Hansard Transcript 1988-Jun-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Farnan: Two and a half years ago, Bob McMaster took early retirement from his job with Cambridge Transit. Not yet 65, Mr. McMaster’s Ontario municipal employees’ retirement system pension was figured at $252 per month. Eight months later, Mr. McMaster was diagnosed by his doctor as disabled, and he applied for and received a Canada disability pension.

At this stage, Mr. McMaster’s OMERS benefits were cut to $116 per month, a cut of more than 50 per cent. After contacting the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and several ministers, Mr. McMaster got no assurance that this issue would be addressed. This is an unacceptable situation for Bob McMaster and other disabled individuals.

The real crime here is that if Mr. McMaster had been able to work, he would be allowed to earn unlimited moneys without any reduction of his OMERS benefits. But now that he is unable to work to supplement his already meagre income, OMERS has taken what is rightfully his.

After all, Mr. McMaster is not looking for a handout. On the contrary, the money is already his, duly deducted from his wages. I urge the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to review the regulations governing OMERS and to rectify this procedure, which represents a real injustice and hardship to individuals like Mr. McMaster.

I believe what we are talking about here are individuals who have no idea that the payments they are making into OMERS can be reduced if they eventually end up on a Canada disability pension. It is something that must be rectified. I ask the minister to check this out and rectify it.

LAND USE

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to direct some comments to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). It is with great interest that I see he has brought forward proposed legislation directing Ontario Hydro as to what to do with its energy in those crucial situations with regard to the free trade agreement.

I say to the Minister of Energy, while he is telling Ontario Hydro what to do, why does he not start speaking with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and remind her that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has called all the municipal politicians in the Golden Horseshoe to his office to suggest to them that they get some more housing in the Golden Horseshoe area?

I can tell the Minister of Energy that Ontario Hydro has a surplus of lands all across Ontario because of the recent expropriations for its power line corridors. In the town of Newcastle, there is a substantial amount of acreage, ready to be serviced, to supply needed housing. If he is going to start telling Ontario Hydro what to do, he should start telling it what to do with regard to the surplus land it has.

While he is on the roll, he should be talking to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) about cogeneration facilities. We have a garbage crisis in the Golden Horseshoe, and the Minister of the Environment is not doing a thing about it. I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that I am ashamed for him to be allowing the Minister of the Environment to get away with what he is getting away with.

Metropolitan Toronto has proposed three landfill sites in the town of Newcastle. I am saying no to Metropolitan Toronto. I am saying to Gary Herrema, chairman of the region of Durham, “Dissociate yourself from Metro Toronto and the proposed dumps.” I say to the Minister of Energy, “Start talking to the Minister of the Environment about cogeneration in the Golden Horseshoe.”

PROVINCIAL MEMBER’S AWARDS

Ms. Hart: I rise today to welcome to the members’ gallery two outstanding young people from York East who are recipients of the first Provincial Member’s Awards. It was to recognize the accomplishments of young people that I established the Provincial Member’s Award program. The award is presented to a student from each high school in York East who has shown innovative leadership, having both initiated and implemented a project which has enriched the lives of others.

East York Collegiate Institute will hold its awards presentation in the fall. At Leaside High School we could not make up our minds between the outstanding possibilities, so I decided to give the award to two deserving young people.

Pauline Peng received the award for her efforts in setting up the student career advancement network. This organization encourages female high school students to keep their career options open by studying math and science. Stephen Black received the award for having shown impressive leadership by directing three major productions of the school’s dramatic society, a job always in the past done by teachers. This is not to mention the outstanding academic standards achieved by these two young people.

I would like to commend Ms. Peng and Mr. Black and all the young people of York East for their valuable contribution to the community.

YOUTH SHELTER

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise the day after the taping of More Than Just a Roof, the report on the housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, to talk a little bit with members of this House about the problems I am having in my riding with a shelter for youth which we are trying to establish. The legitimate concerns of residents have been fanned into unnecessary fears by an unscrupulous local politician, which culminated in the booing of June Callwood and the calling in of police at a meeting last week.

I think the need for housing, especially for young people, is well documented, and the suburbs need the kind of shelters this one will provide.

I would encourage the minister to announce funding for more shelters at this time and the Liberal members of the other Scarborough tidings to join me in offering their services in mediation with the community in this one case; and also in requesting from the minister funding for another shelter in Scarborough, because the numbers certainly do warrant and deserve it, and should we look after our own children at home rather than expecting them to end up in adult hostels in the centre of town.

BURLINGTON AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Jackson: The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has come to be known as the phantom of Burlington. The residents of Burlington have not seen or heard much from the minister in recent months and, more significant, the projects that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had intended to carry out in Burlington are visibly absent.

What has the minister done to ease the congestion between Burlington and Toronto on the Queen Elizabeth Way? When will he signal the start of the Highway 403 bypass in Burlington? What has he done to provide more parking to encourage the use of GO Transit? The answer to all of these questions is nothing. In fact, at present, GO Transit patrons are being asked to pay a $25-a-day penalty for using an overcrowded parking lot. GO Transit fares will again increase as of July 1.

One of the projects the Premier promised to Burlington that his phantom minister has yet to provide was the Brant Street-QEW overpass reconstruction. Last week that project was postponed again, this time for a whole year. As well, the Guelph Line-QEW interchange, the Hager-Rambo diversion and the improvements to Leighland Avenue have all been indefinitely delayed.

Burlington would much appreciate a courtesy call from the apparition from Queen’s Park. He might find the time to explain to my constituents why his government has not dedicated increased gas taxes from its last budget to highway reconstruction. Instead, all he can say is that because of bureaucratic cost overruns in his own ministry, the people of Burlington will have to wait and suffer.

1340

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) will be aware of the extraordinary community support for the Cambridge Memorial Hospital; support, I might add, that encompasses the administration, the board, the medical professionals, doctors, nurses and support staff, and the army of volunteers that makes CMH such a fine community hospital.

Right now, I would like to present to the minister over 500 individual letters. They are expressions of support for our hospital. Later this afternoon, and I hope the minister will be present in the House, I will present a petition with over 12,000 signatures of Cambridge residents.

The citizens of Cambridge are anxiously awaiting some clear signals from the ministry with regard to our community hospital. My sense is that the people of Cambridge applaud the co-operative approach taken by the board of directors at its recent annual general meeting and they are hopeful that the ministry will work with and assist our board in maintaining a quality level of service.

I will ask one of the pages to please come over to deliver over 500 letters of support that were received by the academy of medicine in support of the hospital. I remind the minister that there are over 100 additional letters, which I will be presenting tomorrow and which were reported in the local Cambridge Reporter.

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). There is a gentleman in my riding who has the sight of one eye only; he lost the sight in his other eye while very young. This fellow has a regular class G driver’s licence which permits him to drive an automobile and a light truck in Ontario. He has never had an accident and has no blemishes on his driving record.

My constituent applied to take a test for a class D driver’s licence, but he was informed that he could not qualify because he could not pass the eye examination. A person with only one arm or one leg could pass the test and qualify for a D licence, but a person with sight in only one eye cannot. This leads me to believe that the ministry considers a person with sight in only one eye to be handicapped while a person with only one leg or arm is not disabled. The time has come to review the driver’s examination process so that people with one eye may be able to pass.

Mr. Fleet: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to introduce an important guest who is visiting the House.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

DR. ALGIRDAS STATKEVICIUS

Mr. Fleet: It is my honour to introduce as a guest in the member’s gallery an international figure, Lithuanian dissident Dr. Algirdas Statkevicius. A prominent Lithuanian patriot and a member of the Lithuanian Helsinki group, Dr. Statkevicius was a practising psychiatrist in Vilnius and author of medical, sociological and political works.

For his dedication to human rights and freedoms, for his human compassion, he was repeatedly arrested by Soviet authorities. First jailed for nine years and later interned in psychiatric hospitals for two and a half years and then seven years, Dr. Statkevicius was allowed to leave the Soviet Union only last month.

He is joined today by prominent members of the Lithuanian community following a reception with the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips). With us are Vytas Bireta, who is the president of the Lithuanian Canadian Community national executive; and Milda Lekauskas of the World Lithuanian Community, national executive representative. As well, joining in the reception were Al Juzukonis and Joana Kuras, who is a vice-president of the Lithuanian Canadian Community national executive.

As recently as last Friday, a reported 60,000 people publicly demonstrated in Vilnius for greater autonomy and freedoms in Lithuania. Despite pervasive Soviet obstacles, the desire for the self-determination of Lithuania by Lithuanians grows even stronger.

As we remember to treasure our human rights and freedoms in Canada, let us also celebrate and support the human personification of a candle that has defied the darkness. Dr. Algirdas Statkevicius.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome the doctor to our presence today. It is of special importance to me, my wife being Lithuanian and very involved with Lithuanian committees here in Canada, which have tried over the last number of years to get the point across to the Canadian public about the problems of dissidents in Lithuania. I had been hoping to travel to Lithuania this summer, but unfortunately I am going to have to put that off until next year for personal reasons.

But it is important that this Legislature understand the difficulties of the people from the Baltic states and their own rights to self-expression and freedom of religion which we take so much for granted. Many Lithuanian dissidents have ended up in Canada where there is a great community of support for them. This House is honoured today to have somebody who has gone through the trials, as the good doctor has. Many others are presently in psychiatric institutions and in prison for their desire to have the kinds of freedoms we daily abuse in this House and take for granted in this province.

On behalf of our caucus, I welcome the doctor to our Legislature today.

Mr. Sterling: I had the pleasure of meeting the doctor. I have difficulty pronouncing his name, so I will not take the opportunity to mispronounce it; but I can say that this is a man of tremendous integrity, experience and belief. Having spent 18 1/2 of his years of life in prison for his beliefs is an attestment to his integrity and to what he believes is right for Lithuania.

I joked with the doctor and told him that if the same rules applied here in Ontario as applied in Lithuania, I would have several life sentences upon my head. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker; you are nodding your head.

I asked the doctor how we, as members of the Legislature, could assist him in his fight for freedom of speech and freedom for the people of Lithuania. While he pointed out to us that glasnost is a ray of light for the people of Lithuania, it is not an answer. There are many, many people who have been imprisoned for uttering but a few words in his former country.

He would ask each and every one of the members of the Legislature to continue to push the Soviet Union for a complete amnesty for all political prisoners whenever they made their statements, before or after glasnost.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORONTAIR

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: As the members are aware, my ministry has been considering the sale of the norOntair system to another air carrier.

It gives me great pleasure to announce today that, after an intensive review, we have decided to continue to operate norOntair and to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of its service to the north’s smaller communities. That decision was taken after extensive consultation with the people of those communities.

To meet the commitment for improved service, the government will enter into an agreement with Air Ontario for the purchase of two de Havilland Dash-8s currently owned by norOntair. Among the proposals received, the Dash-8 aircraft was judged to be the most attractive in financial terms and for Air Ontario’s routing.

Air Ontario’s purchase of the two Dash-8s will allow that airline to improve its service to northern communities, adding destinations and increasing the number of flights per day with the two planes. In addition, an integrated system will be developed to give northerners better fares when they connect with other flights. Air Ontario will shortly announce detail of this enhanced service.

A reasonable offer of employment will be made to each employee affected by the sale of the Dash-8s.

1350

The proceeds from the sale of the Dash-8s provide the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission with an opportunity to purchase modern, faster and more appropriately sized aircraft to better serve the smaller northern communities, in keeping with norOntair’s original mandate. This government is committed to providing levels of air service necessary to support the ongoing economic and social development of the north. We want to do so, however, in a way that complements, not competes with, the services provided by regional air carriers. The changes I have announced today will do just that.

Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir aujourd’hui d’annoncer la vente d’une partie de norOntair, les deux Dash-8, mais avec l’argent que nous allons recevoir d’Air Ontario, nous avons décidé d’acheter d’autres petits avions plus modernes et plus efficaces pour desservir les petites communautés du Nord de l’Ontario.

La raison pour laquelle nous avons fait cela, c’est que norOntair, lors de sa mise en place il y a quinze ans, avait pour but de desservir les petites communautés et non pas d’entrer en competition dans les grands centres ou avec les grandes lignes, comme à Winnipeg ou à Thunder Bay. Alors, je suis persuadé que l’offre d’Air Ontario pour les Dash-8 est la meilleure, non pas en argent mais en ce qui concerne la distribution routière.

Une chose qu’on va s’engager à faire, c’est de signer des ententes de tarifs intégrés qui aideront les petites communautés à avoir de meilleurs prix pour voyager à Toronto ou ailleurs dans le monde et, en même temps, à profiter des soldes de fin de semaine, puisque chez nous, dans ma propre communauté de Hearst, nous ne bénéficiions pas de ces soldes-là; il fallait que les gens aillent à Kapuskasing pour en profiter. Alors là, j’ai fait des ententes pour que toutes les petites communautés fassent partie du système intégré.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I wish to advise members of the House that my ministry is taking a further step to provide greater equity in payments to social assistance recipients.

As of September 1, 1988, utility costs that are paid separately from rent will be included in the definition of shelter costs. This change will raise the payment levels of most social assistance recipients who are now paying their own utility costs.

Currently, if a person who is receiving social assistance pays his or her utility bill separately from rent, that cost is not taken into account in the calculation of that client’s social assistance. On the other hand, if a client’s utility costs are included in the rent, those costs do form part of the amount on which the assistance is based. In other words, people in similar circumstances are receiving benefits that are not the same.

This government is determined to achieve more equitable shelter subsidies for social assistance recipients and thus help less advantaged people in our province to obtain adequate housing. Accordingly, in this year’s budget, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has allocated $20 million annually to allow utility costs to be incorporated in the calculation of shelter subsidies.

For the purposes of the initiative, utilities are defined as the cost of any source of energy, such as electricity, gas or propane, necessary for normal household uses except for heating. Heating costs are already included in the calculation of benefits. Utilities will also include the cost of water.

Approximately 40,000 individuals and families who are receiving family benefits and general welfare will see increases in their social assistance payments. The utility costs for clients will be set at pre-established amounts that vary by family size. These will range from $35 per month for a single person to $70 a month for a family of six or more. Recipients whose actual costs exceed the stated amounts will have those actual costs taken into account.

A major issue common to Ontario’s income maintenance programs is the adequacy of benefit levels and their fairness across the board. I have no doubt that the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, which is expected in September, will address these issues. However, instead of waiting for that report, the government’s approach has been to identify specific areas of financial need and inequity and to respond as appropriately and as quickly as possible.

In the past three years, we have made improvements in the social assistance system totalling more than $317 million. The change I have outlined today continues that policy. By making the payment of shelter subsidies more equitable, we have taken a step towards a better and fairer system for all social assistance recipients in Ontario.

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Members may recall that in December 1986 the House passed legislation providing the framework for Ontario’s participation in an industry-financed compensation plan for the general insurance industry. Such a plan would include those companies selling automobile insurance.

The act calls for all of Ontario’s licensed property and casualty insurers, except farm mutuals, to participate in the plan once a compensation corporation is designated by regulation. Farm mutuals already have a compensation plan in place.

I am pleased to inform the members that Ontario will be entering into the property and casualty insurance compensation plan effective August 31, 1988. The Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corp., la Société d’indemnisation en matière d’assurances IARD, is designed to provide compensation of up to $200,000 to policyholders or claimants in the event of the insolvency of a general insurance company operating in Ontario.

This compensation plan will benefit consumers and enhance public confidence in the property and casualty insurance industry.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is my pleasure to table today the directions report of the legislative review project.

Created in November 1986, the legislative review project’s mandate was to review the 20 pieces of consumer legislation administered by my business practices division and to bring forward proposals that would assist the ministry in developing a new consumer protection strategy for this province. The review team was headed by Dr. Gregory Mazuryk, who is in the members’ gallery today. I would like him to stand up and be recognized.

Examined in great detail are two major pieces of existing legislation, the Business Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act, as well as industry-specific legislation on such diverse topics as real estate, motor vehicle repairs and purchases, travel and new home warranty programs. Most of Ontario’s consumer protection laws date back to the late 1960s, and it has become increasingly obvious that many of these laws need to be overhauled to represent more accurately the consumer marketplace of today.

We want to develop a structure for regulatory mechanisms and marketing practices that reflects the rights, responsibilities and expectations of today’s and tomorrow’s consumer. At the same time, we do not wish to intervene unnecessarily in the marketplace or, as the saying goes, fix what is not broken. One of the review team’s most important tasks was to formulate a set of basic principles of marketplace fairness against which government policies and legislative initiatives can be measured.

The report concludes that marketplace fairness is founded on four fundamental principles: reasonable disclosure of information, transactional fairness, fair value -- for example, product quality or reasonable value for price paid -- and reasonably available and accessible consumer remedies or dispute resolution mechanisms.

One of the key proposals made by the review team is the consolidation of our basic consumer protection laws into a foundation statute or consumer protection code which would embody the basic rights, responsibilities and remedies of consumer transactions. The report further suggests that industry-specific statutes, such as the existing Travel Industry Act, be revised and their generic consumer protection provisions transferred to the consumer protection code.

The directions report contains a wide range of proposals on an extremely diverse set of existing legislation. Some of the suggestions appear to be quite practical and logical, while others may be considered controversial. No doubt some proposals will be adopted and others will not. The legislative review project was a formidable challenge for all involved. That challenge continues. Release of this report is only the first step in the revamping of our consumer protection laws.

My ministry has already created an internal structure to review the report and its accompanying research papers. Following public consultation, specific legislative proposals will be developed and brought forward for consideration. With the directions report as a guide, I look forward to the development of simplified yet comprehensive consumer protection laws that will take us into the 1990s and beyond.

1400

RESPONSES

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

Mr. Swart: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and say that I welcome this industry-financed compensation plan with very little enthusiasm. It is inadequate. Why should somebody be limited to $200,000 if the person who causes the accident bought a plan for $1 million? They are perhaps injured for life and the maximum settlement is going to be $200,000. Surely a plan for compensation should in fact pay the claims in the original plan of the company that went bankrupt.

More than that, this demonstrates the inadequacy of the private insurance system in another way, compared to the public system. If we had a public auto insurance system, we would not need this, and the minister knows it. If he wants to really do something to protect the motorists of this province, he should bring in that public auto insurance system.

NORONTAIR

Mr. Pouliot: Air Canada is soon to become a private corporation. It has been the recipient, over many years, of large donations, large subsidies from every Canadian taxpayer. The show goes on and on with the announcement this afternoon that the Ministry of Northern Development intends to sell two Dash-8s to Air Canada. What we have here is nothing short of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor people, free enterprise for the people living in small communities who will have to bear the costs of the donation from the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine).

Since the enactment of Air Ontario, it has not increased services to remote and small communities in northern Ontario. Quite the contrary, we have less and less service. The Dash-8s were built for one reason; they were built for the purpose of a crown corporation making service adequate at a reasonable price. That is no longer the order of the day. The minister has chosen to renege on his mandate, and the people of northern Ontario will suffer the consequences. It is a sad day indeed, and I take no pleasure in the minister’s announcement.

Mr. Morin-Strom: As northern transportation critic, I would like to comment as well on this extremely disappointing announcement from the Minister of Northern Development. Surely what we are seeing here from this government are further movements towards a Thatcherite approach to transportation services right across the northern Ontario.

As we continue to lose out in terms of services that are provided in the north, this government is doing nothing to stem the tide. We see Air Ontario and Air Canada cutting services, and this government is just selling itself right into the same practices with the sale of these assets. These are assets of the province of Ontario that are being utilized for people of northern Ontario. The two best planes that are used on the norOntair routes are being sold, and we are being given nothing in return.

This government is not interested in providing the same kinds of services that have been provided in the past and improving on those services to the smaller communities in northern Ontario. It is just promoting privatization and cutback in terms of services that we are seeing from the Air Canada-Air Ontario conglomerate.

Surely what we have here is lemon socialism from this Liberal government, more and more to the rich and the powerful and less and less to the communities that really need the help.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: Responding to the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), I am sure the 40,000 social assistance recipients in the province will be at least a little bit happy about this statement, because $45 a month is certainly better than nothing in their circumstances.

In his announcement, the minister suggests he is continuing the tinkering that he and his ministry have been doing with respect to the shelter aspect of social assistance payments in recent years. If he wished to attack the problem in a reasonable fashion and follow his own objective of achieving equitable shelter subsidies, perhaps he would have done a good deal more for them if he would allow them 100 per cent subsidies rather than 75 per cent for shelter. That would come close to at least doing something about the real conditions and difficulties they have.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Brandt: I wanted to respond to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) with respect to the legislative review project. As I have just received this rather extensive piece of reading material on my desk within the last five minutes, I want to suggest that I have only had an opportunity to peruse about half of it; I will finish the other half in the next five minutes. I know the minister has read these documents in detail and has covered all aspects of the reports which are before him in an exhaustive kind of way.

Let me say that I support the minister’s initiatives in taking a look at some of the legislation that is in his ministry. I think it is an acknowledged fact that his ministry has more legislation and more acts for which he is responsible than any other ministry in the entire government, for which he is amply paid.

However, having said that, I would like the minister, in the review process he intends to take of the various pieces of legislation which do come under his particular purview, to be very careful about certain aspects of intervention which have some people upset who are aware of the initiatives that are under way relative to reviews of certain types of legislation. Certainly we on this side of the House, speaking for our party, will support consumer protection that is reasonable. We also recognize, if I may quote the words of a former Prime Minister, that where the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, the government also has a limited amount of business in certain business transactions.

That is where the government has to take a position where it backs off to a reasonable length and indicates to the business community and to consumers alike that they too have a responsibility with respect to entering into a negotiated settlement for a particular business deal which is mutually beneficial and that they enter into those deals with their eyes wide open.

I think a lot of consumer information that has been coming out of the ministry is good in terms of educating the consumers as to what the government can and cannot do. Sometimes those of us in government tend occasionally -- and I speak of the minister as an office holder and myself in opposition -- inadvertently, perhaps, to raise the expectations, if you will, of consumers, so that they get the impression -- and I get this in my office rather frequently -- that every single business transaction is protected by the government.

That will not be the case when the minister finishes his study. When he brings in revised legislation or revised regulations, that will simply not be the case. Let us make sure that, along with updating the language, simplifying it, making the legislation up to date, at the same time we educate consumers and let them know we are a party to an effort to make business practices fairer, more equitable, more reasonable and -- I think the bottom line -- more understandable for all parties concerned.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) with regard to shelter subsidies becoming more equitable. I think it is admirable that the minister has chosen to recognize this problem: utility costs, light, heat and water. Helping people at this time of year, I am sure they will notice on their monthly pay. It is the time of year one would be very much concerned, I am sure, about the cost of heat.

I would suggest that this is another Band-Aid approach to the real problem, and that is that we have been waiting a long time for the Social Assistance Review Committee report. I would think that this government should be looking at global policies to help people in need across this province and that these little bits and pieces of candy that are handed out from time to time are not the kinds of things that people across the province, whether they be in need or whether they be people who are concerned about those in need, are apt to give much respect to.

I have two requests of the Minister of Community and Social Services: that he very quickly release the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee; and that he look at the real issue, which is that the assistance benefit levels are far below the poverty line and do not reflect the rising cost of food and shelter or utilities in spite of what he is doing today. Our party’s hope is that not only will he raise this level of support, but also he will tell us how to best manage the increase that the needy people in this province so much deserve.

1410

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on the question of access to information from the ministries, a matter which has been raised in the past.

On April 28, in an exchange between my leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), the minister indicated that, “I am happy to make available to all members of the House guidelines for the approval of school accommodation needs and an elaboration of the process that takes place, as well as information relative to what boards have requested.”

Our research director then sent a letter that day, pursuant to this exchange, to the deputy minister --this is dated April 28 -- to which we have, at this point, had no acknowledgement or response. As a result, on May 30 again, our research director, Mr. Rachlis, wrote a freedom-of-information request to the Ministry of Education for this kind of information. As of June 21, we have just received a letter from the ministry, which indicates that the material requested can be had for the usual fee of $696 plus a $300-plus deposit that would be involved.

I would ask again that this matter be referred, along with the other matters raised by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and the matters raised around the hospital requests in another area of the province, that we look into this whole question about how members of the opposition can do their jobs if the ministry staff do not provide the information and if freedom of information is being used as a means of deflecting us from our rightful access to information.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member for Scarborough West. I believe I gave a ruling on that same point and suggested that the members had the right to ask during question period. I believe it is also possible to amend the legislation so that changes could be made, and I would ask the member if he might like to review my previous response.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You also made a referral.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, to make that point officially, as the member for Scarborough West observes, after an earlier discussion of this matter in the House, and by agreement, there was a referral out to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which referral will be taken up in the not-too-distant future, at which time, I am sure, the honourable member might very well want to attend.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions today for the Minister of Housing. The minister will, I am sure, be aware of the stories that were told today at a press conference earlier by people who are facing eviction, whose buildings are being made vacant and who are being made homeless. This is all being done because of weaknesses in the minister’s own legislation.

I wonder what the minister can say to Lisa Hampton who gave her story to the media this morning and talked about her situation. I wonder what she can say about people who have been living at 199-201 Carlton Street, which is a 12-unit rooming house. I wonder what she can say to the tenants who live at 253 Wellesley Street East who face similar circumstances.

I wonder if the minister can explain to the House exactly what she is doing to protect the rights to a roof -- if I can use the words of the report yesterday -- of the people like Lisa Hampton.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is illegal under the Rental Housing Protection Act to evict tenants for the purposes of renovation, conversion or demolition. Where we discover that is going on, we investigate and we prosecute. If there are any other examples that the member wishes to bring forward of where anything of this sort has been happening, we will follow up, investigate and, if it is warranted, prosecute.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure we will all be delighted in hearing from the minister the details of her successful prosecutions under the Rental Housing Protection Act.

By way of supplementary, the minister will no doubt be aware of the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board affecting a number of vacant buildings in Etobicoke which were approved for demolition by the Etobicoke council, over the objections of many of the people in the area and indeed many of the tenants in those buildings. This approval for demolition has been approved again by the Ontario Municipal Board.

I wonder if the minister would not agree that the fact that vacant buildings can be demolished is itself the villain in the piece and she should be changing the regulations to the Rental Housing Protection Act to make it clear that vacant buildings cannot be demolished. Indeed, buildings which have been used for rental accommodation at all across the province should not be demolished, because in allowing their demolition, we are in fact causing the eviction of seniors and the disappearance of rental housing in a market which is already overloaded.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think there are two issues here, It is illegal to harass tenants and to cause them to leave their buildings in order to render the buildings vacant for the purpose of conversion. This harassment or any other kind of behaviour of this sort is illegal under the Rental Housing Protection Act. It is also simply illegal. We are prepared to deal with that issue through investigation and prosecution.

The other issue, the one about the situation of vacant buildings under the regulation, is one that we are taking under advisement in the process of reviewing the legislation. We are going to be looking at various responses the people have given us in relation to amending or changing the Rental Housing Protection Act in order to make it a better law. It is perfectly clear that the law has some problems. That is the reason we are looking at it, in order to improve it. People are bringing forward their suggestions, and the one about vacant buildings is certainly one of them.

Mr. B. Rae: We have raised in this House a number of examples. In the minister’s own constituency, on 114 Vaughan Road, I can show the minister the request from the landlord for a rent increase of 123 per cent which was presented to the residents of that building.

The minister should know this is going on, and she should know that the law she is presiding over is obviously ineffective in dealing with the problem. Why does the minister not simply change the regulations now so that buildings that are vacant cannot be converted and cannot be subjected to the kind of demolition and plans and proposals for conversion which in fact are evicting tenants and decreasing the supply of affordable housing?

How could she welcome, yesterday, the report on homelessness and then preside over a piece of legislation which is contributing to the problem of homelessness?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Rental Housing Protection Act does indeed have some flaws. That is the reason we are going to change it. The last time this law was passed, it was passed in a hurried fashion. We are not going to make the same mistake again.

The protections of the act have been extended. We are looking at all the suggestions that have been brought forward, including suggestions made in this House and including the suggestions made by the honourable member opposite, which I take very seriously. The deadline for submission of those is July 1. We will be working with those suggestions and with the conversations we have had with people, including the things that have been said in this House, to bring forward a better and more adequate law than the one we currently have.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister seems to be saying to the House that the legislation was a mistake, and she is sorry she introduced and passed it. She has been presiding over it for two and a half years. If that is not a nonsensical statement by a minister, I do not know what is.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: She didn’t say that.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister admits there are mistakes in the legislation. That is what I heard her say. Television will tell the story. Only television can tell.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who made his announcement yesterday with respect to the Wine Content Act.

It is my understanding from discussions I have had that in fact the minister, or his ministry, though he did not release details of this, has signed or been party to an agreement between him, the Wine Council of Ontario and the grape growers which provides for a reduction of at least 10,000 tons of Ontario grapes bought by Ontario wineries this year.

That is almost a one-third reduction. I wonder if the minister, in the government’s much-vaunted so-called attack on free trade can in fact confirm that the first practical step taken with respect to the grape industry is a one-third reduction in the amount of Ontario grapes that are to be guaranteed purchased by Ontario wineries. Can the minister confirm that?

1420

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As the honourable Leader of the Opposition will know, the Wine Content Act speaks to quotas for individual wineries, obviously adding up to a total quota. This is the first time that this has been provided for, and as this general package comes forward, there is a proposal, as part of our overall strategy to provide a competitive industry, for a quota of 25,000 tons of grapes to be sold to the wineries.

The wineries very clearly have responsibility through the wine council to take up that quota, and I do not think anyone has ever suggested otherwise. There is expected to be, over the next period of years, some reduction in the acreage as Ontario moves to a strategy to make the industry more competitive.

Mr. B. Rae: Cutting through the gobbledegook, last year the wineries bought over 36,000 tons. This year they are agreeing to and the government is approving a purchase of about 25,000 tons. If that is not a reduction of about 11,000 tons, I do not know what is.

When the minister announced his policy, he would not have said that in fact we are phasing out the future for Ontario grapes and we are phasing out the future for Ontario grape growers.

