Hansard Transcript 1988-Jun-29 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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 adjourné 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. Speaker: Are there any members wishing to participate in the debate? The member for Northumberland.

Mrs. Fawcett: Thank you and good morning to you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to open my remarks on this very important debate by expressing my sincere gratitude for being appointed to the select committee on constitutional reform. It would be quite safe to say that it has been a learning experience of a lifetime for all of us. I do not feel that any one member of the committee, and it is definitely true for me, considered himself or herself a constitutional expert before this committee’s inception.

We, the members of this committee, have had the privilege of listening to and discussing with many learned groups and individuals, not only people who are constitutional experts, but also those from every walk of life that is representative of this great land of ours.

I would like to thank my colleagues who were permanent members of this committee and acknowledge their commitment to a process that has been both open and accessible. We were able to show all Ontarians, indeed all Canadians, that this government respects the rights of all individuals to express their views. We learned that the Constitution is not an antiquated document that we read about in history books, but a living, breathing part of every Canadian, a part people feel strongly and care enough about to know that they want to be a part of the process which decides future constitutional changes in our country.

During the process of hearings and submissions, there were two aspects of the 1987 constitutional accord that appeared to receive unanimous consensus. The people of this democratic country of ours felt left out of the constitutional process and told us in no uncertain terms that this should never happen again.

History will bear out the fact that executive federalism has long been a part of Canadian constitutional life and has served us well for the most part. However, over the weeks of the hearings, we grew to realize that Canadians no longer want this to be the norm. Through this committee, they have shown their willingness to participate in constitutional reform. The committee’s recommendation that would afford Canadians the opportunity to have input into future constitutional talks is one with which I wholeheartedly concur.

As all Canadians want to participate in the formation of our country through the constitutional process, so should Canadians in Quebec be afforded this right. The French fact has been evident since the founding of our country. It is interesting to note that when Henry Hudson claimed the territory around Hudson Bay for England in 1610, little did he know that only one year later Etienne Brûlé, a coureur de bois, would be exploring into parts of southern Ontario we know today and would claim them for France.

For 370 years, these two cultures have flourished as this country grew and progressed to nationhood, but now, without Quebec at the table, we as a country cannot move forward as a viable nation into the 21st century. Just as when a family has one of its members estranged from the group, and important decisions affecting everyone in that family either cannot be made or the decisions are not firm ones until all members are operating in full partnership, there is a definite weakness, so too is it with our country.

Our history has witnessed numerous attempts to bring Quebec into the Constitution. Now we can participate in the making of history because the political will is there, and with the ratification of the 1987 constitutional accord, Quebec will become a fully fledged member of our constitutional family.

While there are many more aspects of this accord that have been and will be discussed, there is one area I would feel remiss about if I did not mention it. Over the course of the weeks of hearings, there were many individual women and groups of women who made very well thought-out and accomplished briefs to our committee. They related to us the long, hard, uphill struggle they experienced to achieve recognition. This was finally attained, through section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982. In trying to provide us with some insight into their concerns, the relationship between sections 1 and 16 was repeatedly referred to as detrimental to the charter’s sex equality guarantees.

Realizing these concerns, the committee has recommended that after the ratification of the accord, the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures consider an amendment to the Constitution of Canada recognizing that the commitment to the protection and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada and that upon adoption of the committee’s report by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario this recommendation become a resolution of the assembly and be directed to the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures.

Native people, such as the band that lives in my riding of Northumberland, are deserving of recognition in the constitutional process. The many representatives of aboriginal groups expressed to the committee their feelings that the accord would actively diminish aboriginal rights. Their deep disappointment was demonstrated to us again and again in the failure of the accord to address the issue of aboriginal self-government.

0910

This committee is extremely concerned that Canada’s aboriginal people be fully included in the Constitution. Acting accordingly, the committee recommends that following the ratification of the Constitution Amendment Act of 1987, the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures consider an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to elaborate the concept of fundamental characteristics so as to reflect the full spectrum of Canadian society. and that such an amendment be a full recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada.

As well, we felt strongly that we understood fully the disappointment about the failure of the accord to address the issue of aboriginal self-government. I felt this was of highest priority and was happy with the unanimous decision of the committee to address this in the form of the second companion resolution.

Another group of Canadians, namely, those who reside in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, were very ably represented at the hearings so that their concerns could be emphasized. The picture of their government representatives knocking on the door when the talks were taking place and being denied entry is not something that should ever be repeated. They expressed their concerns about the changes in the appointment of senators and the filling of vacant seats on the Supreme Court of Canada. They felt these new provisions do not allow the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to nominate candidates to fill their Senate seats or vacant seats on the Supreme Court of Canada. We, as a committee, have recognized their concerns and dealt with them in the report.

They also point to another part in the accord which they felt would greatly jeopardize their aspirations for provincehood, that being, I know from my short visit there last summer, that the Yukon already has joint tourism promotion with the United States and that many of their activities are connected with the United States. However, they remain proud Canadians, and in order to encourage that feeling, we must ensure their participation in future constitutional negotiations. We must keep open the lines of communication between our most northern Canadians and the rest of Canada.

As the month of hearings went by, one thought remained constant and seemed to separate itself and emerge above all other concerns with the accord. We must welcome back Quebec into the constitutional family of Canada. The importance of this accord is paramount in the nation-building of our country. This building cannot be considered unless all provinces participate in the future constitutional changes we, as a nation, must face.

Countries are not static. They change over time. Any living thing is changing. The only changeless state is rigor mortis. Quebec represents approximately 25 per cent of the total population of our country. To leave them out of the constitutional process would greatly detract from the ability of constitutional changes to reflect the demands of today’s society.

We have before us the opportunity to bring a large part of Canada back into the constitutional fold. Only after this is done can we best address the many other concerns our committee has had the opportunity to see and hear. I have confidence that should our recommendations be given full consideration these concerns will be addressed in future constitutional talks. I have faith that the people of Canada will want to continue to have a part in the formation of our Constitution.

I believe it is imperative that the people of this country come to know one another better in order to arrive at a national understanding and appreciation of the many diverse cultures and ways of life that contribute to this Canada we all share.

In closing, I would like to thank our chairman, the member for York North (Mr. Beer), for the great effort he put forth which allowed this committee to act in an open, accessible manner consistent with the government of today. The ratification of the accord in this Legislative Assembly will not only be a testimony to his and the committee’s efforts but to all Ontarians, and so I ask all my colleagues for unanimous support in ratifying the accord at this very timely occasion, two days before Canada’s 121st birthday. It is a most appropriate way for Ontarians to say, “Happy Birthday, Canada.”

Mr. Laughren: I must regretfully tell the member for Northumberland that I cannot accede to her wish to make support of the committee report unanimous, nor can I make support of the Meech Lake accord unanimous in this chamber. Even if I were the only one, I simply could not do it.

I rise in opposition to this committee report, not out of any usual sense of enjoyment of political battle, which over many years I have grown to enjoy in this assembly, but I rise in this debate more with a note of sadness than anything else.

The sadness is because I do believe that as a country we had an opportunity to accomplish what I thought was the goal of Meech Lake, namely, to bring Quebec into the Constitution and get Quebec’s signature on the 1982 Constitution. I thought we could do it without making it a divisive document. I still believe we could have done that, but regretfully, we did not do it.

The goal of Meech Lake was not complicated. The goal, as I understand it, was simply to get Quebec’s signature on the Constitution. Some people even refer to it as the Quebec round of constitutional talks, just as there was the aboriginal people’s round of constitutional talks, which failed. If this was the Quebec round of talks, surely that was the goal, namely, to get Quebec’s signature on the Constitution

When one thinks of what Quebec’s demands were, as I understand the demands as I read them and thought about them, they seemed to me to be quite basic. First, it was primarily to support their demand for the survival and development of Quebec as a French-Canadian society -- I do not think anyone would quarrel with their long-stated desire to make sure that their French-Canadian society is sustained and nurtured -- to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, which presumably is what is meant by that French-Canadian culture; freedom from federal encroachment on its areas of jurisdiction through curtailed federal spending powers; a veto for Quebec on constitutional amendments; a greater ability to shape and sustain its society by a control over selection and integration of immigrants; and, finally, greater protection at the federal level through a voice in appointments to the Supreme Court. After all, it is the Supreme Court which determines how the Constitution will affect Quebec in any future challenges.

To me, those were the kinds of demands that Quebec was laying before the first ministers and, to me, they were totally legitimate beginning points for negotiations to get its signature on that 1982 constitutional accord. They seemed to me at least to be reasonable.

You ask yourself, “Why then was the resolution of those demands done in a way that went way beyond Quebec and touched every Canadian? If those were the Quebec demands that were laid before the first ministers, why then was this so-called Quebec round expanded into areas and with some results that I and many other Canadians find truly offensive?”

Of course now, when some of us object to the way it went beyond the demands of Quebec, we are somehow painted as being anti-Quebec. What could be more ridiculous? As a matter of fact, I would probably lean more than most people towards supporting Quebec demands. It is totally nonsense to say to people who do not like the Meech Lake accord that somehow we would be writing off the opportunity to bring Quebec into the constitutional family.

0920

We all welcome Quebec into Confederation in a formal way, although it is not as though it was not there already. I, as a native Quebecker, feel very strongly about Quebec being formally and in every kind of way part of the Canadian Constitution, but I refuse to accept the fact that this accord had to have everything which is in there now in order to get Quebec’s signature on the Constitution.

Why, for example, when declaring and accepting Quebec as a distinct society, do we allow the potential erosion of the rights of women, the disabled and our linguistic minorities? What is the connection? Why was it necessary to undermine the feasibility of major new national social programs, programs which could address the needs of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens? Why was it necessary to give every single province a veto over any future changes in key areas such as provincehood or changes in provincial or territorial boundaries? This makes future changes very difficult and certainly undemocratic.

And as Quebec is, according to the accord, a distinct society -- and I think that was agreed; the first ministers had no quarrel with that: Quebec is a distinct society -- why were our native people not included and classified also as a distinct society? Does anyone question that our native people are a distinct society? I think most of us accept that. Then why was it not in the Meech Lake accord? “Well,” members have argued, “because this is the Quebec round.” Then why, if it is the Quebec round, did they have these exclusions? That I find most offensive.

I should remind members as well, of course, that native people were not even consulted. Not only had the aboriginal talks just been a failure a month or two before the Meech Lake accord was signed, but then, as though to add insult to injury, they were not even consulted on this document, the Meech Lake accord; not at all, they were excluded and insulted.

Why, in order to bring Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family, was it necessary to treat the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in such a shabby way? What link is there between Quebec’s five basic demands and that gross insult to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon? The answer: none. There is no logical link between getting Quebec’s signature on the Constitution and what those first ministers, those I1 men, did to the Yukon and to the Northwest Territories. What possible link was there?

The Prime Minster and the first ministers sat down, and I can only call it, wilfully, methodically and deliberately, with absolutely no consultation, slammed the door on any future negotiations with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in constitution-building. They just slammed the door on them: no consultation whatsoever. Worse than that, these 11 men wrote into the Meech Lake accord that they would not be able to partake in any future nation-building. This is what they did. They said the provinces could extend their boundaries into the territories with the unanimous consent of the provinces and the federal government. No mention of the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. They said that the territories could be admitted as provinces with the unanimous consent of the provinces and the federal government. Just them: every single one.

Is it not wonderful? Prince Edward Island could decide that the Northwest Territories or the Yukon cannot be admitted to Confederation as a province in the future; not today, not tomorrow, but at some point. Tell me what relationship there is between doing that to our northerners and the Quebec round and the necessity of getting Quebec’s signature on the Constitution.

Also, the accord wrote into our Constitution the requirement for further constitutional conferences without representation of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, even though it gives the right of the provinces to extend their boundaries into the Yukon and into the Northwest Territories. What kind of undemocratic process are we ratifying here?

The federal government and the provinces had just finished using -- I can only use that term -- the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in attempting to negotiate aboriginal rights. They had just finished doing that the same year, a couple of months previously. They used the Northwest Territories and the Yukon because of their expertise on aboriginal rights, and then when it came time to negotiate their own future, they slammed the door on them. What kind of nation-building is that? I think that is truly offensive.

As well, the Meech Lake accord does not allow for the Yukon or the Northwest Territories to have any say in nominees for the Senate or the Supreme Court. Once again, it will perhaps be the Supreme Court that will make rulings on this Constitution, on the Meech Lake accord, vis-à-vis any kind of changes with the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. These 11 men simply turned their hacks on 75,000 Canadians north of the 60th parallel. I cannot support an accord that does that.

Prince Edward Island, as I said before, can control its future.

Previously, as I hope most members know, seven of the 10 provinces representing half of the population could determine the future. Now all 10 must agree, along with the federal government. No other province, not one, suffered this indignity when it joined Canada as a province.

The Canadian Senate, certainly not a democratic institution, at least conducted hearings north of the 60th parallel. That is certainly more than the federal government did. It made what I would call some strong recommendations. I think it is important to read at least part of those recommendations into the record. It made seven recommendations.

“1. We recommend that the transitional procedure proposed under the Constitution Amendment Act, 1987 (Meech Lake accord) for the appointment of senators from provinces be applicable to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories….” What did that have to do with getting Quebec’s signature on the Constitution?

“2. We recommend that the provisions proposed by the Constitution Amendment, 1987...by which provincial governments may participate in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada be applicable to the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories….” That is straightforward.

“3. We recommend that the proposed Constitution Amendment Act, 1987...be amended so that the elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be invited to participate at all future constitutional conferences on the Constitution and the economy.

“4. We recommend that the proposed Constitution Amendment Act, 1987...be amended so that any change in the boundaries between the provinces and the territories would occur only with the consent of the territory concerned.”

I really must elaborate on that. Can you imagine writing into our Constitution that one of the western provinces can simply extend its boundary north and take unto itself territory presently belonging to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon without consultation with the Yukon or the Northwest Territories? They can simply sit down with the federal government and the other premiers and do it with absolutely no representation by the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. They can make any kind of deal they want. What a ridiculous concept of nation-building that is, how cynical a concept.

“5. We recommend that the Constitution Amendment Act, 1987….be amended so that the attainment of provincial status by the Yukon and the Northwest Territories be accomplished solely through negotiations with the federal government, subject only to the approval of the federal government and the particular territory concerned.”

I ask, why should any province have a veto right on whether or not one of the two northern territories becomes a province? Members should ask themselves that. What possible reason could there be? It is a very sad comment.

“6. We recommend that aboriginal and treaty rights and the question of self-government be added as continuing items to the agenda of constitutional conferences convened under the proposed Constitution Amendment Act....Elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as well as representatives of their aboriginal people, are to be invited as participants in relation to these issues.” In other words, let them be part of these constitutional talks.

Finally, “7. We further recommend that as the proposed...(Meech Lake accord) recognizes Quebec as a distinct society it should also recognize that the aboriginal peoples of Canada constitute distinct societies.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What happened to this report?

Mr. Laughren: Nothing happened to this report, and I would ask members to think about what is going to happen to the report of the Ontario select committee on Meech Lake. This was the Senate report. I would be happy to hear any members talk about whether those seven suggested amendments were unreasonable.

Let me ask the members another question. If, for example, the federal government had had the generosity to say to Quebec, “Your demands basically have been met through recognition as a distinct society and other things; now that we’ve done that, will you allow the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to have their demands met?” Why would Quebec say no to those very simple seven basic demands?

I will bet that Quebec was never given the option of saying yes or no to those, and I will bet that it would not have said no. I cannot think of a reason it would. Why would Quebec be concerned about whether or not the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are part of the Constitution, are provinces, keep their boundaries the way they are, have some kind of say in the appointment of senators and Supreme Court justices or are allowed to take part in constitutional talks in the future?

I cannot think of a single reason, unless the provinces decided that this was the kind of deal that might stand them in good stead in the future. But, I ask, do we want to give those western provinces the right at some point to reach up into the Yukon or the Northwest Territories and take some land unto themselves? Is that what we want to set up as a potential for the future of this country?

0930

You think we have had divisiveness in the past; this is creating more. It is a very, very sad comment. The answer as to why this was done to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is not a pleasant one and will not, in my opinion, sit very well when we are judged, as we certainly will be.

This is not a generous constitutional amendment. This is an amendment that some might want to describe as Senator Raymond Perrault, a Liberal, did. He said the Meech Lake accord is a “flawed tremendous achievement.” I can see why he would say that it is a tremendous achievement to get Quebec in and get its signature on the Constitution, but it is flawed. Virtually everybody who defends Meech Lake confesses that it is a flawed document and apologizes for the constitutional amendment in one way or another but then goes on to support it.

Rather than calling it a “flawed tremendous achievement,” I would call it a tremendously flawed achievement. There is a difference between a flawed tremendous achievement and a tremendously flawed achievement, and that is what I would call it.

My final comment on the effect of the Meech Lake accord on the Yukon and the Northwest Territories I would like to leave to Tony Penikett. He is the Government Leader of the Yukon. Mr. Penikett wrote a letter, I think, to all members. I will just quote the final paragraph of his letter, although his entire letter really should be part of the record. His final paragraph reads:

“Finally, I wish to assure you that we in the Yukon are as pleased as other Canadians to see national unity promoted through the signing of the Constitution by Quebec. This is a significant step for all Canadians, but it is not necessary to sacrifice the north to save Quebec. Our Constitution is not cut from a limited stock of cloth. We do not need to take from one jurisdiction in order to give to another. The inclusion of Quebec in the Canadian Constitution should not mean the exclusion of the north.”

So said Tony Penikett, and I would like to agree with him totally.

In conclusion, I very much welcome my native province of Quebec into the Canadian Constitution, but I also regret very much either the incompetence or the wilful manipulation of those 11 men who negotiated the Meech Lake accord. I believe that history, if kind to them, will comment on their incompetence, and if harsh on them, will bemoan their parochial self-interest and manipulation.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak briefly about the Meech Lake accord, which this government is so eager to have us support.

I must say that as a citizen of Canada living in Ontario I have some serious reservations and concerns about this constitutional accord.

Before I get into the main points I want to make today, I want to take this opportunity to point out that nine months have passed since the Liberals won a massive majority government, and this government has not used that time well. The government has used this time to learn how to put unpopular legislation through this House. The government has also learned how to ignore public opinion on some important issues which are facing Ontario.

A case in point is the government’s handling of the Meech Lake accord, which is supposed to bring the province of Quebec back into our Canadian family. This accord will bring Quebec back into our family, but I believe the price will be too high for Canadian women, native people, the territories and our basic democratic process.

The government was forced by the two opposition parties to hold public hearings into the Meech Lake accord. A number of individuals and organizations took this opportunity to voice their concerns about the accord’s failure to address the rights of women and native people, its shabby treatment of Canada’s territories and the creation of a distinct society in Quebec.

These groups and individuals represented their cases forcefully and eloquently. They assumed they were taking an active role in our democratic process. They thought their voices would be heard. But I am sorry to say that these groups and individuals were wrong.

They were wrong because this government had no intention of incorporating the views expressed during the public hearings into amendments that would make the Meech Lake accord acceptable to all Canadians. In other words, the public hearings were a sham. We can only believe that this government prefers to waste valuable time and money staging phoney hearings rather than relying on public input which could have resulted in innovative amendments to the Meech Lake constitutional accord.

This government’s attitude on this and other extremely important issues facing the people of Ontario saddens and sickens me. This government has decided to ignore any input, whether it is from members of the public or members of the opposition parties in this Legislature, when it comes to dealing with the Meech Lake accord.

It was this government which chose to ignore the Progressive Conservative minority opinion on constitutional amendments. This minority opinion recognized the importance of Quebec returning to the constitutional fold. It truly would represent a significant moment in Canada’s 121-year history, which we will be celebrating on Canada Day on July 1.

However, my party also pointed out that all the people of Canada and Ontario deserve to have a Constitution in which they believe they are included as full and equal partners. The Meech Lake accord in its present form does not accomplish this belief.

I have told my colleagues here in the Legislature on previous occasions that as a Canadian citizen living in Ontario, I have serious reservations and a great many concerns about this constitutional accord. I consider this to be a worrisome document which usurps the democratic process in Canada and Ontario. I am extremely uneasy because I believe the accord will have numerous unfortunate consequences for our people and for the future of this province and this country.

I applaud any move that results in Quebec rejoining our Canadian family, because this country cannot function as a whole unless all of its parts operate on an equal basis. But the Meech Lake accord, by designating Quebec as a distinct society, does not treat each province in Canada on an equal basis. That saddens and worries me a great deal. I cannot, in all good conscience, consider enshrining in our Constitution two separate groups of Canadians, or for that matter two separate Canadas. I consider this to be a step backwards and I am certainly not willing to take that step.

0940

As Canadians, we must be sufficiently flexible and tolerant to provide for a Canada that respects anglophones and francophones equally and fairly. I cannot support bringing Quebec back into the Canadian family if that means special treatment for only one family member and not the others. Special treatment like this will result in mistrust, intolerance, jealousy and hard feelings among other members of our Canadian family. It could tear the country apart at the seams, and I am certain none of us wants that.

I must say that in my humble opinion, the Meech Lake accord has some serious flaws, in that it completely ignores women and native people in Canada. That fact alone should be proof enough to us all that this document needs considerable fine-tuning, in the form of amendments, before this province gives its stamp of approval.

Under the Meech Lake accord in its present form, the women and native people of Canada will almost cease to exist. Does this government really believe women and native people do not have a rightful place in Canadian society? Is this truly the government’s belief? Then I find this belief to be totally disagreeable and distasteful.

Another area of concern to me is that the Meech Lake accord appears to relegate Canada’s territories to the role of bystander in any future development of this country. Their role in intergovernmental relations and in determining their own future will be seriously diminished, if not wiped out altogether, under the Meech Lake accord. This accord will give every province a veto over the creation of new provinces and the extension of provincial boundaries into the territories, but it fails to provide any role for the territorial governments of Canada.

History tells us that each of Canada’s 10 provinces was given the opportunity and choice to join in the creation of a country called Canada. I sincerely believe the territories should be given the same opportunity and choice. Should they opt for provincial status at some future date, the Meech Lake accord wipes out that opportunity and choice.

The democratic process is usurped under the Meech Lake accord in its present form, in that judges are given the power to impose legislation upon provincial governments without giving the people any say in the matter. Every government enacting any piece of legislation must and should be held accountable for that legislation by the voting public. If this accord, with its vague language and ambiguous meanings, is entrenched, the courts will want not only to interpret but also to define legislative intent and consequences.

We in this Legislature were elected by the people; judges were not. We are accountable to those same people who elected us; judges are not. Judges are appointed and are officials who cannot be held accountable for their actions by the people. The purpose of a judge is to interpret laws enacted by elected representatives, like my colleagues in this Legislature, and only we are accountable to the public. It is the responsibility of politicians to enact legislation. It is certainly not the purpose, duty or responsibility of judges to do this job for us. That is not the way the system was designed.

I want to repeat the concerns I have with the Meech Lake accord. It should not have a “distinct society” clause for the province of Quebec. It should enshrine rights for Canada’s women and native people. It should strengthen the role of the territories in the areas of intergovernmental relations and in determining their own future. It should not permit judges to impose legislation upon the provinces.

These are the concerns I have heard from constituents in my riding of Simcoe East. They are also the same concerns raised, in good faith, by numerous individuals and organizations that participated in the public hearings, which the government chose to ignore.

It is the duty and responsibility of my colleagues in this Legislature and in legislatures right across this country to ensure that Canadians get an accord that does not threaten their rights, their distinctions or their freedoms. The Meech Lake accord fails in this area.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has indicated that the free trade deal is flawed and we should not agree to it. He admits the Meech Lake accord is flawed, but wants us all to deal with it and support it. Is that leadership? I say not.

Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on the Meech Lake accord.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: It gives me a good deal of pleasure to participate in this most important debate. As Minister of Citizenship, I of course have the responsibility, on behalf of the government, for implementing our multicultural strategy, and therefore I am keenly interested in the whole area of provisions within the accord dealing with our cultural communities and whatever effect that may have on our cultural communities.

As members of the House are aware, the select committee on constitutional reform presented its report last week. I am keenly aware that many of the groups that appeared before the committee represented our multicultural communities. I take this opportunity to thank those communities very much for participating, for their thoughtful comments to the committee, for their intense interest in this very important debate and, I think it is fair to say, for adding some important dimensions to the ongoing discussion and reexamination of our national destiny.

I was very struck by the comments in the report indicating, I guess, what they said was perhaps the most important observation they had; that is, during the hearings, the thing that struck them was the strong commitment of Canadians to the protection of rights and freedoms. In the words of the committee, and they jumped off the page at me: ‘Such a commitment has clearly become an essential feature of the Canadian political community. It represents a common value and aspiration, which gives vitality and meaning to Canadian citizenship.”

Again, I say that I appreciate very much the contribution the cultural groups have made to this constitutional reform process. I think it clearly reflects a shared commitment to the protection of rights and the preservation of diversity which have become so much an important part of Canada.

I want to comment specifically on three concerns that were raised by the various delegations of the multicultural community before the select committee. I think it is fair to say that they can be characterized in three major areas. One is a concern that somehow or other our multicultural society was not recognized as a fundamental characteristic of Canada in the way, for example, linguistic duality was. I think the second concern that seemed to emerge was that somehow or other the “distinct society” clause in the Meech Lake accord would threaten Charter of Rights and Freedoms equality rights for groups, including the multicultural community. The third concern, I guess, was that section 16 of the Meech Lake accord is not a guarantee of multicultural rights, but is subject to interpretation by the courts and possible override by section 1.

Each of us has to reach his own conclusions on those three issues that were raised. I personally have reached my own conclusions and I would like to share them with the House, first on the issue that the multicultural society is not recognized as a fundamental characteristic.

I think the select committee did a fine job of pointing out that section 1 of the accord identifies linguistic duality as one -- not all, but one -- fundamental characteristic. It does not suggest this is the only fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. I think it is fair to say that linguistic duality was singled out in this accord because this round of constitutional reform focused on Quebec’s concern with the Constitution. I am personally satisfied that the issue of multicultural society is by no means limited by this definition and that linguistic duality is just one of many fundamental characteristics.

0950

The second issue of concern is the concern that has been expressed that the “distinct society” clause in the Meech Lake accord threatens charter equality rights for our multicultural community. Again, I recognize that there was a different opinion expressed to the select committee, but as for me, I believe the “distinct society” clause in the accord operates within the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, in my opinion, the charter is supreme. The charter equality rights are of concern to the multicultural groups, but will not be affected by this accord.

The third issue that emerged -- again, I have my own conclusion on it and I believe it is backed by the wealth of evidence from the select committee -- is that there is a concern that section 16 of the Meech Lake accord is not a guarantee of rights, but is subject to interpretation by the courts and possible override by section 1.

In my opinion, inclusion of section 16 explicitly affirms that Quebec cannot pursue its position as a distinct society at the expense of multicultural heritage. Both section 1 and section 16 of the accord are interpretative and do not grant rights. Equality rights are protected under the charter and these rights are not affected by section 1 of the accord.

Those are my feelings on those three contentious issues raised by the multicultural community during the select committee’s hearings.

Frankly, I am very appreciative of the work of the select committee in terms of it being exceptionally sensitive to this whole area of concern by our multicultural community. I am particularly heartened by four recommendations that come out of the select committee’s report that certainly provide for me, and I hope for our multicultural community which has expressed real feelings of concern, further assurance that this accord in no way detracts from its rights. I will quote those four recommendations.

The first, of course, is that the committee is recommending “that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario establish a standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs;” an important step, in my opinion.

Second, “The committee recommends that the new standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs undertake to examine the issues identified in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 as agenda items for future first ministers’ conferences on the Constitution.” The issues of concern that were raised by our multicultural community will, as I say, be put on the agenda of the first ministers’ conferences.

The third recommendation of importance to our multicultural community is, “The committee further recommends that the new standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs begin the investigation of the following issues, and that they be included on the agenda of future first ministers’ conferences on the Constitution.” Multiculturalism is the first issue raised there.

Last, and perhaps most important, is recommendation 9. I know the members are familiar with it, but I will repeat this recommendation because it is important to the concerns of our multicultural community, “The committee recommends that following the ratification of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures consider an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to elaborate the concept of ‘fundamental characteristics’ so as to reflect the full spectrum of Canadian society and that such an amendment be...a recognition that our multicultural heritage and Canada’s commitment to equal respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures that shape our society constitute a fundamental characteristic of Canada.”

I believe these recommendations indicate strong support for the concerns raised by our cultural groups at the hearings. They reflect, in my opinion, the adoption of a vision of Canada as encompassing a diversity of cultures and lifestyles, all of which should be equally recognized and protected.

With these strong recommendations of the report in hand, and also important, with Quebec as an active participant, I believe we can look forward to the future enhancement of rights and freedoms and the preservation of cultural diversity in this country through the vehicle of ongoing constitutional reform.

As Minister of Citizenship, I remain totally committed to the further promotion of multiculturalism through our multicultural strategy and through working with this ongoing constitutional reform. I hope our multicultural communities feel comforted that, first, they are protected; and second, their concerns have been listened to in, I think, the fine work of our select committee and reflected in its recommendations.

Mr. South: It gives me great pleasure today to speak in support of the Meech Lake accord. I ask the members of the House to think of our Constitution as being very organic and a growing thing.

The accord fundamentally -- its most important point -- brings Quebec into the Constitution. It brings Quebec fully in as an active partner in Canada. Perhaps the next round will be about women’s rights, minority rights and the rights of our founding people.

I believe we have always existed as Canadians. It is not that Canada is logical. When we think of a mass of land stretching to three oceans and covering over 4,000 miles, with a climate that ranges from benign to very hostile and with a great variety of ethnic groups, there is nothing very logical about it. It would be more logical and reasonable for us to join the United States and be Americans, but our forefathers believed we were Canadians and that Canada had a destiny on this continent of North America which was different from that of our neighbour to the south.

Saying we are different from our southern cousins is not to say that we are right and they are wrong, that we are good and they are bad, but that we are Canadians and we are different.

When we think of this accord and that it may change our Constitution, we worry that it is not perfect. Many years ago, I entered into a marriage contract which in the light of present-day knowledge is not perfect. Some members in this House who are as old as I am may remember that old phrase “love, honour and obey.” Many feminists today find that phrase very objectionable and they would say that old marriage contract, that old marriage accord, was flawed. Yet many of us made it work; many did not make it work. But I say that even with a perfect accord, a perfect Constitution, those who do not want it to work will see that it does not work.

I believe this country will continue to exist as long as the majority of us believe in it. I do not care how perfect our Constitution is. When the majority of Canadians cease to believe in themselves as Canadians with a separate destiny, then this country will no longer exist.

For many of us, the mystique and the gobbledegook of the legal jargon that forms contracts or Constitutions such as this just confounds us. We have many legal experts who say the accord is a good document for Canada. We likely have an equal number who say it will destroy Canada.

I believe the political opportunists, the mean-spirited among us, will do their best to take advantage of any document, including this one, but I personally believe in the future. I believe we will continue to exist as Canadians and take the best part of this accord in our Constitution.

1000

If we say this accord is flawed, do any of us believe the British North America Act was perfect? How much consultation was there in the formation of the British North America Act? Here was an act that formed a new country and was formulated by a foreign country and for the first 100 years or more of its existence was interpreted by a foreign country, and often not to the advantage of the captive party to the agreement, that being Canada. I believe the decisions which were frequently rendered in the House of Lords in England were really to the detriment of a strong central Canada; so we had a flawed document and we had a prejudiced group that was interpreting that document, yet Canada exists today. Canada exists today because of the will of Canadians, because Canadians want it to exist.

I would like the members to reflect on our past. I am sure all of us can point to mistakes in our past, things we have done which we ought not to have done and things we should have done which we did not do. We are part of our history, we are part of our past and we are Canadians. Fifty years ago I was proud to be a Canadian and today I am proud to be a Canadian; yet I believe our country today is a much better place, a more perfect society than we were then.

I wish to emphasize how organic this Constitution is and that this accord is merely one step along the way to the destiny which we are fulfilling on the North American continent. We have survived the past, not because of the perfection of the documents or the contracts that bound us together as a nation, but because our forebears willed it and worked at it.

