role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 26, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L016 - Tue 26 May 1987 / Jeu 26 mai 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

POLICE PURSUITS

ACID RAIN

DEFICIT

WORKER ADVISERS

CARABRAM

SEWAGE TREATMENT

DR. RICHARD HEARN

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CONSUMER REPORTING

RESPONSE

CONSUMER REPORTING

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

LIBERAL-NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACCORD

CHILD CARE

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

SEVERANCE PAY

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

LANDFILL SITE

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

ÉCOLE MONSEIGNEUR DE LAVAL

SPEECH THERAPISTS

TABLING OF INFORMATION

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY ACT

REFERENDUM ACT

CITY OF BARRIE ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris: For a government which has managed to increase spending by $8 billion in two years, its record of underspending in northern Ontario is astonishing.

The north is littered with broken Liberal promises: the northern development fund -- $40 million committed, $17 million spent; $9 million committed for small business development corporation funding, $6.6 million spent; $10 million committed for community economic transformation agreements, less than $500,000 spent; the highly touted northern Ontario science and math school mysteriously disappeared; the $30-million softwood lumber rebates the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised to be reinvested to retrain laid-off forestry workers, not a dime has been spent; and the list is growing

-- almost $66 million already promised and committed to northern Ontario not spent.

Yet these same Liberals want northerners to rejoice in a so-called $30-million northern Ontario heritage fund. Clearly a fraud -- less than half of what the north is already due from previous promises. New money? No. Only half of the old money stolen from poorly managed existing programs. Anything for gasoline prices? No. Four-laning? No. Less money for transportation. Legislative research says 15.7 per cent less was spent last year. The new money simply restores what we used to get.

New taxes? Mining taxes up $66 million. Now they give back $5 million and expect us to be happy.

This budget and administration are a sham.

POLICE PURSUITS

Ms. Bryden: The shocking details on the latest fatality resulting from a police chase in Ontario in today's Globe and Mail call for immediate action by the cabinet and the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) to stop this very dangerous practice.

Between 1981 and 1984 there were over 6,700 police chases undertaken in Ontario, over 1,300 a year, resulting in 39 deaths and 642 personal injuries. In 1986, six high-speed chases took place every week in Metropolitan Toronto, resulting in injuries to 60 citizens, 33 police officers and $500,000 in property damage. Despite growing demands for an end to this carnage, the Solicitor General continues to drag his feet on the question.

Back in 1984, the Progressive Conservative government set up the MacBeth commission to study the question following the deaths of two teenagers in a Walkerton-area police chase. Even though that committee finally reported in December 1986, the Solicitor General did not respond to its recommendations for almost six months. In May 1986, he announced that his ministry would bring in new guidelines to restrict chases. Despite subsequent promises of action, we still do not have any province-wide guidelines or binding rules on this matter.

ACID RAIN

Mr. G. I. Miller: As vice-chairman of the select committee on the environment, I would like to rise and congratulate the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) for his quick response to the recommendations of the committee. There were many. I know they are going to be useful for Ontario, and particularly for the Minister of the Environment when he deals with our friends south of the border.

As we all know, 80 per cent of the acid rain respects no border, and it comes from the American side. As we negotiate those new agreements it will certainly give the Minister of the Environment the tools to work with. We would like to congratulate the minister for responding as quickly as he did to those requests. We know that things are in good hands.

DEFICIT

Mr. Andrewes: Last Wednesday's budget gave new meaning to the public cynicism that the Liberal Party's politicians are masters of smoke and mirrors.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is projecting a 1987-88 deficit of $980 million. However, this same budget contends that the government will spend $1.3 billion more than it expects to receive in revenue. The negative contingency fund of $350 million will be reflected through the Treasurer's smoky mirror as a result of some yet to be determined savings.

This is the same Treasurer who overspent by $300 million in 1985-86. This is the same Treasurer who overspent by $1,039,000,000 in 1986-87. It is the same Treasurer who refuses to tell us which hospitals will not be built, which municipal sewer projects will not be approved or how many of the 157 throne speech promises will be broken.

When the smoke clears, we will see that the government not only has disguised the magnitude of its real deficit but also has inflated the value of its operating and capital accounts.

Come clean, I say to the Treasurer. Your smoke and mirrors have not fooled one editor of a daily or weekly journal in the province, and they will not fool a single voter.

WORKER ADVISERS

Mr. Mackenzie: We have a growing problem in the province in the position of the worker advisers appointed through the Workers' Compensation Board. One of the more positive arrangements has been made to help workers, one that is already proving the desperate need that was there in terms of the work load that was on unions, advocacy groups and members of this House.

The same work load is now showing up in terms of the worker advisers of the board. The case load in the Golden Horseshoe, in the Hamilton area, has reached the point where it is now well over 150 cases for some of the individual workers.

Indeed, I had a constituent of mine go in the other day on a long-standing hearing-loss problem from his plant and he was told that if he wanted to go on the waiting list for up to six months, fine, but because their case load was in excess of 150 cases, they could not touch him for a number of months.

I want to say that this is one of the positive initiatives that has helped a lot of people and has helped the members of this House, and it must not be allowed to go down the tube. It is one of the areas the government is going to have to move on very quickly to see that we have adequate facilities in terms of worker advisers in Ontario to take care of the kind of case load they now are experiencing.

As well as having additional people, it may be that some of the offices will have to be split up. Certainly in my area, if they eliminated the Niagara Peninsula from the Golden Horseshoe area right around Hamilton, it would assist very much.

CARABRAM

Mr. Callahan: I would like to extend an annual invitation to the members of the Legislature and to residents all over Ontario who are viewing this House today to a cultural festival event in Brampton called Carabram. The opening ceremonies will take place on June 30 at the Lester B. Pearson Memorial Theatre in Brampton.

I invite all the people here today either to attend the opening celebrations on June 30 at the Lester B. Pearson Memorial Theatre or to attend on July 3, July 4 or July 5. It will be a delightful weekend. Members can savour the sights, sounds and tastes of the tremendous multicultural activities in the great city of Brampton.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr. Gillies: This government's lack of financial commitment to the environment was more than evident in its latest budget. Compared to overall provincial spending, the environment got nothing; it is still receiving only one per cent of total provincial expenditures.

In November 1985, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) told this House that "all the commitments that this government has indicated during the election campaign and prior to that are commitments that will be met." This minister has not fulfilled those commitments.

One laughable figure is the $14 million to assist municipalities in assessing the condition of their sewage treatment facilities. We already know the problem that exists here. What the minister has to do is get on with the job. This program has no merit without a companion capital-improvement program.

The minister is telling municipalities: "We will tell you what the problem is. Now you fix it." The $14 million over three years is not a substantial sum of money. The minister has to make a substantial commitment and bring forward an infrastructure program for this province.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to bring to the House's attention the passing last Sunday --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a ministerial statement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Excuse me. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: May I mention the subject matter?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is on the passing of Dr. Richard Hearn.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

DR. RICHARD HEARN

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to bring to the House's attention the passing last Sunday of a great citizen of this province and one of the pioneers of Ontario's energy system, Dr. Richard Lankaster Hearn.

Dr. Hearn had a long and distinguished life, containing achievements that would have done credit to several careers.

Whenever I visited Dr. Hearn at his home in Niagara Falls along the Niagara River Parkway, I had the sense that I was in the company of a visionary and a true pioneer. I know that word is somewhat overused these days, but it was completely appropriate in the case of Dr. Hearn. He was among the group affectionately known as "Beck's bright boys." This group was responsible for the creation of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, the forerunner of Ontario Hydro.

Dr. Hearn was also responsible for the design and construction of many of Ontario's hydroelectric installations, including the first large hydroelectric project, the Queenston-Chippewa power development. Just three weeks ago, I had the opportunity to participate in the official opening of the Eagle River dam near Dryden, which was originally designed by Dr. Hearn about 70 years ago. It is a tribute to his skills that many of these dams are being refurbished and used again.

Dr. Hearn was with Ontario Hydro off and on from 1913 to 1956 and spent another 20 years as a distinguished consulting engineer. Back in the 1950s, Dr. Hearn was instrumental in Ontario's decision to move towards nuclear generating stations, which now provide some 40 per cent of the power in this province.

During his long and successful life, Dr. Hearn saw many changes in Ontario. History will say that the credit for a great many of these changes, which contribute so much to the way of our life today, is owed to him.

I will remember Richard L. Hearn as one of our most distinguished citizens. Born in the last century, he passed away in his 97th year, but his memory will live on for many years. Our sympathies are expressed to Dr. Hearn's family.

Mr. Swart: I had the privilege to know Dr. Hearn quite well. I sat with him for a number of years on the board of governors at Brock University. I want to join with the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) in paying tribute to him.

From my point of view, after associating with him for some period of time, the quality I remember the most was his unassuming nature. He was a man who was not pretentious in any way. He was easy to talk to, a very decent human being. I am aware too of his accomplishments with Ontario Hydro. I am aware of the fact that he had a very great dedication to that institution. He was a man who believed that hydro should be provided by a public institution. He was a great believer in the government assuring that services that could be better provided by the government should be provided by the government.

He was not only the kind of man whom I think anyone would be proud to know as a personal friend but also the kind of man who was a dedicated and very competent public servant. Therefore, I am pleased to pay tribute to him today, both in a personal way and for the service he gave to this province, and to express my sympathy and the sympathy of this caucus to his wife and family.

Mr. Grossman: Might I just briefly join my colleagues in the other two parties in noting the passing of one of the great pioneers of Ontario Hydro.

I must say that I was listening carefully to the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) as he commented on the enormous contribution made by Dr. Hearn, who was one of those who persuaded the government and Ontario Hydro to move into nuclear energy. I was hoping the member might acknowledge that. I know the minister was listening as well.

Indeed, Dr. Hearn will be long remembered -- long after many of the people in the elected arena and many of their contributions, I must say -- for his foresight and his ability to peer into the future and persuade his colleagues, in what must surely have been a difficult environment, to make sure that Ontario Hydro was looking forward and meeting the future needs. It is easy for us, and we engage in it daily here, to have a retrospective look at Hydro's mistakes. We have the right and obligation to do that. However, for those who worked at Ontario Hydro and had the foresight to make the right decisions ahead of time, that indeed is a lot more difficult and merits a lot more credit.

On this day, I should like to join my colleagues in the other two parties in noting the enormous contributions and foresight and dedication of one of the energy pioneers of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all the members, I will make certain that a copy of Hansard is sent to the Hearn family showing your words of sympathy.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CONSUMER REPORTING

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to announce my intention to introduce for first reading today

an act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act.