How can the minister, in all conscience, stand in his place and present a piece of legislation which provides for a one-third reduction -- that has nothing to do with price; we do not even know what the price is going to be; all we know is how much is going to be there -- and not introduce in the House at the same time a clear package of compensation for people who are working in that industry who are obviously going to be affected by that kind of a cut? How can he announce the Wine Content Act and at the same time not announce a program for grape growers, not announce a plan for the future of this industry and instead provide for its cutback?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member would realize that for the very first time there has been an absolute commitment made by the wine industry, which has not been made before, to buy a specified amount of Ontario grapes. The matter of an adjustment and what will happen during the adjustment has been under discussions involving the industry, but I am sure my friend is not so far removed from his days in Ottawa that he would not realize the primary responsibility that the federal government would have in that field.

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, I am.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Perhaps my honourable friend is, but those discussions are continuing.

I would leave this thought with the honourable member, however. Among the signatories to the statement back in late fall of last year, who have gone forward in support of the proposal that we have put forward, is the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board. They certainly understand the very difficult situation we are in and how this government is attempting to work in support of the grape and wine industries to make sure that there is a wine industry in the province in the years to come.

Mr. Swart: My supplementary too relates to the fact that the first move this government makes with regard to the grape-growing industry is to reduce the guaranteed purchase from something like 36,000 to 25,000 tons.

Yesterday in his statement, the minister made a major issue of the fact that Ontario’s grape-growing acreage must be converted from the labrusca grapes to the high-quality hybrids and viniferas and that this would make our grape growers more competitive.

I want to ask the minister: If he has any sincerity in helping the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula, why would he or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) not have announced at the same time an assistance program, which at one time we had in place, for the conversion of the labruscas to the hybrids and the viniferas?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This industry is, as many industries are, taking care of putting in the vines for the new kinds of grapes which are in increasing demand. This has been the situation over the last decade and will be in the decade to come.

That process is an ongoing one which has seen this province, down in my friend’s end of the province in the Niagara region and in my own region of Essex county, switch from basically labr-usca-growing regions to increasingly labrusca and hybrid-growing regions. That process will continue, and we are obviously hopeful that in the years to come, the consumers in Ontario will come to realize the very high quality of the Ontario product, and that the current 42 per cent or 43 per cent market share that Ontario enjoys will increase quite significantly and dramatically. Thus, the kind of employment and strength the industry has will continue to grow.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Energy and relates to the most recent position taken by the government with respect to energy sales to the United States. I wonder if the minister can confirm if, prior to the signing of the free trade agreement, there was in fact in place a bilateral free market agreement between Canada and the United States as it relates to natural gas and electricity.

Hon. Mr. Wong: There has not previously been a free market situation in the trade of natural gas or electricity between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Brandt: The minister may be inadvertently missing the kind of trade we had with the United States in connection with those particular commodities. I would like to remind him that at the moment, the National Energy Board has to review and approve all exports of electricity and natural gas, ensuring first that there is enough energy for domestic supply in Ontario and Canada, and second that the export price is not less than the domestic price for equivalent service. The role of the National Energy Board is in no way hindered under the terms of the free trade agreement. They would continue to carry out their responsibilities in quite the same way as they are doing at the moment.

Will the minister confirm that the National Energy Board will in fact continue to have responsibilities even if the free trade agreement were to go through in its present form?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The National Energy Board certainly would have responsibility. I cannot speak for them because this is a federal matter. However, I would like to clarify for the honourable member that the NEB and the federal government have been moving towards deregulation, which would mean that the energy security of Ontarians, the largest consuming province of the country, would be in greater jeopardy.

Mr. Brandt: If the minister’s government and his Premier (Mr. Peterson) are so concerned about blackouts and energy shortages -- of course, overlooking the fact that in a bilateral agreement we have with the United States there is a certain sharing that goes both ways from the United States to Canada and also from Canada to the United States -- and if they have such intense feelings with respect to the free trade agreement, why are they not taking the logical step?

I want to add that our party does not agree with the position they are taking relative to free trade and I want to make that clear, but if they feel so strongly about it, why are they not challenging the agreement in court rather than going around with these limited little thrusts of anger with respect to certain parts of the deal that they take exception to?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister.

Mr. Brandt: On one hand, it is energy; on the other hand, it is health services and so forth.

Hon. Mr. Wong: It is not possible to challenge in court because the legislation has not yet been passed. We are not only talking about the free trade agreement, which has to be ratified by both countries, but we are also referring to the implementing legislation that would be necessary.

Mr. Brandt: For the first of my second series of questions, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could clarify the position now being taken by his government. What intentions he has with respect to export agreements of energy to the United States relative to the new position he is taking in Ontario’s stance with respect to the free trade agreement.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The new position, as I think was enunciated clearly yesterday, ensures that any electricity that is exported by Ontario Hydro to the United States will be surplus to the needs of Ontario and Ontario Hydro’s customers within Canada and, second, that the price to the export market will be higher than that charged for an equivalent service here in Ontario.

1430

Mr. Brandt: The minister already knows, with respect to the export of power, it can be only surplus power, power that is redundant to our requirements, to our needs here in Ontario. Does the minister accept the position that, as a direct result of exports of energy sales to the United States, the cost of electricity in this province is close to five per cent -- I believe some 4.5 per cent -- less than would be the case without those export sales. These assist in the competitive position of this province vis-à-vis our sales of exports to various parts of the world, particularly to the United States -- so that prices are reduced to consumers in this province as well as to industries? Is the minister prepared to jeopardize the advantage we have built into our present relationship with the United States?

Hon. Mr. Wong: To get the facts straight, Ontario Hydro generates electricity predominantly for domestic consumption. Electricity is an indigenous resource of Ontario; it is an essential service. From time to time, we export marginal amounts to neighbouring provinces or to the United States, and from time to time we import electricity and power into Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: My question was not answered, but I would like to remind the minister that there is in place at the moment a North American grid, and that North American grid effectively puts in place a sharing of power throughout Canada with various provinces, primarily Manitoba and Quebec in our case, and also with various bordering states in the US.

I would like to remind the minister that in 1985 we were in the difficult position, as a result of a tornado that struck this province at that time, of having to import energy by purchasing electricity and power from the United States, in order to stop blackouts or brownouts from occurring in this province.

What I would like to know from the minister is, as a result of his new position, as a result of his concern about the free trade agreement, what direction is he giving to Ontario Hydro with respect to its future export policy as it relates to the sales of energy to the United States?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: If he is changing it, let him tell us why, because in 1990 those agreements all come up for renewal.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The direction that we are giving as a government to Ontario Hydro starts with priority. The needs of Ontario individuals, consumers and businesses come first. First, the lights will not go out in Ontario. Second, there should be a surplus. Third, as I mentioned, the price will be higher on the export market.

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING CLEANERS

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), I have a question, of the Minister of Government Services. It has to do with the cleaners who work in this building. Maybe he is not aware that there has been a very substantial increase in the past number of years in the number of workers in this building who are contract workers, not full-time employees.

Almost a third of the people who work in this building now work on contract, which appears to be the result of deliberate government policy not to hire new employees, but instead to hire people on contract. The first question I have for the minister is, can he explain why many of the contract cleaners working in this building, many of whom are women and many of whom are new Canadians, have received notice that their contracts will not be renewed at the end of August of this year? Can the minister explain why that would have happened?

Hon. Mr. Patten: No. I will have to get back to the Leader of the Opposition on that issue. I am not aware of this event and I am not sure that the Ministry of Government Services is responsible for it.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to assure the minister, first of all, that it is the case that later on this year the cleaners will be transferred to the Legislative Assembly. Right now, they are covered under the Ministry of Government Services, which is one of the problems we have.

When he is giving me an answer to that question, I wonder whether the minister will also be able to tell me, by way of supplementary, what will happen to those workers when they become employees of the Legislative Assembly rather than employees of MGS. One of the problems is that the Legislative Assembly workers, generally speaking, have not had the same kind of protection under our laws in terms of crown employees and many other issues, in terms of their bargaining rights and their seniority and their security, as people who have been working elsewhere.

In addition to the contracting-out question, I would like to ask the minister if he could please tell us what is going to happen to these workers when they become employees of the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Patten: In our discussions related to our memorandum of understanding, which transfers the responsibility of a good number of functions from the MGS to the Speaker’s office, all commitments to present employees that exist by way of our understanding with the MGS will be retained and will be maintained by the Legislative Assembly.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We are aware that there is a tremendous backlog of decisions to be announced by the Social Assistance Review Board and that distraught families have advised us they are waiting six weeks, and some from three to six months, for decisions.

The minister and I both know that the regulations, subsection 2(1) under the act, require that the Social Assistance Review Board issue its decisions within 40 days following the notice of the hearing. Justice delayed is justice denied to Ontario’s poor and disabled. How many cases concerning these special families are taking more than 40 days to decide?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware that last fall the operation of the board changed considerably with a new chairman and with many new members. The intent at that time was to have 10 to 12 full-time members and as many as 20 part-time members. An attempt has been made to make that work and it has not, quite frankly, been successful, as the member’s question clearly indicates.

A decision was made by cabinet just last week that all the members of the board are now going to be full-time. There will be a total of 21 full-time members. Our sense from the acting chairman of the board is that the board will be able to pick up that backlog much more quickly than it has in the past. It is not acceptable, as the member’s numbers clearly indicate, and we are hoping that over a relatively short period of time we will be able to pick up that backlog.

Mrs. Cunningham: We are grateful for the minister’s answer and hope that we over here can help him just a little. I think the minister has a number of big government issues with that board, and now he has increased his full-time membership, he suggests, to 21 today. The people of Ontario are aware that those people are earning $55,000 to $60,000 a year to do that job. By the way, the part-time people are earning something like $175 per day. All the members, it is my understanding, are being asked to preside over these cases.

The minister not only has increased the money to the board members -- and remember the person we are trying to serve is the little guy who is waiting to hear the results of this board’s decision -- but he has also increased his legal staff from one lawyer working on a per diem basis to sometimes two or three working full-time.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mrs. Cunningham: My point is and my question is, with all the high-priced help, what is the minister going to do, given all this information he has given to me and I have given to him --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mrs. Cunningham: -- for the little guy within the next month to solve the problems?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1440

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That question was great.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Since when has the Conservative Party been concerned about the little guy?

Mrs. Cunningham: For a long time.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Since when?

Mr. Jackson: We appointed Larry Grossman, didn’t we?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members wish to waste their time --

Mr. Brandt: There are a lot of short people who belong to our party. We’ve got Norm Sterling --

Mr. Speaker: It might be of assistance to the member for London North and to all members, in case they do not understand, that when the word “order” is used, it means “Please be silent.”

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware that one of the main reasons the composition and structure of the board were changed was because of rather intense criticism from recipients on the basis of the former structure.

The member is right that we have added additional legal advice to the board. We have also added support staff to the board. The main reason for that is so that the board members themselves, who actually conduct the hearings, will have the necessary resources to write their own findings. The member may not be aware that previously it was the staff of the board who actually wrote the findings. She will probably be aware that a very large number of those findings were appealed to the courts, for example.

We are on the way to reducing the number of those appeals. It has not happened yet, but we are on the way to doing it. The reason for that is that we have additional legal advice available directly to the board members themselves. We have additional support staff available to the members of the board directly. They are making better decisions, and it just takes time to turn that big ship around.

CHELATION THERAPY

Mr. Cleary: I have a question for the Minister of Health. A number of my constituents have become dependent on chelation therapy. Can the minister indicate on what basis she has made the decision to ban chelation therapy?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The primary responsibility for the standards of practice of the medical profession rests with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college was presented with evidence that this therapy was ineffective and could cause serious harm. The college’s position was widely publicized, and it is my understanding that there was an opportunity for public debate.

After reviewing the evidence presented, the amendments were passed and approved. This allows the college to take disciplinary action against any physician who fails to follow the ban on chelation therapy.

Mr. Cleary: Is there any possibility that the minister will reconsider her decision?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: for the question. I know of the member’s interest in this matter. It is my understanding that two Ontario residents have taken this matter to the Ombudsman. I feel it would be inappropriate to comment until the Ombudsman has an opportunity to complete his review.

FUNDING OF EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAMS

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Liberal government is not pulling its fair share in the cost-sharing programs it announced last year with the federal government to help get people off welfare and into a working life.

The costs that the minister accepted at that time for the province, such as day care and transportation, etc., are being shuffled on to the municipalities, on the one hand, resulting in unequal support for those on the program, while on the other hand, agencies such as the Working Skills Centre, find that they get $1.2 million from Ottawa, $15,000 from this government, but surprise, surprise, nothing from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It all comes from the Ministry of Citizenship.

Is it not curious that under the minister’s 50-50 sharing program, the agency would end up with $1.2 million from Ottawa, nothing from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and $15,000 from the Ministry of Citizenship for newcomer classes?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is well aware of the fact that there is a range of support programs, some that are paid predominantly by the federal government, some predominantly by the provincial government and some are a 50-50 sharing.

To the best of my knowledge, the program the member is referring to is the joint federal-provincial employability program. The two levels of government over a two-year period are putting $50 million each into this program for a total of $100 million. The way in which that money is allocated to a number of programs differs, depending upon the demand of the program. In some cases, there is more provincial money; in some cases, there is more federal money. I am sure if the member were to examine the whole range of programs, he would see that, but the total bottom line for both sharing sides is $50 million each.

Mr. Allen: It is amazing how agencies begin to fall between the cracks on this funding runaround the minister just described. For example, everything is not hunky-dory in employability land. The municipalities are angry that the minister goes into agreements with the federal government without consulting them and then they end up paying costs they had not anticipated.

The result is resistance at the municipality end, and benefits which should be going to people in these programs are not paid or are paid differently in different communities. The minister today told us that people in similar circumstances are receiving benefits which are not the same. Obviously, he should be correcting it. That is his own statement.

On the other hand, the agencies are angry because in their training programs they have to fight on a case-by-case basis for benefits when the municipalities function differently.

Why is the minister letting the employability programs, with the diversity he has, none the less, get out of control and create a nightmare for people out there, to the point where, for example, the Riverdale Community Health Centre simply finally closed down its training programs and sent the federal money back?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Again, I remind the honourable member that this is a two-year program. It was agreed to by both levels of government in an attempt to divert both federal and provincial dollars which otherwise would have gone into family benefits payments or general welfare payments. There was no intent that the cost-sharing mechanisms already in place would change significantly; as a matter of fact, Ontario is putting a little extra money into this.

From the federal government level, it is a diversion from unemployment insurance payments and National Health and Welfare payments. It is a combination of those two from the federal government.

At the provincial level, as the member obviously knows, if it is a family benefits recipient, the provincial government is totally responsible. That represents about 170,000 people in this province. If it is a general welfare recipient, there is an 80-20 per cent split between the provincial government and the municipality. That stays the same. This program does not change that kind of funding mechanism.

I would indicate to the honourable member that before the program was introduced in any of these areas, there was consultation with the local municipalities. Asked if they wanted to participate in this program -- to the best of my knowledge it was not forced upon anyone -- they volunteered to participate. They knew ahead of time that the cost-sharing would be the same as the existing welfare payments.

SEWAGE DUMP SITE

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I want to apprise the minister of a situation in the community of Kinburn in west Carleton in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I am sure he is aware of his ministry’s class 7 certificate of approval issued for septage disposal sites. Such a certificate allows for the disposal of untreated human waste.

An individual applied for and received such a licence in Kinburn, or near Kinburn, at a cost of $36.05. For this fee, he will be permitted to dispose of this waste over an area of 12 acres.

The problem arises with the process or the lack of process. There is no public meeting required before this licence is issued. There is no public input received before this licence is issued. Adjacent land owners are not notified and there is no establishment of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Have you a question?

Mr. Sterling: Does the minister not feel he should withdraw the certificate because of the lack of process?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the people have followed all of the necessary processes which are there in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act and so on, it is difficult, if the rules which are in place have been adhered to, to withdraw from those, but I will be happy to look further into this. I notice I had some notes coming in today about this matter. I think it is of some considerable importance to the people in my area.

1450

I agree with the member that it is always desirable to have that kind of input. There have been consultations, I am informed, with the medical officer of health and there have been some concerns that have been expressed by a number of people.

I would certainly be prepared to look further at this matter that the member has raised to see if there is a satisfactory resolution of it, satisfactory to the people who have drawn this to his attention and to all concerned.

Mr. Sterling: I do not think the minister understands the gravity of this situation and the situation which is in place in a thousand other instances in this province. A class 7 certificate is issued by his ministry without any formal hearing. When you compare this to a situation where a person in the city of Toronto would apply for a minor variance to build his garage one foot closer to his lot line and is granted a process where he has a public hearing, a chance for input, one can see a tremendous inequity in terms of how these two kinds of individuals in our province are treated.

Due to the fact that the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Health Unit, headed up by Dr. Corber, is not in favour of septage dump sites within the Ottawa-Carleton area because they have the potential to create a public health hazard and recommends that all domestic septage be disposed of through the region’s Green Creek pollution control centre, will the minister not take some action now, on the basis of his letter, which is within the ministry, and withdraw this certificate?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We always take into consideration the viewpoints expressed, particularly by people such as the medical officer of health, and I am aware from the information that has been provided to me that indeed that opposition is there. It will of course be given the greatest consideration, because when we are approving any particular initiative that deals with waste disposal of any kind, be it human waste or other waste, that we call solid waste problems, we are of the opinion that there should be that kind of input from those authorities. I am certainly prepared to look very carefully at that.

I know that the operation is not occurring now, as the farmer certainly has not started up at this point in time, and I know that my own officials, as the member aptly points out, have been in discussion with the local authorities in this regard. I give a lot of weight, frankly, to the opinions of a medical officer of health in cases of this kind. I can assure the member that the considerable information which is provided by the medical officer of health and by others in the area will be taken into consideration before a final decision is rendered.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. South: To the Minister of Housing: Is the minister aware that in Metropolitan Toronto the percentage of tenants who now pay less than 20 per cent -- and I repeat, pay less than 20 per cent -- of their income for rent is 48 per cent? In 1986, this percentage was 23 per cent of tenants. In other words, the wealthy are profiting more and more from rent controls, to the detriment of the needy.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have heard a variety of statistics indicating that there are renters in this province who have considerable incomes and are none the less protected by rent review; but rent review’s primary purpose is to make sure that tenants in this province are protected from unjustified rent increases and that there is a reasonable process for the landlord to take in order to recognize his expenses. I believe it is extremely important for tenants, in particular tenants on fixed incomes, to have the kind of certainty that a rent review legislation gives them.

Mr. South: Is it not time to now consider a direct subsidy or grant to the needy, rather than the present shotgun approach, whereby we tax the property owners of the province to the benefit of the wealthy and decreasingly to the benefit of the needy?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have, of course, heard the suggestion about direct support for tenants who are in need of help and support. This is one approach to take. The Social Assistance Review Committee is going to be addressing the whole question of housing needs for people who are living on very low incomes, and I am assuming that a discussion about the whole question of shelter subsidies will arise out of the report, which will be coming forward in September.

MINING SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question about a very serious matter related to mining health and safety. Is the Minister of Labour aware that the Muscocho Explorations company in a period of seven days, June 15 to 22, has had three very serious accidents? On June 15, at the Magino mine property, Richard Kiddle died; on June 18, at that same property, Wifred St. Pierre was buried to his neck and just narrowly escaped death, and on June 22, at the Magnacon property, Tom Legrow was killed.

If the minister is aware of this serious situation, can he confirm that at these mine sites the joint health and safety committees are operative and can he tell us what is happening with regard to his investigation of these very serious mine accidents?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to agree in the strongest terms with my friend the member for Algoma that these are very serious accidents and warrant the most exhaustive and extensive of investigations. I could not tell him now of the details of those investigations, because they are ongoing, but I certainly will provide him with whatever information it is appropriate to provide to him when those investigations are complete.

As to the effective operation of the joint health and safety committee within that company, I am really not prepared to comment on it; but as part of the investigation, I would anticipate that my ministry officials will be looking at whether or not that safety committee is, in reality, doing the job it is mandated and required to do.

Mr. Wildman: I am sure the minister agrees this is a very serious situation. Would he, in response to that and in response to the information he receives from his investigators, consider very carefully changing the legislation to make worker-inspectors in mines mandatory and to give the workers the right to shut down unsafe conditions so that we do not have the continuing number of deaths we have in Ontario mines, which we have all been trying to do something about and we have to do something about as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I know my friend the member for Algoma is a member of the standing committee of this House that I understand will shortly be presenting its report on mining safety. I look forward to that report and I am wondering aloud whether that report will contain some recommendations on worker-inspectors.

I should tell my friend, or other members of this House because I think my friend the member for Algoma knows, that in many cases in the mining industry there are workers who are full-time inspectors within the workplace. It is our experience that, in many instances, the role of the worker-inspector has proved to be very effective. There are other instances where that role has not been effective. It seems to us that where the worker-inspector is working in co-operation with the joint health and safety committee, real improvements are made in mining safety.

I simply tell my friend the member for Algoma that I know of the strength with which he believes in his view of how these things should be dealt with. I tell him that I look forward to the report of the committee, which did exhaustive work, and we will take those recommendations very seriously when they are presented to this House.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I have a copy of a brochure which is published by Gray Line Niagara Falls for Americans who are considering vacationing in Ontario. This brochure points out, and I quote, “Prices are generally much higher in Niagara Falls, Ontario, than prices in Niagara Falls, New York.”

Those prices are for gasoline, accommodations, food, cigarettes, etc. This brochure was printed before the government’s massive tax grab. Does the minister still not realize that his government’s budget is killing the Ontario tourism industry because potential visitors from the United States are being encouraged to spend their money at home rather than to vacation in Ontario because of the sales tax and the gasoline tax?

1500

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I hope the member does not go along with that, because he should realize that one of the greatest buys in all the world is the tourism buy in Ontario. I spent last Friday in Niagara Falls, and I can tell him that from the attractions, to the hotels, to the motels, to all the other great things it has to offer, Niagara Falls continues to be one of the great attractions of the world.

Mr. McLean: I do not think that was the question. The fact is that this brochure is telling it the way it is. I want to know what the minister intends to do to help tourism for Ontario’s ski resort industry. In the communities in which it operates, there are about 6,500 persons involved. There is $25 million in income, and the economic benefits will be lost because of the government’s change in the school break week.

Is the minister aware of that? If he is, what is he going to do about the loss of income for these resorts during the school break?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for that point, because some of the people in the ski resort business have written to me about it, and we plan to be in touch with the staff of the Ministry of Education to see if something can be done about it.

I agree with the member that the ski resorts are very important to the economy and the tourism business in Ontario, and we will continue to work with them to do what we can to assist that great segment of our tourism industry.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Revenue what I understand to be a discrepancy in assessment practices, where those doing the assessments do a comparative valuation between retirement homes in retirement communities and homes outside of those communities.

The people living in the retirement communities feel that this is most unfair since, for example, their resale market is not comparable, their homes are much smaller, their lifestyles are different, occupancy is limited to two adults as opposed to homes outside and hard services are not available in the retirement communities. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

Because of this apparent discrepancy, would the minister look into this problem and possibly try to resolve it so that comparisons can be made within retirement communities, and comparisons outside will remain outside the retirement communities?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member for Simcoe Centre has raised a very important question concerning property assessment and taxation in Ontario, namely, the market value. The Assessment Act defines market value as the amount a property might be expected to realize if sold on the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

I would like to remind the honourable member that homes located in retirement communities, as far as I know, are assessed in the same manner. In other words, all amenities and drawbacks associated with that purchase are taken into consideration.

I would also like to remind the member that our assessment program in Ontario is a very successful one. Out of 839 municipalities, 76 per cent are under section 63 or section 70 of the Assessment Act. I think it is a great success, but I am willing to take a second look at retirement homes and I will provide him with a more complete answer.

Mr. Owen: It has been suggested to me that possibly an amendment would have to be made to the legislation, but what I ask the minister to do is to consider that really what I am talking about is common sense rather than legislation, and it is with common sense that I think he should treat the --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Just a minute.

Mr. Jackson: You’re going to love minority government. He’d love minority government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: Possibly the ministry could look into the situation to see if the workers in this field could simply limit themselves to comparing values within retirement communities and keeping the other type of values outside and away from this situation. I ask the minister if he will at least consider looking at the practicality rather than making major changes in the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member for Simcoe Centre makes a whole lot of sense. If he is looking for good legislation, good regulations and a reasonable government, he is looking at the right side of this House. Seriously, I am willing to take a second look at it and provide him with a more complete answer. I am sure the common sense of this government will come out with common-sense legislation.

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Two weeks ago, I brought to the attention of the House a map and an advertisement that appeared in several midwestern American city newspapers advertising tourism in northwestern Ontario. In fact, when you look at the map, it is perhaps the most misleading map you could ever want to see in terms of tourism in northwestern Ontario. It leaves out many of the highways and many of the communities. It leaves out Quetico Provincial Park. It would give someone the impression that the only places worth visiting in northwestern Ontario are Fort Frances, Kenora and Red Lake.

Can the minister guarantee this House that these kinds of ads will be changed and will be replaced by ads that advertise the real tourist attractions in northwestern Ontario in many of the communities that now rely on tourism?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for his question. The member brought this to my attention a couple of weeks ago in a letter. I agree with him and I am not happy with the ads that have been produced. Although they are intended to draw attention to a certain area and then hopefully have the people call to get additional information and maps on that area, I not believe maps do the job when they leave out communities like that. I have run into it in other areas. I have asked the ministry to examine the whole area, and we hope to take corrective action on it.

Mr. Hampton: I appreciate the minister’s concern and I appreciate his offer to have the situation reviewed. Is the minister aware, for example, that this map does not show Quetico Provincial Park? It does not show the community of Atikokan, a community that has approximately a 25 per cent unemployment rate and has been told by this government to rely on tourism. Is the minister aware that communities like this have been left off?

Meanwhile, Quetico Provincial Park, a park we pay a great deal of money for, is used every day by entrants from the United States. Is the minister aware of that and can the minister also take that into consideration when dealing with this problem?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I will take that into consideration when we are looking at this problem, and hopefully we will make the correction.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Durham East.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Three more minutes, guys.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: I say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that we will make sure we use the three minutes.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is a nice, easy question. It is so easy even a Liberal back-bencher would be able to answer it, except for Ballinger and baloney, and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) might have trouble with this question. Is the minister aware, as was confirmed by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), that a municipality can expropriate property in another municipality’s jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is my understanding that municipalities can only expropriate in their own jurisdiction.

1510

Mr. Cureatz: I would ask that the minister confer with his colleague the Minister of the Environment, who has indicated to me that Metro Toronto can expropriate property in my riding in the town of Newcastle, where it is looking for three possible dump sites. In response to my supplementary, after the minister has discussed this issue with the Minister of the Environment so he can get his act together, will the minister confirm to this House tomorrow that if a municipality has the power to expropriate, as the Minister of the Environment told me, he will consider amending the legislation so that Metro Toronto, for instance, cannot expropriate property in the town of Newcastle, so we do not have the garbage crisis and the fear which is taking place in the Golden Horseshoe because we do not have any leadership from the Minister of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am not aware of the particular circumstance the member has brought to my attention. We will certainly look into it. If there is any disagreement among municipalities, there is a course of action which they can take.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Energy and it relates to the price of gasoline and the fluctuation in prices for gasoline. Recently, citizens in my community have brought to my attention that some strange mysterious force seems to raise the price of gasoline from 42 cents a litre to 49 cents a litre and all the others go along with it. Is this the invisible hand of the marketplace or is something else at work here?

Hon. Mr. Wong: My ministry is aware of this situation in Brantford. The pricing situation appears to be the result of competitive market forces, such as market size, the number of marketers, especially the number of independents, the nature of the traffic and consumer behaviour. It would appear that in the summer months with the influx of tourists into the member’s fine community that the retailers take advantage to raise their prices.

Mr. Neumann: I take the minister’s answer, but I wonder if he could do a more thorough investigation. It seems rather odd that when one gasoline station puts its prices up by eight cents or nine cents a litre, all of a sudden all of the others follow suit. On the surface, it does not seem to me to be a market situation. A lot of consumers have questions on this.

Hon. Mr. Wong: It would appear that the honourable member’s question might be more appropriately directed towards the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). However, I can assure the honourable member that our ministry will continue to monitor gas prices closely, as we do across Ontario.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Ms. Poole: I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by a large number of parents concerned about day care. It reads as follows.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“As members of the community and parents of children attending the Fairbank Memorial Daycare Centre in the city of York, we urge the government to restrict funding to those day care centres that have parent representation. We request that legislation also be established to ensure that parent advisory boards are active participants in decision-making and through that participation are able to reflect the particular needs and interests of their communities.”

As required by standing orders, I have signed the petition.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition from Cambridge, which I did request the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) might be here to receive. I would like to present this petition.

This petition concerns the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and it is signed by over 12,000 residents of Cambridge who are requesting the ministry to work co-operatively with the board. I read the petition as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas we believe Cambridge Memorial Hospital is doing an admirable and efficient job of serving the people of Cambridge, we fully support the board of directors and administrators of the hospital and believe they should be given adequate funding to maintain the high level of service without government interference.”

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 85 people at the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Minister of Health and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, indicating discontent with a recent smoking policy implemented by this facility. It reads as follows:

“Whereas Oak Ridge patients are hospitalized for a period of years and consider this facility to be their home; and

“Whereas these patients cannot leave the facility to smoke; and

“Whereas the existing smoking area is overcrowded and has poor ventilation, which creates an unhealthy atmosphere; and

“Whereas patients are locked in wards for long periods of time and have no access to smoking areas;

“We, the undersigned, ask that the Minister of Health allow patients to smoke in the privacy of their own rooms.”

That is signed by myself.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr. McGuinty: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with 10 signatures, none of whom is a member of my family, with the possible exception of the person who signed with an X. It could be my youngest son, who just spent the happiest three years of his life in grade 8. It reads as follows:

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

“Whereas municipalities in Ontario are passing restrictive bylaws that discriminate against unrelated students who live together; and

“Whereas students of Carleton University in the constituency of Ottawa South are concerned that the same might happen to them;

“We, the undersigned, petition members of the Legislature of Ontario to expedite legislation to ban municipalities from enacting restrictive and discriminating bylaws that adversely affect the ability of students to find affordable housing.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Keyes: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario by customers of the Canadian Tire store in the city of Kingston as follows:

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

Approximately 65 customers signed the petition.