I say to all of us, let us embrace the complexity and the challenge of the accord and have faith and trust in ourselves as Canadians. We have had a great past, and I believe we will have a richer and better future. We are Canadians and we are here to stay.

Mr. McGuigan: I want to join other members of this House in congratulating the member for York North (Mr. Beer) and the members of the select committee on constitutional reform for the report they have laid before this Legislature. I consider it a great privilege to speak in favour of the Meech Lake accord and later today to join so many others to pass the report presented by the committee and the resolution presented by the Premier.

It was my great privilege in opposition to speak and vote favourably in the Constitution debate of May 1980. Unfortunately, the Constitution of 1982 failed to achieve the complete unity of Canada.

One of the fundamental reasons I decided to run for office in this great province as a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario was that the leader of the government in power in 1977 was silent on events that began in 1976 in our sister province of Quebec. The government of that province had the avowed intention of leading that province out of Confederation. The leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario spoke up in favour of Canada at the annual convention early in 1977. At that convention, I decided to cast my lot with the Liberal Party and seek the seat being vacated on June 9, 1977, by Jack Spence, then member for Essex-Kent.

My leader today speaks for the government of Ontario and he speaks positively for the future of this Canada and the place we hope Quebec will take in our Canada.

On a personal note, I am pleased to point out that on my mother’s side of the family, my late mother traced her family back to one of the great families in Quebec. My mother’s grandmother was Julia Anna Le Moyne, born in Quebec in 1820, second wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Lionel Kirwan Fitzgerald. She died in 1878 at Simcoe, Ontario. The Le Moyne family has been traced back to Jean Le Moyne, who was born in 1634 or 1640 at Pitres, France. He and his brother Pierre arrived in Quebec in 1655. If you visit the city of New Orleans, as I did in 1985, you will see a statue of Jean Baptiste Le Moyne, who is credited with being the discoverer and founder of Canada South and the city of New Orleans. There is a street in the French quarter called Le Moyne.

My claim to French ancestry goes back five generations and the blood lines are long since diluted. What is important is the fact that my family recognizes a distinct pull out of the past history of this great country from one of the founding families who lived in one of the four founding provinces which came together in 1867.

My great-great-grandfather on my father’s side, William McGuigan, was born in county Antrim in Northern Ireland and his wife, Mary McGregor, was born in the same year at Annet Glen in Scotland. These people arrived in Pennsylvania in 1832 and in the hamlet of Buckhorn, later renamed Cedar Springs about 1838. Our family predates Confederation and I hope will post-date a more perfect Confederation in Canada.

It is fundamental to me, and I believe to most of the people of this great province, that this Confederation shall not fracture. The possibility that Canada would fracture is a possibility that I find very difficult to accept. This Canada of ours has a history that is unique in the history of the world.

I must confess at this point that I am an avowed nationalist. I point out that Canada’s home territory has never been scarred and violated by international war nor by civil war. Our people have participated in international war, but our lands have never been scarred by international war. More important, they have never been torn apart by civil war. Civil war destroys the very soul of a nation. We have never been scarred by being a ruler over another country. The ruler, I submit, suffers the greater harm to his or her soul than do the ruled. We have never tried in Canada to impose a melting-pot society on the people of the world who have come to call Canada “My Canada.”

It is worth noting that in my riding of Essex-Kent, and more particularly in Kent, the various clubs established by immigrant Canadians in the 1930s and the 1940s are now closing because the later generations have dropped the hyphen from their citizenship. While they have dropped the hyphen, they still retain the rich culture and tradition that has enriched the lives of all of us.

I point out that there is a large population of French background, many of whom are francophones, in the riding of Essex-Kent, particularly in the municipalities bordering Lake St. Clair. On the streets of Pointe-aux-Roches you will hear French spoken as the language of social and commercial interchange. The town of Belle River and the adjoining townships boast a rich French culture and heritage. We in Canada have never been prisoners of a particular ideology. We have embraced a mixed economy because such an economy fits our northern climate, our northern geography and our northern soul.

I believe the accord fits Canada of the late 1980s. I do not believe that the accord will stand for all time any more than the Constitution Act of 1791 and the bundle of acts that made up the British North America Act of 1867 stood for all time. This country, because of its unique background, has the flexibility, it has the character and it has the respect of the democratic process that will accommodate the changes that will undoubtedly be needed in the future.

1010

Our parliamentary democracy differs fundamentally from the republican system of democracy. Under our system, members of the House of Commons or legislatures of this country offer themselves as representatives and as members of particular political parties. Very few ever run or are elected as independent members. Party policies under our system are based on policies which are believed to be in the best interests of the province or of Canada. In the republic with which we share this continent, individual members of the Congress represent the narrow interests of their constituents and they form coalitions with other interest groups so that too often the Congress becomes a collection of powerful economic interests.

I believe today, as it was in 1867, that Canada shall not fracture and be absorbed into a culture and a republic which we have always seen as a good neighbour, a friendly and strong ally and as a great trading partner, but nevertheless, a culture and a system which we find foreign to our culture, our history and our ideals.

I believe the acceptance by this Legislature of the resolution before us will result in our Confederation taking a step forward. I do not believe that we in this House or in the other legislatures or in the House of Commons should be so egotistical as to think we have the ultimate wisdom, that only we can forge the perfect Confederation. I believe perfection will be attained by other Canadians at some other time, just as we are improving our Constitution agreements of 1867 and 1981.

I urge all members to support the resolution before us in the hope and confidence that Canada will never fracture.

Mr. McGuinty: The issue of Meech Lake is one which impresses upon us the seriousness of some of the business we are up to in this House. I think that each one in his or her own way has agonized and undergone soul-searching on this matter. I think it is an issue which strikes a responsive chord in all of us, for it deals with a vision of Canada, a vision of the kind of country we will pass on to our children and to theirs.

There is an old principle which maintains that our knowledge and understanding in whatever area are conditioned always by the point of view of the observer, and so it is. I have lived in the shadow of Quebec and within Quebec for much of my life and that experience conditioned my view, initially, of the accord.

I recall Quebec in the days of René Lévesque, a man of happy memory and I think perhaps the most honest man in my experience in Canadian politics. My initial reaction to the accord was influenced accordingly. Very frankly, my first interpretation of it was as an effect of Quebec intimidation of the rest of Canada, and I looked at the accord with some concern and some suspicion.

As a member of the select committee on constitutional reform, at least as a part-time fill-in, and as one who examined most of the briefs which were submitted by so many concerned and thoughtful groups and individuals, I was deeply concerned and shared some of their concerns. I was concerned about the situation of the anglophone population within Quebec and the francophone population without. I was concerned by the problems put forth by native groups and by women. I was concerned about the spectre of balkanizing Canada, about the possible serious harmful implications of the distinct society and about the phrase “national objectives” with regard to federal grants.

I discussed these matters with a lot of people. With my brief experience with the constitutional reform committee, two presentations in particular stood out. One was from J. W. Pickersgill, a man well known for his wide, extensive experience in constitutional matters. Another was from an old colleague, Gordon Robertson, former clerk of the Privy Council. I think between them they probably had 70 or 75 years experience in dealing with constitutional issues.

I recall vividly that Mr. Robertson began his brief by stating that in his view perhaps the Meech Lake accord had some warts but was basically sound. I was presumptuous enough to take issue with the imagery used and respectfully suggested that a wart is something which appears only on the surface of the body, a cosmetic thing that can be removed; it does not influence the wellbeing of the body as a whole.

Like many of my colleagues of whatever party, I read, thought, discussed and agonized long and hard about this matter, and when the report was brought to us a few days ago, I reviewed it, analysed it and discussed it. I read it, interpreted it and reacted to it in the context of I think three basic principles, fundamental principles which politicians should bear in mind.

First, politics is not a science. It does not have the scientific attribute of certainty and predictability but rather politics is an art. Politics is the art of the possible. I think the accord embodies what is possible here and now in the context of the Canadian scene as it is at this time.

The second principle: Politics is a game but it is a game to be played by idealists without illusions, and politicians who operate only in terms of the pragmatic, from the here and now, do the art of politics a great disservice. Whatever idealistic views we have about the way we would like things to be, we must reconcile those ideals with a frank, realistic recognition of the situation at hand. All of us share idealistic views and notions about the things we would like to be but we must reconcile our ideals with a frank and realistic appraisal and acceptance of what is possible in the practical order here and now.

Finally, a third principle: In politics we must be stimulated by vision, by hope and by faith, not merely by pragmatic concern for the need to jump from ice floe to ice floe as they come along; and faith is indispensable -- adjunct to vision -- faith in the desire and ability of Canadians in years to come to refine further and perfect that which is not engraved in stone but is there to be refined and further perfected in the light of experience.

In this regard, the recommendations which are an integral part of our report are geared to take in the kind of concerns that bothered me for some time. It is probable that in the life of this government we will deal with no other matter of such significance. We are proud of the leadership which the Premier has provided with regard to this matter and I am proud of my colleagues who have done an outstanding job in bringing this resolution to us. I am delighted to support it.

1020

Mr. Sterling: First of all, I want to thank the members of the committee for their long and arduous work with regard to the Meech Lake accord, particularly the chairman, the member for York North. I want to also thank my two colleagues, the member for Parry Sound {Mr. Eves) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who kept us well informed of the committee’s work. I did have the opportunity of sitting on that committee from time to time and listened to a number of the presentations to that committee. However, I believe its task was an impossible one.

I would like to comment briefly on the method by which the Meech Lake accord was decided, and in particular the conditions under which the committee was placed with regard to dealing with the ratification process of the Meech Lake accord. One of the conditions which comes out very clearly to one is that if any changes were proposed to the substance of the amendments, then each Legislature, even if it had passed an earlier version, would have to do so again. So the committee was faced with what I believe was an impossible task, whereby it was being continually reminded of a significant number of flaws with regard to this accord but was given no room in order to move.

I would have liked our province and our Premier to have taken an enlightened approach to this particular process. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) in particular, I think, outlined the problem with the democratic process which this Meech Lake accord went against so strongly. What I would have liked to have seen is some imagination on the part of our province in addressing the restrictions that were placed upon the ratification of the Meech Lake accord.

I would have liked some Premier, or even our Prime Minister, to have called together all of the legislators in our country -- be they federal, be they provincial -- to talk about the clearly recognized faults of this deal. Unfortunately, we did not have that kind of leadership. The 11 stuck together. They said: “We’re not going to consider any kind of amendment. Come hell or high water, either we will vote yes or we will vote no.”

I see this Meech Lake accord as a weighing of the positives versus the negatives, as many of the members have pointed out before. Where I start out from with regard to this is the whole point of bringing Quebec into the Constitution, because this is purely a symbolic gesture on our part. Quebec is legally a part of the Constitution of Canada today; it was in 1982, as it was in 1867.

I have had the privilege of sitting at the constitutional table with the Premier of a province when I served in the executive council or the cabinet of Ontario. Quebec was at that table at that time and has continued to be at that table. Quebec spoke at that table at that time and has continued to speak at constitutional conferences. The only difference between Quebec and the rest of the provinces was that Quebec never cast its vote. All it had to do was raise its hand and that would have effected what in fact the Meech Lake accord is trying to effect here. So in weighing the positives and negatives, we have come to the situation where we are putting the positive of symbolically having Quebec enter into our Constitution versus many of the other problems.

I pointed out the irony of the present situation in my previous speech on the Meech Lake accord; that is, in order for the Meech Lake amendments to be lawfully adopted, we will need the signature of Quebec. Thus, Quebec will have to act according to the Constitution, which it claims not to be subject to, in order to become a party to it. That is the conundrum that Quebec and the rest of Canada find themselves in. Therefore, the signature of Quebec is a symbolic gesture only. It is important -- I do not lessen the importance of it -- but we must also look to the many negatives that were so clearly outlined to the committee in many of the briefs and in reading over the accord.

I want to point to the report itself. I realize there was a great deal of work and I realize the restraints under which the committee was placed. In essence, what the report says to me -- and I have had the opportunity to read it through -- is: “The Meech Lake accord is badly flawed, but we will support it. Now, let’s get on with reversing just about everything in the deal, save and except bringing Quebec into the Constitution.” That is not satisfactory to me. This accord is bad in a number of aspects which I find almost overwhelming.

First, it encourages provinces to opt out of rather than into social programs introduced by the federal government. It compensates provinces for going out on their own and bringing in different social programs, different social structures across the provinces in our country. I believe there should be a standard that is set for all our Canadian citizens and there should not be different standards across our country in certain social areas.

Second, I believe that the accord is grossly unfair to the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. They cannot nominate judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, as every other province can. They cannot nominate people to sit in the Senate of Canada. The last point, and most important, is that their aspirations for provincial status are virtually lost for ever, as this kind of creation of a new province requires unanimous consent of all provinces before a new province is created.

Third, I believe Senate reform will be almost impossible. There is a real danger within the halfhearted change to the present structure that an undesigned mandate will be developed by provincial senators, who will take up seats in Ottawa and believe that they have an elected mandate rather than that they have been appointed to that body.

Fourth, I believe there are legitimate and genuine concerns that have been raised regarding aboriginal and women’s rights. Those rights and those parts of the charter which will be infringed by the accord should be addressed before this constitutional change is made.

Last, and I think most important for me, is that I believe this accord further weakens our central government. I believe not only have we further weakened our government by what we have done in the accord but we have upset our historical balance of negotiations between the provinces and our federal government. We have further strengthened the hands of our provincial premiers in future constitutional negotiations.

1030

I have not come easily to the conclusion to vote against the resolution which is before us today. The symbolic inclusion of the province of Quebec in our Constitution is a somewhat overwhelming argument in favour of the accord. But I must admit that in the past weeks, I have decided that I should vote against this Meech Lake accord on the basis of what is happening in Ontario today. This relates to this province’s reaction to a federal government initiative which is the focus of great political attention in our country; I am, of course, talking about our free trade deal.

We apparently have in this country the ability of one Premier to try or apparently attempt to scupper or foul the will of our federal government in an area of jurisdiction which I feel and many other countries feel, and I believe every thinking Canadian feels, should be the jurisdiction of our federal government. Surely, our federal government must have the power to negotiate and implement international treaties dealing with trade. Yet we have a Premier who is attempting to use his powers to go against the will of our duly elected federal government.

Regardless of the position members may take on our free trade agreement, whether they are for it or against it, I ask them only to consider what other countries must be looking at when they look at Canada. They are saying, “You have a federal government which we thought could make a deal, but you have a Premier, representing one tenth of the country or one third of the country, whichever way you want to look at it, population- or province-wise, saying he is going to stop the right of the federal government to make a deal.”

I look back to the historical context and my understanding of what happened in the past when premiers and our federal government differed on different issues. In the past, basically what has happened with regard to that whole matter, when a Premier of our province and the Prime Minister of our country differed on issues, is that the Premier of our province would yield to the will of our federal government and say, “We disagree with you, Prime Minister, but you are the Prime Minister of our country and therefore we will support you in the final analysis.”

Yet we seem to have, as exhibited in our very own province on the free trade issue, a situation where we are now having not only what I consider individual separatist tendencies issued by the province of Quebec, but also the same kind of individual action on the part of the province of Ontario by this Premier sitting across from us here today.

Therefore, in the final analysis, this accord -- and no one has ever challenged this particular statement -- further strengthens our provinces to the detriment of our federal government’s powers. My concern and my belief is that Canada is fast becoming ungovernable. I believe this accord will lead to greater discord in the future rather than accord and unity among the other provinces and areas of our country.

Let me finally say that I want to thank my leader, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), for allowing our caucus to vote as our will should see it. I believe and he believes that the Constitution is a matter which will live far beyond any of our political careers in this Legislature. It is a matter that does not require party unanimity, and I thank him for the opportunity of voting freely on this issue.

I also congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party for allowing members of his caucus to vote as they see fit with regard to this issue.

I do understand that the Premier has dictated to his caucus that he wants unanimous consent, unanimity with regard to the voting of the Liberal government and back-benchers on this issue. I do not agree with that particular position by the Premier. I think it is not a sign of strength; it is a sign of weakness. I believe that on certain issues, and I hope that the media will see this particular issue as one of them, each and every individual member should vote according to his conscience and his constituents’ wishes.

I would like to say, finally, that should some Liberal members decide to come into this Legislature and vote according to their conscience against this Meech Lake accord, I would like to congratulate them in advance, because they take a much greater risk than I do or members of the New Democratic Party do in taking such a stance. I want to congratulate them on their courage, because the consequences to them will be much greater than they would be to any one member of the opposition parties.

It is with some regret that I will vote against the Meech Lake accord, because I think the symbolic inclusion of Quebec is important. But we cannot do it with regard to this badly flawed deal, a deal which I believe will lead to a detrimental situation in our governing of Canada in the future. Therefore, I will be saying no to the report and no to the resolution supporting the Meech Lake accord.

Mr. Cordiano: I rise as a member who sat on the committee on constitutional reform over the last five or six months that we have been meeting as a committee. I see some of my colleagues who sat with me on that committee here today and I would like to congratulate them on the work that they did and to let them know how pleased I was to work with them over the past five to six months.

We truly embarked on a journey when we started this process. Some have said that we may very well be able to go off and teach constitutional law. I doubt that, of course, but certainly I would say we approached this in the first stages not knowing much about the inner workings of constitutional law, and I say this to you, Madam Speaker, who was also a member of the committee and is learned in the law as well.

Certainly we discovered that as far as constitutions are concerned, they are very complex documents. At the same time, we also discovered that constitutions are now living and breathing documents and they should be that. They should become more accessible to people, more easily discernible to people.

We have attempted to stress in our report that we now believe all Canadians must play a role in shaping our constitutional makeup, in shaping the reforms, the amendments that we bring to the Constitution which help to determine the view or the vision of the country. I believe we have pointed this out in our committee report because it is certainly one of the key aspects of the entire hearings process that we had.

1040

We soon discovered that the process was somehow in need of repair, that the process which had worked over the last 120-or-some-odd years perhaps was not suitable to today’s needs. Certainly there is a place of paramountcy for executive federalism. The premiers and the Prime Minister of the country inevitably need to sit down and to talk about the pressing concerns, be they constitutional or economic or otherwise.

But I believe that the people of our country have now said to us very clearly that there is a place for the individual to sit at the table, to bring his or her concerns before legislators. We have recommended that this Legislative Assembly have a standing committee to look into matters of a constitutional nature with a view to further constitutional reform.

We have also recommended that this committee look at constitutional matters across the country on an intergovernmental basis. I believe that is an important first step to including a wide variety of people in the process.

Throughout our hearings, we heard from a wide variety of people. The hearings were open and accessible. We sat for days additional to those we were granted initially because we had need to hear from many people. We gave them an opportunity to come before the committee; we did not cut them off at a too unreasonable length of time. Of course, the committee hearings were very long.

I would like to get to what I believe is the heart and soul of the report we made. Before I do that, I would like to point out one other viewpoint which I think is essential in all of this. I heard some of my colleagues speak yesterday on this matter.

The member for Nipissing said he rejected the vision of the country set out by the former Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He said he did not believe his vision was one which squared with the reality of Canada today and he did not believe in bilingualism. One of the reasons he supported the Meech Lake accord was the fact that there is a new reality and that this reality was contained within the Meech Lake accord.

I would like to disagree with my friend the member for Nipissing and suggest that there is indeed a vision within the accord; there is indeed a vision of a country made up of a dualistic nature. There is explicitly stated in the accord the concept of dualism, which I believe recognizes French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians across the country.

In fact, the Meech Lake accord ensures the preservation of the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec. I would like to quote from the section of the accord; the words are very clear. Here it is in paragraph 2(1)(a), “the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada.”

On the role of parliament and legislatures, it states, “The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristics of Canada referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is affirmed.”

That clearly states that it is the role of the parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve that French fact, that French minority outside of Quebec. Consequently, the Meech Lake accord takes us one step further in that concept of dualism in this country.

I believe, however, that there are many other important features, other fundamental characteristics which have not been clearly indicated or clearly spelled out in the Meech Lake accord. I think our committee has grappled with that, and it really brings us to the crux of the report we have before us and the report we are considering. That has to do with the whole question of recommendation 9. I would like to spend a little time on that now.

Recommendation 9 essentially indicates that there are other fundamental characteristics about this country than the ones stated in section 1 of the Meech Lake accord, that there are indeed French-speaking Canadians in and outside of Quebec and English-speaking Canadians in and outside of Quebec. There is this other fundamental aspect of Canadian life, containing within it various characteristics, that is an expression of what Canada is all about.

To me, this is a very, very important feature of what we are recommending. It was important enough to make this a resolution of the Legislature. Once we pass this report, recommendation 9, along with recommendation 10 on the aboriginal question, become resolutions of this Legislative Assembly. We are sending a clear signal right across the country that this Legislative Assembly firmly believes in the concepts stated within these two recommendations.

I would like to talk about recommendation 9 for a while and why I think it is absolutely crucial that we consider this in the future. Recommendation 9 in our report, as I have stated, deals with the concept of fundamental characteristics in addition to the one elaborated on in the Meech Lake accord. It calls for “a recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada; a recognition that our multicultural heritage and Canada’s commitment to equal respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures that shape our society constitute a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and a recognition that the commitment to the protection and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada.”

These are the three fundamental features of this recommendation. I use that word “fundamental” because I believe that if we are to proceed with future agenda items, this must be one of the most important items on that list in addition to recommendation 10 which deals with the aboriginal question; these are the two essential components of our report.

The reason we arrived at recommendation 9 was that we heard from a variety of groups, as I have pointed out, ethnic groups that were represented by their various councils and women’s groups, that said to us they feared they had lost something in the Meech Lake accord, something they had essentially gained in 1982.

We grappled with this question throughout the entire period of time that we sat as a committee. It was a very difficult question. I understand that there is a minority report, and I want to say something about that very briefly later on in my remarks, but I do want to focus in on this. We said to ourselves, “This is the aspect of the accord which we have to deal with in a comprehensive way.

What we identified essentially was that section 16, which women’s groups have said to us establishes a hierarchy of rights, must be amended or must be viewed such that it would contain sections of the charter to guarantee that equality rights would not be adversely affected by the accord.

When we discussed this among ourselves, we said: “If section 16 is a difficult section and it gives the perception or the notion that there might be a creation of a hierarchy of rights, then why not remove it altogether? Why not remove it and add to section 1 of the Constitution the features of section 16 which are important to the accord?”

Some have said these are superfluous and were added because of an extra degree of caution on the part of first ministers. Some have said that; I do not believe that. I think it was necessary to have section 16.

On the other hand, I think it is fundamental that we include these concepts which we have spelled out in recommendation 9 with respect to fundamental characteristics. Those must be included in section 1 of the Constitution. It is an essential feature of our Canadian existence, the reality today in this country, as we evolve and as we grow as a country. We must recognize these fundamental features. They must be recognized within our Constitution to further strengthen them, because I must tell the members that while multiculturalism is indeed recognized in section 27 as part of an interpretative clause, I think recommendation 9 goes a lot further and says that this is a fundamental characteristic, along with these other items. That must be contained right at the beginning of the Constitution.

1050

I believe that what our committee has done is to break new ground on this. As I said in my comments earlier, I think it has sent a signal to other jurisdictions that we have a way to approach this problem that will go some way to rectifying the difficulty that other people find with the accord.

I could go on, and I would like to go on, but due to the pressures of time, I will give my other colleagues an opportunity to speak as well. I would like to conclude by saying that it was a real challenge and an interesting feature of life around this parliament to work on a committee that had to deal with a question that was of real paramountcy and importance to the country.

M. Poirier : Madame la Présidente, à titre de Franco-Ontarien et de député de Prescott et Russell, la circonscription la plus francophone de l’Ontario, cela me fait plaisir de prendre quelques minutes pour donner mon appui aux recommandations des membres du Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle.

Je m’en voudrais de ne pas d’abord féliciter mes collègues qui ont travaillé d’arrache-pied à traiter un sujet des plus délicat, des plus complexe et qui fera partie des grands débats canadiens pour longtemps, puisque résoudre la question constitutionnelle au Canada, comme le Comité l’a recommandé, c’est un travail de longue haleine.

Il y a un mot clé que je vois là-dedans, c’est le mot «distinct». Je trouve cela intéressant parce que j’ai participé à plusieurs débats avec des collègues tant francophones qu’anglophones à travers les temps pour élaborer une définition du mot «distinct». Je trouve intéressant que, comme Canadiens, soit anglophones ou francophones, nous sommes toujours prêts à crier, à vouloir, à demander, à exiger notre distinction à l’échelle internationale comme Canadiens, mais aussi à se distinguer surtout de nos voisins du sud, nos bons amis, nos collègues américains.

Lorsqu’on parle du mot «distinct» à ce niveau-là, mes collègues canadiens sont très prêts à reconnaître qu’il est important d’être distinct, qu’il faut l’être, qu’on veut l’être, qu’on doit l’être. Je les invite à comprendre ce que ça veut dire, être distinct, pour un francophone, soit à Toronto, en Ontario, au Canada, en Amérique du Nord ou même à l’échelle internationale. Je les encourage à comprendre l’aspect positif du mot «distinct» pour la société québécoise, mais aussi, par extension, pour cette minorité francophone hors Québec à laquelle j’appartiens. Je les invite à comprendre ce défi, à l’accepter, et à comprendre que, puisque le Québec est distinct, ça rend le Canada distinct.

Cet aspect-là, les Canadiens l’acceptent parce qu’ils veulent comprendre, justement, qu’à l’échelle du Canada, une confédération, de par sa nature, c’est difficile à administrer quand on a dix provinces, mais aussi deux territoires, qu’il ne faut pas oublier ; que de faire une confédération, c’est un défi vraiment spécial que les Canadiens relèvent depuis déjà plus de 100 ans et qu’ils seront appelés à relever de façon constante à travers les temps.

Ce n’est pas parce que nous avons les recommandations d’un comité, ce n’est pas parce que nous sommes sur le point de voter l’amendement de la constitution que nous allons régler tous les problèmes. Mais il faut mettre de l’eau dans notre vin et comprendre que si l’on veut que le Canada reste un pays fort, différent des autres, spécial pour nous, spécial à tous les niveaux, il va falloir accepter l’entente du lac Meech.

Je remarque ce qui s’est passé récemment en Alberta et en Saskatchewan. J’espère fortement qu’une fois le nouvel accord en place, ratifié par l’Ontario et toutes les autres provinces, je l’espère, ce genre de situations ne seront plus tolérées ; que l’on comprendra que d’être francophone, Franco-Canadien, c’est de l’être d’une mer à l’autre et non seulement au Québec, c’est de se sentir chez soi dans tous les coins du Canada, comme nos collègues anglophones ont le droit de se sentir canadiens dans tous les coins du Canada.

En 1988, 19 ans après l’adoption de la Loi sur les langues officielles du Canada, il y a toujours le même débat : Que veulent les francophones ? Que veut le Québec ? Quelle est la position des francophones au sein du Canada, au sein du Québec ? Mais pourquoi font-ils des revendications ? Pourquoi veulent-ils être distincts ?

On a beaucoup de patience, on aime expliquer, on aime faire comprendre ; mais pour que moi et les six millions d’autres francophones au Canada puissions nous sentir chez nous au sein du Canada, il est important que des modifications à une telle entente constitutionnelle puissent être réalisées afin de penser à un avenir positif, afin de penser comme Canadiens globalement, afin de voir à ce que notre beau pays puisse voir sa réalisation constitutionnelle s’élaborer dans le bon sens.

As a Franco-Ontarian, it is extremely important to me that we seek support for the modifications of the Constitution so that all Canadians from coast to coast can feel Canadian. I invite my English-speaking colleagues across Canada and across Ontario to understand why there is a distinct nature to Quebec, to the francophone community, because to be French-speaking Canadians, no matter where we want to be in Canada, is a tough challenge. To want to be six million francophones in a continent with 250 million anglophones, my dear colleagues, is a difficult challenge. Look at Alberta. Look at Saskatchewan. My goodness, sometimes it is hard to think that we are in the same country when I see things like that happening and I compare them to Ontario.

I ask Canadians to consider why we want to be distinct as Canadians and what makes us distinct across the nation and across the world, but also distinct from our American neighbours. How important is it for us Canadians to be distinct? I think it is very highly important. What is the nature of the distinct character that Canadians have that makes us a country? It is, among other things, our two languages and our different cultures.

In French, we have a proverb I would like to cite very much, “Vive la différence.” I think the difference that makes Canadians -- English and French -- is something very positive, very concrete, very real and very beneficial to Canada. I hope that as many of us as possible today will be able to support this amendment.

Madame la Présidente, je vous remercie.

1100

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure indeed to rise and participate in what I think is a very significant debate and day in the history of the Ontario Legislature. It has been my pleasure to have served on the select committee on constitutional reform with 10 other members of this Legislature for several months. Although we are not obviously all from the same political party, I think we have approached our task in a very co-operative and meaningful way. We have not always agreed, nor did I suspect that we would from the outset.

Constitutional reform, unfortunately, is not something that creates a great deal of fervour in the public or public interest. Yet over a space of time, I suppose, it has a very significant impact not only upon existing Canadians but also upon future generations of Canadians. I think it was with that onerous responsibility that committee members undertook their very important task several months ago.

I want to say at the outset that I was somewhat surprised, pleasantly surprised, by the extremely capable and efficient manner in which the chairman of the committee handled the committee throughout. I say that not because I am belittling his capabilities, but because, after all, he has been around here a little shorter time than some of the rest of us. I must compliment him on the extremely fair and orderly fashion in which he conducted our hearings and our deliberations.

I would also like to pay note especially to my colleagues to my right, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). I thought at one point in the deliberations in camera that the member for Hamilton West should perhaps receive an honorary bachelor of laws degree from some law school somewhere because he certainly impressed me with his very succinct and to-the-point knowledge, which I wish sometimes members of my own profession would display more on occasion.

We had some very frank and open discussions, Madam Speaker, as you are well aware, being one of the committee members yourself, especially during the in camera session. It is unfortunate, I suppose, that more people were not able to hear our deliberations, but I think our very open and frank discussions about the accord and the recommendations as to how it could perhaps be improved upon or improved upon in the future were very open, nonpartisan and interesting, to say the least.

I do not think there is any place for partisan politics in amending the Constitution of one’s country. I know there are some, including our Premier and our Prime Minister who perhaps disagree with me, but I beg to differ. I think this is a very important issue. It is an issue in which partisan politics have absolutely no place whatsoever. I am pleased to see that there is going to be a somewhat free vote in the Legislature on this very important issue.

There are two aspects here we are talking about in this debate: We are talking about the committee’s deliberations in its report and we are talking about the government notice of motion 6 and its resolution to adopt the Meech Lake accord period, unamended, no changes recommended.

It is a very interesting dilemma in which I find myself. I am quite prepared to support the committee’s report, primarily because there is a minority opinion in the report which I had a hand in writing. I feel there are some improvements which can and should be made to the Meech Lake accord before it is approved or adopted.

If one is going to amend one’s Constitution for one’s country, I think that although nothing is perfect -- and I am sure we could never agree upon what the perfect wording for such a constitutional amendment would be -- we owe it to ourselves but, more important, to generations of future Canadians with problems we have not even anticipated yet, for many generations to come, to make this document as good a document as we can possibly make it.

If there is any ambiguity or doubt whatsoever about any aspect of the accord, I think the time to clarify it is now. The time to clarify is not after everybody approves it. Surely if you approached anything in life that way, you would be somewhat derelict in your duty. I feel it is incumbent upon us to make sure that this accord is the best document we can possibly draft at this time, and although nothing is ever perfect and nothing is ever totally clear, especially in the law and when one is interpreting one’s rights, I think we owe it to ourselves to make it as unambiguous as possible.

That, I suppose, is the essence of the minority opinion that my colleague the member for Nipissing and I drafted. I might say that I did some compromising with my colleague from Nipissing even with respect to the minority report, because it is not exactly what I would have preferred as an individual. But I am not here just representing myself; I was on the committee representing not only my constituents but also constituents, I suppose, throughout the province and other members of my caucus as well in our committee deliberations.

Our minority opinion basically requests a court reference, but I am not going to try to walk through the detail of the Meech Lake accord or even all the recommendations of the committee, because they have certainly been touched upon very eloquently by many members.

