in the budget.

Mr Abel: Mr Treasurer, I can appreciate the fact that this in its embryonic stage. However, can you tell us when we can expect some further information about the results of the process?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. The goal of the exercise is, first of all, to constrain expenditures in the province in a logical and strategic way for the benefit of the people who receive services but also for the long-term health of the economy. Therefore, the final results of the exercise will really not be evident to everyone until budget time.

However, having said that, it's clear that there are going to be rumours, press stories and comments by members of the Legislature about this exercise. I would simply ask you to keep in perspective the fact that we're looking at all these major programs. People should not get unduly exercised over any one until that final decision has been made, and we're some time away from that yet. We really have not made any of those decisions at this point.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. I hope the Speaker will give me a certain amount of leeway in fairness to the Treasurer so that I can give him a little bit of background.

The Treasurer will know that Ontario is one of the most heavily trade-dependent jurisdictions in the world: For every dollar an Ontarian has in his pocket, fully 30 cents or more is there because of trade. The Treasurer will also know that the United States is by far our largest trading partner. As a matter of fact, 90% of the trade of Ontario is done in the United States.

The Treasurer will also know that the fastest-growing area in the United States as far as industrial activity is concerned is the so-called Sunbelt. The Treasurer will also know that representatives of those states have established for the first time offices in Toronto.

On September 30 the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology sent a memo to all staff and a copy of a phase 1 document. In his memo he states, "Last Friday, our report on restructuring the ministry received a very positive reaction from the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal," of which the Treasurer is a member, "and we are now to give top priority to implementing the plan." He encloses the plan, which means, "This is now government policy and we're going to implement it."

One of the things it calls for is the removal of senior posts from Boston, Atlanta and Dallas. How can the Treasurer, in his capacity as a member of the Premier's economic council, justify that in an area which has the greatest potential for trade in Ontario -- when you consider that if you take the trade we do with the United States and raise it by 1%, it's a huge number, whereas if you take the trade we do everywhere else in the world and increase it by 500%, it is a very small number. How can you, as a member of that council, condone the fact that it is effectively removing the ability for Ontarians to access that very important market?

1430

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member is referring to a report that was done to streamline and make more efficient the entire Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. The member opposite would know that it was time to do that, since he was the minister there at one time.

The report that came back as a result of that study made a large number of recommendations, largely on the internal organization of the ministry, but it also touched on the agents general who are located in different parts of the world to promote trade and investment in Ontario. It's also true that they made some recommendations along the lines the member refers to.

That does not mean the report, individual components of it, have been accepted in total by the government at this point; that's simply not true. The deputy and the minister are coming back to us with some specific recommendations based on that report. I'm not questioning the veracity of what the member says -- it's absolutely true -- but he's taking it one step too far, in that the government has not made a determination on those specific decisions.

Mr Kwinter: I think there is a breakdown in communication between the economic council and the deputy. It isn't something I've said. Here's the letter, and I have the report, and it says, "To all staff," and he includes the report. Now, why would he include a report to every member of the staff at MITT if it isn't something they want to implement? He says, "We are to give top priority to implementing this plan." He's not saying "top priority to talking about it"; he's saying, "We want to implement it."

With all due respect, I have not jumped to any kind of conclusion that I have not read in this document. What I would like to ask you is that on page 29 of that document, there is another interesting proposal which, I submit to the Treasurer, is now to be implemented. In light of your government's total rejection of the NAFTA agreement, there is a proposal that calls for a senior post to be opened in Mexico. Not only is that a total contradiction of what the NDP has been saying publicly, but I think it's important to know that at estimates of MITT, which were held in the latter part of August --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Question?

Mr Kwinter: I'm going to raise the question right now, Mr Speaker. There was a follow-up question at estimates to the ministry, and this is what it said, "Does the Ontario government have any plans to open a trade mission in Mexico?" The response that came back from ministry officials, and it came back after this document was released, says, "There are no immediate plans to open an office in Mexico."

Somewhere along the line, someone is not talking to someone else in either the Premier's Council meeting or the ministry. The document says, "We are going to put a senior post in Mexico." The response from MITT to our caucus says, "We are not going to open any offices in Mexico." Could the minister or the Treasurer please explain that?

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps the operative word is "immediate." I want to assure the member opposite that if the North American free trade agreement becomes a fact of life in North America, I don't think the member opposite would suggest that because we resisted it, for the same reasons we resisted the free trade agreement with the US -- by and large, the lack of adjustment programs for industry and for labour all across Canada, and it really hit Ontario very hard -- that when that becomes the law of the land, we pretend it's not and don't take advantage of whatever advantages there might be. I see no contradiction in that whatsoever.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, last week you enlightened us with some information with regard to what's going on in our school system and the fact that there will no longer be credits for students in grade 9. We also know that your ministry is trying to get ready some curriculum with regard to the destreaming of grade 9 for September, 1993, and we're certainly aware that you're getting your course outlines ready.

Mr Minister, right now there are a lot of people looking for input to just what will take place with regard to those courses that will be offered next year, but more important, the students and their parents are wanting to know. Most times these courses go to print so that students can choose courses they want to take. That should be done before Christmas so that the parents and teachers and students can get together early in the new year. Could you advise this House when those course outlines will be ready from your ministry so that this work can be done?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The documents that the school boards are receiving from us or will be receiving in the next little while are not the key documents that should be relied on in terms of deciding the course outlines for next year. We have made it clear that we would be providing those documents to school boards so that they could begin the planning of the common core curriculum to the end of grade 9 beginning next September, but in fact school boards have a three-year period in which to implement those changes. That was done specifically to allow school boards to make decisions, given their local circumstances and given the level of readiness they feel they're in, to implement some or all of that new curriculum in that first year. But clearly they've got the three-year period and they can proceed to do that planning. The importance of the curriculum documents is to assist the teachers in the actual preparation of the courses, not in the course selection of students.

Mrs Cunningham: That means that across Ontario for the next three years, students will have a choice of looking at courses that are already in place to choose, and other school boards may be ready to offer new courses. My assumption is that some schools therefore will give credits and some won't give credits. Perhaps the minister could clarify that in the response to my supplementary question, which is this:

Mr Minister, Ontario is waiting to take a look at the kind of curriculum that will take our young people into the next century, to take a look at the kind of curriculum that will allow and encourage apprenticeship programs in our schools. There is a lot of confusion as to what's happening. All of us are waiting for opportunities to give you some good advice: parents and schools, teachers, the business community and union leaders. At what time are you going to be ready to get that kind of input, and what are you doing about getting it at this very moment? This is critical.

Hon Mr Silipo: We have been getting that kind of good advice for a number of years now in the ministry, certainly even before I became Minister of Education.

As the member knows, there has been a fairly extensive period of discussion involving people from within the school systems and outside of the school systems around the whole examination of education, from the early years right through to the end of high school. What we are doing now is taking all that information and putting together what we believe are some of the directions and some of the answers that we need to provide back to the system. I don't think any of us are foolish enough to believe that will be the end of the discussion; in fact, one could say that it's the beginning of another set of discussions around how some of these changes are to be implemented.

Again, we've tried to be sensitive, in the directions that we put forward, in allowing the kind of flexibility that we know our school boards and schools need in terms of implementation. That again would be my reference back to the three-year implementation process for the destreaming of grade 9. I can say to the member that there will certainly continue to be lots of opportunities for those discussions. As I indicated, I believe last week, I expect that we will be coming out with some statements later in the fall that will outline some of the directions our school system needs to pursue, and then also set very clearly a period for some further discussions as well as some reasonable implementation time lines.

1440

COOPERATIVE CORPORATIONS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I would like to ask a question today of the Minister of Financial Institutions on behalf of the co-op movement in Ontario and on behalf of my own constituency, Sault Ste Marie, which happens to have several important credit unions and cooperative institutions within its boundaries. Minister, since the amendments to the Co-operative Corporations Act were passed by the members of this Legislature last spring, can you tell me what initiatives have been taken by your ministry to address the issues of the co-op movement?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): Since the legislation passed in the spring, my parliamentary assistant, Steve Owens, the member for Scarborough Centre, who doesn't seem to be here, has commenced a comprehensive review of the Co-operative Corporations Act. The purpose of the comprehensive review is to address some substantive legislative and program issues that confront the co-op sector in this province and to try and find ways to encourage the greater growth and development of cooperatives in this province. That review includes a co-op sectoral advisory committee and an interministerial committee and a significant public consultation process.

It's interesting that the co-op movement plays a particularly important role in the province of Ontario, and today happens to mark the beginning of Co-op Week in this province. In celebration of that, at 5 pm in room 247, the co-op movement will be hosting a reception celebrating the success of co-ops in this province, and all members of the Legislature are invited.

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Madam Minister, on October 6 you appeared before the standing committee on estimates. Your choice of title for your remarks was Choices and Change. This is your annual opportunity to present your priorities, yet in your 45-minute remarks you did not mention the words "food banks" once. You made only nebulous comments about poverty and child poverty, whereas the majority of people bringing food to the Daily Bread Food Bank annual Thanksgiving Day drive have stated in written form on the bags they have presented that they consider hunger to be a very serious issue in this province.

How do you account for this significant absence of any mention of food banks and only a passing reference to child poverty in a presentation of your priorities, when the rest of the province thinks this is a serious, high-profile issue?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): In my speech at the estimates I made it very clear that our number one priority as a government in my ministry is the reform of social assistance, and the reform of social assistance, as this party has always maintained, is the important route to alleviating child and adult poverty.

The social assistance system needs to be reformed in order to encourage people to work so that they can become self-sufficient, and it is not a priority -- we have been very clear about this; I was clear in the answer to the honourable member for Oriole last week -- for us to maintain the institutionalization of food banks. It is our priority to achieve a reformed social assistance system that will enable people to attain self-sufficiency.

Mrs O'Neill: You say you are clear; you say you feel passionately, and I'm using your very own words. Your government, however, didn't hesitate, didn't wait for plans to move a $2.5-million cabinet secretariat to the Whitney Block, and you didn't hesitate or criticize Ontario Hydro for the $1-million boardroom, but you continue to rationalize the problem of poverty day after day.

The people in need in this province have to be sure that you and your colleagues understand their position. Mothers are watering down baby formulas. Children are going to school hungry. It's been stated as late as today by the people who are presenting those food bags that government has a role. You have a very strong mandate from the Ontario community to fulfil that role. Madam Minister, I'm asking you to state clearly your plans, your definite time line, your budget commitment to this dilemma that faces Ontario.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have made it very clear that we are looking at reform of the social assistance system, the completion of the moves that were made in the last two years, during 1993.

In terms of some of the other issues the member raises, there is no question about our concern around child hunger and particularly post-natal care of children. One of the issues we are discussing with the federal government is mutual plans around the brighter futures program it announced, in terms of ensuring that this is a priority issue. The member is deliberately confusing capital spending with operating spending. The $3 million she mentioned will not go very far in feeding any child.

It is not our policy to give additional handouts and to institutionalize those kinds of handouts. They are absolutely considered by poverty activists to be the worst kind of charitable response to a major problem. That is not the policy of this government. We see this as a systemic problem that needs to be dealt with, not through minor handouts, not through little fix-its, not through $1 million here or $1 million there, but through a major reform of the entire system. That is the direction we intend to go over the next couple of years.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would like to bring to the attention of the House the distinguished visitor Dottore Moris Bonacini, from Emilia Romagna, who is leading a 22-member delegation, who are meeting with representatives of Ontario companies in the environmental sector and with Ontario municipalities.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the rights of Roman Catholic students to receive a Catholic education; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario is financing two school systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is offering education to more than 104,000 students of Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas those students who represent 30% of the students of this region have access only to 20% of the residential realty assessment and to 9.5% of both commercial and industrial assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is spending $1,678 less per elementary student and $2,502 less per high school student than in the public sector,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to restructure the allocation of municipal and provincial taxes so the two main school systems may be financed equally."