The purpose of these amendments is to prevent any access to a consumer's credit file without his or her knowledge. The new provisions would require that the prescreening of credit files, or any derivative thereof, be treated as a consumer report and the affected consumers be notified before any unsolicited search could be conducted.

Prescreening refers to a search of credit bureau files by credit granters or consumer reporting agencies to select potential customers for solicitation. Prescreening can involve the submission of a list of names and the specific age, income, marital status, creditworthiness and other criteria to be used in identifying the potential target market for direct solicitation.

The amendments are necessary to ensure the integrity of consumers' credit files. I urge all members to support these amendments.

RESPONSE

CONSUMER REPORTING

Mr. Swart: I want to comment on the statement that has just been made to the effect first of all, that it will be nice for people to know when their personal file is being looked over by salespeople or people representing companies that want to sell products to them or for any other reasons.

I would like to say to the minister, though, that I am sure all of us in this party would have been a lot happier if the legislation had provided for consumers to have the right to prevent all this personal information from being accumulated and put on file for somebody to look at.

Second, it seems to me we would have liked to see that consumers would have to give permission if this information were going to be used. The fact is now that all they will do is know. They will not be able to make any impact whatsoever on how this information is being used by these people. A lot of this private information is being given out to people who should not have it.

I suggest to the minister, if he wanted to do something real, he would have gone those next two steps instead of just letting people know that somebody is going to have access to all the personal information that should not be there in the first place.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr. Grossman: Both of my questions were for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today. We were informed quite clearly, both by way of his public agenda and this morning, that he would be here today. I wonder if the House leader could help us in this problem.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All I can say is that I was informed he would not be.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The agenda that is given out clearly indicates that the Premier is going to be here. It indicates that he is at a black-tie dinner tonight, another one tomorrow night and another one Thursday night. He has time for a warmup out on the lawn tomorrow. He has not been here for half the question periods.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oh come on, he rarely misses.

Mr. Gillies: When he is here, he will not answer questions anyway. He refers them to other ministers. He refers them to anybody.

Mr. Harris: Even when he is not here, there are only eight ministers of the crown in the House; nine now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to stand down the question?

Mr. Grossman: No, the Premier has not been here for 50 per cent of the session. In the absence, once again, of the Premier --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is not correct.

Mr. Grossman: It is correct. He was here for the Order of Ontario, he was here for the budget, he was here for the throne speech, but when question period is here, he is absent. He has been absent 50 per cent of the time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Grossman: In view of the continuing absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), my question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday, in dealing with what is clear on table C6 in his budget -- that is, a decline in the total amount of transfers to the school boards -- the Treasurer indicated to us that, notwithstanding the way the budget had been outlined, he had a 12 per cent cash advance scheduled for the school boards for this coming year, even though his budget indicated zero.

True to his word, we called the ministry to check on this and -- just so that we will know the source

-- Kathy Bouey, director of the finance policy branch, informed us that, yes, indeed, a 12 per cent advance has been built into the grant and that it is the minister's intention to free-flow the money.

Will the Treasurer not agree that if we take the 12 per cent, as we must, from the total announced in transfers to school boards, it then turns out that a proper description in the budget would indicate that the general legislative grants this year will decline from $3.3 billion to $3.1 billion, and that the grant flow improvement, as he calls it, would be reinstated at about $400 million to reflect the 12 per cent? If all this information from Kathy Bouey is correct, would the Treasurer not agree that his GLGs will decline by $144 million?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Ms. Bouey and I agree entirely on the

interpretation of these numbers. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows of her reputation in these matters and Ontario is very fortunate in having her on the staff of the Treasury. I believe that perhaps the member himself may have hired her. It was during his time that she came on the staff. We agree on this. There is some easy confusion in this regard.

I would suggest to the member and to other honourable members that the way to read table C6 is simply to look at general legislative grants as they were in 1985-86 at $3.178 billion, and as at the end of 1986-87 the interim transfers were $3.323 billion, and as we expect them to be during this fiscal year, $3.579 billion. The $330 million is a one-time advance which, in fact, establishes the 12 per cent cushion for as long as we want to draw it down.

The honourable member has asked the question four times and I guess this is about the third time I have said it was either during his treasurership or that of one of his colleagues that the former cushion, which was seven per cent -- even 12 per cent is really not adequate for the needs of the school boards -- was drawn down as a budgetary measure to three per cent. We have restored it on a one-time basis, which is sufficient to maintain the cushion until any other budgetary decision is made. I hope we can improve it next year.

Mr. Grossman: If the Treasurer decides to stop hiring an extra 1,000 civil servants every year, he will have lots of money to improve it. However he wants to fog it, let us be clear: he and Kathy Bouey agree on one thing and that is, the 12 per cent advance flow, as he calls it, is built in to the $3.5 billion that he reports in his budget. That is not a matter of dispute. He has acknowledged that twice now.

The only point I make is that last year the Treasurer did not report that on the first line. This year he reported it as part of his GLGs. Will the Treasurer this afternoon simply not agree that if he takes out the grant flow improvement this year and lists it separately, as he did last year, the GLG portion indicates a decline of $144 million year over year? That is simply a matter of mathematics and it is his staff's mathematics.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Responding to the honourable member's question, I wonder whether, when he is concerned about staff increases, he feels the 418 additional staff members for young offenders were inappropriately hired. Does he believe the 191 staff members for our psychiatric hospitals were inappropriately hired? Does he believe the 187 people hired for social housing were inappropriately hired?

I simply point out that the honourable member likes to ask questions where he is dealing with about 10 issues at once and, when he gets up for his second supplementary, one may be sure he will deal with two or three issues. If it is appropriate for him, I cannot see why it is not appropriate for me.

I have responded to the member's question repeatedly and I cannot make it any clearer to the honourable gentleman than I already have. I invite him to discuss it further with our mutual friend and, in a sense, mutual adviser Ms. Bouey, who has confirmed my

interpretation of this, as the honourable member may feel she has confirmed his. Right now she works for me and she says I am right.

Mr. Grossman: Let me tell the Treasurer he will get lots of chances to tell us where those 5,000 civil servants went. He can answer for the $275 million spent on civil servants.

Let me make this point. I do not dispute that Kathy Bouey is right. I agree that she is right. I agree that she agrees with the Treasurer. The point Kathy Bouey is making is that the Treasurer has inflated his GLGs by taking the grant flow improvement and working it back into the GLGs. The net result of all that is incontrovertible. The Treasurer ends up in a circumstance where his GLGs have been reduced by $144 million.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Grossman: The school boards are getting $144 million less this year under the GLGs and his total grants to the schools have been reduced.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Just to give the Treasurer an opportunity to end this debate once and for all, my final supplementary is: When the Treasurer totals up all his grants to school boards as listed on table C6, would he not agree that the total transfers to school boards, all in, are lower this year than last year?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member mentioned the jobs again. I will refrain from following his lead and dealing with a second subject in the question, although I am quite prepared to do so.

Mr. Grossman: There is only one question. Answer the school board question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The school boards were delighted that we not only restored what was taken from them but also added substantially to it. The honourable member will realize that since we took office, the actual operating grants for our school boards have been increased by more than 25 per cent.

Mr. Grossman: Wait until they get the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: His revenues were up 31 per cent and the school boards got 25 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just in case the member is not aware, that completes the first question. Second question, the Leader of the Opposition.

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I see the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is still not with us for the second question for, once again, another question period.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister?

Mr. Grossman: In view of the continuing absence of the Premier, I will come back to the government House leader. As he will recall, last Thursday this House voted in a free vote, not a whipped vote, to have the kind of public hearings on the Meech Lake accord that Quebec has had.

He will also know that in the last day there has been a distinguished group of Canadians who have been urging the Premiers to look carefully and to analyse more quickly the arrangement before the Meech Lake accord is finalized.

In view of all that, would the government House leader explain today why he and the government still refuse to give public hearings to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What do you call this?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The interjections of my honourable colleague are correct. We are having a debate in the Legislature today in which the Leader of the Opposition is going to express to the Legislature his views and the views of those Conservative-minded citizens in the province. The New Democratic Party will have a similar opportunity and the government will put forward its position.

I think he is also aware that the Prime Minister has called a meeting of the first ministers, which at one time I understood was to be scheduled about June 11. It has been moved up -- and I am not sure about this -- I believe to June 2. The Premier very properly felt he wanted to have the views of the members of the Legislature, or at least the principal spokespersons for the two opposition parties, before he went up to confer with his colleagues.

We hope and trust that when the order of business is called this afternoon and when that work is finally adjourned, the Premier will know the views of the two opposition parties and, thus fortified, will be able to go to Ottawa with his colleagues and carry on those discussions and, I hope, come to some finality. I will let it go at that for now.

Mr. Grossman: The group calling for some more thought was quoted yesterday as saying it was worried that the implications of the accord are so little understood that rushing it into place could be a mistake. This group includes Eugene Forsey; Harry Arthurs; Liberal Party leader Sharon Carstairs from Manitoba; former Liberal candidate Doris Anderson; Farley Mowat; June Callwood; Eddie Greenspan; Carl Goldenberg, adviser to former Prime Minister Trudeau on constitutional matters; Desmond Morton and Albert Breton. This is an impressive list of Canadians asking only that more thought and care be taken so that everyone understands the implications.

Given that the Quebec government has had two weeks of very important public hearings where a lot of information has come out, and given the fact that yesterday the Toronto Star carried an advertisement calling for public hearings in front of a standing committee of this Legislature on truck transport reform, would the Treasurer not agree that public hearings on the Meech Lake accord are at least as important as truck transport reform?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I simply reiterate that the Prime Minister has called this meeting of first ministers and there is not a person here who wants to detract from the importance of that meeting and what will flow from it. The Leader of the Opposition, the other ministers and members are also aware that whatever decision is arrived at by the first ministers will come to the House of Commons and the various legislatures for ratification or otherwise. At that time, the full and precise wording of the agreement, if there is an agreement, will be before all members. We will have had a chance to research it. We will then have a chance to debate it here and, I trust ratify it.

We have to remember that this is an opportunity to bring our sister province of Quebec back into the ambit of Confederation, a tremendous achievement and accomplishment for which the Prime Minister and the Premiers, in my view, deserve the highest compliments. It is a matter of concern to us that the meeting called by the Prime Minister of Canada not be delayed. The honourable member is well aware that full discussion on the ratification of any agreement that might flow from that is the responsibility of this House.