The one aspect I would like to focus in on in the few short minutes I have to participate in this debate is section 16 and people’s rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because I think it is probably the most important document in Canada right now.

We received many presentations, from a lot of women’s groups especially but other groups as well, talking about their equality rights and whether there was even the possibility that they could be abrogated or derogated from by the wording of section 16 of the accord. Over the course of many months of public hearings, we heard very eloquent positions being put forward by very knowledgeable people on both sides of this issue.

We had people like Professor Baines, Mary Eberts and Morris Manning, QC, giving the committee their opinions that, at the very least, there was some doubt or some ambiguity as to whether or not a hierarchy of rights was in fact created by section 16 and whether or not these people’s rights were going to be derogated from at some future point in time, in circumstances currently unknown.

I was very impressed by the presentation Mr. Manning made to the committee. Mr. Manning has no political axe to grind. He was here as an interested Canadian and offered his very substantial legal services to the committee, if it required some assistance in drafting a court reference.

All these people who appeared before us with some concern about their rights would have preferred it if we could have passed an amendment to the Meech Lake accord. I must say, having listened to them, that would have been my first preference as well.

But realizing that politics is the art of compromise, almost all these groups and individuals, to a person, indicated to the committee that the very least the committee could do, if it was unprepared or, the political reality being such as it is, it was not possible to amend the accord outright, is ask for a court reference or an interpretation, because we have heard from the 11 first ministers across Canada that they do not think women’s rights or anybody else’s rights, for that matter, are abrogated or derogated from by section 16 of the accord.

If they are right, surely they have absolutely nothing to fear by asking for a court reference and having this ambiguity cleared up and having the matter clarified. If they do not happen to be right, then surely they would like to change the document before they embed it in the Canadian Constitution. I do not think that is a very unreasonable request at all. In fact, I was very impressed by the reasonableness of their argument.

I know there are others -- not the least of whom is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for the province, whom I respect a great deal -- who are of the opposite opinion; that indeed there is no hierarchy of rights created and there is no problem here at all. If that is the case, what could he possibly have against a court reference to determine that? This is the same Attorney General and the same government that did the same thing on the Education Act reference.

There is also another precedent with respect to the patriation reference that went to the Supreme Court, and while I respect the opinion of the Attorney General immensely, at the very least there is an ambiguity created in many experts’ minds as to whether these rights could possibly be derogated from at some future point. I think we owe it to ourselves and, as I said, to generations of Canadians to come to clear up that ambiguity now before we entrench this in the Constitution.

Make no mistake: It is going to be much more difficult to change the Constitution if the Meech Lake accord passes in its current form through all the legislatures in Canada and the House of Commons, because once you require unanimous agreement to do anything, it becomes a much more difficult process. I have some difficulty with that as well.

I have some difficulty with an amending formula that says everybody has to agree and that every province -- no matter how large or how small or how many people it has in it -- has a veto power, because I do not think any one province should be able to do that, especially smaller provinces. I have nothing against some of the maritime provinces.

1110

If 130,000 people in one part of Canada can veto a future change to the Constitution or some other process, then maybe the people in Hamilton should have a veto. How many vetoes should the city of Metropolitan Toronto have? This is a democracy we are talking about. That is representation by population. I know it is not perfect, but I do not think perfection is 130,000 people in one part of Canada being able to veto the wishes of the overwhelming majority. It is a hypothetical situation that perhaps is not likely to occur, but indeed could occur if this amending formula is adopted.

I am also looking at the chairman’s press release from last Thursday. Unfortunately, I could not be here last Thursday morning when the report was introduced. I only disagree with one statement he makes when he says that after debate the Legislative Assembly of Ontario ratify the Constitution Amendment, 1987. I do not happen to agree with that statement.

I agree with ratifying or concurring with the report, but the report has many recommendations or suggested future changes in it. They are not exactly the way that I personally, as I have said, would introduce them, but they are there. I think they are very important. The future changes are extremely important.

As I said at the outset, the only way that I can even find myself voting for the report is because of the existence of the minority opinion inside it and the court reference. Having lost the fight to have the court reference included in our report, my colleague and I then introduced a couple of companion resolutions which really went about solving the same problem another way. Again, that was not my first preference either. My first preference would have been to deal with section 16 head on and protect the rights of all Canadians in section 16.

However, we thought that there might be some possibility of acceptance or consensus from all the committee members if we approached it from the viewpoint that if we included multicultural heritage and aboriginal rights as fundamental characteristics of Canada, then perhaps that would do away with the need for section 16 altogether and everybody’s problems would be solved. That is the avenue that we chose to pursue.

We pursued that avenue because it was the only avenue that we thought had even a chance of success in the political reality of the arena that we were dealing in. I thank my colleagues on my right again for their support on those two companion resolutions, which were defeated by the majority of the committee in, I must say again, a very nonpartisan approach.

We have talked a lot, I think, through these months about the process and public input. I totally concur with the committee’s recommendations with respect to future public process in constitutional amendment. I think it is very unfortunate indeed that on an issue of such importance, all the premiers and the Prime Minister in effect precluded any public discussion and any meaningful public input. These people met near the end of April and the deal was done by June 3, 1987.

I believe the only legislative body in Canada which had a meaningful process during that period of time and sought advice from members of the public was Quebec. First, I do not think the period of time was nearly long enough in between the first draft and the final one. If they really wanted some meaningful input and really wanted to hear what Canadians said and the concerns that Canadians had, they would have given us the summer months to hold those public hearings, have the input and perhaps actually improve upon the product.

On future constitutional reform, again, I agree with the comments made in our committee’s report about the inclusion of the multicultural-heritage nature of Canada, the protection and preservation of the rights of all Canadians under the charter, aboriginal rights and aboriginal peoples, minority language rights and constitutional status for the territories.

I know that constitutional status for the territories is not about to do anything politically to any member of the Ontario Legislature. It would be very easy for Ontarians to merely slough off the concerns or needs of the territories. But surely there is some equity and fairness here in this system, or there should be because, in effect, if the Meech Lake accord is adopted exactly the way it is, if we want to deal with reality here, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon or any part thereof are in all probability effectively precluded from ever joining Canada as provinces. All it is going to take in the future is one single province with an objection of any kind whatsoever and it is not going to be possible for any of these people to become Canadians in every sense of the word.

I am also somewhat concerned, and that matter is addressed in the committee’s report, about the right of people living in the territories to serve on such important bodies as the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada. Surely a Canadian is a Canadian regardless of where he or she lives. We all should have the same privileges and rights, and there should not be any second-class citizens anywhere in Canada, including those in the territories. In effect, these people are being stopped from fully participating in the process as Canadians in our country. I do not think there is any place for that in any constitutional amendment of any kind that 11 first ministers could ever agree upon.

I appreciate the need to bring the province of Quebec into the constitutional family. Believe me, that need or underlying thought in effect motivated a lot of the compromises I was prepared to make in committee. I am prepared to go that extra mile to try to accommodate our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec, understanding the very real differences that indeed they do have and trying to accommodate them. But I think I have to draw the line where there is the possibility that some Canadians’ rights will be taken away or diminished by the inclusion of demands from any group of Canadians, from any part of Canada.

There is a very real difference, in my mind, between voting for this report, as I said at the outset, and voting for adoption of the unilateral, unchanged, unamended Meech Lake accord as it exists. The committee’s report has many recommendations in it for future changes in the constitutional process and indeed to the accord and the Constitution itself. The committee’s report, as I said, also includes our minority opinion.

I believe these matters that were raised are addressed in both the report and the minority opinion as part of the report. Without them, I find it very difficult as an individual to support the Meech Lake accord in its current form, because I think that at the very least there is some ambiguity as to whether some Canadians’ rights may be affected in the future. In all good conscience, I, as a legislator, find it very difficult to vote for something that I believe in my own mind could take away some Canadians’ rights at some future point in time.

1120

If the 11 first ministers are right in their assessment, as I said at the outset, they have absolutely nothing to fear from a court interpretation. I know the Attorney General differs with me on this. I know he believes the issue is far too complicated to deal with in a court reference, but I was very impressed by Mr. Manning’s presentation and by his draft of the court reference which we adopted in our minority opinion, which we had hoped the majority of the committee members would have accepted.

I apologize if I have taken a few seconds too long, but I must say, in concluding, that although I will be supporting the report of the committee, I find it impossible to support the government resolution, which is a blanket endorsation of the Meech Lake accord as currently drafted, for the reasons I have outlined, without some future change or amendment to the same.

If being a Canadian means nothing else, I think it means that we are all treated equally. I believe the Meech Lake accord, as currently drafted, does not accommodate that equality, so I will be voting against the government’s resolution 6.

Mr. Breaugh: I had a chance over the last little while to participate in something that is a little unusual for a member of this assembly, that is, to sit on this select committee and to go through this process.

I began with a bias; and I have to state this: If you are a believer that the words on paper do the job in terms of giving anybody any rights, you will have great difficulty with the Meech Lake accord. I do not. I do not believe that any law is worth anything without some large measure of enforcement.

That may seem rather strange, but I am reminded of that daily. I was reminded yesterday as I watched a group of tenants who had been evicted from their homes, even though the minister says that is illegal. The facts were that the landlord put a padlock on the door and put the tenants on the street. If there is no enforcement, in my mind, for all practical purposes, there is no law. That is a harsh reality that those of us who make laws understand. It really does matter how the words are put together, but it matters more how the government enforces its laws, how the attitudes of our society deal with the laws we have.

I was reminded again. I am not an advocate of shelters for the homeless, but I saw on Front Street in Toronto a couple of weeks ago a really great shelter. It was put together for an international press corps and it operated on a 24-hour-a-day basis. It fed them and it gave them all they could have to drink. It gave them entertainment and it gave them computers. It gave them everything they wanted. I will say now that if the government wants to do that for the homeless in Toronto, I will become an advocate of shelters for the homeless.

During that same summit conference, I watched the government provide transportation for one senior citizen from the United States. I watched Ronald Reagan go by Wellesley Street with two helicopters overhead and, by my count, somewhere around 100 security officers, a complete medical unit, an ambulance at his disposal and television crews. If that is the government’s version of transportation for seniors, I am with it. But it is not, and you see how circumstances change the cases.

When a government wants to do something, it can. When it does not feel like it, no law on the books can make a government do that. I was reminded of that constantly throughout this process.

I want to talk almost exclusively about the process, because I think that some things do need to be said and that we are at a critical point in the history of the nation. We have all made fun of how the Meech Lake accord was reached -- 11 boys went to the lake for the weekend

We all know a lot of people spent a lot of time drafting things. Civil servants around the country telexed little messages back and forth. There were people who advised the ministers and all of that. But the perception remains that the traditional way of forging these agreements does not serve us well any more and can never happen again. I think people have to hear those words. This process in its current form cannot be repeated. No one will ever get away with this again. We have done this twice in recent history, where the wise leaders of a nation met and did something important and for some reason it seemed OK. It is not OK any more.

I am reasonably happy that in Ontario the first major public set of hearings was held on this agreement and that we heard, by my count in my office, more than 300 delegations of various sorts which in different ways provided an opinion to the committee. Some of it was very learned opinion from academics who believe very strongly in the power of the word; that where it is positioned in the agreement is critical; that that is the most important thing. If you advocate that, you will certainly have problems with this agreement. If you think the exact word which is chosen and where it is positioned -- and in many of the arguments before the committee, what words were not used and where they were not included -- you are going to have difficulty with this.

I am not an advocate of that. I believe a Constitution, if it is of any value to the people in the country, is a living thing. It has a relationship to the words which are used, but there are a lot of other components involved in that as well.

During this process, I met some very wise people. I even met a good lawyer. It is the first time in my life I ever met one.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Name names.

Mr. Breaugh: Catherine MacKinnon is her name, as a matter of fact. When you send me to jail, she is getting my phone call.

I think part of what was useful about the process, and it is important, is that we got letters from people all over who had not read the accord and did not know what a Constitution was and did not care; they were “agin it.” We should read those and hear those opinions. They are valuable to us. We had a deposition from a guy who brought his own rock video; which was good, I enjoyed it.

We met some very wise people, who would probably be, in the eyes of many members, not well-educated people but who had great wisdom. I am thinking, in particular, of a number of delegations from aboriginal groups, people who, in my view, had a right to be in a rage about this, had a right to come before us and say, “We are the aboriginal people of this country and we have fought and argued and negotiated with government for more than a century now and have still not gotten our rights and our legal treaties honoured by your governments.” They had a right, in my view, to be very angry, and I was taken aback by their wisdom.

As a matter of fact, I recall that one afternoon we were discussing the Senate. That august body had made a recommendation that, I think by 1992, it really had to finish up aboriginal rights and it had to be all settled by then. We were talking to them about it. We said, “Did you think that was a good idea?” One chief said to me: “It doesn’t matter, 1992 or 1993. Our cause is just. We will persevere. We’ve argued with you this long. Whether it takes another two or three years, we will win. We will have some fairness. We will get our rights honoured. We will get our treaties honoured.” That is a man with more wisdom than most people in this chamber have.

I was reminded by another chief who came to our hearings in London that while all of us talked about our theoretical rights and whether this word belonged here or there, members of his band on his own reserve were met by police officers from Ontario and the federal government with shotguns because they were fishing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again, it was a case of the resources of a government deciding not what is right and wrong but what it is going to do, which laws it will enforce. What great violation of the national laws had occurred here? Somebody fished in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Though we would not like to think of it in this society, they did arrive with shotguns. Most of us tend to think that does not happen in Canada. Then every once in a while we will be on a picket line somewhere and we will see those same friendly Ontario Provincial Police officers who guard us here in this chamber in a different light.

1130

Those who have not done it should try it someday. Try walking around a picket line at six o’clock in the morning with a group of men or women who are trying to establish what we would think to be their right and see how the police officer looks to you when there are 40 of you and 200 of them. See how it feels in this great, free democratic society to have surveillance cameras turned on you. It does not feel too comfortable and it does not make a hell of a lot of difference at 6 a.m. at Sandra Tea and Coffee Ltd. in Ajax whether you have a legal right to picket or not. What is real is how you are perceived and how you are received by your society.

I think we learned a great deal in the process. I think the process itself was a valuable one. Some of the people who appeared before us were young people, students who had actually read a great deal about this accord and the background and other opinions. I was amazed at how many of them brought forward a very learned opinion and were content to run the risk of putting that opinion out in public. I am not sure I would have done that when I was in university, but they did.

As I sat through the hearings, I was again impressed that there is something emerging in this country, and all of this chatter about constitutional reform is part of it. There is a sense of a national identity emerging in Canada. God forbid it will ever get out to the surface, but it is there and people are thinking a little bit about who we are and how we govern ourselves.

I am not a big fan of the Canadian Senate, but there are lots of people now who are saying, “If the Senate is going to be there, shouldn’t we stop to think about how it is constituted and how people get there?” People are saying the same kind of thing about the Supreme Court. “If the Supreme Court is going to make decisions which change the way we govern ourselves, which change dramatically overnight the kind of services that are provided to our citizens, shouldn’t we know a little bit about who these people are who sit on the Supreme Court?” That is a little different kind of notion for a Canadian to have.

We are starting now, just beginning, to think about the process. We are starting, just beginning again, to think about the ramifications of all that.

I know some are not happy with the committee’s report. As I sat in the committee room and tried to play my little role in putting it together, I knew they would not be, but I want to put on the record that I think there is something significant here. As I close, I want to put my little unhappiness together on the record this morning too.

The significant part, the part that is worth thinking about, is that we, as a committee, recognized that 11 of us could not sit in the committee room here and do this. This had to be an open process. So we went to great lengths to see that as much of it as was possible was televised around Ontario in both languages. It was not very long ago in this building when that would have been an unthinkable thought, never mind a practical reality, that there would be that much public exposure to deliberations of this kind.

I think it was worth while. At this critical juncture, if the government of Ontario takes the recommendations that are in this report and begins the next part of the process, I think we will have achieved something worth while. I believe the committee identified in its deliberations the concerns that were brought to it and said that certain things must now happen, and if they happen this Meech Lake accord is not that bad a deal.

I must get this on the record too; it is a personal thing. I have heard people say this is a miracle. I get nervous when people have these kind of apparitions. There are no miracles here. These are 11 grunts who went off to a cottage and did their job, just as we did it. That is exactly what we do. There is no miracle about it. There is no flowering of Quebec. We are not more complete Canadians today because of this accord. We are politicians doing our job, listening to what people said were legitimate concerns and trying to respond to them.

Not everybody is going to like our response. We know that. Members of my own caucus do not like the idea, and it is only a resolution of the House that will go forward on these three matters. That is how we handle constitutional matters here. We have done it twice; we will do it again this afternoon. That is how it is done. People do not like that. Some would like us actually to amend the Canadian Constitution. I did not like Brian and the boys amending the Canadian Constitution, so I am not going to do it.

I think what is appropriate is that a committee of the assembly put forward its thoughtful recommendations and we begin the process of drafting how those recommendations will actually be written into the Canadian Constitution. There should be no surprises in this. Everybody should know what we are trying to do, and we should now begin the process of identifying which word goes where and which section gets the amendment. We addressed ourselves, in part, to some of that. As best as we could ascertain, we worked for a consensus in the committee, because the Meech Lake accord talks about how we are going to operate from here on in. It was a trial run. Could we get a consensus in the committee? Yes, it was possible.

It meant, for one thing, that we had to forgo the traditional things that members of parliament do, that is moving amendments that are not going to carry and, after you move the amendment that does not carry, you vote for the report or you shirk your responsibility totally and say: “Well, I don’t like it. Everybody else has to be the responsible person today. They can vote for this thing. I don’t want to.”

That is a bit of a risk, but I think it is a risk worth taking, I think it is a thought worth pursuing. Each of us, in a different way, struggles with the notion that we are going to be part of this process. I think this Ontario committee has laid out in rough form how the process should happen from here on in. The component parts are fairly straightforward. No deals should be cut that require a legislative committee to ratify and that is it. After this, if you want to change the Constitution, give us your ideas and thoughts and make your arguments and let us do our job, as simple as that. Let it be an open process.

I was surprised at the number of people who actually had done all of the reading and the thinking to appear in front of the committee and make a rational argument. Many of them were people who were not used to being questioned. There were many learned academics who, I am sure, rarely get students in their class challenging what they are saying. There were certainly in front of the committee a number of brilliant legal minds who marshal their arguments as best they can and try to win a case in front of a court. They are not used to having to deal with 11 people asking them questions. We all had to accommodate the wishes of others.

I think the process was useful, but I do not want to pretend for a moment that it was perfect. I want to put a couple of things on the record that perhaps might strike a sour note. I have never seen a committee report hijacked by the Office of the Premier until this one, and that is precisely what happened. I think it would have been really useful for this committee to have tabled its report now, to give all the members of the assembly two or three months to think about it, to talk to people about it and to come back here in the fall and have a lengthy discussion about it. I think that would have served us well. I know that this morning I am supposed to take 20 minutes and say all I have to say about this committee’s work and Meech Lake and all of that, and I cannot do that. I think it would have been useful to hear that.

I know it is nice to have everybody get up and give us his opinion. We have had that for six or eight months now. It would have been useful if that had been an informed opinion. It would have been useful for people to hear the pros and cons of all these arguments, because they were really good arguments. The people who appeared in front of the committee not only had opinions but had thought about how this should be done in the future.

If there is hope in what is being proposed in this committee’s report, it is to change the process by which the Canadian Constitution is altered in any way, shape or form. It addresses itself in large measure to how that process should be adopted, to how we would go about it. It talks about standing committees, public hearings, joint committees and getting all the legislatures of Canada to talk to one another about these same things, because the process we now use is an awkward one.

I believe the report of the committee is worth considering. I do not think for a moment that we have stumbled on the ideal way to do this, but I believe we are at a point in our history as a nation when we are just beginning to identify who we are, how we function and how all of these rights get interpreted. It becomes critical then that we have a legitimate, free, democratic process to make these changes and that we have a clear role for our legislative assemblies to play in all of this. That is different and that is a change in the way Canada functions, but I believe it is an important change.

1140

I put forward to members, with no reservations, the work of the select committee on constitutional reform because I think it was good work. I do not think it was perfect work. I think it is no miracle. I think it is no great watershed in the history of Canada. But it is a mark, some legitimate work that was done by 11 people here who worked very hard, some staff people who worked very hard and a lot of our citizens who took the time to come before us and put their position to us.

I recommend that to members. I hope that members will support the report. I know that the Meech Lake accord, which will be debated later this afternoon, is a slightly different matter. But if members listen to what this committee had to say, I think it would serve us well if we took the advice of the recommendations that are contained in this report. I think we will begin, only begin, but begin to resolve some of the difficulties that have been identified around this accord.

I believe it was worth doing. It was not exactly fun all the time, but it was a worthwhile effort by people who I think had not only good intentions, but also in fact found some recommendations that are worthy of everyone’s consideration. I hope members support it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is trite in these debates to begin by congratulating the committee on the work it has done, but I think in this particular case, as the honourable member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has said, there is a special occasion and a special obligation to do so.

I had the opportunity to give evidence before the committee as the last witness. I also had the opportunity to read virtually all of the hearings of the committee. I think any dispassionate observer could not help but admire the dedication and thoroughness with which the committee undertook and discharged its task on all sides. If you measure the enormity of the obligation they had, it is easy to see how difficult that must have been.

We are at a critical moment in the life of our country. All of us are concerned about the implications of constitutional change, not for any selfish purpose but because of our competing views about the value of nationhood and the way it can best be expressed in this strange, semi-Arctic land.

Each member of the committee, of course, took with him or her to the committee hearings not only his or her views about the process so ably described by the honourable member for Oshawa, but his or her views about the result of the process and his or her sense of how arrangements can be made to unify and strengthen this land. Those views were very deeply felt.

The committee heard dozens and dozens of witnesses -- they have been described by the member for Oshawa -- some of great sophistication and learning; others who might be judged unsophisticated by the standards of the world, but who, as has been noted, had very useful and frequently wise things to say. Apart from anything else, we learned that wisdom was not necessarily an essential product of learning. Occasionally, wisdom and learning happen to coincide, but it was not a necessary correlation in any sense.

The committee had the opportunity and the obligation to listen, and it did. Then it began the process of analysis. It is a tribute to them that they put aside as best we can do, which is not always perfect, their own predilections, their own concerns to try to come to an accommodation not only about this accord, but about the future of the country, and particularly the future of constitutional change.

Now the matter comes to this House with their unanimous report which we are presently debating. Every member will be conscious that when we vote on this, we will probably be casting a vote that will be as important as any we will cast in our period of time in the Legislature. Because while we may vote on this policy or that policy that will have short-term, medium-term or long-term ramifications, we are really voting about the shape of the Constitution and therefore, in a practical sense, the shape of the country in future generations.

While we all understand that honourable members may dissent from one another and that everybody has the right to vote either for or against any piece of legislation or resolution as they please, there is a special entitlement to dissent in a case like this.

I have read in the press that the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) is not going to support the conclusion of the committee. That, of course, is his right; that goes without saying. But in another sense, in a larger sense, it is his moral obligation, if he feels that way, to say where he stands, in a historical sense, in this important task.

I do not intend to go through each item of the Meech Lake accord. The committee has done that better than any of us individually could have done, and I accept its analysis and I accept its criticisms of the process. But I do want to make a number of general observations and tell members some of the things I learned from the committee and from the process, now two and a half years old, which began when the new government of Quebec announced at Saint-Sauveur its expectations with regard to constitutional change at a public conference that Queen’s University arranged.

I have learned something about constitutions, and I think, in a strange and rather surprising way for me, it parallels something the member for Oshawa said. That makes me instinctively uncomfortable --

Mr. Breaugh: Well, at least I’ve done one good thing today.

Hon. Mr. Scott: His good deed for the day has been done, it is true, but I think he made a point I would like to make in a slightly different way, if I could.

A constitution is not a will or a deed or a bill of sale or a TV repair account. It is not a conditional sales contract. It is not a chattel mortgage. Therefore, it is not susceptible to the kind of analysis one would make in looking at what the lay person or the lawyer would call a legal document which imposes obligations.

Going over constitutions with a fine-tooth comb, as the lawyers say, is a nonproductive exercise, because constitutions are not meant to speak with precision. If you want to see the most general language you could ever imagine, look at the Constitution of the United States. You would have grave difficulty, reading the Constitution of the United States, in predicting how the government of the United States would be carried on.

The same is true of our own Constitution, which has stood us in good stead for 115 years. It is not a precise document. It would not have been made if precision was required. The forces that had to be brought together in Prince Edward Island and in the Confederation debates that took place there would not have coalesced if precision was required, and that is why our Constitution speaks in phrases like “peace, order and good government” as a source of power.

The people at the Toronto Star would immediately say: “Well, what does peace, order and good government mean? Can’t the first ministers be more precise?” Of course they cannot. Constitutions are not made by attention to precision. What they are designed to do is to create a framework for politics. They are designed to create a framework that will permit all legitimate interests within the country to work and live together to achieve, if they can, their political purposes.

This can be seen in our own history. For example, when Sir John A. Macdonald and Cartier of Quebec debated the Constitution of Canada in 1867, both of them had competing views about what this country should be like. It is no secret that John Macdonald essentially wanted a unitary form of government on the English model. He was determined to have it if he could, because the American Civil War, just concluded within a year or so, showed him that federalism did not work, so he wanted a unitary model. Cartier, the French-Canadian leader, wanted a federal model, for different reasons.

Both of them went into that conference backed by supporters with their own agendas. They were both prepared to say what they wanted, and what they came out with was general language that permitted both of them, both expressing legitimate views about the nature of the country, to come together, to coalesce into a nation and work out those questions of how we will govern ourselves in political terms. That was done. It is not yet clear which of them may be the victor in this struggle that has occupied Canadians for 150 years.

1150

When people say to me, as they do in my constituency and elsewhere, “Some of the language is very general, is it not?” I say, “Yes, it is, thank God.” It would not have been possible and it would be wrong to try to formulate a Constitution that will be a straitjacket for the politics of the future. When we have leaders, sometimes national leaders who say, “My vision of Canada is this and my vision requires that this be done in the Constitution,” when we hear that kind of thing, I am sometimes put in mind of people who want to exclude other legitimate views, to incorporate only their own view about what is right for this country.

I see the very generality of this document as, first of all, entirely consistent with the history of constitution-making everywhere in the world, entirely consistent with our own history since 1863, and what is more important perhaps, entirely in the national interest, because with this accord we have completed a process that has brought all the legitimate views about the nature of the country, its regions and its central authority together so that there will be a framework in which all the players can participate in the act of politics, which of course at its highest is the act of making a national identity.

I learned something about that sense of what a constitution is from reading some of the things that were said to the committee and by being compelled by the committee to focus on that kind of question. Now, as I have said, I do not propose to discuss in detail the provisions of the Meech Lake accord. I have said what I had to say on that subject to the committee as well, after some effort, as I could say it, and it would be idle to repeat it here.

I want, however, to dwell on one other aspect of the committee’s report that I judge to be critical. The committee commented adversely on the process. I understand that comment and I think by and large it is a fair comment and represents a view that we all have about the process. Having said that the process is defective -- it is the only process we have ever known in this country -- it is very difficult to devise another process that will effectively replace it.

The committee has begun that work in a useful way by suggesting the standing committee on constitutional matters. I think that is a good start. The committee itself would not underestimate the very grave difficulty of developing a more open but still productive process than the one we have, but I support the committee’s initiative in saying that work must begin and we must begin it in this way.

The other thing the committee did is that it made, on pages 44 and 45 of its report, two suggestions, one at least in the form of a proposed amendment about the future agenda. I think those are of great importance and I would hope as we focus on Meech Lake itself we would not overlook what the committee had to say about those things.

Perfectly naturally and for very sound historical reasons, makers of constitutions tend to focus on their own agendas. What the committee said to us in recommendation 9 was that this process is pretty near complete. We have brought all the players into this framework that is the Constitution and now we must use the Constitution for the purposes of identifying those characteristics that unify us all. Instead of focusing on interests, we must begin to focus on unifying factors.

Constitutional conventions, whether in the old format or in a new format, obviously will occur more frequently in the future than historically they have in this country. It is important that we should begin to develop an agenda for the future and I am frankly delighted at the step the committee has taken in pointing that way.

In recommendation 9, for example, the committee asks the constitution-makers, whoever those may be under the new process, to elaborate the concept of fundamental characteristics so as to reflect the full spectrum of Canadian society, and that an amendment be contemplated that will begin the process of enumerating those fundamental characteristics that unify us across this country as a people.

That is an important item for the agenda, because if the constitution is to serve not only its role as a framework in which political debates can occur, but also its role as a unifying document, we must begin to focus, in the Constitution, on unifying elements.

The other proposal the committee made which I support and which I think is wise, is recommendation 10 with respect to the aboriginal people. Here, the committee has proposed, in the form of a constitutional amendment, a scheme that will in a sense replicate the 1982 process of constitutional negotiations that failed in 1985 to obtain an aboriginal constitutional self-government amendment. The initiative of the committee, I know, will be positively noted by our aboriginal fellow citizens, and I believe the committee here has made an important start in leading us to that process and to its completion with a constitutional amendment.

I think having done that, however, we must recognize the enormity of the task that lies ahead if we seek an aboriginal constitutional amendment that speaks to self-government. At the last two conferences I had the honour to attend for Ontario, there were, apart from the federal government, essentially three governments in Canada that were prepared to discuss aboriginal constitutional reform in a meaningful way. They were Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. Each of us put forward proposals, slightly different in form, that went a substantial distance, not as far as some aboriginal people would have us go, towards an amendment.

The reality we faced at that time was twofold. One, Quebec was not present so that a major province that has a long tradition of dealing with native people in a relatively progressive way -- after all, the James Bay agreement was made in Quebec -- was absent and felt unable to participate in the process. Those provinces that were moving towards an accommodation with our native people felt very much the absence of Quebec. I believe that if nothing else, the approval of this accord across the country will make the concerns of our aboriginal people more easily recognizable.

Having said that, we must understand that there were six provinces that are very clearly opposed to any kind of aboriginal constitutional amendment at the present time. Therefore, we must begin the exercise of trying to persuade our colleagues in all parties, because this is not a matter that divides parties. All parties in western Canada essentially find this aboriginal concept and the self-government concept very difficult. We must begin to persuade our colleagues in other provinces that the interests of our aboriginal people require the continuation of this process.

1200

It will be difficult, but I think this Legislature is committed to it. We will do what we can to make it effective, but it is going to be a long and difficult road to obtain the kind of majority required for an aboriginal self-government amendment. But I think it is critically important that the committee has taken, and the Legislature will take if it adopts this report, that significant step forward.

Today is an important day for Canadians. It is important for those who will support this report and it is important for those who feel obliged to oppose it. As I said in opening, we do something today that may be more important in the long run than most of the kinds of votes we take day after day in this place.

I have been impressed, as I am sure honourable members have, whether it be in the committee, the Legislature or indeed the community, by the seriousness with which our people, by and large, have addressed this critical question. There will be differences. The honourable member for Scarborough West is obviously going to take one view and I am going to take the other. That does not mean he is right or I am right. It simply means we have both attempted to assess what is good for this country at this time and what it is possible for this country to achieve at this time, and have come to different conclusions about that. I respect that.

Having said that, I ask all members of the House to reflect on the fact, as they go to vote, that the members of this all-party committee, putting aside in so far as they could their political differences, laboured extensively for four months, got to know more about our Constitution than any other group of 11 people in the country -- I make no exceptions to that -- and got to hear more people speak about the Constitution and to listen to more people express their views about the nature of the country than any other group.

When I appeared there -- happily for them and for me, I was at the end -- there was no more knowledgeable body in this land than that group. Not without difficulty, not without stresses, I am certain, not without some modification and qualification of principle perhaps, because politics and constitution-making are always the art of the possible, that group achieved a consensus which they recommend to this House. I respect their work. I think they have produced a major document in the form of this report, which will be read in classrooms in this country probably for generations, because it reflects the consensus that was achieved in our time in this place.