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have another 1,000 petitions, signed by the Dumpbusters of York region.

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, the undersigned, absolutely reject the alternative of a Metropolitan Toronto-York region megadump and insist that you consider all alternatives."

I submit this on behalf of the people of York region who have signed it. I have thousands more from the many people who are so upset with this government in proceeding with the selection of dump sites the way it is. I submit this on their behalf.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I'm signing this, Mr Speaker, and this is added to the hundreds of signatures which we have already given in to the House.

1450

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have three petitions here which I would like to present to the Legislative Assembly today. These come from three separate church congregations in my riding, and I will read one of them.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and for family time. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

Mr Speaker, I have attached my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the members of the provincial Parliament.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except for Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It has been signed by a number of people from the good community of Uxbridge, and I, of course, sign my name to this.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's most appropriate to the constitutional debate which is taking place in this House in which members will be limited. Here it is:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedures in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition which has been signed by the residents of Waterloo and Kitchener.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, oppose Bill 40 and draw attention to the following:

"We object to the government's assumption that the only good workplace is a unionized workplace.

"We believe the balance of power is already tilted in favour of labour and that further tinkering will result in fewer investment dollars being spent in Ontario, loss of jobs and revenue and an increase of tension between labour and business.

"We believe that Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession and that employers are already being challenged with existing and proposed legislation.

"We, the citizens of Ontario, did not ask for these changes.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that Bill 40 be revoked immediately."

I hereby sign.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition similar to the one the member for Durham-York had. It has 53 signatures on it, and of course that's against allowing Sunday shopping. The signatures come from all over my riding and also areas such as Tillsonburg, Waterloo, Aylmer and the fine little place of La Salette.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's timely with the debate beginning today, as my colleague said, on the Constitution. It says:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now actually empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time that's going to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby, of course, ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I, of course, am affixing my signature to that petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition that has been signed by the residents of Kitchener and Waterloo.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of a 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I hereby affix my signature.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition here from a number of the congregation of the Bethany Christian Reform Church in Bloomfield, Ontario.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of a 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

1500

PESTICIDES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition signed by the residents of Kitchener and Waterloo.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We feel that the urban cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers is unnecessary since viable alternatives exist. Pesticides are being registered, marketed and used with inadequate, incomplete, obsolete and invalid testing. No pesticide has proven absolutely safe. Pesticides have been linked to a number of serious health problems in terms of both acute and chronic toxicity. Many people are vulnerable to these effects, including children, the elderly and the environmentally sensitive. Pesticides and fertilizer nitrates contaminate surface water and groundwater and have been linked to a number of serious adverse effects on the environment. The manufacturing of some pesticides and fertilizers contributes to global warming. Pesticides adversely affect a wide variety of non-target beneficial organisms. Insects, fungi and weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to pesticides.

"Therefore, we request that the House eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides for cosmetic reasons in urban areas of Ontario immediately or by 1993 at the very latest."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I am presenting this petition on behalf of hundreds of citizens of my riding, who say:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38 which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family..." and it goes on in the same vein as many members in this House have presented.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38 which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need" -- we all believe in the need -- "for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter, that is, 51 Sundays per year, from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That's signed by Gail Wemekamp from Picton, by Frank Koopmans from Picton, by a whole bunch of God-fearing, hardworking, committed people who know what's right and know what's good for communities and families in this province.

I've signed it because I agree with them and I support this position and this petition wholeheartedly, as all members of this Legislature should.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. I realize the member was ad libbing a little bit. I believe there is a bit more that came into Hansard than was in the petition. We ask you to please stay to the text.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NORTHERN ONTARIO SENATE REPRESENTATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION DU NORD DE L'ONTARIO AU SÉNAT

On motion by Mr Ramsay, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 84, An Act to provide for the Representation of Northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada / Loi prévoyant la représentation du Nord de l'Ontario au Sénat du Canada.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: A short explanatory.

Mr Ramsay: I appreciate having the opportunity to explain that this bill provides for the election of two senators to represent northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada.

FEFFERLAW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Beer, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Fefferlaw Developments Limited.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LES ASSURANCES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): According to a pre-planned vote, this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1507 to 1512.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters.

All those in favour of Mr Charlton's motion will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk.

All those opposed to Mr Charlton's motion will please rise one at a time to be identified by the clerk.

Ayes -- 59

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays -- 46

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kormos, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 59; the nays 46. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Interjections: No.

The Acting Speaker: What committee?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The standing committee on finance and economic affairs. So ordered.

UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES FONDATIONS UNIVERSITAIRES

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Allen, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 68, An Act respecting University Foundations / Loi concernant les fondations universitaires.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Sutherland has some opening remarks.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure today to present for second reading Bill 68, the University Foundations Act, which will permit the establishment of university foundations as crown agencies. These foundations will receive and distribute contributions to support universities in Ontario.

This government is very much aware of the financial needs of Ontario universities, just as the universities are aware of the government's limited resources at this time. We promise to work with our universities to create new ways to address their funding concerns, and this legislation will give universities the potential to raise additional funds for educational activities and research by encouraging donations to universities by the public.

While this government initiative is a positive step, we fully realize that this legislation does not substitute for healthy public support of our universities.

Because the university foundations will be crown agencies, people making donations to them will get the enhanced benefits relating to donations to the crown under the Income Tax Act. Donors to universities now receive a tax credit that can be applied to only 20% of their income. Under the proposed legislation, donors would be eligible to receive a tax credit applicable to their full income.

The legislation proposes that each of the university foundations will be self-funded. The foundations will be administered by a board of directors composed of five to 11 members who will be appointed for three-year terms by the government.

At the end of each fiscal year, foundations will submit an annual report to the minister which will include a financial statement audited by external auditors. Under the legislation, the Provincial Auditor would also be able to audit the accounts and transactions of the foundations. Each foundation and the university foundation program itself will be subject to a sunset review after three years.

1520

This legislation comes in response to the urging of the university sector to introduce legislation along the lines of existing legislation in Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Michael Garvey, the chair of the University of Waterloo's board of governors, for example, said that this legislation, by allowing additional funding from individuals, will lead to more innovation and enhanced research activities at our universities. Robert Prichard, the president of the University of Toronto, stated publicly that this legislation will widen the spectrum of prospective donors.

But one of the main benefits of the legislation is that it will encourage people who were making donations to universities outside the province to give to Ontario universities, because we no longer lack this legislation, which other provinces have. I am convinced that this new legislation is a very good example of this government working in partnership with the post-secondary system. This legislation will bring real benefit to our universities that will help faculty and students.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): That was brief and sweet from the member, I guess. Even though, apparently, we're not going to move into committee of the whole, perhaps he will in his concluding remarks be able to answer some of the concerns and questions that we may have on this side or that some of his own members may have.

One of the questions I have is, why is it that the government will make the appointments to the university foundations, and why will there not be a sharing of appointments by the university community and the government? I will be speaking to the actual legislation a little bit later, but I would appreciate it if the member, at an opportunity this afternoon, would respond to this particular concern.

It is, of course, an issue that has been around for some time, and I'm rather pleased to see this introduced and hopefully passed today. However, I must say that at the same time I'm disappointed the minister himself did not find it appropriate to be here today to present this case which is so important to the universities.

Interjection.

Mr Daigeler: As my colleague here from Mississauga West just said, perhaps the member for Oxford has aspirations to be the minister, but we'll see whether he is up to the task today.

At this point, I would like to put on the record this particular question as to why you are making these appointments just by the government. I can see that you have a lot of NDPers who would like to get appointed, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to just leave it with the cabinet.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I echo the comments of my colleague in the sense that we generally support this bill. I think, though, that we should be clear that this is really a form of damage control by this government because of what the government did. We all remember when the NDP came in and made promises that it was going to freeze tuition for university students, and then immediately increased those tuitions quite dramatically. They promised they would help make university education accessible to all Ontarians and then immediately took money out of OSAP to make it more difficult for people who need help.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: As my colleague from Ottawa says, $10 million taken right out of OSAP. What that means is that the student who needs a loan -- not a grant even, but who needs a loan -- who otherwise would not be able to attend university is restricted in his or her ability to do that. Well, Kimble, shake your head; it absolutely does. If you can't get the money through OSAP in the form of either a grant or some additional loans, because the banks are tightening up, then it just makes everything more difficult.

Those are two moves, I might add, increasing tuition and cutting back OSAP, that are so counterproductive in the worst recession that anyone can remember since the Great Depression, when parents are struggling to be able to afford -- I've got two boys at university, and I know the cost of going to university and how difficult it can be.

This government has done absolutely everything to make it more difficult for kids to go to school. They bring in a bill that will at least provide some tax relief for contributors to universities, but it clearly is damage control to clean up the mess they've created.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I stand to support this bill, and speak of it not as a matter of damage control, as the previous member has said. I understand why he would raise the comments, and I also understand why he would not speak positively of a bill that obviously will do a lot of good for the universities that want to take advantage of this.

It's clear that the bill permits university foundations to be created by regulation for the 17 post-secondary institutions. We know there are many universities that want that, out of the 17 institutions. Clearly, every university should have its own foundation, because we know that students or the alumni of that university are very closely connected to the university they have attended, and once they leave it, they may want to make a contribution to their particular university and not another one. So it makes sense that we have individual universities setting up their own foundations.

What we are doing through this as well is to develop a partnership with people in the private sector or with individuals who want to make a contribution to a university, and we are, through Bill 68, allowing them to do so. So it's a partnership we are creating through this founding.

Is that a copout? Is that damage control? We argue that this is not why we're doing it, but rather permitting, through enabling legislation, individuals to make that important contribution. I think that's something that should be supported and praised as opposed to being negatively attacked, as the opposition members will often do.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant in questions and/or comments. Seeing none, the honourable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to respond to the question raised by the member for Nepean. First of all, I think it's important to remember that these crown foundations are going to be crown agencies. That in itself is why the government will be making the appointments to them. But the minister and the ministry have made a commitment to set up an appointments protocol for these specific appointments that will include consultation and input from the university community, so they will be involved.

I must at this time respond too to the member for Mississauga West regarding the $10 million from OSAP. He's quite correct that a $10-million saving was put in for OSAP this year. But that saving was found not by those students who couldn't support themselves or who couldn't work this summer because of the difficult job market for youth; that saving was found by an increased contribution from those students who were working. I think it's key that we separate the two. It was only those students who were working who had to make the increased contribution. Those who could not find work were not affected, so the changes to OSAP did not make it less accessible for students to achieve post-secondary education this summer.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 68?

Mr Daigeler: It's a pleasure to be able to speak a little bit longer than I had anticipated. Of course, I appreciate it on this particular bill which, for the university community, is a very significant one.

It's almost a year -- not quite; 11 months -- since I introduced in this House a private member's resolution that had precisely as its objective the establishment of these crown foundations. Since I was the one who put forward the motion last November and, I'm pleased to say, a motion that was supported by all three parties -- the government as well as the third party supported my resolution -- I'm obviously pleased to see this initiative come to the floor today, hopefully for third reading.

1530

When I first introduced this resolution, it had been brought to my attention during a visit to the University of Western Ontario. I would just like to take this opportunity to say that the University of Western Ontario should be congratulated on a very fine initiative. It is calling together, twice a year, MPPs, basically from the greater London area, to inform the sitting members about the concerns of the university, what's going on, to brief them so they have a better understanding of the issues that are around and to give them an opportunity to ask questions of faculty leaders, obviously the president, also administrators and student leaders.