Mr. Grossman: If ever there were an elitist view of society and the parliamentary system, the Treasurer represents that elitist view. The government that came in saying "No walls, no barriers," is the single government in central Canada that refused public hearings, that thumbed its nose at the Legislature of this province democratically and openly voting for public hearings, and then gave a snub of the nose saying, "Here in Ontario there is not enough time," but in Quebec there was two weeks for public hearings.

Mr. Mackenzie: Question.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Question.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Would the Treasurer not agree that, given the disagreement between the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Quebec, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for Quebec and the Attorney General of Ontario (Mr. Scott) on some of the key provisions of the constitutional accord at Meech Lake, there is adequate opportunity and time immediately to call for public hearings in the balance of this week and next week before the June 2 meeting?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would not agree. I listened very carefully to the comments made by Mr. Bourassa -- I believe it was on the CBC news or perhaps The Journal last night -- in which he indicated he was going to the meeting of first ministers with the expectation that an agreement would be reached, but he wanted to see --

Mr. Grossman: And he had public hearings. He was good enough to have hearings. He is more of a democrat than you are.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right. Chacun à son goût. He wanted to go to Ottawa to find the precise wording.

I must admit that when the honourable member raised Eugene Forsey's name, he got my attention because I have a very high degree of admiration for his ability and certainly for his career of service. I had the temerity to consult with Dr. Forsey on the constitutionality, if that is not too high-flown a word to use, of another agreement to which I was a party. I thought his advice at that time was admirable. Without his support, I would have been hesitant to go forward with it.

Mr. Grossman: Why would you not hear from him now?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have heard from him. He says it is historic and not too high a price was paid.

Mr. Grossman: He does not say that. That is why we need public hearings.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer have had ample time to debate.

Mr. Laughren: Ten minutes of questions.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

LIBERAL-NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACCORD

Mr. Rae: I am delighted the acting Premier chose to mention the accord in his last answer about Dr. Forsey. We all share great admiration for Dr. Forsey. Since the Treasurer mentioned the accord, I know he will have it fresh in his mind.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have it right here.

Mr. Rae: I am delighted the Liberals have finally discovered the document and have realized what it means.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not bring it every day.

Mr. Rae: The fact that the Treasurer does not bring it every day is quite obvious to everybody; neither does the government. I wonder whether I can ask the Treasurer to have a look at this part of the accord. Perhaps this

article can be sent over to the Treasurer, please.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Wait a minute. Is it the accord or not?

Mr. Rae: No. It refers to the origins of a document in the accord. We are talking about severance pay, about plant closures and about what is happening to workers in --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: No. I am asking the Treasurer since he was the one who helped to negotiate the document and since he is the government House leader responsible for House business.

Since the Premier (Mr. Peterson) told us on April 12, 1985, referring to the Burns meat plant, that the Liberals would have forced Burns to justify closing, can the Treasurer tell us why, some two years after the Premier made that promise, some two years after that promise was signed again by him in an accord, we still do not have any legislation, either proposed, discussed, prepared or ready on any agenda, to deal with the question of what happens to workers when their plants close?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Labour has the answer to that question.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank my colleague the Treasurer for giving me the opportunity to answer this question. The government has been working very hard at putting together a package of new protections for workers in the event of plant closures.

The issue is a very troubling one. While we created virtually a record number of jobs in this province last year and while the employment situation in this province continues to be very strong -- 6.4 per cent unemployment last month comes to mind, the lowest level in some period of time -- there are a number of very troubling plant closures. We want to make sure that we have in place employee adjustment programs that will help workers in those situations. I expect to be able to come forward to this House with proposals in that regard in the not-too-distant future.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: That is the same applause and the same statement that the minister made last year and that he has been making for the last year and a half. He has lost all credibility in this House on that question.

With respect to another accord item also contained in document 3 with respect to employment equity, can the minister tell us whether the "I count" survey with respect to the public sector has been completed? If it has been completed, when will it be released? If it is going to be released, can he tell us when the government is going to bring in some employment equity programs that will deal with the problems of women, visible minorities and the disabled in this province when it comes to getting a job?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I cannot tell the honourable gentleman when all the final details of the "I count" survey will be ready. We have had a number of meetings and some tentative conclusions have been reached. I can tell the honourable member that my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), myself and a number of ministers have been working very actively on employment in the whole area of employment equity. The government considers the matter to be an important one, and we will come forward through cabinet with proposals as soon as they are fully developed.

I can say, however, the government thinks it is of tremendous importance to ensure, even as we bring forward employment equity programs in the province, that employment equity ought to start right here in the government, and ever since we became the government two years ago we have been working very hard in that regard.

Mr. Rae: The third question -- perhaps we can make it strike 3 for the minister -- is with respect to workers' compensation. I guess the basic point is that these are all items established in the accord signed by the Premier and these are all areas that the Premier said yesterday would be moved on. Can the minister tell us, if the government is doing so much in these areas, why there are no bills, no pieces of legislation and no discussions among House leaders with respect to any of these items? If the government is doing its job, why have the people of this Legislature and the people of Ontario not seen any sign that this is what it is doing? They are study-mad.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member raised the issue of workers' compensation, so let me answer in that regard. The honourable member seems to have forgotten the fact that this government moved forward and provided automatic indexing of workers' compensation pensions. The honourable member seems to have forgotten that in the less than two years we have been in government, we have opened three new regional offices and intend to open a fourth.

The honourable member seems to have forgotten that we have or will have shortly a total of 12 offices of worker adviser and that we have over 50 worker advisers. The honourable member seems to have forgotten that we have the office of employer adviser in some six communities. The honourable member seems to have forgotten the Industrial Disease Standards Panel is up and running.

In short, there has been a lot of reform and there will be even more.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not produced any legislation for this House to discuss on any of the items in the accord which are outstanding. That is the record of the Minister of Labour. That is why he ought to resign.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wonder whether the minister brought his budget with him today. Perhaps he did or did not; I do not know.

The minister apparently told the Toronto Star yesterday, after I said it would take 40 years at the current rate, that he will soon be announcing details of the government's three-year plan for child care which will be "much more extensive" than what has been announced so far, and that "it will take at least 10 years to provide the 100,000 additional child care spaces."

Can the minister confirm this figure of the new 10-year plan? Is that the new plan? Can he confirm that what it means for a family with a couple of kids, for example -- or perhaps I can speak personally of three kids under the age of five and a half -- is that we have to wait until our oldest daughter is 15 and a half until we have child care that is accessible to people in the province? Was the minister not telling people with young families that they have to wait until they are in high school before he is going to provide child care?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In response to the honourable member's question yesterday, I indicated that the amounts that were announced in the budget and were clearly stated as such were interim amounts while other negotiations and discussions were going on. There was also a statement in the throne speech that the policy statement of the government with respect to child care would be released shortly after the budget. That is an ongoing process and that will take place.

The point I made with respect to the three years was something I have said before, that we intend to make a proposal in three-year cycles. The reporter asked me the question about the 100,000 spaces, and I said that could take up to a decade. That was the comment I made.

Mr. Rae: I think the answer to my question was, yes, families have to wait until their kids are in high school before there is a child care space available for them.

If the minister is planning all kinds of additional moneys being spent that were not announced in the budget, if that is what he is saying, can he give us an absolute guarantee that none of the $275 million that has to be cut from the government's budget in operating expenses and the $75 million in capital expenses that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is asking him to cut will be coming out of the minister's budget?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: To the best of my knowledge, none of that will be coming out of my budget.

Mr. Rae: How much additional money of Ontario's money is he planning to spend? Where is it contained anywhere in the budget statement released by the Treasurer? If the money that is at the bottom of the column here, the $275 million that has to be cut and the $75 million in capital that has to be cut, is not coming out of his budget, whose budget does the minister think it is going to come out of?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My understanding of the Treasurer's comment is that across the entire government, by the end of the fiscal year, every minister has some programs that have not been totally expended. The expectation is that there will be that sum of money left by the end of the fiscal year. That is my understanding of what it has meant to me.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr. Pope: That is a typical definition of Liberal budgetary policy. That sure is.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a question for which minister?

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) actually, but in his continued absence -- he is always there in the good times. He is always there with his red tie on for the Meech Lake agreement, but the people do not have a say in it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member refers again to the absence of the Premier from question period. I want to tell him that any indication of the Premier's absence is incorrect. He has been here 11 of 16 sitting days.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait.

New question, the member for Cochrane South, to which minister?

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: In the continued absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I want to put my question to the Treasurer. It is obvious that when he is here the Premier will not defend the budget, so it is left to the Treasurer to defend the indefensible.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Pope: We have had an increase in layoffs under the Liberal government of this province of 48 per cent in northeastern Ontario last year over the previous year and 250 per cent in northwestern Ontario last year over the previous year, under the Liberal administrative policies.

At the very time when the mining profits tax revenues have increased from $55 million to $121 million last year, in an industry that is in serious economic trouble with massive layoffs in northern Ontario, I want to know why the Treasurer saw fit to return only $5 million to that industry.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member may be referring to the announcement that the Mining Tax Act will not be applied to any new mines for the first three years. We think that is a stimulus to the mining industry in northern Ontario.

The honourable member will also know of a wide spectrum of government programs designed to improve the employment situation in the north. The unemployment level is undoubtedly worse than anywhere else in the province. As a matter of fact, it is as much as four percentage points higher, on average, than it is elsewhere.

The honourable member will know that last year 125,000 net new jobs were established in the province, many of them in northern Ontario.

Mr. Pope: I am glad the Treasurer, in the absence of the Premier, talked about employment programs and policies for northern Ontario, because his ministers and his government have refused to tell us what they are for the last year.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who also happens to be the Premier, said on February 10 that he was not aware of any employment programs in his ministry to help the miners in northern Ontario. I refer the Treasurer to page R-535, where he will find that those are the Premier's exact words as Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Mr. Tieman had to explain to the committee and to him that there was less than $300,000 for employment of northern Ontario's laid-off miners and less than 25 miners were being employed. Does the Treasurer think that is an adequate response to the layoffs in northern Ontario, less than 25 jobs created by this government's employment strategy?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member is, I suppose, contributing to unemployment by holding down two jobs himself. He practices law whenever he has a client waiting in the outer room and comes down here when there is nothing else to do.

I would also tell you, Mr. Speaker, of something that, unfortunately, the honourable member seems to have overlooked, and that is the movement of government jobs into the north.