SAULT STE. MARIE JAIL

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have over 100 petitions here signed by Sault Ste. Marie residents who are concerned about working conditions that correctional officers at the Sault Ste. Marie Jail suffer under. The petition reads as follows:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Correctional Services:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“That the Minister of Correctional Services order a full judicial review, with subpoena power to end and expose the style of administration which has been in place for the last five years at the Sault Ste. Marie Jail.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Wiseman: I have a petition here with 2,940 signatures on it. I will just read part of it. It reads, in part, as follows, and there seems to be a ground swell that is going all across Ontario:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I have signed it, so that makes 2,941 signatures.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have two petitions related to the same matter from members of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario in Windsor and Essex county, petitioning the Ontario Legislature to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act to provide that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the basis of the best five years, rather than, as at present, the best seven or 10 years. This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.

One petition is signed by 41 members and the other is signed by 52 members of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario.

1520

Mr. Adams: I have a petition on the same topic from 111 individuals in the Peterborough area. They too are concerned about pensions for teachers who retired before 1982. This is the second of these petitions that I have presented. It is addressed:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario ... to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years, rather than as at present, the best seven or ten years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

INSTALLATIONS SCOLAIRES

M. Pouliot: J’ai une pétition qui se lit comme suit:

« À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario:

« Nous, les soussignés, sollicitons l’autorisation du parlement de l’Ontario et nous prenons quelques minutes de votre temps précieux pour vous laisser savoir que nous croyons que la décision prise par le Conseil scolaire des écoles séparées de la région du Supérieur-Nord, d’aller de l’avant avec le projet de transporter les élèves francophones de Nakina de la quatrième à la huitième année à l’école Saint-Joseph de Geraldton et ce pour l’année scolaire 1988-1989, n’a aucun bon sens. Donc, pour nous les parents de Nakina, il n’est pas question que nos enfants aillent à Geraldton pas plus cette année que l’an prochain. Nous vous demandons donc de nous donner la permission d’obtenir les programmes et le matériel nécessaires pour l’éducation de nos enfants. Nous verrons à ce qu’ils ou elles reçoivent l’instruction adéquate à la maison. Nous en avons déjà discuté avec la direction de l’école Sainte-Brigitte de Nakina et soeur Rolland est prete à acquiescer à notre demande avec votre approbation, bien sûr. »

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 3,206 persons from across Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Cleary: I have a petition signed by 26 individuals. It reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to January 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or ten years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

I have signed the petition also.

COPY OF AMENDMENT

Mr. Pouliot: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Pouliot: Yesterday, during the course of the debate relating to Bill 159, a member of our party referred to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) as having omitted submitting to the critic of the official opposition a copy of subsection 3(2), which was a proposed amendment.

We have searched long and hard and we have come up with the proper copies. We would like to commend the ministry staff on its diligence in submitting this and we apologize for the mistake.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee’s Report on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, number 14, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a brief statement?

Mr. McLean: The standing orders permit the standing committee on government agencies to deal with the review of agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario.

I have the pleasure today of tabling the committee’s report, which represents the accumulation of the committee’s work during 1987 and 1988, when the committee held public hearings and discussed issues of concern with the representatives of the Civil Service Commission, the Ontario Food Terminal Board, the Ontario Securities Commission and the Pension Commission of Ontario. The members developed a number of recommendations for each of the agencies. I would like briefly to highlight some of these.

The standing committee on government agencies concluded and recommended that the Management Board of Cabinet consider amending the Public Service Act and transferring all the duties and responsibilities of the Civil Service Commission to the human resources secretariat; that the Ministry of Financial Institutions ask the Provincial Auditor to undertake an efficiency audit with respect to the Ontario Securities Commission; and that the Pension Commission of Ontario undertake a review of the benefits guarantee pension fund to determine what role the fund should play in the future.

Furthermore, the committee believes strongly that the Ontario Food Terminal Board should commence negotiations with current leaseholders with a view to eliminating the perpetuity provision included in the original leases. The committee recommended that the Ontario Food Terminal Board place a freeze on the assignment of leases and the subletting of leases and that subleases have first right of refusal when a lease is assigned.

During the committee’s next set of hearings, which will commence in August 1988, it will review the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety, the Ontario French Language Services Commission and the Ontario Waste Management Corp. In addition, the committee will continue to monitor the Ontario Securities Commission and the Ontario Food Terminal Board, with the option of making subsequent recommendations.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the various officials who have been most co-operative and also to acknowledge the support of the committee members and staff and their efforts on this report.

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

MOTION

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the provisional standing orders be extended, to remain in effect until 12 midnight, Saturday, December 31, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Jackson moved first reading of Bill 173, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jackson: I have a brief explanation. As members may be aware, the Education Act currently requires that the minister give approval for the sale of surplus or redundant school board space, land or property. This private member’s bill will ensure that boards give priority to persons intending to use the buildings or the property for the development of affordable housing. This bill is consistent with the government’s own Housing First policy. Instead of using surplus school space to house more government bureaucrats, surplus school land could be used to provide affordable housing first.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 154

Mr. Philip moved that the order for second reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Assessment Act, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

1530

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 100, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“1. Section 213 of the Education Act, being chapter 129 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(14) This section does not apply on and after the first day of July 1988, up to and including the 30th day of June 1993.”

You would want to specify that that subsection is numbered 14, correct?

Mr. Sterling: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to start off by offering a bit of background to indicate how we have come to the situation that we are now facing posed by Bill 100.

There are two sources of revenue for the school boards in our province. First, there is the contribution from the Ontario government, which has, incidentally, been steadily failing as a percentage of the total costs, despite the many promises of this Liberal government in the past election campaigns.

The majority of the school costs, however, are covered by the citizens of Ontario through their property taxes. When one school board includes several municipalities, it must be decided how each municipality should contribute in part to pay the total education costs.

The Ministry of Education establishes the formula that determines the amount for which each municipality is requisitioned by the school board. There may be some difference of opinion between the various contributing municipalities of the board as to their fair share. This is understandable, as the education portion of property taxes may represent as much as 60 per cent of the total property tax bill of an individual resident.

In the past, under section 213 and section 214 of the Education Act, a municipality could appeal to the school board if the municipality believed it had been treated unfairly. The board would then ask its chief executive officer to call a meeting of the treasurers of the various local municipalities to arbitrate the dispute and thereby determine the proportion of amounts to be raised by each municipality. There can be no doubt that this group of arbitrators is not unbiased or independent, as each treasurer would lose for each one who might gain on the other hand.

Under the present system, if a municipality is unhappy with the decision of the arbitrators, it can further appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which is an independent, unbiased body, much like a court. As well, under the present law, a municipality can challenge on the ground that the formula has not been calculated correctly or that the wrong data have been used in making that calculation. More important, however, the municipality can also attack the fairness of the formula if it feels that the apportionment would impose an undue burden on the ratepayers of that municipality. Our party believes that this ground of appeal is essential in order to ensure that the government remain accountable when striking that formula. The finding of an undue burden is precisely what has occurred; it has led to the redrafting of the formula, and hence to Bill 100 which we are debating today.

During the 1970s, the formula, and the data used on the old formula, did not reflect economic changes which were occurring. Those were the words of the minister in February. In 1984 the township of Goulbourn initiated an appeal, which was joined by the city of Nepean and the township of Cumberland, to the arbitrators concerning requisitions made by the Carleton Board of Education. Having received no satisfaction, they appealed further to the Ontario Municipal Board, which concluded that something was wrong in the application of the formula used by the Ministry of Education. In essence, two residences of the same market value under the same school board were paying vastly different amounts in the education portion of their property taxes simply because they were located on different sides of the road in different municipalities.

For the information of this chamber, the Ontario Municipal Board awarded a total of $4,428,000 to affected municipalities. The township of Goulbourn received $759,000, Nepean received almost $3.6 million and the township of Cumberland received $97,000. When you look at the discrepancy between the two residences that were across the road from each other, it amounted to as much as $500 per household in property taxes. Because of those appeals by the township of Goulbourn and the township of Nepean, this province is now taking steps to resolve the problem. Our party acknowledges that a resolution to the problem is needed, but let me outline just what this government has done to correct the problem.

1. The Ministry of Education has created a new formula and is now plugging in better data, which are now available, to get a fair distribution of costs among municipalities with a common school board. Our party agrees with that step.

2. Recognizing that there are situations that are unfair to the property tax payers but that to make all corrections in one year would be too great a change for some of the taxpayers, the ministry wants to bring in the new system over a period of five years. Our party agrees with this step, but we would prefer that that commitment be contained in this legislation, rather than a mere promise by the Ministry of Education.

3. The government is taking away the right to appeal the fairness of the formula. It will be possible to appeal only on the correctness of the calculation or the data being fed into the formula. Our party strongly disagrees with this step. Furthermore, the government is withdrawing the right of the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board from a ruling of the arbitrators or the treasurers of the municipalities. Bill 100 is, in itself, a testament to the necessity of maintaining section 213 of the Education Act.

We believe that a strong government should retain as many checks and balances as possible. We do not imply any ill intent on the ministry or its people with respect to fairness, but as the old formula became outmoded, so can this formula.

1540

I quote to the members the minister’s own words used in this Legislature on February 11, 1988:

“The equalization factors used by the Ministry of Education to calculate apportionment and provincial grants do not reflect fairly the economic change that has occurred since 1970.

“This situation has been borne out in recent appeals by the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn to the Ontario Municipal Board.”

In other words, the ministry has been called to account by the process contained in section 213 of the Education Act. The ministry’s response is to do away with the process that made it change to a fairer system. I believe the right to appeal to the OMB or any other independent body for a fair decision is self-evident.

How can the treasurers of the participating municipalities be anything but biased in their opinion and decision-making abilities? There is no protection in this process for the minority. Therefore, we are very strongly opposed to taking away these two rights. Our position is supported by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, and by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario on this issue. There are also a large number of municipalities that are in tune with our position.

Last on this point, the minister argues that with the new data there will never be a problem. Well, if that is the case, why be concerned about a right which will never be exercised?

In order to accommodate the situation, I have put forward today an amendment that, in effect, puts the right of appeal on fairness and the appeal to the OMB on the shelf for five years. This would allow the government of Ontario to achieve its goal of implementing a fairer system over the next five years, but we would retain two very valuable rights which taxpayers, through their municipal governments, now enjoy. Without this amendment, we believe the provincial government of the day will be less accountable, with a possibly unfair system of apportionment of school taxes creeping back into the system.

I want personally to congratulate Mayor Ben Franklin of the city of Nepean and Mayor Anton Wytenburg of the township of Goulbourn for their determination on this issue. Through their responsible actions, many taxpayers across this province will be treated more fairly. I only wish that such will be possible in the future.

Mr. Pouliot: It has been a rather long exercise with reference to the proposed amendments regarding Bill 100. We are familiar with the intent of the minister with Bill 100 to repeal section 213 of the current legislation, which allows a better degree of normalcy, especially for small municipalities that are involved in a sort of regional setup.

We have been after the minister for some time. He has quite a staff, but the more you correspond with this minister he is the first one to tell you: “You don’t have to worry. Take my word for it.” He says five years to a member of the third party. Then I have a letter from the minister dated June 15. It is the result of letters I have written. The last one was April 25. The minister chooses to respond two days before he tables legislation. He writes: “There has not been a decision as yet as to what the overall phase-in period will be. However, consideration will be given to the final impact on the municipalities which, in some instances, can be significant.”

My friend the member of the third party says the minister has arrived at five years. I have a letter dated June 15, signed by “The Minister of Education, the Honourable Christopher Ward,” saying, “I don’t quite know.” So unless there has been either a change of heart or a change of direction -- what is the date today? June 28 -- in the last 13 days there seems to be some discrepancy which, of course, we will be asking the minister to address. What has happened is that, with the minister’s intention to repeal section 213, the treasurers in the municipalities are not allowed to come close to a sort of fiscal justice.

If the bottom line is to remain the same, we have a system -- for instance, under the Lake Superior Board of Education -- which has worked relatively well, given the cumbersome nature of the entity we have been under up there. We have been promised the world, and I think the minister has made one trip. It is not so important as long as he has legislation --

Hon. Mr. Ward: No, Gilles, it is you that is making all the promises.

Mr. Pouliot: It is no laughing matter; we fail to see any intent from the minister. Why does the minister choose, by virtue of the Nepean situation, to change the whole legislation? It would have been very simple to leave section 213 or to offer a mechanism whereby the treasurers of those municipalities under the auspices of the Lake Superior Board of Education -- and the same situation is appearing in other municipalities -- could do what they have been doing well, and then allow for a phase-in period which would discourage increases of some 40 per cent in some cases.

The minister is aware of that. In some cases the school taxes jump 40 per cent in one year. For every tax dollar you pay for municipal and school board purposes, more than 50 cents of the dollar is directed towards education. So the minister can well appreciate, if he is listening, that for people of moderate income, for workers -- maybe in the old days he could relate to people of moderate means, ordinary people, who are faced with an increase of 40 per cent in one year.

The reason they are faced with an increase of such magnitude is simply that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) refuses to allow the mechanism that is presently in place to continue. It is really a legitimate request. If I may be bold, it scares the heck out of people. I know the words are strong, but it is really quite a dilemma, it is really quite a bill to face when you have such substantial increases.

There is still time to accept the amendment, and our party will be supporting the amendment put forth by the Progressive Conservative Party. We think it is a step in the right direction. It really has to stay to maintain a sort of sanity in small and remote municipalities especially, which come under a regional school board.

Mr. Daigeler: I would just like to say that I am rather surprised to hear the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) be so supportive of the new assessment formula. I remember rather well that, when the impact of this new formula was announced during the publication of the legislative grants for the school boards, I heard the member stand up in this House and be extremely critical of the allocations which were made, specifically to the Carleton Board of Education and the Ottawa Board of Education.

At that time, I can only assume for partisan reasons, he claimed discrimination, when now he is saying he agrees with Nepean and with this government that, in fact, it is time and it is fair to introduce a new formula which, however, has the effect of redistributing the legislative grants to the different school boards and globally increasing the tax burden for the Ottawa area and other large school boards in the province.

I would just like to say that I am rather surprised to hear this change in opinion from the member for Carleton.

1550

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I just want to make sure that on the record it is understood that what we are voting for, and in support of, is the motion from the member for Carleton, which basically says that we need an appeal mechanism and that we have a phase-in period here which is undefined or ill defined; sometimes it is said to be five years and other times it is said to be some time in the future. Until such time as the assessment process is really made equitable and this kind of appeal is not necessary, it is premature to withdraw that appeal mechanism. That is why we will be supporting the member for Carleton’s amendment.

Mr. Sterling: I must respond to the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler). I do not think he perhaps understands what we are doing today in terms of allocations.

My concern over the treatment of the various municipalities which receive the butt end of the Ontario Municipal Board decision is the concern with this government seeking equity with those particular municipalities which had collected, according to due process of law, all of the taxes, which they were required to do. Those municipalities quite rightly felt that they should not be required to go back and collect taxes from now new residents for taxes that were required in 1984 and 1985.

I think the government came forward with the right solution. It is a solution which I asked for, which was that it make a grant to the municipalities -- and I mentioned those in my speech -- as to the amounts that were required to make it equitable for the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn.

I find it quite astonishing that the member for Nepean, where the city of Nepean benefited to the tune of $3.7 million, would support his government taking away the right of appeal. If that right of appeal had not existed, the city of Nepean would be $3.7 million lighter. Therefore, we have the member for Nepean supporting his government and taking away a right of appeal when his own constituents have benefited from section 213, the right of appeal to the OMB on the basis of undue burden. Therefore, I hope that the minister would accept this amendment as being reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am very interested in the comments put forward by the member from Carleton as well as by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

As I said at the outset and during the course of the second-reading debate, frankly, I think the introduction of Bill 100, coupled with the utilization of up-to-date equalization factors, is one of the most significant municipal financial reforms undertaken in many years.

If I could refresh the memories of members once more, I will point out that prior to the introduction of the new factors in this piece of legislation, the assessment data that were utilized by municipalities were some 19 years out of date. They were data produced and formulated at a time when each municipal jurisdiction had the authority and the responsibility to hire their own assessors. Consequently, the data that were being utilized by municipalities throughout this province contained enormous disparities and variances.

I will give one example. It is not something I want to do at length, but just looking at some board jurisdictions in northern Ontario, this is a specific board example where in one municipality in a board’s jurisdiction the average household contribution of property taxes for education is $84. For another municipality within the same board’s jurisdiction, it is $351. The whole point is that there has been no fairness and no equity built within the system.

The Education Act made provision for a right of appeal on the basis of an undue burden or hardship solely because there was a wide variety of assessment data being used. We propose to utilize data currently available through the Ministry of Revenue to make the mathematical calculations that are required. The money that flows to school boards is provided on the basis of two calculations, one being grant and the second being apportionment.

The calculation of apportionment is on the basis of hard data. I do not think it is appropriate or prudent that we leave in place a piece of legislation that says an appeal can then be forthcoming on the basis of undue hardship or burden, because then in many instances it becomes a completely political exercise for a municipality to go to the Ontario Municipal Board, notwithstanding that its only basis is calculation of hard data.

Frankly, I do not think this is an area that the OMB has any responsibility or jurisdiction in. They can appeal an apportionment the same way that a lower-tier municipality within a county and region can appeal its apportionment, and that is the basis of the calculation itself. We are not prepared to accept the amendment. That is the first point I would like to make.

The second point I would like to make is that our phase-in was on the basis of a maximum five per cent impact, either on grant or apportionment. It is our hope that we phase these in over the course of five years, but there may be instances when it will require longer than five years, and therefore the amendment is not helpful in any way.

Mr. Sterling: We have been dealing with the minister on a number of bills, and we found him pretty well blind to any kind of logic which seems to prevail with everybody else. That blindness is extending to the tune of --

Interjection.

Mr. Sterling: I hope the minister would take this, and I hope we do not have to frame this for him in the near future. I hope the minister’s constituents --

Interjection.

Mr. Sterling: What the minister is telling us is that there is no problem now; he has everything fixed up. The bottom line in the whole argument of this amendment is, if that is the case why is the minister afraid of retaining the right of appeal? The minister does not have an answer. I think the municipalities have a real gripe here and a good gripe.

Mr. Pouliot: I find it ironic to accuse or point out to the minister, perhaps for the only time in his political life, that he is going too quickly. Let me quote from a letter I shared with the minister, which I wrote to him on April 25, first addressing the intent and then what he is doing by accident and refuses to recognize or, if he does, certainly to rectify:

“The intent of Bill 100 and regulation 162 is to revise the apportionment formulas in order to provide a more equitable distribution of school board costs among the municipalities. In theory, therefore, the arbitration and undue burden provision of the current legislation will no longer be required to protect the interests of the municipalities.

We are OK so far. “However, because your ministry is phasing in this equalization process over an undetermined period of time” -- this is what we are saying, that it could be 75 years, as the distinguished member for Scarborough West has said; I am not catastrophizing, because the gentlemen said 75 years, and he is very factual –“apportionments may continue to impose an undue burden on the ratepayers of municipalities.”

Nothing is changed, unless the minister allows the mechanism that is already in place a little more time to phase out. He is pulling the rug out from under our feet. In some municipalities in northwestern Ontario we are looking at increases in one year in excess of 30 per cent. It has already happened in one case, where we have an increase exceeding 40 per cent.

I find it somewhat appalling and shocking that in the face of this reason, the minister, with a stroke of the pen, does not say: “Yes, I will do what is right. I will correct what I have done, which is wrong.”

1607

The committee divided on Mr. Sterling’s amendment to section 1, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 23; nays 66.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole reported one bill without amendment.

1610

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Just before I call the next order, I am going to beg the indulgence of the House to give an oral report. I will follow up with the required motion shortly when it is off the typewriter.

The House leaders have met again, and I would like to give the House a report on the progress of the business over the next little while.

We will now proceed with the adjourned debate on the motion for the adoption of the recommendations contained in the report on the Constitution Amendment, 1997, of the select committee on constitutional reform. That debate will begin now and continue uninterrupted until nine o’clock this evening, at which time the House will adjourn and reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. to continue the debate on the select committee’s report.

That debate will conclude at 12 noon tomorrow, at which time, if necessary, a vote will be stacked. The House will then adjourn for an hour. It will reconvene at one o’clock for routine proceedings, following which we will proceed immediately to a debate on the question of government notice of motion 6. That debate will conclude with a vote on that matter, and if there is a stacked vote on the adoption of the select committee’s report, those votes will take place at four o’clock tomorrow afternoon.

Following that, we will proceed with a debate concerning Bill 167, An Act to revise the Wine Content Act, and other matters before the House such as the interim supply motion and other business that will be announced more formally in a motion later this afternoon.

I just wanted to take the opportunity, with so many members here, to indicate that we will now sit through until nine o’clock tonight. The dining room will be open until 7:30 p.m.

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report on the Constitution Amendment, 1987, of the select committee on constitutional reform.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion pour l’adoption des recommandations contenues dans le rapport de la Modification constitutionnelle de 1987 du Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle.

Mr. Beer: As chairman of the select committee on constitutional reform, it was an honour to table its report in this assembly yesterday, which unanimously recommends the ratification by this Legislature of the Meech Lake accord, more formally called the Constitution Amendment, 1987.

Before speaking more personally to the report, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the committee and its work.

I know that each of us undertook our task with a full awareness, not only of the difficulties we faced but also of our responsibilities to discharge as fairly as possible the real and unusual obligations we had to this assembly, to the people of this province whom we represent and last, but by no means least, to the best interests of our country.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order. I would remind all members that if you have private conversations, would you please do them in the lobbies.

Please continue.

Mr. Beer: We made a commitment to be open, we made a commitment to listen with care, we made a commitment to an independent examination, and we made a commitment to produce a balanced report. I know the committee did its best to meet these commitments.

I wish to emphasize that the report members have before them is very much a document of the committee. It is very much a statement of consensus and is very much a report to which everyone on the committee contributed.

In closing these remarks about the committee itself, I wish to reiterate what I said in my opening comments the other day to the media, namely, that I am particularly grateful to the other 10 permanent all-party members of the committee. They worked extremely hard and co-operatively and confronted with enthusiasm the steep learning curve we all experienced. It was a pleasure to be their chairman. They expanded my horizons and I have learned a great deal from them.

I also want to thank the legislative staff who competently provided us with enormous and invaluable support and assistance.

Finally, on behalf of the committee, I should like to thank the many, many citizens who gave us the great benefit of their insights and without whom we would not have been able to do what we did.

As we commence the debate on this report, I think it would be useful and, I believe, extremely important, to explain the committee’s approach to the report, to pinpoint some key areas and to say in effect how and why we concluded as we did.

The basic objective of our report and the way we put it together was to provide for this assembly a framework within which, on the one hand, the Meech Lake accord is understood and on the other, a specific agenda of continuing constitutional reform is addressed. This framework is absolutely essential to our findings and is the core of our report. I cannot stress this point sufficiently, for in the end we found it to be central to our thinking on this whole matter. Therefore, I would ask the assembly to keep in mind this perspective as we consider the report.

In underlining this deliberate approach which we took and in drawing particular attention to the link between present Meech and continuing change, I want to spend a few moments on how we arrived at this crucial conclusion.

The first part of the report, entitled “The Constitutional and Political Context,” clearly demonstrates the enormous amount of testimony we heard on the need to bring Quebec fully into the Constitution of Canada. Equally, and we found this of great significance to those who appeared before us, we were told about the critical requirement to establish a definite way of meeting a wide range of other constitutional aspirations held by many people.

I cannot stress enough the impact this made upon us. Thus, as we heard the evidence, as we worked through the material and as we went through the entire process, we recognized that Meech was not, as some feared, the end of the possibilities of acceptable constitutional change but in fact was an important base from which to launch discussions on many other issues of great concern to people in our province and elsewhere.

We therefore came to the conclusion that there is an important relationship between the provisions of Meech and a process of ongoing change. Thus, we were able to turn our attention and focus our energies on specific ways of implementing this relationship.

As will be seen from our report and from all we heard, there was and is no shortage of pressing matters to address. What we had in effect were both substance and process, and as a committee, at the end of our deliberations in June, we agreed to bring together the ratification of the Meech Lake accord and a firm agenda of continuing constitutional reform.

The last part of the report, containing our 11 recommendations, shows the ways we chose to ensure a process of further change. I would ask that each be looked at carefully, and for now I would simply point out by way of illustration that our recommendations range from the establishment of a standing committee of this assembly on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs to the two companion resolutions on further “fundamental characteristics” of Canada and on new discussions concerning aboriginal peoples.

I have spent some time on this issue of our approach to what forms the core of our report because I think an explanation of our argument and conviction and rationale is in order.

I further commend the adoption of this approach and the framework it establishes because the provisions of Meech make it abundantly clear that constitutional and related changes are an ongoing feature of the life of our country, and our report, through its recommendations, complements and supports that effort in a variety of specific ways.

By adopting our report, I believe this assembly will respond to the concerns of a majority of witnesses we heard and will be making a truly positive, clear and significant statement, namely, that we ratify the accord and simultaneously, in the same spirit of change and accommodation, that we move straight on to undertake the agenda of constitutional reform of this generation. I am confident that this combined approach strengthens the bonds of our Confederation.

Now, if I may, I should like to say something of my own opinions and convictions concerning Meech and the future. In my view, the Meech Lake accord achieves what the headline in Le Devoir said a year ago after the news about the first ministers’ agreement: “Le Canada dit oui au Québec,” “Canada says yes to Quebec.” I hope that now we can each respond in the same fashion.

In my opinion, Meech is an enormously important national rapprochement and reconciliation. Meech is a making up, not a giving up. Meech strengthens Canada. Meech helps demystify the issues we put on a constitutional pedestal and distinguishes more clearly for all of us those separate issues of concern with which we need to deal in a regular political manner, and Meech is a solemn commitment to continue the agenda of constitutional reform, to move on.

1620

Historically, Ontario has always acknowledged, as the Meech Lake accord does, that Canada is not a unitary country, but a united federation. That is my view of my country, and it is the review of the report which we are debating. This view leads me to address directly some of the major misconceptions of the Meech Lake accord.

What are some of those misconceptions? That Meech makes Canada weaker, that Meech balkanizes Canada, that Meech puts Canada in a constitutional straitjacket. With respect, I think each of these views is misleading, if not wrong. Moreover, I would argue with equal force that Meech is in the long tradition of strengthening our country, because it improves the capacity of Canada to act for Canadians in their national interest. If I thought otherwise about Meech, I would not be making this argument for a moment. I advance this view because I think it is important to look at what the accord says and not at what some say it says.

First, if the proposed amendments become part of our national Constitution, is Canada weakened? My answer is no. Is our country weakened by the description of Canada as having English- or French-speaking Canadians or by the description of Quebec as a distinct society? Those are realities and, more important in constitutional terms, they must be read along with many other parts of the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, they do not exclude the addition of other fundamental characteristics.

Also, and crucially, it is stated explicitly that these provisions do not take away from existing legislative or executive authority. Is our country weakened by allowing the provinces to nominate candidates to such institutions of federalism as the Senate and the Supreme Court? No, because this innovation is balanced by the fact that the federal government retains the right to choose. Is our country weakened by the immigration provisions? No, because those are subject to review by Parliament and the provisions of the charter.

Second, do the proposed Meech amendments balkanize Canada? My answer again is no. The federal power to spend in the national interest is for the first time made explicit, thereby strengthening the national role. Those who are concerned about having different or checkerboard programs should remember that, subject to basic, nationally prescribed conditions, Canada already has a number of provincial variations in its major social programs; for example, the Quebec pension plan and medicare premiums.

In this connection, let me also say that the Constitution does not replace political will and political leadership. If, for example, the country wants a national day care program, then we will have one. If the country wants acceptable regional variations in or adaptations of such a program, we will have those too.

Third, are Canadian constitutional arrangements made more rigid by the Meech proposals on the amending formula? My answer is no. The extension of unanimity is not to federal institutions but to the institutions of federalism. This difference is not merely semantic, because the latter are ones which reflect the whole country and which therefore deserve the approval of the whole country if changes are proposed to them. It should also be stressed about the amending formula proposals that the vast bulk of our Constitution, including the charter and linguistic provisions, can still be amended by Parliament and seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.

Thus, Meech is not guilty, in my view, of a number of the altogether too common allegations made against it, and I suggest that the answers I have just given be carefully weighed against those allegations.

The subjects of aboriginal rights, our multicultural heritage, women’s rights and other equality rights have properly commanded much attention in discussions about the Meech Lake accord, including the committee’s report. For me, this focus simply underlines the enormous and appropriate significance that we attach to the challenge of ensuring that our collective identity and values are fully reflected in our Constitution.

We have started this process with the linguistic duality and “distinct society” provisions of Meech and, in a positive, active and continuing fashion, we must now carry the work forward and amplify and expand on what we consider to be the other fundamental characteristics of our country.

At this point, I wish to lay great emphasis on a related concern. In the committee’s conception, charter rights and freedoms -- and let us not forget that these explicitly include rights based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability -- are encompassed by what we said in our ninth recommendation, where we called for an amendment to the Constitution which will include -- and I quote from the report -- “a recognition that the commitment to the protection and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada.”

The inclusion of the protection and guarantee of all these equality rights must be addressed carefully and more precisely as we elaborate the fundamental characteristics of Canada. Second, and with equal emphasis, we must of necessity get the discussions on aboriginal rights restarted. Finally, we must come to grips with the multicultural identity of this country. Our report ensures that these concerns remain front and centre by the unique constitutional proposal of the two companion resolutions found in our recommendations 9 and 10.