As you know, since unfortunately at the present time the Liberals do not have too many members from that area -- I'm sure that's going to change very substantially again in the next election -- the university invited the critic, myself, to attend these briefings for MPPs.

Even though my riding is Nepean in the Ottawa area, I did take it upon myself to visit Western on the occasion of these MPP briefings twice so far, and both times I must say I came away with a much better understanding of the concerns of Western and of the university community in general.

I just want to put on the record that I think this initiative should be repeated by other universities. Even in my own area of Ottawa-Carleton, it's not very often that the universities are briefing the sitting members on their concerns.

I do go there in my role as critic, but I think it's very important for the universities that want to increase their profile in the community to take the initiative to go out there and be proactive in terms of briefing the sitting members of all three parties in that area, on a non-partisan basis, to make them aware of their concerns.

Now, what's the connection with the crown foundations? The connection is that it was at that meeting last year, in fact in October last year, that representatives of the university community first drew that concern to my attention. They said that Western Ontario and several other universities were possibly losing substantial amounts of money to other provinces, British Columbia for example, because these provinces had these crown foundations for universities.

They asked me and the other members who were present to encourage the government to come forward with similar legislation so that the University of Western Ontario and other universities as well could take advantage of the same tax benefits as, for example, the University of British Columbia.

When I first heard it, I thought: "This is really a very good issue. I will dig into it and make some inquiries as to what's behind this." When I got back to Queen's Park I got in touch with the Council of Ontario Universities and it sent me briefing material as to what this was all about and what British Columbia has done on this question. Also, the development officer at Queen's University has been very active in terms of promoting and pushing this dossier.

I realized very quickly that, yes, this was an avenue to give very significant financial support to the universities but also to indicate through our action in a moral way, as it were, our support as a Legislature for the university community.

As members know, I am sure, the university community for some time has felt, I might say, left out or slighted because its funding has not increased in the same way that, for example, the funding for health services has increased. They have felt slighted because their funding increase has not kept pace with the funding increase for social services. I must say that was the pattern that started not just with this government, not just with our government, but with the third party as well. It is true that health care and social services have taken a much greater attention in the public's mind and therefore also in the government's mind than the funding of universities and of higher education in general.

There will be opportunities at some other point to talk about these financing problems, but at this point I just want to point out that this act we're discussing today, the University Foundations Act, provides us with an opportunity to say to the universities: "You're still important. The work that you're doing is still extremely important for the wellbeing of our society and, yes, in as much as we can, we also want to provide the resources to you that we can."

This particular bill before us makes it possible for individuals to make relatively large donations -- hopefully, large donations, although they can be smaller ones as well -- and benefit by way of 100% tax deduction for their gifts. I'm sure not too many members and probably people out in the community as well are familiar with the fact that when you make a donation to an agency that's set up by the crown or a government agency, you can receive a tax credit that's 100% of your income. Normally, for all other charitable donations, you can get a credit for only 20% of your income. So obviously the receiving agency, in this case the universities, would be able to receive a much higher donation from a willing individual if that individual can take advantage of a 100% deduction rather than just 20%.

So this is really what's behind this legislation. It is, hopefully, to encourage significant donations, first of all, to be made so that the individual can take advantage of the tax system, and second, of course, that these donations be given to an Ontario university, because, as I mentioned, this system of 100% tax credit is already in place in other provinces. So if, for example, an Ontario resident is very convinced of the importance of universities and of the importance of university research and wishes to make a donation to that system, he can do it right now and he can take advantage of the tax benefits, but he has to make that donation, for example, to UBC.

1540

Even though I certainly am one to try to break down barriers between our provinces, still, if it is an Ontario resident, we would like him or her to consider an Ontario university first. We don't want to exclude him or her, we don't want to prevent him or her from donating to other universities. There are many alumni of very good universities from other provinces living and working here in Ontario, so certainly they should have that opportunity, but we certainly want to put the Ontario universities on an equal footing with the other universities so that at least the Ontario universities have a chance to get the same possible donations as the universities in other provinces.

When I introduced that resolution, as I mentioned, in November last year, I got a lot of letters from the university community thanking me for this initiative. I did appreciate the university presidents taking the time to acknowledge this resolution and extending their thanks for having this matter brought before the House. Ever since then the universities, through the Council of Ontario Universities, have been very active and very aggressive, might I say, to push this dossier. I wish to congratulate them, and the president in particular, Dr Peter George, who relentlessly, I would say, has been keeping this matter before the government and also before the opposition parties so that this initiative would not fall between the cracks.

Unfortunately sometimes these bills, which are not perhaps at the top of the priority of the government, get moved off because other matters have higher priority, and then they get moved off for so long that ultimately time runs out and a new session is called, or perhaps even the Legislature is prorogued and they die in Orders and Notices. Rightfully so, the university community has been very interested and very concerned that this matter be dealt with, not just with first reading but also with second and third readings.

I must say that as late as a few weeks ago I myself was very concerned that this matter might not come to the floor of this Legislature in this session, because when I saw some of the priority lists that were put forward by the government, there was no reference at all to this particular bill. But when I spoke with the minister last week, he indicated that this bill was still of great interest to him and to the government and that if there was agreement with the other parties, certainly they were quite prepared to bring this into the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

I should say that I'm very pleased to see this move now, at this particular time when it's relatively early in the session, to get it over and done with and to be sure that we can get it passed in this session, because, who knows, with car insurance and Sunday shopping and casino gambling, there may be further filibusters, even though, of course, the government has tried to eliminate those filibusters, basically because of its own members. They're concerned that their own members would hold up their own legislative agenda.

I guess it has been through the wizardry of the new chief wizard of the NDP, David Agnew, that all of this has been put in place, that we can talk to any particular bill now for only half an hour and then we're cut off. That also eliminates the possibility for the member for Welland-Thorold and several other members who are opposed to initiatives of their own government to speak at length.

But I have been in this House now for five years and I do know that there can be various ways to make sure that different viewpoints, opposing viewpoints, are put forward. There's no guarantee in this House. That was, frankly, one of the greatest surprises that I found when I came here, that I had no real control over my own agenda and over my time, because you never quite knew what was going to happen next in the Legislature.

It's almost as with the Constitution: there are so many different interests and so many different people who have to be accommodated that it's very difficult to make a definite judgement on whether a particular bill will in fact be addressed and passed or not.

I think to have the crown foundations bill before us today is great. It will ensure that it does get passed. I'm absolutely certain that the university community is more than pleased to see this initiative taken at this particular time.

Peut-être que je pourrais dire que notre nouveau chef, Mme McLeod, était tout de suite très positive envers cette initiative qui a été proposée par moi-même en novembre dernier. Elle a même écrit une lettre au premier ministre Rae qui a donné et qui a exprimé l'appui de mon parti pour cette initiative du gouvernement. Malheureusement, ce n'est pas très souvent que notre chef puisse exprimer cet appui pour une initiative du gouvernement, mais, comme elle a été elle-même ministre des Collèges et Universités, elle savait très bien combien cette initiative est importante à ce moment-ci pour l'avenir des universités et comment cette initiative peut donner un appui, non seulement financier mais aussi moral, à notre système universitaire.

C'est à cause de ça que déjà, à la dernière session, pour dire exactement, le 11 juin, elle a écrit au ministre et aussi au premier ministre pour indiquer que nous, les Libéraux, serions prêts à avancer ce dossier-là le plus vite possible et à voter oui pour cette initiative le plus vite possible.

I'm pleased to indicate that with the support of the three House leaders, this particular initiative has now come forward. I'm very optimistic that the challenge that this legislation puts out there to the community will in fact be taken up by individuals out there. I must say that the timing in terms of getting the actual donations may not be as good as it could be because of the recession. I would expect that donations generally are down, and most likely this is similar for the university community.

But hopefully we will see an upturn in the economy very soon, even though the policies of the government are not helping this recovery and are certainly not speeding up the recovery, even though it would have been possible to help us out of this recession if the proper initiatives and steps had been taken by the NDP government.

We have been asking every day in the House what initiatives this government is willing to take to bring us back to full economic recovery and we've seen so far, unfortunately, very little. This probably means donations made possible under this act will not flow to the degree that perhaps they could, until we see the economy pick up steam again and move forward in the way we all hope for.

Nevertheless, that challenge is out there and I am sure the universities, once this is passed, will have a very active campaign to encourage communities, individuals and estates to make substantial donations to the universities. We have in fact a great tradition in this province.

1550

I know that in my own community of Ottawa-Carleton, Carleton University has benefited tremendously from the donations of individuals, especially the Greenberg family. In fact just about 10 days ago I was at the opening of the new Minto centre for advanced engineering. That project was begun, approved, under the Liberal government, Lyn McLeod being the minister at the time.

I can recall very well how my colleagues and I from the Liberal Party were invited to Carleton University and to talk with Mr Greenberg who, unfortunately, relatively soon thereafter passed away but who spoke to us really in very convincing terms especially about the need for advanced education and training in the engineering fields.

He was prepared to make very substantial donations to Carleton University to see engineering promoted in Ontario and in particular at Carleton. Donors are in fact out there, and it will be a question for the university community to be up to the challenge. I have no doubt that they will be.

There's one point and one challenge I do want to mention, because last year when I spoke about my resolution to bring forward crown foundations I did not get a chance to say so because we were limited in time then. I think there's a challenge for the university community to go out after these donations, but there is also a challenge to be very public and to be accountable for the funds they receive. I think university accountability is a topic to which of course I could talk and probably will talk at some length later on, but I think it is an issue that, in the context of this crown foundation, should not be overlooked.

I know that the minister, among the many task forces that he has, also has one on university accountability. They have put forward an interim report which I read with some interest. I should say, Mr Speaker, I had to get that report somewhat through the back door. I find it very, very difficult to get reports from the ministry when they are presented to the minister.

I can understand the hesitancy to make these reports totally public, but at least to the critics I think it would be fair if we can say the development of these reports -- these are public moneys being spent to prepare these reports -- if we as critics could also get a copy of these reports when they are given to the minister, and not only two, three, four, five months after they have been presented to the minister, when they are made public to everybody else.

Even though I had to get this interim report on university accountability somewhat through the back door, I do appreciate the work that has gone into this report, because it raises some of the concerns the public has out there. They're really not fully aware of how the university is spending its money, whether it's spending it effectively and efficiently, whether it's done in consideration of the concerns of the whole province or whether it's just basically the concerns of one university that is being looked at when they spend the money. There are a lot of questions that are in fact being raised by the public. About a year and a half ago, the standing committee on public accounts put out a report, and in it made certain recommendations that speak to this particular issue.

I would just like to put on the record, in the context of this bill on the establishment of crown foundations, that while we want to be very supportive of the universities and while we want to say, with our support, the support of my party for this particular bill, that yes, we value the universities and the work they're doing, we also want to say that there comes with it a perhaps sharper and clearer responsibility to be accountable to the public, to open up the doors and to take every step possible to make sure that government and the public feel comfortable with the way these moneys are spent and with the way in particular those donations that hopefully are going to be given, are being spent by the universities themselves.

To sum up again, as I indicated at the beginning, I'm very pleased to support this bill. It is an initiative that I proposed in a private member's resolution in November last year. Already at that time we found unanimous agreement in the House. I'm glad that almost one year later we now see this initiative coming to fruition.

What it does show is that if you are patient enough and if you are energetic and active enough for a long enough time, you can in fact get some things passed in this House, even though it may appear that it takes a rather long time. There is hope. With the collaboration and cooperation of all three parties, I think we can still achieve the steps that are of great significance for the community out there and for the university community in particular.

I do hope that while the government has taken the advice of the opposition parties on this particular issue, it will also be more open to the advice of the opposition parties on other matters relating to the university community, because what we all have at heart is the continued growth and the development of higher education in this province.