Mr. Pope: It is not helping a single miner.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All right, but there is a firm commitment for 1,200 jobs with a $40-million payroll. I can assure the House that the honourable member is out of touch with the electorate if he thinks they do not appreciate it.

Mr. Pope: So to hell with the miners. Is that your answer?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South has already asked a question. Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside would like to ask a question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We will just wait. If members wish to waste the time this way, that is fine.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Last Saturday evening I walked on an information picket line in Windsor at the A&P store, which was formerly owned by Dominion, where I spoke to a woman who has worked for that company for 31 years. She has 23 years' seniority, because she had eight years when she raised her family. She is now losing her job, along with 45 other full-time employees -- many of whom also have seniority of over 20 years with that company

-- and 110 additional part-time employees are losing their jobs. They will get zero in severance pay from that company, and the company refuses to negotiate severance pay or a close-out package.

Does the minister think that is fair? If he does not think it is fair, why will he not bring in legislation to protect workers like these?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to advise that the honourable member's information is wrong. I can tell the honourable gentleman that as a part of a recent ruling in a similar chain close-out in Kitchener, in terms of the so-called count to get to 50 employees, both full-time and part-time employees are counted.

There are 41 or 45 full-time employees in this A&P closure in Windsor, and there are over 100 part-time; so the count is well over 50. All those full-time employees who meet the requirements of over five years -- including, obviously, the lady the member is speaking about -- will be given at least the minimum severance pay. I am told the company has now agreed with the views the ministry had given to it on this matter.

In terms of the part-time employees, I can tell the honourable member there has been a ruling, which was confirmed in the Kitchener case, that so-called elect-to-work employees are not eligible for severance pay. That is one of a myriad of issues we have been reviewing, as we review the current severance pay laws and attempt to tighten them up.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If that is the case, that is good news for the 45 employees who are full-time employees. But as of Sunday of this week, the union was not aware of this. The ministry had been contacted and asked, and the workers were told they would have to challenge these kinds of decisions, rather than having universal legislation that protected the workers so they did not have to fight for their rights in the courts.

I would like to ask the minister, why will he not bring in the legislation which he advocated to the Conservative Party when he was the ordinary member for Windsor-Sandwich, the Labour critic for the Liberal Party -- when he was not in government? If it was good enough then, why is it not good enough now?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I remember when my honourable friend was the ordinary member for Windsor-Riverside; now I read he may want to be the mayor of Windsor. How times change.

The matter is not as clear-cut as the honourable gentleman would suggest. As he would know, under the Employment Standards Act there are a number of legal challenges open to both employers and employees. The branch simply advised the workers that the company, because of the recent ruling, could challenge an order to pay.

I want to assure the honourable member of two things. First, I am told the company has now agreed with the advice our ministry had given it and severance pay will be payable to the full-time employees. Second, I can tell the honourable member we are working very hard to bring in a severance pay law that closes the very many loopholes in the loophole-riddled law the previous government brought in in 1981.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: Now that we have established this government is going to do nothing to help the mining industry -- in the words of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) it is going to do nothing to help the laid-off miners --

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Pope: In view of the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

I want to turn to another Liberal government fiasco that is affecting the workers of northern Ontario. We have now established clearly the minister's complicity, which he denied for six months, in the softwood lumber issue. We have now clearly established his conduct and how he covered this up for six months; now we know.

On April 29, the Premier was quoted as saying that $30 million for the heritage fund would be found from the softwood lumber taxes. The Premier also said on January 8 to Bill Walker, as reported in the Toronto Star, that the lumber export tax would be used exclusively to retrain the laid-off forest products workers. Which of the Premier's statements is true? Is it being used for the heritage fund or for a retraining program for laid-off lumber workers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I think what really upsets this member from the north is that it was this Premier and this government that really stood up against the federal government on behalf of that tax.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will not use the 42 years today. I had better leave that alone.

I can tell the member from the north we will be looking at what revenues are derived from those figures and we will be using them to help the people of the north.

Mr. Pope: That is the same vague promise we heard from this minister over a year ago. What really bothers us is that we have a Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in this province who is not only not doing two jobs, who is not only not doing one job for the people of northern Ontario, he is not doing any job at all, and neither is the minister.

The minister stood by and agreed to the softwood lumber tax in writing on September 28 and then he tried to deny it for six months. He was behind it every step of the way. Sleight of hand, misrepresentation, lies, the whole bunch of them are the same. When is he going to employ the laid-off lumber workers? When is he going to put retraining programs in place?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, I can tell the member from the north that I have had occasion over the last several months to travel many times to the north and the opinion he tries to give this House and what we really find up there are very different. They are very pleased with what this government is doing and what this Treasurer is doing.

Mr. Martel: It is going to be a delight to fight the Liberals on this budget in the north. It is an absolute nothing. If there was ever a nothing budget for the north, that was the one.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Martel: I have a question to the minister responsible for the swamp, the Minister of Labour; the swamp-tender. My understanding was that Dr. Muir, his buddy, was to resign from any consultation with the Workers' Compensation Board, to determine eligibility of workers suffering industrial disease, if he was to serve on the Industrial Disease Standards Panel. My understanding is that was the agreement. Can the minister tell me why the board has referred a worker from de Havilland to Dr. Muir of the Firestone Clinic as of April 1 of this year for assessment?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am going to have to take a look at the specifics of the matter. It might have been useful, if the honourable gentleman really wanted an answer today, if he had given me some notice. I am told that Dr. Muir continues to see patients only in his professional capacity and will not be involved in terms of industrial disease and is not involved in matters that the panel either is or may be looking at. I will look into the specifics of the honourable gentleman's issue and get back to him.

Mr. Martel: I have before me a letter sent by Dr. Muir to a worker dated April 2, 1987, the original letter going from Dr. Carr to Dr. Muir and Dr. Muir writing directly to the worker at de Havilland, asking that worker to come at a specific time for an examination and advising the worker to bring his X-rays and to fill out a lengthy questionnaire.

Since Dr. Muir is one of those setting standards with which we assess workers' disabilities in this province, does the minister not consider it to be a conflict that Dr. Muir, on one hand, is setting the standards and, on the other hand, is adjudicating on behalf of the Workers' Compensation Board standards which he in fact might be involved in and his very presence on the panel itself. Are there not really two choices available?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Martel: I hope we get into it, Mr. Speaker. I remember we spent 18 minutes on the first two questions today and you did not say a word, and I am talking about workers' lives.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Will the minister agree that there is one of two choices? Either he asks --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think part of the question that I heard from the honourable gentleman --

Mr. Martel: The Speaker was interfering.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have given the honourable gentleman a commitment that we will take a look at this matter and check whether the facts are as he has stated them. While I am on my feet, however, I do want to say that I hope the honourable member would be supportive of the general concept of an Industrial Disease Standards Panel and that he would be supportive of the concept of a panel which has balanced membership. It seems to me the honourable member is very anxious to raise these matters involving specific people but not anxious, perhaps, in others.

I just tell the honourable member that we are trying to make the panel work. We will take a look at this matter. As far as I know, the issues involving the workers and involving de Havilland are not issues the panel has been asked to rule on in any way.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. There has been a considerable process that has taken place in my community in terms of trying to locate a landfill site. It has taken a considerable period of time to narrow it down to what appears to be the question of the recognition by the regional council of one site, which is known as site 6.

As I understand it, an environmental assessment hearing is mandatory. I would like to ask the minister, since there seems to be some discussion around my riding that perhaps one of the sites that was in the running for the choice was removed because of political reasons, what would be the effect of the environmental assessment hearing if those facts were to be drawn before that hearing? Would it continue or would the matter come to an end and be investigated?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may be aware that the environmental assessment process we have in Ontario is the most detailed and comprehensive one we have had in a long, long time. It takes into account all factors that might relate to the siting of a particular facility of this kind, and the Environmental Assessment Board, when it takes into consideration the representations which are made by various parties that appear before the board, is in a position to evaluate the matters the member has brought to the attention of the House today.

No doubt opponents and proponents will put forward their cases in the best possible manner as far as they are concerned and the board would then be in a position to make a judgement. One of the factors that is taken into consideration when there is a proposed and specific site is, of course, whether alternatives have been explored.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. Does the minister believe it is fair that $2 of every $3 in Canada pension plan money is being denied by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to the 13,000 disabled in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: As the honourable member knows, questions of policy are decided in this instance by the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I will pass it on to him.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I indicated to the leader of the official opposition yesterday, all of the CPP money was passed on to the disabled to whom it was sent. They all got that money.

Mr. Davis: One wonders why the Liberal government has a minister for the disabled when he cannot answer a very common question and finds it difficult to say whether it is fair or unfair. Perhaps he should resign.

Let us try him again.

Mr. Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr. Davis: I have to go back to the --

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question must flow out of the response, and the response came from the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Davis: Thank you for the direction, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

Perhaps the minister can then state that the province made $8 billion in additional revenues. The money for the disabled is their pension; the same money every person is entitled to if he becomes disabled. How can the minister justify denying the $100 a month in badly needed benefits to those disabled persons?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am sure the honourable member knows that in terms of funding provisions by the two levels of government, there are three distinct groups of disabled people in this province: those who receive funds only from the province; those who receive funds only from the federal government through CPP, and those 13,000 who receive funds from both.

In terms of the province of Ontario's contributions, we have a single guaranteed annual income level for all disabled to whom we refer funds. It was our sense that it would be improper to have two different guaranteed annual income levels, one for 13,000 and a different one for the other 72,000 that the province supports. We therefore assessed the $18 million that the federal government was flowing for CPP, which all went to those people, tripled that amount to $54 million and distributed it to all 85,000 disabled who are receiving support from the province.

Mr. Davis: Do you mean that -- $1.65 a day? I would like to see you live on $1.65 a day.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ÉCOLE MONSEIGNEUR DE LAVAL

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister is aware of the situation at l'Ecole Monseigneur de Laval in Hamilton. His deputy visited the school and in some fashion has been involved with the separate and public boards' attempt to resolve the accommodation problem. It is now the end of May and it would appear that we have no solution yet.

Can the minister tell us at what point the rights of 370 francophone students will rise above the right of those two boards to local autonomy and at what point he will intervene to ensure that those 370 students have an acceptable facility in September?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain for the question. Yes, I am aware of the situation. He is correct in observing that a number of officials from the Ministry of Education, including the deputy minister, have been involved to assist in and facilitate a local resolution.

I point out to my honourable friend that the assignment of students to schools is a matter that falls entirely within the jurisdiction of the local school board. I am cognizant that there have been some difficulties, but I am very hopeful that the reasonable men and women who sit on those Hamilton school boards are going to meet and discharge their responsibilities to those francophone students in the city of Hamilton.

Mr. Allen: Those are indeed fine words, but the minister may know that anyone who looks at the accommodation reports of the two boards in question would realize that if this question had been tackled jointly by the boards and the ministry and had not been left until the crisis hit the school in question, there would have been a resolution found that would not have the problems his policy of local decision-making is bringing about. In many board situations, recriminations between boards, suspicion with regard to figures and a good deal of antagonism that is not necessary have developed.

Will the minister remove himself from that arm's-length policy that he adopted until his ministry, I think in the last six weeks, became actively involved, and locate for that school a self-contained and a permanent facility so that they will not become the wandering gypsies of the Hamilton school system?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Hamilton West knows perhaps better than anyone in this assembly the situation at Monseigneur de Laval in Hamilton. I am sure that he, upon reflection, would perhaps want to distance himself somewhat from the polemic and the rhetoric of that supplementary question. He knows, as does the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), that it is the exclusive responsibility of the local school board to assign students, particularly resident students who fall within its jurisdiction, to schools within that jurisdiction.

Yes, it is true that officials from the Ontario Ministry of Education have been assisting and will continue to assist the local boards to find a local resolution because it is quite clear that the jurisdiction here is entirely local.

SPEECH THERAPISTS

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Minister of Health and it pertains to speech therapists.

Last week, a young mother and her son came into my office with their physician. The minister will know this has been a problem in my community and perhaps in other communities in Ontario. The problem basically is he is a preschool child and desperately needs a speech therapist. I am sure he is of above-average intelligence. He is a bright, beautiful child. The availability of speech therapists is limited, to say the least. We have talked to the district health councils, hospital boards and so on and so forth. For the first time it is not a problem of money. It appears to be a problem of a shortage of personnel.

I wonder whether the minister could comment in two parts.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Ferraro: Is this shortage widespread in Ontario? What can we do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has identified, as have several other members in this assembly, a very real and difficult problem for us. We have needs for a number of therapy practitioners that have been unmet in several parts of the area he has pointed out, particularly one important place: Guelph, Ontario. We are assessing how many positions are going unmet at the current time.

I have asked the people in my ministry to advise me with respect to where there may be other difficulties. I am sure people are aware that physiotherapists are in short supply. Speech pathologists and occupational therapists, all these people, are in short supply. In particular, this problem imposes very difficult times in northern Ontario.

I have asked to see whether there are steps that I can take as Minister of Health to assist in funding positions in other centres or whether it may be a requirement of ours to look at the establishment of other facilities to train these therapy deliverers.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Warner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I respectfully request that you consider the following points of order related to rule 29(

a) and rule 29(

i) of the standing orders. Based both on the standing orders and on the procedures adopted by this House, it seems to me that a minister basically has a choice of two paths when sitting in question period. A minister may respond as outlined in 29(

a) or decline to respond as outlined in 29(i). It seems to me that if a minister chooses part (a), he has a certain obligation.

I point then to page 502 of Hansard, Thursday, May 14, in which the minister in response to my question said, "I will report back to him with further details on it within a few days." He took the question as notice. That was May 14. Twelve days later, there has been no answer, nor has there been any indication that there will be an answer.

What I am asking the Speaker to do is to take a look at both 29(

a) and the precedents of this House to determine that if the minister has in fact chosen to answer, he then has an obligation to provide an answer. He certainly indicated on May 14 that he was intending to answer within a few days. As of today, I have no answer. I would like the Speaker to instruct the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) to respond.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the difficulty the member has encountered. I certainly appreciate what he said. However, his final comments were that I, as Speaker, should instruct the minister to respond. There is certainly nothing in the standing orders that allows me to instruct a minister. The member has made his point and no doubt the minister will respond in due course.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: Because of the assistance I have had during this question period I thought that, particularly for the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), I would inform the members of the time that was taken for each question and response.

The first question and response took nine minutes, the second, eight minutes; the third, seven minutes; the fourth, six minutes; the fifth, four and a half minutes; the sixth, three and a half minutes; the eighth, four and a half minutes -- that was the member for Sudbury East; the ninth, two and a half minutes; the 10th, four minutes; the 11th, three and a half minutes; and the 12th, two and a half minutes.

I was trying to be most fair to all members.

Mr. Martel: It is very difficult to make a comparison of nine minutes and four and a half with the Speaker intruding. That is the thing I was trying to draw to his attention.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr. Harris: The Speaker may also want to make a note of the fact that now that question period is over the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is back in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Many members, and particularly the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who just stood on that point, may wish to read on page 103 of Beauchesne, standing order 316, "it has been sanctioned by usage that a member, while speaking, must not: . . . (

c) refer to the presence or absence of specific members."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 73,

An Act to Amend the Consumer Reporting Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to introduce for first reading

An Act to Amend the Consumer Reporting Act. These amendments will prevent any access to a consumer's credit file without his or her knowledge. Under the new provisions, the prescreening of credit files, or any derivative thereof, would be treated as a consumer report and the affected consumers would have to be notified before any unsolicited search could be conducted.

I urge all members to support this amendment.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shymko moved first reading of Bill 74,

An Act to Proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: The purpose of the bill is to introduce a commemorative holiday as a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, whose contribution to the civil rights movement not only is recognized in the United States but also has affected all races throughout all countries, including Canada. It is also a tribute to the contribution of the black community of Ontario to the growth and prosperity of our province and our country.

REFERENDUM ACT

Mr. Runciman moved first reading of Bill 75,

An Act to provide an Opportunity for the Electorate to Express its Views by Means of Referenda in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Runciman: The bill provides for the holding of a referendum on any question that is within the jurisdiction of the province to legislate. Such referenda would be held at the time of a general provincial election on the petition of persons representing eight per cent of the persons who voted in the last provincial general election.

The legislation represents one of the most significant and far-reaching changes in the provincial laws in this decade and will provide the electorate with an opportunity to require full public debate on issues of concern. We witnessed over the past few general elections a significant number of electors declining to exercise their franchise.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is an explanation not a debate of the bill.

CITY OF BARRIE ACT

Mr. Rowe moved first reading of Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting the City of Barrie.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Hon. Mr. Peterson moved resolution 9:

That this House agrees with the agreement in principle on the Constitution signed by the Prime Minister and the 10 Premiers at Meech Lake on April 30, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very pleased to be able to lead off the debate today to share my views with my colleagues opposite on the historic agreement that was reached at Meech Lake on April 30, which I believe will provide the foundation for Quebec to resume its rightful and traditional role as a full partner in our Confederation.

I am also very pleased to have the views of my colleagues opposite and other members of the House as we proceed in the next few days to a formal meeting, presumably to ratify in a formal way the agreement reached on April 30. After that, we will have a full debate in this House and allow all members to express their views on the final wording that will be presented on June 2.

I should also tell my colleagues opposite that I was hoping we would have the final wording for today. Unfortunately, it is not available. There are still meetings of officials on this Friday, and the final touches will be put on Tuesday next. That at least is the current operating plan of the other first ministers, the Prime Minister and myself.

The agreement at Meech Lake was necessary to ensure that all Canadians in all regions can participate fully in their own institutions and know at the same time that their voices will be heard. The agreement was necessary if Canadians are to have a Constitution that can be adapted to changing times. Without Quebec's full participation, we could not realistically hope to change our Constitution in the future, keep up with new developments in our changing world and respond to our changing needs. This accord ensures that our Constitution does not become frozen in the status quo.

It was necessary to give full constitutional expression to the kind of nation we all live in and that we all love, a nation that has managed to retain its unique qualities despite the fact that we live next door to one of the most powerful countries on earth, however friendly it may be. The agreement was possible, I believe, because of much goodwill and leadership. In particular, I believe we owe a great deal to the efforts of the Prime Minister, to Premier Bourassa, to Premier Getty, who spoke forcefully for the west, and to my other colleagues as well.

Many people played a

part in making this agreement possible, but I believe the most important part was played out 120 years ago by people sitting around another table, seeking balance and consensus and achieving unity. The Meech Lake agreement was possible only because it built upon traditions established in 1867.

As I said, nobody got everything he wanted in 1867, but it was the foundation of compromise and understanding that formed the basis for our Constitution; indeed, the guiding principles for our evolving constitutional system.

Of course, through time there have been many other great contributions to the changes in our Constitution. I think of Prime Minister Trudeau, not too many years ago, Premier Davis and the other Premiers who established patriation of our Constitution and significant reforms after a very long period of time and effort.

The task of nation building began in 1867, but it certainly did not end in 1982. In the past year alone there has been extensive consultation and discussion among all governments. A year ago this month, the Quebec government clearly set forth the province's five constitutional concerns. The provincial Premiers stated publicly our intention to bring about Quebec's full participation in the Constitution at our annual meeting in Edmonton last August. The matter was on the agenda again last November at the annual meeting of first ministers in Vancouver. Officials of the federal government and all provinces met to review these issues in detail at a two-day meeting in Ottawa last March.

Earlier this year the federal Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, Senator Lowell Murray, proposed specific approaches to reconciling Quebec's concerns. These extensive consultations, which led to the Meech Lake accord, were all accompanied by considerable public discussion. Indeed, for the past two or three months, the issues involved in constitutional reform have been the subject of intensive public debate.

One principle I believe that has been established in the Canadian mind is that constitutions can be changed. They cannot be changed frivolously but, nevertheless, we are not as a country wedded to the past. If there are better solutions for the future, then it is incumbent upon thoughtful men and women to search them out and work towards better institutions and better methods of solving our problems.

Nous allons retenir de cet exercice un souplesse vitale qui va permettre aux nombreuses idées qu'un pays comme le nôtre peut offrir de germer.

Nous ne serons plus prisonniers du passé. Si demain de meilleures solutions s'offrent à nous, nous aurons l'intelligence d'en profiter.

In our country, we need that kind of balance, that degree of flexibility, today more than ever. Canadians can ensure our place in the world only if we make our national diversity work for us rather than against us.

The agreement reached at Meech Lake is a classically Canadian one. It provides, in my view, for strength in diversity. It recognizes differences while affirming the advantages of being part of the whole.

The Meech Lake accord achieves three key objectives for Canadian federalism: (1) it allows Quebec to accept unequivocally the political legitimacy of all of our constitutional arrangements, (2) it indicates to other regions of Canada an understanding of deep underlying concerns and a willingness to deal with them expeditiously and (3) it commits the federal and provincial governments to regular consultative processes on economic and constitutional matters.