Madame la Présidente, j’aimerais dire combien je me réjouis de voir les progrès accomplis par l’accord du lac Meech en matière des droits linguistiques. Tous les gouvernements sont maintenant tenus de protéger les droits linguistiques de toutes leurs minorités, et il s’agit là d’un gain appréciable.

Permettez-moi d’ajouter ici que si l’accord avait déjà fait partie de notre constitution, nous n’aurions pas été témoins des décisions regrettables prises récemment par les gouvernements de la Saskatchewan et de l’Alberta. J’ajouterais que ces décisions sont rendues encore plus regrettables par le fait qu’elles ont été prises après que les premiers ministres concernés avaient signé l’accord du lac Meech et après que leur Assemblée legislative avait adopté une resolution ratifiant l’accord.

Fort heureusement, l’Ontario a pris des mesures plus équitables, et comme notre rapport le souligne, nous devons continuer à protéger et à promouvoir les droits des Franco-Ontariens, et c’est à cela que je m’engage.

As I move towards the conclusion of my remarks, I think it is extremely important to understand why the passage of Meech is a significant act of our continuing constitutional renewal. Meech addresses what was not done in 1982. Meech breaks the resulting stalemate. Meech deals positively with the aftermath of a promise made to Quebec and not kept. Meech fully restores Quebec to the Canadian constitutional family. Meech adds to our Constitution a number of useful and long-sought amendments, making our country a more integrated federation. Meech continues the process of defining ourselves as Canadians. Last, but by no means least, Meech puts an enormously divisive and dangerous past where it belongs: behind us.

It is a new generation, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, which now is faced with the choice and with the responsibility to alter an unpleasant legacy we inherited. Meech gives us the opportunity to do just that. Recently published analyses of the past 20 years of our constitutional history have shown how much trauma we have actually experienced and how a vastly different, more confident and outward-looking Quebec has emerged since that time.

In my opinion, Meech responds positively to all this experience and evolution and Meech is in a way the culmination of the whole last two decades. Therefore, it is the moment for us to seize this new spirit, to take advantage of it and to go with the flow and tackle, in a fresh, positive and newly united manner, this generation’s agenda of constitutional reform. I am not blinded to the fact that we will, no doubt, encounter our share of problems and difficulties, but I want it to be said that we began anew by laying the cornerstone of the Meech Lake accord.

1630

All commitments are of course statements of faith, and Meech is no different in that respect. But Meech is also in the long and positive tradition of our constitutional evolution, from 1867 to 1931 to 1949 to 1982, and now to the 1987 amendment. Each step represents an improvement on what we had. Today a new Quebec has challenged us to be a united Canada. I propose we take up that challenge with confidence and welcome the result.

At the same time, and with the foundation of Meech, I propose we build on that by formally committing ourselves to a new agenda of constitutional change. That is the essence of our report. Like many others, I have grown in my understanding of Meech and what it represents and my support for it has been reinforced after carefully considering its totality.

As this debate proceeds, I would respectfully urge that we keep in mind the perspective offered to us by Edmund Burke in his famous 1774 speech to the electors of Bristol. He was talking to his constituents about Parliament and his duty as a member: “Parliament is not a Congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”

Today, and to the conclusion of this debate, I intend, as Burke usefully reminds me, to focus on the whole, to focus, as does the report we are considering, on the choice Meech affords us of a continuing commitment to a specific agenda of constitutional reform and of a stronger Canada.

In its long tradition, this assembly has never voted for anything less and I would urge all members to vote for the adoption of our report.

Mr. Allen: It is a great pleasure on my part to rise and participate in the debate in this chamber, with all the significance this debate has. I want to say, in the first instance, that I am of course rising to commend the report to the Legislature on behalf of the members of the committee from the New Democratic Party.

I also want at the same time to say what a pleasure it was to work with the chairman, who has just spoken, and with the other members of the committee of which you, Madam Speaker, were the vice-chairperson.

It was indeed, I think, an exercise of great patience often and of great forbearance on the part of the chairman, as he listened to us all trying to get our heads together and to keep us all composed and working as a single unit through the last weeks in which we were doing our reflections on what we had heard. That task was accomplished with singular ability and dexterity on his part.

I also want to pay our respects to the members of the Legislative Assembly staff, to Deborah Deller, who was the clerk of the committee and who kept us well organized throughout, both in our travels and hearings, and well supplied here in this Legislature; also to David Bedford, the research assistant we had from the research department of the legislative library, who produced excellent documents, one after another, for our reflection on the many subtopics which came up in the debate around Meech Lake. We were kept on track very helpfully by Mr. Bedford’s excellent documentation and analysis of the numerous issues which came before us.

I want to say personally that it was a very welcome, stimulating experience for me and I hope it was for the other members as well.

Madame la Présidente, le Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle a fini son travail. Notre comité spécial, comme le pays lui-même, a fait un long voyage, mais c’est la fin de la route et il est temps de dire oui au Québec.

Vraiment, cet accord du lac Meech n’est pas parfait, mais il est temps de réintégrer le Québec pleinement dans les affaires nationales, non seulement pour l’unification du pays mais pour la réalisation des grands projets de notre pays à l’avenir et, bien sûr, pour l’achèvement de l’ordre du jour de la réforme constitutionnelle pour les femmes, pour les autochtones, pour la communauté multiculturelle, pour les minorités linguistiques, particulièrement ici en Ontario, et pour le statut des territoires. Ce n’est pas trop dire que de souligner que pour l’achèvement de cet ordre du jour, il est absolument crucial que le Québec soit à la table. C’est une province progressiste que nous respectons beaucoup sur ces sujets.

Notre comité spécial a fait un voyage difficile, mais nous en sommes arrivés, dans ce rapport, à notre destination. Nous recommandons la ratification de l’accord du lac Meech, même avec des réserves significatives. Si l’Assemblée législative appuie notre rapport, elle dira ainsi oui au Québec, elle aussi, et oui à ce pas vers la réintégration constitutionnelle de tous nos citoyens dans notre pays.

I think the time has come when we have reflected long enough as a committee on this issue. Hopefully, in the next two days, this Legislature will have reflected adequately on this issue and will have decided that it is time to say yes to Quebec. It is true that this accord is flawed; it is not perfect. Yet it is difficult to find constitutional documents that are not in some fashion flawed and imperfect. It is certainly true that this document does not include all of those who wish to see constitutional change in this country. Those persons have, of course, a very good reason to want what they desire from our Constitution.

I think we must recognize that this particular exercise has limited objectives and that, therefore, our concern and decision must relate primarily to those specific objectives and not to a larger unfulfilled agenda which still resides there and which must have our sympathy. When our party, at its convention late last week and over the weekend, looked at this question and had a very spirited debate on this issue -- as I understand the chairman of the committee’s party also had a spirited debate at a convention not long ago on the same subject -- we none the less concluded that when everything was said and done, it was necessary for us, as a party, to say our yes to the accord and our yes to Quebec; notwithstanding, again, reservations, and notwithstanding some significant arguments that may well be made of some depth and profundity with respect to singular aspects of the accord.

So our party resolved that the Ontario New Democratic Party supports the ratification of the Meech Lake accord, accompanied by the commitment to continue constitutional reform to address, among others, the outstanding grievances concerning the supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women’s rights, multicultural rights, aboriginal rights, minority language rights, federal spending powers and the future status of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, with full, free and democratic participation.

If I might read that also in our other language,

« Qu’il soit résolu que le Nouveau Parti démocratique de l’Ontario appuie la ratification de l’accord du lac Meech, tout en s’engageant à poursuivre le processus de réforme constitutionnelle en vue de redresser, entre autres, les griefs en instance concernant la suprématie de la Charte, les droits des femmes, les droits multiculturels, les droits des autochtones, les droits linguistiques des minorités, les pouvoirs fédéraux en matière des dépenses publiques et le futur statut du Yukon et des Territoires-du-Nord-Ouest permettant leur participation entière, libre et démocratique. »

1640

The first item that our report addresses is the whole question of the process in which we were immersed. The accord came to us after two notable sessions of first ministers, held at Meech Lake and the Langevin Block in Ottawa, and the first ministers had returned to their legislatures committed to secure the ratification of the document they had signed.

The problem the legislative committee faced at that point was essentially that we had been bypassed in the process. I would not want to suggest that the process that took place around the evolution of the Meech Lake accord is worse than the process that existed for constitutional reform prior to 1982. Certainly it was not.

At that point, we all know that what was required was an address from the Parliament of Canada to the Parliament of Westminster and that in the course of time it had been required that the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, secure the unanimous support of all of the provinces for any amendment that was to be acceptable to the Parliament in Great Britain. That process never at any point required the consultation in a formal sense of standing committees, of legislatures, let alone the hearings in public of what was transpiring and what was being proposed for amendment at that time.

There is no question that when 1982 set in place a new amending formula that required some matters to be considered with unanimity and others with the seven-province, 50 per cent formula, there was some advance made; and one can understand how the premiers may well have thought that they were acting in accord with the 1982 formula.

The major problem, however, was that they were not themselves taking account of something else that had happened in the nation in the interval; namely, that part of the 1992 settlement had been the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadians and that the very essence of that document implied, with its equality provisions and so on, that there would be full participation on the part of the public in determining its future. That would mean implicitly that their elected representatives in legislatures would be participating fully in the process.

Unfortunately, what happened in Meech Lake was that that whole segment of the process, the spirit that necessarily should have accompanied the charter and its impact on constitutional debate and formality, was entirely left to one side.

As a committee, we felt very strongly that we were in fact finding ourselves in the midst of a new era of democratic participation and at the same time somewhat marginalized in the process. We found ourselves in a new era where, on the one hand, the ultimate authority of legislatures was increasingly, by virtue of the charter and the courts and court decisions by nonelected officials, becoming less and less significant and the Legislature more and more restrained in certain of its powers. On the other hand, executive power in the nation was somehow being utilized in such a way as to cut us off at the whole beginning of the process, if you like, in the generation of constitutional change, which would of course structure the framework within which we would have to live as a Legislature.

Therefore, we felt that somehow we were being reduced, and as a result we also felt that we had a significant bond with those who came before us who, whether we agreed with their arguments or not, felt that they were somehow constrained, marginalized, left out by the process. As I say, we did not always agree with the arguments as to whether they were or not, but certainly we felt a bond with it, and therefore the first thing we did in our report was to say very clearly that, for us, it must never happen like this again.

We say that not just for ourselves as a Legislature; we say that for the country and for our people as a whole, because they deserve better than to simply be confronted with the ratification of documents that the first ministers are very fearful someone might change and, therefore, they would have to go through the whole process again.

None of us in the committee, I think, felt there was a problem with what one might call executive federalism in itself, as long as it was accompanied by other appropriate things that were necessary in a free and democratic society. We certainly understood that executives, finally, have the necessity of putting together these documents and agreements and making certain that they are well structured, well proportioned, and then at that point in time, they must be circulated for assent. We understand that.

But we also believe that those documents are the better, in the long run, for having gone through the kind of process that we in this committee felt it was necessary to commend to the country as a whole in order to help straighten out the implications, if you like, for constitutional change that necessarily grew out of 1982 and the Charter of Rights but, in fact, in this case did not happen.

We heard and we listened, and many very eloquent groups and individuals came before us. They plumbed the depths of the accord and of constitutional nicety. Some were experts and some were not. In the course of that, the legislative members of the committee learned a great deal. One of the great benefits of this exercise, I think, is that there are now at least 11 members of the Legislature who have had not just a short course but a long course in constitutional thought, constitutional nicety and constitutional technicality. I think, as members, we will be able to function at a rather more elevated level with respect to a whole series of issues here and publicly as a result of that experience.

I wish it had been the lot of every member in this Legislature to go through that, because it was, in the chairman’s words, “a steep learning curve.” Those words are really very appropriate, because we did have to really rev ourselves up to get up that hill. We hope that we, at least in some measure, made it.

It would be easy to exaggerate the importance of what we did or even the importance of what the first ministers did. Constitutions, in relationship to nations, are not the only things that structure and build our lives. They are better and they are worse, but what happens in terms of the political realities day by day, what happens in terms of the political will that governments generate, is perhaps of even greater significance.

It would be easy to exaggerate the significance of the Meech Lake accord. One has only to reflect on our history to realize the changes, the alternations in mood and emphasis that have taken place within the context of the 1867 document, to realize how that can happen without there being very much in the way of significant change in the Constitution itself.

One is aware, for example, how a centralized Constitution in the Macdonald era became a rather decentralized one at the turn of the century. Then under the pressures of the needs of a centralized nation, the challenge of the Depression and a war, it was necessary to move towards a more centralized document again.

Two things happened in the post-war period. One was the growing power of provinces, on the one hand, and the struggle on the part of the federal government to maintain its power over against that, on the other hand. One was never quite sure whether one was becoming more decentralized or more centralized in the process. Everybody thought at the end of the Trudeau era that he had managed to shanghai and run us all from Ottawa like a president, and that was that. Well, it was not quite so simple. Obviously, other things were happening to the provinces that counterbalanced that in significant ways.

The point of all that is simply to say that within the framework of a written Constitution, much can happen by virtue of necessity, by virtue of the will of the political bodies that inhabit the nation. So let’s not overestimate the importance of what was done at Meech Lake or the Langevin Block or what was done here in the Amethyst Room or in this chamber. It remains, none the less, an important undertaking, because all of us are obligated to give our best thought to structuring the nation’s affairs at every point as best we can.

1650

One of the major issues that confronted us was the argument, which came from many quarters, that somehow Meech Lake excluded other people, and that has to bring us to the question of what Meech Lake was all about. In the first place, the aboriginal community felt it was being excluded and then the multicultural community, the ethnic communities, believed that somehow they were prejudiced or in danger as a result of Meech Lake. Women’s groups felt somehow they were losing something they had grasped in 1982 that was very precious. Linguistic minorities felt somehow they were being downplayed vis-à-vis the powers of promotion of a distinct society in Quebec. The territories felt that while they had gained a toehold after 1982 in the process of constitutional reform as a result of their participation in the aboriginal process, that now was all lost.

As one reflects on the Meech Lake accord and how it came about, one can see how one might think that those things were really happening, because it was true that the aboriginal process had come to an end. But one has to remember, to take just that one instance for the moment and set this document in the context of 1982, who got what out of the 1982 agreement is the question that has to be asked.

One has to recognize that in composing itself around the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the aboriginal community did indeed get its place in the document at the end of the day. There was protection for multicultural heritage rights in the charter. Gender equality was placed firmly and flatly in a very substantial grant of rights in the context of the charter, quite apart from the equality provisions in section 15. Linguistic minorities secured a major advance in the context of the 1982 document. The territories found their place at the table by virtue of being incorporated in the aboriginal round that then followed.

Only Quebec, of all the major entities that were in play in 1982, was left to one side at the end of that round of discussion. Therefore, even though the aboriginal community secured a place in 1982 and then did have a round of discussions which, unfortunately, were not fruitful, none the less, it and those other groups did indeed find their way to the constitutional table and to the settlement.

The important obligation, in addition to the moral obligation of dealing first with the aboriginal issue, that remained outstanding was to reincorporate Quebec in the nation. It is not true, as many people said, that somehow Quebec was outside the Constitution. That we, as a committee, concluded was not the case, but what we did conclude was that Quebec was not, after all, really a group like the others.

There is not a constitutional entity known as the multicultural community that somehow has a place in the balance, powers and so on of the Constitution. Women, as a group, do not have a defined place in the Constitution, apart from the rights that are accorded in gender equality. Women are not a part of the constituted structures of the nation which meet and have certain powers and therefore exercise those powers and whose decisions impact upon the rest with the fiat of law. That is not the case.

Quebec is an entity of a different order. Quebec is one of the founding units of this nation. It is a province with a quarter of the population, distinct in its own right and accorded specific powers within the Constitution. It is absolutely critical and, the committee concluded, absolutely necessary for that province, in the exercise of its full powers, to be in all respects within the context of the Constitution, that it willingly accept the latest constitutional settlement of 1982, that it willingly accept the charter as its charter, and that only on that basis and only when it returns to the table on those grounds would we be able to make the headway we need to make with all the other substantial, but none the less secondary issues that face us in the areas of social change, social programs and constitutional reform itself.

It was not so much that aboriginal people were excluded as that they were not put back on the agenda. This led the committee to try to address that question in the most forceful way it could.

The multicultural community clearly wanted something that strengthened the position it already had in the charter and in the Constitution to date and was worried about the impact of the “distinct society” concept and linguistic dualism. Those are reasonable things to be concerned about, but in their request for “fundamental characteristic” status, I think they sometimes read the accord as saying that linguistic dualism in Canada was the fundamental characteristic of Canada and not a fundamental characteristic of Canada, and therefore the list of fundamental characteristics was open-ended and it would be possible for us to address that in the future, as indeed our committee attempted to do and did, again, in the most effective way it could.

The problem women felt was one that puzzled us deeply because we were presented with a lot of very involved legal argument around that whole question, for example, whether being left out of section 16 was a major oversight, whether it did create a hierarchy of rights that left them out of the top echelons of the hierarchy, whether somehow multicultural groups and aboriginal groups, because they are mentioned and protected in section 16 of the accord, were somehow special and all other groups were not. Then there was the question as to whether the “distinct society” powers in the first section of the accord might somehow be exercised in such a way as to reduce women’s rights in Quebec.

We had to wrestle with all that in the committee. It would be wrong to suggest that we as a committee held within ourselves sufficient legal and judicial expertise to be able finally to resolve that question to everybody’s satisfaction. None the less, it was true, I think, that all the solutions the women’s groups that came before us proposed, were solutions that really created still further problems; that if you tried to add section 28 to section 16, you simply added to the hierarchy of rights problem, that if somehow you took the equality section out of the charter and put it into the accord, then you would remove it from its standing within the charter as a whole and you would unbalance the charter.

The likelihood that the first ministers, who had agreed to the charter as a complete document, would ever agree to the unbalancing of that document in the foreseeable future was one we had to recognize was completely unlikely. Therefore, that was not in any case a workable road to go.

Finally, I think we did not totally satisfy. Certainly, letters I got -- I have copies of letters in my hand -- from people like Mary Eberts, who came before the committee, show they are not satisfied that we were able to resolve that problem for the women of Ontario and Quebec.

None the less, in our fundamental characteristics motion, our companion resolution, by placing as a fundamental characteristic of Canada the commitment of this nation to the protection and guarantee of all rights and freedoms of Canadians, we did intend in that phrasing to include the charter -- and by including the charter, by implication also section 28 -- and to reaffirm that indeed in Canada it is a fundamental proposition that cannot be denied and must not be denied that male and female persons are equal before the law in all respects.

In that sense, we hoped we were stating an affirmation that responded as fully as we felt our committee was able to under the circumstances to that particular concern.

1700

Linguistic minorities which came before us and were concerned that they were preserved but not promoted had our deep sympathy, but we also knew that in western Canada, for the Premier of British Columbia or the Premier of Alberta or the Premier of Saskatchewan to commit himself to preserving linguistic minorities was indeed an unprecedented step forward. We could even imagine that under preservation one might embrace a good deal of what might, in some other circumstances, also be called promotion.

I think our sense of the realism of using that language in the present context is perhaps home out by what then began to happen almost immediately in Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is the conviction of the committee that if Meech Lake had been in place, there would have been appropriate constitutional references available for the francophone minority in Saskatchewan to fight back in a more potent fashion than it was able to in the circumstances in order to preserve the status of the French language, which it had in those territories under territorial law and was inherited by the provinces in the west when they became part, full provinces, of Confederation in the full sense.

None the less, our concern was also with our own Franco-Ontarian minority. We believed, as the chairman said, that it was necessary for us to state unequivocally that as far as we were concerned, we were not prepared in this province simply to preserve, but we were prepared, indeed devoted, to promotion of the rights and the entire cultural future and development of the Franco-Ontarian people of this province.

With regard to the territories, I would hope the two lapses in the accord would be readily and easily repaired by the first ministers, namely, the lapses of not according them the right to nominate senators or to nominate Supreme Court judges. There is no reason for that, and the language of the accord itself almost suggests that was intended. It did not happen. I hope that the first ministers, when they receive our resolutions and recommendations, will recognize that they indeed have an obligation at the earliest possible date to repair that oversight. I cannot imagine why they would not want to do that.

Interjection.

Mr. Allen: Go ahead. The member will have his turn later.

In any case, it would hardly unbalance any chamber. It would hardly unbalance any court. The final word in the appointment process, as the member who spoke knows full well, lies with the federal government. Any problem that arises in terms of the nomination would clearly not impact on those institutions in any significant way.

The whole issue then for the territories, I think, becomes whether they do find a place back at the table when their interests are at stake in the Confederation. We have at least provided for them a way of getting back. They are at least providing the first ministers with an obvious route back to the point they held in the wake of the 1982 settlement.

What the accord does for us is to distil the debate in this country vis-à-vis the relationships of Quebec and the rest of the nation of a generation. I think many people who have read the accord or listened to reports of the accord and the debate and the commentary on it have perhaps been unduly concerned because they appear to be hearing things or seeing things in writing that, in fact, have been there in practice for quite some time.

The whole issue, for example, around shared-cost programs, spending power, national objectives and national social programs is clearly a case in point. The arcane debate around national objectives or national standards is one which, in my mind, really does not go anywhere. The critical question is whether there is a basic guideline there which says that when the federal government, in the exercise of its now constitutionally recognized spending power, spends in the context of exclusive provincial jurisdictions, the provinces have a right to some say in the process as they receive the money as to how it will be applied in the particular province or region. Whether those programs get put in place or whether they do not depends very heavily, as our own political experience in this country makes very plain, upon the political will of provincial and national governments to put in place programs of some effectiveness and of some consistency across the nation.

We can see right now, without the accord in place, that the child care program the federal government has put in place is really a patchwork proposition which has no national standards of any character to speak of. That takes place at a time when we have all been used to national programs under the Canada Health Act, for example, or under the Canadian assistance program.

My sense with regard to the question or whether the national unity has been impacted by having the right of the provinces to nominate senators or Supreme Court judges is that it goes no further than was proposed under the past Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau, who now objects so much to this accord. He had various propositions to cut the provinces in on the Senate and to cut them in on the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that while they may nominate, at the end of the day all those nominees have to be fully acceptable to the federal Privy Council to make the final appointment.

It seems to me that there is in this accord very little that strikes at the root of national unity and, as I indicated earlier, I think all of us in the committee finally were convinced with respect to the concern that we would never be able to amend our Constitution again because of the unanimity principle. We realized that the unanimity principle, after all, applies to a very limited series of federal institutions and that, for the rest of the large, broad reach of the Constitution, the formula of seven provinces and 50 per cent is what will take effect, with one or two minor exceptions along the way.

What one would assume, for example, is that with another province like Quebec -- in many respects, if you discount the New Democratic Party governments that have been in this country, I think Quebec has the most progressive record of legislation of any of the provinces in this country -- at the table, it will make a great difference to the way in which issues are played out at the table of national debate. My own suspicion is that at least it will significantly help women and aboriginal groups, in particular, to have Quebec at the table.

Finally, let me simply say with respect to the method we used to get to where we finally came out -- namely, our notion of companion resolutions -- that some people have thought the companion resolution is perhaps more than it would normally be understood to be in this legislature. A resolution is a resolution is a resolution. If it is passed by this House, it is passed by this House. If it has the force of this House, then it is a matter of some consequence; but of itself, and in particular in a national matter, it does not affect the changed objective that it wishes to secure down the road at some point when other legislatures and other governments will have gone the same route and will have made the same decision and will cumulatively then bring it altogether in terms of those amendments around fundamental characteristics and reinstating the aboriginal process that we in the committee felt was so important.

In concluding, I would like to remind members that there is at least one very potent premise, one important precedent that we must bear in mind when we evaluate the possible significance companion resolutions, and that is that the United States Bill of Rights was initiated as a companion resolution in the assembly of Massachusetts.

1710

They returned from other constitutional discussions at another place and another time and were upset that there did not exist such a bill in the American Constitution, as they had sketched it out with their fellow states in the round of discussions they had just been through. They went home and passed a Bill of Rights and then they sent that Bill of Rights to other legislatures, as we propose to send our companion resolutions to other legislatures, and one by one the other assemblies adopted the Bill of Rights and it became a potent and powerful instrument for the American people throughout the rest of their history.

I simply want to suggest to members that if we put in place the political process we have described in the report and if we work that actively, as I hope we will, through the standing committee and through this Legislature, we will achieve those same objectives for persons and groups in this country that do need to have their status and their standing in our nation reinforced in important ways.

With that, I want to say it has been a very great pleasure to be able to stand and speak both personally and in terms of the document that was, passed by our convention at Thunder Bay in recent days with respect to the Meech Lake accord. I hope only that I would not have to be absent for any moment of the rest of the debate. Unfortunately, I will have to be absent for some part of it, but I will look forward to reading all the speeches of all the members who speak in my absence.

I commend the report fully, wholly and without reservation to the Legislature and to my fellow members.

Mr. Harris: I am delighted to have the opportunity of four or five hours to put a few thoughts on the record on this accord. I want to begin by saying that I do not intend to review everything one might like to review in the Meech Lake-Langevin accord, or indeed in the committee report. We will be having substantial debate, and I know a number of people, particularly the members of the committee, will be putting a lot of their views on the record, most of which I am sure I will share. If I do not share them, I might interject. I know it will not be appropriate, Madam Speaker, to interject too forcefully.

I want first of all to congratulate the chairman. I just know him as “Good old Charlie.” Where is his riding?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: York North.

Mr. Harris: Yes. I thought the member for York North (Mr. Beer), who chaired the committee, did not have an easy job. It was a challenging job. I thought he handled the committee and the witnesses who appeared before us very well, and I thought he demonstrated a maturity of chairmanship that certainly belied the short amount of time he has been a member of this Legislature. I congratulate him for that, and I think all members of the committee felt that way.

I also think the witnesses who appeared before us felt that way. When you have a document like this, a committee like this, with the variety of people we had before us and -- let’s face it, and when you invite public input, you expect, and we did get, those who are opposed more often than those who are in favour. That is the nature of democracy.

If you are in favour, very often you say: “Well, that’s fine. They’re on the right track, those guys.” If you are opposed, you rise to the occasion a little more strongly and say, “I had better get down to Queen’s Park,” or, “I had better get out to hear them in Ottawa or in London, or wherever the committee is, and set these people straight.”

It was not an easy job and I did not hear one single witness who did not think that he or she was treated fairly by the committee. The chairman, who represented us, deserves recognition for that.

I also want to say that our party, and I share that concern, was not happy that we did not have an opportunity between Meech Lake and Langevin to consult with the public. That part of the process, I thought, would have made more sense. This report makes a number of recommendations, where the committee was unanimous, about the process that was used to arrive at Meech Lake, at the compromise and the accord that was reached. I understand how it flowed out of the 1982 process, but it is one we do not wish to see carried on for future rounds.

Now that our Constitution is home, as of 1982, and now that, as all jurisdictions, hopefully, ratify this accord, Quebec is an active participant in our Constitution, it is time to learn from what has happened in those two rounds and to move on. We make a number of recommendations to improve that process.

None the less, I thought the committee could have been struck and could have done a fair bit of work before we sent our Premier (Mr. Peterson) back off to the Langevin Block to finalize the accord.

I want to talk about why I support this report and why, after having heard all the evidence and having been part of it for a number of months, I support the resolution that will follow this report, which will be the adoption by this Legislature of the accord. Then I want to talk about some of the problems and then about our minority report; why I think it is important and why I think we could have gone a little further in a few areas. Then I will sit down.

Let me, first of all, without getting into a great deal of detail in this aspect, say this was the Quebec round. Following 1982, the commitment was made to get Quebec into the Constitution. This was not a first ministers’ gathering to talk about anything other than that. That was achieved.

What we have to analyse in looking at this accord is, “Was it achieved at a price that has compromised the success it achieved?” What did it achieve? Let’s look at that and at some of the problems, and then all members of the Legislature have to make an informed judgement whether the problems outweigh the successes.

Meech Lake in the early times, shortly after Meech Lake and Langevin, was referred to as the miracle of Meech Lake, and indeed I think it was very close to a miracle, in the light of what was unachievable for so many years, a couple of decades really of actively trying to arrive at what kind of Constitution we wanted as a nation, and the lack of success in that regard throughout the 1960s and the 1970s. I do not think anybody, whatever he felt of the policies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, could deny that this one issue meant more to him perhaps than any other, bringing the Constitution home to Canada and having the 10 provinces adopt the Constitution.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau was not able to achieve that. He had that commitment, I believe. I believe him to be a very intelligent individual and I believe there was commitment from the other provinces as well. So I think we have to say it was close to a miracle to have got the breakthrough. I think we have to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada. I think we have to congratulate the 10 premiers who were there and we have to look at what they signed and what they are recommending to us.

1720

The key part to me is the distinct society. I am not sure many people will talk about it, because it is controversial, so I am going to talk about it. The distinct society is the recognition that Quebec is a distinct society contained within the Canadian Constitution. In my view, that was the breakthrough, getting all 10 provinces and the federal government to agree to that.

Why is Pierre Elliott Trudeau opposed to this accord? I think there are two reasons. First, distinct society, the recognition of Quebec in that way, is not his vision of Canada. That is one of the reasons I am in favour of this accord; I do not share Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s vision of Canada.

Second, and I want to put it on the record, and it may sound petty and we do not want to engage in a petty debate, I think Pierre Elliott Trudeau felt, “If I can’t bring the Constitution home and get Quebec to sign it, being the great Quebecker I am, then nobody can do it under the right terms.” I think he would have been opposed to anybody else, Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat, because he has that kind of ego.

Many people have said: “Trudeau is against it. What is this distinct society, this great, special status that Quebec has? How can one province in Confederation be special and distinct and get preferential treatment?”

Distinct society to me is a recognition of what has always been in this country. It is spelled out in the recognition that Quebec has a majority French-speaking population in that province and a minority English-speaking population, and the rest of the country has a majority of English and a minority of French. That is the way Canada came together. Those compromises were made between Upper Canada and Lower Canada. They said: “We can live together. We will have Lower Canada, a majority of French, and Upper Canada, a majority of English. We will recognize religious differences and language differences.” And we became a country. What has changed in those years? Nothing has changed. Today, on the language issue, Quebec is distinct. It is unique. It is different from the rest of Canada. This Meech Lake accord recognizes that.