I am delighted to congratulate them on their work, to invite the House to consider the seriousness of purpose they applied in undertaking their task and to ask the House seriously to consider endorsing what they have recommended.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Beer has moved the adoption of the recommendations contained in the Report on the Constitution Amendment, 1987, of the select committee on constitutional reform.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to ask that there be unanimous consent that the vote on this particular matter be deferred to four o’clock this afternoon. The order of voting this afternoon, if I have an understanding of the House, will be that we will proceed after routine proceedings to have the three leaders speak to the government notice of motion 6. Once that debate is concluded, we will then proceed to the vote on this matter -- that is, the adoption of the report of the select committee on constitutional reform -- and following that vote, proceed to a vote on government notice of motion 6.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to defer this division until four o’clock?

Agreed to.

Vote stacked.

Le vote est reporté.

The House recessed at 12:05 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1 p.m.

MEMBER’S STATEMENTS

LIBERAL PARTY FUND-RAISING

Mr. Swart: I would like to tell the House that I received a letter from the chairman of the fund-raising committee of the Ontario Liberals, and he was asking me for money. I want to tell my Liberal friends here that I will not be making any donation. With what they are doing on housing, hospitals, colleges and auto insurance, they certainly do not deserve one.

I want to quote one sentence. It says: “Please remember that although Liberal candidates won a majority of seats and formed the government, the Ontario Liberal Party has no special access to funds.” That is not really entirely true. They really have a gold mine with the insurance companies. Liberals members received $118,000 last year from the insurance industry, and that amount is in the names of various sectors of the insurance industry. That is only a small amount compared to what they received in personal donations from it.

I have this tip for them. If they really want to get big money in their ridings from the insurance industry, they should get their New Democratic Party opponent actively to promote public auto insurance. In my riding, my Liberal opponent, Mark Larose, got more money than any other Liberal running in all of Ontario -- $3,700. There is a tip for them in the next election.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs. Cunningham: I rise in the House today, not only as the representative for London North but also on behalf of concerned parents all over Ontario.

On March 31, a young girl was brutally attacked in London. We have on many occasions asked the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to review the risk-management systems at Ontario psychiatric hospitals.

Two more parents whose children were murdered by psychiatric patients on day passes have written me this week, and the memories of their traumatic experiences have resurfaced with the brutal attack on the London girl and the murder of Christopher Stephenson in Brampton almost two weeks ago.

Today we were informed by the ministry’s officials that the investigation will take at least three more months to complete. On top of that, we will have to wait even longer for this report to be released to the public. We have entered the summer holidays and more young people will be travelling alone. We, as parents, will be even more concerned for their safety, considering these recent tragedies.

It is appalling that it will take the government more than six months to complete the investigation, submit the report and reassure parents that our children can play outdoors and travel in our cities without fearing for their lives. We expect this government to do everything possible to expedite this investigation and to release the report immediately.

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Mr. McGuigan: I wish to raise a matter of interest to farmers, trappers and hunters who use all-terrain vehicles for agricultural or trapping and hunting purposes, who may unknowingly be operating their vehicles without liability insurance coverage.

The Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983, states, “No person shall drive an off-road vehicle unless it is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy,” the only exemption being when the vehicle is used solely on the vehicle owner’s property.

The act requires that ATVs be registered and that they be insured under an automobile insurance policy. Also under the act, these vehicles can cross a road, but they cannot be operated on a road except when operated by a farmer, trapper or hunter while engaged in work related to his occupation. This exemption for farmers and so on may create the impression that farmers do not require insurance.

Also, prior to 1983, farmers insured their ATVs under their farm machinery and liability policies. Today farm and personal liability policies specifically exclude ATVs. To be on the safe side, all owners of ATVs should check with their insurance agents. They should ensure that their ATVs have insurance coverage which meets their needs.

I would urge all members to pass this information along to their constituents. In the event of a bodily injury claim for which the ATV owner is liable and lacking liability insurance, he could lose a great deal, such as his farm and home.

CANADIAN ARMENIAN CENTENNIAL GALA REUNION PICNIC

Mr. Farnan: I rise today to recognize an important anniversary and those who will be celebrating it. I am referring to the hundreds of people who will be attending the Canadian Armenian Centennial Gala Reunion Picnic in Cambridge on July 2 and 3, which marks the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the Armenian people in Canada.

This exciting event is being sponsored by the Armenian Community Centre of Cambridge and the Brantford Armenian community. People of Armenian descent are expected to attend from as far away as Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Windsor, and indeed from across the entire province.

Although in the past the Armenian people have experienced incredible suffering and persecution, they will join together this weekend not only to remember their past, but to celebrate their hopes for the future. The program will include a tribute to first-generation Armenians, games, food and dancing.

I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming the many first-second- and third-generation Armenians who will be attending the Canadian Armenian Centennial Gala Reunion Picnic. I would also like to congratulate the organizers of the picnic for giving all of Ontario an opportunity to appreciate the Armenian people’s courage and quest for freedom.

We in Cambridge are very proud of the fine Armenian community we have in our midst and its contribution to our community. We know we will anticipate working with them for the future prosperity of Cambridge and Ontario.

SUMMER EVENTS IN ORILLIA

Mr. McLean: My statement today is in the form of an invitation. There are some exciting things happening in Orillia this summer. On the weekend of Saturday, July 16, we have what we call the Scottish Festival, which is a great highlight of that community, serving all parts of Simcoe county, and we welcome people to that. We have about 10,000 people who usually turn up and it is an exciting event.

One of the other exciting things happening in Orillia this summer, and I want to invite you all to it, is the Antique Boat Show for Ontario, which has been in Port Caning for years. This is the first year it has been moved from that riding, Muskoka-Georgian Bay, down to the riding of Simcoe East and the port of Orillia. I welcome you all to come and enjoy yourselves and see that.

The other thing taking place is that the Opera House in Orillia has a summer program whereby you can come to visit and enjoy live performances put on by local people. It will be very enjoyable, and I welcome and invite you all. I would like to invite the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) to come up so that he will learn a little more about what is taking place with regard to tourism in Ontario, especially in the port of Orillia.

I invite you all to come and enjoy yourselves in Orillia and area this summer.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Faubert: Since September 10, 1987, when the good people of Scarborough-Ellesmere elected me to represent them here in this Legislature, the most common request for assistance I have received has been from those suffering from job-related injuries.

I am sure all members of this Legislature have also heard the often tragic and heartbreaking circumstances of these injured workers as they seek assistance from the Workers’ Compensation Board through their local member’s constituency office.

This is why the legislation introduced on June 20, 1988, by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) amending the Workers’ Compensation Act should be greeted positively by all members of this Legislature.

The previous determination of benefit levels, which was often referred to as the meat-chart system, was little more than an arbitrary guesstimate of how a particular injury might affect earning capability. In contrast, the new dual awards system will provide replacement for the real earning capacity lost as a result of workplace injury, while it will also compensate for the noneconomic loss suffered.

This legislation ensures that injured workers receive early access to rehabilitation assessment and the appropriate services. In addition, it provides injured workers with the opportunity to be reinstated in their jobs so that they can once again retain their self-dignity and their independence.

Nobody is suggesting that the problems of the injured workers of this province will all be solved by this legislation. However, injured workers across the province, and indeed all Ontarians, are welcoming this as a major step in the right direction in providing greater fairness and comprehensiveness in benefits and greater workplace opportunities for injured workers across the province.

1310

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: There is overwhelming evidence that citizens are concerned about the flip-flop by the Liberal government on the Sunday shopping issue. Citizens can make their views known by appearing before the standing committee on administration of justice, which is holding public hearings this summer. The committee will be holding hearings in Toronto the week of August 8; Collingwood and Orillia the week of August 16; eastern Ontario the week of August 22; St. Catharines, Brantford, London and Windsor the week of August 29; Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and North Bay the week of September 12. I urge all members to contact the clerk of the committee at 965-5774 if they wish to make a presentation.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I would like to bring a bill before the House which will assert Ontario’s constitutional authority to control and manage its water supply. The bill is the Water Transfer Control Act. The Water Transfer Control Act will ensure that there is a secure supply of water for Ontarians and Canadians by controlling the transfer of water out of any of the five major drainage basins in the province.

This government is concerned that the proposed free trade agreement places control of Canada’s water supply at risk. We believe the failure to expressly exclude water exports from the agreement opens a door we think ought to be closed. This government knows that water can be considered a good under the free trade agreement and thus, like any other good, water would become a commodity to be bought and sold should Canada have a free trade deal with the United States.

This government does not consider water to be strictly a commodity. We see water as a precious, limited, strategic resource, one vital to the long-term social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the people of Ontario and Canada.

The House must remember that our water supply is limited. For example, only one per cent of the volume of water in the Great Lakes is truly renewable. Depleting the lakes beyond this one per cent would result in a permanent reduction of water levels. Furthermore, scientists predict that the gradual warming of our climate and increasing water consumption could significantly decrease Ontario’s water supplies within the next decade or two. Accordingly, the province must ensure that it has the maximum flexibility to respond to future developments involving this strategic resource.

I am sure members of this House will agree that our government must not accept any ambiguity about the province’s ability and determination to manage our water supplies. The Water Transfer Control Act addresses that ambiguity. It will enable this and future governments to ensure a secure, abundant supply of water for Ontarians and Canadians.

The act prohibits any person from taking water out of a provincial drainage basin without the express consent of the Minister of Natural Resources.

This government is on record for its opposition to large-scale water diversions which we feel will not benefit the long-term interests of Ontario or Canada. For example, on January 7, 1986, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stood in this House and spoke out against the GRAND Canal scheme.

I would ask members to support speedy passage of this bill. We must reassure the people of Ontario of their government’s determination to prevent the free trade agreement from creating uncertainty about Ontario’s water supply. Today, with this legislation, this government asserts its responsibility to protect our water resources.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to table the report of an interministerial committee which reviewed the roles, responsibilities and funding of Ontario’s 38 conservation authorities.

To give the House some background, cabinet in 1986 asked me to review the funding received by conservation authorities. Shortly after that, the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario in a brief to me recommended a number of reforms which went beyond funding.

As a result, cabinet agreed with my recommendation in August 1986 to broaden the review’s terms of reference. Cabinet also recommended that the review be carried out by an interministerial committee from the ministries of Natural Resources, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Municipal Affairs, and Tourism and Recreation. I also recommended that the Ministry of Treasury and Economics appoint a representative to the committee.

Some conservation authorities were formed in Ontario more than 40 years ago to protect local residents from flooding and erosion within one or more watersheds and pursue conservation in general. Today the area covered by the 33 authorities in southern Ontario and the five in northern Ontario includes 11 regional and 497 local municipalities. That area contains 90 per cent of the population of Ontario.

Conservation authorities are our first line of defence against flooding and erosion. The replacement value of the water control structures operated and maintained by conservation authorities is $1 billion.

Conservation authorities have served this province well, and we must ensure that they can also effectively tackle the problems of the next century. The improvements the committee is recommending are designed to make program delivery more consistent, clearly define responsibilities, clarify the conservation authorities’ role in recreation and free up funds to maintain the existing investment in water control structures and recreational facilities.

Let me just outline a few of the committee’s recommendations.

The committee found that the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and consistent program delivery of authorities is hampered by great variations in human, financial and other material resources.

The population figures for the areas served by conservation authorities, for instance, range from 9,000 to more than 2.6 million people. This is reflected in a significant variation in assessment base and, hence, in the financial resources of the municipalities in which these people reside. Budgets of conservation authorities range from $245,000 to almost $20 million.

This variation means some authorities cannot afford the technical and operational staff required to provide consistent services across all areas of the province. That is why the committee suggests that smaller southern Ontario conservation authorities should be amalgamated within two years to reduce the total from 33 to approximately 18. Because of the distances between conservation authorities in the north, the five authorities there would remain separate and distinct.

The committee also feels that efficiency can be improved if membership on the conservation authorities is cut by approximately 600, from 937 to 337. This number will permit all members to participate in the full decision-making of their authorities.

The committee also wants to reduce the variation in funding for conservation authorities by eliminating all supplementary grants and establishing three provincial grant rates of 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 70 per cent against the cost of all programs. The grant rate for a given conservation authority would be a function of its total assessment and population. This change will allow conservation authorities with small assessments to provide the same level of service as areas that have larger assessments.

This change in grant rates is estimated to reduce the call on provincial funding by $5 million. The committee recommends that this $5 million stay in the program and be augmented by an additional $5 million to help authorities maintain the existing investment in water management structures and recreational facilities.

These recommendations are far-reaching, and I know that some will be the subject of very spirited discussion.

There will be ample opportunity to discuss these recommendations. There will be a public review that will involve all conservation authorities and interest groups and municipalities. This review will also include obtaining input from new municipal councils that will be elected this fall.

CANCER TREATMENT

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Ontario. It affects people of all ages and has touched most of us personally, in one way or another, through friends and relatives.

Escalating the war against cancer has priority status in the Ministry of Health. In August 1986, we committed $200 million for major cancer projects, including the redevelopment of the Princess Margaret Hospital and regional cancer clinics in Hamilton and London and the construction of a new clinic in Sudbury.

Today I am announcing additional funding for the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. The $5.5 million in new funding is in addition to the 4.4 per cent increase approved by the ministry earlier this year, bringing total funding for the OCTRF to $69.4 million for 1988-89. Total funding for the Ontario Cancer Institute and the OCTRF has increased by 13 per cent over last year.

1320

Cancer care in this province is provided through two provincial cancer care organizations and through general and acute care hospitals.

The OCTRF is responsible for the operation of the eight regional cancer care centres across the province. These centres have seen a significant increase in the number of patients requiring treatment. The additional funding will allow the centres to meet increasing demands on existing services.

To ensure that Ontario’s efforts at battling cancer are as effective as possible, and in line with the reorganization of the ministry, I am creating the position of cancer care co-ordinator to oversee future direction of all aspects of cancer prevention and treatment in Ontario.

My ministry’s healthy lifestyle campaign will form an important part of our prevention strategy.

As well, the ministry is expecting to receive a consultant’s report, commissioned last March, dealing with the long-considered merger of the OCI and the OCTRF. The new co-ordinator will take an active role in implementing this report and in reviewing funding for all cancer care programs.

We are committed to providing a co-ordinated and effective system of cancer care in Ontario.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Scott: As members of the House perhaps know, the government has long advocated increased participation by the public in the justice system. This belief was reinforced, at least as far as I am concerned, at the Access to Civil Justice conference, which we recently hosted at the time of the economic summit but in another place. During the conference it was widely acknowledged that a regularized system for intervener funding is an essential component of an accessible justice system.

On behalf of myself and my colleagues the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), I am introducing today the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988. The bill will create a three-year pilot project involving the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board and the joint board which hears applications that would otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of the former board.

The challenge in developing this legislation has been to balance the needs of the intervener and the proponent, the body that has brought the matter before the board or which is the principal beneficiary of the issue before the board.

Under the scheme established by the bill, the proponent will normally be required to pay the costs of the intervener funding award. In order to qualify for funding, however, an intervener must satisfy a number of criteria.

Intervener funding will only be awarded by the board in relation to cases which both affect a significant segment of the public and affect a public interest. In addition, consideration will be given to factors such as whether the intervener has tried to raise funds from other sources and has an established record of concern for the issue.

An exception is provided where paying the costs of intervener funding would impose substantial hardship on the proponent. In that case, the board has the discretion to decide that the costs shall be shared by the proponent and the intervener itself.

Finally, the legislation also addresses several problems relating to the awarding of costs before the affected tribunals. The Environmental Assessment Board will for the first time, like the other boards in Ontario, have the authority to make costs awards.

For all the affected tribunals, the discretion of the tribunals to make costs awards has been broadened beyond traditional court-based criteria to reflect a more conducive attitude towards interveners at the tribunal level.

We are introducing this bill today in the expectation that we will receive public input over the summer months; and in discharge of my commitment to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), we will be pleased to receive comments and suggestions from all interested parties in order that we can enact an intervener funding system next fall.

The criteria established in this bill for the granting of intervener funding are based on the criteria established by Mr. Justice Thomas Berger in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry. In arranging for the funding of native and environmental groups with demonstrable interests to the outcome of his inquiry, Mr. Justice Berger recognized the importance of public input. We are proud to follow his lead with this legislation.

I am personally very pleased to be able to introduce this legislation. I am confident that it will go a long way to remedying the difficulties faced by public interest interveners before our tribunals.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Since taking office, this government has consistently recognized the importance of increasing accessibility to Ontario universities for qualified students.

With this priority in mind, and in recognition of the significant increase in demand for first-year university entrance, I have begun to announce a series of new capital grants. These grants are designed to help universities accommodate more students by funding improvements, renovations and alterations to facilities such as laboratories, classrooms and offices. Some institutions will use a portion of the funds to rent off-campus space to help meet surging enrolment demands. These announcements are the first steps in the four-year, $40-million plan announced in the April budget of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to ease the immediate pressures of growing university enrolment.

I am pleased to tell the members that the response by our universities to this increased demand has been very encouraging. We know that several universities have already sent out letters of acceptance to an increase of several hundred more students this year. University officials tell us that the special funding will help them provide several thousand more student places across the system for September.

I mentioned that I have begun a series of announcements. Those announcements of funding will continue into next week. These allocations are another measure of our ongoing commitment to enhancing access to and facilities for post-secondary education in this province.

RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just to respond to that last statement by the minister, of course we are all happy to see that accessibility is going to be enhanced. This kind of late program does not exactly help long-term planning in the universities, which are trying their best to accommodate the government and the students involved.

What is missing from this announcement is probably what is most provocative. There is no statement here about the total number of students who will be able to be accommodated this year. There is no statement as to whether or not all those students who wish to go to university and are capable of going to university will be going to university this fall. Instead, that has been obfuscated with this report.

If the government has met that commitment it has made so many times in the past, then I welcome this announcement. If this is in fact a way of just ducking the reality that many students will not be going to universities who are eligible to, then clearly I do not like this smoke and mirrors.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Wildman: I rise to respond to the statements of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

In regard to his tabling of the interministerial review of conservation authorities, I would hope that the minister would make clear to the House that these conservation authorities are so important that the recommendations for change should be discussed in the House and that these recommendations and whatever action the minister intends to take should be referred to at least a committee of the House for discussion and input of the members.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. Wildman: With regard to the introduction of the Wales Transfer Control Act, we in this party concur with the minister’s position with regard to prohibiting persons from taking water out of the provincial drainage basin without the consent of the Minister of Natural Resources and hope that the government would stand by the position it took on the GRAND Canal project.

At some point, though, I would also like to know from the minister what input, if any, the provincial government of Ontario has into the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ transfer of water through Chicago into the Mississippi River drainage basin.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mrs. Grier: I am delighted to hear the statement of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and to know that we are going to have at least a three-year period of intervener funding in this province. I regret that it has taken three years for the Attorney General to recognize that the criteria he himself had established in the Berger commission were in fact good criteria and to enunciate them. I suggested that some time ago, but I agree with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon); I am sure the cabinet took a lot of convincing.

My only caveat would be that I hope there will be a clear definition of what is in fact in the public interest, and that will be easily made for the interveners seeking funding; and also that at the close of the three-year period, we will not have to wait an interminable time for an evaluation of the pilot project in order to have some permanent funding in place. But it is a happy day and it means the end of bake sales and rummage sales for a large number of groups, at least for a small period. We hope at some point that the Ontario Municipal Board might be included in the pilot project too.

1330

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

I find it curious, if this is to be a priority of the government, that the minister would announce it some three or four months into the funding year. I think most people in the field would also find it strange that they would be subject to the 4.4 per cent restraint, and then after complaining, obviously, and after political pressures on the government, the government responds.

The second thing I would like to say to the minister is that in my experience, and I am sure in the experience of many other members, one of the most constant needs of cancer patients, in addition to the obvious work that needs to be done in funding and in research on the frontiers of science, is the quality of care at home.

I say to the minister that this is a real problem in the province now. It is not only the question of care at home; it also relates to the problem of palliative care. We now have only one real palliative care unit or hospice in the province and that is for patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

None of us can throw anything at the minister when she makes an announcement giving out money, but I just say to her again, in summation, that if this is a serious priority of the government, I would think that the announcement would have been made some time before the beginning of the funding year which, as the minister knows, is in April.

Second, we are still waiting for some real announcements from her ministry with respect to care at home, because this remains, in our judgement, the great, practical priority for people now suffering from cancer who do not get the kind of care at home they need. Many of them are in hospital when they would rather be at home, and that is a problem that is shared by a great many people across the province.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Pollock: I want to thank the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) for finally releasing the review on conservation authorities known as the Burgar report.

I recognize the excellent job those conservation authorities do out there, but I can assure the minister that I am extremely disappointed in this report, that it is going to reduce the number of conservation authorities from 33 to 18. Those small conservation authorities do every bit as good a job as some of the larger conservation authorities. lam totally opposed to this. As far as I am concerned, this is actually a form of regional government.

With that, I want to transfer some time to my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) to comment on the Water Transfer Control Act.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. Pope: I wish to comment on the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) with respect to the Water Transfer Control Act.

First, the reason for the legislation given by the minister is concern that the proposed free trade agreement places control of Canada’s water supply at risk. At best, that is a contrived concern not based on any credible interpretation of the agreement.

Now, in spite of all these noble motives, what we really see for the first time in Ontario’s history is proposed legislation which will set up a system for the diversion, sale and export of water from Ontario and Canada.

We oppose the Liberal government initiative which will allow, by ministerial permit and consent, the export of fresh water from our jurisdiction. We oppose what the minister is trying to do with the fresh water supply in the province.

More than half the residents of Ontario depend on the Great Lakes system for drinking water. Over 90 per cent of the residents depend on it for other uses, including drinking water. We oppose the Liberal government initiative which will allow for the diversion and export of fresh water needed by the people of Ontario.

Historically, our party, when it formed the government, led the way in fighting diversions or exports of fresh water. In June 1982, at Mackinac Island, Premier Davis signed an agreement with the Great Lakes governors opposing any diversion of fresh water. That was followed on November 17, 1983, with another address in Indianapolis to the Great Lakes governors; in 1984 with an address to the Midwest governors conference, indicating Ontario’s position; on May 19, 1984, with a statement I made as the Minister of Natural Resources at the time to the National Water Alliance Midwest Symposium in St. Paul, Minnesota; and with respect to the position Ontario took on June 12 to June 14, 1984, at an Ontario water resources conference entitled Futures in Water, which was hosted by Premier Davis. We have a long tradition in this province of opposing diversions and the export of fresh water to other jurisdictions.

The Liberals would provide for the export of water that we desperately need here in Ontario. Shame on them. Not only that, their legislation is phoney because they know as well as I that there are basically two basin systems in Ontario. One is to the Arctic watershed, to Hudson’s Bay, which is clearly under federal jurisdiction. The other is the Great Lakes system, which again is clearly under federal jurisdiction and subject to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.

The government knows that. It knows that any diversion would take place from either of those watersheds. Both are under federal control. They know that. Their legislation is meaningless and phoney. They should be working with the International Joint Commission the way previous governments have to prevent diversions and export of water, instead of providing for the export through their consent or permit system.

It is clear that this is an important issue on which this government is prepared to sacrifice the interests of the people of Ontario and provide for the export of water. It is really another silly, meaningless irritant by a Premier (Mr. Peterson) who boasted that he could veto and frustrate a free trade agreement with the United States and who has now been reduced to sulking on the sidelines, because he has no ability to exert the kind of national statesmanship he likes to point to with the Meech Lake accord.

While the west sees the benefits of the free trade agreement and while the Maritimes see the benefits of the free trade agreement, Ontario is alone. The Premier of Ontario is alone, reduced to meaningless, trivial, legislative initiatives that mean nothing, instead of working positively for the benefits of this free trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

VISITOR

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Just before I accept your point of order, I was looking up to my right and I see a former member, Harry Worton, whom you might wish to welcome back today.

Mr. B. Rae: I notice the former member is as far away as he possibly can be.

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: No, from everybody. I do not know whether we should take that personally or not. It is nice to see you, Harry.

POLLS

Mr. B. Rae: May I point out that together with the leader of the Conservative Party, I receive every once in a while a pile of polls that have been funded by this government.

What I have noticed with the last few piles that have been produced is that they are over two years old. Here we have one, Ontarians’ Attitude Towards Gasoline Prices, that is dated April 2 to April 15, 1986. It asks, for example, “Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the way the provincial government is handling each of the following issues?” It is interesting to know that over two years ago, 75 per cent of northerners disapproved of the way the government was handling gasoline prices.

As a historian of the political process, I find that very interesting. As an observer of the political scene and participant --

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. B. Rae: If this government is going to be open, it should be giving us the information when it has it, when it uses it and when it makes use of it, not as part of some archival project, which is the way it is approaching it at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully -- I wish all other members would listen carefully.

I listened carefully to the member on a point of order. I do not find it a point of order. It is a point of information, I believe.

1340

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold.

[Applause]

Mr. Swart: Not again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I now recognize the member for Welland-Thorold, and the question is to which minister?

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD

Mr. Swart: I want to say first, I know that applause is really for the reasonableness of my question and the positive answer that I am going to get from the Minister of Financial Institutions when I ask him. I want to say that it is not ceremonial.

Of course the minister cannot admit it, but everyone knows that the idea of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board was a scheme to get the government by the last election and will do nothing to slow down the rate hikes on insurance. However, I think the minister will admit that board process can be substantially counterproductive -- those hearings in consumer protection -- if there is no balance in resources between the insurance companies and the public defenders at the coming hearing and subsequent ones.

Given that the insurance industry has intimated that collectively it will be spending some $5 million in preparing and presenting its case, I wonder if today the minister will tell this House what steps he is taking so that groups like the Consumers’ Association of Canada and the Automobile Protection Association, and all other groups that will be defending the public, will have similar resources to do battle on the side of the motorist?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows that the Osborne report recommends intervener funding. The honourable Attorney General (Mr. Scott) just got through making a statement about a pilot program for intervener funding, and probably, depending on the success of that at the end of three years, we might give it some consideration. But I would like to point out to the honourable member that the organizations which he refers to are broadly representative of the public and quite strongly supported by the interested public. In the past, they have not shown any inadequacies in presenting their views to all parties and to any board that has an impact on what they consider the best interests of the community.

Mr. Swart: I have to say that is simply not the case. The consumers’ association has told us that it would like to make representation under the upcoming hearings, but it does not have the funds to do so adequately. I think either the minister is very naïve -- and he is not -- or not totally impartial, if he thinks that we will get a fair deal out of those hearings with far less evidence and pressure from those representing the motorists than from the insurance company’s side.

I just want to ask the minister if he does not think the time has come for the appointment in this province of a public advocate, or a consumers’ ombudsman if you will, like they now have in two thirds of the states of the United States; an advocate with resources for defending the public side equal to those of the promoters of the increases, and with the funds for that defence coming from those who want the increases?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member forgets something that I consider to be important, in that the board that was appointed by order in council and announced to the House a couple of days ago is well led. It is broadly representative of the community and, in my view, will have access to independent research and be able to make its decisions in the best interests of the community.

The idea that somehow they are people without knowledge and without a will and that they are simply subject to pressures this way and that is not correct. They will be acting independently, as the honourable member would know, and I am quite confident that their decisions are going to be in the best interests of the community.

Mr. Swart: I am glad the minister raised the issue of the composition of the board. Does he not realize that the history of several of the board members is not one of impartiality to the insurance companies? They had worked directly or indirectly for the insurance companies as actuaries or consultants.

By contrast, is it not true that the minister wrote a letter, which incidentally I have here, to the consumers’ association, saying that it could submit nominees who should be independent of consumer advisory groups? Then he did not appoint a single one of the four that the association nominated. Does the minister consider that fair representation to the public of this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The board, I believe, has nine members and a chairman, and they are broadly representative of responsibilities and views. I believe that is the case.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Honestly, I really think the honourable member ought to give these people a chance. They have a very heavy responsibility. Their hearings, based on public input, will begin about August 15, and they are going to come up with benchmark auto insurance rates and ranges which I believe are going to be in the best interests of the community, which by law must carry automobile insurance.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: At the beginning of this session, I had a number of questions for the Minister of Health concerning the nursing shortage and its impact on patients. I would like, by way of final salvo in this session, as we adjourn later on today, to tell the minister the story of Jim Garscadden, who is 57 years old. He lives in Mississauga. He has had four heart attacks in December 1987 and January 1988. He now needs a quadruple heart bypass, and I have been told by his doctor, Dr. David at Toronto Western Hospital, that the earliest date that Mr. Garscadden can be given for surgery is October 24, 1988.

When we inquired as to why that was so, Dr. David said the reason is the nursing shortage at the hospital. He then outlined for me just how severe the shortage is, showing the number of nurses who have left and the fact that there are fewer nurses now on staff than are in fact necessary to provide patient care.

I wonder if the minister can give us any more adequate an answer to this question of the nursing shortage today than she has been able to give up until now.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I met with the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower, which I reactivated shortly after arriving at the ministry, and its advice to me was that there should not be a knee-jerk reaction to this situation. What it has determined is that there is, in fact, across the province, a variance in the vacancy rates, and there are no simple or quick solutions.

There is a recognition that nurses in Ontario, through their association, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, are well compensated. They have just reached a three-year agreement. There is an opportunity, and I am expecting a report from the committee -- in a matter of days, I hope, perhaps weeks -- which will give us some short-term as well as medium- and long-term solutions to this situation.

Mr. B. Rae: Dr. David has 120 patients, of whom 20 are considered lobe urgent. The patient I have talked about is Mr. Garscadden, who has had four heart attacks in the space of a two-month period in 1987 and 1988. He needs a quadruple bypass operation and he will not be able to get it until October.

If the minister is saying that to respond to this situation is a knee-jerk reaction, I think it would be offensive to Mr. Garscadden and to all those patients who are affected by the nursing shortage.

Surely by now, the minister has been in charge of her ministry long enough that we are entitled to a clear answer. There are eight temporary vacancies in nursing staff in a 12-bed unit at Toronto Western Hospital, just to give her one specific example.

I want to again ask the minister what she is going to be doing specifically to address the needs of patients, the needs of nurses and the health care needs of this province, which are so closely tied up to this nursing shortage?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In recognition of the length of waiting lists and also in recognition of the need to increase capacity, as the honourable member knows, I announced a cardiac care program for this province. In fact, I have had communication from Dr. David supporting the initiatives of the ministry in taking the kind of approach that we are taking.

We recognize that the ability to attract nurses for full-time positions is something that the hospitals are working on. We know that many of those positions are being filled by agency nurses at the present time and, in fact, this is a situation which varies from region to region around the province. I have given additional support to the nursing manpower committee and asked it to come forward with recommendations for action it sees as appropriate.

However, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that they have cautioned me not to overreact to what has in the past been a cyclical problem which in fact is not unique to Ontario.

1350

Mr. B. Rae: It is interesting that we have come full circle. The minister is still talking about a cyclical problem. She looks at the Goldfarb report, she looks at the report of the ONA and she talks to her advisory committee itself, and I would suggest to the minister that all the information she is getting is that this is not a cyclical problem. It is a problem we share, yes, with England and the United States, but we participated in it as well and it is not going to go away. It relates to underfunding, it relates to nursing power, it relates to satisfaction on the job; it relates to a whole number of issues which the minister has not been able to address.

I would like to ask the minister specifically, when are we going to get a series of proposals from this government -- if she does not give us a knee-jerk response, perhaps we are entitled to some kind of a jerk response from the minister -- telling us precisely what she is going to do, what is going to happen, what is going to come forward and what is going to be done to address an issue --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: -- that we have been raising since the beginning of the session? The minister is giving us exactly --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to caution the Leader of the Opposition not to be so fast and loose with the lip.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is important for him to have his facts straight, whether he is talking about nursing manpower or funding for cancer care. There are a couple of things I would like him to know. For example, he mentioned cancer care earlier and the funding for the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. He might be interested to know that since 1985-86 funding for that foundation has increased by some 75 per cent.

I recognize that the role of women in our society has changed and that the role of nurses has changed. I am working with the nursing manpower committee because I recognize that, as a society, we must say to nurses that we value their contribution within our hospital system and within our province. I expect to be seeing some recommendations very soon that will address a problem which, as the member has stated, is not unique to Ontario. We must recognize that there are no simple and easy solutions to a matter which even he should admit is complex.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I just want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there was a smattering of applause from the Liberal benches as well, which I appreciate.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: It is getting a little better now.

Mr. Breaugh: Don’t forget your troops.