I see this particular bill as taking a significant step towards achieving this objective. Obviously, it will not solve all the problems; I don't think anyone is prepared to say that. But it's one element in a mosaic, one element in a continued building process. I'm pleased that we're taking this particular step at this time and I'm prepared to support it.

1600

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to join in this debate on this bill and am pleased to reply to the member for Nepean on what he said in his comments.

As you know, he introduced a motion in November about this, and in fact he mentioned a letter from Principal Smith of Queen's, which of course has got my attention. Principal Smith has made known to me the importance of this to Queen's, since it is a national institution with alumni throughout Canada, and this will allow them to donate to their alma mater in a way that will be, I think, very beneficial to both the university and the alumni.

The member for Nepean quoted a paragraph from Principal Smith's letter, and I'd like to mention that again because it does set in highlight the importance of this. Principal Smith wrote, to the Premier, I should add:

"The concept has very important public policy implications. It provides an incentive to those in our society who are most able to contribute to increase their support for our public universities.

"Once the decision to make a substantial gift to higher education is taken by a potential donor, the existence of the crown foundations at Ontario universities may significantly increase the size of the gift. The fact that some provinces have already provided for the establishment of such crown foundations at their universities places Ontario universities at a distinct disadvantage. Members of our own group have lost significant potential gifts to other provinces because of this fact. Queen's University has one benefactor who had indicated that our gifts would have been five-fold if we had a crown foundation in place."

So it is a very important concept that we have this measure to allow these donations to be made to our universities, especially at a time when funding is in short supply. I'm glad the member for Nepean has spoken out very strongly for this measure, and I congratulate him for that and say that we will be supporting it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Mahoney: I want to congratulate the member for Nepean, who has a very strong grasp on issues that are important to our university community. I want to just give you an example of the difference that would have occurred had this bill been in place, say, a year ago, or back when the member introduced his private member's bill.

Erindale College recently opened, just a couple of weeks ago, the Kaneff Centre for social studies on the university campus. The reason it bears the name Kaneff, among one of many reasons, is Mr Kaneff's lifetime contribution to Mississauga and to the university community. He started the fundraising project in the corporate sector with a $1-million donation to Erindale College. Now if this bill had been in place, Mr Kaneff would have been able to take a tax deduction for the full amount of $1 million. As it happened, he would have gotten perhaps a 20% tax deduction for that contribution.

If you look at it in those terms, the contributions can be substantially larger, and as the member points out, you are able to self-direct your taxes into the university system. This is the kind of specific financing that perhaps governments should have been doing for years and should continue to do, where taxpayers are able to say, "If I contribute my money to the university of my choice, by getting a tax deduction I am therefore directing 100% of my tax revenue directly to the university." I guess you'd call it site-specific financing or any other such term, but it allows a tremendous advantage, I believe, to the university community to encourage private donations.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, then the member for Nepean has two minutes for response.

Mr Daigeler: In my response I would just like to indicate again -- because everybody else, I think, is very supportive of this initiative -- why this particular bill, and why the timing is so important.

In a letter from the Council of Ontario Universities to the three House leaders on September 22, Dr George writes:

"At a practical level, the University Foundations Act will assist universities to attract revenues from the private sector and to plan more effectively for private fund-raising programs. Symbolically, passage of the act will attest to the Legislature's support of the vital role for Ontario's universities in contributing to the province's economic, social and cultural wellbeing.

"I urge you to work together to see that this act is passed soon. Rapid passage will send out a strong confirmation of public initiative in support of universities and enhance our private fund-raising capacities by enabling the immediate establishment of university foundations."

Mr Speaker, I think here you have it, the request from the university community, and I'm very pleased that there is agreement from all sides. You have heard from the comments that have been made that, yes, we can say we support universities with this initiative. We're also sending that symbolic signal out there to the university community that inasmuch as we can, we want to help it in its difficult task, which is even more difficult in these recessionary times.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's with pleasure that I speak in favour of Bill 68, An Act respecting University Foundations. But before I get into it, I would like to congratulate my colleague and friend the member for Oxford in his new status of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development.

I also at this point in time would like to thank him specifically for helping this project along, because he was a student at the University of Western Ontario when I first brought this to the attention of this House. At the same time that I compliment my colleague in his former life as president of the student council at the University of Western Ontario, I point out to both the member for Nepean and the member for Mississauga West that they too had an opportunity to bring this legislation forward, because I remember that in my portfolio as critic and certainly as a member of the standing committees, two of them, we raised this as an opportunity for the Liberal government to do the same thing. I should remind them that it's nice for them to say it should have happened a year ago, but they could have done it some four years ago.

I say that because I suppose I'm getting somewhat impatient with the way that governments operate in Ontario and especially within the last four years since I've been here. There are many policies, there are I suppose many valuable contributions that the public is offering to the government with regard to solutions for many of the challenges that we face in Ontario today, but one of the greatest challenges of all is meeting the needs of our students. Whether they be elementary, secondary, college or university students or whether they be people going back to school for retraining, there are many challenges to be faced.

Today university students, I should say, are struggling in many ways, but above all our institutions are struggling to maintain excellence in these very challenging times. There's a shortage of permanent, full-time faculty, and buildings are rapidly deteriorating. These are tough times for everybody. The transfer payments have been limited to 1%. My expectation is that next year the universities will receive 2%, as promised, and I will be reminding this government and certainly the Treasurer of the province of Ontario that the universities above all deserve their fair share of the tax dollar, and 2% is not an unreasonable amount of transfer funds for them to expect, given the promise. I'm certain that the parliamentary assistant and the minister will be taking this strong statement to the cabinet table and I will be asking them from time to time how well they are doing in that regard.

Students are finding themselves in overcrowded classrooms at the universities, with outdated facilities and equipment. To my colleague the member for Nepean, who spoke earlier in his critic portfolio, and certainly the member for Oxford, it is our responsibility to visit and make ourselves aware as much as possible in a firsthand manner of what's going on at the universities. I can tell you that when many of us went to school some years ago at the universities of this province in the 1950s, we used to complain just a little bit then --

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): The 1950s?

1610

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, it's true -- with regard to equipment, teachers or class size, but we had one thing that I think stands out above all: We had the attention of our professors. They marked our papers, gave us feedback, gave us encouragement and knew our names.

Now we're asking our young people to attend universities in these tremendously challenging times when we're not looking at a growth in the economy, when we're not looking at opportunities in the same way we did then, although there are still many, and we're asking them to face classes in their undergraduate years of 200, 300 and sometimes, I was told at one of the universities last week, some 400 students. No wonder they want more input into the future policies that affect them as students and affect us as a nation, because we're looking to them for their leadership as we take on tomorrow's challenges.

Without the resources to produce a highly skilled workforce and advanced research facilities, Ontario will be unable to compete in today's global markets. Just today, the Minister of Skills Development and Colleges and Universities in fact released a couple of documents. I've got one here in particular. It's called the College Standards and Accreditation Council. This report was released today, although I wish it were released in this House. I'll have something to say to the minister about that, because I did expect him to be here so that we could respond to it. It calls for program standards and ways to assess prior learning experiences of adult learners.

Why do you think that in today's world we would have to have an established committee to take a look at standards of courses offered in our colleges? It's because today, more than ever before, we have citizens of this province -- young ones and older ones -- who want to upgrade their education and want to have that opportunity for as long as they live. We're encouraging it, but at the same time we want to make certain that our standards are those kinds of standards that when those people graduate or get their certificates they can be competitive, not only in Canada but in North America and around the world. I think we should say to the government that we wish it the best with this particular report.

Some days I wonder what takes us so long. What I will be asking, however, is, when will this take place? How much longer will it take so that we can be reassured that our young people in our colleges are receiving courses at the standard by which they will be, first, able to get the job, second, be able to keep the job, and third, be able to do it in a manner that our industries and businesses remain competitive and become even more competitive in these challenging times?

Sometimes I'm sure that the government of the day becomes somewhat frustrated at the criticism of the opposition parties, but I look at it in two regards. First, it's our responsibility in a democracy to draw to the attention of the government areas where there are some shortcomings. Second, I think it's extremely important to help the government along in its agenda. For that reason, I raise the issue of training in this regard.

About a year ago, many of us were very excited about the Ontario training advisory bodies. We were hoping that everybody would have an opportunity to partake in discussions and to give the government some good advice with regard to the direction it thought it was moving in. All of us made ourselves available in our own communities to attend the hearings and to give our communities some good advice around where they ought to be advising the government with regard to skills training and appropriate courses. I should tell you that we've been somewhat disappointed, because we thought that the Ontario training advisory board, the major parent board, ought to be made up in a different fashion. I can tell you right now that the government did not listen.

I'm trying to find the riding of one of my colleagues, the member for Durham East, who is usually quite -- what should I say? He's a good advocate for his constituents. I know he's listening very carefully right now because in his riding of Durham they were very concerned actually, and the college was very concerned, about the opportunity for input.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Concerned about Gordie?

Mrs Cunningham: No, I don't think they're concerned about the member. I think that they're concerned about his coming forward and criticizing the government as appropriate. He should have been much more vocal, and maybe he will take this opportunity today to let the government know that it didn't listen.

These hearings went on, as you well know, especially in Durham, and people were given five minutes to make a presentation on something as important as a training board that would be responsible in two regards: first of all, for setting all the programs across the province for training and, second, something that's unheard of before: disbursing the funds.

I'm sure the member will agree with me that five minutes isn't long enough when you start asking members from the business community, members from the colleges, members from the education community and individual trainers to come before a committee to give their views. Five minutes simply isn't long enough.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It wasn't long enough.

Mrs Cunningham: No. I think that, in fairness to both of us, when we do something well we talk about it and when we do something not so well we talk about it then as well. I should be addressing the Chair, but it's hard to some days.

Mr Speaker, we're looking forward to speaking to the minister with regard to this report. This is a report on the community discussions, training in local boards. We got this after a lot of trouble, actually. As critic, I expected to get it when everybody else did, but I didn't; I had to wait a couple of weeks. I should have called the member for Oxford with regard to this; I had forgotten about his new position. I would like to have these kinds of documents sent to me as quickly as possible because I do get questions from the public and I would like to be able to answer them.

This talks about the consultation process and about the composition -- who will sit on local boards. It talks about perspectives on training. Do you know what? After all those consultations there are no recommendations. Can you imagine that? I can hardly wait to see what I'm going to get from the minister next.

Getting back to the state of affairs at the universities, we are talking now about the need for resources in our universities. Bill 68 is one of those great opportunities. We see ourselves with the opportunity to create crown foundations. In the minister's words, he talks about how under this proposed bill -- now, hopefully, we will have second and third reading today; it will almost be law -- the government would establish a crown agency for each university in the province and then that agency would be responsible for taking in donations and distributing them throughout the institutions.

It's supposed to be a self-funded opportunity, and of course the proposal has been applauded by all the student councils and universities throughout Ontario. "Donors to the universities now receive a tax credit that can be applied to only 20% of their income." Those were the words of the minister in a speech to some academics in Toronto last June when this legislation was introduced. Under this new legislation donors would receive a tax credit applicable to their full income. The minister went on to state, "It's an effort to address the funding concerns of universities at a time when the government is facing a cash crunch."

Each university foundation would be self-funded and administered by a board of five to 11 members appointed for a three-year term by the government. At the end of each year they would have to file an annual report to the minister. The Provincial Auditor would also be able to audit the accounts and transactions.

I think all of us should be taking credit for this because it's something we certainly brought to the attention of the government some three or four years ago, and now we see it acting on this.