It also talks about protecting the minority-language rights of the English in Quebec and of the French outside of Quebec. There were groups that came before us that talked about the plight of English-speaking Quebeckers. In my view, the Meech Lake accord will offer them more protection than they have now. It will give them protection. It will be in the Constitution that Quebec must recognize and preserve, as part of its distinct society, those minority-language rights, as do the other provinces.

It is no secret -- I do not think it was a difficulty for Ontario or New Brunswick -- that it was a difficulty for Alberta and some of our western provinces to come forward and publicly say, “We accept our duty and our right to protect the minority-language rights in our province.” What is Trudeau’s vision of Canada? In my view, Trudeau’s vision of Canada is a Canada completely bilingual, a Canada where a Quebecker will feel as at home in downtown Edmonton as in Quebec City. In my view, Trudeau’s vision of Canada is of what he sees it can be like in the future. It may be in the future, but it is his vision and he wants to constitutionalize that vision when it is not reality.

That is not the situation in Canada. It was not at Confederation. Nobody can go back and say this is what was envisioned when Lower Canada and Upper Canada came together, that they envisioned that Upper Canada would be fluently bilingual. Nobody can say that is the reality in Canada today. Meech Lake reflects what is reality today and, in my view, it should be supported for what it is.

I think there has been a lineup of people who have picked away at little aspects of the Meech Lake accord, but fundamentally you either agree or do not agree with how this country came together, with how it has evolved, with what it is today and on the language issue, if you like, when you are dealing with language, Quebec is distinct. I do not have a difficulty with that; I do not have a problem with that. It is one of the key reasons why I support this accord.

With the exceptions, which I will talk about, of the women’s groups, the multicultural groups and the native groups, I think it is no secret that the majority of those who have come before us who oppose the accord -- or a lot of them -- were Liberals who identified themselves as Young Liberals of Ontario or Young Liberals of Canada or Johnston or Trudeau, and that is not their vision of Canada. Whether they believe, as I think Trudeau believes, Canada is or should be -- and even if that is what you think it should be, I do not think you should use the Constitution to change the country. The country will evolve. Or they are envious that the Prime Minister of Canada was able to achieve this and the great Liberal Party and the great Pierre Elliott Trudeau could not achieve it. I cannot see any other reason why one would not support this accord.

I think the report makes a number of excellent recommendations. I have congratulated the chairman. I want to congratulate all those members of the committee and I want to thank those people who came before us. I certainly learned a lot in this process. As the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) has said, I am not sure we could ever say we became expert in the field, but I can tell members we sure know a lot more now than we did before we went into the process.

I want to touch briefly on some of the recommendations. In recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario establish a standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs. I think it is important that the government of Ontario get on with this once we have finished here this spring. I hope we do not wait to see what happens with the Meech Lake accord across Canada before we get on with this process and get our committee started so that we can start to deal with and put into place a far more open process on the Constitution.

Recommendation 2 is that the new standing committee undertake to examine the issues identified as agenda items for first ministers’ conferences. It is not enough for us to say we cannot just have the first ministers deciding all this and not get on with it and start to receive public input on what we know are going to be agenda items, so that we can start to get a far broader base of opinion coming from Ontario, save and except the opinion of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), indeed the opinions of the Premier and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and their advisers. We must involve many more people.

1730

Recommendation 3 is “that the new standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs begin the investigation of the following issues...multiculturalism; the charter and equality rights; aboriginal rights; minority-language rights; and the constitutional status of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.” That identifies some of the problems and imperfections, if you like, that we still see will be in our Constitution. Let me say that our Constitution will always have imperfections in it. It will never be a perfect document. I doubt any one individual will say, “I think the document is perfect in every clause and every aspect.” It will be impossible that in every jurisdiction everybody will agree on that.

There are some imperfections that we think Ontario should begin addressing. Are they major enough that the members should not ratify this accord’? We do not think so. We think this accord improves upon a number of imperfections that are already there. Bringing Quebec into the Constitution surely improves the chances that they will be able to make future amendments.

Recommendation 4: “The committee recommends that the province of Ontario continue to preserve and promote the rights of Franco-Ontarians.”

I think that is an important recommendation from the committee. I do not think it has a lot to do with whether you approve or do not approve of Meech Lake itself. But it is a statement that the all-party members of the committee made, that in Ontario we should be promoting the rights of our minority-language group of Franco-Ontarians, that we have promoted those rights for a great number of years and that the rights Franco-Ontarians now enjoy and at times take for granted, I think, are rights francophones do not have in other provinces yet. So we recommend that the province continue.

I do not see a problem with Senate reform. Some will argue long and loud that they are going to vote against this because of some great change in how senators are appointed. I do not see any great change. There is always consultation. I think most of us -- at least I hope most of us -- would support Senate reform in a meaningful way. The process that has been put in place formalizes some input from the provinces.

We do make a recommendation, though, that the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have a right to submit names. I would hope that the government of Canada would acknowledge that. In any event, our committee recommends that.

Similarly, I do not have any difficulty with how our judges are appointed. Some have said, “Why should provinces be involved in appointing judges?” It is because this country has evolved on the basis of, and a large part of our Constitution deals with this, how the federal government and the provincial governments interact. A lot of this Constitution is about federal powers versus provincial powers, so of course the provinces should have a say. We make recommendations to get wider and broader public opinion into suggesting candidates for judges. I think all of that is very positive and good, and we recommend Ontario get on with that.

There were a number of discussions about the words “national objectives.” Let me associate my remarks with those of the member for Hamilton West. I do not see a difficulty with the term “objectives,” particularly when you realize that we are dealing with areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Some groups came before us and said that the federal government should be able to do whatever it wants; it should be able to have a national program in whatever. Well, since it is the provinces’ jurisdiction to deliver those programs, is it unreasonable that the provinces have some say in how that program is going to be delivered? I do not want to get into all the specifics of it, but I think most of those arguments are red herrings if that is the reason they are not in favour of the accord.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we felt and I felt, is the area that is the most flawed, if you like, if this document is flawed. I think probably half the groups that appeared before us talked about women’s rights: Are they affected by section 16 being in the Constitution? Does that create a hierarchy of rights that affects their Charter rights? Particularly, they were concerned about the equality rights for women. I guess the opinion was split about 50-50, whether it did or whether it did not. Certainly, the 10 first ministers and the Prime Minister of Canada and the advice they have been getting is that it does not.

I think they are probably right. But I am not a constitutional expert and I am not 100 per cent certain. That is why we moved two or three things in committee. The first one, that is part of our minority report, is that a reference be sent to the court to ask the courts to determine if any of the charter rights are affected by section 16. I think that should be done. I cannot see that hurting anything. This Legislature is saying it approves of the accord, it approves of the changes. We are serving notice that we have a concern.

Mr. Miller: This is the highest court, right here.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wish it were true.

Mr. Miller: It is true.

Mr. Harris: Well, the member says -- where is that turkey from?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Scarborough West,

Mr. Harris: Scarborough West. No, not that one. Yes, the other one.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The other turkey?

Mr. Harris: Not that one. I do not know. It does not matter. I will attempt to ignore it, Mr. Speaker; I know the decorum you set for this House is of a standard higher than some who occupy the chair, and I concur with it and I withdraw the comment.

This is no longer the highest court in the land, as the member for Scarborough West has pointed out. By virtue of our charter and our Constitution, we have given that to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Where was I in making such a cogent argument? In my view, it should be that sending this off for a court reference can hurt nothing. If all the experts are right, if the Attorney General is right, if the Premier is right, those who argue there is no problem, then there will be no problem with the court reference. If in fact they are wrong, I think they would want to know that; I am satisfied that if they are wrong, the matter politically will not be able to go unaddressed by any Legislature or by the government of Canada.

That was our first choice. That was not acceptable to the government. For the life of me, I still do not understand why. I know the Attorney General has said, “I don’t think the court reference is appropriate for the Supreme Court, the way it’s worded.” There are a number of lawyers who think it is appropriate. If you sent it on to the Supreme Court and it came back and said it is inappropriate, so it said it is inappropriate; you tried. For the life of me, I fail to see what they are afraid of.

1740

The second thing we felt should be done if that was not going to be accepted was two very firm companion resolutions that would make changes to the accord, make changes to the Constitution, one on multiculturalism and one on native rights, and we did that specifically.

I note that Mary Eberts has written, in response to our report -- I do not know whether the chairman referred to it -- that she was disappointed that in our report and in our recommendations and there is in the main body of the report something similar to what we proposed, but it was not precise. Mary Eberts expressed concern that we talked about the multicultural heritage of Canada and of the aboriginal peoples as a fundamental characteristic of Canada but made no specific mention of the commitment to sex equality.

The resolution that is in the main body of the report, in my view, ought to have gone further and said, “If you will make these changes to the accord and include the multicultural heritage of Canada and a recognition of the aboriginal peoples as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, you can remove section 16 from the accord.” There ought not to be any question of any hierarchy of rights or any threat to the charter and those rights that were there.

In my view, had the companion resolutions put forward by the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) and myself been accepted in that way, they could have sent that signal forward. We say in our minority report that we think those two amendments can be made as we drafted them, and further, that if they are acceptable and the amendments are made, section 16 can then be stricken from the accord to solve that argument once and for all.

Those are the key problems in the accord, in my view.

I support this report, particularly with the minority report that was put into it. I then have to ask myself: “You did not accept my call for a court reference. You did not accept the precision of the amendments that we proposed to go along in a companion way. What do I do then with the accord itself?” The last recommendation of the report is that this Legislature adopt the accord, essentially unamended. I guess I have to ask myself about my uncertainty over whether equality rights are affected or not; what is the likelihood of that occurring? Really, we are dealing primarily with women’s rights in Quebec, where the likelihood of that occurring, as has been pointed out by the member for Hamilton West, does not appear likely, because it has generally led the country in equality rights of the sexes.

I guess more important than that, though, I leave to ask myself, “Should a court at some point find that equality rights or other charter rights are derogated from by section 16 in this Constitution, will there be a Prime Minister of that day or a Premier of that day who will be able to allow that situation to go unamended?” In my view, there will not be. In my view, no Prime Minister, no Premier in this country of Canada would be able to allow to carry on, unamended, a Constitution that a court had found an aspect of takes away from equality rights. I had to ask myself that. I have come to that conclusion.

I have indicated to members the miracle that I think took place at Meech Lake. I have indicated to members that it was the Quebec round. I know my vote will be for adoption of the Meech Lake accord. I think as well that my vote will be for the vision of Canada that the 10 premiers and the Prime Minister signed at Meech Lake. I accept that. As Canada 200 years ago and 100 years ago and 50 years ago and Canada today, I think it is a good reflection of where Canada is at.

I ask all members of my caucus and indeed of the other caucuses, to really reflect on this matter before they vote for or against this accord. I say that because sometimes it is easy to vote knowing well my vote does not matter anyway, so I can register a concern by voting against this, secure in the knowledge that it is going to carry. In my view, the Constitution of Canada is a little different from most of the types of things we vote on.

I think members should really reflect before they vote and treat their vote as if it were the deciding vote in this Legislature. That is the way I am treating my vote. That is why I will be voting in favour of both the report and ratification by this Legislature of the accord.

Mr. Offer: In rising to speak on this motion in this debate, I indicate at the outset that I consider myself to be both fortunate and privileged to have been selected as a member of the select committee on constitutional reform.

I say this because, as the hearings and deliberations of the committee continued, I, and I suspect all members, realized quite quickly that we were not dealing simply with a piece of legislation on a particular matter but rather dealing with the framework of fundamental values against which all pieces of legislation at all levels of government in all provinces shall be measured.

I think it most appropriate at this time to congratulate the chairman of this committee for the work done by him in making the committee as open and as accessible to the people of this province as possible and also to all of the members of the committee. I was very privileged and fortunate to have worked with 10 other persons who grappled with issues of great complexity and of great contention, working out in their minds how best this report ought to be phrased and framed and the types of questions to be posed. It was indeed an experience which I shall certainly treasure personally for ever.

As the hearings proceeded, as I indicated, we confronted issues of great complexity and serious contention. After listening to the many and various points of view on this accord, the primary question to be answered, not only as a committee but indeed as individuals, was whether we would recommend that the accord be formally ratified by the Legislature with a view to its inclusion in our Constitution.

1750

We were fortunate to have heard from individuals and representatives of associations, some of whom came from outside this province, all appearing before the committee to share with us their opinions. Some were notable in their particular areas of expertise, and we heard historians and political scientists and certainly the lawyers and jurists. There were others, I guess, without any particular area of expertise but surely with a sincere interest and conviction as to what our Constitution should be. If there was anything that was clear through this hearing process, it was that Canadians from all walks of life increasingly care about what their Constitution says and means, what their Constitution should state and how its interpretation can affect their way of life.

We are a province and a country where people do care and do wish to express their opinions as to what the fundamental values of this nation ought to be. This committee -- and I as a member of it -- was privileged to have been a forum for those many persons to express their views. But as indicated earlier, the primary question was, do we or do we not recommend formal ratification of the Meech Lake accord?

The ratification of Meech Lake is an enormously important piece of unfinished business in Canada’s constitutional history, but I also believe, and I think it is important to indicate, this is not the end of constitutional reform but rather the beginning of a new round in the constitutional reform process.

This process of change is ongoing, but to make it meaningful requires Quebec to return to the constitutional table as a full and willing participant. There are other matters and there are other concerns which must be addressed in the years that lie ahead. There are the issues of the rights of aboriginal peoples, the place of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory within our country and the continuing examination of what our Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be to each Canadian.

But if the basic question which we had to respond to was whether we recommend the formal ratification of the Meech Lake accord, then the most difficult and contentious issue was the question of whether the accord affects those rights founded within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Most of the witnesses before the committee accepted as a basic proposition that, while section 1 of the accord, the “distinct society” clause, describes one of the fundamental characteristics of Canada -- and I believe the member for Hamilton West alluded to this point -- it surely was not exhaustive. This very basic idea seems implicit in the text of section 1 itself, which speaks of “a” fundamental characteristic of Canada, as opposed to “the” fundamental characteristic of Canada. This suggests that there are other aspects of the Canadian identity which are fundamental to our nationhood.

It is of crucial importance that the reference to English- and French-speaking Canadians should not be taken as a denial of the significance of the multicultural heritage of Canada or of the fundamental place of aboriginal peoples in our national evolution. It is important that the message which will ring out in the event of ratification of this accord is not that constitutional reform has ended and that those issues which were brought to the committee will remain unanswered, but rather that formal ratification completes a single round of reform and another round is to begin, dealing with not only the recognition of aboriginal persons and the multicultural heritage of our country constituting a fundamental characteristic of Canada but also, as stated in the report, the recognition that the commitment to the protection and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians also constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada.

The strength of our Constitution shall be its ongoing review, its ongoing analysis, its ongoing examination. It continues to be the framework which best illustrates, best sets out what are the fundamental characteristics of this country. I believe that this accord entrenches such an ongoing review and guarantees such an ongoing analysis and examination. But as we proceeded in discussing this very difficult issue, the question did arise, and it has been brought forward by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), of whether the interrelationship of the accord and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be referred to the Court of Appeal for a constitutional opinion.

I would like to take a moment to indicate why I believe such a referral is neither feasible nor desirable. Courts are not asked to write general essays on areas of the law or to answer abstract questions; instead, courts, I believe, are asked to pronounce upon particular pieces of legislation or other proposals and to determine whether or not there is legal authority to proceed in a defined manner.

The present situation, the one that we are debating today, can be contrasted with the patriation reference in 1981. In 1981, the federal government proposed to enact an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in order to add a Charter of Rights and also to provide for a domestic amending formula. In that particular case, the courts were not asked to offer an opinion as to the meaning of the Charter of Rights or the proposed amending formula; instead, in that case the courts were asked whether the proposed amendment was unconstitutional, either because it violated the constitutional convention or because it violated some other constitutional rule.

Because the question was framed in this narrow way, it was ruled to be judiciable by the court. What the court was being asked to decide was whether there was constitutional authority to proceed with a particular amendment and not what that particular amendment might mean. In the case of the Meech Lake accord, however, the question is not whether the federal government has the legal authority to proceed with the constitutional amendment. What is being sought here is an opinion as to the interpretation of particular constitutional provisions. For some, it might be thought that this difficulty might be overcome if a particular factual situation were framed for the court and the court was asked to comment upon that particular factual situation in the light of the “distinct society” clause.

I believe that by framing the question in the context of some particular factual situation, the reference would not meet the purpose for which it has initially been requested because, as we went through those hearings, the purpose for which people asked for a reference, I think, can fairly be said to be that they wanted a certainty.

I believe that the political branches of government are the ones that are charged with the responsibility of enacting constitutional amendments. It is our responsibility as legislators, not that of the courts, to determine whether or not a constitutional amendment is appropriate and desirable. It is for these reasons that I believe a reference to the Court of Appeal on Meech Lake is neither feasible nor desirable.

Without ratification of this accord, without bringing Quebec into the constitutional family in a very real and factual sense, the ongoing constitutional reform process envisaged and provided for by this accord would fail.

It was last week when this report was issued and when it was, many different emotions swept over me. It is very difficult to really verbalize what they are, because I do agree with what the member for Nipissing said when he talked about this country as not being a single person’s vision. This country is composed of many people with different visions of what they believe this country can and ought to be. But what is more important is that all these visions are able to live harmoniously with one another; yes, some are able to live more harmoniously than others, but none the less they do stand side by side where one does not predominate over another.

I believe that our nation’s Constitution and our nation’s strength is that no one single vision predominates over another, but all are free to be expressed and come together in a common set of values and fundamental characteristics. I very much believe that this accord promotes such a concept. It is one that I very much support and I strongly urge all members of the Legislature to support.

1800

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. O’Neil moved that notwithstanding standing order 3, the House shall continue to meet until 9 p.m. this evening when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil moved that notwithstanding standing order 2(a), the House shall meet from 9 a.m. until 12 noon on Wednesday, June 29, 1988, with routine proceedings at 1 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Now that those motions have been carried, I would like -- order. It might be helpful if I informed the members that the dining room is open until 7:30 p.m.

RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE (SUITE) / REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further debate? The member for Lake Nipigon.

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, moi aussi, comme mes collègues, je prends plaisir à prononcer quelques paroles sur la résolution concernant l’accord du lac Meech. Je devrais indiquer au début que je n’ai pas l’intention de m’attarder; nous sommes tous conscients du fait que plusieurs membres de l’Assemblée législative aimeraient avoir l’occasion de participer au débat. Nous sommes conscients aussi du fait que la plupart d’entre nous, sinon tout un chacun, pourraient le faire pendant des heures et des heures.

Permettez-moi de débuter en félicitant, comme mes prédécesseurs l’ont fait, le comité dirigé par le député de York-Nord (M. Beer), qui s’est penché sur le problème du Québec et de la constitution. Nous avons entendu les membres du Comité nous citer groupe après groupe, dans un processus ouvert mais quand même difficile, un processus axé sur un fédéralisme exécutoire. Malgré tout, les députés qui faisaient partie du Comité ont su assimiler, digérer, avec beaucoup d’intérêt, d’émotion, de passion et de patience, les données de ceux qui ont comparu devant ce Comité, et aussi nous fournir leurs recommandations après avoir écouté attentivement les présentations de tous et de chacun.

Certaines présentations étaient faites avec des réserves concernant l’égalité des sexes sous la Charte des droits et libertés, la reconnaissance du multiculturalisme comme caractéristique fondamentale du Canada et la reconnaissance des droits des autochtones, ainsi que le statut éventuel de province pour les deux territoires.

Néanmoins, chaque fois que la quéstion fondamentale revenait sur le tapis, cette question fondamentale étant la réintégration du Québec dans la constitution, à peu près tous et chacun, presque la majorité totate, disaient: « Oui, il est temps d’y réintégrer la deuxième province en importance au Canada à l’échelle économique, à l’échelle de la population, la plus grande province à l’échelle de la géographie ».

Je ne veux pas commencer à aller étape par étape concernant la contribution du Québec avant et durant les premières années de la fondation de notre pays, et depuis, en ce qui conceme la confédération. Mais vous me permettrez de dire, Monsieur le Président, comme membre de l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario, comme citoyen canadien et aussi comme francophone originaire du Québec, où j’ai passé les 23 premières années de ma vie, qu’il m’a toujours semblé tout à fait impossible d’imaginer qu’un Canada puisse exister et progresser sans la participation active du Québec.

Moi aussi, j’ai su me pencher sur les réserves des groupes qui ont comparu devant le comité présidé par le député de York-Nord, et je me suis posé les questions suivantes: les griefs légitimes de ces organismes, de ces associations, seraient-ils mieux servis avec ou sans la participation du Québec? Je me suis dit à chaque étape que non, le progrès constitutionnel, le progrès en ce qui concerne les réformes ne serait avancé qu’avec la participation du Québec.

Permettez-moi, Monsieur le Président, de partager avec vous une expérience qui remonte à 1985, lorsqu’on m’a invité, en tant que député à l’Assemblée législative, à participer à la conférence des premiers ministres qui se tenait à Ottawa et qui concernait les autochtones. Nous savons fort bien que lors de cette conférence le Québec était présent, mais seulement à titre d’observateur. On se souviendra du nombre requis pour donner à ceux qui en ont moins, à nos premiers Canadiens et aussi nos premiers Ontariens, nos autochtones, une participation plus active. Étant donné que le Québec ne faisait pas partie du processus, le processus n’a pas évolué. Il manquait un joueur, il manquait la participation du Québec.

Je pourrais m’étendre là-dessus et dire, en ce qui concerne la Charte -- les droits de la femme, si l’on veut -- que le Québec est en avant de l’Ontario; ce n’est pas de la politique partisane quand je dis que le Québec est en avant de l’Ontario. Et dans plusieurs autres domaines, la participation du Québec à la table des négociations est essentielle: que ce soit sur le plan juridique, ajoutons-y aussi l’échelle économique, la francophonie avec le Québec, avec ses 82 pour cent de francophones, avec une forte minorité anglophone, avec des conditions économiques, un potential à peu près semblable à celui de l’Ontario, une force de production électrique hors pair en Amérique du Nord, un avenir illimité, on comprend qu’un Canada sans le Québec ne peut pas exister.

1810

On se souviendra des débats pénibles -- je parle ici des années 60 -- je remets en contexte l’élection du Parti québécois au mois de novembre 1976; j’y ajoute, quatre ans plus tard, la campagne référendaire, et je termine avec celle qui a suivi le référendum. On se souviendra, de fait, du débat qui a eu lieu ici, à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario où, à l’unanimité, on s’est rappelé collectivement et individuellement sa responsabilité comme Canadien.

Cela, c’était en 1980; nous sommes en 1988. On se souviendra de l’échec de 1982, où plusieurs provinces avaient bénéficié du rapatriement. On se souvient aussi du matin de l’entente, de la situation quand même triste de la famille canadienne. On s’en souvient pour ceux qui n’avaient pas, comme nous, regardé le téléviseur et vu René Lévesque, alors premier ministre du Québec, qui disait: « Monsieur le Président de l’Assemblée », présidée par Pierre Elliott Trudeau, qui était alors le premier ministre, « encore une fois le Québec est seul ».

Aujourd’hui et demain, nous aurons l’occasion, dans cette Assemblée, de dire à nos concitoyens, à nos frères et à nos soeurs du Québec, que chez nous, nous les invitons à se sentir chez eux; qu’enfin et pour toujours, ils peuvent faire partie, nous les invitons à faire partie de la famille canadienne.

Il est grand temps aussi de fournir les mêmes énergies constructives qui amèneront sans doute à une fin positive le débat qui va culminer à l’accord du lac Meech, pour permettre à ces énergies de résoudre des problèmes qui, autrement, ne pourraient pas être résolus; ne pourraient pas, à cause de l’ombrage, à cause du fait que tant que le Québec n’adhérera pas à la constitution, il est bien entendu que nos énergies y seront dirigée.

Monsieur le Président, j’ai pris peut-être trois ou quatre minutes de trop. Je ne tiens pas nécessairement, vous allez me comprendre, à m’en excuser. Mes ancêtres sont arrivés sur l’île d’Orléans en 1627. Certains de mes collègues diront: « C’était là la première erreur ».

Vous savez, Monsieur le Président, chez nous on a quand même l’habileté à survivre. Nous sommes très sensibles, très émotifs; ça fait partie du caractère du Canada. Si mes collègues semblent un peut farineux et nous, un peu émotifs, admettons que le Canada anglais, c’est la farine, la base, et que nous, nous sommes l’épice, et puis qu’ensemble nous pouvons bâtir un avenir qui sera meilleur pour tous.

J’ai voulu conclure sur une note humoristique. Cela me fait plaisir d’avoir dit quelques mots. Mais plus significatif, plus important, c’est le fait que demain, avec la majorité de mes collègues -- en respectant ceux qui, pour des raisons sincères, substantielles, rationnelles, choisiront non d’être moins patriotes, non de rejeter le Québec mais peut-être d’exprimer une opinion contraire -- moi, humblement, l’un des 130, je serai ici, ensemble avec les autres députés, comme un soldat à son poste, pour dire oui au Québec et oui au Canada.

Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président.

Mr. Jackson: It is with a great sense of the historic significance of this debate that I rise to address the resolution of the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

The motion touches on a matter far more important than most of our day-to-day work in this chamber. We are not being asked here to pass a new law, a statute which can be amended or replaced by a simple majority of this House. Rather, the Meech Lake accord seeks to change the nation’s Constitution.

While we may feel that constitutions should be ever changing and ever evolving, the Meech Lake process shows that they can be amended only with great difficulty, if at all. We must remember that what Meech Lake does cannot easily be undone. For this reason, we cannot afford to be casual about its flaws and its shortcomings. If perceived defects are in fact real, they may haunt Canadians for years, and perhaps even lifetimes.

The creation of constitutions is by no means an exact science. Perfection is elusive; compromise commonplace. But these facts do not relieve Ontario legislators of the responsibility to ensure that constitutional provisions are positive ones that serve the interests of all Canadians. Should any constitutional amendment fail this strict test, we are duty bound to oppose it.

The Constitution Act, 1982, makes the Constitution “the supreme law of Canada.” This is no ordinary bill. The supreme law of Canada is before us in this chamber. For this reason, I am treating this resolution as the most important matter that I have ever been called upon to debate during my career as an MPP. I suggest that other members should look upon the accord in a similar light.

If we are going to endorse these changes to the supreme law of Canada, our Constitution, then we cannot do so blindly, simply because the Premier or the select committee so recommends. An MPP can only support this resolution if, after reading and understanding the accord, he or she arrives at a personal conclusion that the amendments serve the best interests of all Canadians.

For my part, having studied the accord and examined the comments of concerned Canadians, I am unable to do so. I cannot in good conscience vote for the Meech Lake accord, because in my opinion it threatens many of the constitutional rights and freedoms that women and other Canadians first won in 1982.

These concerns, so eloquently expressed by women’s groups, multicultural organizations and individual Canadians, not only before our committee but also before the joint committee in Ottawa, revolve around the combined effect of sections 1 and 16 of this accord. If these sections, which deal with Quebec’s recognition as a “distinct society” and with recognition of linguistic duality as “a fundamental characteristic of Canada,” will allow governments to override charter rights and freedoms, then this is a dangerous document.

The problem is not that the accord gives insufficient protection to women and minority groups. Rather, it removes protections they already have.

1820

The Premier says section 1 will do no such thing, but this assurance is difficult to reconcile. If the “distinct society” clause is meaningless, then why was it introduced in the first place? If the clause has no impact, why does Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa claim the opposite?

I urge all members to consider Mr. Bourassa’s statement to the National Assembly on June 18, 1987, in the Journal of Debates at page 8708, that the accord will take precedence over charter rights. He said, “II faut souligner que toute la constitution, y compris la Charte, sera interprétée et appliquée à la lumière de cet article sur la société distincte.” In translation, he said, “It must be emphasized that the entire Constitution, including the charter, will be interpreted and applied in the light of this ‘distinct society’ clause.”

The Premier of Ontario says the charter is untouched, while Premier Bourassa says the exact opposite. On a matter as serious as this, with rights and freedoms at stake, I do not see how we can endorse the accord until we know which Liberal Premier is right and which Liberal Premier is wrong. Charter rights cannot be left in limbo until, years from now, the Supreme Court of Canada rules on this matter. It would be a gross abdication of responsibility to rubberstamp the accord without having a clue as to what it really means.

Granted, as legislators we know that all our laws are subject to the final interpretation of the courts, yet we cannot be lax in employing language that is as precise as possible in order to give effect to our clear intent. Sections 1 and 16 do not reflect this care and precision.

Some supporters claim that section 1 is merely an interpretative provision. I challenge them to show where this is actually stated. Looking at section 2, we see that the words “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with” apply only to subsection 1 but not to subsections 2 or 3. If only the first subsection is interpretative, then the parts dealing with the affirmation of roles must therefore be substantive.

Additionally, I suggest that all members take a look at subsection 4, which reads as follows, “Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces...”

Some people misread this to mean that the “distinct society” clause does not alter legislative power. Even our select committee on constitutional reform, on page 13 of its report, misreads it, calling the subsection “a statement that existing legislative powers are not affected.”

“Derogate” does not mean “alter”; it means “reduce” or “take away from.” This subsection says that the “distinct society” clause does not reduce government powers, but it leaves the door open to an increase in provincial or federal power through new limits on individual rights and freedoms under the charter.

Mary Eberts, legal counsel to the Ad Hoc Committee of Women on the Constitution, had this to say about this choice of language: “It is interesting to note ... that there is nothing in the second section comparable to the provisions of the charter which says nothing in it adds to the power of the government. There is a [floor], but there is no ceiling. When it comes to interpreting the meaning of proposed section 2 and the force of its interpretative strength, I think someone will argue it is significant there is no cap on the power of government in the proposed section 2.”