Canada's Constitution is being changed just enough to ensure that all Canadians across our country can accept its provisions and share in its protections, fully and equally.

This accord contains no radical departures. It reflects the basic Confederation settlement of 1867. It builds on the innovations of the Constitution Act of 1982. It recognizes commitments made during the great referendum debate, commitments to renew federalism, to re-examine our institutions and consider ways of accommodating the legitimate desires of people right across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and some of my colleagues who were in the House at the time to cast their minds back to the great referendum debate in this country, when we had an opportunity to examine the heart and soul of our country, the kind of accommodations we were prepared to make to each other to keep this country together. If we try to pick up some of those moments and put them in today's place, I think we will be proud of the fact that we made a promise in 1980 and we are keeping that promise in 1987.

Meech Lake represents constitutional reform that is a delicate balance of contending national, provincial and linguistic identities. These reforms will help governments to represent the Canadian people's views and to meet their needs.

With this agreement, we as Canadians are giving up the luxury of sterile argument. We are gaining the opportunity to talk to each other, more calmly and more reasonably, so that we can hear each other's words as well as our own voices.

A number of questions have been raised with regard to the Meech Lake accord, both in this House and elsewhere in the country. I recognize the concerns that have been raised. I recognize that they stem from profound and well-meaning aspirations for long-term national wellbeing; but I believe these concerns have been addressed.

L'Ontario est en mesure de comprendre les inquiétudes suscitées par tel ou tel aspect de l'accord. C'est en soi un excellent signe de santé que la vigilance soit présente partout au pays. Mais c'est aussi en raison de cette vigilance que l'histoire devrait recevoir favorablement cette entente unanime.

I would like to share with the House what our intent was on several key items, which have prompted some of the questions that have been raised. In all cases, I am confident that the wording of Meech Lake reflects fully this intent. Officials are now in the process of preparing a draft constitutional text to give legal effect to that accord.

With regard to the federal spending power, the purpose of the provision is to provide constitutional legitimacy for its use in certain circumstances and to ensure a reasonable degree of flexibility for provinces.

The focus is on new federal shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and, may I point out again to my colleagues opposite, only in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. These are areas in which the federal government currently has no legal or constitutional authority to compel a province's participation.

Until now, provinces have had only two choices: to accept the federal conditions for payment whether or not they met their people's needs and receive the transfer from Ottawa; or to refuse the federal conditions, in which case the province was denied any transfer payment or money.

We are now providing a third option and thus adding to our national flexibility. A province can choose to opt out of a new federal program in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and receive reasonable financial compensation from Ottawa. However, to exercise that option, the province must already be undertaking or agree to undertake its own program or initiative compatible with those national objectives.

If the national objective, for example, is to provide services for children, then the provinces cannot offer a program based on wilderness parks or highways. I believe that intention is clearly understood by all my colleagues.

It will now be the federal government's task to devise programs that take every region's needs into account thoroughly enough that no province would want to exercise this option. To the extent that it is exercised, we will find a greater variety of compatible programs across the country all sharing the same national objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I remind you that this is a fact of our country today. Various provinces have different programs designed under the framework of national objectives. I refer, for example, to the Quebec pension plan, and health care systems in other provinces, that do, in general terms, subscribe to the national objectives but allow for some provincial flexibility.

The uniformity will be in the objectives; the flexibility in the program variety for their achievement.

The second area of comment has been on the provision allowing the federal and provincial governments to reach agreements on immigration-related matters. These agreements would be regarded as part of the Constitution and therefore could not be changed unilaterally by either government.

There are two key elements to understanding that provision:

1. The guarantee of the right to move anywhere in Canada in

section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply to landed immigrants and those with refugee status. Mobility rights thus take precedence.

A third item of the Meech Lake accord which has received attention is the

interpretation clause, which recognizes Canada's linguistic duality and the distinctiveness of Quebec society. This clause merely recognizes a historical reality. In my view, it just conforms to a simple fact that is obvious to everyone in the country.

Quebec has always occupied a distinct place in Confederation by virtue of its history, linguistic makeup, legal system and culture. Indeed, the Constitution Act of 1867 contained a series of provisions which recognized Quebec's distinctive character. The agreement at Meech Lake is in keeping with that heritage.

The impact of this constitutional recognition will depend largely on judicial

interpretation and evolving circumstances. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is true of all aspects of our Constitution. In a constitutional democracy, politicians set a broad framework and the judiciary ensures that the laws conform to it.

We have achieved our goals as a nation in the past only by creating a tradition of balance and flexibility. We will achieve our goals in the future only by building upon that heritage.

The 1982 reform balanced the impact of a new charter and patriation on our national identity with a more consensual and equitable amending formula to respect our provincial identity. So also today we balance a sensitivity to regional and linguistic interests with a reaffirmation of a single national Constitution as the meeting point of our different hopes. The Meech Lake proposal is not only

an act of reconciliation and bonding but also

an act of allegiance. We have decided to work out our differences rather than to walk out on them.

S'il a été possible, en avril, de rapproacher tant de divergences, c'est que nous pourrons à nouveau recommencer. Ce rapprochement n'est pas qu'une réconciliation mais bien un acte de foi.

It is, in my view, a forward-looking agreement. The provisions for future constitutional conferences build in the flexibility that it needs to keep our Constitution alive -- a living document for a country facing a challenge and an exciting future.

Governing Canada fairly and effectively is a continuing process of forging the national interest from different views and needs. Every generation must face the same basic challenges but does so in the particular circumstances of its own time. Each must find its own answers to these challenges.

I say to you in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, think back to April 30. What would have been the national reaction had we come back from Meech Lake without an agreement? I believe we would have dashed a lot of hopes. I believe there would have been a sense of failure in the country and the question then would be raised, "If not now, when?" or "Will it ever be possible?"

I believe it was a good time to make the agreement that we did. It had been well prepared and well worked through. There were no surprises to anyone. We were operating in an atmosphere of relative calm in this country without any particular pressures. I believe it is an agreement coolly and rationally arrived at. I compare it again to what could have happened had this debate taken place five and a half or six years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I believe and I put to you that the first ministers' agreement at Meech Lake was a good one and very much in the national interest and in the interests of our children. I am very proud to have been a part of that. I am very proud to share that with my colleagues in the House.

I remember some of the great constitutional debates in this House. I remember the time of the patriation in 1982. For me, those were some of the highlights of being a member of this House, sharing our views, reaching out to each other, trying to provide an understanding of each other's views and to take that same understanding and translate that into the national will.

We have to think not only about Ontario's interest but about the national interest as well. I believe the first ministers, in a spirit of harmony, with leadership provided by the Prime Minister, were able to capture that magic moment. I commend it to my friends opposite. I am very interested in hearing their views, but I want to say again that I believe it is a very firm basis for renewing Confederation, not just now but in the future as well.

Mr. Grossman: In rising to join in this very important debate, I want to say to the members of this House that there are obviously many opportunities -- indeed, most -- when the primary purpose of each party is to advance its own interest and views on the political issues of the day. I hope this is not such a day. We in this party believe this debate should be different: different because of the subject at hand, Confederation, and different because it discusses, in essence, the way in which Canadians live together and the way in which they shall be governed.

I remind members that this parliament here in Ontario has a history of honest differences of opinion on Confederation: differences, I say to the Premier, which have traditionally fitted within a consensus about the kind of Canada Ontarians want for themselves, the kind of Canada Ontario governments should fight for, whatever their partisan affiliation.

As a matter of first principle, my colleagues and I are delighted the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues were successful in achieving an agreement in principle to bring Quebec into the Constitution. We want to see the province of Quebec join in the Constitution and charter legally, formally and willingly. We want to see the commitments with respect to free movement of capital, goods and people indeed apply in Quebec and be enforced in Quebec.

We want to see the other provisions of the 1982 agreement apply in Quebec, not simply because the courts indicate that they shall, as indeed the courts have ruled over the past few years, but what is more significant because Quebec agrees to all that.

More significant, the Meech Lake agreement in principle achieves political legitimacy for these elements in Quebec. That surely is important to Canada and to our survival as a nation and our integrity as a people.

It was never my view or that of my colleagues, having sat through many discussions on constitutional revisions over the years, or our understanding or our experience, which goes back many years, that this kind of achievement could be made without some cost in terms of the final shape and scope of the agreement itself.

Indeed, let me say I was there and I remember the day very well when the Charter of Rights issue was first raised by the then Premier of this province, Mr. Davis. It was at a caucus session in the great city of Peterborough and there were many misgivings and much uncertainty with regard to what indeed it did hold. Certainly, those of us with legal backgrounds in particular had a lot of questions to ask.

But as the debate stretched over a period of months and indeed years, we came to understand better the give and take necessary in constructing a national agreement. I am proud to have been part of a cabinet that helped shape nationally the accord, the constitutional agreement of 1982, and to have lived through many, many cabinet meetings and many, many other meetings -- myself and with my colleagues -- discussing the concerns of other provinces and the tradeoffs and the difficulties in trying to shape a national deal.

Based upon that experience, may I say that I think we are fortunate in having a Prime Minister who has been able to reach out to the Premiers, who belong to the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Social Credit Party, and bring them all together to shape this agreement, this accord, in this kind of consensus. Very few Canadians in public life have had such a degree of success in the past or have had the particular focus on the conciliatory role of national government that produces this kind of agreement.

Members will recall the leadership exercised by Premier Robarts in seeking to open up the question of the quality and substance of our Confederation in the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference, which he organized, chaired and sponsored in 1967. That process, I am proud to say, opened up a substantive and meaningful dialogue between Quebeckers and Ontarians which has thrived, despite the odd difficulties, for the past 20 years, and much of that dialogue can be traced right back to Premier Robarts's initiative in 1967.

Two decades later, we in this party counted among our successes on the broad question of Confederation the hard work and determination of Premier Davis, whose efforts were instrumental in achieving the repatriation of our Constitution and the Charter of Rights in 1982.

It is fair to say that in the time of Premier Robarts, Ontario tended to side more with the provincial argument. In the late 1960s and 1970s, that was an appropriate counter-position to a national government that many Canadians had come to view as overly centralist and perhaps insensitive to legitimate provincial aspirations and concerns.

However, with the great changes of the 1970s, including the emergence of a separatist government in Quebec, Ontario decided, and I think quite rightly, to put strong central government and the survival of a national quality to our institutions at the very top of the list of Ontario's ranking of constitutional priorities.