The precedent for this is the University of British Columbia. I can remember the member for Middlesex, the member for London South, the member for London Centre and myself receiving a letter from the University of Western Ontario advising us that if there is any way we could assist this legislation along, it would be much appreciated. That was because there was a specific case where a donor had wanted to support the University of Western Ontario to the tune of some $500,000. It was a bequest, and at that point in time, and actually even at this point in time and until this legislation becomes law, that donor would not be able to have the same kind of tax break he or she would have under this new legislation.

1620

The University of Western Ontario reminded us in one of our meetings, where we get together from time to time as elected local members and discuss the challenges facing the university, that in fact under a couple of circumstances they had to turn back this opportunity. It was our suspicion that perhaps that money could have gone to another university outside Ontario. Not that we don't think money should be going to universities across Canada; we do. But we certainly feel that where members of our community have as their first choice a university in Ontario, that's exactly where they ought to do this.

I think it's extremely important during these tough times when we are experiencing job losses, during these times of economic recession, and it's even more important that we support creativity, and that is exactly what this is all about. We should be supporting competitiveness and commitment to a well-educated workforce through our universities. Ontario must remain in the forefront of scientific and technological development and educational achievement if it is to maintain its competitive position in today's global economy.

Ontario universities make a major contribution to this province's competitiveness, and they play a vital role in the development of highly skilled human resources. There was a report that all of us were made very much aware of last November. It was a study released by the Alliance for Ontario Universities, which demonstrated the vital contribution universities make to the economic stability of the province. The study showed that each year -- I think we don't give the universities enough credit. In fact, it's very difficult to get this point out, it really is, but the universities pump $6.2 billion into the economy, and more than 138,000 jobs are associated with university operations.

Universities receive approximately $1.9 billion from government, which means that for every $1 the government invests in higher education, our universities generate some $3. So I really feel we should be doing everything we can to support the universities in their tremendous challenge.

There's another way of getting more money into our universities. I think some of the credit ought to go to the students for a funding proposal that I read last week. This is from a group that's fairly new in Ontario. It's called the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. We have the Minister of Colleges and Universities here to listen. What an opportunity. Although he's particularly generous in his time, it's few and far between, so when we have him sitting here in the House, I'm just going to tell him all the things I would normally do in a meeting, but in a very short period of time.

My understanding is that we'll be speaking for another 10 or 15 minutes, and then we'll be calling the question on this resolution. This funding proposal -- and I'm quoting from it -- is, I think, extremely responsible. It tells us that since 1972, the total per-student funding to Ontario universities has decreased by over 30%, while the student-to-faculty ratio has increased by 25%.

My initial comments were realistic, and of course I had faced this experience myself. If you can imagine the funding to the universities going down 30%, the total per-student funding going down some 30%, but at the same time the student-to-faculty ratio increasing 25%, that means every faculty member has a quarter more students. I would guess that's being generous. I would have thought it would be a much higher number than that, but the students are telling us this.

"Years of constraint are characterized by extensive overcrowding, obsolete equipment, limited enrolment, inadequate research and library facilities and the elimination of numerous faculty positions. The recent transfer announced by the provincial government has only served to highlight the severe magnitude of the problem. Considering the unprecedented levels of debt now facing the province, it is highly unlikely that significant increases will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future."

I always congratulate the students because they say it like it is. I was very annoyed with one of the Liberal members last week when he stood up and bragged about being the only government in the last 20 years that managed to balance the budget or actually have a surplus -- that was it -- of $1 billion. Well, Mr Speaker, the students are smarter than that. That was the same government that during four years of booming economic times increased the debt by over $10 billion. I think that's what the students are concerned about.

I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, when the Liberals took over, the debt in Ontario was approximately $24 billion, not counting two liabilities that I don't even want to talk about. That was after 42 years of our government, through two great depressions and two world wars. Now, during just four years of booming economic times, we have about 10.9 billion new dollars of debt. I'm going to leave those guys for the moment.

Mr Speaker, do you know the real crime, the real problem? In just two years this government has stuck us with another $20 billion of debt. It's just irresponsible. Can you imagine saying: "I'm the government. I project $60 billion to $70 billion by the time I leave, maybe even more than that"? They stand up and say it.

These students are worried about that and this is what they're saying. They're saying right now, "Considering the unprecedented levels of debt now facing the province" -- they're not talking about the deficit, they're talking about debts -- "it is highly unlikely that significant increases will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future." They're right about that, because basically, people can't afford it.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You're not suggesting we should increase it.

Mrs Cunningham: No, I'm not. For once, the member for Algoma and I are nodding our heads and saying, "You're absolutely right." We don't want any more debt, so the universities are having to live under these constraints. There are ways of helping them out, and the member for Algoma knows that's what we're talking about today in Bill 68. It's a very helpful piece of legislation.

The students go on to say:

"Furthermore, given the economic climate facing the Ontario business community, the political viability of increasing private sector contributions through tax revenue appears to be nonexistent. Consequently, increasing pressure is being placed on the government to look to students to make up the gap."

Given what we are attempting to do this afternoon, which we recommended some four years ago -- Mr Speaker, I have to tell you that -- perhaps the students will change that paragraph just a little bit. They're saying:

"We believe that the burden should not be borne by students alone but that a partnership in funding our universities is the sole feasible option. Specifically, a workable solution demands contributions from all those who benefit from post-secondary education, including the public and private sectors, and finally, the students themselves."

We're seeing this from a group that I believe represents over 10,000 students in the province. I'm not certain of that number.

"We, as student representatives facing a future of increasing tuition fees and decreasing educational quality, offer this proposal as a starting point in the formulation and implementation of a long-term solution."

That's what we're missing, isn't it, Mr Speaker? We're missing long-term solutions.

Finally, they say:

"We support the government's efforts to begin to study the overall university system in this province and believe that significant restructuring is needed for Ontario to field a globally competitive post-secondary education system."

They go on to talk about three central elements:

"A central premise is that increased student contributions will not represent a financial barrier to education if they are facilitated through the implementation of an income-contingent loan repayment plan."

1630

That's my point, Mr Speaker. If we're to be helpful in this debate this afternoon, we should at the same time not only congratulate the government for taking our good advice and implementing these crown foundations as part of our way of supporting the private sector in their determination to assist the universities, but at the same time say that it's not new, that there are actually committees of this Legislature to support part of the proposal -- and there's not enough time to read the whole proposal -- of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance.

I take just a short opportunity to speak with regard to the standing committee on social development's most recent report, which I believe was -- it was certainly last winter, I believe -- July 1992, more recently this summer. I'll just read into the record a couple of the recommendations:

"The committee endorses the review of Ontario's student assistance program currently being conducted by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and all of our recommendations are intended as a contribution to this important process."

The other most important recommendation:

"The committee recommends that the ministry investigate further the full implications of an income-contingent repayment system. The principles of accessibility and affordability outlined above should be considered as essential criteria in the development and evaluation of this investigation."

I can only close by saying that we're all interested in supporting the universities in their tremendous responsibility in Ontario. We take this opportunity to thank them for their tremendous contribution.

We would like also to say that from the standpoint of the provincial and federal governments, they know that they will lose some income taxes if they create such crown foundations but, on the other hand, they would provide a needed incentive to greater revenue for Ontario universities by increased donations from the private sector.

I speak in favour of this legislation on behalf of my entire caucus, and I hope that the government will bring this to its final reading in a very short period of time. Thank you for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Daigeler: I'm glad to see that the third party as well is supporting this particular initiative. While I express my own support again in the presence of the Premier, I do want to take this rare opportunity of having the Premier in the House to say that I support this particular initiative despite the terrible decision by the Premier to politicize the civil service.

I think if ever there has been an initiative by the government that warrants holding up the business of the House and, in this case, the business of the crown foundations, it's that pernicious appointment of David Agnew, who was the Premier's chief political adviser, to head the Ontario civil service.

As I've indicated earlier, I will be reminding this government and the Premier in particular that this particular initiative is taking Ontario in a direction which is American. I was very surprised to see the Premier, who otherwise insists so much on protecting the identity and the traditions of Ontario and of Canada in particular, move us forward with partisan appointments that really are contrary to everything that this Legislature and this province have been standing for.

I would just like to say that even though I would have liked to use the occasion of this bill to protest the initiative by the Premier to politicize the civil service, I do want to say to the universities that this crown foundations act is so important that I'm putting aside, for the time being, my deep frustration about this appointment by the Premier.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, the honourable member for London North has two minutes to give response.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm going to take this opportunity today to share with the members of this House my gratitude for the ministry and the government coming forward with this piece of legislation with regard to crown foundations for the universities.

I said in jest earlier, but it wasn't all jest, that this was drawn to the attention of the former Liberal government by me within months of my coming to this assembly and it was in cooperation with the then president of the student council at the University of Western Ontario, now the member for Oxford. So I will remind that government as often as I can that it had opportunities which it totally missed out on because, quite frankly, it didn't listen.

I hope that, as I say these things, the government of the day will understand that we in opposition from time to time have a responsibility to draw the best solutions to the attention of the government of Ontario and that's the intent I have in my capacity as the critic for Colleges and Universities.

I'm going to close today by reminding our government that a study recently advised us that universities pumped some $6.2 billion into the economy and more than 138,000 jobs are associated with university operations. On the other hand, they receive about $1.9 billion from government, which means that for every dollar the government invests in higher education, our universities generate $3.

With that happy little piece of information, I will remind the Treasurer of the province of Ontario that he did in fact promise the universities 2% funding next year and I expect him to come forth with his promise. At the same time, I think he has on his side the students who are taking it upon themselves to contribute with higher tuition fees and the private sector that today will hear about this bill and will contribute whenever we can get our mitts on their money to help us out in these tough times.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? As there is no further debate, Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 68. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous agreement to do third reading of the bill now.

The Acting Speaker: If there is unanimous agreement to do third reading.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I move third reading of the bill, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Allen has moved third reading of Bill 68. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion number 15:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 10 pm on October 13, 1992, and from 6 pm to 8 pm on October 14, 1992, at which times the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1640

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT / ENTENTE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Mr Rae moved government notice of motion number 16:

That this House consider the Charlottetown accord.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): You will have to bear with me, Mr Speaker and colleagues. I have been speaking on this issue all day and I find that my voice is coming to a conclusion before the debate. What I would therefore like to propose to my colleagues in the opposition parties is that perhaps they would allow me to speak very briefly and perhaps follow on from me at that point.

I spoke earlier today at a joint meeting of the Canadian and Empire clubs and also spoke to students at York Mills Collegiate this afternoon, and I have to speak at the bar association of Ontario tonight. The spirit is willing but I'm afraid the larynx may be missing something.

I would like to say, therefore, that in moving this issue I hope you will allow me to take a place marker and to return to the debate at another moment, either later tonight or possibly tomorrow evening when I'll be in a position to speak at greater length. I will try to say a few words today. I realize I'll need unanimous consent if I'm to come back, so I would ask my colleagues to show some generosity in that regard.

The accord that was negotiated, and whose legal text has been released today, is an accord that I think speaks to the different parts of Canada. There is, I think it's fair to say, a need for us to communicate directly with the public about why a Yes vote on October 26 makes more sense and represents a sounder political judgement than a No vote on October 26.

Therefore, what I intend to do in the time I have provided, if my vocal cords are willing, is to give some sense to the House as to why I think the arguments I've heard so far against the accord should not persuade the citizens of this province to vote No. I think it's incumbent on us to respond to the arguments because they're made so strongly and with such vehemence.