Mr. Brandt: Oh, I acknowledge there was some slight applause from my own benches as well.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it is related to the announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) with respect to the provincial government’s position on water diversions. I wonder if the Premier could perhaps acknowledge that in 1987 the federal government made its position very clear relative to any sale or diversion of water to the United States, that it was totally in opposition. There have been numerous statements by provincial governments in years past, one of the most noted of which was the statement in Mackinac, the position taken by Premier Davis at that time in opposition to the sale or diversion of water.

Why is the Premier’s government now taking the position, ostensibly in response to the free trade agreement, that it must now have the authority to license -- if that is the way I understand it -- the sale of water to the United States? Why has he taken that very unusual position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very mindful of the history on this and the strong position that Premier Davis and his representatives took. It is an interesting thing. When I assumed this office, I had a little conversation with former Premier Davis, and he said to me, “One thing, David, never to forget is never give away our water,” because he was mindful of the threat, as others are as well.

I say with great respect that the interpretation of the statement made by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) is absolute, complete and utter nonsense. I know my honourable friend, unlike some of his federal colleagues, has read in detail the free trade agreement. I know he personally is very knowledgeable about this. I know he would know that there is some controversy over the provisions of that agreement as it pertains to water and the various tariff schedules thereto.

This removes all that lack of certainty. This says very clearly that we will not allow those diversions and we are asserting our authority in that regard. My guess is that even if the member for Cochrane South does not agree with what we are doing, the former member for Brampton would stand up and say, “Bravo for the Ontario government.”

Mr. Brandt: Let me say to the Premier of this province that I want to associate myself, as do all of the colleagues in my party, with the statement made by the member for Cochrane South as it relates to water diversion. He has clearly put on the record in his response to the minister that our party historically has opposed any sale of water to the United States of America. We continue to hold that position, and now the Premier is asking for the authority, through his statement by the minister, to license it.

Would the Premier perhaps clarify, for the information of this House, where in the free trade agreement it indicates that the sale of water, other than bottled water, is allowed to the US? Let him tell me where the diversions are in the trade agreement. Has he read the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes, I have.

Mr. Brandt: I will bet he has.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am delighted that my honourable friend would stand in this House and agree with the government. I think he would want to have the common decency and charity to say that the government has done the right thing rather than trump up some kind of opposition to it.

With the drought in the United States, and I am sure the member has been following this closely, the chairman of the Great Lakes governors, Governor Celeste, is now interested in this subject. Governor Thompson of Illinois, just two or three days ago, announced that he would like to do a major diversion into the Mississippi.

We can see new assaults coming on Great Lakes water. This clearly gives us the authority to prevent that from happening. We are asserting our jurisdiction and we are not going to subscribe ourselves to the ambiguity in the trade agreement over this matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait until we tone down a bit.

Mr. Brandt: With all due respect to the Premier, that is the worst kind of false bravado I have heard in this House. It really is. It is silliness of the first order to indicate that he can control the diversion in the way he is suggesting through his statement by the minister. Historically, this province has always worked co-operatively with the seven Great Lakes states in the US and with our sister province of Quebec. We have consistently taken a unified approach to no consumptive diversions of water out of the Great Lakes.

Our party stands firmly behind that position. We will consistently hold to that position. Other than giving a perception, an appearance, putting up some kind of flag to indicate he is fighting a war which is not really there, why, in heaven’s name, would the Premier pick this issue -- about which everyone in Canada is clearly on side; they have clearly enunciated their position that they are in opposition to the diversion of water -- and try to hold that out as some phoney war against the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Why would my honourable friend not have the good grace to stand up and just agree with the government because he knows we are doing the right thing? He talks about how co-operatively the Conservative government worked with the Great Lakes governors. I have had the opportunity to work with them as well. Is he not familiar with what Governor Thompson said the other day, that he wants to increase the diversion up to some, I think, 9,000 cubic feet per second?

What I am telling my honourable friend is that there is going to be more political pressure in the United States than there was in the past, given the drought conditions. This clearly asserts our authority. We will work co-operatively with those who oppose diversion. I assume now that we can count on my honourable friend for his support in that regard.

1400

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. After repeated calls by the Progressive Conservative opposition in this House, the minister recently intervened in the Hamilton-Wentworth school space dispute and thereby rejected the now infamous Stephen Goudge award.

In so doing, the minister implied that the Goudge decision was unnecessarily creating religious division and acrimony for students in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. None the less, the minister has decided to leave the Wentworth County Board of Education with the after-taste of that decision and he has also made a decision to leave the representatives of Winona High School away from the mediation table when the Goudge decision was discussed.

Why did the minister deny the Wentworth public board an opportunity to mediate a solution and avoid the unnecessary acrimony created by the Goudge award?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member raises a number of issues that I will try to respond to as briefly as possible. I would point out to the member, though, the decision rendered by the tribunal under the leadership of Mr. Goudge, and I will quote: “It is my view that it cannot be accomplished only by the transfer of existing facilities from public boards. To do so might impair the viability of the public secondary system. While the transfer of use can contribute to the solution of this problem, the remainder of the solution must be, in large part, a provincial responsibility and a longer-term goal.”

When approached by the public board in Hamilton, when it expressed a desire, fully recognizing its obligations under Bill 30 to find a facility to replace Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, to give a final resolution to this issue, we were willing to participate.

I would point out to the member that officials from my ministry visited all three board directors prior to those negotiations. Each one of those boards was given the opportunity to put forward its position, to express a desire to participate, on the understanding that it would be obliged to indicate at that time some recognition as to its role in finding a solution. Two of the boards agreed. The Wentworth county board chose not to participate further.

Mr. Jackson: That really is not exactly an accurate reflection of the facts as we have been able to uncover them in the last few days. In fact, on May 16, when the minister dispatched almost his most senior ministry official to Hamilton and ordered the three directors of education to meet, Frank Clifford, acting on the minister’s guidance, set down specific criteria for coming back to mediation.

If I can paraphrase, Mr. Clifford’s position was, “If you do not have any assets to trade or any new property to give the Catholic board, then there is no sense in coming to the table.” The minister knew, when he was placing those unreasonable conditions on the Wentworth board, what he was doing. It is not a property-rich board. It does not have surplus property, as did Hamilton. In fact, it offered Dundas District High School to the separate board and the Catholic board turned it down.

My question is, given that the minister has denied the Wentworth board an opportunity to obtain even observer status at these mediation talks, why is it that Hamilton’s educational needs are being met, but the Wentworth board will now be relegated to seven more years of confrontation with the separate board?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Let me reiterate, the same opportunity was afforded to the Wentworth board as was afforded to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and its various member boards. It was the same opportunity that was made available to both the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton.

The Wentworth board chose not to participate in further discussions. It had previously made a decision on its own to close that facility a year earlier and conveyed that by way of a resolution on March 7. It did approach me to discuss the possibility of some assistance in facilitating an earlier transfer than the arbitrated date. We carried on those discussions in good faith. We met on at least two occasions.

The ministry did everything it could to assist that board within the bounds of being fiscally responsible. That offer was transmitted to the board and it still stands, but it has chosen not to exercise that opportunity. Much to my dismay and to the dismay of many people in this community, that school will sit vacant for a year --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Jackson: The minister knows that is not exactly what went on behind closed doors. Today what we have in the Hamilton-Wentworth area is a public Hamilton board which has its long-term commitments under Bill 30 met; we have a public board known as Wentworth which does not have them met; and we have the umbrella separate board which has half complete and half incomplete.

By his own criteria, the minister has denied Wentworth an opportunity to participate in the mediation. The minister knows the Wentworth board is not in declining enrolment. In fact, it is actually even renting spaces from the Hamilton board.

As the minister has denied the Wentworth board the opportunity to participate, will he at least give the Wentworth board a guarantee that its responsibility to transfer space under Bill 30 ends with the transfer of Winona High School? Can the minister at least give them that assurance?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I have conveyed to the Wentworth County Board of Education the offer on the part of my ministry. It consists of a substantial allocation to assist them in upgrading facilities at the two remaining Stoney Creek high schools for programs which otherwise would be lost to them. The member is wrong; there is no obligation under the bill. In addition, it was given a $405,000 allocation and other additional considerations which were contained in that offer.

It distresses me greatly that the board has chosen not to exercise that option. In fact, what it is doing by its own admission is seeking full compensation for a transferred facility, which has not been granted anywhere else in the province and will not be granted here.

It is a very unfortunate turn of events that for all intents and purposes 1,600 students at Cardinal Newman high school are being held hostage. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it might be the position of the member for Burlington South, but it is not my position that we will pay the ransom.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister tell us when he expects his ministry to begin survey work and when actual construction work will begin on the Red Squirrel Road in the Temagami district?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I cannot.

Mr. Laughren: That is a very strange answer, that the minister does not know that.

Would the minister agree not to proceed with the survey work or the actual construction work until the judicial review which has been applied for in the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario, as I understand the legal terminology, has been dealt with? Would the minister agree that until that judicial review has been dealt with, neither the survey work nor the construction work should begin?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not think the honourable member would really expect me on the basis of that question to give that kind of commitment. This is a very involved process. We are looking at it, out of respect to all of the people in that area, and attempting to deal with it in a very responsible way. It does not follow that I am going to make those decisions on the spur of the moment.

The thing the member might do is just help us a little to resolve the problem, because he may have an interest in the north. I know this government does. I am not sure he is going to be helpful unless he does get the other side of the issue and helps us resolve it.

1410

PROVINCIAL FRAGRANCE

Mr. Harris: My question is to the Premier in his capacity as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It concerns the apparently unlimited capacity of his government to discover ever more novel ways of frittering away the taxpayers’ dollars.

Knowing that the Premier has a nose for the issues, I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity to bring the House up to date on the matter of his government’s desire to have an official provincial fragrance. Could the Premier tell us how much money the government has invested in this project and if it is true the fragrance is to be called Eau de Yuppie, Eau de Stinking Benjamin, Eau de Tax Obsession or, in honour of his policies, D’Opium.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You’ve got too many writers over there.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the last official thing we dealt with was a bird as proposed by the Tory member opposite.

Mr. Harris: Obviously, Hershell has not kept the Premier informed of what is happening over there. For the information of the Premier, last September the protocol office, for which he is minister, approached Helix Fragrances Inc., a company whose president, incidentally, is the wife of a member of the Premier’s Council, with the proposal to develop a provincial fragrance.

Also for the Premier’s information, if I may borrow from Shakespeare’s Macbeth, I can assure him that “all the little perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” his little band. Would the Premier not agree that at a time when his government claims and has demonstrated it cannot afford to properly fund hospitals or schools, investing in a provincial fragrance at $5,000 for the first 50 ounces and $90 for every ounce thereafter is nonsense and that it shows a contempt --

Mr. Speaker: The Premier.

Mr. Harris: -- for the taxpayer and that, in short, it stinks.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I agree with my honour-able friend that we do not need a provincial fragrance. I think sufficient aroma is provided by the members opposite.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Kozyra: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As a rule, northerners are accustomed to some price variations on such items as gasoline, groceries, travel and construction costs. Most of these prices are higher than those in southern Ontario. For the past few months, the local Thunder Bay newspaper has been doing a weekly northwestern Ontario food pricing comparison survey. The survey consists of a standardized list of grocery items purchased in normal food outlets in 11 northwestern Ontario communities ranging from quite small communities like Ignace to quite large ones like Thunder Bay. What bothers me is the fact that consistently Thunder Bay finishes near the top of this list, not an enviable position.

The comparison shopping results this week produced startling differences. Thunder Bay’s total of $21.32 was 46.5 per cent higher --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question? Mr. Kozyra: -- than the lowest total, Kenora’s total of $14.55. To make matters worse, Thunder Bay’s total was 26 per cent higher --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Kozyra: -- than the second highest out of 10 communities. Can the minister explain the reasons for this huge discrepancy, which amounts, in my opinion, to a ripoff of Thunder Bay consumers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member will want to know, and I certainly would understand his concern and that of his constituents, that the Thunder Bay Times-News survey contained on this occasion two very significant inaccuracies on two of the items, namely, potatoes, in which the item was misstated by, I think, $1 and sugar where the survey taken in Thunder Bay was for a four-kilogram package as opposed to two kilograms, which were quoted for all the other communities.

Notwithstanding that, the honourable member is correct that Thunder Bay tends to run towards the top of that list and runs towards the top of our list of northern communities that are surveyed under our own monitoring program. I can say to the honourable member very briefly that the monitoring program is now being reviewed to see whether it can be made perhaps more accurate in that the surveying results --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: -- are not properly put together.

Mr. Kozyra: As a supplementary, I appreciate the fact that the minister points out a few discrepancies in this week’s list, but it is a chronic problem. It is on a weekly basis. Given that these price differentials appear to be the chronic problem rather than a fleeting abnormality, will the minister consider a formal study of the situation in the hope of providing a satisfactory conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As I suggested to the honourable member, we currently survey some 72 items, and I am advised that there are concerns that the methodology is not well done.

I would want to say, since I am hearing some noise across the House from the official opposition, that our most recent survey of food prices showed that of the 72 items that we survey, the Thunder Bay prices were, I think, 5.9 per cent higher than in Kenora but they were 4.6 per cent lower than in Toronto. I would not want my friends to be left with the impression that the methodology changes are necessary to rig the prices higher or lower than in southern Ontario.

Our concern is that if we are going to have this kind of monitoring survey, it ought to be as accurate as possible, and work is ongoing to make sure that is the case.

ONTARIO LEGAL AID PLAN

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. The Attorney General recently completed a conference on Access to Civil Justice. In relation to that, it was brought to my attention that in the two years prior to the last election, the Ministry of the Attorney General provided funds for six community legal aid clinics in 1986 and seven community legal aid clinics in 1987. So far, it is my understanding that no funding has been advanced this year for all of the worthwhile applications that have come in this year.

Can the Attorney General explain why the government was so, shall we say, bountiful before the election and now, one year after the election, there is no funding as yet for legal aid clinics in the province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First, to deal with the introductory part of the question, we did have a very useful conference of consumer groups that met with judges. I am sorry the honourable member, though invited, was unable to attend any of those sessions. I think he would have found them interesting and useful. We missed getting the benefit of his advice that way, but I guess we get it this way.

The honourable member has his facts wrong. Traditionally in Ontario, new clinics have been funded by the Ontario legal aid plan at the rate of about two or three new ones each year. That has been the traditional pattern. Last year we funded six new legal aid clinics, which was the largest number ever funded in one year. This year, first of all, we have continued the funding of all those clinics and have increased it to reflect the cost of living. We have also provided a larger budget for clinics, to reflect the number of duties they perform.

At the present time, we are in the course of discussing with the clinic funding committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada its plans for next year, and it would be premature to draw the kind of conclusion that, on the last day, my honourable friend is so anxious, so cynically, to draw.

Mr. Hampton: I do not want to get into an argument with the Attorney General over the facts, but I called his office yesterday and I was assured that in 1986-87 six clinics were funded and in 1987-88 seven fact were funded, although it is true one is not operating. It is also true -- and I want to indicate this to the Attorney General -- that it is customary that the budgets are increased in the second or third year because, as the clinic opens, it draws in more people.

However, the Attorney General has missed the point. The Attorney General knows there are more landlord-tenant disputes, more waiting lists of injured workers and more Social Assistance Review Board applications. There have been over 13 applications for new community legal aid clinics; yet none of them has heard as yet as to whether or not it is going to be approved this year.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Hampton: Can the Attorney General indicate if they are going to hear soon, at least?

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the honourable member wants the factual information on which to base his question, he just has to ask me and I will be happy to give it to him. The fact is that last year the government authorized the creation of six new clinics under the Ontario legal aid plan and funded at a higher level the existing clinics -- I think some 50-odd -- in the system.

1420

I think the reason the honourable member has the facts wrong is that the clinic funding committee did not open all of those clinics last year. The Peterborough clinic, which is the latest, was in fact opened this year. That is where the honourable member has gone wrong in his question.

Now, if he wants to know about the future, the answer is --

Mr. Hampton: This year.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Oh, no. In Ontario, this is the future. If he wants to know about current plans -- let me put it that way -- we are already discussing with the Law Society of Upper Canada its plans with respect to clinics. Just so the honourable member will know, the process is this: They interview the community groups that want to establish clinics --

Mr. Hampton: It has already been done.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, it has not been done.

They then conduct hearings and have an appeal process, and then they rank them in the order that they would support their introduction to the clinic system. At that point, after budgetary considerations come into play, we tell them which or what number of clinics we will be prepared to fund this year. That process has not taken place. We are on track, not to worry.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. 1. M. Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Health. On May 25, in this House, I asked the minister what she could do to help David Elgie, who is suffering a painful two-year wait for surgery to replace a deteriorating hip joint.

The minister will recall that she met with David Elgie after question period that day. She promised to provide him with a list of alternative hospitals with facilities equal to those of the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital on Wellesley Street, Toronto, but which have shorter waiting lists for the particular type of hip replacement surgery he requires.

That was over a month ago. Mr. Elgie has not heard anything from the Ministry of Health. My question to the minister is this: What has the minister done to help David Elgie find the health care he needs?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member opposite knows in fact that I met with his constituent. I think he knows also of my concern in ensuring that the people of Ontario have information so that they can make appropriate choices and receive needed care as close to home and in as timely a way as possible.

For the member’s information, I instructed the ministry to call his constituent and to give him the information. If that has not been done, I will look into it today.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That response will be of little satisfaction to Mr. Elgie. Next year at this time, his doctors have told him, he will be in a wheelchair if he does not have the operation he needs.

Since the minister cannot or will not provide the necessary funding for Mr. Elgie’s operation, will the minister permit David Elgie to pay for his own hip replacement operation so that he may avoid becoming a disabled cripple?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I cannot express strongly enough to the member opposite that in my view, when we have a situation where we have a two-week waiting list in one hospital and a waiting list of months in others, this is not simply a question of funding. We believe that there are resources available, and we will be pleased to get the information to Mr. Elgie so that he can request a referral to a surgeon, as close to home as possible, who will be able to provide him with the surgery in a timely manner.

ACCESS FUND

Mr. McGuinty: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. I am committed to the principle that disabled persons have rights equal to other citizens. As a result, I have recently moved my own constituency office to a ground-floor location to be more accessible, and I have encouraged others who serve the public to do likewise.

However, two organizations in the Ottawa-Carleton region which wanted to make their facilities more accessible have recently been rejected after applying to the Ontario government’s access fund. Will the minister for disabled persons explain why the Ottawa Civil Service Recreation Association and St. Joseph’s parish in Gloucester were turned down by the access fund, which was established to help remove physical barriers faced by disabled persons?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: The member raises a very good point about constituency offices. I think it was very admirable that he took the step to move his office to an accessible location. I have recently done the same thing myself.

In regard to the two particular applications, which I know he is extremely concerned about, he has raised this matter with me, I have had a complete review done and I want to answer the member very directly if I can. The Ottawa Civil Service Recreation Association is a private recreation centre and is not designated for either senior citizens or people with disabilities. The St. Joseph’s Parish Hall in Gloucester had completed its renovations prior to January 1988, before its application for funding had been approved.

I want to say to the member that the application form was included in a book sent to all organizations that showed interest and the guidelines have been strictly adhered to. There have been colleagues across the floor, from both the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, who have raised similar questions about access fund grants, and I want to tell all members of the House that no exceptions have been made. We have followed the guidelines as closely as possible.

Mr. McGuinty: Because of heavy interest in the access fund in the Ottawa-Carleton region and elsewhere in Ontario, will this fund be expanded in the near future? As well, can the minister indicate what types of facilities have been funded and tell the Legislature whether this fund or some other fund can be used to make sure that constituency offices of members are accessible to disabled persons?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: Let me deal with the last portion of that question first. I want to state that in fact l wrote to Mr. Speaker back in February of this year, outlining my concerns about the accessibility of constituency offices. I understand that at least another seven to eight members, including the member opposite, have also written to Mr. Speaker about the need for accessible constituency offices.

I am sure the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) would agree with me completely that it is absolutely necessary for offices as important to the general public as MPPs’ offices to be accessible, and I hope that we undertake a long-range program -- not too long, I hope -- to make that a reality.

I want to say to the honourable member opposite that I appreciate his sincerity and his sensitivity on these matters that affect people with disabilities. The access fund has proven to be very successful. We have given out nearly $1.6 million in grants between October 1987 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. I know that on a number of occasions the minister has heard me wrench from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) affirmations of his support for preservation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, but after there was public concern about the effects of budget cutbacks on the escarpment commission the Premier’s office established a budget-base review committee, which is to report on August 31.

Yet on June 20, the Niagara Escarpment Commission had to put into effect a further budget cut of eight per cent. Total estimates of the effects of budget cutbacks on the commission range as high as 38 per cent. Does the Chairman of Management Board think that this kind of financial management is consistent with preserving the Niagara Escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not responsible for the Niagara Escarpment. I do want to say, though, that my predisposition with respect to my role in implementing all aspects of the budget of Ontario is to ensure that in fact people who are assigned budgets live within those budgets and that if necessary budgetary steps are taken, of course they take them in a reasonable and sensitive manner so that they can carry out the mandate which they are given to do for the people of the province.

1430

Mrs. Grier: I do not think there is any suggestion that the commission has not been living within its budget; it is a question of whether in the management of that budget and in the manner in which cutbacks or constraints have been imposed, there is in fact any consistent financial management that allows the commission to continue with its mandate.

Given the fact that commission employees can no longer be accompanied by a lawyer when they go to Ontario Municipal Board hearings; the fact that the commission meets now every three weeks instead of every two weeks; the fact that the commission’s own reports indicate that there are delays in permit and amendment processing; and that land use decisions and contravention activity in conflict with the approved plan are leading to a deterioration of the Niagara Escarpment environment, does the chairman of Management Board think that those kinds of effects of budget cutbacks are consistent with financial management and preservation of the escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It seems to me that the honourable member makes the same mistake as in the rhetoric that comes from her leader and that others have been most recently making, and that is that there has been somehow an absolute cutback in the number of dollars we have flowed to those people in all parts of the province. In fact, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has in all cases been very generous with an expansion in the budgetary provisions for the transfer payment agencies and other agencies of the province that the province provides money for.

The situation which the member is talking about, I presume, has come about because there is an increasing workload in all areas of the province, not only with respect to the Niagara Escarpment Commission but also with respect to almost every agency that comes before us, as individual members or as cabinet ministers, to tell us that they in fact are the worst done by when it comes to dealing with increased workloads.

It seems to me that anyone who is given a budget will have to manage within the budget that is given. I do not know the actual details of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, but I am quite prepared to take a look at it. If the honourable member is asking me to do a Management Board review of its budgetary process, as well as the one which I think she mentioned in the first part of the question, I am quite prepared to take on an examination of the budgetary process and provide some details of exactly what was or was not done with respect to the internal management of that. If that is what the honourable member is asking, I am prepared to accept that responsibility and, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister must be aware that Ontario farmers are facing financial pressures because of a lack of adequate rainfall. Can the minister assure this House that he will instruct his officials to speed up the issuing of Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program cheques, instead of having farmers go through financial and accounting gymnastics for some two months prior to receiving their cheques after having been tentatively approved?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am certainly not aware that there has been any undue delay in getting the cheques out to the producers. It does take a period of time. We try to get the cheques out within a period of four to five weeks, which is only normal; but I will certainly check to see if there is some reason that cheques are not getting out to the producers within the time frame that we feel should be allowed in order to process these cheques.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have had a number of people come to me and state that there seemed to be no problem last year, even with the letter that was coming out and parts of which I quoted to the minister some weeks ago. However, this year there seems to be a delay and it appears to be an intentional delay. I hope that is not the minister’s way of trying to make an internal saving. Last year, $20 million was saved within his ministry. I hope that is not one of the ways he is using to try to save within his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Being the honourable gentleman that the member of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is, I am surprised that he would even make that kind of suggestion. Our staff is working very hard to process these cheques, but the honourable member also has to realize that occasionally we have to get additional information from the person who made the application. Of course, that slows up the process, but if the accurate information had been applied in the first place, then I see no reason we could not get those cheques out to the farmers within a period of four to five weeks. I will look into it.

AMBULATORY CARE CENTRE

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister is aware that a health facility has been badly needed in the east Hamilton-Stoney Creek area for many years. Last July, the government committed the funds necessary to build the St. Joseph’s ambulatory care centre to service the people of these communities.

At the beginning of April of this year, St. Joseph’s Hospital presented the architectural plans for the centre to her ministry for its approval. Could the minister please update the House on the progress of the ministry review of those plans and indicate when her ministry might give the go-ahead which would allow contracts to be let and the construction started on this important project?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, let me acknowledge the member’s interest in this particular project. I am aware that the ministry officials have met with hospital representatives to review their plans. The hospital was asked to make some changes so that the plans could conform with the original budget approved by the ministry. It is my understanding that the ministry is awaiting the revised plans to be submitted by the hospital.

Ms. Collins: Many people in the east Hamilton-Stoney Creek area have expressed concern that the government might reconsider its funding commitment to help complete the ambulatory care centre and might delay the construction of this centre because of budgetary constraints. Can the minister now give these people an assurance that if the hospital resubmits its architectural plans within budget, her ministry will approve this much-needed health facility without delay?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to assure the member and her constituents that once the plans received by the ministry are acceptable, the normal planning process will continue, and I expect that the plans and the project will then move into the tendering process.

As a matter of principle, I think it is important to restate what I have been saying to some of the hospitals in the planning process; that is, that I think as a general principle it is important that we see we can manage the resources that are already allocated before we allocate new and additional resources.

NORTHERN ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. An announcement was made just over a week ago by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines that $500,000 was going to be given for 25 geoscience research projects in Ontario; but only two of the 25 projects are going to northern Ontario, where I assume we need the work in terms of geology and mineralogy, and over 96 per cent of the funds from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for these research projects are going to universities in southern Ontario.

Could the minister tell us why we have not developed at our schools in northern Ontario the kind of research capability that is needed to promote the subjects of geology and the better usage of our mineral wealth in northern Ontario?

What is she doing to improve that research capability?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: First, I would like to recognize that there are, of course, very important and growing programs in the whole area of mining and other areas which are of concern to northern Ontario. I would point to programs at Laurentian University as well as at colleges in northern Ontario. It is also a fact that there are very well established programs in the universities of southern Ontario, including the University of Toronto and Queen’s University. Clearly those kinds of programs are going to continue to receive some support.

I think research carried out in this province will certainly serve the interests of northern Ontario in whichever centre it is carried out, but I also concur that there is an important emphasis on growth in our northern universities in these areas.

Mr. Morin-Strom: As a representative of a riding in northern Ontario, surely the minister must be embarrassed when the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is providing 96 per cent of its funds to universities in southern Ontario.

One could look at the only really major initiative in terms of university research funding, which is the centres of excellence program. In that program, 100 per cent of the funding went to programs at universities in southern Ontario.

When is this minister going to take the needs of northern Ontario seriously and develop real research capability and graduate school programs at universities in northern Ontario?

1440

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I would like to respond to that question in terms of taking the needs of northern universities and colleges seriously. This government and I as minister, and as a minister who comes from northern Ontario, consider that to be a very direct and important challenge.

I would want to point out that in addition to getting full support on the same basis as other universities and colleges in this province, we provide special grants to northern colleges and universities in order to ensure that they can continue to grow and improve their programs.

I would like to point out that when the centres of entrepreneurship were established, two of those centres went to northern institutions. I would also like to suggest that one of the areas in which we are continuing to make progress is the examination of linkages between northern colleges and universities and those in the southern area that have extensive research capacities. I believe the extension of linkage programs is an important part of the development, but I also recognize how much we are doing to directly support northern colleges and universities.

PETITIONS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: I have some additional petitions concerning the Cambridge Memorial Hospital; altogether, an additional 364 petitions similar to the one I presented yesterday. 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:

“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.”

That represents, at this stage, well over 12,000 signatures.

The second petition comes from the Cambridge Academy of Medicine this time. There are over 3,000 petitions. I would add that some of the names repeat themselves from the other petition, but it is separate.

“To the Honourable Elinor Caplan, Minister of Health, province of Ontario, to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“I believe Cambridge Memorial Hospital is doing an admirable and frugal job of servicing the people of Cambridge and North Dumfries. I 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 unwarranted government intervention. I urge you to order a public inquiry into this matter and to restore honour to our community.”

It has over 3,000 signatures, and I will deliver these via the page.

Mr. Speaker: You have signed them yourself?

Mr. Farnan: I have indeed.

TENANTS’ ADVOCATES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a petition that relates to the lack of tenant legal services in my constituency. Last year, Tenant Hotline was denied funding by the provincial government and as a result, it folded. We now have a serious lack of funding for the Working Committee for Tenant Legal Services in the city of York, so I have a petition. I am glad the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is here and I --

Mr. Speaker: I hope the member will present the petition.

Mr. B. Rae: “To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas in June 1987, Tenant Hotline, the only community-controlled tenant advocacy clinic serving city of York tenants, was closed by the clinic funding committee; and

“Whereas there is the continued need for at least six tenant advocates to assist tenants with such ongoing problems as the retention of affordable housing, rent review cases, building maintenance, evictions, law reform and organizing;

“Therefore, we the undersigned residents of the city of York petition for the funding of new tenant advocacy services serving the city of York tenants comprising: (1) at least six full-time staff, and; (2) one or more community-controlled tenant services based in the city of York.”

It is signed by well over 1,000 residents of the city of York and I am affixing my signature to the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: I have some petitions here.

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

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

“Has anyone considered the impact of the opening on Sunday of regional malls on the smaller Ontario communities? Do we want dead towns and villages like the west and some of the US states? We say no to Sunday openings.”

There are 150 signatures of residents from London and surrounding areas that were collected at Panda Shoes in Masonville Place, London. I have added my name and will turn these petitions over to the House for the record.

COMMUNITY CENTRE

Ms. Poole: I have a petition signed by 2,277 members of the Yonge-Eglinton community. It reads:

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

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

“The proposed community centre (of any size) should not be located in Eglinton Park because of the overwhelming adverse impact it will have on the green space and its use. New efforts should be made to locate an acceptable site, one outside an existing city park.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition signed by about 30 people addressed:

“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:

“We urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

It is signed by 30 of my constituents and I have signed it as well.

Miss Martel: I, too, have petitions concerning Sunday shopping and Sunday work. The first petition is signed by 22 employees of Central Auto in Sudbury and the second petition is signed by 46 employees of Mid North Motors. They are urging this government not to change the Retail Business Holidays Act and to maintain it under provincial jurisdiction. I have signed my signature to both.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“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 May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present 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.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Laughren: I have another petition.

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

“In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened. That the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

I have another bundle of petitions.

“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:

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to correct the record if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Your record?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes.

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to correct the record of a response I gave to the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) if he is listening. In reviewing my response, I may have left the impression that the ministry supports the concept of a wilderness park in eastern Ontario. I wish to make clear that proposals for a wilderness trust in the Madawaska highlands are a private initiative and are not supported by the government.

1450

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale) from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee’s third interim report, 1988, and moved the adoption of its recommendations,

Mr. Philip: In February, the standing committee on public accounts questioned officials of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario on the Provincial Auditor’s findings of various operating deficiencies at the LCBO.

The LCBO has been a subject of scrutiny by the public accounts committee and the auditor ever since 1983.

The auditor’s 1987 report suggests that a number of problems identified in the past had not been satisfactorily resolved at the time of the audit.

In its hearings, the committee was informed that the LCBO was in the midst of a major transition which was intended to modernize the operation and improve its efficiency.

The committee recommends that the LCBO submit an interim report within 120 days of its report, describing progress on the various initiatives, and that it provide a comprehensive report to the committee by March 31, 1989, on further progress achievement.

The committee, of course, reserves the right to recall the LCBO for questioning if it deems necessary.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATH BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr49, An Act to revive Lebon Gold Mines Limited;

Bill Pr72, An Act to revive 329931 Ontario Limited.

Mr. Fleet: I hope we are going to dispose of these matters today, as well as the ones that are already listed.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT / LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 174, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project to provide Funding to Intervenors in Proceedings before a Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981 and before the Ontario Energy Board and the Environmental Assessment Board and to provide for certain matters in relation to costs before those Boards.