There were some forces at work in western Canada and in Quebec at that time that would not have been displeased if the capacity of our national government to act on behalf of our nation's genuine national interest was reduced. But that trend has been reversed; it has not been reduced so far.

My colleagues and I do not believe a nation is simply a hotel in which provinces happen to be pursuing individual goals. Neither is our nation simply a league. A nation, I think it is fair to say, having mentioned two similes, really begs no simile, but if it is like anything it is surely more like a family which must have the capacity to act in concert to ensure for the family -- all members of it -- opportunity, excellence, freedom and equality.

It is very much a part of Canada's national definition that we pursue the task of self-definition on an ongoing basis. Our family nation, if I may call it that, with so few people spread so thinly across so huge a territory, faces immense challenges in securing its national survival, its sovereignty and any hope at meaningful consensus. Indeed, all of this is fundamentally important if a nation is something different from a league.

All of this is fundamentally important if a nation is to have the ability to provide the same quality of education, the same quality of health care or the same quality of child care in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as it does in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.

I simply want to express this concern today. I wonder whether, in the rush of the Meech Lake accord, we have sustained the family home that was so conserved and so carefully tended by the Fathers of Repatriation, if I may call them that, or have we converted Confederation into a hotel where provincial guests check in and check out at will?

In the one-day rush of the Meech Lake accord, have we in any way diminished the essence of what Trudeau, Davis, Chrétien, McMurtry and Romanow spent two years considering, building, protecting and debating? I was there for all of that time. I was part of the internal dialogue and part of the external dialogue, and as one of those not direct but indirect participants I think the country was better for that process, that process that lasted for two years but allowed discussion, development, analysis and understanding.

I have participated in this kind of thing and I appreciate the euphoria that can settle in. It can even begin to overtake events. I know of the chemistry that sometimes begins in a room, when people come in expecting to have little success or modest success and suddenly sense that, some-where in the middle, there is that chance of pulling off an unexpected bold step. As I said, I know that euphoria sometimes begins to overtake events.

I know the sensation that grips people who have been frustrated and struggled through political life and through all the bureaucratic hurdles that are always put up, when they see, suddenly, a bold ray of sunshine; they see an end, an agreement, and they see it is within their grasp.

I only say to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and I would say to the Prime Minister, that a quick agreement is often not the best agreement. The quick accord is not always the right accord. It may be this time, but I think when it happens so suddenly, in the euphoria of one evening at Meech Lake, hard on the heels of two long years of important maturing and discussion of these issues, we are obliged to step back and analyse, we are obliged to take advantage of the need to finalize the wording in the drafting: to step back.

I think in that circumstance it was obligatory to have a public forum for all of this. Quebec followed the appropriate course and had two weeks of public hearings which produced the most thoughtful and important analysis we have seen of what the Meech Lake accord means and what it does not mean.

Manitoba is undertaking that process. This Legislature voted to have that process. The Premier of Ontario has chosen not to have those public hearings but to rush from the Meech Lake accord right back to Ottawa on June 2 to finalize the wording and then to begin the quick road down to finalization.

What is there to be lost by having public hearings? What is the risk? The risk that Ontarians may better understand what the future holds in terms of national programs? The risk that we may better understand whether we will ever have Senate reform? The risk that some communities in Canada may understand better what the immigration provisions are?

Surely the larger risk is that we offer a blank cheque to other governments or to the courts of this land, all in good faith but not understanding just how big that blank cheque is. What could possibly be the downside risk of allowing the public, allowing Eugene Forsey, to come in and speak for a couple of hours?

As the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) himself pointed out this afternoon, the government consulted Eugene Forsey prior to entering into the accord which gave the Liberals the right to govern, but when it came time to enter into a constitutional accord which, far more important than putting them into office, will change the shape of our national institutions, affect national programs, affect Senate reform, affect immigration in this country: for that, Eugene Forsey's advice was not sought; for that, his opportunity to speak to the public in Ontario was taken away, or at least not given. Why not? What conceivable reason is there?

As I pointed out earlier today, this Legislature is about to undertake hearings to allow the public to come in to speak to truck transport reform. Why not Senate reform? Why not reform of the Constitution of this country?

One of the reasons we thought this public hearing was so vital, and remains so vital, was emphasized, I think, by the opening remarks of the Premier this afternoon. I want to say to the Premier I have looked forward to this debate, because I have pressed for it from the day he returned from Meech Lake. I had anticipated this would be his opportunity to outline for us in some detail his understanding of all the clauses -- not his reading of the clauses, but his understanding of the clauses.

I had hoped that this afternoon the Premier would seize the opportunity to dispel the

interpretation of Premier Bourassa in terms of some of those clauses. I would have hoped this afternoon that the Premier and his Attorney General (Mr. Scott) might take advantage of this opportunity to clarify the difference in

interpretation between M. Rémillard, the Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Attorney General of Ontario on the opt-out provision.

I would have hoped in his comments this afternoon the Premier would have outlined his understanding of the immigration clause for all of us and all Ontarians to know, versus the

interpretation Mr. Bourassa has put on it. We read in the Toronto Star today that Mr. Pawley dramatically disagrees with Mr. Bourassa in terms of the opt-out clause.

This afternoon the Premier had an opportunity to share information with us, to bring us up to date on the latest drafting options, to comment on the Quebec hearings, to outline his understanding and

interpretation of the clauses in question. We are here today not to vote on the accord but for each of our parties to present a position on the accord, the public and our party here in Ontario not having been given even the Premier's

interpretation of the accord, not having been permitted to hear from all the constitutional experts and members of the public, as the people in Quebec have been allowed to do.

We in this party want to support this accord. We want to have Quebec in here. A party such as mine will not claim to have a greater desire to get Quebec into the Constitution than any other party, but neither will we suggest we have a lesser one. We were there in 1982. The William Davis and Roy McMurtry roles were key and fundamental to that 1982 agreement. We stand equal with all parties in desiring to have Quebec in this accord and in the Constitution and to sign the Constitution; but we are entitled to have some answers. We must know the price. Have we given away Senate reform? That is a very real question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier says "No." I will get to that later on.

Have we given away a national day care program? Have we perhaps lost the opportunity to implement a national guaranteed annual income across the country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No.

Mr. Grossman: If the Premier had the answers to these questions, he chose to use about 18 minutes to share with this House his understanding of these very important issues which have been written about in the media for weeks, which have been spoken about by Eugene Forsey and others, which have been debated in the Quebec public hearings, which he will not allow us to have here. If he believes our concerns about losing these programs are not legitimate concerns, why did he not address them a moment ago? He had as much time as he needed to share that information with us.

Has freedom of movement for immigrants been restricted? Quebec clearly thinks so. Does the accord inadvertently undermine minority language rights through the distinct society provision? These are important questions and I have not heard them addressed this afternoon. I have not heard them thoroughly addressed by the Premier or the Attorney General since the night at Meech Lake.

Have we changed this family into a league? Have we changed our nation into a hotel? Is the national interest served by empowering a province with the population of East York to veto further constitutional developments? Is the national interest served by restricting the spending power of the federal government? Is the national interest served by restricting the mobility of new Canadians? Those are important questions.

But within the dynamics of the politics of Quebec and the politics of its legislature, as I have come to understand them -- and I dealt with separatist cabinet ministers and other members of the Quebec assembly for some time -- there are inevitably pressures building which I believe Ontario's government must be prepared to resist.

I want to continue by dealing with the public hearings question. We are on a fast track here. It is a quick accord, achieving in a night what was stitched together by Trudeau and Chrétien and Davis and Romanow and McMurtry over two years.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: And Wells.

Mr. Grossman: And Mr. Wells.

Let me say that I am --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You are wrong. Your facts are wrong.

Mr. Pope: And the Premier doesn't want to explain. No one else has the right to know anything.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is once again saying our facts are wrong. The Premier will have every opportunity to correct my

interpretation of what was happening in the cabinet in which I served for eight and a half years and the media's

interpretation of who built that constitutional deal and how long it took. All I can say is it was an important deal that took a lot of time, a lot of analysis and a lot of public debate, exactly the public debate which the Premier will not allow in Ontario on the Meech Lake accord.

The Premier has had the opportunity to outline the process from here. We understand, having consulted with the federal government, that there will be three years allowed for ratification. The Premier indicates that is accurate. I regret that he has not shared that information with us.

If there are now three years to the point at which we must ratify, I want to say right here I think it is fundamentally important that the government today undertake that, having failed to allow Ontarians the opportunity for public hearings prior to his signing of the Meech Lake accord some time in June, it will unfailingly undertake to allow public hearings before this Legislature is asked to ratify the Meech Lake accord some time later this year or next year. We have not yet got that minor undertaking, minor to the government, major to us.

Why do we need all this? Let me simply refer to the people who gathered yesterday to express concern with regard to understanding the answers to the questions I just posed. This group is comprised of the following people: Eugene Forsey, York University president Harry Arthurs, Manitoba Liberal Party leader Sharon Carstairs, publisher Adrienne Clarkson, author Hugh MacLennan, historian and NDP strategist Desmond Morton, francophone historian and economist Albert Breton, labour conciliator Carl Goldenberg, lawyer Eddie Greenspan and authors June Callwood, Doris Anderson and Farley Mowat.

This very distinguished group of Canadians is not opposed to the accord. This group of distinguished Canadians shares with our party the need to understand it before a blank cheque is signed. They are calling upon the Premier of this province and his colleagues to delay the final signing of the accord until it has been studied and debated in public.

They go on to say, "Although it is a matter of national achievement that there has been a constitutional agreement under which Quebec can enter into the Canadian constitutional order, it is irresponsible and a disservice to Canadians to proceed with new constitutional provisions the terms of which have been largely unexplained and unexplored."

What is the risk, I ask the Premier, in public hearings?

I also want to draw the attention, particularly of the government House leader who spoke so fondly of Eugene Forsey and how much respect he had for him, to the letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail from the same Eugene Forsey, printed this morning. I will read in part what Eugene Forsey said:

"My initial support for the Meech Lake accord was qualified. I said I was `encouraged...' and `hoped that when we got the final product I should feel the same way.' I said also that `the definition of Quebec as a "distinct society" remained a question mark' and that `I'd want to look very carefully at whatever formula was finally produced on that subject.'"

Former Senator Forsey goes on to say:

"I have since looked very carefully at what the accord says on a variety of subjects, and have very serious misgivings not only on the distinct society but on the federal spending power, immigration and the Supreme Court of Canada. On all these, there are obscurities and ambiguities, some of them very dangerous, which need to be cleared up."

It is signed by Eugene Forsey.

In the face of the constitutional advice and the reservations given by Eugene Forsey, the very person who gave to the government the constitutional advice that allowed it to take office, the very person who has been acknowledged as Canada's expert in constitutional matters, when he indicates his reservations and his misgivings saying they need to be cleared up and some are dangerous, I ask the Premier, why have we not had public hearings? Why has this Legislature not been given the opportunity to cross-examine Senator Forsey so that we can understand his misgivings? Hopefully the Premier would take an opportunity to clear them up. He had an opportunity to do that, he has not done it.

I want to turn to some of the clauses, the federal spending power, the opt-out power. The Premier has referred to it and read it into the record. I will not repeat it. Suffice to say that the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, the Honourable Pierre-Marc Johnson, has taken the view that the Meech Lake accord gives Quebec no significant new powers and costs the federal government no economic power. In a sense, I might say Pierre-Marc Johnson has offered some in this Legislature far more comfort by his words than I am sure he intended.

On the other hand, according to the Premier of Ontario, "The proposal will in some ways strengthen Ottawa's ability to set up new social programs, since the agreement formally recognizes the federal government's right to spend on programs in the provincial domain."

The Attorney General has on this occasion agreed with his leader. He is quoted as saying that the Meech Lake document establishes for the first time Ottawa's right to spend money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I pause to say that while the Attorney General denied in this House last week that he had said anything since the Meech Lake accord agreement, it turns out he had given those exact words to Le Devoir perhaps hoping we would not find those words.

Now let us turn to the words of Premier Bourassa. They are far less comforting. In fact, they are different. He said at the first day of public hearings in his province, "We are working now on a legal text that would ensure a legal mechanism that would not give a constitutional groundwork to federal spending." He goes on to say: "It is obvious that this was not the goal of the agreement in principle. It was to limit the spending power of the federal government."

Here we have it: two of the alleged leading architects, the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario, with categorically different views on whether the federal spending powers have been increased or decreased.

I think we have to be frank about something, and that is about the fact that any government of Quebec under any stripe will be under immense pressure to move the goalposts considerably -- that is the way it happens -- so that Quebec will in fact achieve substantive gains in the powers that a distinct society, to use the words of the accord, should have, in its view.

That is the dynamic in any province. Anyone in this House who believes that Quebeckers in good faith, in doing what the accord told them they ought to do -- that is, guarantee their distinct society -- will not try to move the goalposts and will not try to interpret these clauses in order to give themselves dramatically more power than the Premier of this province suggests is naive, with respect, and does not understand the political dynamic that is always at play in Quebec and sometimes boils over.

With so many opposing

interpretations on the record from people who are in the same room signing the same accord, it is clear that we need a broader and clearer definition of the federal spending clause. Under what terms are provinces going to be able to opt out? Are they going to get a lot of money or a little money? What kind of compensation is it? How is it paid? The whole argument over whether they are national objectives or national standards has become extremely vague. In point of fact, the wording is quite clear.

The

interpretations are now running wild. We have seen Mr. Rémillard dramatically disagree with the Premier of Ontario in terms of what is a program compatible with national objectives. We are about to enter into an accord and this House is going to be asked to enter into an accord, which Quebec thinks gives it the power to take the money and have a broad definition of how it can otherwise spend it, and which the government of Ontario believes requires it to have a program very close to the national program set up in its place.

We risk seeding the clouds for dysfunction, serious dysfunction, in areas of social and economic programming, which could be very serious indeed decades from now.

It is not too much to expect from the leaders of this country that they all agree completely and openly in terms of the compensation paid and the degree to which national programs have to be matched to national objectives and standards met by the provinces.

We need to know about the national day care program. It is currently being relied upon in Ontario, as expressed in the budget last week, as key to all of this, as key to improving child care in Ontario, at the very same time at which the Meech Lake accord would seem to threaten the possibility of mounting a national child care program. If I am wrong, the Premier has had several weeks to disabuse us of that, but I am not the only one who has those concerns.

I look across the country -- I have been to every single province -- and I see vast differences in standards and in programs; vast differences, which so far have not been diminished, in quality of education and health care, to name two, across the land. If we, in this accord, diminish the possibilities that the federal government may reinforce those institutions and others, reinforce the social equality in this country that is lacking, then we do them a disservice.

I want to turn now to immigration. On this side of the House we happen to believe that when people emigrate to Canada they emigrate to Canada. When people from Italy, Greece, Portugal, the Middle East, the Caribbean, the Far East or the United Kingdom come to this country they are choosing Canada, all of it. It is important that they not be forced to accept an ethnocentric approach, which in our view would diminish the Canadian ideal and dilute in this country the value of citizenship from coast to coast.

It is important for the people across this land, for the immigrant communities within blocks of this debate, in the shadow of this assembly, to know whether we are going to get 10 provinces each entering into an immigration agreement with the national government of this country.

We want to know whether it is appropriate -- and it says here they may all be entrenched -- that 10 provinces have an immigration agreement entrenched in the Constitution. Is that not going to restrict freedom of movement of immigrants? The Premier shakes his head and says no. He had an opportunity to explain this half an hour ago. He chose not to.

Let me read the accord. In terms of outlining the provisions that might be put in such an immigration agreement, it says, "Guarantee that Quebec will receive a number of immigrants, including refugees, within the annual total established by the federal government for all of Canada proportionate to its share of the population of Canada, with the right to exceed that figure by five per cent for demographic reasons."

It is hard to reconcile a clause that says Quebec may now entrench in the Constitution an immigration agreement ensuring that it gets its proportion plus five per cent of the immigration coming to Canada. What does that say to the people who are looking to reunite their families from Portugal to Toronto? Is this somehow going to restrict the freedom of movement for new Canadians in this country? How else is the clause going to be enforced? We have read in the hearings that Quebec has spoken of the importance of the immigration clause.

Does the immigration clause mean nothing more than that it shall have the right to require its proportion plus five per cent of immigrants to come to Quebec first and then they can leave the next morning?

The Premier says yes. I must say, one of the reasons we needed public hearings was perhaps so someone from the Quebec government could attend here and hear it has signed an agreement that forces a charade.

Quebec is boasting that the longest provision of all those in the accord is in fact the charade which says only that the province has the right to require that a Portuguese immigrant go from Madrid to Quebec City before he or she comes to Toronto with his or her family.

If that is the import of the immigration provisions in the Meech Lake accord, then I suggest the Quebec government is going to be held up to ridicule in its province. It cannot possibly be that is all Quebec thought it was getting. There has to be a dichotomy between the realities as the Premier sees them and the realities as Quebec sees them. Some government has entered into an agreement which either restricts the free flow of new Canadians throughout this country or is a charade. There is no middle ground between those.

It goes on to say that provinces, in signing and entrenching an immigration agreement in the Constitution, will "provide an undertaking" by the federal government "to withdraw services ...for the reception and integration of all foreign nationals wishing to settle in Quebec." I wonder how the minister responsible for multiculturalism in Ontario feels about that.

Should the federal government have no role in the reception and integration of foreign nationals wishing to settle in Quebec? Is that really how you build a country, or is that how you construct a league? Is that how you select draft choices for a new baseball league, or is that how you build a country? A country is a country.

I am mystified and need to be reassured with regard to how immigrants are going to be brought to this country and what their freedom of movement throughout this country is going to be. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, this is only with regard to a Quebec agreement. The Meech Lake accord says each province can enter into an immigration agreement with the federal government.

Another question I have for the Premier, unanswered so far, is that if the Quebec government has negotiated its proportion plus five per cent, which province is going to go to the federal government and say, "We would like to enter into an immigration agreement with you, accepting our proportion minus five per cent"? The Quebec proportion, the five per cent built on the second largest population base in Canada, says in essence to Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, "When you enter into immigration agreements, you are going to get far less than your share minus five per cent."

There can be no other

interpretation. They have agreed that they shall get their proportion plus five per cent. I have not done the calculations, because I have been hoping this is meaningless. The Quebec government tells me it is not meaningless. What does that mean for immigration into Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan? It seems to me to say they will be getting far less than their share.

Where is the five per cent going to come from? It is going to come from some province. Is this a healthy thing for Canada? Should immigrants not have some freedom to select where they are going to live in Canada once they are accepted by the national government of this country as having met the qualifications for immigration; or is it, as the Premier would have it, that "You can live in Regina if you wish, so long as you spend your first night in Quebec City"? I cannot believe the 11 first ministers in this country entered into that sort of agreement at Meech Lake.

I want to go on to the "distinct society" provisions. It goes on to say, "The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with" -- let me go on to paragraph 1(b) -- "the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society." It goes on in paragraph 3 to say, "The role of the legislature and government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (1)(

b) is affirmed."

That is very important, and I will bow to no one when it comes to understanding or respecting the distinct society that is Quebec; but are we today being asked to give a blank cheque to the

interpretation of what Quebec needs to do to protect and promote the distinct identity of Quebec?

As one of those who was around for the signing of the Charter of Rights, I am delighted that there have been tests in the courts under the charter and that they have been successful in some cases. I have been delighted with the success the charter has had in defending minority language rights in Quebec. These rights, precisely the kinds of rights which the charter was created to sustain, have been sustained at the highest level by the judiciary in that province.

My question now to the Premier is, how will the courts interpret the new clause which allows Quebec "to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec"? Could the clause be invoked, as suggested in last week's Financial Times, to justify Quebec's Bill 101? In other words, could the "distinct identity" clause in the Meech Lake accord undermine the protection the charter gave to minority rights in 1982? That is a fundamental question.

Let me read from the article. This is an

article reflecting upon the events since the signing of the accord and the Quebec public hearings, the hearings we could not have in Ontario.

"The question is how the courts will read it. Quebec thinks the clause will introduce a new philosophy of federalism that gives it special powers. Quebec has already mused that it could use the new status to defend laws that might be seen as contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Provincial officials say the clause could be invoked to justify, for instance, a provincial law, Bill 101, allowing signs only in French. Had the distinct identity clause been in effect, Quebec may have been better able to resist legal challenges to this legislation."

Here we have Quebec officials, not having been asked to comment on this in Ontario, not having been given the opportunity to debate this in public hearings in Ontario, actually boasting that the Meech Lake accord could be invoked by them to justify bringing back provincial bills and laws which have restricted minority language rights, those very things that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says they cannot do. Now Quebec officials are hopeful that the Meech Lake accord will overrule the courts, undermine the charter and give