Let me say at the outset that I do not regard it as a matter of patriotism as to whether one would vote Yes or No. Patriotism has been described -- I think it was by Dr Johnson -- as the last refuge of a scoundrel. From my experience, scoundrels have all kinds of refuge. Whether patriotism is the last one or not, I have no idea. What I do know is that to those citizens in this province who intend to vote No, I would say: "I do not question your patriotism. However, I disagree profoundly with your judgement and with your common sense, if you will, and with a weighing of the balance in favour of the Yes and the No." I wouldn't say for a moment that anyone has the monopoly on patriotism or that anyone can wrap themselves in a flag more effectively than others.

Let me also say that I think it's important we recognize that reasonable people can disagree. It's important for us to remember that, and in the emotion of the debate it's important for us to recall that there will never be a time when 100% of the citizens of the province will feel that something should happen one way or another.

Let's put this in some perspective. Let's recognize this is an issue on which people will have differing views. I think my task is to put before the citizens of this province the reason why, on balance, a Yes vote makes more sense and a reason why, on balance, the arguments for the No are not as judicious or sound as perhaps they have been presented.

I've heard it said, for example, that what is objected to most profoundly in the Charlottetown accord is that, like Meech, it makes some provinces and some citizens in some provinces more equal than others. I've heard it said that the trouble with the Charlottetown accord is that it makes some Canadians more equal than others. I've heard it said that we don't want any special status or any distinct societies in Canada, that what we want is a country in which everyone is treated exactly the same and in which there are no distinctions or differences between and among Canadians.

I would only say to those people that it is not my reading of the Charlottetown accord that we have made anyone more equal than anyone else, or that we are asserting for an instant that one part of the country is better than another part of the country, nor are we saying that some citizens are better than other citizens. Let me say very directly to the citizens of this province that there is nothing in the accord which grants, in my view, a special privilege or an unequal status to any particular part of the country.

Well then, what are we to made of the "distinct society" provisions? What do they represent? What are we to make of the aboriginal sections? What do they represent? They represent a reality: that while it is crucial for us to protect the principle of equality before the law, it is also important for us to recognize that not all Canadians are, if you will, exactly the same in all respects. In other words, the accord recognizes differences between and among us and it tries to establish a way in which these differences can be reconciled successfully.

I want to remind my fellow members that the question of what is distinct or what is particular about the country was not settled for the first time in the Charlottetown accord. Its origins, I believe, go back to the very beginnings of the country. Let us remember that, first of all, it was the Treaty of Paris in 1763 which recognized that there were treaties between the crown and between native people which, if you will, protected their status within British North America.

Let us remember that it was 11 years later that the Quebec Act was passed by the British Parliament with the specific intention of conferring and recognizing the distinctiveness of the province -- it wasn't known as the province of Quebec but of what is now the province of Quebec -- with regard to the position of Catholic clergy, with regard to separate school education and with regard to the question of the status of the Civil Code and the status of the French language.

We can argue among ourselves as to the reasons why in 1774 -- which, I would remind the House, is a year before 1775 -- the British crown decided that it needed to consolidate its support north of the states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. But be that as it may, it is a fact of Canadian history, a fact of our history, that the status of Quebec in 1774 was clearly recognized as being one that was worthy of special protection.

Then we go back to 1867. The Canadian Constitution is not the American Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is one that clearly recognizes what it is that is unique and special about different parts of the country. This was also true in 1867. In 1867 there were sections of the Constitution that clearly recognized, for example, that denominational schools would be protected, which clearly recognized that the school issue, which had divided Upper and Lower Canada, Canada East and Canada West, for 30 years prior to 1867, would be decided in favour of recognizing the particularities of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec in establishing those balances.

1650

So to understand something of Canada, one has to understand that the concept of sovereignty has always been a relative term; it's to understand that there has always been a willingness to recognize what is particular and specific about this federation as opposed to others and that there's always been a willingness to recognize that there is a need for balance.

Have we found that balance? There are those who say, and further to the argument that I've just tried to describe, that in fact what's happened is that the accord now provides for a hierarchy of rights in which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now going to be subordinate to the so-called Canada clause and in which individual rights, if you will, are going to be subordinated to collective rights. That is the phrase that has been used by some to describe the intention of the Charlottetown accord.

I want to say to everyone in this House that I do not subscribe to that view. The lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General do not subscribe to that view. It is not the view that we have taken in the negotiations. It is not the balanced view of those who have looked at the language in the accord and have weighed it against the Constitution as it exists today.

The argument, for example, that this provides for some kind of a dictatorship, which I think is the phrase that's been used by one former Prime Minister of Canada, is an argument that, in my view, is utterly and completely wrong with respect to the accord that is before us today. I feel there's a need for us to be very clear about this; the Canada clause does not grant rights.

Let's start at the beginning of the document. It's the first thing you see when you turn to the substantive section with respect to the substantive proposals that are being made. What the Canada clause does is provide for a principle of interpretation, and in providing for a principle of interpretation, it says to legislatures and to courts, "Consider these things in balance, the fundamental characteristics of Canada, including individual and collective rights, including aboriginal government, including the 'distinct society,'" which is enumerated, in a sense, more clearly and is more precisely defined than it was in Meech Lake.

When you look at it in that way, what we are dealing with here is a balance, a balance that has been an effort to be struck, a balance that is in the best traditions of the makings of a Canadian Constitution and a balance that speaks to the need for us to reconcile this principle of individual rights and, of course, the concerns of collective rights.

If you believe that societies, groups and collectivities don't exist and should have no status in the Canadian Constitution and should have no way of being protected, then that's an argument that can be made. It is not an argument that I accept. It is an argument that flies in the face of our historical experience. It's an argument that flies in the face of our current sociological experience.

For example, to those who argue that the only thing the Constitution should provide for is individual rights in relationship to federal and provincial governments, without any exceptions, I say that would mean you'd have to get rid of section 1 of the charter, which Mr Trudeau, at that time, was in favour of. It means you'd have to get rid of the whole of the "notwithstanding" clause. It means you'd have to get rid of whole areas of the Constitution, for example, with respect to denominational schools, with respect to the existence of separate schools in Ontario and with respect to separate schools in the province of Quebec. It means that all those issues would have to be dealt with in that way.

There may be those who would say, "Let's do that." I say to those people that we do that at our peril, because it ignores something of our history and something that is specific and unique to all of us. We would also have to get rid of any sense of there being a collective right among aboriginal people. That's something that was tried in 1969 in the now infamous white paper, which was put out by the Trudeau government at that time. It was the argument that the Trudeau government made in the famous Nishga case before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973. It's the argument that was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada at that time.

The fact of the matter is that there are collective rights within a federation, that there are rights that we recognize, but let me say this not in some absolutist sense and not in any sense of there being rights that are better than or more powerful than other rights, but only in the sense that we are always trying in difficult circumstances to strike a balance.

For example, and I refer to this not to single her out in any particular way, I heard Sharon Carstairs on the radio the other day in an interview say, "Well, you know, the drafters didn't do a very good job because it's quite possible that some of the rights that are referred to or the groups that are referred to in the Canada clause could in fact collide with one another, and if they had made their minds up or knew what they were doing, they would have made it very clear." I just want to say to everybody: "Of course."

Alan Borovoy wrote a very good book called When Rights Collide. I commend it to members. It's a good example of the best of our legal and political thinking at work today in Canada. No rights are absolute; we always are involved in finding balance and attempting to seek a balance, and our Constitution does this. The existing charter does it in section 1. As I've already pointed out, we have the "notwithstanding" sections, we have the interpretative sections which already exist which talk about multiculturalism, so we have a whole variety of ways in which we are striving to find balances in terms of the way in which the charter will work and how it will relate to the Canada clause.

On this first point, on the argument that has been made that there's something profoundly wrong with a Constitution which recognizes specific characteristics or fundamental characteristics or which attempts to describe how groups of people, linguistic and otherwise, work and need some recognition, that this of necessity means that our Constitution isn't the way it should be, I would just say, well, this is the way the Canadian Constitution always has been, and what we have done is build on that in the traditions that we have inherited as Canadians.

The second argument that's made is that, to be very direct, with respect to issues involving equality rights between women and men. The argument is made that the document taken as a whole somehow threatens the rights that are clearly set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to gender equality. I want to say to honourable members again: That is not my view, that is not our view, it is not the advice that we're getting from our own legal people. It is not the sense of balance that we're getting from private citizens who have looked at this in what I think is a reasonable way.

It doesn't mean that there isn't room for argument; of course there is. It does mean that when we look at the document, we think what we have here is an intelligent and reasonable balance that in fact ensures that the principle of gender equality will prevail. It will prevail because of its clear statement in the Canada clause, it will prevail because of its clear statement in the charter in section 15, it will prevail because of its clear protection in section 28, and it will prevail because of its clear assertion in section 35 and the sections dealing with aboriginal and treaty rights.

I know there have been many people who've raised concerns following on from the concerns that were raised by aboriginal women. I want to state first of all that this government consistently supported the principle of gender equality as it related to participation in the constitutional talks, as it related to the question of appropriate funding from the government of Ontario and as it related to the principle of the language and the substantive rights which are provided for in the new section 35, which will be the foundation of the inherent right to self-government and aboriginal and treaty rights.

It's our view that in terms of the workings that have gone on recently, a successful effort has been made to incorporate and recognize the need for us to be very clear on the principle of equality. We think the language does that in a clear and unequivocal way.

1700

Then it is argued that the reason people should vote No is because, like Meech Lake, the constitutional amendments require that provinces which opt out of shared-cost programs will in fact be compensated by the federal government.

Let's be clear about what is being suggested. Let's be clear, first of all, that what is being suggested is exactly the same wording as what was suggested in the Meech Lake accord. I find it ironic, to put it mildly, that there are many people on the No side in Quebec -- in particular Mr Lucien Bouchard, who was in favour of the Meech Lake accord and who is now putting his name to a document which is specifically critical of this section -- saying that it's inadequate.

Let's be consistent here. If it was adequate in 1990, it's adequate in 1992. I think Mr Bouchard owes everyone an explanation as to why something which was okay in 1990 is somehow now not okay in 1992. Let's be consistent. I think we should ask the same of those people.

I will say that those in English Canada, particularly Judy Rebick, for example, and others have been very consistent. They were critical of Meech Lake for the same reason as they're critical of this document. Their concern, if I've heard it right -- and I have been listening to the arguments for some time -- is that the federal government's unquestioned role in putting forward spending programs, whether they're in areas of federal or provincial jurisdiction, should be clearly stated; second, the right to compensation by a province which is opting out can only be granted if it is absolutely clear that the program is in every respect entirely the same as, or meets the same precise standard as, the program which is being put forward by the federal government. Let me say to those people that the difficulty that I have with the argument is really twofold.

The first difficulty I have with the argument is that it ignores quite a lot of our history with respect to the emergence of social programs in Canada. The fact of the matter is that if you look at our most extensive social program, which is medicare, this is a program that was started in a province, and not started out of thin air. It grew out of a long experience, 20 years. Medicare was 20 years in the making. It didn't just happen overnight; it was 20 or 25 years in the making: the process from 1944, the hospital insurance beginning, and then expanding as the system expanded in Saskatchewan.

Therefore, the argument that new programs can only come out of Ottawa and can only really happen when they're simply imposed by Ottawa on the provinces, when they're in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and that the provinces should have really very little to say about the direction and nature of these programs and how they are to be run and manned and operated in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction is a little bit difficult for me to accept.

I suppose if we lived in a unitary state, it would be possible to say, "That's the kind of world we have," that it's the Ottawa bureaucracy and the politics in Ottawa which are going to produce these programs. I would argue rather that it's much more likely that what will happen with respect to child care, for example, is that one province, or perhaps two or three provinces, will work together in developing what a more broadly based program should look like.

I'm not announcing such a program today -- that moment may come -- but I think it's important for us to recognize that that will then be taken by the federal government as the basis upon which a similar program can be announced that will involve other provinces which may not have the means or may initially not have the political will to carry out such a program. But the means and the political will will be found in response to the demands that will come from citizens. That strikes me as a more likely scenario in a federal state than one which says Ottawa is going to simply impose it.

Now it may be that Ottawa will impose it, and if that were to happen, I can only say that the principle that a province should be compensated in its own area of exclusive jurisdiction provided that it brings in programs that meet the national objectives of a federal program is quite reasonable.

The argument that's been made to me that "We will never have another cost-shared program" or "We will never have a national day care program specifically" and "We will never have a national, long-term care program" or "We will never have a national, universal disability insurance program," to mention some of the ones that people are talking about in a general way, to say that the Constitution will somehow prevent those is false.

What will prevent those and what has prevented those is the absence of political will and the sense in Ottawa that they don't have the money to do those kinds of programs. That's the commonsense reality. We mustn't make the mistake of putting all of our arguments on a constitutional plane and expect and ask that the Constitution will solve all these questions.

Similarly, while the social charter, of which I'm very proud as an integral part of the new Constitution, as an addition to section 36 of the Constitution, enshrines some basic programs, including the five principles of medicare as they are now enunciated in the Canada Health Act, there are those who say: "Well, that doesn't go far enough. I want to see those enshrined in the Constitution in such a way that they can be immediately justiciable" -- in other words, a citizen can immediately take those rights and sue for them in court instantly -- "and unless that's there, you don't have anything at all."

Let me suggest that we have to reach a balanced judgement as to whether we really think the courts are the best place to determine some important questions about how budgets are to be organized and how our programs are to be operated. I myself would certainly have been happy with and argued in favour of a bit of a hybrid where there would have been a greater degree of ability to assess and review, in a formal way, the commitments of governments to the level of programs required to meet a national standard. I was not successful in persuading my colleagues that this is something that should happen. I'm still convinced that what we have represents progress.

I had a meeting this morning with a group of senior citizens of Ontario, a very distinguished group of people representing really quite a wonderful range of experiences across the province. The concern was raised with me, saying: "Premier, what do we do if we get a government that doesn't believe in medicare? What do we do? What happens if we have a government, or two or three, that no longer believes that these principles are important? Is there nothing we can do? Shouldn't we have some constitutional protection in the event that we elect governments that don't believe in medicare?"

My answer to this is the following. We have to make a judgement. As I said, I would have been happier if it had gone further. There are others for whom the very idea of a social charter was not exactly the first thing that occurred to them when they woke up in the morning. I heard one Premier refer to the social charter as "Bob Rae's socialist charter," so you can imagine how enthusiastic he was about endorsing the language that's in the accord. Nevertheless, that Premier did endorse it. I think it's important to stress that.

What happens? The first thing is that there is a fundamental issue here of democratic philosophy, and that is that there will be times and occasions on which governments will be elected that have differing views. The extent to which we constitutionally limit how much they do is an interesting question. My own view is that when it comes to something as fundamental as universal health care, medicare as it's known in common parlance, it should be pretty clear that this is a basic social policy objective that's shared by Canadians and does speak to some very fundamental values that Canadians have.

1710

At the same time, I want to stress very strongly that to say that it's not justiciable does not mean that it is not enforceable. Oh, yes, it is. There are very clear provisions in the accord for a process of review and for a process of interprovincial and federal-provincial negotiation to ensure the integrity of programs. So the argument that somehow these are all quite meaningless is I think unfair to the nature of the process, the nature of the gains that we have made.

Let me stress as well that the argument that we should have done more; for example, I know my colleagues from the Conservative Party -- the leader is here. I've appreciated his words of advice throughout the process and he has indicated that he wished we had done more with respect to the issue of the common market clause and the breaking down of interprovincial barriers. I want to say to the leader that the language which is found in the political accord, which provides precisely for the breakdown of those barriers and represents I think a significant advance over where we are, is language that was not only acceptable to me -- part of it reflected our draft, the draft that came from the government of Ontario -- but we were quite prepared and remain quite prepared to see that language entrenched in the Constitution; other governments were not.

The issue then became, well, then, do we force it through a seven and 50 or do we attempt to create the kind of consensus that we've been trying to create and deal with it on the basis of saying that we will work together towards this objective? I'm emphasizing very clearly -- it is, I think, set out in the new section 36 -- that it's now set out clearly in the political accord that's tied to the section of the Constitution on the common market that this is now a common obligation and a common vision that governments share.

I think it's fair to say there were governments, not all from different stripes -- the government of Quebec, the government of Saskatchewan, the government of British Columbia, other governments -- which were concerned about the nature of this balance and whether we'd got it right and they wanted to still reflect on it. They were very concerned about it. I think we had to listen. That's what we did: We listened. It wasn't a question of some ideological agenda coming from me or from this government, not at all. It was a matter of our being willing to listen to positions that were being taken by others and being constructive in that regard.

I've heard many arguments, and they vary from very strong to what I would frankly regard as fairly mean-spirited, against the accord. I've tried to respond in what I've said today to some of them. I don't know whether time will permit me to respond to all of them. I do want to stress, however, to members that what we have achieved represents a considerable advance over where we've been.

I met today at lunch with the former Premier of the province, William Davis. Partisanship aside -- when he was the Premier I was sitting over there where the leader of the third party now is and we had words exchanged, many an epithet back and forth in the first four years of my leadership of the New Democratic Party of the province of Ontario -- I was interested in his comments today to me. He just said, "The principle that you worked for is very much the same as the kinds of things that we were trying to work for in 1971 and in 1981;" in 1971 when the Victoria charter nearly made it and didn't; in 1981 when we succeeded in achieving patriation but without the participation of the native people and without the participation and approval of the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec.

There are those. and they come from all sides of the spectrum in a sense, who say Quebec is just blackmailing the rest of Canada and it's time that we said no to this blackmail.

I want to deal directly with that argument, because I think it's so false and I think it's so unfair. We have to deal with it directly. I think that of all the arguments that are made against the Charlottetown accord in this province, I would assess that the one which hardly dares to speak its name but which lurks in many parts of the country is the argument that says: "Let Quebec go. They've got a good deal in Confederation." I heard somebody say the other day: "What do they want? The Prime Minister comes from Quebec. The Chief Justice comes from Quebec. They've got this, they've got that. What do they need anything more for? Let them go. If they're not happy here, let them go."

I think it's important that we respond to this argument and that we respond to it in a very practical way. I want to stress that I wouldn't hope to get the people who feel that way to abandon any innate prejudice they may or may not have. But what I can appeal to, it seems to me, is their sense of reality and their sense of what the consequences are of simply taking that view.

It's true that Quebec is extremely dependent on the Ontario market, and it's true that in economic terms they're twice as dependent on us in terms of their exports to us as we are on them. It's also true that the volume of trade, and I've asked our people to do some work on this, between Ontario and Quebec is worth $23 billion. Our economies are linked in so many practical ways. This is not some minor part of the lives of Canadians. This is quite fundamental to what has grown up over the last 300 years and it's important for us to realize this. I'm not getting into the arguments, because I don't feel totally qualified in respect to what happens if, and all the various scenarios that are portrayed. My thinking is much more mundane than that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What was that figure?

Hon Mr Rae: It was $23 billion.

When we look at the structure of this Confederation that we have created, it is a structure of mutual dependence. What we also know from the history of other federations is that once the rhetoric gets set off, it's a rhetoric that can frequently squeeze out common sense and practical judgement. It would not be difficult for a Premier of this province to whip up sentiment against any part of the country, in particular against the province of Quebec. But let me ask my fellow members, what do you think has driven virtually every Premier, and before that every first minister, to attempt to find a reconciliation? Was it simple generosity of spirit? Well, it was in part. One hundred and fifty years ago -- I see the member from North York is here -- it was Lafontaine who was elected in his constituency and Baldwin who was elected in January 1843 in Rimouski.

1720

Why did that happen? Well, yes, there was a generosity of spirit, and yes, there was a determination to create a common force of reform, an accountable government that would recognize the nature of the country, and in which the most generous spirits always recognized that there was nothing to be gained in denying the rights of minorities and nothing to be gained in particular, and we say directly, by denying the rights of those of our fellow citizens in this country whose first language is French -- nothing at all.

Those who say that if Quebec seeks some recognition of its distinctiveness, this represents some kind of blackmail, I can only say to those people: In that case, every round of negotiation which has ever taken place in the history of mankind is a history of blackmail, and I don't believe it.

The member from Mississauga is here. He and I have had a difficult relationship over the years, which I am attempting in vain to improve. But I would say to him that his father was a very distinguished first national director of the United Steelworkers of America. Was he a blackmailer because he tried to negotiate on behalf of the membership of his trade union? Is that blackmail? Is it blackmail if a group of people comes in and tries to negotiate on behalf of itself, tries to improve its lot, tries to improve its conditions? No.

This is an argument that must be confronted head-on, because it is an argument that is blind. In my view, it misses the point. It is ignorant of the fundamental realities of the give and take of Canadian life.

Native people are not blackmailing us because they're seeking some recognition in the Constitution. British Columbia is not blackmailing the rest of the country because it's seeking some recognition of the principle of representation by population. Prince Edward Island is not blackmailing us because it's asking that it continue to be grandfathered at four seats, even though representation by population would not grant it that principle. The province of Newfoundland is not blackmailing the rest of Canada because it is asking for a recognition of what it is going through economically, when in the space of a week it lost 20,000 jobs in the fishing industry.

There is no blackmail in a request from any part of the country for a recognition of what is distinct and particular to it, so long as we all understand that not all demands can be met and that there will always be a process of give and take.

That's what there was at Charlottetown. It was a process of give and take. Somebody said to Mr Bourassa, "How can you say that you won things when there are people who are saying that you didn't get everything you asked for?" It will come as no surprise to members of this House that I didn't get everything I asked for. I never have and I never will and I wouldn't expect to, but there's nothing wrong with asking.

It's just common sense. It's called bargaining; it's called negotiation. It's a part of life, it's a critical part of life and it's a part of our lives which we have to accept as being normal to a federation, normal to any body politic. There is no way that a body politic can survive if every assertion of a right or every assertion of a need is somehow regarded as blackmail.

I've spent some time on this argument and I've spent some time, as I have all through this speech, in responding to the arguments against, because there's a need to confront them and to name them and to say, "No, it's not a personal thing." This isn't some personal conflict between me and Pierre Trudeau or between me and Preston Manning or between any one of us and another individual. We're not name-calling. What we're trying to do is name the arguments and deal with the arguments and allow our fellow citizens to deal with them.

I've heard citizens of Ontario, for example, say, "Why should Quebec get 25% of the seats?" Well, let me try to explain, because I don't think it's hard to explain. I don't think it's hard to appreciate the dynamic of, what is it that went into that? What's the thinking behind that? Well, the thinking started with the Senate, and it started with the question of how we are going to resolve the question of equality.

I can remember the silence with which I returned to the House on July 9, and that people were saying: "Well, Premier, we're a little sceptical about this idea. You said you wouldn't do this, and now you'd better explain it to us." When Quebec came back into the negotiations, in my view it was important for us to maintain the principle of equality of representation in the Senate because it represents such a significant, symbolic issue for western Canadians.

At the same time we had to ensure that our own interests were protected as the most populous province, and we had to ensure as well that the interests of Parliament were protected in terms of the ability of Parliament to operate efficiently, and of course we had to make sure that no one part of the country felt particularly vulnerable as a result of these changes.

The fact of the matter is that Quebec has always had more than 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. More. The second fact is that there are a number of provinces for which we have made special arrangements or with which we have reached special understandings because of their population, because of the need for us to recognize the principle.

The principle of rep by pop has never been fully and totally implemented in Canada. Our representation in the House of Commons goes up. It should. It has and it should. I insisted that it should, and this was recognized eventually by others as being a wise and sensible thing to do. But we haven't got representation according to our population. I haven't insisted on it to the letter. I didn't insist on it to the letter, because to insist on it to the letter wouldn't have involved taking seats from Quebec; it would have involved taking seats from the Maritimes, from Manitoba, from Saskatchewan.

And to what end? In order to get a more perfect mathematical result, we create incredible ill feeling and a sense of loss and hardship and resentment in the rest of the country. No, that's not statecraft, or not even smart. You don't pursue your self-interest to the point where you end up creating more resentment and more opposition than is worthwhile in the federation. We don't need these victories. They'd be pyrrhic victories, victories which would end up causing more problems than they would solve.

The issue then became for Quebec: "Well, wait a minute, we do feel vulnerable in this new Parliament. We've gone from 24 senators to six, and we're concerned about the future demographic problems. Either we go to an unequal Senate, or" -- they weren't demanding this. It wasn't some demand where they said, "I've got to have this." In fact, it was proposed by other provinces. It came out of the discussion with others saying, "Well, how about if we were to do something in the House of Commons?" That's how it happened.

In my view, the result is a reasonable one. Sometimes it's difficult for people when you just show them the accord, and no one really knows the to-and-fro, the balance that went into finding the result. People don't understand why such an agreement was made or such a thing was concluded, and that's why it's important for us not just to read the accord but to try to recreate the sense, the dynamic, the balance that went into the solutions that we found.

In northern Ontario, I think it's fair to say, and in southern Ontario, there's a concern about native rights. There are people who say: "Well, wait a minute now. You've created another level of government. We don't know how much it's going to cost, we don't know what their powers are going to be and we don't really know what this is all about and we don't like it."

1730

Again, I think it's very important for us to distinguish between our ability to convince people to overcome whatever their private feelings may be from what it is that makes sense from the point of view of the best interests of the province. What we have to do, what any government has to do, what any government has a responsibility to do is to create a framework that will engender social justice, social peace and social order.

The principles of peace, order and good government are fundamental to the Canadian Constitution. It is interesting, that the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution are based on the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Canadian Constitution is based on the principles of peace, order and good government.

We've all moved away from those absolute principles and tried to strike some balances. The Charter of Rights represents a move to the direction of enshrining freedoms and providing for that protection. What's interesting is that we reverted to the old phrase, "peace, order and good government," in dealing with the issue of the transition from the government structure as it is today to this devolved self-government which is going to be negotiated over the next number of years. I think it's wise. I think it's sensible.

All one has to recognize is that the courts have already indicated a clear direction of their thinking with respect to aboriginal rights in decisions which go back years. Second is the direction that is coming to us from our growing understanding of the nature of what took place 500 years ago, the consequent colonization and the imbalances this has created. While we can't go back and rewrite history, where do you come from if half your family comes from one part of the world and the other half comes from another part? We're all here. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. But what we can do is create an orderly way in which a new reconciliation can take place on a realistic basis.

That's what we have to do. It has to be orderly. It has to based on the principle that we don't want any more hocus, we don't want any more conflict between guys armed with Uzis coming up from the United States. We don't need this. What we need is an orderly, intelligent way of resolving these issues in a way that treats people with respect, with a sense of decency, and which also provides for an orderly transition. That's what we want and I think that's what we've aimed to get and that's what we've achieved. Now, is it perfect? I'll come back to that argument in a moment.

Let me deal with one more argument that I've heard from the Noes, that is, "All you've done is provide for an endless process of negotiation." I heard Mr Parizeau say that last night. Then I heard Mr Manning say it in an advertisement last night. False, because it plays tricks with words. It asserts there's no difference between the negotiation that takes place every day with respect to what level of government should do what, how the balance of Confederation should be struck and how federal-provincial programs are working.

I know the member for London North, for example, has a very keen interest in issues of training, human resources and apprenticeship. She knows as well as anybody in the House that there's too much duplication and too much confusion in jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments, and we have to do a better job. That's exactly what we're trying to do, and we know perfectly well that the member from Mississauga feels the same way. This issue is before the House and it should be before the House.

Let's not confuse that with the notion that is being put forward by some of the proselytizers for the No that in the event of a No, the negotiations would stop, or that in the case of a Yes, the negotiations will continue on an endless basis. Oh, no. Let's recognize the reality. A vote for the Yes will resolve some of the most difficult and most fundamental questions about the federation that have become more and more troubling.

If we do not resolve that question now, it will still be before us, and it will be before us in a much more difficult and contentious way, in a way that will tend to preoccupy us more, in a way that will tend to divide us more and in a way that will be even harder to resolve.

I don't choose my words lightly. I'm giving the House the benefit of my judgement, having watched negotiations from opposition and now as Premier. I'm not threatening anybody; I'm not parading the horrors; I'm simply describing what I think is a reality.

I also think it's less than fair to compare a negotiation as to how a program will operate or a negotiation of how self-government will work with an existential confrontation about the very existence of the country. I mean, if I had to make a choice between those two, I can tell you which I'd choose and which I would try to resolve: in favour of the former rather than the latter.

I want to conclude. I misled the House inadvertently when I said that I wouldn't take a long time and that my voice would give way. My voice hasn't been great, but the spirit has been more than willing, and there are many things I want to share with the House today.

I'm concerned. I'm concerned that we might miss an opportunity. In the search for the one thing that isn't there, or in the exaggerated sense of grievance that is now such an important part of our political culture, or in the extraordinary impact that the adversary system is having on our overall political life, I am concerned that we not miss an opportunity. People will say, "Well, it will come again." I don't know that, and let me say that no one knows that. Anyone who says he does know it is kidding himself and is kidding the public. We don't know.

What we do know is what we have. What we have represents significant gains for the country and a significant accommodation. I don't believe that the visions that have been put forward -- and often they haven't been visions -- that the arguments that have been put forward against the accord could possibly provide the basis for national reconciliation. I don't think Mr Manning's vision would work for 30 seconds in reconciling the country in all of its differences. I don't think Mr Trudeau's vision can do that any more either. It wasn't able to reconcile them in 1981. It won't be successful in reconciling them today.

We all know the high regard in which Mr Trudeau was held, still is in some parts of the country -- perhaps not when he left office but now. But I look at what he said, and frankly I just think it was the kind of polemical attack one would expect from somebody who'd never held public office in his life. I couldn't believe that somebody who'd been Prime Minister of this country for 15 years could resort to such a level of argument in attempting to heap scorn on the legitimate efforts of his fellow politicians in finding a solution to what had proved to be very difficult and intractable problems.

La vision de M. Parizeau ou la vision de M. Bouchard, c'est absolument impossible que cette vision ne puisse jamais concilier ou représenter un rapprochement entre Canadiens. Ce n'est pas l'intention, parlant franchement. L'intention de M. Parizeau, c'est le démantèlement de la fédération canadienne, la fin du Canada. Il faut le dire, il faut le nommer honnêtement. Honnêtement, ce qu'il veut vraiment, c'est la fin du Canada. Il devrait le dire publiquement et plus clairement, mais puisqu'il ne veut pas le dire, je vais le dire pour lui. C'est une chose qui ne pourra jamais réconcilier le Québec avec le reste du Canada. Ça ne va pas marcher. C'est très simple.

1740

C'est toujours facile de négocier devant un miroir. Vous savez, j'ai parlé plus tôt des négociations. C'est très facile de trouver des solutions idéales devant le miroir. Je suppose, quand des gens essaient de pratiquer un discours, qu'ils se sentent toujours mieux devant le miroir que devant le public. Quand on négocie, on négocie avec l'autre, avec le partenaire.

Quand on négocie, on commence avec certains principes. Si c'est maintenant la position des Péquistes qu'ils insistent sur une association, voilà, c'est le fédéralisme. C'est ça la fédération que nous avons recréée. Alors, pourquoi détruire la fédération pour qu'on puisse la recréer dans deux, trois ou quatre ans ? On n'a pas ce luxe. On n'est pas dans une salle de classe. On joue avec des jobs, le boulot, l'emploi. On joue avec les expériences réelles des Canadiens et ce n'est pas possible. On ne peut pas le faire. C'est pourquoi nous disons, et je crois que nous le disons toujours, que l'esprit de négociation, ça doit vouloir dire un esprit qui reconnaît que le fédéralisme, c'est le langage naturel du Canada.

Il n'y a pas d'autres solutions qui vont marcher. Il n'y a pas d'autres solutions où on va pouvoir trouver une vraie association entre gouvernements. Je regrette beaucoup qu'on fasse des demandes et des demandes etc. J'ai écouté le débat hier soir et j'étais très fier de la performance de M. Bourassa. Je crois qu'il a très bien non seulement défendu mais attaqué les propositions de son opposant. Mais nous devons reconnaître une certaine irréalité profonde, une certaine illusion profonde qui existe toujours dans les déclarations de M. Parizeau et de ses collègues dans le camp du Non.

La question pour les Québécois et les Ontariens, c'est de faire un pari. Le grand pari en ce moment c'est, est-ce que vous pensez vraiment qu'on va faire encore des gains, ou est-ce que ça représente quelque chose dans la main qui est certainement là pour toujours pour le Québec ?

Il ne faut pas oublier qu'on joue avec l'emploi, qu'on joue avec l'avenir de l'économie et qu'on donne le jugement aux citoyens ordinaires. La prudence elle-même veut dire qu'on choisirait le Oui même si on n'était pas satisfait de tout ce qu'il y a dans le document, parce qu'on sait au moins que les gains sont là.

Je peux vous dire franchement que c'est là, l'offre, c'est tout. C'est tout ce qu'il y a dans les négociations ; il n'y a pas plus que cela. Si on ne me croit pas, bien, c'est le pari qu'on fait. Mais je vous assure que ça ne représente pas le bon sens, à mon avis. Ça ne représente pas la prudence et le sens de la nécessité de trouver la stabilité.

Je ne fais ni promesses ni menaces. Ce n'est pas comme ça qu'on agit en négociant de bonne foi avec nos partenaires dans la province de Québec depuis 200 ans. Nous avons fait de bonnes négociations de bonne foi avec un gouvernement et un chef remarquables, pour lesquels j'ai un respect profond et une affection. Il y a une amitié entre nous aussi. C'est important de le dire.

Choisissons le bon moment pour faire des gains pour le Canada. J'espère beaucoup que les Québécois, comme les Ontariens, vont voter pour le Oui parce que, pour moi, l'avenir du Canada et les possibilités du Canada commencent avec un Oui.

Mr Speaker, I've taken longer than I should. I would commend the accord to the citizens of this province. I would commend it to the members of my party and to the members of the Legislative Assembly, of the House. It represents an opportunity. It represents a good moment for us to seize the day and to take advantage of the current while it runs.

People can make mistakes. Nations can, in historic moments, fail to make the choices that ultimately are in their own self-interest and make the most sense. History is full of those examples. This is a good moment for Canada to make the right choice.

I hold no brief for the Prime Minister. Someone described this as Mulroney's deal, and I said, "That's news to me." It represents the efforts of thousands of citizens. It doesn't belong to any one man or any one woman any more than the Constitution today belongs to any one man or any one woman. It represents a best effort at conciliation. It represents a best effort at a lasting accord based on prudence, good sense, friendship and partnership. I hope very much that we can all endorse it with a resounding Yes on October 26.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, before the speeches started, I should have asked for unanimous consent to divide the time three ways and to make sure that there were no questions and comments after each speech in order to give maximum time to participation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Is there unanimous consent in the House that we divide the time three ways and that we continue without questions or comments? That's agreed? Agreed.

[Report continues in volume B]