Critics are not the only ones to take notice. Premier Bourassa himself admitted the same thing by saying, “If you used the term ‘derogate,’ you would protect existing powers and could gain additional others” – “others” meaning powers.

There is not one supporter of the accord who can explain why this clause was worded so that it shuts the door on any loss of state power, but leaves the door open to further encroachments on individual rights. If the charter is not to be affected, then why does subsection 4 not say that “nothing in this section derogates from or increases any of the powers,” etc.? Why not accept that simple change to make everything abundantly clear?

Suppose the “distinct society” clause does not override the charter. Suppose it is only a guide to interpretation. We must still proceed with caution. Even as an interpretative tool, the accord would have a great effect on individual rights and freedoms. Not only critics are saying this; supporters are admitting the same thing. Professor Peter Hogg and Professor William Lederman both say the accord will guide judges as they interpret section 1 of the charter. So does the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) at page 23 of his brief to the select committee.

Section 1 of the charter says that our rights and freedoms are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law.” It allows courts to permit a violation of the charter if the offending Legislature or Parliament can show that the limit is a reasonable one. The “distinct society” clause, as even supporters of the accord agree, will guide our courts in their applications of section 1 of the charter.

I ask all members to consider what this means. The Attorney General is basically saying: “No, the accord will not affect the way courts construe our charter rights. It will only affect the way they set reasonable limits on those rights.” In other words, Meech Lake will not tell us what free speech means but only where free speech starts and where free speech stops. To me, that is a distinction without a difference, and a dangerous one at that.

Exactly what do women’s groups and other critics fear about subjugation of the charter by this accord? LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, suggests that the “distinct society” clause would allow governments to derogate from the equality rights in section 15 of the charter by justifying the move as an attempt to preserve and promote Quebec’s distinct identity.

For example, LEAF suggests, Quebec school boards may refuse, because of cultural opinion, to provide non-traditional trade and skill training to female students. Or, given that the Quebec birth rate has fallen from 29.8 births per 1,000 in 1951 to 13.4 births per 1,000 in 1984 and that within Canada the proportion of francophones continues to decline, LEAF fears the accord might allow the government to limit reproductive choice as a means of altering the birth rate.

Alternatively, Meech Lake might allow discrimination between anglophones and francophones in areas such as medicare, tax credits, subsidized child care, even housing, in an attempt to encourage French-speaking Quebeckers to raise large families.

That Quebec should be free to preserve and promote the French language is not really at issue here. The question is whether Quebec should be allowed to violate charter rights and freedoms in so doing.

It would be incorrect to suggest that only equality rights are at stake. Indeed, all charter rights could be threatened. I would be remiss here if I did not mention the right to freedom of expression and Bill 101, Quebec’s Charter of the French Language.

The Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on the French-only sign law, but will do so in the near future. Hopefully, and most likely, the courts will say that the law violates the right to freedom of expression and that the violation does not qualify as a “reasonable limit.”

1830

Suppose now that the Meech Lake accord is passed and suppose that the Quebec government goes back to the courts saying: “See, we have a duty to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec. That’s what our sign law is for. Clearly, this is a reasonable limit on the freedom of expression.” Will courts allow Bill 101 to stand because of the Meech Lake accord?

This is not a fanciful proposition. The scenario I have outlined is very real and could very well take place if the accord is ratified. Can members support the accord if its effect will be to make constitutional a previously illegal French-only sign law? Can we ratify it if its impact on Bill 101 is in any way unclear? No. To do so would be a breach of our responsibility to this nation.

I would like to add one further thought on the “distinct society” clause. In my opinion, it is wrong to set one province apart by giving it special status when we have long adhered to the principle that all provinces in this country are equal. Certainly, Quebec is in many respects different from the rest, but then so is Newfoundland with its distinct dialect and customs and so is New Brunswick with its bicultural roots. In fact, each and every province in this great nation is unique, yet all 10 are equal,

We must not make the mistake of equating the province of Quebec with French-speaking Canadians. I reject the notion that this nation is divided into two Canadas, French-speaking Quebec on one side and nine English-speaking provinces on the other. Rather, I see one Canada comprised of 10 equal provinces, with anglophones, francophones and new Canadians at home in each.

The most concise explanation of this view comes from Joey Smallwood, the legendary former Liberal Premier of Newfoundland. In Peter Newman’s book, The Distemper of Our Times, Smallwood describes on page 405 his first meeting with then Minister of Justice Trudeau: “He” -- Trudeau -- “said he wanted my views on the Constitution. So I told him, for Quebec -- nothing. Nothing. I don’t mean almost nothing. I mean nothing whatsoever. Quebec should have nothing that Prince Edward Island doesn’t have -- that Newfoundland doesn’t have. But I said, for the French people in Canada, anywhere in Canada -- everything. Everything. Everything that the English Canadians have, rights, education, everything.”

Smallwood’s eloquent but brief description of his vision of one Canada, French and English, spread across 10 equal provinces commends itself to our attention as we study this accord.

I now turn again to section 16 of the accord, which reads as follows, “Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, affects sections 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.”

In the month that separated the first ministers’ meeting at Meech Lake and their adoption of the final text in the Langevin Block on Parliament Hill, a decision was made to protect certain parts of the charter from the “distinct society” clause. But if the Premier was right when he said no rights are threatened by the accord, why is this section even necessary? And if the section is necessary to protect our rights and freedoms, what happens to those rights not specifically exempted?

I am not a lawyer, but I understand there exists an old legal principle to this effect: to include one thing is to exclude all others. Multicultural and aboriginal rights are included under the protection of section 16. Does this mean that section 15 equality rights, the right to freedom of expression and all other rights in the charter, are automatically excluded from that protection?

Supporters of the accord deny this. They say that section 16 deals with interpretative portions of the charter only, not substantive rights, because section 2 is interpretative only. As I said earlier, it is by no means clear that section 2 is merely interpretative, but even if it is, I do not find this explanation of section 16 very satisfactory.

To begin with, it is wrong to say that section 16 does not deal with any substantive matters. Of course it does. Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, is a substantive provision, and it is protected in section 16. Furthermore, we are deceiving ourselves if we think that substantive rights are immune from interpretation. Courts will use the accord as an interpretative aid in determining whether a limit is “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified” under section 1 of the charter. That is not an impact on the substantive right itself, but the effect is clearly the same.

The first ministers have said, in effect, “Look, these four rights are exempt from the ‘distinct society’ clause, but all others are not.” The Premier and his colleagues have established a two-tiered hierarchy of rights, with equality rights and basic liberties and freedoms resting on the bottom rung. This view is shared by almost all women’s groups which have come forward to speak on the accord, along with many other critics. Perhaps the best articulation of this fear was made by Dalhousie law professor Donald MacKay before the joint committee in Ottawa. MacKay summed up the problem with section 16 in just two words, calling it “dangerously uninclusive.”

Groups like the ad hoc committee of women on the Constitution, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the Metro Action Committee on Public Violence against Women and Children, the Canadian Coalition on the Constitution, even the Liberal Women’s Perspective Advisory Committee, have been unanimous in calling for the protection of charter rights. Sadly, so far, no provincial Legislature has been willing to support their crusade. Will Ontario legislators abandon them also?

I support the select committee’s call for amendments to the accord, though I suggest these do not go far enough. Personally, I believe that the simplest, safest and most effective way to protect the individual rights and freedoms we won in 1982 is to delete the words, “Section 25 or 27 of” in section 16, so that it will clearly and forcefully declare, “Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, affects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

I also support my colleagues the member for Nipissing and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) in their call for a court reference on this issue. Politicians, indeed all Canadians, need to know what we are getting into before we vote. With due respect for the members of the select committee, I find that I cannot support their call for the accord to be ratified as is. I submit that if we have legitimate and serious concerns about the effect of this resolution on our charter, then the time to deal with these concerns is right now, not after the accord becomes law.

At the outset of my remarks, I mentioned how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. If we adopt Meech Lake, there is absolutely no guarantee that future amendments to protect the charter will ever be passed. If they are not passed, we will be stuck with provisions in our Constitution which cut a gaping hole in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Quite simply, I do not think we should be taking chances with the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. There are those who would claim that the benefits of the accord far outweigh these drawbacks. I cannot agree. There is nothing, not a single thing, which to me is worth jeopardizing for the charter. The price is too great and the benefit too small.

Indeed, what is this so-called benefit? The Premier says it is the fact that Quebec has now signed the 1982 Constitution. This is a noble achievement, but is it being obtained at too high a cost? Despite René Lévesque’s isolation in 1981, the fact is that, right now, Quebec is bound by the Constitution and by our charter. Symbolic agreement is lacking, but Quebec is still bound by the charter. The Meech Lake accord obtains the missing and symbolic agreement only by relaxing the charter’s grip on that province. Right now in Quebec the charter is symbolically unaccepted, but still it is enforced.

Meech Lake allows the charter to be symbolically accepted by Quebec, but in reality it weakens it. Given those two options, I cannot help but choose the status quo in this country. The integrity of the charter is far more important than Quebec’s signature, as welcome as that signature may be.

1840

Members of this House must realize that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot both ratify the accord as is and still change it. Those who say we will support it now and change it later know full well that Quebec may never accept the changes and know full well that the threat to the charter may never be removed. To take this attitude is to play politics with our Constitution and to play politics with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is completely unacceptable.

Yves Fortier, former president of the Canadian Bar Association, when he appeared before the joint committee in Ottawa, said any attempt to declare that the “distinct society” clause would not affect the charter would “kill” the Meech Lake accord. I think it is pretty clear, given this comment and given statements made by Premier Bourassa and Gil Rémillard of Quebec, that Quebec will never accept an amendment to protect the charter from its “distinct society” clause. If that is the case, how can we in good conscience ever say that we will pass it now and amend it later?

To borrow a metaphor, the ball is now in our court. Ontario’s support is needed if the accord is to be ratified. With strong leadership and a commitment to the women and the minorities of Canada, we could say: “No. Protect charter rights or we will not ratify.” Instead we are being asked to pass this resolution without even a whimper of dissent.

Then, after Ontario has given away its trump card, after we have nothing left with which to bargain, we are supposed to try to make these changes. Everyone in this chamber knows that that simply will not work. As they say, “marry in haste, repent at leisure.” If we accept this threat to the charter without amendment, we ourselves and generations to come will have decades to regret the consequences. If, on the other hand, we choose to do it right the first time, there will probably be no problems.

I can count as well as the next person. I appreciate that the result of this vote is all but preordained. Yet despite the writing on the wall, I do not hesitate to stand in this chamber and announce that I will be voting against the resolution. On matters of conscience, it is traditional that members be given the freedom to follow their inner direction. The Charter of Rights for me is a matter of conscience. No matter what is done by those around me, I would be unable to sleep if I voted to jeopardize our fundamental rights and freedoms.

John Turner says that the Meech Lake opponents are on the “wrong side of history.” I believe nothing could be farther from the truth. The former Prime Minister has confused “winning and losing” with “right and wrong.” No matter what the result of the final vote is, I believe that one can never be on the wrong side of history if one stands up for individual rights, if one stands up for the charter and if one stands alone to follow one’s conscience.

In closing, let me say that I am mindful of the advice given years ago by Lord Sankey of the Imperial Privy Council when he said that the Canadian Constitution is like a “living tree capable of growth and expansion within natural limits.” I understand that the Meech Lake process reflects a document that is dynamic and evolving, but if our Constitution is a living tree, let us not hasten its growth by pruning away the Charter of Rights.

I cannot support that. Just as I respect the fact that the other members of this House have different views, I ask them to respect mine. While 1, too, welcome the day when Quebec signs our Constitution with honour and with enthusiasm, I want that Constitution to contain a Charter of Rights which provides strong protection of individual rights and freedoms for all Canadians without distinction. Meech Lake wipes out that protection.

As we vote on the accord, I say yes to one Canada, yes to this charter and yes to the constitutional rights of women, minorities and other individuals. Unfortunately, I can only say “yes” to those things by saying “no” to Meech Lake. At home with my constituents and at peace with my conscience, I will be voting against this resolution.

Mr. Miller: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and to take part in this important debate. I have been a member since 1975 and I would like to recall that back in 1980, I believe, the Constitution being brought home to Canada was one of the milestones. That we have been able to keep Canada together as one country has been one of the contributions that in our small way we have been able to make.

I think it was on May 8, at just about 5:30 p.m., that we were able to participate in the debate on the Quebec referendum. At that time, the House was sitting in the evening and we would sit from 8 o’clock until 10:30. It is kind of ironic that tonight, in order to go one step further in the Meech Lake accord, we are sitting after hours so that everyone has the opportunity to participate.

I would like to pay tribute to the chairman of the select committee that was established to deal with the Meech Lake accord. It is ironic, too, that the chairman, who is the member for York North (Mr. Beer) was on our research team at that time -- I think it went back as far as 1977 -- and he played a significant role as we developed the policies and the direction that the province should go. Now he is the chairman of that committee. I would like to congratulate him and also the other members of the committee who worked so hard.

The previous speaker has taken a hard line on the issue of the accord, but I would have to disagree with him. I think one Canada is important. I think we have to share and Ontario has done that with our friends from Quebec. The Canadian Constitution, as we all know, was brought home to Canada in 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was an event of fundamental importance in the history of Canada; yet the event was marred by the lack of participation on the part of Quebec.

The inclusion of Quebec within the federation has been a constitutional priority since that time. This goal was achieved in 1987 as a result of an agreement reached by the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers, including the Premier of Quebec.

I would like to also comment at this time on the fact that our Premier played a leading role, along with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), in bringing this agreement about, and I think they deserve much credit for their participation. It is this agreement, the Meech Lake accord, that we are debating today. In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of a previous debate in this House, just over eight years ago in May 1980, on the resolution regarding the Ontario government’s position on the issue of sovereignty-association in Quebec.

During this sovereignty-association debate, I asked myself, can I contribute to a debate of this kind on a question which is so crucial to every Canadian? I said then, and I still feel, that we all have to try. We all have to do whatever we can to preserve and protect this country which we all love. The people of Quebec are as much my fellow Canadians as are the people of Ontario. I care as much about them and their future as I care about the people elsewhere in this country. I am proud of every inch of Canada, from the Maritimes to British Columbia.

I have had the good fortune to have travelled from coast to coast in Canada and, no matter where I have travelled, I have always felt a kinship with the people, a sense of being at home. We are, after all, Canadians, whatever our ethnic origins, whatever our mother tongue. We are all in this thing together and it is up to us, to all of us, to make this country the great place it was always intended to be.

1850

The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) indicated that his family established here in 1626. My grandparents came over, I believe, in about 1865 and helped hew out the forests and build the farm lands in Canada. They came from Scotland. We had the opportunity of going back three years ago, as a matter of fact, to where our grandparents came from and it was almost like going home. Still, when we got back, Canada is our home and our country and we want to make sure we keep it that way.

I am not bilingual. We have had the opportunity of spending time in Quebec. We cannot communicate totally but we always felt welcome and it is just like going to another country within our own boundaries. In 1980, I asked how we can reach out to these people and how we can make them understand how we feel and how we can convince them that we want them to stay on as an integral part of our Canadian family. I am referring to Quebec; that was the Quebec referendum we were debating.

I believe the Meech Lake accord answers these questions. I believe the Meech Lake accord reaches out to the people of Quebec and welcomes them back. Nearly two weeks after I stood in this House and asked those questions, the people of Quebec voted no to sovereignty-association. The rest of Canada promised that, in response to a no vote, the federal government and the other provinces would initiate constitutional reform to address the concerns of Quebec within what was referred to as renewed federalism.

But the constitutional settlement of 1982 did not address Quebec’s historic concern: equality rights. Multiculturalism, aboriginal rights and minority-language education were subsequently given constitutional recognition. Only Quebec’s concerns were left out in 1982.

The Meech Lake accord answers those concerns by beginning a process of reconciliation which will be continued in future first ministers’ conferences. While reading the Hansard records of those debates in May 1980, I was moved by the sense of heartfelt concern for our country in the words of the many members who participated.

Some of those members, I am pleased to note, still sit in this chamber today. It struck me that the debate today and the debate of eight years ago have important similarities. Again, we are examining the essence of a Canadian experience. The Canadians have a history of finding solutions to difficult problems by discussion and consensus.

In discussions within our own caucus about multiculturalism, which we are so concerned about, and keeping that identity -- I represent the riding of Norfolk which perhaps has as many multicultural societies as any place in Canada. We have Delhi, with people who came over from the time Canada was formed. During the early 1900s, many came over to develop our tobacco area. There were Hungarians, Belgians, Germans. You name it, we have it: the Hungarian hall, the Belgian hall, the Polish hall.

Even one of our young pages here today, Brett Kilian, whose grandfather came and established a tobacco farm in that area and helped to develop it, is part of our heritage. We do not feel he is a Belgian. I do not feel I am a Scotsman. I feel I am a Canadian. I think that is the important thing. That is what makes Canada so great, that we consider ourselves Canadians.

Again, we are examining the essence of Canadian experience. We Canadians have a history of finding solutions to difficult problems by discussion and consensus. It was through discussion and consensus that Canada became a nation in 1867. It was by discussion and consensus that our Constitution was brought home to Canada, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is by discussion and consensus that the Meech Lake accord will bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional mainstream.

There are, of course, critics of the Meech Lake accord. Honest criticism is the hallmark of what makes a Canadian experience work. I understand and respect their concerns. I would point out to them, however, that this accord does not represent the end of constitutional reform in Canada. On the contrary, it is an important beginning; the beginning of full participation by all of Canada’s provinces and the federal government in the future of this nation.

We are a nation which was built on the foundation of two languages and cultures. The Meech Lake accord recognizes the duality by entrenching it in the Constitution. The accord recognizes the distinct society of Quebec as an integral part of the Canadian experience. Quebec is distinct. It is distinct in its language, its culture and its legal system. This is a historical fact which is not now constitutionally recognized.

But the Meech Lake accord does not stop there. It goes on to recognize that included in the distinct identity of Quebec is the existence of its anglophone minority and that part of what defines the rest of Canada is the French presence outside Quebec. This unique Canadian duality is defined in the accord as a fundamental characteristic of Canada.

One other important aspect of the Meech Lake accord I would like to comment on is the long-standing concern which has been often expressed throughout Canada about the appointment of Supreme Court judges and senators. These concerns remained largely unanswered until the Meech Lake accord of 1987.

Despite some of the things we have read on this issue, the accord is not a radical departure from much of the current national debate on Senate reform and balanced representation on the Supreme Court of Canada. For many years we have been hearing about the inequities of our system of appointing Supreme Court judges and the lack of provincial participation in the appointment of senators.

Given the increased national profile of the Senate and the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the Canadian people, a balanced approach to provincial participation in the makeup of these two important Canadian institutions was called for. The Meech Lake accord reaches a balance of allowing the provinces to nominate Supreme Court judges and senators but retains the right of federal governments to make the final determination.

In closing, I am reminded of a story about the first national banquet of the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Quebec, at which one of the founding members referred to the maple leaf, considered to be the symbol of Canadian people. He said:

“This tree, the maple, which grows in our valleys, at first young and beaten by the storm, pines away painfully, feeding itself from the earth, but it soon springs up tall and strong and faces the tempest and triumphs over the wind, which cannot shake it any more. The maple is the king of the forest. It is the symbol of the Canadian people.”

Those words, spoken nearly a century and a half ago, reflect the Canadian experience almost prophetically. When it was young, Canada was beaten by the storm, a storm of linguistic and cultural duality and a storm of differences in vision and political approach. Those winds still blow, but Canada has grown stronger. Canada has grown by returning to its roots, feeding from the earth as we, as a nation, got down to the basics and recognized the importance of coming to terms with one another.

I think that is the heritage I want to leave to my children and my grandchildren. I believe we must continue to grow stronger in unity and understanding, as we have done for more than two centuries. We must continue to live side by side in political associations which make all of us, and Canada, stand strong in the face of many storms which are sure to come.

I urge all members to consider that, whatever their concerns with the Meech Lake accord may be, they can be overcome. I urge the members to consider the paramount importance of facing those concerns as a nation united.

I would like to close my remarks, as I closed them in 1980, by reminding this House that what we have done for ourselves dies with us, but what we have done for others and for the world remains and is immortal. Ratification of the Meech Lake accord is something we can do for others; for our children and grandchildren. It is something we can do for Canada, something we can do for history.

1900

Mr. Morin: I have come before members today to talk about a promise, a promise we have not yet kept, and about a healing that will only occur once we have kept it. Those are the two images that have struck me again and again as I have listened to the witnesses at our committee meetings, the image of a promise unkept, a debt unpaid, and the image of a healing, of the closing of a festering wound.

In the short time I have to speak to members today, I cannot touch upon all aspects of the accord, so I have decided to talk about Quebec. It is the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society that is the accord’s raison d’être. It is also this aspect of the accord that has provoked more controversy than any other and it is the one closest to my heart.

Members might think it is because of my French Canadian background that I have such an intense interest in seeing Ontario ratify the Meech Lake accord. It is true, obviously, that I am French Canadian, but although I was born and raised in Quebec, I have lived in Ontario since 1957 and I call this province my home. It is my province.

I have straddled the worlds of both English and French Canada in my lifetime and I share a love for each and a longing to see the two fully and willingly united. I have also had the honour of serving in the armed forces where there are no French Canadians or English Canadians, only Canadians, and so it is not out of loyalty to French Canada that I stand before members today, but it is out of loyalty to Canada.

I do not speak to members because I am a French Canadian or because I am a man or because I am a Liberal; I speak to members today because I am a Canadian, nothing more, nothing less. No interest brings me here today other than love of my country.

Many of the issues arising from Meech Lake are legal ones and much of the debate is carried out in oblique legal terminology, which is difficult to follow even for a keenly interested and well-informed layman. Constitutional experts have convincingly argued many different and some opposing points of view on the Meech Lake accord. With equal conviction, protagonists on both sides of the debate paint gloomy pictures of the faltering of our nationhood if we do not heed their warnings.

Having listened to them, I know that the arguments both for and against the accord can be compelling. But even experts cannot predict the future, and it seems to me that the differences come down to very fundamental issues, a question of vision and faith, of our idea of what kind of country we want Canada to become.

The Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin made some observations in his presentation to our committee that helped me to understand the basis on which people make the decisions about Meech Lake. He pointed out first of all that the conception of Canada that one has already constructed will influence one’s opinion on Meech Lake:

« Si l’on croit que le Canada est déjà amplement, voire même à outrance, diversifié et décentralisé, il est bien évident qu’on ne sera pas particulièrement favorable à l’accord du lac Meech. Deuxièmement, a dit M. Pepin, il ne fait aucun doute que notre conception du fédéralisme influencera nettement l’angle duquel on envisagera l’accord du lac Meech. D’aucuns seront satisfaits et d’autres mécontents d’un fédéralisme égalitaire plus attentif aux caractéristiques régionales, à la dualité, et beaucoup plus sympathique à l’égard de l’asymétrie que ne l’était le fédéralisme qui dominait au Canada depuis plusieurs années.

« Ce qu’on pense de l’accord du lac Meech dépend aussi beaucoup de l’opinion qu’on a de la politique. Il est évident que l’accord du lac Meech est le fruit d’un climat beaucoup plus propice à la conciliation qu’il ne l’était auparavant, et l’opinion qu’on s’en fera dépendra aussi de l’opinion qu’on a des politiciens qui nous gouvernent présentement. »

Finally, and in my opinion most important, one’s opinion on Meech Lake will depend on one’s priorities. For Mr. Pepin, as for myself, the burning priority is that Quebec be brought back into the fold to ensure that Quebec willingly embraces our Constitution.

Par conséquent, dans la masse de choses, de points politiques qui méritent une analyse constitutionnelle au Canada, le retour du Québec à la table constitutionnelle est prioritaire, et il faut s’occuper de ça d’abord et avant tout.

I am sure that members are all aware of the many competing demands for constitutional reform. Some members probably are asking themselves: Why is it so important to take care of Quebec first?

The answer is that, first of all, we have to recognize that everything cannot be done at the same time. We must make a choice as to what we deal with first, and there are good reasons rooted in Canada’s history why we should deal with Quebec first and bring her into the family.

Canada’s history makes the convincing argument for the recognition of Quebec’s distinctiveness. When George III gave royal assent to the Quebec Act in 1774, he explicitly recognized Quebec’s distinctiveness by granting its citizens the right to communicate with the government in French, by allowing Catholics to hold public office and by permitting the civil law of France to continue as the law of the land.

Later on, when the Constitution Act divided Quebec into Lower Canada and Upper Canada, it conferred on Lower Canada all the characteristics given by the Quebec Act. It also added a further recognition of Quebec’s distinctiveness by creating an assembly where the French language could be used and to which Catholics could be elected.

But that clear evidence of Quebec’s distinctiveness was challenged after the rebellions of 1837 and 1838 by the British Parliament’s Act of Union of 1841, which united the two provinces into the single province of Canada. The act provided that English only could be the language of the Canadian Parliament and it alone would have official status. That situation did not last very long.

In the words of the Honourable Jack Pickersgill, “It is one of the great glories of Canadian history that the Parliament of the province of Canada, in which a majority of members were English speaking, insisted on the restoration of French as an official language.” I do not think we should ever forget that act of statesmanship.

I would add that there have been other similar acts of statesmanship and I would remind you of just a couple. In 1763, before the Quebec Act, the British issued a proclamation whose intent was to transform Quebec into an English-speaking colony by establishing English law and representative institutions.

General James Murray, the first British governor, refused to establish the assembly since Roman Catholics were still denied the rights of citizenship and therefore would be excluded from the assembly.

General James Murray’s successor, Sir Guy Carleton, initially intended to grant the wishes of the English-speaking minority, but finding himself increasingly irritated by the British colonists and attracted by the French Canadians, he advised the British government in 1772 to abandon the proclamation of 1763. He recommended a new policy, which two years later became the Quebec Act.

1910

Because French Canadian aspirations have so often been met with indifference, I would like to honour those who have spoken for Canadian unity by recognizing Quebec’s distinctiveness.

We can look back more than 200 years to find precedents for recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec, but we need to look only a few years to find the roots of the accord.

During the period leading to Quebec’s 1980 referendum on sovereignty-association, the federalist forces promised that the defeat of the referendum would be followed by constitutional change designed to better accommodate Quebec’s aspirations.

The agreement that was reached, which became the Constitution Act, 1982, did not satisfy that objective. It did not keep the promise made to Quebec. By giving the Charter of Rights, patriating the Constitution and creating an amending formula, the act gave some important things to Canada, but it did not make the Constitution acceptable to Quebec. Moreover, it diminished Quebec’s powers of government by withdrawing its veto, and the charter of rights restricted the power of her Legislature. In the words of Dr. Peter Hogg of York University, Osgoode Hall Law School, by not having Quebec’s consent, this act created a profound sense of grievance.

it is worth noting that it was not only Quebec that felt isolated. Women and native peoples believed that their rights to equality had not been adequately safeguarded, but following a massive public protest and further discussions among the premiers, women did secure what they desired, while the native peoples received part of what they wanted.

I know that some people have expressed concern that the accord may compromise the rights of women and minority groups. I would just like to say a few words to allay those fears.

A number of constitutional experts have convincingly argued that the “distinct society” clause will not infringe on women’s or anyone else’s rights. Dr. Peter Hogg, for example, considered that the clause lacked clarity, but he also pointed out that the conventions of constitution-making are such that the language used should be general, not specific. He argued as well that it is extremely unlikely that the clause would ever be applied in a discriminatory way.

It is important to remember that the accord provides for annual meetings of first ministers to consider future constitutional changes.

We all know that the accord is not perfect, but we should applaud it and accept it because it is good. A constitution is a living, breathing document, a reflection of a peoples’ aspirations, and there will be opportunities to make further changes.

All of this is not to say that the concerns of Quebec are more important than those of anyone else. It is only to acknowledge that Quebec’s concerns are important and that there are good reasons why they should be addressed now.

Many of the people who feel that the accord compromises women’s or multicultural rights are overlooking something crucial, something I cannot stress enough; that is that the whole purpose of Meech Lake is essentially to resolve some of Quebec’s problems. The conference was not intended to review every aspect of the Constitution; rather, its purpose was to amend the constitution of 1982 to make it acceptable to Quebec.

L’honorable M. Pickersgill souligne que le Québec a fait montre d’un grand respect envers notre appareil législatif en se soumettant à la juridiction accrue de la Cour suprême du Canada. Mais il remarque, en revanche, que le Québec a manifesté son opposition en refusant de prendre part à toute conférence concernant la constitution, et ce, jusqu’à ce que la constitution elle-même soit amendée d’une façon acceptable à son gouvernement. Cela a pour effet, ajoute M. Pickersgill, que personne au pays ne sera jamais capable de soumettre un amendement tant et aussi longtemps que le Québec maintiendra son boycottage.

Although Quebec has been legally bound by the Constitution, her participation has been grudging. It will probably continue to be so, with reason, until we grant the simple recognition which she has sought for so long.

There are many reasons why we should ratify this accord and today I am offering the House only one of those reasons. By saying yes to Canada at the time of the referendum and by sitting down to share her point of view with us, Quebec has proven her good faith. Now it is up to us to return the gesture.

This accord is about many things but its raison d’être is Quebec. It offers Canada the opportunity of a new beginning. By bringing Quebec into the family, the Meech Lake accord will close a circle that has been broken for too long. It is the fulfilment of a promise for healing that will make Canada whole again.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is unusual for me to rise and speak in opposition to a committee’s report and to find myself for the first time in my 10th year here rising to speak in opposition to my party’s position on the matter of the accord. So it is a very difficult and an emotional thing for me to do.

Mr. Harris: Don’t do it then.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thank the member for cautioning me not to do so if that is the case, but there are times when one has to do what one feels is best and one feels that one must. There are certain matters upon which any member of this House should rightfully ascertain his or her decision without all the normal constraints which are placed upon us in terms of our senses of other loyalties. I think the matter of the Constitution should be one of those times.