L’hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 174, Loi concernant la mise sur pied de la direction d’un projet visant à fournir une aide financière aux intervenants dans des affaires instruites devant une commission mixte créée en vertu de la Loi de 1981 sur la jonction des audiences, devant la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario et devant la Commission des évaluations environnementales visant certaines questions relatives aux dépens adjugés par ces commissions.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Under the guise of explaining the bill, which was described in my statement, I would like to congratulate all who read its title today for their performance.

I would also like to do something I have never done before, but should have done, which is to congratulate legislative counsel on the work they generally do to assist all members of the House.

Let me give an example that I am sure other members have had. I had every intention of introducing this bill before the end of the session, which I predicted would be about July 15, and I anticipated introducing this bill about then. When it turned out that the House might rise earlier, I went to legislative counsel and, literally, they worked overnight to produce a bill that is no doubt without any defect whatever. I want to congratulate them and thank them for the service they provide to all of us in this House.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 175, An Act respecting Transfers of Water.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The purpose of the bill is to ensure for Ontario and Canada a secure supply of water. The bill prohibits the transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin without the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is authorized to attach conditions to an approval and to require payment for a transfer of water. Approval will be refused or revoked if the minister is of the opinion that the transfer is or may be detrimental to ensuring a secure water supply for Ontario or Canada or any part thereof.

ROCKTON WINTER CLUB INC. ACT

Mr. Elliot moves first reading of Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Rockton Winter Club Inc.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have an explanation?

Mr. Kanter: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the bill is to permit an employee who adopts a child to take up to 17 weeks of leave following the placement of a child with the employee for the purpose of adoption. Adoption leave will be available to either the adoptive father or the adoptive mother.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD / ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL DE 1987

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Peterson, resolution 6:

Whereas the Constitution Act, 1982, came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;

And whereas the government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;

And whereas the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec’s five constitutional proposals may be met;

And whereas the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new• arrangements to foster greater harmony and co-operation between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;

And whereas certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

And whereas section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;

Now therefore the Legislative Assembly of Ontario resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

L’hon. M. Conway présente, au nom de l’hon. M. Peterson, la résolution 6 :

Attendu que la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 est entrée en vigueur le 17 avril 1982, à la suite d’un accord conclu entre le Canada et toutes les provinces, sauf le Québec ;

que, selon le gouvernement du Québec, l’adoption de modifications visant à donner effet à ses cinq propositions de révision constitutionnelle permettrait au Québec de jouer pleinement de nouveau son rôle dans les instances constitutionnelles canadiennes ;

que le projet de modification figurant en annexe présente les modalités d’un règlement relatif aux cinq propositions du Québec ;

que le projet reconnaît le principe de l’égalité de toutes les provinces et prévoit, d’une part, de nouveaux arrangements propres à renforcer l’harmonie et la coopération entre le gouvernement du Canada et ceux des provinces, d’autre part la tenue de conférences consacrées à l’étude d’importantes questions constitutionnelles, économiques et autres ;

que le projet porte en partie sur des questions visées à l’article 41 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ;

que cet article prévoit que la constitution du Canada peut être modifiée par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par les résolutions du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de l’Assemblée législative de chaque province,

l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario a résolu d’autoriser la modification de la constitution du Canada par proclamation de Son Excellence le gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, en conformité avec l’annexe ci-jointe voir le Procès-verbal du 29 juin 1988.

1500

Mr. Brandt: It is with pride and with, I might add, some degree of humility that I rise to speak to the resolution asking this parliament to endorse the Meech Lake accord. The reason for my feelings is that in speaking to this resolution, I am participating in an act of nation-building with my colleagues in this Legislature and also with those speakers who contributed to this discussion before me and with those who will follow me as well. It cannot and should not be perceived as anything less than nation-building and should not be addressed as anything less than that noble goal.

We in this House often debate matters of great importance and significance to the citizens whom we have the honour to represent, but it is rarely that we have the opportunity to address a subject or issue that in a very direct and dramatic way reflects the entire country and, flowing from that, the diverse cultural and historical elements that comprise the great nation we call Canada.

Central to those elements and integral to our country’s past, present and future is our sister province of Quebec. This accord and this debate have a great deal to do with how we perceive Quebec’s role in our constitutional family.

Nation-building has never been an easy exercise in Canada. It has proven even more difficult at times because of our diverse roots and our different histories and backgrounds. Even, I might add, the sheer physical size of our country has at times worked against us. But these obstacles were overcome, for in the final estimation the people who formed this country believed in it.

As the historian Frank Underhill said in 1964, “A nation is a body of men who have done great things in the past and who hope to do great things together in the future.”

That is how we should approach the constitutional amendment agreed to last year at Meech Lake. The amendment, while the result of deliberations of the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers, has a life, a reality, if you will, beyond those of its creators, just as it has a beginning that stretches back to our original Constitution and a future or a development that will far exceed our own lifetimes. It is this fact that we must remember as we debate the resolution; that this is not a closed loop or a circle but another step in the development and reform of the blueprint on which our country is based.

This step, however, is an important one. Its purpose is to undertake a series of reforms that redefine the relationship and the role of the 10 provinces and the federal government. It undertakes to recognize and react to important developments in our society that demand a greater accountability and recognition of the diverse needs of the different areas of our country.

As far-reaching as the reforms of the 1987 constitutional amendment may be, there is one major consideration that I believe overshadows these and demands that even the opponents of the accord -- and I admit there are many -- deliberate at great length before they say no to Meech Lake. That consideration, the major achievement of Meech Lake, is the welcoming back of Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family.

This achievement, this goal, is not one that we in this House or in any other government chamber across this entire country should pass over lightly. By having Quebec as a signatory to the Constitution Act, 1982, all Canadians are reaffirming once again that yes, we believe in a united version of Canada; yes, we believe in recognizing the historical roots from which our country grew; and yes, we believe in the future of a strong, united Canada that will continue to represent to the rest of the world an oasis of understanding and democracy, that will represent a constitutional house that is strong, not because it vies to make all of us the same but because we understand, accept and rejoice in our diversity.

It is this vision that I believe guided the deliberations of the Prime Minister, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the other nine premiers at Meech Lake. It is a vision that is perhaps best described by the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said, “The governing motive of my life has been to harmonize the diverse elements which compose our country.”

There have been many critics of the accord, including a number of notable politicians, esteemed lawyers and groups representing women, multicultural and native people, just to mention a few. As well, we have had strong representations made to our select committee, whose report we have debated, as well as in other forms, by government leaders from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. While I do not intend to list all the concerns expressed since the advent of the Meech Lake accord, the question that has to be asked is, are the concerns that have been articulated legitimate? Is the accord risking too much? Put even more bluntly, is the price to allow Quebec to sign the Constitution Act too high?

Let me begin my answer by saying that the Meech Lake accord is, as we all know, a man-made document. By that definition, it perhaps cannot be perfect. It does not answer the needs of everyone. Yes, I think the concerns expressed are legitimate. Not for a moment do I think that any of us can presume to know at this time the full implications of what has been agreed to. Just as each day the effects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being felt, so too we face a similar scenario after the proclamation of the Constitution Amendment, 1987.

But in this instance, though my party and I recognize and have tried to address the concerns expressed, in the final deliberation, as I weigh the intent of the accord, as I weigh my understanding, my knowledge of what the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers attempted to achieve, as I consider the spirit with which they entered into these deliberations and finally reached an agreement, I believe the Meech Lake accord, flawed perhaps as it is by being a man-made document, should be ratified by this Legislature and eventually accepted throughout our country. That is not to say we cannot take some steps now to alleviate the concerns expressed, and I will return to that later.

Another area that has received a great deal of criticism is the process by which this accord was reached. The process was examined in great detail by the select committee on constitutional reform. I will not at this time reiterate its findings here, except to say simply that our party concurs with the need to ensure that the 10 provincial parliaments and the federal Parliament are not put in such a position again.

In a business where perception too often takes a back seat to reality, constitutional reform must be placed in a very special category. Not only should constitutional reform be seen to flow from the people we have the right and the honour to represent, but our constituents, the people of Canada and Ontario must have a more direct say, a more direct voice, in how our founding document is altered and what effect those alterations will have on our society.

The members of the House have heard my thoughts on this matter. They have heard, earlier this week and today, many other eloquent arguments, both for and against the ratification of the resolution on the Meech Lake accord. I want to say I recognize the depth of feeling among some members, the sincerity and the honesty which compel different members from all three parties to voice their opinions on this important resolution.

I also recognize that from where I view the goal of Meech Lake, the safeguards I believe to be in place are adequate to require, in fact to demand my acceptance of the accord, whereas others may not see that position and that decision so clearly. It is for this reason that I believe a free vote is imperative and necessary.

1510

However, I still believe that there is a compromise possible, a strengthening of the resolution which would be acceptable to the other signatories and, at the same time, satisfy the concerns of the groups that appeared before the select committee. It is because I believe a compromise is possible and it is because I believe the compromise I suggest will allow all members to vote for the resolution that I will make this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Brandt moves that the resolution, government notice of motion 6, be amended by adding after the words “with the schedule hereto” the following thereto: “and further that

“(1) the Legislative Assembly of Ontario resolves that the government of Ontario refer the following question to the Supreme Court of Ontario:

“If the amendments to the Constitution of Canada sought in the Constitution Amendment, 1987, or any of them were enacted, would it affect the guaranteed nature of individual rights and freedoms or their limitations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, in what particular or particulars and in what respect? and

“(2) The Legislative Assembly of Ontario resolves that the government of Ontario take the lead in urging the government of Canada and the other provincial governments to amend subsection 2(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as amended by the Constitution Amendment, 1987, by adding the following clauses thereto;

“(c) the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada; and

“(d) the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society and, in particular, respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures, as well as the differing regional identities that help shape Canadian society.”

Mr. Brandt: When this amendment is voted upon, I hope every member in this House sees fit to support it, for I believe it will allow us to pass the resolution before us unanimously, thus sending a clear message where the government of Ontario stands. It will send a clear message, not only to those who appeared before the committee and voiced their concerns about the impact of this accord, but it will also send a clear message to those provincial leaders who have expressed reservations about supporting this constitutional amendment. Perhaps it will even convince them to reassess their position.

Let me close by complimenting all those in our own Legislature, all those members who worked so hard on this resolution in committee and elsewhere, and let me pass on, if I may, my compliments to the groups and individuals who took the time to appear before the committee. Whether they spoke in favour or against the accord, it is my firm belief that they spoke from a great love of our country, Canada.

It is from that same feeling that later today I will probably stand and say yes to those who drafted this document at Meech Lake and I will say yes to this resolution. I will stand and with pride say yes as well to our sister province of Quebec. By doing so, I will be saying yes, I believe, on behalf of my party, to a better Canada.

The Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition. The debate is now on the proposed amendment.

Mr. B. Rae: I will be speaking to the resolution. I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate. Obviously, this comes after some considerable length of time and extensive participation by a great many people. I think I have spoken twice at some considerable length on this question in the House, both in the previous Legislature and in this one. I would like to try to summarize, if I may, the arguments I have made over the months and speak as well to the question of those who are taking a different point of view, not only today but indeed speak to those two premiers and those two provinces -- perhaps I should say more precisely those two provinces -- that have expressed a different point of view and continue to resist the enticements of Meech Lake.

As I have mentioned on other occasions, we have to see this debate in some perspective and in some sense of our history. It is worth recalling that it was not until 1980 or 1981 that Canada was able to amend its own Constitution. It was not until that act of patriation which took place after such an extraordinary length of time, the change by which not only did we introduce our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a fundamental feature of the Constitution but also a change by which we took on the capacity to amend our own Constitution. This patriation did not take place until 1982.

That patriation took place with a price. The price that was expressed most clearly and most definitely on the day on which it was announced that an agreement had been reached among the several premiers and the Prime Minister was the fact that the Premier of Quebec was not at the final signing ceremony and Quebec was not involved or participating in this act of patriation.

I mention that by way of preamble, not only to describe the constitutional uniqueness of Canada and that our Constitution is a national preoccupation in a way that is not true of most countries that are 120 or 130 years old, but I also mention it to make one point, and I do want to come back to this point.

It seems to me that, in good measure, the division between those of us who are in favour of Meech Lake, on balance with reservations, however we may have them, but those of us who, on balance, feel it is important for us to move ahead, and those who are opposed is how we conceive of this particular round of constitutional discussions. Do we see it as the Quebec round or, rather, do we see it as part of a continuing process in which everyone must be involved and in which a package of reforms must be made acceptable to a broader group simply than, if you like, the government of Quebec, in order to include Quebec in the future round of constitutional discussions?

I must say that as much as I would like it to be more than the Quebec round, I think we have to say that the essential purpose of the Meech Lake accord, the reason the premiers were meeting as they were meeting, the purpose of all the discussion that took place at the ministerial level and the so-called expert level and between attorneys general and others, was to devise a formula that would include Quebec as a voluntary and willing partner in Confederation. It is because -- I must confess after much reflection -- I too have that view of what this constitutional round is all about that I am persuaded that, on balance, the Meech Lake accord is a document which should be supported by members of this House and by members of my party.

The accord basically does two things in achieving this voluntary participation of Quebec. The first is to establish, by way of preamble, the principle that Quebec is a distinct society -- and I will come back to that in a moment -- and the second is, in a sense, by giving not only to Quebec but to all the other provinces certain clear recognition of their powers and by establishing a clear definition of the spending power of the federal government, in a sense, to allow all the provinces to participate in a renewed and more co-operative federalism than the federalism that we have seen.

Monsieur le Président, l’accord parle directement de la reconnaissance d’une société qui est distincte. Alors, en parlant d’un Québec qui est différent, en parlant d’un Québec qui est distinct, nous parlons, je crois, d’une réalité de notre vie, une réalité de notre temps. Je suis certain que je parle au nom de tout mon caucus, même ceux qui ne sont pas en faveur de l’accord, en disant que nous acceptons tous la notion que le Québec est une société distincte dans notre confédération.

1520

The “distinct society” clause is also the one which has given rise to the special agreements between Canada and Quebec with respect to immigration, though I might add that those are not new provisions in our national life. In fact, Quebec and Canada have had a special arrangement with respect to immigration for many, many years.

The second feature is perhaps the one that has caused the most difficulty, as well as the question of what has been left out -- and I want to come to that in a moment -- and that is to recognize that the provinces generally have more powers with respect to appointments to the Senate, with respect to appointments to the Supreme Court, with respect to the creation of new provinces and with respect to this question of reasonable compensation in cost-shared programs which clearly fall within provincial jurisdiction.

I suggest to the House that this is really the price of Confederation. I know there are those who are very strongly opposed, and I suppose nobody has expressed that opposition more clearly than Mr. Trudeau, both to the notion of Quebec as a distinct society being part of the Constitution and to this notion of giving to provinces greater authority within Confederation. But I must say, and I speak as one whose views have evolved, not to say changed, over a matter of a number of years, that I do believe one of the features of our Confederation has to be a recognition of the nation-building role of provinces and of their rights within Confederation.

If we are to recognize the reality of this country, as opposed to perhaps many other federal states, we are a federal country which does recognize certain powers with respect to the provinces, and yet we are a federal state, a federal jurisdiction which has not been able to evolve effectively and has not been able to reform its own Constitution.

I think there are some features of Meech Lake with respect to the creation of new provinces which are unnecessarily restrictive and harsh, but I must say, on balance, it is a price that must be paid when we come to look at the benefits of achieving a compromise which has now produced the willing participation of Quebec in this process of constitutional reform.

When it comes to the definition of the spending power and the notion of reasonable compensation for provinces which decide to opt out of federal programs, provided they have programs which are compatible with national objectives, I must say I do not see this in any way, shape or form as anything less than the necessary price, the necessary feature of our Confederation.

It would be, in my view, impossible for the federal government to intervene unilaterally in a field of provincial jurisdiction and simply impose a program by means of its spending power without some such understanding and some such clause. If I may say so, I think that is a view that, on balance, even Mr. Trudeau would share since, while he was Prime Minister, for the entire time he was Prime Minister, he never imposed a national program in an area of provincial jurisdiction without the willing participation of the provinces. Not once would he do it, and it is inconceivable in our modern Confederation that it would happen.

I want to reply, if I may, or try to provide an answer to some of those who have said: “This shouldn’t be seen as the Quebec round. There are too many people who are left out and who need to be included.” I share the view, as I expressed at our convention on Saturday, that it is nothing less than a national shame that our federal Constitution does not yet recognize the particular relationship we have with the native people of this country.

I say it is a national shame that we do not yet have a Constitution which recognizes the distinct rights of our aboriginal people, their rights to self-government. Our working out as a nation our relationship with our native people is at the very top, in my judgement, of our unfinished business as a nation, but I must also say I do not think it would be fair to suggest that anything in this document takes away from that objective and goal. I am also enough of a realist to know these discussions have been ongoing for some time and have not produced a useful or possible result yet. I, for one, hope very much that the inclusion of Quebec at the table will make this more possible than it has been up until now.

I do want to emphasize that nothing in this document either adds to or takes away from that process. I quite understand those members who say, “But we have not yet dealt with this question and until we do we should not be passing constitutional amendments.” I feel it is a counsel of perfection and not one which in these circumstances I can follow. I would not recommend it to my colleagues, but it is a position I can respect.

The second criticism refers to the multicultural character of our country and the fact that this multicultural character is insufficiently recognized in the document. My answer to that would again be that surely Quebec’s participation in finding the way to express that is essential if we are to express that as a nation in a revised Constitution. It is not something which we can, in a sense, impose without Quebec being fully involved and fully participating.

I speak as one who feels very strongly that the multicultural and multiracial character of our country should be expressed in the Constitution, but I feel the best way for that to be achieved is for us to have the willing participation of the government of Quebec here. Then that will be not easy but, I suggest, more possible.

Finally, I want to deal with the tricky question of the relation between this document and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not pretend to have a definitive answer to that question, but I do want to make this one suggestion. I am now persuaded that one of the benefits, frankly, of the last round of constitutional reform, which took place in 1981-82, is that we did bring in the “notwithstanding” clause. I know there are those in my own party who might not agree, but since this is a full chance for us to express our opinions, I am going to express them. I am not one of those who believes that we should be getting rid of the “notwithstanding” clause.

Courts can make mistakes. Courts come up with some pretty daffy judgements from time to time in their interpretations of the law and in their interpretations of the charter. I am not prepared to cede all my rights as a legislator or as a citizen to seven or nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada or the Court of Appeal of Ontario. I am not prepared to do that, to sign that off for all time. To those who with some enthusiasm say, “The charter must be supreme in all circumstances, I say, “Let’s keep our heads about us as we discuss this.”

Yes, we want a charter that is entrenched and we want a charter that expresses our fundamental values as a people, but surely we want the interpretation of that charter to be a dialectic between legislators and courts and not frozen for all time by the interpretation of 65- and 70-year-old male, white judges. I say that with the greatest of respect to my friends on the bench.

Because the press has already asked me, and I want to say publicly, how I feel about the fact that there are members in my caucus who feel differently than I do, I can say only that compared to the last round of constitutional discussions I went to in 1981-82, this is a piece of cake and I have no problem at all with members taking whatever position they want with respect to this, as long as it is done, as I know it has been, with respect to the members who have spoken and the members who feel strongly, on the basis of what I think is a very principled position.

This is not the perfect document. It is not all there. There are changes that could be made. There are improvements that could be made. If we were to sit down and write our Constitution, we would make a better one. If I may say so, there are those who said the process has been crummy. I think we all agree the process has been crummy. What we need to do is improve the process. But what I want to turn my attention to, as I speak to a few more members who are now here, is to ask them, with the greatest of respect, to reflect for a moment on the consequences of our defeating Meech Lake.

We know Manitoba and New Brunswick are in their own particular frame of mind. The Premier of New Brunswick has his own particular agenda with respect to the “distinct society” clause and a number of other issues. Manitoba’s political situation is, shall I say, in some degree of flux. It is a little bit difficult to know precisely what the combined wisdom of the Legislature of Manitoba would be on the question of Meech Lake.

1530

I want to suggest to those people in all sincerity -- and perhaps I am addressing my remarks more to them than I am to this group as it is obvious that this group here will be supporting Meech Lake -- that I think it would be a tragedy for this country if we were to have to go back to square one with respect to the process of constitutional reform.

There is one thing which has persuaded me more than any other thing, than any of the technicalities of the accord. To those who would ask, I would say, “Yes, I have read it, very carefully, several times, every word.” But I ask those who would say, “It doesn’t have this or it doesn’t have that,” to think clearly and carefully about public opinion in Quebec and I ask them to come back to where we started in the beginning.

If we lose the perspective that this is the Quebec round, of course we will find areas to differ about and to fault. If we lose the perspective that the process of nation-building we are now engaged in has now to include Quebec as never before, then of course we will find the things which should be there.

Many of my constituents have said: “Well, there’s nothing in it for us. There’s nothing in it for me.” I have two things to say to that. “Yes, there is, because including Quebec is good for all of Canada. It’s good for Canada. It’s good for all of us to have Quebec as part of the Constitution.”

My second point would be this. The process of future reform can only take place with the voluntary participation of Quebec. Senate reform is unimaginable without the participation of Quebec. The recognition of multiculturalism is unimaginable without the participation of Quebec. The recognition of aboriginal rights, again I say with great respect, is unimaginable without the participation of Quebec.

And so we come back to this question, as unpalatable and difficult as it may be to some. Canada is not Toronto writ large. Canada is not Ontario writ large. When people say, “What’s in it for me?” they should be thinking in broader terms. We have to look to this question of what the opinion in Quebec is, what the view of the Quebec government is, what the will of the government of the people of Quebec is as expressed not only in a referendum but also in terms of what its governments have expressed. I say it is very obvious. This is the best possible accord which could have been reached in the circumstances. That does not make it perfect but it does make it worth supporting.

En conclusion, Monsieur le Président, nous voulons dire que oui, c’est vrai, c’est le tour du Québec, c’est le round du Québec ; c’est pour ça que nous sommes ici, c’est pour ça que nous discutons de la question du lac Meech. À ceux qui disent : «Nous voulons quelque chose d’autre, les autres questions ne sont pas mentionnées», je veux dire tout franchement qu’il faut que nous, comme société, reconnaissions nos relations comme pays avec la province de Québec, les relations des Québécois avec les Canadiens, les relations des Canadiens entre eux, avant que nous ne continuions avec des changements. Il faut faire le premier pas.

We must take the first step. If we wait to take all our steps before taking the first step, we will wait one hell of a long time and let’s not pretend otherwise. Let’s not forget that we waited 115 years for the patriation of our own Constitution. We had round after round, meeting after meeting. It was not, I say with great respect, an easy process. We have come now to a process of patriation without Quebec. This is the time to patriate with Quebec and then we can begin to create a constitutional future.

That is what the report has done, I think, so fairly and I congratulate my colleagues the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) who participated so actively in the committee. Then together we can dream the dreams and make them practical. We can begin the process of opening up the participation of those from across the country who need to be involved in constitutional reform.

But I say, with the greatest of respect, we can only do it effectively once we have taken the first step, and that first step is the Meech Lake accord.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I must say I found my colleagues opposite very persuasive today and I must say I think an occasion like this is one that glorifies this institution. In talking to my colleague on the right, I found he participated in discussions not dissimilar in their import in 1967. I remember the great debates in the last round of constitutional reform here in this House.

There is a special spirit about these debates when members reach beyond the traditional partisan lines, when we all apply our minds, our souls, our emotion and our values to a debate of national consequence. I want to say to all my colleagues in the House today that I am enormously grateful for the contributions they have made. They have wrestled with this issue for the last year in this House, and many of us have prior to that.

I think it is one of the greater aspects of this Confederation -- the way our system works. We have all had our say. There are different points of view. Accommodations have been made. But at the base of it all, there has been a reaching out of all members to try to understand not just their colleagues in this House but their colleagues across the country. For that I am, as the first minister, enormously grateful.

I think it is noteworthy as well that we are concluding this debate in the Ontario Legislature virtually on the eve of Canada Day in our nation. Today we have an opportunity to participate in that debate and in shaping our political future.

We will be celebrating in a couple of days the wisdom, the determination and indeed the courage of our political forbears who in 1867 cast their regional and cultural differences aside and joined in political union. One hundred and twenty-one years ago a generation of Canadians had come to realize that the union of two provinces was insufficient for the coming challenge. They recognized the strength they needed for their tomorrow could only be achieved through a more comprehensive unity, a unity that would respect diversity. A unity of purpose gave life to our Confederation.

Today we pursue the national enterprise they began. Today the Legislative Assembly of Ontario speaks with its voice upon the Meech Lake accord of 1987. As all members know, the accord seeks to refine the legal instrument of that union, our Constitution.

We are not the first to amend the Constitution, nor shall we be the last. Our history is replete with imperial conferences, British parliamentary enactments, federal-provincial conferences, first ministers’ conferences and Canadian parliamentary enactments, all of which have resulted in changes to the Constitution.

Each generation has recognized that for the Constitution to endure it must adapt to its environment. Each generation has refined the vision of Canada. The Constitution in many ways is the refiner’s tool. Like refiners, we are not changing the object of our preoccupation, but we are smoothing its edges and polishing its texture.

The Constitution is, of course, a legal document, but it stands to mean far more. The Constitution is the backbone of our nation, its sustaining moral fibre. It must reflect who we are. It must be strong enough to withstand the greatest national stress and it must be flexible and supple enough to allow the normal exchange of reasonable individual, collective and regional political expressions. Amending it, therefore, in this generation to comply with our vision of this great country is a precious task and one we approach with care and with an appropriate sense of historical significance.

1540

Constitutional reform is a vital means by which Canadians have achieved national unity and national unity has been the passionate pursuit of generations of Canadians.

Some of us have been members of this assembly for many, many years, and some, it seems, for generations. Others have been members for only a few months, but all of us, I believe, share this occasion as a momentous one and as an important one. As this Legislature addresses the specific text of the 1987 constitutional accord, it will also be participating in a vibrant process of constitutional change and nation-building.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this debate is the fact that it is not about the end of constitutional reform in Canada, but about a new beginning. These amendments reconcile Quebec’s long-standing concerns with those of Canada, while protecting the interests of all Canadians and furthering the process of constitutional reform and of nation-building. To that noble enterprise, I am sure I speak for all members of the Legislature when I say that their support will be unreserved, unqualified and whole-hearted.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, as a country we are in historical terms still young and still on the road to nationhood. While our constitutional achievements have not been modest in building a modern, humane nation from sea to sea, they have been dogged by the inability to express an appropriate place for Quebec within Canada. The Meech Lake accord finally captures that expression, and I believe the Meech Lake accord is the first sign of a newer, bolder signature for Canada.

L’avenir du Québec au sein du Canada, de la même façon que l’avenir du Canada, ne pourrait être garanti sans la présence enthousiaste du Québec. L’accord du lac Meech nous assure cet avenir.

The Meech Lake amendments ensure not only Quebec’s place in Confederation but also the place of all Canadian people. These amendments reflect our recognition that Canada is still a nation based on compromise and consensus where no province and no region can dominate, and at the same time, no province or region can be ignored.

Our national purpose and wellbeing will meet with new and future challenges. New challenges might arise in our economy as natural forces work against us, as drought and international trends like market protectionism exert themselves. These may in the future challenge our national unity. Different regions may experience varying degrees of vulnerability, but people from all regions will be comforted by the assurance that their voices will be heard. The Meech Lake accord makes real that assurance.

It promotes national understanding and reconciliation. It provides a path of discussion no government can arbitrarily ignore. As the select committee so aptly pointed out, “…throughout the country’s history those who have developed its constitutional arrangements have paid particular attention to balancing a proper concern for the whole country with an appropriate recognition of its many diverse regions and residents.” I believe the passage of these amendments will reaffirm our ability to strike a balance between those contending interests.

Let us for a moment examine the accord itself. I will not indulge in a legal analysis or an interpretation of the language. That has been discussed by many members. It was done comprehensively and, I say with some pride, I think the definitive document on Meech Lake was done by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). It has been quoted across this country and I think will go into the legal history of this country as a very significant piece of work.

Mr. B. Rae: Make that man a judge.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, we are not going to make him a judge, we are going to keep him here for a while. The Leader of the Opposition just spoke rather harshly about judges, and he would not want to unleash him there.

My intention is more to reflect on the results of the accord as I see it.

All governments in this country accepted the legitimacy of Quebec’s concerns. In the process of negotiations last year and in the spirit of mutual understanding, it became apparent to the first ministers that something unprecedented was happening. An amendment took shape covering seven broad areas that responded to Quebec’s aspirations, but also to a number of other national and regional concerns. All the first ministers agreed to the reforms because every aspect of the accord reflects a balance and accommodation between contending regional identities and values.

Let me speak briefly to the achievements of the accord in striking that balance and arriving at this accommodation.

The new provisions for affirming Quebec’s distinct society are cast in the context of other fundamental features of Canada. It includes aboriginal and multicultural communities. It acknowledges the presence of English-speaking Canadians in Quebec and French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec.

À la suite de la proclamation de ces amendements, la constitution reconnaîtra pour la première fois la présence des francophones hors Québec et obligera tous les gouvernements à les protéger.

The charter and other provisions of the Constitution are unimpaired. No provision of the accord diminishes the rights of anyone anywhere in this country.

Appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court will now reflect the interests of the provinces as well.

Constitutional amendments remain predominantly a product of consensus among seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population, but changes only to its vital national institutions will require agreement among all the governments. An expanded role for the province in matters of immigration policy must still be acceptable to the Parliament’s national standards. A constitutionally recognized right of Parliament to spend in exclusive provincial jurisdiction must nevertheless receive provincial approval.

It also enshrines two types of first ministers’ conferences, one dealing with the economy and the other dealing with constitutional matters. There will now be an active duty on first ministers to meet, to talk, to hear each other out and to seek, where necessary, equitable accommodation.

As the select committee pointed out, “Constitution-making and constitutional changes are not…done in a vacuum, but at precise points in a country’s history.”

Les Canadiens s’acquittent de la promesse qu’ils ont faite aux Québécois pendant la campagne référendaire. Les années 80 s’amorçaient lorsque les Québécois ont dit oui au Canada. Avant qu’elles ne se terminent, le Canada se doit de dire oui au Québec. Il ne faut pas rater cette chance de rapatrier le Québec dans la famille constitutionnelle canadienne.

Without Meech Lake, Canada lives as a family without one of its beloved offspring. It functions, but in a diminished way.

I believe that the meeting of first ministers at Meech Lake last April was the opportunity we had been waiting for since the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. Canada had several new governments, including a federalist government in Quebec, and there was still momentum for the provincial vote in which the people of Quebec said yes to unity. It was given a boost at the premiers’ conference in 1986 when all the provinces then stood up and said, “Now is the time.”

A great many new hopes have been raised. Now this Legislature is being asked to validate these hopes. The stage has been set, the moment has arrived, and I believe we cannot, as Canadians, let it pass.

1550

Because, if we were to postpone a resolution of these issues, we would also be postponing the resolution of many other issues which have been raised and which must be addressed, such as the rights of aboriginal people, the north and many concerns unique to western Canada. The implications of these proposals for the provinces and for the country cannot be understated. The accord effectively ushers into our constitutional life a new, more meaningful, exciting partnership between the federal government and the provinces. By enshrining both the substantive and procedural obligations into the Constitution, the accord assures that no province is to become the object of neglect.

The accord meets the national political needs of the hour, but it does much more than that. It reaches for the hopes of all Canadians, hopes for a pluralistic society, tolerant and respectful of all cultural backgrounds, zealously protective of the rights of the individual and committed to equality of opportunity for all.

As I have stated, the Meech Lake accord fulfils Canada’s post-referendum pledge to Quebec and resolves many more problems at the same time, but I say to members, the reform will not stop here. There are new issues of national relevance to be discussed. They were raised in testimony before the select committee and they were talked about today and yesterday in this Legislature and they must be addressed in future constitutional discussions. Following the course as proposed by the select committee, Ontario is prepared to make its contribution.

Let me, if I may, acknowledge how helpful the work of the select committee has been. It was asked to examine the accord in its broad context, and I want, on this opportunity, to pay acknowledgement to the chairman, the good humoured and thoughtful member for York North (Mr. Beer), and his committee of thoughtful members of this House who listened to the testimony of over 150 individuals and groups. The presentations in turn have been impressive, they have been balanced and they have been forceful.

The committee has also reviewed the written testimony from an additional 100 citizens and associations. The accord was wrestled with in a nonpartisan way. It has been debated carefully and it has been thoughtfully judged upon. I am pleased, I must say, to see a unanimous report. It concluded that “Meech achieves a balance between long-sought, yet appropriately limited, constitutional adjustments... and we think the fundamental federal character of Canada is thereby strengthened. Meech has met Quebec and in no way damaged Canada. This, in our view, is a remarkable accomplishment.”

The committee makes a strong call for a more regularized, open, consultative process for constitutional reform. I agree with the thrust of that suggestion. I am prepared to state that the government agrees that a full expression of Canada’s fundamental characteristics should be given in the Constitution. Accordingly, Ontario will place this matter before the first ministers at their next formal discussion of constitutional reform.

In keeping with our intention to improve public awareness and participation in the reform process, I would propose to this House several immediate initiatives:

1. The Legislature will be asked to constitute a standing committee to propose and comment on a constitutional reform agenda before the first ministers.

2. To promote a better understanding of the Constitution in our common life, the government will propose and support a public nongovernmental conference on the process of constitutional reform and the priorities Ontario and all Canadian government should pursue.

3. To keep the issue of federalism before this Legislature and on a regular basis, the government will institute an annual state of the federation debate on a new annual report of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I believe that the moral imperative of this hour requires us to approve the Meech Lake accord. Five years ago, Margaret Laurence delivered a lecture to a student audience at Trent University in which she urged, “Try to feel in your heart’s core the reality of others.” Is that not the impulse that animates constitutional reform? It is the many realities of the many others who, in their diverse regions and their diverse cultures, confidently inhabit this vast life-giving land. We have to accommodate them all in this Constitution. The historical brilliance of our nation has been its capacity to regenerate itself through honourable agreement and to constantly find accommodation.

The name “Canada” is a Huron Iroquois word meaning village or settlement. What is a settlement, if not a place where people choose to live together, a place where people unite for the common good, protecting one another and taking responsibility for one another, a place of security, a place of acceptance and belonging, a home? Such a place, such a home is our country. Our Constitution, now that the Meech Lake accord is part of it, must become the national deed which makes our country worthy of the title.

We have much work left to do. We have to work on an agreement with the aboriginal people, and on Senate reform, procedural reform. As our forefathers courageously undertook to respond to the reality of their day 121 years ago, and formed a greater Canada, we too must approach the task of reuniting our constitutional family today with equal vigour.

May I add, in conclusion, a personal note. It is an issue that I have been intimately involved with personally for the last two years and, in many respects, three years. We all do many things in our own lives that mean more to us than other things. As someone who considers himself most fortunate to be the first minister of this province, I would say to members that we were fortunate to be in a position to make a contribution to building a stronger Canada. I relied on many people in doing that, among them the Attorney General, who assembled, I think, one of the finest constitutional teams ever assembled in this country when we went to the long series of meetings, including the two fundamental ones, first at Meech and then at Langevin.

It was no secret what happened at Meech and at Langevin. At Meech, Ontario played a very distinct role in persuading other provinces to make that philosophical leap to accepting the concept of a distinct society. I believe it was the correct judgement in the circumstances, just as it is no secret that at Langevin we had some very difficult discussions, and I can say that relationships with a number of people were strained for a little while on the wording that went into the final agreement. But I think we were well advised as we went along the way. We applied a great deal of effort to trying to build a stronger Canada and making sure we fully understood all the ramifications of what we were involved in.

Now we are on the final road, at least for this province, if not for the country. Like others, I cannot predict what will happen in New Brunswick or Manitoba. I am hopeful that the thoughtful deliberations that went on in the committee and in this House may be of some help, solace, if you will, to our colleagues in other provinces, who are wrestling honestly with the issues, as members of this House have done. I recognize this has not been an easy issue for many members on all sides of the House.

There were reactions from many different points of view to many of the individual aspects of the Meech Lake accord. I have some understanding of that because no one can say with certainty how the Supreme Court will interpret this document 20 years from now any more than we can say now how the Supreme Court will interpret the Charter of Rights that came only in 1982.

1600

To that extent, perhaps it is an act of faith. But it is, in my view, an act of faith in our country and it is a leap of faith that we have to take. I believe that is the signal coming forward from this Legislature after thoughtful analysis over the last year after debate and input and lots of discussion and lots of disagreement. But the voice going forward from this Legislature when we have put partisanship aside and we say to our colleagues in Quebec, “Ontario speaks with one voice in bringing Quebec fully into the constitutional family,” would be the strongest signal that we could send as Ontarians who care about our brothers and sisters in Quebec.

We could have put this resolution into the House a year ago and we may not have had the support of the members opposite. We know that we had the numbers to put that through the House, but we did not want to do that. This is an issue that is bigger and better than any individual government or any individual political party.

This is one of those issues that I believe transcends the typical kind of debate in this House. So I want to again, in conclusion, thank my colleagues opposite for their great contribution in this debate. It has not been easy for any of us in many respects. Many people in my party disagree with the view that I have taken in this matter and this, I am sure, applies to my colleagues opposite. But I believe, if I may pay them a compliment, that they have shown leadership on behalf of their country and for that I congratulate them.

For Ontario’s part, and I say this with humility that I stand as the 20th Premier of this province in a long line of people who have made their contribution to this country, it seems to me that one of the most important responsibilities we have is to try to use whatever influence we have in Confederation to build a stronger country regardless of the stresses and strains along the way. It is not to mean for a minute that we will agree every day on every issue, because we will not, but we have to use our strength in a positive and generous way.

So again in our own way, there is a lot of my own personal blood in this document. Obviously I am not, shall we say, objective in this debate and I do not pretend to be, but I also believe that the Ontario Legislature has distinguished itself in this debate and in this deliberation. I thank all members and hope we can send a unanimous signal across this country about the importance of what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Peterson has moved Government Notice of Motion Number 6. Mr. Brandt has moved an amendment to Government Notice of Motion Number 6. We will first deal with Mr. Brandt’s amendment.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if I might approach my colleagues, we had an earlier understanding that we would take the divisions this afternoon. We would first vote on the matter of the adoption of the report of the select committee on constitutional reform. We had agreed earlier in the day to take that vote at four, and if it is agreeable with the House, I would suggest we take the divisions on, first, Mr. Brandt’s amendment and then the main motion, government notice of motion 6.

Mr. Speaker: If there is agreement from the House.

Agreed to.

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

Mr. Speaker: Will all members take their seats? All those in favour of Mr. Beer’s motion will please rise.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to ask the people in the gallery to refrain from demonstrating.

1617

The House divided on Mr. Beer’s motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report on the Constitution Amendment, 1987, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Beer pour l’adoption des recommandations contenues dans le rapport de la Modification constitutionnelle de 1987 du Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle, mise aux voix, est adopte :

Ayes/Pour

Adams, Allen, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Breaugh, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Charlton, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Cunningham, Cureatz, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Hart, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Mancini;

Martel, Matrundola, McCague, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morn, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Poirier, Pollock, Polsinelli, Poole, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Swart, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Villeneuve, Ward, Wilson, Wiseman, Wong, Wrye.

Nays/Contre

Cousens, Farnan, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, McLean, Runciman, Sterling.

Ayes/pour 112; nays/contre 8.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD / ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL DE 1987

1625

The House divided on Mr. Brandt’s motion to amend resolution 6, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Mackenzie, Martel, McCague, McLean, Philip, E., Pollock, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve, Wiseman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Farnan, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Hart, Johnston, R. F., Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, Laughren, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morn, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 28; nays 92.

1630

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Peterson’s resolution, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La résolution de l’hon. M. Peterson, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour

Grandmaître, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Hart, Johnson, J.M., Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Mancini, Martel, Matrundola, McCague, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Philip, E., Phillips, 6., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Runciman, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Swart, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Villeneuve, Ward, Wilson, Wiseman, Wong, Wrye.

Nays/Contre

Eves, Farnan, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, McLean, Pollock, Sterling.

Ayes/pour 112; nays/contre 8.

Hon. Mr. Conway: With consent, and again there has been discussion among the House leaders, I would now call government notice of motion 14 standing in my name.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mr. Conway moved government notice of motion 14:

Resolution: That an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of the Honourable Gregory Evans, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Ontario, as Conflict of Interest Commissioner for a term of five years, commencing on a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as provided in section 10 of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, 1988, S.O. 1988, c. 17; and, that this address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very briefly, government notice of motion 14 standing in my name is a call for this House to have appointed, by resolution, His Honour Gregory Evans, the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Ontario, as our Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I would heartily recommend this appointment to all members of the assembly. I certainly know the Honourable Greg Evans and have no hesitation in recommending him as an outstanding citizen of this province to this very important task.

Mr. Speaker: I am having a little difficulty hearing what is taking place. Do any other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. B. Rae: I only wish to participate because I do want to say to the Attorney General, who is here, and to the House that I would be the last person in the world who would want on this last day, to make an issue of the appointment of former Chief Justice Evans to this position, but I do want to say to the House that when the Attorney General and I were having some discussions as to who should occupy this position, because it is supposed to be a consentual position in the House, I suggested to him that I did not have any particular names in mind but I thought it should be a younger person, that is to say, somebody who was not necessarily retired, and I thought it should be a woman.

The Attorney General’s statement to me a couple of weeks ago was: “I have a name for you. It is Mr. Justice Gregory Evans.” There was a time when the Attorney General would take what I had to say a little more seriously, but those days are obviously gone.

I do find it necessary to say that. Having said that, none of us is going to seek to challenge this appointment by way of voice vote or in any other way. I do question its length, five years, which I think is unnecessarily long in light of the need, it seems to me, for us to look at this position in a somewhat different light, but obviously Mr. Justice Evans is somebody who has served the province well and with great distinction. I am sure all of us look forward to opening our souls, our pocketbooks, our chequebooks, our bank statements and our lives in all their various mundane forms to this very distinguished jurist.

1640

Mr. Pope: I would like to reply on behalf of our leader, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), and the members of the Progressive Conservative Party and indicate we welcome the appointment of a Timmins native to the position, without passing comment on the background of the conflict-of-interest issue.

Gregory Evans, former Chief Justice of Ontario, is someone well respected among all those who came in contact with him through his legal career, both as a lawyer in northern Ontario and as a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario in various aspects of the operation of the Supreme Court of Ontario over a number of years.

Chief Justice Gregory Evans has a long and distinguished career, not only in law, but in civic duty and service to the people not only of the community of the city of Timmins and not only to the people of northeastern Ontario, but of the entire province. We think he will bring to this position a sense of realism and vast experience with respect not only to business, but also to law and politics. Therefore, we believe his appointment will serve not only the members of this Legislature, but the people of Ontario well.

Personally, and on behalf of our leader, the member for Sarnia, and the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, we wish to express our admiration for his long and distinguished career of service to the people of Ontario. We wish him well and pledge our co-operation with him as he carries on the duties given to him by this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) for saying everything I would have said in support of this nomination. I want, however, just to add a word in respect to the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae). I think all of us agree that an important appointment such as this should, if at all possible, be achieved by consensus in the way the appointment of an ombudsman and other public servants of the assembly are appointed.

I made a number of suggestions to my colleagues across the way and it became apparent that consensus was not going to be possible in this instance. To the leader’s credit, of course, he made some other suggestions which did not achieve consensus either.

In those circumstances, assuming the bill was going to be acted on and proclaimed, a choice had to be made. I am confident the choice is as good a one as could be made. Though another choice has just occurred to me, it is probably too late to implement it, but it seems to me that the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who tomorrow is going to be out of work, would be an excellent choice for the next conflict commissioner that we are going to have to appoint.

I do not want him to take on the job now because I want to tell honourable members, sort of privately, if one can do this in Hansard, that my automobile club is going to retain him to appear for us at the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board beginning next September.

Motion agreed to.

WINE CONTENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 167, An Act to revise the Wine Content Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If I may, before I get into my comments in opening debate on second reading of this bill, in anticipation of the first speech coming from my friend the member for Welland-Thorold, let me note that our friend and colleague, who officially concludes his distinguished career in this Legislature tomorrow is, none the less, here on the second-last afternoon, participating in and voting in the earlier historic occasion that we had and will be participating, as he always has through his 13 years in this House, in a very distinguished way in a debate which is very important to the people of his riding, his region and the province. I want, on a personal basis, to note his presence, great contribution and the good humour with which he has pursued his career through that time.

Anyone who has travelled through the area in which my friend lives and through the Niagara region knows our grape and wine industries are extremely important to that region and to Ontario. The new Wine Content Act I am bringing forward today for second reading is an important element in a revitalization plan we have put together for the grape and wine sector.

Specifically, it relates to our efforts as a province to develop products which can compete on the basis of quality, image and price with wines from all around the world. As world tastes have shifted, the labrusca grapes used in products which have traditionally appealed to Ontario palates have generally fallen out of favour; indeed, they have fallen out of favour quite quickly.

The new Wine Content Act will enable us to pass regulations being developed in conjunction with the grape and wine industries to improve the overall quality of wines produced in Ontario and, hence through that, our ability to compete. We want to make sure the industry receives as much support as possible during the transition. At the same time we are insisting that growers and vintners adjust to the changing realities of international pressures and of consumer taste.

Under the proposed regulations, Ontario wineries will be expected to purchase a minimum of 25,000 tons of Ontario grapes annually. Very important in that number is that at least 20,000 tons must be French hybrids or viniferas such as Seyval Blanc, Chardonnay and other varieties which will be specified in the regulations.

The Ontario Wine Council will be designated as the body to determine the quota of grapes which must be produced by a winery each year. Furthermore, there will be two categories of wines blended with imported products.

The first category refers to table wine containing imported grapes and wines but no labrusca grapes or derivatives. The total volume of wine from one ton of grapes will be limited to no more than 180 imperial gallons, in line with international standards. Let me just explain the importance of that. Compared with the 258 gallons of wine that can be produced from a ton of grapes under the current act which expires at the end of August, this would substantially cut down on the amount of sugar and water added to wine; that is known in the industry as stretch.

Under the second category will fall coolers, sherries, ports and other products, with no limit on wine yield from a ton of grapes and no restriction on the grape varieties which can be used. This will provide a category where wineries will have the flexibility to meet changing consumer taste.

Of course, there will be a classification, really a third classification, of table wines, those requiring the use of 100 per cent Ontario grapes. Because these do not entail the use of imported products, obviously, this classification does not appear and it will not come under the Wine Content Act.

In addition to these and other measures to produce world-quality wines, we are working with growers and vintners to improve the image and price of our products. To this end, we will be encouraging the industry more effectively to market its products and explore opportunities for exports, and we will be reviewing productivity measures to produce a more efficient, rationalized grape and wine sector, which should lead to competitive pricing in domestic and international markets.

Unlike previous wine content acts, which contain short sunset provisions, our new bill will remain in effect for 12 years, the time needed to realize these improvements in quality, image and price.

I would like to point out that our competitiveness strategy has been developed jointly by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and, perhaps most important, the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board and the Wine Council of Ontario.

The Wine Content Act represents another step in our climb into the big leagues of international wines, a journey which has already been made to a great extent by other jurisdictions such as California and Australia. With our farm land, our entrepreneurial talent and now with our competitiveness strategy, I am confident we can reach that height too and that in doing so we can compete with wines produced anywhere in the world.

1650

Mr. Swart: I suppose, after debating the Meech Lake accord, this bill that we have before us may seem rather insignificant, but I want to say, as I think most members know, we are talking, really, about the livelihood of at least 900 grape growers and their families and many others, workers in this industry, who are being affected and will be affected by this bill and the circumstances which exist in the grape and wine market inside and outside this nation.

I rise to speak on this on behalf of my party and to state my party’s position on it, but in addition to that, I rise because I have, I suppose, something of a personal interest in this, with numbers of relatives and friends engaged in the grape industry as grape producers.

I guess it is true to say that no industry, perhaps with the exception of textiles, and I am not even sure of that, is in as great jeopardy today in this province as the grape and wine industry, particularly and almost exclusively, the grape growers.

Most of the wineries, if free trade goes through, can survive by bottling and so on. Some of them may even be more profitable. It really is the grape growers who are going to be sacrificed by free trade and, for that matter, by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Given the federal government’s stands on trade, there are no easy answers for the growers or, for that matter, for the government of this province on this matter. If it is international trade under GATT, the Mulroney government has consciously traded off the wine industry for the sale of other commodities such as softwoods and wheat.

Mr. Hampton: He didn’t get a good deal there either.

Mr. Swart: No, he did not get a good deal there. Or if it is in Canada-United States free trade, he has deliberately traded off the wine industry again, but there he has traded it off for nothing. First the grape growers and then all Canadians will be left holding the proverbial bag on this Mulroney-Reagan free trade agreement. However, recognizing the difficult position of this province, we are convinced that Bill 167 is not the answer. Let me point out some of the problems with it.

The bill in itself establishes no policy. It has no guts. I am not sure that is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, but you were not listening, so I guess I will get away with it.

It has no body and, in fact, it has no voice. The bill really does not provide anything; it is all left to the regulations. If we look at clause 3(1)(a), I think it says it all.

“3(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, (a) requiring that wineries purchase a quota of Ontario grapes each year; (b) prescribing how the quota will be determined and designating and authorizing a body to make that determination; (c) prescribing the varieties of Ontario grapes that must be purchased for purposes of the quota; (d) prescribing conditions under which wineries may use imported grapes or grape products in the manufacture of wine;”

That is the whole issue. There is no other dimension to that issue. That is the whole issue that is going to be left to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

There is, of course, an agreement that the minister has referred to which was signed last fall -- I believe it was in November -- a statement of principles. It was signed by the four groups he mentioned, the marketing board, the Wine Council of Ontario and the ministries of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Agriculture and Food. That could give some policy to the bill, but it is no part of this bill.

What bothers me even more is it is a relatively secret agreement. It is an agreement that is impossible for me to get to deal with this bill. Yet that is the basis of this whole bill. Not only is that a part of this bill, we are asked to deal with this bill and we cannot even see the agreement on which this bill is based. I have talked to a number of people and grape growers on both sides of this bill. I guess I have found out most of the details and general principles that are in this bill, but it is something we should have when we are dealing with this bill.

All the policy, therefore, will be developed by regulation after the bill is passed. I think it is true to say this government is rightly to be faulted for that kind of a bill. After all, that agreement was passed, as was already said, last November. Somehow or other, between now and then, we should have been able to have more of those details on those principles before us, whether it was the draft regulations that we could have had tabled at this time or a statement of policy by the minister with regard to all of those items which are in that agreement.

There are other reasons why we cannot support the bill. The minister said, for instance in his statement the other day in the House, “This legislation represents a realistic, comprehensive restructuring strategy which will ensure the ability of the grape and wine industry to compete head on with products from around the world in terms of quality, image and price.” I suggest that is not the real interpretation of this bill. Rather, it is primarily a bill, whether it is designed that way or not, which will be used to downsize the industry and integrate the wine industry into the free trade deal.

I do not think, if we look at that again, there is any question that is the case. According to these principles, the amount of grapes to be bought will be 25,000 tons. That is the minimum amount. I want to make that clear. The minimum amount to be bought will be 25,000 tons a year for 12 years. It is not exactly that way. The 12 years and the minimum are not exactly correct. But even if it was correct, last year approximately 36,000 tons of the grapes in Niagara were used in the wine industry. That is going down to 25,000. That is a reduction of 30 per cent. That means that 30 per cent of the growers in the Niagara Peninsula are going to be wiped out.

This is not possible because there are contracts and so on, but even if one cut every grape grower’s volume by 30 per cent, many of them would no longer be an economic operation. They say that is a minimum. That is correct, as I understand it, under the agreement. Of course, I have not seen the agreement, so I cannot say for sure. Unfortunately, there will be the right to import. If the wineries can sell the same amount of wine as they do at the present time, they will be importing much more in the way of foreign grapes, grapes which mostly will come from the United States, and those grapes are substantially cheaper. I am sure the minister knows this.

In fact, in California the average price for the type of grapes they need to produce the best wine is about $400 a ton. The average price here -- and it is to a large extent because of our costs of production; we could go into that, but I will not take the time this late in the session, Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to hear -- is $600 to $650 a ton.

If they can import grapes and make a cheap wine out of those grapes, that is the wine they are going to push; they are going to be making more profit on it. That will mean the wines which are substantially made from Ontario grapes will not sell as well.

1700

Then there is an escape clause. The minister has seen the agreement so he can tell me if I am wrong, but that 25,000 tons is not a guaranteed 25,000 tons at all. It is only based on sales and that can be renegotiated every year. So if the wineries push the wines which are predominantly made from imports and they do not sell the wines which are made from the Ontario grapes, then that 25,000 tons has little or no meaning. When we talk about the 25,000 tons of grapes, even though it is a reduction of 30 per cent, the fact is that there is no guarantee of that. It is really a one-year agreement.

Of course, I said the second thing this bill does is to integrate the grape and wine industry into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Mulroney-Reagan free trade agreement. Certainly this bill can be used for that. Just look at those clauses again:

“3(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, (a) requiring that wineries purchase a quota of Ontario grapes each year;” -- that is the 25,000 tons, which is not firm. That is only for this year, down from 36,000 tons last year. He can change that whenever he likes; no guarantee there -- “(b) prescribing how the quota will be determined and designating and authorizing a body to make that determination; (c) prescribing the varieties of Ontario grapes that must be purchased for purposes of the quota; (d) prescribing conditions under which wineries may use imported grapes or grape product in the manufacture of wine;”

If we are going to go into a free trade agreement, every one of those clauses fits perfectly with that free trade agreement. If free trade is coming in here, they can cut down on local production; they can change the quotas of Ontario grapes which have to be used; they can change the varieties of Ontario grapes which have to be used; and they can change the conditions under which wineries may use imported grapes or grape product in the manufacture of wine.

That clause deals with free trade. In fact, I would suggest that Mulroney would think that was an ideal clause to have in this agreement, that the Ontario government is in fact now willing to accept free trade and is amending its legislation accordingly. I am not suggesting that is the intent. I hope it is not the intent, but in fact that is what this does. It implements free trade in the wine industry.

Another thing that bothers me about this is that GATT was never really fought. I do not blame this government for that, but I am sure members agree with my comments. The federal government never fought this ruling of GATT, that somehow or other we were subsidizing Ontario wines because of the additional markup. All the studies which have been done show that the grape and wine industry in France and in Italy are subsidized two, three and four times as much as our wine industry here.

The federal government accepting this ruling of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had nothing to do with the validity of the ruling. It had everything to do with the tradeoffs that the federal government wants to make. That is why the federal government traded off the wine industry in Ontario.

We are likely going to have a federal election this fall. It could come even earlier than that, according to this morning’s paper.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you and I have no inside knowledge on that matter, but it is possible that we might get a different government in Ottawa.

Mr. Smith: No.

Mr. Swart: Yes, it is just possible that we might have a minority government, and we might get two parties that would agree on an accord. Then that government might write into that accord that it was going to fight GATT, it was not going to accept the GATT ruling, and it was not going to trade off our grape and wine industry.

Why should we pass a bill now to trade it off when there is the prospect that we may get a change in the federal government? I think we should be urging a real fight on GATT, and we should be making that an issue in the coming federal election.

I asked why we would pass legislation to fit the wine industry into both the free trade agreement and the GATT ruling, especially when the free trade agreement is also not a fait accompli. I still have hopes that we will never have that free trade agreement. I do not think there is any question it is going to damage our nation substantially, and that matter may be settled by a federal election too. Therefore, why go ahead now with a bill that in fact integrates the grape and wine industry into the free trade agreement?

Another thing that bothers us about this bill to downsize the industry, and that is what it is, is that it is presented in isolation from anything regarding compensation to the growers who will be levelled, flattened, by free trade and the GATT ruling.

Those growers have asked for a settlement of $156 million, if they are to downsize the industry, for the grapes that they have to take out. This is not a figure that was picked out of the air. This is a figure that was picked out of the cost of planting the grapes that they now have to tear out, and the cost, I believe, for four or five years of the lost sales of those grapes.

But there is nothing said, no statement here that the provincial government is willing to pay part of that cost. It is primarily a federal responsibility, especially when that government is the one that looks after GATT and free trade. But this government has not indicated any willingness whatsoever and has not said a word about that in this Legislature.

Also, this government, and this is where it has responsibility, has stated that this year it is not willing to buy any surplus grapes. Last year, the federal and provincial governments and the growers themselves, on a one-third-each basis, bought something like 11,000 tons of surplus grapes. Most of these have been sold. They have been made into brandy or something of that nature, and have been sold afterwards, but they bought up the surplus. The year before it was 18,000 tons -- I think my figures are correct -- that they bought.

The federal government -- probably because it is an election year; I know how politics works -- has indicated that this year it will again consider buying up some surplus grapes, but not this provincial government. This provincial government has said no.

Do members know that this year, if they sell only 25,000 tons to the wineries, there will be at least another 25,000 tons surplus? The grape crop looks good this year down on the Niagara Peninsula. This drought could affect it, but the spring this year has been good. We are talking about 25,000 tons of grapes that will drop off the vines this year, likely half the grape crop, unless there is some purchase program, as there has been other years. But there is no mention of that and no statement about that whatsoever.

1710

Then the minister states -- and I mentioned this yesterday in a supplementary question -- that there has to be a change from the production of Labrusca grapes to the hybrids and the viniferas. We know that Labrusca grapes are not as acceptable as they were for the making of wines if we want to have the competitive wines.

I am quoting again from the statement of the minister in the House the day before yesterday, I believe it was. He states: “Ontario’s grape-growing acreage must be converted more fully to growing the high-quality hybrids and viniferas which produce our successful wines. These grape varieties require further development and testing. New vines need time to be brought into production. Then wines must be developed and refined.”

If this is correct and that is a real necessity, then how is it that the Ontario government has not in fact proposed some form of assistance for changing to the new varieties, for the conversion? It is a pretty costly process, I am sure the minister would agree.

In fact, in about 1975 -- I am not sure of the year -- the Conservative government of this province at that time --

Mr. J. M. Johnson: We are out of this.

Mr. Swan: The Conservatives are of this, are they?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Yes.

Mr. Swan: There may be other areas they are out of. I think of free trade too, but we will not go into that one at the present time.

At least the Conservatives back then, to give them due credit, did have a plan where they provided interest-free loans over a five-year period to do the conversion to the types of grapes that were required by the wineries.

Mr. Villeneuve: You see, we commissioned this.

Mr. Black: They did something good.

Mr. Swart: That is right.

But there is nothing, no proposal, no mention of that. That is not part of any package. We just get the bill before us, a bill which downsizes without giving any compensation to those producers.

I hope the minister will listen to this, because I want him to reply to it.

However, the facts as presented to me by the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board are that they have adequate hybrids and viniferas now to meet the demand in any normal year. If they switch over and plant more of them, all we are going to have are more surpluses which are going to go on the ground.

In fact, it is even worse than that. When the minister says we need to make this changeover, the fact is there has been a dramatic changeover in the last two or three years. These varieties that are required by the wineries have been planted. That is in addition to the 23,000 tons we now produce, and the wineries want only 20,000 tons of these varieties.

There have been a great many more vines planted out that are not producing yet but that will be producing, some of them this year, some of them next year, some of them the year after. So it is very doubtful that the statement the minister has made here about the conversion is correct. It is likely we will already have a surplus of those varieties that are needed.

Again, the minister is tied up, but I would like him to comment on this if some of his colleagues can remind him that I did ask the question.

In all of this guarantee to buy 25,000 tons of grapes, there is nothing said about the price. What good is a guarantee without a price? Are they going to offer the same as they will pay to the growers in California for the imported grapes, $400 a ton? Just the cost of producing them is $500 a ton. Are they going to offer $400 a ton?

Mr. Philip: We don’t know, do we?

Mr. Swan: We do not know, but there is nothing to prevent them from doing exactly that. Surely, if they really meant to put this in to protect the grape-growing industry, they would have added something in that regard.

I have already stated that this is a difficult issue. I know the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board, which represents the growers, who really are the victims in all of this -- let’s not make any mistake about that -- has gone along with this agreement. “Reluctantly” -- that is the first word they will use -- “but yes, we’ve gone along.” They do not know what else to do.

It is true, at least theoretically, that this agreement is different to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which phased out the differential in markup over 10 years -- this phases it out over 12 years; the GATT decision would have phased it out 25 per cent the first year, 25 per cent the second year and then a more gradual phaseout from there on, which would have hurt the grape growers a great deal.

This bill is more beneficial in that regard, but in all other respects, I submit it is questionable that there are any benefits to the grape growers at all. I suggest this government should have done more on marketing Ontario wines to Ontario people. It could have been done through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. They could have given priority in other ways to the marketing of our Ontario wines, and that has not been done.

This is a unique industry. We do not export. In fact, the total wine produced in this nation meets only about one quarter of the demand. If that is the case, surely we can devise means to save that domestic industry, when three quarters of our wines are going to be imported in any event. That, I suggest, is what we have to do.

I know too that the agreement was drafted basically by this government, and it did not leave much room for the growers and the wineries to manoeuvre. The Premier wanted it quickly, for the first ministers’ conference, so the whole agreement got pushed through and signed very quickly.

I will conclude by saying that this party is not prepared to see our grape and wine industry destroyed or greatly diminished. This bill that we have before us will by its nature dramatically weaken that industry in this province. It will, there is no question about it. The marketing board is the first one to admit that this is the case.

I know the alternatives are not the best, but I suggest that we should not proceed with this bill on this matter at this time, when we know that the very passing of this bill is going to quite dramatically hurt the grape growers of the Niagara region.

Mr. Harris: I would like to take a moment to put a few comments on the record with regard to the government’s handling of the Wine Content Act, Bill 169. I want to say what an honour it is to follow what I suspect is the very last speech to be given by the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Breaugh There are 40 minutes left, Mike.

Mr. Harris: That is right.

Mr. Breaugh: The guy’s been buried a lot of times.

Mr. Harris: It is a singular honour so far; we will see what happens before the end of the day. Also, it is Bill 167, sorry, not 169. Is that right? I knew it was the Wine Content Act.

1720

I also want to say I enjoyed the comments that were made by the member for Welland-Thorold in what I think is his last address to this assembly. Far be it from me to have a greater understanding of the effect of this bill on the Niagara Peninsula than the member for Welland-Thorold, who has lived and worked and represented people in that area.

Given that and given the difficulty we are having in getting information from the government, it ought not to surprise members that I will be opposing this bill as well and our party will be opposing this piece of legislation. If there was any doubt in anybody’s mind, surely the speech from the member for Welland-Thorold would have convinced this House that it is not appropriate to be rushing through this legislation at this time.

We will be opposing the bill, not because this legislation is in any way contrary to the free trade agreement. As Bill 167 currently reads, it does not, as we understand it, conflict at all with the free trade agreement. I share the concerns of the New Democratic Party in this aspect, obviously for different reasons, and I understand their concerns, particularly in this aspect. However, depending on how the government drafts the regulations, this legislation might be and, in fact, appears to us to be very supportive in the wine policy area of the free trade agreement.

I find that ironic, given the statements coming from the government. However, that certainly could very easily be so, depending on the regs that are brought in. On the information we have been able to gather, it appears to us to be the case. I assume that the New Democratic Party would be opposing the legislation simply on those grounds, let alone the bill itself.

There is a reason we are voting against this bill. We have not seen the regulations. The minister refuses to show us the draft regulations; he refuses to show us if they have finalized regulations. We understand that meetings have been going on, yesterday and perhaps at this very moment as I speak.

The government is really asking us to give it order-in-council powers to pass the regulations sight unseen. Many times that is not unusual, but if any members have read this legislation, they will see that all the operative parts of the legislation are to give the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to do everything. Actually, the regulations in this case will not be to interpret this bill; they will be the guts and the very substance of this particular legislation; so we are being asked to vote for a pig in a poke.

There has been no clear indication from the minister what policy direction they are pursuing in this regard. One day we hear the Premier talk about not wanting to implement anything to assist with the implementation of the free trade agreement; then we see this legislation that appears to want to implement the free trade agreement. One minute we hear concern about resources in the free trade agreement; the next minute the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) introduces a bill today, of all things, to facilitate and set down the rules by which Ontario will negotiate and sell water.

We are astounded with the conflicts coming from the government. We, a party in favour of free trade and a party of the free trade agreement, find ourselves totally opposed to the bill that was brought in by the Minister of Natural Resources today. We stand unequivocally opposed to selling Ontario’s water resources; yet a bill comes in today to set down the terms and conditions by which Ontario plans to negotiate the sale of water. We find that astounding.

Coming back to this bill, we suggested to the government, through the House leader and in a meeting we had with the minister as well, that it simply extend the old wine content legislation for three or four months while the minister clarifies the proposed regulations, completes the negotiations with the wine industry and with the grape growers and then allows the opposition parties and all the interested parties a chance to review the regulations and the proposed direction of this government. That was rejected by the government. Now we are left with no choice but to speculate on what direction the government might be pursuing.

The government has introduced a bill in the last week of the House. They have asked for speedy passage. They have asked for co-operation from the opposition, and yet they are not totally open with us in where they are going. Either they do not intend to be open with us, which is one option, or they do not know where they are going.

My preference at this time, because this minister has always been very straightforward with me and we have shared committee work together and shared a great deal of time in this Legislature, he on this side of the House, I on that one and vice versa, hopefully some day vice versa again --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I must admit I like this one.

Mr. Harris: He likes the versa better than the vice, and I understand that. I share that. We are of like minds there as well.

He has always been pretty forthright with me, so one option then is that the Premier said: “No, don’t tell them. Even though you think it is in their best interest and that’s the fair way, don’t tell them.” I tend to give this minister enough credit that he would still find a way to sneak to me what the intentions are, so I have to assume they do not know what they are doing. There is no other option, there is no other conclusion one can come to. It is one of those two. I suspect it is the latter, and we can only speculate.

It is interesting that on the day we are debating this legislation the government released a large volume of reports dealing with free trade. I bring this to the attention of all members. They might want to check their mailboxes and see all the reports that were released today.

Buried in that pile of reports was one titled, Freedom to Choose: New Wine Policy for Ontario. This was prepared for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations by Development Consulting Ltd. in August 1987. Strange it was not released in August 1987; that was the middle of the election. Surely in the middle of the election the government would want all the information that it had available to itself to be out and before the public.

Mr. Villeneuve: Selectively.

Mr. Harris: Well, I understand, and when members read the report they will understand why that document was hidden until today. Maybe some of the thrust of this report might help us with our speculation on where the government is going with its wine policy.

The report suggests, “Our research convinces us that new freedom to serve consumer choice... would outweigh the present leaking comfort of regulated favour.” Market forces would outweigh, in advantage to the wine industry, the present leaking comfort of regulated favour, of protectionism. The report says free trade will be a good deal for the wine industry. This is a government report prepared for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

On page 20, the report indicates that over the past few years Ontario wine consumer preferences have changed. By a margin of two-to-one, they prefer imported wine over domestic wine. The study indicates we definitely prefer wine made from the vinifera and other non-North American class grapes. The report continues on page 21, “Given the above, wine producers must be free to choose the grape product they need to successfully sell into our marketplace.”

1730

As I suggested, the minister is not letting us see his regulations and is not giving us an honest assessment of the fate of the grape growers as a result of such regulations. We sense they will favour the wine industry and we sense they will implement the free trade agreement; but what about the grape growers as a result of these regulations? Again, we can only speculate. If, as this August 1987 report indicates, the ministry is moving towards a free-market approach, why does the minister not just say so? Why does he not stand up and tell us that? Maybe some people will not let him.

We are more than willing to discuss such a policy thrust. We would welcome the opportunity to develop a support program for the grape growers, to assist them in such a market; but if the minister is unwilling to tell us where he is going and is not going to give any indication of enhanced support for the grape growers, he leaves us no choice. We cannot support giving the minister a blank cheque until and unless we know what support will be available for the farmers. Therefore, we cannot support Bill 167.

If the minister wants to debate the merits of free trade, we are happy to do that. If he wishes to discuss the need for a strong position at the GATT negotiations, we are 100 per cent supportive. If he is willing to bring forward a significant plan to support the grape growers of the peninsula, we would be glad to do that. But to come into this House on the last day before the break and ask for a blank cheque, to say “Trust us,” in light of what we have seen come forward from this government, we cannot do that.

Our party will not support this legislation at this time. I find it regrettable when I say the words “at this time,” because, as I have indicated, if the minister is willing to show us the direction he is going in, we may still not support it but we maybe able to have some impact on that direction, collectively with the industry, which I know has been consulted by his ministry officials, but certainly not widely and certainly not shared by our party nor, my sense is, by the New Democratic Party.

We do not think this is the way the minister should proceed with legislation, particularly with a bill that gives so much authority. As I said, all the operative sections of this bill are that the Lieutenant Governor in council will develop this, will do this or will do that, all by regulation.

I will conclude by saying we cannot, in any sense of good conscience, support this legislation and see the grape-growing farmers of the peninsula left to the whim of this particular government.

Mr. McGuigan: I do not know by what leap of logic the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) could relate this to the free trade agreement. Our biggest enemy in the wine business during the history of the business has been Europe. They have a virtual lake of wine over in Europe that they will sell to us at almost any price. The usual figure quoted is that European wines are subsidized here to the tune of about $2 a bottle.

I think it is safe to say that in the absence of this bill -- and the member for Welland-Thorold came close to saying that -- the wineries would be free to buy no Ontario wines and use that lake of wine in Europe to make their wines. There is so much wine over there that they are considering, and there is a good deal of talk about it, turning it into fuel alcohol. If you are going to make fuel alcohol you would probably make it from a corn product or a sugar product, certainly not wine. That is some indication of the threat we have.

The real culprit in this, of course, is the federal government, which has the authority and the power to do these things, and it has not done anything. Ontario is stepping in and doing what can be done in the interim.

All of the things the member talked about adding to it are not precluded by this bill. This bill is simply a matter of meeting the challenge, as Ontario is able to meet the challenge, to help save the grape industry.

Mr. Villeneuve: May I too just rise for a few moments to give my full support to my colleague the member for Nipissing. He did not mention in his presentation that there is an Ontario Wine and Grape Industry Task Force report which was commissioned by the previous government and signed by some very knowledgeable people. It is commonly known as the Tanner report. I see Brian Nash here, Keith Wiley, Jack Forrer and a number of very prominent people in the wine industry.

This came out in May 1986, well over two years ago, when we knew that the GATT would be deciding that, yes, we do price wine in a way that is not acceptable to the rules of GATT. So where has the government been? It actually could have used this report as a guide to prevent some of the problems that are being faced by the grape industry.

Since 1983, less than 50 per cent of the grapes are now being purchased and turned into wine here in Ontario. Even the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in a report put forward in January 1988 said the wine industry would be suffering to the tune of $15 million.

What have they done? They have come along and given their blessing to reduced production and purchase of Ontario grapes. I think there is a great problem here in that this government has not shown the leadership it could have and has left our grape producers in a very, very difficult predicament, one that could well cause them great difficulty. Contribute to this the fact that the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program is now being reduced by 60 per cent and this is a total outrage.

It is something this government just has not addressed. When times are most difficult we see it withdrawing support from agriculture, and in particular from the grape producers.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, I want to say that my good friend and colleague the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) has said that in the absence of this bill there would be problems because of the lakes of wine in Europe. That is quite true. I agree with that, in the absence of a bill; and come the end of August there may not be a bill. But certainly if the existing legislation was extended for a few months we could find out what direction the government is going.

I still go back to say to him that in the former Progressive Conservative government, nobody stood up for the wine industry, for the peninsula, for the grape growers more than did the former Progressive Conservative members of those areas and the former Progressive Conservative government. Some have said too much so. Some have said if there was a fault in any of the policies concerning the wine industry in Ontario, it was that the Progressive Conservative government was too protective, that it was too supportive, that it subsidized too much, and that may be valid criticism.

Mr. McGuigan: I’m not saying that.

Mr. Harris: No, the member is not saying that, but some have said that. He did suggest in his remarks that somehow or other this bill was going to save the industry, as opposed to what had been done there before. I still say the preferred option would have been to extend the existing bill for a period of time. What information does the government have now that it did not have in August 1987, or in 1986 with the Tanner report.

Here we are, on the last day, and the government still does not know what the regulations are with a bill that has been brought in. It is not a good way to proceed.

1740

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will attempt to deal with some of the questions raised by my colleagues in reply, always in the hope that perhaps my friends opposite will see the light.

I am, of course, disappointed that my friend the member for Welland-Thorold was unable in his final speech to offer support. I am sure, and I mean this quite sincerely, that he wished he could have. I hope, and I believe very strongly, that the effort which has gone into this bill and all of these discussions over the last period of time, probably a year and a half, will bear a positive result. I know my friend has concerns about it, but I just share that with him.

My friend the member for Nipissing perhaps has not listened and has not carefully contemplated what it is we are doing through the Wine Content Act. Indeed, if he were to do so -- I say this with the utmost respect -- I think he would have some idea of where we are going because I think this act makes it very clear.

Let me just deal with a couple of matters. The issue of free trade was raised by both my colleagues. I think it would be fair to say that this bill does not and is not meant to discuss the issue of free trade, but there seems to be some concern, perhaps some support from my friends opposite who rush along with John Crosbie. I know my friend the member for Nipissing so well. I know he, unlike the Minister for International Trade, will have at least read the deal.

My friend the member for Welland-Thorold, who is taking his leave from this place, does so, I suspect, with concern that this bill indicates some support for free trade. I just want to assure him that this bill is in a sense neutral, in that it does not speak to free trade. It speaks to the competitiveness of the wine and grape industry and with or without free trade, it would have done so.

I think the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and certainly my colleagues and I have made ourselves clear on this issue and on the seven-year policy of the Mulroney government: the sell-out of the grape and wine industry. We have made ourselves clear in the past and I can only say to my friend the member for Welland-Thorold that nothing has changed, and this act certainly does not.

What is the direction of this act? I will repeat it once again because this issue was raised by both. This act speaks to the issue of making our grape-growing and wine industry internationally competitive. It speaks to the issues of quality, image and price. By “price,” it speaks, as was mentioned, to attempting to ensure that our grape growers, somewhere down the road, 12 years from now, can provide grape to the wine-makers of Ontario at internationally competitive prices. That is part of the area we are going to be working on.

My friend the member for Welland-Thorold has suggested that this is really not a 12-year bill but a one-year bill, and that the amount of grape may go up or down, depending on market share. He left the suggestion and the impression perhaps, I know quite inadvertently, that if the wineries were pushing imported product or wine with large amounts of imported product, this would cause a lower amount to be purchased in the future.

I want to dissuade him from that impression. I want to tell him very clearly that it is a total, all-in market share. That would include all Ontario wine; it would include the blended wines. It is whatever we deal with as Ontario wine. I want to assure him of that. With the 42 per cent or 43 per cent market share, yes: if the share goes up, the wineries will be under an obligation to purchase more grape; if the share goes down, obviously we cannot be expecting the wineries to purchase grape they have absolutely no need for.

I want to again suggest to both of my colleagues, and particularly my friend the member for Nipissing, who I know has such a direct pipeline to Ottawa, that the issue of compensation is an important one. It is an important issue that Ottawa ought to be getting on with. The issue of assistance for farmers as we move in this area is an issue that ought to be addressed primarily by the federal government. It is not addressed very clearly in this bill and that should be no surprise, that is an issue that ought to be dealt with by the federal government.

Both members mentioned the recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade panel ruling. I just want to make it clear that this government has taken a leadership role, and I think one that is recognized by both the wine and grape-growing industries, in the discussions in Europe with the European Community in an effort to assure it of our determination to play on a level playing field with it and indeed to ensure that we receive the kind of support that will allow our industries to become completely competitive.

I believe it was the member for Nipissing who mentioned the possibility of delay, and certainly in some other discussions informally this matter was raised. I just want to put it on the record that certainly if we were to delay this matter three or four months, it would present a problem for both grape growers and wineries. They want the act passed to provide for a framework within which they can make their own business decisions, on both sides. The kind of delay that is proposed would just simply delay getting on with this strategy, delay getting on with the competitiveness that we need to have.

That is indeed the issue we face in terms of the surplus. The government has made it very clear to the industry. The member for Welland-Thorold mentioned the surplus, and I want to make it clear we are not into surplus purchase this year.

Again, there has been, if anything, too much delay, perhaps on everyone’s part, in moving towards international competitiveness. Through the discussions which went on for a year and which concluded successfully last November, I think all of us -- government, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and my good friend the minister there, and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and both parts of the industry, the Wine Council of Ontario and the Grape Growers’ Marketing Board -- realized that it was time to get on with some tough decisions, and we have done that in a very balanced way.

I can only say to my friends, in conclusion, that I ask them, as they vote on this bill, to remember that they are voting for a piece of legislation that brings into effect for the very first time minimum quotas -- and indeed I have spelled out what those minimum quotas are -- and that as they vote on this Wine Content Act, they should do so in the knowledge that this legislation puts into effect those wine content aspects of the agreement which have been supported by both the Grape Growers’ Marketing Board and the Wine Council of Ontario. If they think that way, perhaps it will lead them to understand that the industry itself supports this proposed legislation.

1755

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Wrye’s motion for second reading of Bill 167, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Hart, Henderson, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., Patten, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wrye.

Nays

Breaugh, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McCague, McLean, Philip, Pollock, Pope, Pouliot, Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve.

Ayes 66; nays 23.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1800

WINE CONTENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved third reading of Bill 167, An Act to revise the Wine Content Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I really do not choose to do this, but I do believe there should have been a little request for unanimous consent there to do second and third reading. I would not like to see you off in court later on, where somebody pointed out, “You don’t even know how to get unanimous consent and you can’t even deal with the Legislature,” so why do we not do it the right way?

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might speak to the point, I stand properly chastised by my friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and I shall take that as notice that I ought to proceed with great expedition and care this Wednesday evening.

Having regard to that, I would ask unanimous consent that we revert to motions so we can sit beyond six o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

MOTION

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that notwithstanding standing order 3, the House shall continue to meet after 6 p.m. this Wednesday evening.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED) / CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing July 1, 1988, and ending October 31, 1988.

Mr. Harris: I want to say about two minutes’ worth on interim supply before we let the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) go for the summer. I want to say that we, of course, will support the supply bill in that it provides the funds to pay the salaries and the bills of the government.

We obviously have concerns about the extra 8,000 or 9,000 salaries that are being paid by the government. However, it is not their fault that the government hired them and it is not their fault that they should anticipate a paycheque during the summer break. I would support paying even those, because of the contractual arrangements, but we do not support the way this government has spent money.

We do not support a budget that has increased spending by more than double the rate of inflation every year since the Liberals have been in office. We do not support the kind of spending that is far in excess of that of any other legislative body in this country, certainly of all the other provinces and the federal government. We do not support the spending policies of this government which, in our view and in the view of any economist worth his salt, are inflationary and are therefore putting pressure on interest rates. They are destabilizing and they are contrary to what any economist worth his salt would think is a reasonable way for the richest province in this country to be proceeding. I would be remiss if in allowing supply to proceed, I did not get those few comments on the record. In concluding, I also want to say I am astounded that this government has money for things like a provincial fragrance, perfume, but the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) do not have $1,000 to move from in front of the Booth Landing Lodge on Wassi Lake in Chisholm township a floating island of weeds that has drifted in right on the shoreline. None of those ministries will help those camp operators, Mr. and Mrs. Heike, who are sitting there now having to turn guests away from their camp. Every ministry has said: “It is not our problem. It is somebody else’s problem.” They cannot find $500.

I mention that example specifically because that is typical of this government’s response to anything that makes sense, to any request where we think the government should be really helping people who need it.

I am astounded that the Ministry of Northern Development does not have the money to proceed this year with a water quality study in and around the lakes of North Bay. What are we talking about? In that case, $25,000. The Ministry of Northern Development said it did not have that money, while the government hires 8,000 extra civil servants, while it spends at two and three times the rate of inflation, while the Premier (Mr. Peterson) spends more money on exotic travel than any Premier in the history of this province. The amount of travelling the Premier does, for no apparent good reason that I can see, is an embarrassment and a disgrace to this government.

Mr. Jackson: Ask the Speaker if you are within your two minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I think I am within my two minutes. I want to say we will not oppose supply to the Treasurer, but those are some of the examples of the way the government is handling money, and this is an opportunity to talk about budgetary policy and the direction in which it is leading this province.

As we finish this session, I think it is important to remind people that this is not necessary in this province. It is not necessary to jeopardize the financial integrity of this province. It is not necessary to mortgage the future of our children in this province. It is not necessary to cause problems across this country because of the size of this province and the free-spending way that they spend.

With those few remarks, I will sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Laughren: It is a very good feeling to rise in my place after the rather constrained time limits we had this afternoon on the Meech Lake debate to be engaging in a debate on which there are no time limits.

I must say I agree partly with the comments of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) in that we do not like the way this government spends its money either. Certainly, one of the great mysteries of the 20th century is how this Liberal government, given the incredible, increased revenues it has received since it became government, has spent that money. Everyone is clamouring for more money. Everyone says he does not have enough, and yet the Liberal government does not seem to be able to satisfy anyone out there in terms of its expenditures.

Given the broad-ranging nature of a supply motion debate --

Mr. Speaker: Actually, I called for questions or comments on the remarks made by the member for Nipissing, and you rose.

Mr. Laughren: All right. Then I will restrict my comments on the member for Nipissing’s remarks and wait until there is an opportunity to speak on the actual motion itself.

Mr. Pope: I want to ask the member for Nipissing to comment on the fact that we have seen a government with a $1.3-billion tax increase, annualized, at a time when revenues are increasing in the provincial Treasury. We have seen ministers spending government money in their own operations, their own offices, in a way never before seen; and for ministry administration, increases ranging from 40, 50, 60, 90, 100, 200 to 400 per cent, in a way we have never seen before.

1810

We have seen total financial irresponsibility from the cabinet and from the government of Ontario, and we have the Ministry of Natural Resources cutting back on reforestation budgets in northern Ontario, putting out the word to regional and district foresters that they have to cut back on tending, on silviculture and on contracts. At the same time, he is occupied with trying to challenge the Chicago diversion of water out of Lake Michigan.

Let him stick to the basics, get the job done and start behaving in a manner which is fit for the people of Ontario. Let him take care of the basic reforestation program and the basic programs for northern Ontario which were promised and not delivered.

Mr. Speaker: I am just wondering, is the member commenting on the comments made by the member for Nipissing?

Mr. Pope: Why do you interrupt all the time like this? I am making a comment on his statement. I have the right to make a comment on his statement.

Mr. Speaker: You do.

Mr. Pope: I want the member for Nipissing to comment on the lack of responsibility, the lack of sticking to basics, the fact that we cannot get any of the basic program deliveries for the people of northern Ontario and across the province.

It is an absolute disgrace the way they are wasting the taxpayers’ money, and they sit there and laugh about it -- $1.3 billion more in this tax year. It is a great laugh; have a good time with the taxpayers’ money. They want us to vote interim supply for this to continue. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. There are a lot of things --

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

M. Runciman : Je voudrais faire un bref commentaire sur un domaine où le gouvernement ne semble pas avoir d’inhibition à dépenser de l’argent. Il s’agit de la Loi 8 sur les services en français. Nous voyons la prestation de services coûteux et inutiles dans des régions où on ne s’en servira jamais, et j’insiste sur le mot «jamais». En même temps, nous voyons un grave manque de financement de nos systèmes de santé et d’éducation.

C’est pratiquement de la négligence criminelle. Le gouvernement a créé une vaste industrie de traduction, avec quels résultats ? D’énormes problèmes. Beaucoup de traducteurs n’ont pas les compétences nécessaires. La qualité des traductions en souffre. Les conséquences pourraient en être graves.

Je voudrais souligner un point en particulier : c’est que la politique linguistique de la Loi 8 et de ce gouvernement est irréfléchie et représente un autre exemple flagrant de l’extravagance dépensière typique des libéraux. Merci.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to respond to the comments from the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I was trying to say in my own way, but he has said in his way and I want to concur with those remarks, about the disgrace, particularly with regard to the Ministry of Natural Resources. We talk about three million tree seedlings sitting there now being burned or thrown into the garbage because the minister has cut back the funding for reforestation, cut back the funding for the forest management agreements for the first time.

The industry is now saying it cannot proceed with implementing the forest management agreements as it could under the former government. The funds are being cut back at a time when funds should be increasing, particularly in the tending side. It is an absolute disgrace that those funds are not being committed by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Aussi, je désire dire un gros merci au député de Leeds-Grenville (M. Runciman), et je dis seulement «d’accord».

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You’re back in the party fold, are you, Floyd?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I am working my way back in.

I did want to make a couple of comments. First, I am glad that the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) is here this afternoon, because this party had its biannual convention in Thunder Bay -- the first political party ever to hold a major political convention in northern Ontario. I might say -- and at that convention the message from people living in Thunder Bay and points east, west and north was clearly that this government has not earned it spurs in policy development in northern Ontario.

We are looking in the next couple of years to the Minister of Northern Development doing something about his northern development fund so that there is an adequate amount of money in there to do something serious with northern Ontario. The minister knows that $30 million is just a token amount of money for the north.

Before I sit down, I cannot resist making a couple of comments about what the Premier said recently about travel by committees of the Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: There has been some heckling from the government benches about where I am travelling to and so forth.

Mr. Mahoney: Just curious.

Mr. Laughren: I chair the standing committee on resources development. That committee is a long-standing committee of this assembly and has done almost no travel. I cannot remember us travelling outside Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: Well, I cannot remember us travelling outside Ontario, so I am not speaking for myself, as chairman of one of the committees or as a member of any committee that is travelling, but do think it was most inappropriate for the Premier to decide to play a little cheap politics and come down heavy on the process around here which approves committee travel.

Committee chairmen put in their requests for their budget to the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy, dominated by Liberals, of course, as are the committees, approves or disapproves of those committee budgets. Therefore, when those budgets are approved, it is assumed that the budgets have the approval of the Legislative Assembly.

Then, when the Premier is questioned by a reporter, he decides not to take the high road, not to take the road that has worked well around this place, but rather to play some cheap and shoddy politics with the issue and say: “Well, I don’t think those committees should be travelling. Oh, are they really travelling there? Well, maybe the whole committee shouldn’t be travelling there.”

Perhaps the Premier would like to chair the Board of Internal Economy and make all the decisions himself. Why bother with having a Board of Internal Economy that sits in judgement on the budgets of the various committees if he is going to be the final arbitrator in these cases anyway?

I would ask the members of the assembly, of all political parties, to think seriously about what the Premier has done. If he wants to bring down a dictum that committees will not travel, let him have the courage to say so to the chairmen of the committees -- as a matter of fact to the assembly as a whole. I can tell members that, as chairman of a committee that is not affected by his comments, I am still offended by the cheapness of that kind of politics.

1820

Mr. Sterling I would just like to join the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) in his concern about the functioning of committees and committee reports and the response which the Premier has given.

I am a member of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly which, about a year ago, put forward several suggestions adopting proposals which were put forward by the commissioner on election expenses. That particular committee put forward a unanimous report, supported by all of the Liberals on that particular committee.

The report was taken down the hall by the press and the Premier was asked for his response to that particular report by the Legislative Assembly committee. The Premier again gave in, took a cheap shot at all the members, and decided what the members of this Legislature should be paid after there had been discussion about various kinds of issues revolving around remuneration.

The Legislative Assembly committee has now decided that it will not make any more decisions on those matters. We are not going to do it any more, because we are not going to set ourselves up for the Premier to take shots at us. He can make all the decisions. If he does not want any consultation to go on with regard to what members of this assembly do, he has just asked for it; that is the way it is going to happen.

Therefore, the Legislative Assembly committee will no longer make decisions in advising the Premier on any matter in this regard, because we know what will happen. The report will be taken down the hail and he will just take cheap shots at us in the press.

Mr. Pouliot: I have no intention of prolonging, because I am fully aware that people are anxious to go back to their respective ridings and meet their constituents and thank them for their good fortune of last September 10.

But while I will be going back to the riding of Lake Nipigon, I am faced with a dilemma I am sure you can appreciate at first hand, Mr. Speaker. Having had to ratify trips in the northern part of the riding of Lake Nipigon, of course, you will be aware that it is no longer the case. I, for one, with a riding of 114,000 square miles, find myself representing the people of the great riding of Lake Nipigon in the ironic situation of being limited to $7,000 for lodging and travel within the riding of Lake Nipigon.

We can appreciate and sympathize with the need to be somewhat more parsimonious, more spartan and frugal regarding travel; I have no quarrel with that. What is really ironic, with the highest respect, is that ministers of the crown have an unlimited budget -- not that they are not welcome in the riding of Lake Nipigon -- yet the sitting member is limited, trying to cover the needs of constituents in a riding of 114,000 square miles.

I am told not to worry, but it is a difficult dilemma. It means that, for the northern part of the riding, you must not visit more than twice a year unless you are willing or have the ability to be out of pocket. Should a calamity, heaven forbid, strike in the northern part of the riding, you will send a telegram because you cannot attend to your responsibility.

But I am sure the House leader has given me the guarantee, along with the Treasurer, they want to wish me well in my travel --

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

Mr. Laughren: I would have hoped there would be some comment from the other side. I could not help but notice, when I rose to speak originally, that the Minister for Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) issued a cheap shot and asked me where I was travelling to. I hope I have laid that to rest.

Second, I think that for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who set up his phoney county review committee and transported only Liberal members all across this province at public expense, to be taking those kinds of shots is totally out of order.

This is the minister who could not even respond to a question about an amendment he was putting in the House the other day and had to get help in here to answer it. For that minister to be taking those kinds of cheap shots is unbecoming.

Mr. Dietsch: That’s not cheap.

Mr. Laughren: I think you should ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs exactly what he thinks he is doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: I guess if the minister did not even understand one of his own amendments, we cannot expect him to understand the need for some committee travel in Ontario. Perhaps I am expecting too much of the minister.

I am glad that the Minister of Natural Resources is keeping quiet, perhaps because he feels somewhat vulnerable on the way in which money is spent around here, particularly in the case of air travel. Perhaps that is the reason he is being strangely silent here this evening.

In conclusion, I simply wanted to put on the record that we think it was terribly cheap politics for the Premier to be taking shots at committees that are travelling, after having that travel approved by the Board of Internal Economy.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I just want to thank the honourable members for the constructive tone of their comments. I can understand why they did not deal with more major issues, except peripherally and, of course, en français, to the members of the third party.

But I think the honourable members, as day by day they see the clouds of gloom that they themselves raise for the prospects of the province blown away by the facts, should really be aware of the fact that because of the spending program we have now, we have the lowest deficit in the province in 19 years. We have the lowest overall tax rate of any province in Canada. We have the highest growth rate of any province in Canada. We have the lowest unemployment rate of any province in Canada, and we are the only province in Canada with a triple-A rating.

At the same time, our programs are designed to improve the quality of life of our people while we build roads, schools and hospitals. We look with concern at the Progressive Conservative government of Canada, which is buying nuclear submarines. I am proud of the fact that this House is now unanimously granting interim supply. We feel that the money is being properly and responsibly allocated to programs that are uniformly supported not only by the members of this House but by the thoughtful people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of order?

Mr. Laughren: Point of information.

Mr. Speaker: Point of personal information?

Mr. Laughren: I wondered, since a point of information is to seek information and not give it, if the Treasurer could tell us if his statistics are accurate, even considering the luxurious travel engaged in --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Treasurer has moved the motion for interim supply. Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved government notice of motion 13:

That the following standing and select committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Select committee on education to consider the philosophy of the education system in Ontario and the education process relating to streaming, semestering, grade promotion and OSIS;

Select committee on energy to consider Ontario Hydro’s draft demand-supply planning strategy. The subcommittee on agenda and procedure shall have authority to meet from time to time at the call of the chair. The committee shall have authority to adjourn to Montreal, Quebec, to attend meetings with officials of Hydro Québec;

Standing committee on administration of justice to consider Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act;

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs to consider the US-Canada free trade agreement and federal tax reform proposals. The committee shall have authority to adjourn to Geneva, Switzerland, to attend meetings with officials of GATT; to Brussels, Belgium, to attend meetings with officials of the European economic community, and to Paris, France, to attend meetings with officials of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The committee is authorized to release any report during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of the report with the Clerk of the assembly and, upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairman of the committee shall bring such report before the House in accordance with the standing orders;

Standing committee on government agencies to consider the operation of certain agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario. The committee shall have authority to adjourn to Montreal, Quebec, with respect to its review of the Ontario French-Languages Services Commission;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to consider matters related to the administration of the House and services to members. The subcommittee on agenda and procedure shall have authority to meet from time to time at the call of the chair to consider restoration-renovation proposals for the Parliament Building. The committee shall have authority to adjourn to Reno, Nevada, to attend the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and to Fredericton, New Brunswick, to attend meetings at the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick on the rules of procedure, televising legislative proceedings and restoration of the Legislative Building;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman to consider the 1987-88 Annual Report of the Ombudsman and the expanded jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The committee shall have authority to adjourn to Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Fredericton, New Brunswick, to consider the expanded jurisdiction of the Ombudsman;

Standing committee on public accounts to consider the 1987 annual report of the Provincial Auditor. The committee shall have authority to adjourn to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to attend the 10th annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees. The committee is authorized to release any report during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of the report with the Clerk of the assembly and, upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairman of the committee shall bring any such report before the House in accordance with the standing orders;

Standing committee on resources development to consider Bill 87, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act, and Bill 88, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation. The committee is authorized to release any report during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of the report with the Clerk of the assembly and, upon resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairman of the committee shall bring any report before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to seek unanimous consent to revert to motions, because there are two companion motions that belong with this particular motion.

Agreed to.

1830

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the following substitutions be made on the standing committees: On the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Philip for Mr. Farnan; on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Hampton for Mr. Swart; on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Ms. Bryden for Mr. Charlton, Mr. Mackenzie for Mr. Philip; and on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Pouliot for Mrs. Grier.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that, with the agreement of the House leaders and the whips of each party, committees may meet during the summer adjournment at times other than those specified in the schedule tabled today with the Clerk of the Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Les motions de troisième lecture des projets de loi suivants sont adoptées :

Bill 6, An Act to amend the Execution Act;

Bill 22, An Act to regulate Motor Vehicle Repairs;

Bill 26, An Act to regulate Prepaid Services;

Bill 52, An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act;

Bill 68, An Act to promote the Conservation of Certain Land;

Bill 84, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 85, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act;

Bill 86, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 90, An Act respecting the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods;

Projet de loi 90, Loi concernant la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved third reading of Bill 100, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 109, An Act to establish a French-language School Board for The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton;

Projet de loi 109, Loi portant création d’un Conseil scolaire de langue française pour la municipalité régionale d’Ottawa-Carleton ;

Bill 132, An Act to amend the Mining Act;

Bill 133, An Act to amend the Gasoline Handling Act.

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved third reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 138, An Act to revise the Weed Control Act;

Projet de loi 138, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur la destruction des mauvaises herbes ;

Bill 141, An Act respecting Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corporation;

Bill 142, An Act respecting Ottawa Congress Centre;

Projet de loi 142, Loi concernant le Centre des congrès d’Ottawa ;

Bill 148, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting the Environment;

Bill 153, An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

1840

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved third reading of Bill 159, An Act to provide for Municipal Taxes in Territory without Municipal Organization.

Mr. Laughren: I believe brief debate is allowed on third reading. I wonder, in view of the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) seems to have all the answers today on a wide variety of matters, if he could explain to us the assessment formula under this bill and, second, if he could tell us why White River is not included under this bill.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The reason White River is not included is provided in the bill. At the present time, the majority of the people live in two communities, Marathon and Manitouwadge; I believe there are only about six living in White River. If the situation arises, if sufficient numbers of people move to White River that White River can be included, it certainly will be.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did ask the minister about the assessment formula and I expect a response.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The same paragraph was printed twice in order to make the formula work. In order for the formula to work, the paragraph had to be changed, and that is the reason it is in there.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Reycraft moved, on behalf of Mr. Kanter, second reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.