I am one of those people who does not see the Constitution as a dry document that is off there some place with no impact on people’s lives. I see it as something which is a living thing, much of which is written and some of which is an unwritten constitution. I believe a constitution must reflect as best it can the nature of its society. I think that the worst example of a constitution which does not is the Russian constitution which, even though it has many noble words in it, has masked a society which has suppressed so much in the way of liberty and freedom of speech over the years.

This is not the first time I have addressed the issue of the Constitution in this House. In 1980 I was a member of our first select committee on the Constitution. I happily went back -- or I went back warily -- to see what I said at that time just on the off chance that I might be being consistent and luckily found that I was.

I then also looked back at the period of 1981 when, with the new majority, the select committee on the Constitution had been abandoned and our Legislature no longer played much of a part in the process of constitutional reform. I will quote from both of those times in the House to reinforce what I am about to say this evening.

I am fundamentally opposed to this accord because I find it so fundamentally undemocratic. If I am anything, it is a democrat. I am a person who does not believe that a democratic nation should have its constitutional change imposed upon it by 11 men negotiating overnight as if they had the last option of saving a contract for a group of workers in their best interests, making tradeoffs and deals and then saying to the rest of the country and the rest of the legislatures -- I would like to spend a fair amount of time on that -- that they have no real say in it.

1920

I believe constitutional reform in a democratic country must be undertaken in a democratic fashion and must be based on a faith in the capacity of the people of that country to have a say in the constitutional change. We have now twice ignored that very important concept, with the repatriation of the Constitution the first time and now in 1998 as we all debate this matter with our hands tied by the first ministers of this country in terms of how far we can go, so the best a very courageous and hard-working committee can do is to come up with a number of companion resolutions which we hope will have some impact on these political despots -- and that is how I consider them -- who have decided to inflict their will upon us.

On May 4, 1981, in a speech in this House, I said the following: “No matter what the Supreme Court decides in the next week or two about this particular package” -- speaking as I was at that time of the repatriation and the constitutional change -- “there is much more that needs to be done in terms of constitutional reform. This Legislature, not just the executive, should be involved in that discussion.

“What we learned as members of that committee travelling across the country was that it is vital that the debate be broadened, that it be taken away from just the national Parliament and just the premiers around the country and be broadened to include as many Canadians as possible, so that they understand what that debate is about and understand the choices that are there to be made for the future of their country.”

I believe that as profoundly today in 1988 as I did in 1981.

Instead, what we have is 11 high priests and their acolytes deciding for the rest of us the parameters of our discussion. By so doing, I would suggest to members that in a great irony they are destroying the Constitution of our country that exists, a Constitution which explicitly and implicitly gives certain rights to sovereign legislatures around this country and says to us as legislators that we have certain rights and privileges about making decisions.

The premiers and the Prime Minister are, I would remind all members, only primus inter pares, first among equals. We do not have a presidential system. Just because there happen to be majority governments in most of those provinces, those premiers have no right to restrict our debate and to restrict the process in a way which can only be seen, in my view, to be a blackmail-style pressure around the involvement of Quebec, finally, as has been said so eloquently by my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), in the Canadian fabric.

We have been told, and it has been forced upon us by the way this has been done, that we cannot make any changes -- the most we can do is put forward these companion resolutions -- because this is the only way to get Quebec in and that this is the Quebec round. I would like, as strongly as I can, to make the argument that this is not just the Quebec round. If it in fact were, I would consider this an ending of that first stage of constitutional reform and I would accept the fact that it could be done in this authoritarian fashion.

But instead of just bringing in Quebec and finally respecting the distinct society, which many of us have believed in for a long time, the other premiers, and specifically the western premiers, played cards that should not have been played, brought other matters into this constitutional accord that should never have been brought in without the people being involved and set the stage for the next part of the agenda, which they should never have been allowed to do, and set, unfortunately, a precedent for how these decisions get made which is going to be very tough for us to change.

I would argue that instead of this just being the Quebec round, which I would hope we could all embrace well, this is a round which affects our aboriginal peoples because, strangely, we have included in the agenda in this accord, in the actual wording of the accord, the fact that the first ministers will meet to discuss Senate reform; this reform of that sleeping chamber is of so much significance that it had to be mentioned in an accord which brings Quebec into the Constitution.

While we did that -- while they did that -- there is not one mention of the aboriginal peoples and when they are coming on the agenda. I would suggest that is a very important statement for any members who believe the line that is going around a lot now about the family of Canada finally being brought together. I would suggest that one of the children is still missing. Our founding peoples have not been included. They did not even merit mention in terms of the agenda which was involved.

Members may not think that is significant, that we can add a little companion resolution which will get them back in because they will all see fit to do that on their own, our wise leaders, the 11 sages, but I would suggest they were excluded specifically. They were excluded as part of the price for bringing in Quebec. It was not Quebec which asked for it. If members think it is going to be easy to get the aboriginal peoples higher on the agenda than Senate reform, which could take us a long time to get through, they are crazy. This is not going to speed up their involvement at all.

I would also suggest that this is not just the Quebec round, this is the Yukon round, this is the Northwest Territories round. In 1982, they had a guarantee from those first ministers, the sage 11, that in fact only a simple majority would be required to get one of the territories provincial status. Specifically under this accord it will now take unanimity. I ask members to think about that a little bit. That is a change. That is not an omission, like the aboriginal peoples; that is an act of commission. That has been done deliberately. I think anybody who looks at this and does not ask why that was done is missing the point of what this kind of bargaining session is all about.

I believe it was done for two reasons. First, some of the western provinces covet the notion of expansion into the north at some point or other. They wish to have a veto. Second, some of them, even if they do not wish to have part of the Northwest Territories made part of their province, do not want to lose the federal dollars which presently come in from resource extraction which would be lost to them if those areas became provinces.

What you have traded off here in bringing the family together is to probably exclude forever the notion of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories becoming provinces; or if they can become provinces I ask members what midnight deal will be made and what will be lost next time in order to get them that? I suggest it is a very dangerous thing that has taken place and that members should be concerned about it.

This is also, because of the whole messing around with section 16 which is involved in this, a round which does not just include Quebec but includes the multicultural community, includes the women of Canada, in ways they had not been expected to be pushed into this accord and which raise very serious legal questions about what their rights are now in the balance with the charter and with this new accord.

Finally, I would suggest that when one looks at what has been done so rightfully for the people of Quebec, bringing them into the recognition of the distinct society and protecting and promoting the French fact there, one has to look at the language which has been used in terms of the French-speaking people of our country outside of Quebec.

1930

For the word “protection, “ “protégé” is used in the French text. There is no notion of promotion. We must, I hope, all think seriously about the fact that two signatories, two of the sage group who signed this protecting their minorities, Grant Devine and Don Getty, have recently shown us what they think is appropriate protection of their francophone minorities. One would presume that they are not just trying to rush in some kind of inadequate change before this comes through, but that they are doing this, as they have said, in the spirit of Meech.

I would ask again, at what cost is this all taking place? Would it have taken place like this if we had actually freed the legislatures to do what our legislative committee members did -- and I must praise them -- that is, draw in people to hear their views? But then, unfortunately, they were constrained with how they could act, so that all they have come forward with, instead of amendment, because they knew that would be futile, is companion resolution, which they hope will have some impact on Mr. Mulroney.

I will just talk for a second about the power of resolutions from this House. What we will be passing when we pass this report -- and I presume we will -- will be just that, passing the report and the recommendations of a committee. I do not know, and I suppose it would take a lot of research by our table officers to find out, how many of those reports have been debated and how many of their recommendations have been accepted in this House over many years. It would take an awful lot more research to find out how many of those recommendations were ever accepted by the government of the day in Ontario, let alone ever passed on to another level of government, accepted and acceded to by that other level of government or by parallel levels of government across the country. I can think of a number I have been involved with: one, for instance, on wife abuse -- I still have to see some of those recommendations ever implemented, and that was in 1982.

I do not think we should kid ourselves about what it is we are going to be passing here and about what the actual strength of a resolution from this House is. To those who are feeling uncomfortable, as I know many people are, with the nature of this accord but who are saying, “Well, we have got these companion resolutions and that absolves us in some way,” I say I do not think it does.

When I look at what is the fundamental reason for the difference of opinion between me and a number of my colleagues, it is not whether we all welcome and are delighted with the acceptance of Quebec, finally, into our midst; that is not the division. I will read, if I might, from something I said on May 5, 1980, which I believe as profoundly today as I did then: “Monsieur le Président, je veux croire qu’il n’est pas trop tard pour montrer notre bonne volonté politique de mûrir en tant que nation pouvant accommoder le Québec et ce qu’il représente au sein de notre fédération.”

I still believe, as profoundly as I did then, that without Quebec this country is not Canada, as the member for Lake Nipigon said. I still believe that is what was vital for us to have accomplished in this last little while, but I say to members that the reason I cannot make the step with the rest of them is that for me we have done it at a cost, a cost to democracy, and at a price in terms of the other groups that I have mentioned that is too dear, that is too dangerous a precedent for the future.

I find myself obliged to stand here and to say, with regret, that although I understand the profound thought and emotion that have gone into this from the other side and the argument that it musters, that when I balance the pros and the cons, for me, for my Canada, there should have to be another way to accommodate nos soeurs et frères au Québec. There must be a democratic way to do this. We must accept those democratic principles and not the fiats of our new presidents. The tradeoffs that have been made around these other groups is not the way any Québécois wants to be entered into Confederation. These were not their terms; these were Getty’s terms; these were Devine’s terms. These were not Bourassa’s terms that have been added here.

Unless members understand that and understand how difficult it is going to be for us to act after this, either to change the process to a more democratic process or to avoid the constrictions that have been brought on this process by the very terms of this accord, I believe they miss the point of what is actually taking place here under the guise of finally having Quebec in our family.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and take part in this most historic debate. It has often been said that Canadians are no different from our American neighbours to the south, that we have no unique cultural identity. I lived in the United States for a short time and I know there are qualities that are distinctly Canadian. Canadians tend to seek compromise and show tremendous willingness to work co-operatively. Our publicly funded, universally accessible health care system is distinctly Canadian and is much envied by our neighbours to the south and, as I have said on numerous occasions, by many countries in the world.

The multiculturalism that enriches our communities is very much a Canadian phenomenon. I am extremely proud to be a Canadian today. I feel this pride and I know this is a sense that is shared by every member in this House. I feel that the Meech Lake accord is a truly Canadian solution to a distinctly Canadian set of circumstances.

Since 1982, we have had an incomplete Constitution, one that excludes the second-largest province in our country. The Meech Lake accord affords us the opportunity to say to Quebec, “We have listened, we have talked and we realize that Quebec is a distinctive province within Canada.”

I am not suggesting that the Meech Lake accord is perfect. During the committee hearings, a number of individuals and groups raised concerns about the accord. I have been approached by women’s groups that fear that the guarantee of equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms might in some way be compromised by the accord. However, and I wish to share this with all those who are listening to this debate, I have great confidence in the assurances of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that the accord in no way diminishes the guarantees of gender equality.

I think our highly respected and esteemed Attorney General in his submission to the committee made an excellent point when he said; “The accord does not purport to settle for future generations the ongoing debates about the nature of the country. Rather than seeking a futile once-and-for-all settlement of fundamental questions, the accord provides a space within which politics can continue with civility and mutual respect. It sees politics as a continuing exercise in finding compromise and building trust. It rejects polarization and tests of strength.”

1940

In speaking with groups across the province, I often say our goal is to seek consensus, but we must remember, however, that consensus does not always mean unanimity. The Meech Lake accord represents a unique consensus in this country among representatives of different regions, different interests and even different political parties.

The legislative committee members examining the accord, who, I believe, must and should be commended for their excellent report, did not, I am sure, agree on each and every issue, but they were able to join together to provide for their unanimous endorsement for provincial acceptance of this historic agreement to bring Quebec into the constitutional fold.

I would also like to recognize the very important role played by my leader and our Premier (Mr. Peterson) and to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Attorney General. Ontario should be proud. We had, I believe, the best possible representation at Meech Lake and at Langevin. Both the Premier and the Attorney General deserve our appreciation for their hard work and their leadership in nation-building. I am proud to serve with them and, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I wish to go on the record to thank them.

As I said earlier, I believe this accord is in the best of Canadian traditions. It addresses the issues of language, of culture and of federal-provincial relations. As the Attorney General noted, Meech Lake stands in the traditions of Laurier, Mackenzie King and Pearson in striking a reasonable balance among contradictory ideals.

The debate which has surrounded the Meech Lake accord since it was first announced has been a very important and a very healthy one for this country. It has given us the opportunity to discuss things that we normally take for granted, things such as the importance of preserving our rights and freedoms and what it means to us as individuals to be Canadians.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to add my voice to this discussion. I will be voting in favour of the motion before us and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole.

M. Daigeler: Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je vais m’adresser à vous en anglais, vu que mes commentaires sont surtout, je crois, dédiés à ceux qui ne comprennent pas le français. Alors, de cette façon, vous m’excuserez si je m’exprime en anglais.

Le vice-président: Allez-y.

Mr. Daigeler: I consider it a great privilege to rise in support of the Meech Lake historic reconciliation of English Canada with the province of Quebec. A substantial factor in the referendum rejection of a separatist Quebec was the promise of a renewed federalism. However, in the constitutional changes which brought us the Charter of Rights in 1982, the historic concerns of Quebec were not addressed.

In his remarks to the Legislature during the establishment of the select committee on constitutional reform, the Attorney General made reference to the sad feelings of betrayal experienced in Quebec in 1981 and 1982. Anyone who has been associated with Quebeckers in recent years knows how much these old wounds are still festering. Mr. Scott made reference to the graphic description by Solange Chaput-Rolland, a member of the Pepin-Robarts federal Task Force on Canadian Unity and one of the leading campaigners for a “no” vote in the referendum.

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

Chaput-Rolland’s statement shows, in my opinion, how little Jim Coutts and those who feel like him understand the emotional significance of Quebec’s absence from the constitutional family. In November of last year, Mr. Coutts wrote in the Toronto Star, “Canadians are seeing how ridiculous it is to have government leaders welcome Quebec back into Confederation when, in fact, the province never left.” If in 1981, as happened in Quebec, every member of the Ontario Legislature would have voted against the constitutional changes as totally unacceptable, I wonder what Mr. Coutts would say today about Ontario’s place in Confederation.

The question is not, was Quebec part of Canada before Meech Lake? Of course, it was, legally speaking. The question is, do Quebeckers feel at home in Canada under the 1982 Constitution and without Meech Lake? To ask this question presupposes our desire to make Quebec feel at home in Canada. All too often, I regret to say, this desire is not present among Meech Lake critics.

Feeling at home in a country involves a sense of pride, equal partnership and real participation in the decisions and destiny of the nation. In other words, being part of Canada’s Constitution must be more than an act of legal determination. It must be a statement of the heart. Meech Lake allows this kind of pledge for Quebec and, I feel strongly, it allows it with equal honour for all Canadians, including our aboriginal people and our multicultural communities.

To understand Meech Lake and why we can be proud of it, we must look at its facts rather than at the fiction that has been built around it by its detractors. As an example of the misleading information which has been spread on the accord, I quote a statement by the Canadian Coalition on the Constitution. I regret to see well-known Canadians such as Eugene Forsey, Adrienne Clarkson and Sharon Carstairs associated with such ill-informed statements as, “The Meech Lake accord cedes to provincial governments the selection of Supreme Court justices, gives provincial control over the appointment of senators, and gives every province a veto over any future constitutional change.”

For the record, I would like to quote from the accord itself, which states in subsection 101C(1) with regard to the appointment of Supreme Court justices, “Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons ... qualified ... for appointment to that court.” Under subsection 2, while the accord states that judges shall be appointed from among those whose names have been submitted under subsection 1, they must be acceptable to the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

On the appointment of senators, again the accord specifies that they shall be chosen from any persons whose names have been submitted by the provincial government to which the vacancy relates and who must be acceptable to the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

Are the critics saying that our provincial governments will be unable to propose names acceptable to the federal government? If this were the sorry state of our national affairs, no legal formula to break the impasse would solve the underlying constitutional crisis. Only a changed political will could accomplish this. Such a change must happen through elections rather than in the arena of the courts.

1950

On the falsely maligned amending formula, let us see exactly where unanimity is required: the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting senators; the number of senators for each province; the number of MPs per province, not less than the number of senators in 1982; proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons; the use of the English or the French language; the Supreme Court of Canada; the extension of existing provinces into the territories; the establishment of new provinces, and finally, an amendment to this part of the Constitution.

For all other amendments, the traditional formula remains in effect of seven provinces which together represent at least 50 per cent of Canada’s population. As I see it, the more far-reaching the decisions the more important it is to involve all affected partners in the decision-making.

With regard to the central political institutions of this country, it is only fair that all partners in Confederation should agree to fundamental changes in our political system. Some feel that this unanimity requirement will prevent for ever the establishment of new provinces. I would like to point to the example of Switzerland, a country where I had the privilege of living for some time. With the unanimous agreement of all cantons, a new canton called Jura was created in recent years. Admittedly, this development took considerable time and effort. However, it was a price well worth paying. It made it possible to welcome this new canton as a truly equal partner and with the full respect of all other signatories of the Swiss Confederation.

Finally, another fiction that has been repeated often is the alleged lack of publicity about the process leading to the accord. I would like to emphasize that the basic concepts of Meech Lake were a matter of public record for several years. Quebec formally outlined its constitutional proposals two years ago based on the Quebec Liberal Party resolutions from 1995. “Speech by Quebec Minister Kicks Off Negotiation Process” read the headline in a May 12, 1986, article by Globe and Mail reporter Graham Fraser.

On June 5, 1996, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney met with Premier Robert Bourassa and endorsed Quebec’s agenda as a basis of negotiation. One week later, Liberal leader John Turner announced that after several weeks of concerted preparation, the Liberals supported Quebec’s proposals in principle. At the time, they did have some reservations on the federal spending power.

Canada’s 10 premiers considered the matter in August 1986 and issued the Edmonton declaration accepting Quebec’s five issues as the basis for detailed talks which began in September. In January 1987, the New Democratic Party’s federal council endorsed three of Quebec’s proposals, including the recognition of a distinct society and sent the spending power issue off for study. The NDP national convention ratified this position in March, and around that time Mr. Mulroney called a meeting of first ministers where agreement was achieved on April 30 on reconciling Quebec to the 1982 Constitution Act.

Another section of the accord which has come under heavy criticism is the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. In this context, I feel it is essential not to confuse the notion of unity with that of uniformity. We must learn not only to tolerate but to cherish and glory in the diversity which Canada possesses as a homeland of many peoples. Quebec’s distinct society enriches the very nature of Canada and enhances our sovereignty by contributing to the uniqueness of this country. The strength of Canada’s unity is intimately tied to our respect for its diversity.

The question has been raised why only Quebec should be recognized as a distinct society. The unilateral repatriation in 1982 of necessity forced Meech Lake to focus exclusively on the role of Quebec within Confederation. Secondly, Meech Lake refers to the distinctiveness of Quebec as a fundamental characteristic of Canada; it does not exclude other important characteristics of this country.

Some people fear this provision may limit individual rights guaranteed under the charter. However, as the Attorney General has said in his presentation to the select committee, any limits to charter rights must be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

I ask those who do not accept the “distinct society” interpretation clause, “Are you prepared to put at risk -- a risk that must be demonstrably justifiable to the Supreme Court -- the survival of French-Canadian culture in order to protect certain individual rights?” One cannot support the existence and growth of a different language and culture without accepting at the same time distinct rules of behaviour, different thought patterns and different ways of living. Anything less, in my opinion, would be hypocritical.

Recognizing the distinctiveness of one culture is the best guarantee for the acceptance of other cultures in this country. Once we appreciate in mind and heart the value of ways of life different from our own, we will be better able to accept the beauty not only of our French-Canadian heritage but that of our aboriginals and of our multicultural community in this country.

Finally, I want to make some remarks on the spending power of the federal government. Again, there has been much irrational scaremongering by otherwise well-reasoned commentators. I would like to quote once more Jim Coutts from an article in the Toronto Star of November 29, 1987:

“One million children live in poverty. Canadians know that national programs are required to correct this shameful reality. They also know that our federal government -- if the Meech Lake accord goes through -- will never be able to successfully implement those programs.”

In my opinion, there is a terrible arrogance in this criticism. It implies that provincial politicians are essentially self-serving and that Ottawa is the sole repository of wisdom and probity. We do need a strong central government, but my definition of strength is different from that of a centralist. Strength comes from bringing together rather from eliminating diversity, difference and distinctiveness.

Those arguing for more federal powers seem to say, “Ottawa knows best and everyone else should fall into line.” I do not accept that position. It denies the inherent value of dissenting opinions. Strength, as I said, comes from consensus-building; it comes from recognizing the innate dignity and value of each participant in the process.

The federal government will still be able to devise and implement new national social programs, but it will do so by persuading Canadians of their merits, not by imposing its will. When the case for change is strong enough, it will carry the day. Governments will be encouraged to build consensus and to follow the established Canadian way of doing things. We are a people who find solutions to our problems by listening to each other and taking each other’s point of view into account.

It will mean more variety in the nature of social programs across Canada, but Canada is a federal state -- federal because variety was a condition of Confederation in 1867. Provincial jurisdictions exist for profound and practical reasons, not as inconveniences for those who would impose uniformity in all fields in a complex nation.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to make two final comments. Our amended Constitution will work if politicians of goodwill want it to; and it will fail, no matter how it reads, if mediocre, parochial or selfish politicians are in charge. Secondly, as the Attorney General said on November 25, 1987, if English Canada refuses to proceed with the accord, we will have appeared to have said no to Quebec for the second time in this decade.

I strongly believe that the Meech Lake accord respects and indeed strengthens the federal nature of this country through its recognition of diversity rather than uniformity, its emphasis on consensus-building rather than confrontation and its timely acceptance of Quebec into the constitutional family. I am therefore proud to support the report of the select committee and to endorse the constitutional resolution introduced by the Premier.

2000

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Monsieur le Président, avec votre permission et celle de la Chambre, je vais m’exprimer en français. C’est une journée remarquable; alors, je préférerais m’exprimer en français.

Je suis très fier, à titre de Canadien, d’Ontarien, de Canadien français et de député, d’appuyer les recommandations du Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle ainsi que la résolution autorisant la modification de la constitution du Canada.

Je profite de l’occasion pour féliciter le député de York-Nord et les dix membres de son comité, qui ont fait un travail exceptionnel. Je me réjouis du fait que le Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle recommande de façon unanime que la province de l’Ontario doive protéger et promouvoir les droits des Franco-Ontariens.

Mon collègue le député de Scarborough-Ouest (M. R. F. Johnston) faisait allusion tantôt au fait que l’accord du lac Meech n’affirme pas que l’Ontario a la responsabilité de protéger et de promouvoir le fait français en Ontario. Alors, remercions Dieu de la Loi 8, qui a été acceptée de façon unanime par la Chambre pour promouvoir et protéger le fait francophone en Ontario.

L’appui unanime accordé à cette recommandation par les trois partis à cette Assemblée constitue, à mon avis, une réaffirmation sans équivoque de leur appui aux initiatives du gouvernement visant à reconnoitre la place légitime des francophones en Ontario. Monsieur le Président, je vous assure que l’Ontario continuera à consacrer toutes ses énergies à la mise en oeuvre de la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français ainsi qu’au suivi d’autres dossiers prioritaires pour les francophones de l’Ontario.

L’accord du lac Meech mérite notre appui parce qu’il reconnaît le concept de la dualité linguistique et culturelle comme la pierre angulaire de la loi constitutionnelle de notre pays. De plus, cet accord nous permet d’améliorer la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982.

Je suis heureux d’appuyer la recommandation visant à créer un comité permanent des affaires constitutionnelles et intergouvernementales. Ce comité sera un forum idéal pour débattre les revendications légitimes des francophones, telles que présentées dans le rapport du Comité.

Il va sans dire que l’exclusion du Québec de cette entente a eu et continue d’avoir de tristes conséquences pour l’unité de notre pays. Cet accord permettra ainsi de remédier à l’exclusion de près d’un quart des citoyens du Canada de la loi fondamentale du pays.

Les Canadiens ne peuvent pas accepter que le principal représentant d’un des peuples fondateurs du pays, le Québec, soit exclu de l’accord constitutionnel. Je suis convaincu que l’accord du lac Meech constitue une solution honorable à ce problème, une solution digne des citoyens du Canada, en partie parce qu’il permet au Québec de participer à part entière à la confédération.

D’ailleurs, la reconnaissance du Québec comme société distincte ne fait que confirmer une réalité que la grande majorité des Canadiens ont acceptée d’emblée dès les débuts de la confedération. Le Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle abondait aussi en ce sens en affirmant que l’accord décrit fidèlement la réalité linguistique du Canada. Cet accord consacre aussi une collaboration fraternelle et permanente entre les communautés anglophone et francophone du Canada.

En ce qui a trait aux répercussions de l’accord sur la communauté francophone de cette province, je vous assure, Monsieur le Président, qu’elles seront importantes. J’appuie cet accord à titre de Franco-Ontarien parce qu’il reconnaît pour la première fois la responsabilité des provinces de protéger la culture française sur leur sol. De plus, la reconnaissance de la dualité linguistique au Canada nous porte à croire que cet accord pourrait favoriser les droits de la communauté francophone de l’Ontario. D’ailleurs, l’histoire soutient cette thèse.

L’inclusion de l’article 23 portant sur les droits en matière de l’éducation des groupes minoritaires dans la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 a eu des répercussions heureuses pour les Franco-Ontariens. Rappelons, entre autres, la décision de la Cour suprême de l’Ontario d’accorder aux Franco-Ontariens le droit de gérer leurs propres écoles. Plusieurs conviendront également que la Loi constitutionnelle est sans aucun doute à l’origine d’un des événements politiques les plus remarquables dans l’histoire des francophones de cette province, à savoir l’adoption de la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français.

Le jour où l’accord du lac Meech aura été entériné par toutes les provinces et le gouvernement canadien sera une occasion de réjouissance pour tous les Canadiens et pour tous les francophones de l’Ontario. La reconnaissance explicite de la dualité linguistique comme caractéristique fondamentale du pays nous amènera, j’en suis convaincu, à une plus grande reconnaissance des droits des francophones hors Québec.

J’enjoins à mes collègues d’exercer un leadership qui rayonnera au-delà des frontières de l’Ontario en appuyant l’accord du lac Meech, un geste qui consacrera la légitimité de la communauté francophone en Ontario.

This is one of the most important days of this Legislature, a historical one, because I know that the majority of the members of this House will support the Meech Lake accord. I think that most of us realize the importance of Meech Lake, and this importance will certainly affect other votes taken on the Meech Lake accord right across Canada.

In the last three or four weeks, we have lived through some difficult experiences in Canada with the decisions of Saskatchewan and Alberta refusing to recognize the rights of francophones in their provinces. I think that was a sad day for Canada. If Meech Lake had been in place, then these two provinces would not have backed it the way they did. I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for francophones living in these two provinces, and I urge them to continue to work -- not to fight with those provincial governments but to work with them in order to be accepted in their provinces.

This is an historic day. We should all stop and think and realize the importance of the Meech Lake accord. We should not be concerned only about Ontario. We should be concerned about our brothers and sisters, of the multicultural groups and communities right across Canada. We must make sure that Meech Lake is a success not only for Ontario but also for Canada.

2010

Mr. Furlong: A May 2, 1987, article in the Kingston Whig-Standard reported the following:

“Constitutional law experts at Queen’s University reacted with surprise and delight yesterday when they learned that Canada’s first ministers had reached a unanimous accord which will bring Quebec into the Constitution. ‘I just think it’s wonderful. The thought of having Quebec voluntarily sitting down and signing the Constitution and being a full participant in the country is great news,’ said Professor Dan Soberman, a constitutional law teacher at Queen’s.

“He went on to say, ‘I think the most important thing that people lose sight of is there may indeed have to be some costs and we might have done some things that we would prefer not to have done, but my view is that it’s a relatively small price to pay for the unity that this will create in the country.’”

I share that view. I believe that we in this House should proclaim loudly and jointly our strong support for this constitutional accord. While we may suggest that the accord is not without flaws, we must also agree that it does provide the necessary framework to encourage a fully participating Quebec in Canada’s constitutional agenda.

Our support of this accord, I believe, will send a message to all Canadians that we in Ontario share a commitment to a strong and united Canada. It also sends a clear message to Quebec that we are living up to our May 9, 1980, promise in this Legislature, approving a resolution calling for “a new constitution to satisfy the diverse aspirations of all Canadians and to replace the status quo which is clearly unacceptable.” This resolution had the unanimous support of this House.

Constitutional reform came to an impasse in 1982. The governments of Canada and all other provinces except Quebec agreed to the repatriation of our Constitution. That document accommodated many interests in our country and brought us a Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It did not, as we know, resolve the question of a place for Quebec within Canada. Accordingly, it became necessary to develop a plan to correct this shortcoming of the 1982 agreement.

Our country, while delighted with the progress in 1982, was still handcuffed by the omission of Quebec. The accord unblocks constitutional reform and removes barriers to political and economic challenges facing our nation. A new symbol, both symbolic and practical, will make possible new initiatives on constitutional reform.

To reject the accord on the basis of the perceived flaws would perpetuate Quebec’s isolation and have serious consequences for Canada. If we are to promote unity and foster a spirit of true patriotism, then we must do what we said we would do. We must ensure that there be adequate protection for the distinct identity of Quebec within Canada as an equal partner under the Constitution.

In its July 1987 submission to the special joint committee on the 1987 constitutional accord, the Council for Canadian Unity extended its support for the accord. This council was established in 1969 and is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization which seeks to preserve and enhance national unity in Canada. The council reports, “that although the accord responds in the first instance to the concerns of the government of Quebec, the provisions of the accord are sensitive to and reflect the concerns and objectives of provinces other than Quebec.”

The accord includes provisions that will entrench the Supreme Court of Canada in the Constitution, and provide for a provincial role in future appointments to both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Senate. Under the terms of the accord, federal authorities will make appointments to the court from a list of candidates proposed by the provinces, with the federal government retaining the right of final approval. Another of the five major provisions of the accord allows for limitations on future federal spending in the areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and shared-cost programs.

All existing federal powers remain intact and untouched by the accord, and even those future programs designed to fall under exclusive jurisdiction must be compatible with the national objectives to qualify for federal government financing.

The proposed amending formula will encourage an extremely high level of co-operation and consultation between the federal and provincial governments, and ensure that all provinces have an equal voice in making changes to basic institutions that affect us so deeply.

Much has been said on both sides of the issue proposed in the accord that outlines the linguistic duality of Canada and recognizes Quebec’s distinctive place within Confederation. The Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that “French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitute a fundamental characteristic of Canada.” It goes on to state that Quebec constitutes a “distinct society” and has an obligation to “preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec.”

Quebec as a “distinct society” represents an accurate picture of reality. It is not possible to ignore this fact. It is said by some that this section of the accord confers power. I do not agree. I believe it is an interpretative provision that recognizes the existence of the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities in the rest of the country.

Many have expressed concerns that the “distinct society” clause overrides the Charter of Rights. I prefer and share the legal opinion of the Attorney General who says because section 2 is an interpretive section, it does not override the charter. All Quebec laws, even those promoting linguistic duality, must comply with the charter.

Mr. Cureatz: A little more conviction over there.

Mr. Furlong: My friend the member for Durham East cannot sit quietly for one moment.

Mr. Kanter: At least he is here tonight.

Mr. Furlong: That is true. Welcome.

Mr. Callahan: He is here in anticipation of tomorrow.

Mr. Furlong: I see.

Mr. Cureatz: I’m warming up for tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Furlong: I consider it an honour and a privilege to participate in this debate. Constitutional reform has been the topic at first ministers’ conferences for many years. I have heard these debates from different parts of the country, each with very special concerns.

I spent the first 20 years of my life in a northwestern mining community in Quebec. I spent the next 10 years in the province of New Brunswick and the most recent 16 years in Ontario. I have had an opportunity to travel extensively in every province of this country save and except one. I have established close friendships with many people in different parts of the country and have had the opportunity to hear their views, not only on Meech Lake but on a host of other national issues. It will come as no surprise that views and opinions vary from region to region, but my experience convinced me of one thing: we all want a united Canada.

As I indicated, I was born and raised in a northwestern Quebec mining town. My mother was a French Canadian. As I grew up, I watched in horror as friends and neighbours began to see that their option was one of separatism. It was even more frightening that I could see why they were choosing this route.

The principal employer, a mining corporation with headquarters in Toronto, practised a human resources policy to the detriment of the francophone majority. None of the managerial positions were ever offered to francophones. Francophones were required to work in an English environment. It came as no shock then that many of these employees became annoyed with their lot in life and subsequently became separatists.

I know of families and friendships that had major debates and major problems. It scared me.

As I spent some time in New Brunswick, linguistic duality was also a major concern there. In that province, it was divided, with the anglophones in the southern part of the province and the francophones in the northern part. The northern part of the province was more economically depressed. Prior to 1966, the movers and the shakers were Southerners who dominated government and business. The arrival of an Acadian Premier with a program of reform called Equal Opportunity brought new meaning and pride to the lives of many New Brunswickers.

2020

The guaranteed delivery of services in both languages created a united province and ultimately led to official bilingualism. The guarantee of equal opportunity in education, health care, justice services and social services became the cornerstone of economic security in the province.

Still, I have the distinct feeling that New Brunswick did not consider itself as a part of the Confederation family. Historically, the province was a founding member of Confederation. The shift of economic prosperity to central Canada made them feel like distant poor cousins.

I feel the provisions of the accord dealing with the selection of judges, Senate reform, limitation of federal spending power and extension of the list of areas requiring unanimous consent will provide New Brunswick with a greater sense of belonging. It is my deep hope that Premier McKenna will be persuaded to be part of this historic event.

Le Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle de l’Assemblée législative a déposé son rapport, dans lequel il recommande la ratification de l’accord du lac Meech. Selon le rapport, bien que le Comité reconnaisse le fait que plusieurs Canadiens manifestent des réserves quant à certaines parties de l’accord, le Comité conclut qu’il n’y a pas d’urgence et que l’on peut traiter de ces questions de façon satisfaisante lors des discussions constitutionnelles à l’avenir.

I compliment the member for York North and his committee for its comprehensive report and I have no difficulty in supporting its recommendations. The reservations about the accord, I agree, are for discussion at future constitutional conferences. A continuation of the status quo, with 25 per cent of this country’s population outside the Constitution, does little to enhance our national unity. Quebec as a voluntary partner is a gigantic first step, without which, in my view, all other reform would be impossible.

L’accord réussit à ramener le Québec au sein de la famille constitutionnelle, et ce d’une façon équilibrée qui renforce les grands principes du fédéralisme et permet de débloquer le processus de réforme constitutionnelle.

It does so in a way that not only strengthens national unity but also represents an essential development in Canada’s constitutional history. With Quebec as a full partner, this country will move forward.

Mrs. LeBourdais: It has been over a year now since the Meech Lake accord was agreed on and signed by the 11 first ministers of Canada. Since that time the politicians, lawyers, academics, interest groups and the general public have studied the document and have attempted to assess the impact it will have on the Canadian federation. Some have been critical, while others have hailed it as a positive step forward.

For my part, I would like to add my voice to the many who have already spoken in favour of the Meech Lake accord. I feel the accord is worthy of my support because it achieves the important objective of bringing my birth province of Quebec back into the constitutional fold. It is a fundamentally sound document that resolves some of the long-standing disputes in federal-provincial relations over the past 25 years.

While the accord is by no means perfect -- political agreements rarely are -- I do not feel that any of the shortcomings are serious enough to warrant amendment to the accord. Any changes can be dealt with adequately during the upcoming rounds of constitutional discussion mandated by the accord.

In my comments this evening, I would like to focus on the dual nature of Canada and how the Meech Lake accord will affect this important characteristic of our country. By virtue of having been born in Quebec, having a francophone name but of anglophone parents, being reasonably bilingual and being a woman, I feel I am able to bring a very personal perspective to this debate, not a perspective based coldly on logic, but rather one tempered with some emotion based on personal experience.

I take great pride in the duality I represent and I fully support the expansion of bilingualism across Canada. I see the learning of a second language as a tremendous asset that enriches a person’s life and broadens one’s horizons. It is for this reason my daughter is currently in Quebec on an exchange program so that she too may reap the benefits of being bilingual and begin to feel her heritage.

I sense this has already happened among many Quebeckers, because in a weekend call from my daughter she asked me if I recalled the de Gaulle statement, “Vive le Québec libre.” She said that on the celebration of St. Jean-Baptiste Day this past Friday, Quebeckers were now yelling, “Vive la Québec Canadienne.” To me that says it all.

Canadians, I feel, should see their country’s French-language heritage as an asset, not a stumbling-block. It should be a source of pride, not conflict. We are often asked to celebrate our multicultural heritage, yet we have failed to truly celebrate our dual heritage. The sacrifices to be made are minor compared to the benefits. As former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once said: “A bilingual state is more expensive than a unilingual one, but it is a richer state.” We should all be prepared to pay a price, for the rewards will be well worth that price.

Debate has gone on since the mid-1960s as to how we can best maintain and strength Canada’s duality, a goal which has ultimately depended on the continued growth and development of the French language and culture. Canada’s very survival has rested on the attainment of this objective.

Two visions have emerged on how best to ensure the survival of the French language and culture.

The first envisioned a bilingual and bicultural Canada, one in which French Canadians could feel at home from coast to coast. This vision was personified by Pierre Trudeau who believed in a strong federal government that would take an active role in promoting bilingualism and protecting language rights. Such actions, it was believed, would take away the raison d’être of the separatist movement in Quebec.

The second vision saw Quebec as being the homeland of French Canadians and distinct from other provinces. Proponents of this vision see the Quebec government as being the one best suited to ensure the development of the French language and culture, and therefore it must be given greater autonomy in order to achieve this purpose. They see Canada as being comprised of two founding peoples -- deux nations -- and believe that the protection of minority language groups is best achieved through the promotion of collective as opposed to individual rights.

Both these visions have merit and both must be incorporated into the Constitution if this document is to be enduring and to be successful. If, on the one hand, the vision of a bilingual Canada with a strong central government was overemphasized, many Quebeckers would not feel secure that their language and culture would be adequately protected. It is for this reason that Quebec was unable to sign the 1982 Constitution Act. If, on the other hand, the deux nations vision with greater provincial autonomy was overemphasized, we would run the risk of balkanization; that is, of becoming overdecentralized. This, naturally, would present dire consequences for our national unity.

A constitution must not be designed to express and freeze into place any single vision of the nature of the country. It must give expression to competing visions in order to be successful and enduring. It must be pluralistic and it must be flexible. This has been the strength of the British North America Act of 1867 and has made it one of the longest lasting constitutions in the world.

The idea of pluralism and accommodation is captured in the Meech Lake accord. It represents a fragile compromise between the two competing visions of Canada. It seeks to make these two visions complementary as opposed to conflicting. As a result, Quebec is now willing to put its signature on the Constitution, thus completing the unfinished agenda of 1982. Ontario, as a strong member of the Canadian family, must welcome this decision.

L’accord reconnaît que le Québec forme une société distincte. Il reconnaît aussi que le gouvernement du Québec a pour rôle de préserver et de promouvoir cette identité distincte. Cela était une des conditions préalables importantes posées par le gouvernement Bourassa pour signer la constitution. En même temps, la Charte des droits et libertés, qui contient des dispositions concernant les droits linguistiques, demeurera intacte. En outre, l’accord reconnaît la nature bilingue du Canada et reconnaît explicitement aussi bien la minorité anglophone du Québec que la minorité francophone qui vit à l’extérieur du Québec. Elle confie à chacune des provinces, dont le Québec, la responsabilité de préserver la minorité linguistique officielle.

2030

Madame la Président, la force de l’accord du lac Meech réside dans le fait qu’il reflète adéquatement la réalité de notre société. Cela est une nécessité pour tout document constitutionnel. S’il est trop éloigné de ces réalités, il ne parviendra pas à remplir ses objectifs. L’Acte d’Union de 1840, par lequel on a révoqué le statut officiel de la langue française et tenté d’assimiler les Canadiens français, est un parfait exemple dans notre histoire d’un document constitutionnel qui ne fonctionnait pas puisqu’il ne reflétait pas la réalité sociale. La solidarité ethnique a triomphé de la volonté politique de son auteur.

La réalité de notre société actuelle, comme ce fut le cas jadis, est que le Canada est composé de deux groupes ethniques fondateurs. Tous deux sont trop importants et trop fortement enracinés pour pouvoir assimiler l’autre. Les besoins de ces deux groupes doivent être satisfaits pour que le pays demeure uni. Il s’agit d’un fait historique et sociologique que le Québec constitue une société distincte à l’intérieur du Canada. Si nous nous attardons à sa langue, à sa culture et à ses traditions juridiques, cela ne laissera pas planer l’ombre d’un doute.

La dualité linguistique du Canada est aussi une caractéristique fondamentale de notre société. L’accord du lac Meech reconnaît explicitement cette réalité. Cette reconnaissance n’a rien de révolutionnaire ou de provoquant. Elle n’est que le reflet du Canada tel qu’il est.

The “distinct society” clause has been the centre of much attention. There are those who predict dire consequences as a result of this clause. Some argue that it could be used to justify the suspension of many rights guaranteed by the charter. Of particular concern is that it could be used in a way that would infringe upon women’s equality rights as guaranteed in section 15 of the charter. Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau has claimed that the “distinct society” clause would transfer massive federal powers to the provinces, thus doing irreparable damage to Canada. Finally, there are those who argue that multiculturalism and minority groups, such as the aborigines, will suffer as a result of this clause.

I would like to argue that a careful reading of the Meech Lake accord would reveal that these claims are very much exaggerated. As a woman, I am particularly sensitive to any measure that would adversely affect section 15 of the charter. Yet I simply fail to see how the “distinct society” clause would override women’s equality rights. I have yet to hear a single, concrete example of how this could come about. It must be remembered that the “distinct society” clause does not take precedence over the charter. It is merely something that the courts are asked to take into consideration when interpreting the charter.

In addition, it should be noted that it is explicitly stated in the accord that the distribution of powers among the federal and provincial governments is to remain unchanged. It also states explicitly that those sections of the charter regarding multiculturalism and aboriginal peoples cannot be affected by the “distinct society” clause. Allow me to re-emphasize this point. The section of the Meech Lake accord that recognizes our linguistic duality and Quebec’s distinctiveness does not mean that other cultural groups have been rejected or given second-class status.

The Meech Lake accord represents an equilibrium. It is a synthesis of competing visions that have occupied centre stage in the past 25 years of constitutional debate. As a Canadian, a native of Quebec and a woman, I do not feel uncomfortable with this accord. In fact, I see it as a positive step in our development as a nation. Most important, it accomplishes the vital task of bringing Quebec out of its constitutional isolation, making it feel comfortable as an integral member of the Canadian federation.

Like the 1982 Constitution Act, the Meech Lake accord will have a profound impact on the future of Canada. For this reason, we, as politicians, have an important obligation to carefully scrutinize the accord before we make any recommendations. This constitutional accord has been carefully examined for more than a year now. I believe it has stood up to the test and is worthy of our support. Five other provinces and the federal government have already ratified the Meech Lake accord. Now the time has come for us to do the same.

Mr. Faubert: I am pleased to take part in this debate on the report of the select committee on constitutional reform and Meech Lake. I may comment how appropriate it is that this debate is taking place as we lead up to Canada Day and indeed we celebrate all the aspects of Canada Week.

As I begin my comments on my views of the 1987 constitutional accord, in my attempt to put my contribution to this debate into perspective, I would like to share a quote with the members of the Legislature. While it may be more suitable for me to be quoting a great Canadian while we debate amendments to the Canadian Constitution, I have chosen to recall the words of an early American President. It was once said by Abraham Lincoln, and I quote, “The world may little note nor long remember what we say here.”

That quotation may very well apply to much of the comments made today by myself and perhaps other members of this chamber who have chosen to speak on this matter of the Meech Lake accord. This is not to say that the comments made in this debate are of little importance. It is just to put my contribution to this debate into perspective.

However, members of this House should take heart when I also state that the record which remains may just be that and may stay hidden in Hansard, to be sought out perhaps by some future historian or researcher on the Meech Lake accord. It is necessary for us to state for that record our position, not to explain our actions or our vote, but to ensure that there is some future accounting on one or two points we may wish to make regarding the 1987 Meech Lake accord.

I, like most members, am not a legal or constitutional expert. However, like all Canadians, I do have a vision of what I perceive this country to be and where I would like to see it go. I would like to share my vision of our country with the House in a moment; but, first, I would like to express feelings of encouragement that stem from my reaction to the report of the select committee on constitutional reform.

The select committee provided a forum for those who, for one reason or another, had strong feelings about the Meech Lake accord. Some people have even referred to the accord as the Meech Lake “discord” in reference to the incredible amount of controversy and comment, interpretation and misinterpretation of both the cause and effect of this agreement.

This is not a negative result but a positive one, because I think it confirms, as indeed do some of the expressions of opinion by members of this House, that all Canadians and indeed Ontarians are not passive when it comes to the future of our country, nor are they indifferent to the complex issues that must be continually examined as we adjust the framework upon which our society is based.

I would like to congratulate and commend the chairman, the member for York North, and all members of the all-party select committee for their thorough analysis of the issues before us today, for the excellent report that has been presented to us and, indeed, for their sensitivity to the concerns of the groups and individuals who appeared before them. The report provides the first ministers, and indeed all Canadians, with an agenda towards future constitutional reform.

Je ne parlerai pas du rapport du Comité spécial en entier ou de tout l’accord du lac Meech, mais je puis assurer les députés de l’Assemblée législative que j’appuie les principes et les objectifs qui sous-tendent tous les aspects de l’accord, non pas pour ce qu’est cet accord mais plutôt pour ce qu’il fait pour que le pays poursuive ses efforts en vue de construire une nation sur la base d’un consensus national.

Tonight I would like to address some of the concerns and the fears related to me by some of our multicultural communities. Some of them were related to me as a past chairman of the National Action Committee on Race Relations. Some members of our multicultural communities feel their place in Canadian society is somehow threatened by the linguistic duality of the accord and that their communities should be recognized in section 1 of the accord as fundamental characteristics of this country.

Mr. Gregorovich, representing the ethnic press, stated before the select committee that he felt multicultural Canadians, and I quote, were “virtually excluded from the accord.” Indeed, he said that the reality of this nation is being ignored. In Mr. Gregorovich’s view of our society, and I quote again: “The fabric of this society is multicultural. We are a nation of many cultures and races. We believe in a just society and equality.”

2040

I am sure that I, like many members of the Legislature, share Mr. Gregorovich’s view of our country. We believe that all multicultural communities are equally important, and it is upon their survival and their very existence that the distinct identity of what it is to be a Canadian really exists. I have said and will continue to say when asked to describe what a Canadian identity is that our cultural diversity is our identity.

That being said, I can honestly say that if I felt this view and this reality of Canada was in the least jeopardized, I could not in good conscience stand in this House and support the select committee’s recommendation to ratify this constitutional amendment. However, I do not believe this to be the case. I will certainly be supporting the committee’s recommendations in their entirety.

Clearly, section 27 of the charter states that: “This charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” The Attorney General states, in his brief to the select committee, that section 16 of the accord negates the implication that Canada is made up of two nations or two cultural groups. Section 16 instructs courts to interpret the distinct society within the context of a contemporary Canada which recognizes cultural diversity and the need to preserve and to enhance it. In layman’s terms, since the accord does not override the Charter of Rights, the provisions within the charter recognizing and protecting our multicultural diversity remain intact.

With regard to the suggestion to amend section 1 of the accord to include the multicultural heritage of Canada as a fundamental characteristic of the country, one can hardly argue that it is not. However, the intention of section 1 is not to recognize all of Canada’s fundamental characteristics, but to recognize one such characteristic.

This does not mean that the multicultural groups were off base with their request to be included in section 1. In fact, I am in full agreement with the select committee’s conclusion that such an inclusion in section 1 would better reflect the full spectrum of Canadian society.

While the inclusion of the concept of multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic would, in my opinion and in the opinion of the committee, improve the accord, it is not reason enough to take a chance of allowing the fragile national consensus on the accord to be threatened. The select committee correctly and clearly states that the concept of fundamental characteristics should form the basis for future constitutional discussions by first ministers and by Canadians generally.

I say to those who feel excluded from the accord to put this entire process into perspective. The Meech Lake accord is a historic agreement because it brings Quebec into the constitutional told.

I would like to address my comments to those of my colleagues with concerns reflecting those of the multicultural communities. Some have addressed this issue, and I believe others who follow will also address this. I believe they, like many of us, had problems with interpretation or wished changes to add specific reference to recognition of multicultural identity or that this accord somehow establish two nations of multiculturalism in Canada.

However, this accord is but one agreement to amend our Constitution; it is not a final opportunity for change or reform. It is clearly a part of a recommended process of further change by the select committee. It is but one step in the process of nation-building, which will be ongoing throughout our history. Indeed, we are asking Canadians to take a great leap of faith which must occur every time our constitutional framework is adjusted, as we work on what the member for North York calls our new-generation Constitution.

I hear the concerns of the multicultural communities, I understand them, and, indeed, I sympathize with them. I can assure them that their concerns have not been ignored. I ask those in the multicultural groups who have concerns about this accord to take that leap of faith: faith that the approval of this accord will provide greater unity from coast to coast; faith that the Attorney General’s learned interpretation of the effects of this accord is indeed correct; faith that the select committee’s recommendation will be adhered to and acted upon at future constitutional conferences, and faith that this government will continue to listen and address the concerns of all Ontarians with regard to future constitutional discussions.

I believe that faith in these statements is not blind faith but is indeed faith based on logic. Though these words may not, as Mr. Lincoln said, be long remembered, perhaps they will serve to assure the multicultural communities that are not on side with this accord that their concerns are understood and their concerns will be further addressed in preparation for future constitutional conferences.

Mr. Fleet: The report of the select committee on constitutional reform and the constitutional amendment resolution itself deal with the fundamental values and relationships embodied in Canada. Constitutional matters are inherently of weighty and grave concern because they reflect our vision of the past, present and future of our country and its peoples.

Because of this and because of the controversial nature of the proposals before us, I have dealt with these issues as a matter of conscience. To the best of my ability, I have independently reviewed all the available information at great length and in significant detail to come to an independent decision. This includes reading and rereading many of the written briefs sent to the select committee and much of the Hansard of that committee.

To make a decision apart from the constraint of party discipline impacts heavily on a member and it also imparts a responsibility to act with care and, at least for me, as much as possible to make a determination in the best interests of Canada.

I have consulted widely and repeatedly within my caucus, including all Liberal members of the committee, the Attorney General and his staff and the Premier, and with many of my constituents. Their viewpoints and advice varied and at times conflicted. Nevertheless, I found it very helpful. I extend my sincere thanks to all of them for that advice.

The choice before me is to endorse the constitutional proposals, which I will refer to as the Meech Lake accord, or not to endorse them. I cannot rewrite the least desirable parts just to suit myself. The accord, like all political agreements, contains elements of compromise among different visions of Canada. The question is therefore whether on balance the Meech Lake accord helps Canada, taking into account all the pluses and minuses, and for me the test is not easy to assess or simple to describe.

On balance, I ask myself, does the Meech Lake accord move us closer to a world where, as Canadians, we are more tolerant towards minorities and different cultural groups, not less tolerant? Are we more willing to communicate about our differences and to solve them working together, not less willing? There are always pressures for conflict. I believe that we must provide leadership by pursuing our ideals without illusion and by fostering the positive aspects of our society.

The Meech Lake accord is not guaranteed to be part of our Constitution. Several legislatures must still pass the necessary resolution, and it is public knowledge that the majority of legislators in New Brunswick and Manitoba are presently predisposed to not pass the accord unless it is amended. I can empathize with those legislators because of the very real doubts I have held since I first read the provisions of the accord approximately a year ago.

My concerns were greatest about the “distinct society” clause and the capacity of the federal government to act in the national interest. I will therefore focus on these topics and the overall benefits of the accord. The linguistic duality clause and the “distinct society” clause are contained in the proposed section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Subsection 1 is an interpretative section only; it must be read consistent with all other provisions and it says so right on its face. It recognizes and legitimizes French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec; it recognizes English-speaking Canadians inside Quebec; and it recognizes that Quebec is, within Canada, a distinct society. There are numerous other constitutional provisions which already recognize the uniqueness of Quebec, for example, the civil law system of Quebec. These recognitions are both historical and sociological facts. Subsection 1(1) calls these three recognitions fundamental characteristics of Canada.

2050

In subsection 1(2), the Meech Lake accord affirms the role of all legislatures and the federal Parliament -- and this includes Quebec -- to preserve the existence of French-speaking Canadians outside Canada and English-speaking Canadians inside Quebec. I confess I would have preferred the use of the phrase “preserve and promote” rather than just the word “preserve.”

Subsection 1(3) affirms the role of Quebec to preserve and promote its distinct identity within Canada. I think it is very important that it adds the words “within Canada.” The role of Quebec, as an advocate of that distinct society, has been an avowed function of every government in that province since Confederation. Moderate and minimal language is what we find in the Meech Lake accord compared with the separatist avowals of the Parti québécois and the strongly nationalistic and isolationist outlook of the Union Nationale, which have formed governments in Quebec stretching back to the 1930s.

It is notable also that the Quebec government has already advanced the “distinct society” argument in the courts, for instance, in the Bill 101 case. My greatest concern has been the impact of the “distinct society” clauses upon human rights, and I question whether they would be substantively interpreted differently in one part of Canada, namely, Quebec, from the rest of Canada. This concern was very strongly and articulately put forward before the select committee by multicultural groups, women’s groups and other groups concerned with the use of the equality clause in the Constitution. I take that concern very close to my heart. It is very important.

However, these are not just women’s or multicultural issues because they involve many freedoms and rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, peaceful assembly and association. It includes rights to life. liberty, security of the person and to be free from unreasonable search. seizure, arbitrary detention and cruel and unusual punishment. They are very weighty matters. It includes an equality provision that protects those based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

However, these rights are not unlimited. They must be read in a manner consistent with the rest of the Constitution. Section 1 specifically indicates that they are to be read subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The answer, I firmly believe, is that Meech Lake does not provide a “distinct society” clause which overrides the charter.

There has been concern expressed by some that section 16 of the Meech Lake accord protects multicultural and aboriginal provisions, thus exposing all other rights and freedoms that I have referred to. Section 25 of the charter deals with the interpretation of aboriginal rights, including those in class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 27 of the charter states, “This charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”

These are interpretive provisions of our Constitution, just as the “linguistic duality” and “distinct society” clauses are. They all deal with linguistic and cultural issues. Section 16 merely preserves the integrity of those provisions so that there is no hierarchy of rights. As such, I agree wholeheartedly with the legal analyses advanced before the select committee on constitutional reform by the Attorney General and by Professor Peter Hogg.

I also have a concern to ensure that, even with the Meech Lake accord, the federal government retain sufficient power to act in the national interest, and forcefully when necessary. It centres on section 106A and shared-cost programs. Presently, the federal government in practice has created national programs, on a shared-cost basis with willing provinces, in jurisdictions exclusively provincial in nature. The present law neither endorses nor prevents this federal capacity. In effect, the federal government uses its superior financial resources to persuade provinces to act. This is generally called the federal spending power.

The reason that this federal spending power has been so important is that it is so tempting to the provinces. Provinces that co-operate in the established programs only pay for part of the cost. Provinces that do not co-operate receive nothing. Section 106A confirms the right of the federal spending power for the first time, and that is very positive. It also allows a province that does not co-operate with a future national program to opt out with financial compensation if the province has its own program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives. My concerns are with the words “compatible” and “national objectives.” They are less clear than I would prefer and there is some risk, with the leverage or temptation I referred to earlier, that the existing federal spending power will have been unduly lessened by the accord.

On balance, I believe it is clear that the federal spending power may have been slightly softened. However, section 106A does not apply to any existing programs such as the Canada pension plan or health insurance plans. We must also remember that the provincial health insurance plans are provincially run and vary slightly from province to province.

That approach is consistent with section 106A and consistent with the principle of co-operative federalism, which I believe is supported by most Canadians across the country.

The overwhelming argument in favour of the Meech Lake accord is the advantage of having the Quebec government consent to our Constitution. Some people have described this as having Quebec rejoin our Canadian family. However, that description is imprecise because the Constitution applies to Quebec already. What is different is the element of willingness, of agreement to be part of our national framework as we work to improve the condition of all Canadians. For example, the necessary constitutional amendments on aboriginal rights, multiculturalism and other matters are unlikely, if not impossible, without the full participation of Quebec.

Meech Lake does not represent an end of all language or cultural tensions in Canada, but most assuredly, and I believe this very deeply, the rejection of Meech Lake will exacerbate conditions. We cannot proceed with leadership if we do not take that into account. I believe in more tolerance and more understanding.

I must say to all members who participated that is certainly the genius of the select committee’s report. It urges a better process of constitutional amendment with increased public consultation. I agree strongly with that. It recommends improvements to the Constitution to represent more fairly the interests of the citizens of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I agree we must work on these matters whatever the outcome of Meech Lake.

The report encourages further work to be done by the federal government and all provincial governments to develop a working definition of the provisions under section 106A, the cost-sharing section I referred to earlier. That kind of detailed interaction among all levels of government is normal and desirable, and I support it.

The select committee proposes two parallel resolutions. It proposes to have included as fundamental characteristics of Canada additional features, namely, the recognition of aboriginal peoples and to have further constitutional conferences for the purpose of identifying their rights.

It proposes to include as a fundamental characteristic the recognition of our multicultural heritage and Canada’s commitment to give equal respect to the many origins, creeds and cultures that shape our society and, further, the recognition of our commitment to the protection and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

I strongly support and laud these features. Last November in this House, I called for Ontario to acknowledge officially its multicultural nature. The report may have an even better proposal, as I have indicated. I support these parallel resolutions very strongly. They address the concerns I have had.

We can proceed with this agenda and with the Meech Lake accord. Quebec will be a full and willing partner in Canada. I support and will vote for both the report and the Meech Lake accord with a glad heart and with a positive outlook on Canada’s future.

À la suite d’une motion présentée par M. Fleet, le débat est ajourné.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to make a brief business statement to outline the proceedings of the assembly tomorrow.

We will commence sitting at nine o’clock tomorrow morning to continue this, the adjourned debate on the select committee on constitutional reform report. We will conclude this debate at 12 noon and any division will be stacked to 4 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

The House will recess at noon for lunch and will resume with routine proceedings at 1 p.m. Following those routine proceedings, we will consider government notice of motion 6 standing in the name of the Premier, with a vote taken on that matter at 4 p.m.

Following this, we will consider second reading of Bill 167, the Wine Content Act, the interim supply motion, the motions re summer committee schedules, the resolution concerning the appointment of a conflict of interest commissioner and third readings of all completed legislation, including private bills.

The House adjourned at 9:01 p.m.

June 28, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM

LAND USE

PROVINCIAL MEMBER’S AWARDS

YOUTH SHELTER

BURLINGTON AREA TRANSPORTATION

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

DR. ALGIRDAS STATKEVICIUS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORONTAIR

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

CONSUMER PROTECTION

RESPONSES

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

NORONTAIR

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

WINE INDUSTRY

ELECTRICAL POWER

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING CLEANERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

CHELATION THERAPY

FUNDING OF EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAMS

SEWAGE DUMP SITE

RENT REGULATION

MINING SAFETY

TOURISM INDUSTRY

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

LANDFILL SITES

GASOLINE PRICES

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

CONTROL OF SMOKING

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SAULT STE. MARIE JAIL

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

INSTALLATIONS SCOLAIRES

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

COPY OF AMENDMENT

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

MOTION

STANDING ORDERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 154

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE (SUITE) / REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE