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

October 14, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The people of St Catharines were delighted when former Premier David Peterson and former Minister of Government Services Chris Ward announced that the Ministry of Transportation would be moving to our city and providing 1,400 job opportunities for people in the Niagara region.

There was considerable apprehension in our community when the new NDP government, under considerable pressure from the top echelon of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, appeared to be reluctant to fulfil this commitment to St Catharines, and a sigh of relief when after several months of public and private pressure from the city of St Catharines, the promotional task force and a wide variety of organizations and individuals, the government confirmed that it would follow the decentralization policy of the previous Liberal government and allow the move to take place.

With the St Catharines-Niagara area suffering the highest rate of unemployment in the province and with the potential loss of 3,000 jobs at General Motors over the next few years, the MTO move has taken on new importance to our city. That is why persistent rumours that the MTO relocation could be scaled down or delayed have caused some anxiety in our community.

I urge the government to avoid any delay in the MTO move and to ensure that all 1,400 jobs originally committed by Premier Peterson be provided to the people of St Catharines.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Metro's market value reassessment proposal is scheduled for implementation January 1, 1993. From a purely economic standpoint, that is bad timing for measures that significantly raise the property and business taxes on businesses, since most are reeling from the recession.

The impact on jobs and investment will be devastating. The ability of businesses to absorb tax increases of the magnitude proposed is simply not there. One business in my riding would see property taxes go from $45,000 to almost $200,000. What business could ever locate at this site and be able to pay that amount?

Market value reassessment is based on the artificially high year of 1988 and on the faulty logic that locating a small business in the central core gives it added revenue to pay for these high property taxes. This is simply not true. Some commercial tenants in Metro are presently paying more in property taxes than in annual net rent. Under market value reassessment stores will close, businesses will be forced to move to the outer rim of the city, the tax base will shrink and our inner city will decay.

I call on the Premier to direct an immediate in-depth economic analysis of the effect this tax system would have on businesses in Metro before agreeing to pass enabling legislation. Market value reassessment will destroy this vital economic engine of Metro and Ontario. Common sense must prevail. Market value reassessment must be stopped.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Today, I wish to inform the House about a meeting that I hosted on Friday, October 9, in the evening, dealing with a large group of farmers. The issue that kept coming before us was about stable funding. There were a few points the farmers in my community wished to express. They wished to make sure the members of the Legislature heard some of their viewpoints.

One of their viewpoints that was very close to a lot of them -- the silent majority was there and also the three farm organizations were there as panel members with me -- is that they wanted to express the need for rural Ontario to have a stronger voice in the Legislature here in the province of Ontario, and also with Ottawa, making sure they had a stronger voice against the policies that were implemented by Toronto for Toronto and did not necessarily deal with the issues of rural Ontario.

There is another area they wish me to express, and that expression comes from the issue of mandatory affiliation to the three farm organizations. A lot of the farmers had a belief that there was a democratic process in this province, and they wanted the right to vote on whether to associate with one of those farm organizations.

I think it's very important that the members of the Legislature understand this proposal being put forward by these farm organizations. Farmers in my area are asking for one thing and one thing only: They're asking for the democratic right to associate with one of these farm organizations, to make sure their voices are heard and also that the farm organizations be accountable to the farmers like unions are accountable to their membership.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I recently had the opportunity to meet with a group of very concerned parents. The Canadian Parents for French is an organization representing approximately 200 parents whose children are currently enrolled in the French immersion program in the Muskoka school board.

The Canadian Parents for French is trying to keep their French immersion program operating for their children in Muskoka schools. Their fight is with those who think the Muskoka school board should terminate this program which provides children an opportunity to be educated in both of Canada's official languages.

I rise in support of the Canadian Parents for French. French immersion programs are a vital enrichment to education in our province. We're presently involved in a debate concerning the future of our country. In order to facilitate future harmony, I believe French education programs must be provided where viable and requested.

The Muskoka school board hears that the cost of the program is too great in order to keep it operating. They cite examples of startup costs and transportation costs. However, Canadian Parents for French has gathered indisputable evidence which shows that with grants for startup costs and already available busing, it can prove the cost arguments are wrong. The program is viable, affordable and desirable.

At this time I ask for the support of all parties and all members of this House for Canadian Parents for French in its quest to keep French immersion programs and the French language thriving in Ontario.

GAMBLING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My statement is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This past Tuesday, October 6, you, Madam Minister, announced that you would be moving ahead with a gambling casino somewhere in the Windsor area.

You're not sure where exactly in Windsor this casino will be or why. You have not undertaken any consultations with the Windsor municipal council on where you are going to put the casino or whether the province or the city of Windsor will pay for the escalating law enforcement.

You haven't a clue whether this casino will be run by private enterprise or by the NDP government. You have no idea about the job losses that will arise or whether there will be a revenue gain or loss. You have no plans for any gambling addiction treatment centres. You don't care about the 50,000 job losses to the horse racing industry. You won't comment about the financial losses to the various lotteries and charitable organizations around Ontario.

A member of your NDP caucus, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, has stated that you will be implementing gambling in Windsor by regulation and not by bill. There will be no opportunity to debate this tragic experiment in the Legislature nor will there be an opportunity for all these interest groups and the people of Ontario to provide their input.

Madam Minister, you promised us you would not bring forth gambling casinos in Ontario without a bill that allows full debate in the House and permits full consultation around Ontario. You have broken yet another promise. You have refused to conduct an extensive study on gambling. Instead, you are rolling the dice once again with the jobs and lives of the people of Ontario.

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise today to offer appreciation to the men and women of the Durham Regional Police Force. Along with our local OPP detachment, they offer excellent service and protection for our communities. Despite all the press the big city to the west of us attracts, the experience of the people of Durham is quite different.

October 17 is Durham Regional Police Appreciation Day, and we in Durham have a lot to appreciate in their dedicated service. They have been responsible for maintaining a quality of community life. Under Chief Trevor McCagerty and police association President Dale Allen's leadership, our force maintains a spirit of discipline and dedication to our community.

Last year at the height of the riots in Los Angeles, I met with people in the black community and asked them if they had any fears, and they said no, that when there were problems in Durham, the Durham Regional Police spoke to them first. They involved them in the solution of their problems.

Their task is not easy. The city of Oshawa has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and also one of the highest crime rates, including violent crimes. It would be easy for the police force to resort to heavy-handed responses, to retreat behind concrete bunkers, but they face these difficult challenges with responsibility and maturity. They're excellent role models for the youth of our community. The Durham Regional Police Force demonstrated how we are different. Quietly and confidently, they are no doubt the best that police officers can be.

DISASTER RELIEF TO PAKISTAN

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On September 8, it started to rain in Pakistan. The rain continued day and night for weeks. When it finally ended, over 4,000 people had perished from the flooding, 2,500 Pakistani villages were wiped out, some 900,000 acres of cotton crops had been destroyed and some 400,000 acres of grain crops lost. The loss to the Pakistani economy exceeded $2 billion, almost the entire value of Pakistani exports to the rest of the world.

The devastation of these floods are without precedent in recent history. It is difficult for Canadians to grasp the full dimensions of this sort of natural disaster, let alone the actual ravages of this deluge. Thousands and thousands of Pakistani-born Canadians have had to bear the pain and suffering of these floods in their native land. They have lost friends and relatives, and friends and relatives have lost their futures.

These and other Canadians are rallying in whatever way they can to provide a measure of disaster relief to the people of Pakistan. Last Sunday night, for example, a benefit dinner was held at the Islamic Foundation in Scarborough. It was sponsored by the Abdul Sattar Edhi Charitable Foundation and other organizations, and it attracted over 200 people and raised some $10,000. While it may not be a large sum when compared to the magnitude of the flooding, it does indicate a strong commitment, and it will help.

We commend these dedicated people for their time and their money to help rebuild the affected areas of Pakistan, and we encourage them to persevere. We also plead with other Canadians to join them in these important efforts.

WATER RATES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Recently I attended a public meeting where close to 200 people jammed the arena in Beeton to protest a staggering 180% increase to their water bills. The understandable wrath of village residents has been levelled at New Tecumseth council, when in fact the blame must be shouldered by the provincial Ministry of the Environment.

In February 1988, the village of Beeton and the Ministry of the Environment agreed on an estimate of $700,000 to upgrade both the village's well capacity and the quality of its water. Seven months later the estimate had risen to $2.5 million. In June 1990, the cost to upgrade the well rose to an alarming level of $6 million, nearly nine times the original price. Just when residents of Beeton thought it was safe to talk about money and water in the same breath, along comes the MOE in January 1992 to state that the price of Beeton's new well had now increased to $6.7 million.

Not only have my constituents been led down the financial garden path, but they were told that the well they would be getting would be a test model designed to combat the unique water situation in Beeton. Beeton residents are paying through the nose for the right to act as guinea pigs, yet five years after the problem was diagnosed, their water remains muddy.

I would like to quote Mr Gord Kinnon, who has led the fight to bring fairness to the water rates issue: "It is grossly unfair to saddle a small village like Beeton with such a debt."

Clean water is a necessity of life. The NDP must get its priorities straight and pay a larger portion of the cost of the McKelvey well. Monthly water rates in the amount of $150 and up are not only obscene; they are immoral.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on the opportunity of the referendum that's coming up on the 26th. It's of course a very important issue to most of us, and you can see by my ribbons that I am voting Yes.

I believe it's an important opportunity for all levels of government, particularly the provincial level, we MPPs, to get around our ridings and talk to individuals. I've had an opportunity to get out and speak to quite a few, and I will in the coming weeks.

I had an opportunity to hand out copies of the consensus report at the Markham-Stouffville fair, and people were eager to take it. They wanted the information. They wanted to know what they're voting on. They were pleased to find out that that was the document the premiers had all signed. I think some of the work of the select legislative committee was based in here, and the social charter our Premier had brought forward; to make sure that was part of this consensus report is very important.

What people want is information, and we have to do that. We have opportunities when the House is not sitting to go to some schools. I plan on attending a couple of high schools, Brock High School and Sutton District High School. I think it's important that we give people information, because information is what's going to make them vote Yes or No. If they receive the information they want, get that and review it, I'm sure they'll vote Yes, because it's something we all have to do.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Yesterday, the New Democratic government moved one step closer to ramming Bill 164 into law. The government claims this bill will benefit consumers, but it's clearly understood that these days consumers are mostly concerned about the premiums they have to pay. According to a report that was prepared for the government, the increased costs of this new bill could well mean higher premiums for consumers.

The minister surely knows that in these tough economic times consumers can't take one more hit to their pocketbooks. I would ask the minister to tell us today what this bill is going to cost consumers.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions: The Leader of the Opposition raises a question that has been raised for about a year now, since I introduced this legislation last December. The answer hasn't changed at all.

For the last two years, the auto insurance industry in this province, as a result of Bill 68, the Liberal legislation, has been making record profits which by anybody's standards are far beyond the adequacy required for that industry.

I have said repeatedly to the media in this province and in this House that it's my belief we can implement these changes, even though they do have additional costs attached to them, without any increase in premiums.

Mrs McLeod: It's very clear that the answers do change. In fact, they change with a rather bewildering degree of inconsistency.

It's quite right that back in December when the bill was originally introduced, the minister was adamant that the changes would be brought in without any price increase to consumers. He repeated that assertion a month ago, on September 11, but then about 12 days ago, in another one of the dramatic about-faces we've come to expect from this government, the minister admitted that consumers could well face increases in their auto insurance premiums as a result of the bill.

Minister, given your about-face on the issue of cost increases and potential premium increases, it is clear that you do not understand or are not willing to acknowledge the cost implications of the legislation you've put before this House. What are you actually telling consumers? Why will you not tell us what the full cost will be and exactly how you are going to handle those cost increases? Tell us with some degree of certainty, will there or will there not be premium increases as a result of this legislation?

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess I have to give a bit of a history lesson here in order to understand the context.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Before the official opposition, as the Liberal government, implemented Bill 68, it did actuarial estimates of what the cost of that legislative change would be. That party, then the government, seriously overestimated what the package would cost and allowed the industry, which was probably already well funded, to take an 8% increase it didn't require.

In any event, before the implementation of a plan, all anybody ever has are actuarial estimates of the cost. It is my belief -- I repeat, my belief -- based on the studies I have seen, that we can implement these changes without any premium increases.

Mrs McLeod: I would suggest that the minister might try and respond to the questions by dealing with his legislation, the legislation he's proposed, the legislation we're trying to deal with in this House today.

You could understand the confusion the minister's created in spite of his efforts to provide an answer through a history lesson, because this is the minister who said that there will be cost increases resulting from the bill but who will not tell us what the cost increases will be. This is the minister who says, if I'm quoting him correctly, that he will, after all, have to talk to the industry after it's over and get a sense of what the costs will be and what that might do to premium increases.

It just seems to me that it makes sense to figure out what the legislation is going to do before you pass the legislation, rather than passing it and figuring out what it's going to do to people afterwards.

It is very hard to get a sense of what kind of commitments this minister is making in presenting this legislation. Is he or is he not saying that the cost increases in this bill will lead to increased premiums for consumers? Minister, if increased costs start to drive the premiums up, is it not true that you fully intend to simply freeze the premiums, and if that in fact is true, is this not simply your back-door way into public auto insurance?

Hon Mr Charlton: The government had an actuarial study done which happens to be the most comprehensive study of the costs of auto insurance in Ontario ever done by the government in this province. That study indicates cost increases, loss cost increases, as a result of the legislative package in Bill 164. Those costs were estimated to be in the 4.8% range, I believe. Our estimates of the costs in excess of adequacy that exist in the industry at the time we introduce this legislation allow us to believe and continue to believe that we can implement this package within an adequate framework for the industry without premium increases.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question will be to another minister who wants us to believe what the facts will be without doing any studies to justify them: the Minister of Labour.

Minister, you'll be well aware that last Friday's unemployment figures showed that in every province except Ontario the jobless picture is improving, yet your government continues to push ahead with wrongheaded policies, such as your proposals to reform the Labour Relations Act, that will only cost more jobs and make those unemployment figures look even worse.

Minister, recently Ron Foxcroft, who owns a company in Hamilton and was named one of Canada's top entrepreneurs during the past decade, said that he moved his new plant to Buffalo rather than face Ontario's new labour law. Can you tell this House again why you continue to believe, in the face of evidence such as this and without any studies of your own, that Bill 40 won't cost Ontario jobs?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the answer to that is pretty basic. It's simply that we have to --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You don't understand the impact; that's the problem.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The answer to that is pretty basic. One of the things we have to do to meet rather changing and tough economic times today, not just in Canada or Ontario but in the world, is to come up with a better labour-management relationship. We have to start working together, and one of the ways we do that is with a much more level playing field.

Mrs McLeod: The previous minister wanted to talk about history. The minister I'm addressing now wants to talk about Canada and the world. I want him to talk about Ontario. I want this minister to talk about Bob Rae's Ontario, in which 547 people lose their jobs every working day; I want him to talk about Bob Rae's Ontario, where one plant closes every three days; I want him to talk about the fact that if we look at Canada, we see that things are getting better in provinces from Newfoundland to British Columbia, but in Bob Rae's Ontario things are getting worse.

Let me give the minister one more example. Dare Foods, which wanted to build a new plant in Milton, Ontario, and which would have given much-needed jobs to that town, decided that it could not face Bill 40, and Dare has moved that plant to the United States.

Minister, how can we possibly believe you when you say that no jobs will be lost as a result of Bill 40? How can we possibly believe you when you won't do a job impact study and when you won't listen to what businesses are clearly telling you about what this bill is already doing to them?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We don't have the OLRA amendments in place at this moment in the province of Ontario. It's pretty hard to blame any moves or any plant moves --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Caplan: The processes are damaging this province.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, once more, please face facts. Please take your head out of the sand. Please understand that across this country things are actually getting a little bit better, but in Ontario the economy is getting worse. The problem, Minister, is here in Ontario, and a large part of the problem, Minister, is your labour laws.

Minister, in face of all of this evidence, these real examples of jobs that have already left the province because of what you are planning to do, won't you please agree to delay the passage of Bill 40 at least until you do a proper job impact study?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The leader of the official opposition said she wanted to talk about Ontario and not the rest of the world. Ontario, however, is part of the world, and I hope she recognizes that.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We are all part of the world. Stop; hold page 1. Stop the presses.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): A brave new world.

Mrs Caplan: What planet are you on?

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I was asked a question, Mr Speaker. I thought they wanted an answer, but I'm not sure that they do.

There is nothing in the OLRA amendments that doesn't exist plus in most of western Europe, and they have done very well, thank you. So I don't know how you blame our economic situation on a series of amendments we have proposed that are not yet in place in Ontario.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Education.

Minister, this morning my caucus and I launched and unveiled and released volume 2 of New Directions: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. We sent your ministry over an advance copy yesterday. If the minister doesn't have it, I'd be happy to send over my copy, which has all my little secret notes on; I'd be happy to share those with the minister. But he has his copy, and I appreciate that.

Mr Minister, one of the recommendations that we called for in New Directions would be very familiar to you. We called for the immediate establishment of a school nutrition program throughout Ontario. Minister, this is the eighth time that I have asked your government to show some leadership on this issue since you took power over two years ago, and still we see nothing. The last time I asked the Minister of Community and Social Services, she told me that she, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and yourself were all "cooperating." That was about six months ago.

We've seen how far all this cooperating has gotten us, Mr Minister. I'm asking you today: When can we expect to see a nutrition program in our Ontario schools?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I do want to say to the leader of the third party that I have received a copy and I read it with great interest.

Specifically to his question -- although my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has the lead responsibility for this, I will certainly answer his question, because I presume he may want to follow it up with some other questions dealing with some of the other points that are raised in his report -- I would say to him that we remain very much committed to proceeding with the nutrition program. We are looking at the different possibilities.

There have been very recent discussions, both in cabinet and in some committees, that involve people from the different ministries, including my ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services and others. We expect a report to come back to cabinet very shortly and expect that my colleague and/or I and other ministers will be making announcements about directions of this program. It remains very much something that we want to do.

We are looking at all the different possibilities of ways in which it could be put together, looking at the experiences of places where these programs already exist and trying to see what would be the most sensible way to proceed.

Mr Harris: "Very soon," "shortly," "announcement coming": It's the same answer I've heard eight times over a period of two years, and we still have no leadership from you or from your Premier on this issue.

In the Kitchener-Waterloo area, the May Court Club sponsors a snack program which provides nutritional food to over 200 kids every school day. It costs the taxpayers no money and it goes a long way in giving kids a better start to their day.

Minister, the program I've talked about we can get up and running tomorrow. It requires not one new bureaucrat, not one new civil servant; it requires not one cent of taxpayer dollars. It requires leadership and commitment from you and your Premier and your government. If there is a will and if there is a commitment for coordination on your part, it can start tomorrow.

Minister, it's not about money. It's not about interministerial cooperation. Will you sit down with me today, with the Leader of the Opposition, with the leader of the Liberal Party, with the Minister of Community and Social Services, with the Premier or somebody with the Premier's office and with parents and teachers so that we can start this program, with our leadership, with no cost to the taxpayers, next Monday in all Ontario schools?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think the leader of the third party knows full well that you don't start a program like this in a couple of days, but I would be very happy to meet with him and to meet with any other members of the House who are interested in this issue. I'm sure that I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House in saying that this is quite frankly an issue on which we do want to work with people from all sides.

One of the things we have been doing is talking with school boards that have been delivering these programs to see the kinds of things they have been doing. We recognize fully in that that the programs can be delivered with, certainly, contributions from the private sector. We think that in order for the program to work effectively there needs to be some coordination, whether it's at the provincial level or at the local level, and those are the kinds of things we are looking at. We haven't simply been talking to ourselves. We've been talking to school boards that have this experience.

We've been talking to the people who have been delivering these kinds of programs to see what the best structure would be if we were going to move this initiative on a provincial level.

Mr Harris: Every time I ask this question, and I think it's perhaps typical, I hear: "We need a bureaucracy. We need a commission. We need to hire new people. We need to budget the dollars."

In Grey county the Red Cross coordinates a very successful nutrition program. It is funded by donations, not tax dollars. In fact, the schools and parents' groups raise money themselves. In two schools alone, approximately 85 students are given a nutritional boost during the day. The teachers' associations have all committed startup money and their help and their cooperation. In only two months the Red Cross group started and accomplished what your government has failed to come close to in two years.

Minister, let me ask you this question -- and I'm asking you as Minister of Education because it is an educational issue; it is a great concern to educators that many children are not learning as they should learn because they're hungry: Why is it that your government is more interested in a bigger civil service, in how many more people you can hire to run a program, than you are in making sure that our kids get a healthy start to their day?

Hon Mr Silipo: It's one thing to try to deal with this issue in as non-partisan a way as possible, but when the leader of the third party starts to throw around statements like "This government is more interested in a bigger civil service" when he knows full well that we've set a course that will reduce the size of the civil service over the next two years, I think he should put the facts before us if he wants to deal with this in a partisan way rather than in a non-partisan way.

As he well knows, there is nothing right now that prevents school boards and others that are interested in moving in this area from doing so. What we have been trying to do is see what kind of not just leadership but assistance we could be providing at the provincial level to deal with the best way of coordinating these programs. We know there are disagreements out there about whether we should be doing this at all, but we've said very clearly that we believe this is a direction we want to pursue.

What we are trying to do now is figure out the best way to do this. We may not be moving as quickly as all of us would like to be moving on this, but we are going to move on it and we will see results.

Mr Harris: You're not moving at all. You just can't accept that something will work unless you can spend taxpayers' dollars and hire more people to run it. That's the problem.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, according to your own government book on Agencies, Boards and Commissions for 1992-93, the Ontario Energy Corp, established to handle Ontario shares in Suncor, was scheduled to be phased out in 1992-93. That's what your book said.

However, this past spring, under direction from the NDP cabinet, the mandate of the Ontario Energy Corp was secretly changed and is now up and running to provide enhanced benefits to the aboriginal and northern people of Ontario in energy activities. Mr Doug Davison, former colleague of Marc Eliesen from Manitoba, is the general manager of this newly mandated corporation.

Minister, can you tell us what you know about the Ontario Energy Corp? Why was its mandate changed? Why was it necessary, other than to provide jobs for former colleagues of Mr Eliesen's, when we already have the Ministry of Energy with a branch dealing with natives, when Ontario Hydro has set out a whole new department to deal with natives and energy, when the natives secretariat already exists within the government, when the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has a native section, when the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and the minister responsible for native affairs are all doing the same thing? Why was it necessary to change the mandate of the Ontario Energy Corp?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The leader of the third party raises an interesting question and he puts it in an interesting way. It's unfortunate that the leader of the third party should have to stand in this House and say that we've done things in secret. The OEC sat with Lakehead University and negotiated an educational package that included a whole lot of public sector and private sector stakeholders to put together a very interesting add-on to the engineering program at Lakehead University. None of that was done in secret.

But to be more specific, the Ontario Energy Corp still has a portfolio to manage. The Treasurer and the government have made decisions around dealing with the Suncor portfolio. We've made some initial steps in that respect. The mandate change was a change that was in fact intended in the short run while we go through that management of a declining resource to utilize some of the income from that resource for beneficial purposes in Ontario.

Mr Harris: Given all the ministries that have jurisdiction in this area, including Ontario Hydro, I don't know how you can justify setting up this department.

I also have here expense statements for Mr Davison, for a Don McGregor, senior consultant at OEC, and a Mr Peter Ferris, a Winnipeg consultant.

According to these documents, Mr Davison was paid $10,000 a year for expenses in the first six months of this year. Mr McGregor was reimbursed to the tune of $13,000 for moving expenses from Bermuda, including $200 to move his pet. Mr Ferris, as an out-of-province consultant, has submitted expenses in the neighbourhood of $85,000 since your government took over.

Minister, how can you justify this duplication of effort and this abuse of tax dollars?

Hon Mr Charlton: First of all, the creation of an access program for a minority group is not a duplication of anything; it was the fulfilling of a need that was going unfulfilled.

Second, that need has been very warmly welcomed in the community of Thunder Bay, where in fact we announced it some months ago.

Last, all the questions the Leader of the Opposition has raised about the expenses are all expenses that in fact the board approves at the Ontario Energy Corp under Management Board guidelines and under the mandate of the OEC; not as a result of the change of the mandate, but under the mandate that was set by the Conservative government when the OEC was created.

Mr Harris: I know that this waste is small stuff and the minister likes to only focus on the big stuff. But these claims go on and on and on. Lunch meeting after lunch meeting is charged to the Ontario taxpayer. We have seen how this government has allowed Ontario Hydro to become a monster completely out of control. Now we find out the Ontario Energy Corp, which you and your government say in the 1992-93 book is to be wound down, is seemingly running its own extravaganza.

It appears the OEC has become a totally redundant make-work project for NDP pals, with the taxpayer footing the bill. You don't seem to have a clue what's going on in your ministry or in these agencies. I would ask you this: Do you have any idea how much this new mandate at the Ontario Energy Corp is costing Ontario taxpayers, and why was it the Ontario Energy Corp that was given a new mandate when you've got Ontario Hydro and all the other ministries doing the same thing?

Hon Mr Charlton: First of all, the leader of the third party hasn't listened to the first two answers I gave. This work that the Ontario Energy Corp is doing is not costing the taxpayers of this province anything. It's using moneys from an investment that many have criticized, that the Conservative government made some many years ago, to the benefit of Ontario residents, without having to tax them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Mills is out of order. Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: The Ontario Energy Corp is in fact just putting money that would accrue to the people of Ontario to a use that the people of Ontario have applauded. The kind of access program that the Ontario Energy Corp has negotiated with Lakehead University and with a number of other private sector players in this province is an extremely important initiative that will, fortunately for the people of this province, when the Ontario Energy Corp is long part of the history of this province, go on as a useful memorial to the initiatives that corporation took on behalf of the aboriginal people of this province.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. The job action by Metropolitan Toronto police officers is now in its 10th day. The situation appears to be at a stalemate. The Solicitor General and the Premier cannot continue to pretend that they have no role to play in trying to bring about a resolution to this very serious matter. This government needs to exercise some leadership. Somebody needs to take the first step.

Minister, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association represents nearly one third of police officers across Ontario, and these officers clearly believe that you have failed to consult and to work with them on issues that affect the way they do their jobs.

Minister, why will your Premier not sit down with them now to listen to their concerns and take steps to resolve the impasse?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As I had indicated in previous House responses, this government and my ministry, and I in particular, have met all along with the major police stakeholders and other representatives of the community in the development of these regulations. I have also indicated that I am ready, willing and able to meet with the appropriate representatives with respect to this issue, and I believe the Premier has stated publicly that when there is a cessation of this improper job action, he too is willing to meet with them, to hear any grievances or concerns that may be somewhat misguided with respect to this regulation.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we are very deeply concerned, as I'm sure you are, to see this kind of dissension spreading. It is clearly a very deepening rift between the government and the police. I simply feel that you cannot refuse to listen to the grievances simply because the grievances are coming from the police. Surely they deserve the same kind of hearing you would give to any other group. At the very least, the police in the province are looking for you to acknowledge that the police-government relationship has been severely strained and that there is an urgent need to open the lines of communication.

If your Premier refuses to meet with the police association to try and resolve this most immediate and urgent impasse, I ask you again what you will do to resolve the impasse now.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'd like to answer the question on two fronts. One, unfortunately, is repetitive, but the question itself was repetitive. There has been no cessation of ongoing dialogue between police stakeholders and this government. I mean, it's a matter of record and it's the fact.

With regard to the question about the Premier meeting with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association or other police officials, I'm sure, I'm positive that had such a request come prior to this job action, which is inappropriate and illegal, the Premier, as he has consulted with a wide variety of groups, would have been more than pleased to meet with these particular people, and is pleased to meet with them subject to this improper job action coming to a close.

I must say that this particular action is a matter that is within the purview and the responsibility of Chief McCormack and the police services board. I support the chief and the board in the actions they have taken to date in this improper work action and I believe that, given the opportunity, they will draw this matter to a conclusion.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the recipient of the Ultimate Wasteland Award, the Honourless Ruthless Grier, Meanster of the Environment, who is presented this award from the Friends of Vaughan CARES as an advocate of trashing people's rights, wasting the environment, dumping on social equity and lining the environment with garbage. This, if you didn't know, is the Minister of the Environment.

I want to ask the minister, as one who has been committed to denying a review of all options that deal with Metro's garbage and who, having stated that landfills are a safe, and probably the best, technology for getting rid of garbage, therefore has not considered any of the other options that are available, a question to protect the people of Peel, York and Durham: Are landfill sites safe?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I think that's a very general question. Let me start by disavowing the

preamble to the question and saying I'm not sure that wit is worthy of the member's usual standard, but I'll take it from whence it comes.

Let me say to him that there are many landfills that are not safe, landfills that were put in many years ago without the proper environmental assessment, without the proper engineering controls. What is essential is that in developing a new landfill there is a planning process that makes sure that the best possible site is chosen, that the site is then subject to the most stringent environmental examination, that the examination is subject to examination by an independent board and then that the engineering and the design and the technology of that landfill is the best that can be obtained.

That is our intention with respect to the GTA. I am assured, and can assure him, that it will be as safe as a landfill can possibly be.

Mr Cousens: Madam Minister, the fact is that landfills are an environmental nightmare. The Environmental Research Foundation in Washington, DC, issued a report on landfills and why they fail. The report states that clay liners crack; chemicals like benzene eat through clay liners; plastic liners break down; mothballs, vinegar, alcohol, shoe polish, peppermint oil will all degrade a plastic liner; composite liners leak; leachate collection systems don't always work; if a pipe should plug, pressure will build up and blow holes in the bottom layer.

This all adds up to a contamination of groundwater and the environment. Are you prepared to sacrifice the environmental safety of the people of York, Durham and Peel for what you believe?

Hon Mrs Grier: That's a very difficult question for me to answer. I hope the member by now knows that environmental safety is a primary consideration, not just for me but for this government, and that in our consideration of the very difficult decisions about what to do with waste, the environment and the protection of the environment comes first. That is why we have made waste reduction the primary component of our waste management policy.

The consequences that the member outlined, many of the chemicals that he has indicated have been found in landfills in the United States, are precisely the kind of hazardous wastes that ought not to be going into a landfill. We intend to put in place and have put in place policies that will make sure that what goes into landfill today is quite different from what went into landfill in the past.

Let me address what I think is the underlying premise of the member's question, which is that it is better to incinerate waste than it is to landfill. If he is for a moment suggesting that the people in York, Durham and Peel are prepared to accept polluting, belching, expensive, counter-to-3Rs incinerators, I don't believe him, and certainly this government is not prepared to.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, Kingston's public utilities commission is seeking to build a cogeneration plant that will burn natural gas to produce both electricity for the city of Kingston and heat for about 20 city institutions.

The public utilities commission cites several economic benefits to Kingston. Fixed-price contracts for natural gas will provide stable energy prices lower than what Hydro currently charges. Building the plant will create jobs at a time when work is badly needed. Lower energy costs will attract new businesses to Kingston and encourage ones already in the city to expand. In both cases, more jobs will be created. Lower energy costs will also lower the operating costs for institutions like Queen's University and local hospitals, thereby saving them money in tough economic times.

There are several environmental benefits to this cogeneration proposal as well. There will be better control of emissions through burning natural gas in a central facility using the latest technology. Natural gas is more environmentally friendly than coal and nuclear power, which supply much of Hydro's energy. The proposal includes the use of absorption coolers in the heating systems, which would allow the replacement of air-conditioning equipment that consumes chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs.

Given these economic and environmental benefits, will you support the Kingston PUC's cogeneration proposal?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for Kingston and The Islands for the very important question that he's asked. It's not dissimilar to one that the member for Parry Sound asked me about last week.

The government in this province has an obligation to all of the electricity users in this province to ensure that they have a reliable and affordable source of electricity. Although some utilities, like the Kingston utility, have the capability of providing this kind of service, and perhaps even lower rates to their residents, the result for the rest of the province, especially in the circumstances we have today, with a surplus on the Hydro system, would be a rate increase.

We can't force the rest of the province, most specifically the small utilities and the remote areas of this province, to suffer and carry the load and subsidize communities around projects like this. Our best option for the future is to maintain the public power pool and to get through the difficult times we're in together, so that we can move to create an energy electrical system in this province that's efficient and effective for Ontario's future.

Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Minister, one of the concerns expressed about this project is that the less expensive energy costs will remove an important incentive to conserve energy. What can the minister do to ensure the continued conservation of energy should this project go forward?

Hon Mr Charlton: In the fall of 1990, very early into the mandate of this government, we made energy efficiency, conservation of energy, the government's top priority, and we have no intention of reducing that priority in any way, shape or form. Energy conservation defers the need for the kinds of very expensive supply options that have caused us the current problem, and supply options in Kingston or anywhere else are no more an answer to a supply option approach than they were in the past. Electrical energy efficiency and energy efficiency in general have to remain the top priority of the government. We intend to pursue that as the number one priority in terms of energy initiatives.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, on July 7 of this year, I raised in the Legislature the matter of cutbacks by your ministry in ambulance services. I specifically mentioned that as a cost saving measure, call-back crews were not being called in on duty when the first ambulance had left town on an emergency call. These new conditions mean that an ambulance responding to a life-threatening emergency like a car accident or a heart attack could take from 14 to 18 minutes to respond, rather than four to eight minutes.

Minister, this has created real concerns in not only my area but also in many other parts of the province. I have here today thousands of names on forms signed by constituents in my area who are very worried about this situation, and they also understand that you have received many petitions and letters from many other areas of the province. I also have full-page newspaper articles which have appeared in the Quinte area. I would like to send these over to you. Can you tell me, Minister, where this matter now stands and whether you have taken any steps to correct this problem?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): The member raises an issue which many members of the Legislature have spoken to me about with respect to concerns about funding of ambulance services in their parts of the province. As the member knows, with respect to ambulance services that are run by private owner-operators as opposed to those services that are run directly by the Ministry of Health, those services out there received a 1% transfer payment. Within the Ministry of Health directly, our vote was not increased by 1%. We've had to deal with workload pressures internally, juggling within the ministry's budget lines.

I think the pressures that are on operators out there are very real; I don't deny that at all. What I do need to say is that within the fiscal climate, the 1% transfer payment is the only money we have available. There is no more I can do with respect to transferring more money. What we can do, and what we have done successfully in a number of communities, is sit down with the owner-operators, with the unions and with the Ministry of Health emergency health services branch, and actually look at the plans they have and see if there are ways of implementing plans that help protect front-line services but meet the fiscal agenda as well.

Mr O'Neil: Minister, we did speak with your emergency health services branch. Like you, they said that in their view no emergency calls will be affected by this 1% budget.

Let me relate one case that just happened in the riding of Quinte. A Quinte resident who had a heart valve transplant operation in Kingston developed complications one week after the operation. She was rushed to the Belleville hospital emergency. The Belleville cardiologist discovered fluid around the heart. The Belleville doctor immediately called Kingston hospital and the surgeon who did the original operation. The Kingston surgeon said he would operate immediately on her if they would rush her to Kingston. This is at 1 pm in the afternoon.

An ambulance was called. The ambulance did not arrive until 4 pm at the Belleville General Hospital. When the ambulance did arrive, this patient had to share the ambulance with another patient going to Kingston. She was rushed to Kingston and she was operated on at 6 pm. Minister, can you tell me how you will move to protect patients like this one, who risked more serious complications and possibly death from a delayed ambulance response time?

We've also heard that you sat down with the people in the Sudbury area and that you've given them a large amount of money so they would have a backup ambulance. I'd like your comment. This is a very serious incident and I'm afraid that a lot more are going to happen if we don't get some sort of answers.

Hon Ms Lankin: If I could start with the first part of the member's question with respect to the actual case that he brought forward, I'd be pleased to look into the details and share those with him with respect to the case.

I can almost guarantee him, just based on the fact situation he laid out, that this was a situation where in fact the code that went in, the call that went in, was not an emergency call. It would certainly not have been that kind of time. It sounds like it was handled as a routine transfer. I don't think that has anything to do with respect to the number of services there; it has to do with how it is coded when it is called in. We'll check on that and we'll let you know, but I think that the fact situation actually doesn't support the case he is making with respect to the impact of the 1%.

The offer that I make for any part of the province to have someone come in and sit down and try and work through the problems is an offer that stands, and that's exactly what happened in the Sudbury area. I would like the member to be very clear about what happened in Sudbury.

As the owner-operator had the books reviewed by the Ministry of Health, we found out that this person who had taken over the operations fairly recently had not even filled out the budget papers correctly, that there were a number of things that were to be filed and claimed for that weren't and that there was $80,000 owing to that operation in terms of that budget. The full amount of money that was as a deficit was much more significant than that and there's still some deficit remaining.

But in each of those situations we'll try and work out the problem. I want the member to be very clear that in no situation have we forked over additional moneys, as he has suggested, above the 1%. I'm sorry, but that's all the money there is.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. We've now concluded the second reading debate on Bill 164, of course, which is your plan to completely botch up the auto insurance business, and you have indeed made a mess of it.

My question is a question I have asked before and which the leader of the official opposition has asked and on which statements were made in this House during debate. All those questions have continued to remain unanswered. That question has to do with insurance premiums. Both your own studies, the Mercer studies, say that rates are going to go up. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that rates are going to go up.

You originally made a promise in this House and outside this House that rates were not just going to stay the same, that they were going to go down. I'm going to ask you again, how do you intend to live up to your promise to reduce auto insurance rates?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): I don't know how many times I have to address this question and answer it. Clearly, first of all, the Mercer study does not say -- so the member should be correct when he raises issues in the House -- that premiums will go up. The Mercer study clearly says that this package I've introduced has costs that the Liberal package doesn't have. The Mercer study also says that the Liberal product was severely overpriced; there's too much money in the system.

Premiums have already gone down in this province by an average of over 4% and I have said that I believe, based on all the studies I've seen, the study which the Leader of the Opposition says we didn't do, there will be no premium increases resulting from the implementation of this package.

Mr Tilson: It's the same old answer, the same old tired answer that you gave the Leader of the Opposition, the same old answer that you have given me.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Why don't you come up with a new question?

Mr Tilson: Well, you could say, "Come up with a new question." The fact is that he's not answering it because all of his studies, his own studies, which are very few, I might add, and all of the studies of the Insurance Bureau of Canada say that rates are going to go up.

My question to you is, do you plan to unilaterally control these rates through cabinet control of the regulations? How are you going to do that, because the fact of the matter is that your benefits are uncapped. Many of your benefits are uncapped. They're going to go up. Who's going to pay for these things?

Hon Mr Charlton: I repeat part of an answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition earlier. The Mercer study is the most comprehensive study of auto insurance costs ever done in the province of Ontario by anyone.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What did it say about rates?

Mr Tilson: You should start all over. Your own study said that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: I maintain the answer that I have given a number of times. I believe that the implementation of this package will not require any premium increases. I don't believe, therefore, that there's any need to even consider the rest of the question the member put.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The people of my constituency live in rural areas. They may not necessarily be involved in farming, but these areas have traditionally relied on economies that have had their basis in agriculture, even though now only 2.2% of Ontario's families live on farms.

The rural communities in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, like the towns of Picton and Napanee, have been hurt by the fact that their main street business areas have lost the businesses that support neighbourhood activities. These areas, like the rest of the province, have been very hard hit by the recession. Can the minister tell me whether the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has looked at the problem of revitalizing our rural communities and whether the ministry has taken any steps to attempt to provide equity between city and country?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I appreciate the member's question. He quite rightly identifies that rural communities which have been dependent on agriculture for a number of years, and in fact grew up to support the agricultural industry, are now suffering some economic difficulties.

In the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, we do have a program, called Ten Steps to Community Action, which attempts to provide leadership for people from local communities for training to develop initiatives locally so that they can come up with economic resources and activities to support themselves and develop action-oriented solutions to provide employment in the local communities.

We have been very supportive of that program; it's very popular. It was 10 programs for last year and seven so far this year, and we expect to have many more applications for us to support that program, which is called Ten Steps to Community Action.

Mr Johnson: This is without a doubt a good program, but I was wondering if the minister could tell us about other projects that might be undertaken across the province that address these very real rural economic development problems.

Hon Mr Buchanan: We have initiated some discussions with other ministries such as Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. We have been talking about community economic development and how we might support local communities to provide community economic development.

I would remind the member that we already have done something very recently: we've supported the horse industry and the racetrack business. Some $10 million was provided over four years to support the horsemen. Assistance is going to be provided to racetracks across the province, which is going to help the small entrepreneur who is involved in the horse racing industry.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Deputy Premier, and it has to do with the police and the role of the police in our society. The Treasurer will know that it's a matter that we've been on for a year now.

It was almost exactly a year ago that the opposition received from some whistle-blower in the public sector a copy of a rather innocuous document from Treasury. That happened on October 2. On October 15, at 11:30 am, our interim leader, the member for Bruce, was visited by two OPP anti-racket squad investigators, interrogating him about how we received this information.

We continue to pursue this, Treasurer, because we've never had an answer from the government. I would say to you, Treasurer, now that you've had a chance to look back on that episode, do you feel that the use of the OPP was an appropriate use of our provincial police force in investigating the opposition?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): If I can cast my mind back to that point in history, it seems to me that came about as a result of a security leak of a confidential document. What I and others in government were concerned about was that with the budget coming up in the next following couple of months after that event, something might happen that somebody truly could benefit from if a leak occurred.

I remember thinking at the time that if we didn't plug these kind of leaks, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would be on his feet telling us we should have taken action earlier in order to put into place some preventive measures so that somebody wouldn't gain from a confidential leak.

Finally, we did not direct the OPP to go and talk to the member for Bruce. The OPP decided whom they would talk to as a result of the investigation. We didn't decide that.

Mr Phillips: I'm sorry to hear that answer, because I honestly thought the Treasurer would say, "It is wrong to call the police in to go after the opposition on a document like that."

Treasurer, I listened carefully to your comments yesterday and I agreed with much of what you said. You said, "When I think about the police force, which is paid to enforce the laws, engaging in this type of action, I worry a great deal about it, because I think it runs counter to everything that we in a democratic society believe in."

I would say as strongly as I can that I think it's wrong for the government to call in the police to silence the opposition. I will say to the House leader that that's exactly what happens. We are going to continue to pursue this until we have an answer from the government.

Next week the standing committee on administration of justice will call as witnesses you, Treasurer, the Minister of the Environment and the Solicitor General to get at this matter. It's that important to us, believe me.

I want to ask the Treasurer, or I should say the Deputy Premier, will you agree to come to that committee next week and give the committee the guidelines the government intends to use when it will instruct the police when and when not to go after the opposition?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is the first time I've heard the member for Scarborough-Agincourt ask a ridiculous question in the many days that he's asked me questions in this assembly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): It just shows you guys don't know how to deal with the police in any way.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa West.

Hon Mr Laughren: I didn't mean to upset the opposition so much, but here we have a year-old question that's been answered on numerous occasions, and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has never indicated to this House that he believes there shouldn't be security in Treasury around confidential documents at budget time.

Secondly, at no point -- and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt knows this, so I'm very surprised at his continuing to put the question the way he does -- did the government or anyone in government direct the OPP to interview anybody, to conduct an investigation. He knows full well that no instructions were given to the OPP to investigate or talk to members of the opposition. That is a completely unfair and unfounded accusation, and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt knows it, which is why I referred to it as a ridiculous question, and that accusation stands.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I'm sorry I won't have the opportunity for a supplementary, so I'll have to do it all in one.

The red meat producers, Mr Minister, are very disappointed and dismayed at you cutting $7.5 million of very needed net income. They anticipated that this program would go on till 1994. They have now been cut off this year: $7.5 million of income. Mr Minister, I know arrangements have been made between the Cattlemen's Association and the ministry, but they will still be short a great deal of money: $7.5 million which has been cut off.

What other tinkering will you be doing within your ministry? Do you intend to reduce the farm tax rebate? Do you intend to license farm equipment, to charge farmers for licensing farm equipment? What other cutbacks do you and your government intend to make to the hard-hit, strapped agricultural industry?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I have no immediate plans to cut any specific programs at this point in time, but because of the current situation it is necessary for us to look at restraint in our spending habits. I will be looking at programs right across the board where we can in fact achieve some restraints and cutbacks in terms of our spending. We have to, in order to have a balanced budget.

However, that will not be done in isolation. We will be consulting with farm leaders and farm groups, and we will try to share the burden of that responsibility for those cutbacks with the farm leaders. I hope they will have some options to put before me that they will find acceptable.

Obviously, the cutbacks in the red meat program is something I did not want to do, but we had to in order to achieve necessary savings. I realize it was a very popular program and had a major impact on red meat producers, but these are things we must do to achieve our fiscal targets. I hope to be able to talk to all of our constituents in the farm community before we make any future cuts in very important programs.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions? Petitions?

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It is signed by 32 residents of Middlesex county, and I've affixed my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here in strong opposition to the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act. It's people from the Amherstburg and Harrow area who wish to forward this petition, and I affix my signature to it.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by some 56 members of my riding and of the Ottawa-Carleton area, and it reads as follows:

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

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I've signed this petition.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by several people in my riding from the towns of Ridgetown, Merlin, Blenheim, Morpeth, Thamesville and many other areas. It reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

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

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

I attach my signature to the petition.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition signed by about 50 constituents from my riding, from Kapuskasing and Cochrane. They are opposed to the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992.

I have affixed my name to the petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 56 residents of Middlesex, including people from London, Westminster and Strathroy, who petition the government of Ontario "to set aside the arbitrator's report in regard to the greater London arbitration because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority, it allows too extensive an area of land to be annexed to the city of London and will jeopardize the viability of Middlesex county and our rural way of life."

I have signed my name to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 15th report and moved its adoption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT / ENTENTE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion number 16 on consideration of the Charottetown accord.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): May I begin by quoting a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, the former president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, a man I had the distinct honour to meet when he visited Ontario in February 1990. He expresses an ideal upon which each of us can ponder as we make our way towards October 26. He says:

"I'm not concerned about myself nor about how to spare myself any trouble. Rather, I want for us only to be able to live, if possible, in an orderly state" --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Would you please lower your conversations.

Mrs O'Neill: If I may just repeat the sentence:

"Rather, I want for us only to be able to live, if possible, in an orderly state that knows why it exists, which serves its citizens, respects all of their rights and cares for their wellbeing. In an atmosphere of decency, creative spirit and tolerance, we shall be able to bear far more easily the trials we yet have to experience."

It is this decency, this tolerance, of which Mr Havel speaks that I want to emphasize in this ongoing debate. The question each must ask is: Do we wish to walk through the 1990s with an accord, a consensus, an agreement, an understanding, reached after much effort, much participation, much baring of souls by Canadians from coast to coast? Can we find within ourselves the creative generosity to build a country? Can you and I find within ourselves the courage, the decency and the will we will need? Let us look into our hearts, the seat of our generosity.

The agreement reached in Charlottetown is the culmination of an incredible amount of work. Canadians everywhere have been given an opportunity to make their views known, and it has indeed been uplifting to see how many of them from all walks of life and from every corner of this great country have given their individual time and talents to this national effort.

This year, 1992, has been a year of many, many meetings among the federal government, the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal leaders. I had the privilege, as part of the Ontario delegation, of attending four of these multilateral meetings. In my opinion, every leader came to the table with a great deal of preparation and support, gained from both their legislative assemblies and the people and territories and communities they represented.

From my perspective, when the political leaders of the federal government, the provinces, territories and aboriginal communities met at the constitutional table, they brought with them the voices of the people they represent. Each leader had engaged in an extensive process of gathering the views of his or her population. Those individual views contributed to the mosaic of opinions and interests which were advocated by the participants at the multilateral and finally at the first ministers' conferences, and it was from this mosaic that an agreement has sprung.

Upon this agreement we, the Canadian people, can rebuild a reformed constitution.

I remind, and I think it is important to remember, that the Constitution is much more than a document. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth said in her speech in Ottawa on Canada Day this year, 1992, "The real Constitution is not cast immutably on the printed page but lives in the hearts of Canadian people." Let me repeat, "lives in the hearts of Canadian people." Let us bear these words and the truth they represent very much in mind as each of us individually faces the challenge of making our personal decision in the weeks ahead.

The 1980s have tested the limits of constitutional patience and tolerance of Canadians, and I believe that the accord, with all its complexities and compromises, addresses the sense of powerlessness in the west, the sense of inequity in the Maritimes, the sense of isolation in the north, the sense of frustration here in Ontario, the sense of misunderstanding in Quebec and the sense of injustice in our aboriginal communities. These are undoubtedly serious and difficult realities, an immense challenge for any one document, for any group of political leaders.

But Canadians have a reputation throughout the world for being compassionate, for being understanding, for being tolerant and for being generous. The rest of the world, recognizing our ability to develop peaceful solutions and resolutions to conflict, has often sought our expertise.

Let us now live up to that reputation on our own behalf. Let us make the 1990s a time of constitutional reconciliation and peace here in our homeland, here in our nation. Let us present to every Canadian an opportunity to breathe again, to build bridges, one with another.

We, as Canadians, have a profound and quiet belief in our country. We believe that Canadian men and women can be different and equal at the same time. We are a nation whose history is united in its diversity. We have built an impressive heritage, and our caring society is the envy of many. On October 26 each of us throughout Ontario and Canada has the opportunity to make a choice, a positive choice, to protect and nourish the heritage and traditions we treasure.

We've all heard in the media and elsewhere about what is not in the accord. It's time we heard more about what it does contain. I believe this accord, this very Canadian accommodation, accomplishes many important things.

The accord strengthens and renews the bonds that brought us together as a nation in the first place. The accord presents opportunities and challenges for a dynamic cultural and economic future. The accord reconciles minorities in its Canada clause. The protection of official-language minorities, wherever they are across this country, is entrenched in the accord. The accord, as I have said, is a framework which provides the direction for Canada into the 21st century. Once the framework has been agreed to, we can all focus our attention on many other significant issues -- most important: getting Canadians back to work.

The accord recognizes the regional realities we have always had as part of this country. It has as one of its key objectives the maintenance of federal programs in health, education and welfare, where we all want comparable quality and availability for all Canadians regardless of the prosperity their particular region holds. The renewed Senate will provide a more emphatic regional voice and will ensure that even the smallest province's concerns will be heard.

One of the most ground-breaking aspects of the accord is the innovation surrounding aboriginal self-government. The accord establishes a framework within which the first nations of Canada can develop governmental structures which respect their particular language, history and culture. Indeed, much work has already been done towards this goal right here in Ontario, in the Yukon and in Alberta.

The vote of October 26 is, at its core, a request from our national, provincial, territorial and aboriginal leaders for an affirmation of the work they have done. It's a request to give a focus, an endorsement of the principles upon which Canadians want their country to be built, principles, may I remind again, which parliamentary committees across this country had presented to them throughout the year 1991 and indeed into 1992.

I ask: Do we as Canadians really appreciate our treasure? Are we as Canadians willing to turn the page? Are we as Canadians willing to step forward for our country?

Let us rediscover the spirit and the vision of the Fathers of Confederation. Let us listen again to the words of Sir John A. Macdonald when he said:

"Whatever you do, adhere to the union -- we are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken."

In 1865 he may have been speaking about the 1992 agreement when he further observed:

"The whole scheme...bears upon its face the marks of compromise. Of necessity there was a great deal of mutual concession. Canadians are known by their values of fairness and compassion."

I think I witnessed that at the multilateral meetings and at the first ministers conferences.

George-Étienne Cartier expressed the hope in 1864 "that if our Constitution must be amended, it will not be to narrow the principles of fairness on which it is founded, but rather to expand them even more." I believe that this accord begins to answer that hope.

I urge all Ontarians to take their rightful place in our nation's history, to share the values that we have in our hearts. Canadians have a unique opportunity to come together in trust and respect, in generosity and with courage. Our leaders have made a commitment to the nation's future. Let us share with them that commitment and be proud of our country and each of its citizens.

On October 26, in answer to the question, "Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?" I will be voting Yes.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise and speak on this resolution dealing with the future of this country. I have had a very unique opportunity since I've been in this place, and that opportunity was in being a member of the constitutional committee, having the opportunity to travel across Ontario and having the opportunity, as well, to visit other parts of the country to discuss this issue.

I'm very grateful that I've had that opportunity. It's been an eye-opener, and it's been something that, for me, has been an experience. I've had the opportunity to really live the development of this agreement. I've seen the agreement come together at the intergovernmental affairs level. I'm very grateful to the Premier and to my leader for choosing me and giving me the opportunity to be there. As I say, I've had a unique opportunity because in a sense I've lived the constitutional development that we've reached today in this Charlottetown agreement.

Over the last few weeks I've been spending a great deal of my time in my riding visiting a lot of the schools, high schools and junior highs. I've had the opportunity to engage in some kind of dialogue with students about this agreement and about where this country is going. I can tell you that the students in the riding of Willowdale are concerned about the future of this country. They're concerned about the impact of this agreement and any step we take in terms of the effect it will have on this country and how it will relate to them as they reach the stage in their lives where they're going out looking for jobs and looking for prosperity.

One of the things that strikes me -- and Mr Beer spoke about this yesterday very briefly -- is that fundamentally we have to ask ourselves: What is a constitution? What will a constitution do for the citizens of this country? Will a constitution, the agreeing and saying Yes to this Charlottetown agreement, solve all the problems we have in this country? The answer is: No, it won't.

People have to understand that this is not the panacea to end all our problems. Governments still have to legislate. Governments still have to stand before their electorates and offer programs, and they still have to provide people with the necessities and the climate to prosper. This Constitution won't do that. The Constitution, as I've been telling students in my riding, is really a rule book. It's a framework for how legislatures operate and how laws will ultimately be made. It's a rule book that governs what the powers are in our federal scheme of things: What can a province do?

What can a federal government do? What are Ottawa's rights? What are the provincial rights? What are the rights of individual citizens? That's what the Constitution says. The Constitution sets out what the rules are as between governments and as between governments and individuals.

It is within this framework that laws will be enacted by parliaments across this country to better the people who live in this country. The mere passing of this agreement is not going to solve all of those problems, so I say to people, "Don't make more of this agreement than it really is." This agreement permits governments to carry on in a relationship with one another. It also permits individuals to know that their freedoms and their rights will be protected. That's what I've been telling the students in my riding.

Quite frankly, I think this is a very good agreement. It's a good agreement because it reflects what all parts of this country believe in. It's not a perfect agreement and it doesn't give Ontario every single thing that Ontario might want or might ultimately need, but it recognizes those things that are very important to Ontario.

It recognizes the supremacy of Parliament. It recognizes that the House of Commons will remain supreme. It provides Ontario with further and greater representation in the House of Commons. It creates a Senate that will not effectively hurt the province of Ontario but at the same time will help provinces such as Alberta and Newfoundland that have concerns about their natural resources.

If we recognize the broad consensus that's been reached to come up with this agreement, then we have to recognize that everyone got something that was significant for them. If we try to look at this agreement and say, well, Ontario could have had five or six or seven more items that would have made Ontario much more wealthy or much more prosperous at the expense of other Canadians, then that to me is not an element of compromise that we as Ontarians, given our history, could live with.

One of the unique opportunities I had as a member of the Constitution committee was the opportunity to travel to other parts of this country to speak to members of other legislatures and to understand the uniqueness, the distinctness, of all of the other areas of Canada. We as a committee did that so that we would understand that other people's opinions and desires had to be met when we came up with a final agreement.

I think the Charlottetown accord recognizes that. It recognizes that in terms of the Senate, where it didn't take any rights away from Ontario but it provided Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Manitoba, which were the provinces most concerned, with the protection that they desired.

When I look at this agreement, I see the opportunity that aboriginal peoples will now have, an opportunity that they have never had before, where they were really seen as subservient and confined to living under the Indian Act,

an act that historically has been something that causes every Canadian shame. I see the opportunity that now is going to be available to aboriginal peoples and the fact that, as Ovide Mercredi said yesterday, there is a way out of the poverty, there is a way to prosperity, because aboriginal peoples will now have control of their own destiny.

For this reason, I think that this agreement is something that Canadians can be proud of. It's not perfect, it's not a guarantee, but it's something that Canadians can be proud of. As an Ontarian, I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that we have finally recognized that aboriginal people were civilized people living here when European settlers arrived and that they had a form of society and government and that we are recognizing that organized society.

What we are also doing is building on that recognition and that provides tremendous opportunity to aboriginal people. I hope that if this agreement is passed, they will be able to go forward and carry on with the development of their native self-government.

I go into the schools in Willowdale, and I'm often met with, "Why should Quebec get something more?" But when I put it to students that really Quebec isn't getting anything more, that at the end of the day we as Ontarians don't come home with less because we're recognizing the distinct language, culture and legal system in the province of Quebec, they generally tend to agree with me.

When it's put in terms of what language is spoken in the province of Quebec -- we all know that the dominant language in the province of Quebec is French. It's one of our official languages. By recognizing that and by preserving that and permitting the government of Quebec to preserve and promote that language in the face of a declining birth rate, in the face of increased immigration, we're not taking away anything from people in Ontario or any other part of the country. We're not making anybody more equal or better.

We're just recognizing a fact, and it's a fact that we all, as Canadians who visit that province, revel in. We enjoy it. It's something that makes us all unique. I think that the compromise that has been reached to protect the French language, the French culture and the French legal system is something we can again be proud of, and it's reason to accept the Charlottetown agreement.

One of the very interesting things that occurs is I'm often asked by students, "If we promote the French language, what will happen to minorities in the province of Quebec?" We look at the Canada clause and it says quite clearly that we're going to protect minorities, we're going to recognize the minority official language communities throughout Canada.

I put it to students that people are concerned about minorities in the province of Quebec, and if we vote No and these protections are not available, what will happen to those minority communities in the province of Quebec? I don't know whether they'll receive protections. I assume that they will, because the nature of the governments in the province of Quebec has been such as to protect minorities. But I don't know what's going to happen to them.

I become somewhat agitated when I think that in one breath people are saying, "Let Quebec go because Quebec doesn't protect minorities," and in the next breath you've got to explain to them that there are protections for minorities in this agreement. Why do you want to cut minorities loose, why do you want to isolate them, if that's the way you feel?

I think this agreement will protect minority language rights in the province of Quebec, and at the same time it will promote the French language so that it won't die. It will continue to provide 25% of the seats in the House of Commons to the province of Quebec. They've always had that. They've always had a guaranteed number. In spite of the fact that now they have 27% of the population, they've always had 25%, and there's no reason to believe that they should, in terms of numbers, ever represent less than 25% of the people in this country.

I think there is a great deal to commend in this agreement. I think we can be proud that our premiers, our native leaders, our territorial leaders, the Prime Minister and the ministers of intergovernmental affairs could all get together and create an agreement that everyone could find something to revel in. I think that's what this agreement does. This agreement recognizes compromise and, to me, that is a very, very important aspect of the agreement.

I'm a little dismayed when I hear the academics and the professors writing day after day in the newspapers, telling us what will happen with the

interpretation of this clause and what will happen with the

interpretation of that clause. I make no apologies. I'm a lawyer myself, and I can tell you that when you argue cases before courts, you argue cases based on facts, and I don't know how all these academics can gaze into their crystal balls and decide what the law is going to be when they don't know what the facts of the case are.

Surely the facts of the case mean something. The facts of the case before the judge will determine the approach the judge takes or the Court of Appeal takes or the Supreme Court of Canada takes in deciding the case. I can't for the life of me understand how come all these academics know what all the answers are before we've litigated the cases

Quite frankly, I would like to have a perfect document. I would like to have a document that we never have to seek recourse in the courts to interpret. But that would be unrealistic. We have always had to seek recourse in the courts to interpret what the laws of this country mean.

It was interesting. I heard Eric Kierans on the CBC this morning, and he said: "Boy, can't accept that agreement. It has too many sections. There's too much there. The United States only has seven clauses. That's what we should have. We should have just seven clauses." The fact of the matter is that even their seven clauses have been the subject of litigation from the day the United States was born and litigation continues over their amendments to the Constitution and over their Constitution itself.

By the same token, I hear all the people who say No to this agreement say, "Boy, that BNA Act, it was flexible, it worked, we should live with it." We've been litigating the clauses of the British North America Act since the day of Confederation, since July 1, 1867. We've been litigating constitutional cases in this province and we're going to continue to do so and, quite frankly, I think we should be proud of the fact that we can go to the courts and we can say to the courts, "My rights have been taken away."

When my rights are taken away I have the opportunity to go to a court, which will listen to the facts of my case and will help me. I don't think there's anything sinister about that. I don't think there's anything sinister in that we've tried to come up with an agreement that's complete. But everybody knows, even in a seven-clause Constitution, like Eric Kierans says the United States has, they litigate cases, they go to court, they fight over what the

interpretation is, just as we'll do here and just as we've been doing for in excess of 100 years.

I don't know how those academics can make these decisions and make these pronouncements and, quite frankly, I would ask people to discount them. I would ask people to consider: What's the upside of this agreement? What's the opportunity that's going to be created if we accept this constitutional accord? What are the opportunities that we as Canadians are going to have?

I know that, for instance, my party leader has been critical of some sections, although generally he accepts the accord and he'll be voting Yes. He says: "We've got to develop the economic aspects of this accord. We've got to have free trade within this country." That's an opportunity that we have as Canadians and as Ontarians, that's an opportunity for the future, but if we vote No we may not have that opportunity.

If we vote No, the aboriginal peoples will not be able to dig themselves out of an impoverished life. They have that opportunity. We as Canadians should not deny them that opportunity.

What about the province of Quebec?

I hear the poll numbers, and the poll numbers don't make me happy, but I'm confident that when the great mass of undecideds -- those people who go to work every day, who aren't academics, who aren't teachers, who aren't trade unionists, who are much more politically active in the province of Quebec, I believe, than they are here, the professional classes who see themselves as great entrepreneurs, able to go it alone -- when the vast majority of hardworking Quebeckers go in and have to say Yes or No, I hope they're going to say Yes because they are going to recognize that in Canada there are opportunities, that in this agreement there are opportunities, that, "If we say No, we're going to miss those opportunities."

The up side of this agreement is that there are challenges and opportunities created that we as Ontarians and Canadians have a great desire to see and to feel and to be a part of. But what's the down side of the agreement?

I listen to everybody who says No. I listen to them. They tell me that if we say No, the day after this referendum we're just going to sit down and start negotiating again.

Who's going to be doing the negotiating? Is it going to be the premiers? Who can it be if it's not the premiers, if it's not the Prime Minister, if it's not the native leaders? Granted, we might be able to make the group wider and broader, but there's always going to be somebody who's going to claim they're not there. If the large group that made this agreement gets larger, what are the chances of our coming up with another agreement? If this one isn't acceptable, are we really going to sit down and negotiate again? Are the same people going to come up with a better or a different deal?

Are the same people going to come up with a deal and a compromise that is any better than this? I can't see it. I can't see that as being a possibility at all.

I totally reject the idea that the negotiations will continue even if we say Yes, because the reality is that we will always be negotiating. There will always be legislation that will be negotiated. There will always be changes that will be negotiated. That is part of living in a dynamic society. There will always be change that will be better for the public. We'll always be negotiating.

This deal, as I said at the beginning, this Constitution, is the framework. What we have to do after we have the framework is to build the interior. We have to carry on with creating change that's going to be good for Canadians. That is why I believe that the down side of this is to vote No, because I don't think we'll sit down and renegotiate a better deal. I don't really have that much faith in Judy Rebick and Preston Manning.

I remind people that the other people who are saying No are people whose avowed purpose is to tear this country apart and take Quebec away. By those people, I refer to the opposition, the Parti québécois, the Bloc québécois. Their avowed position is to say No. Whether it's this agreement or whether it's any other agreement, their position is to say No.

I can only conclude that the down side is that we wouldn't continue to negotiate, but we would be figuring out a way to dismantle this country. By dismantling this country, we would put our economic lives in jeopardy. Even worse than that, we would deny ourselves the opportunities that this agreement creates.

I am very appreciative of the opportunity I've been given to stand here for a few minutes and discuss the Constitution. I will be proudly voting Yes. I will be making myself available to my constituents to discuss this, to explain it as best I can and to respect, ultimately, what the wishes of my constituents in Willowdale are and what they want to do and how they see the future of this country.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I as well am proud to speak today in favour of the Charlottetown accord that we approved on August 27. I want to say that this is a very important accord we have put together. It's important to all of us and it's particularly important to the children who will follow all of us once we leave this land.

I want to say that as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, I have been at all the multilateral constitutional meetings since the beginning of March, and I have to say this experience has helped me to create a better understanding and to have a better appreciation of what it means to be a Canadian. I have to say I've been very pleased to work very closely with the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources throughout these discussions, including members of the opposition, and I have to say to the people of Ontario that we have been well represented.

On the issue of the process, I think comments need to be made on that. This constitutional process has consulted Canadians unlike ever before. In Ontario, we had the Ontario select committee that toured this province for an entire year. It consulted people about what was important to them. We also had an Ontario constituent assembly last October, consulting 150 people or so who came from all walks of life, to give us a sense of what they wanted to see reflected in the constitution.

We had, at the federal level, the Spicer commission going out to consult Canadians across the land, and we had five national citizens' conferences. In Ontario, we had an aboriginal round table. These processes we have used are, in my view, very different from other processes of the past, and I think they need to be highlighted.

In addition, I need to emphasize that this constitutional agreement is not just about one province or about a particular people; this was to be the Canadian round, a round that includes everybody. We didn't listen to just one province or one interest group; we set out to include everybody and I think that through this accord we have accomplished that. Finally, this accord gives people an opportunity to have a direct vote on this issue.

This should not, in my view, overlook the historic consensus that has been reached or underestimate the consensus that has been reached. For the very first time, we not only have a federal government in agreement with provincial governments, but we also included in this round the two territories, and we included as well the aboriginal leaders, the four national aboriginal representatives, and they all agreed to this accord.

Let's not underestimate the differences. Imagine political parties, the Liberal, New Democratic and Conservative parties, together in one room, imagine aboriginal people and the two territories together in one room, agreeing. I think it's historic that we were able, in the end, in spite of the differences, to put together an agreement. We did that because we all felt we needed to make accommodations to each other and because we felt we needed to respect the diversity that is this Canada. We often forget that we are not homogenous, but we have managed to keep unity while respecting diversity.

I know that each element of the accord has its critics, but taken as a whole, it is a balanced step forward for Canadians. The Charlottetown agreement provides us with a new covenant between Canadians and their governments that spells out our rights, our roles and our responsibilities in a fair and just manner.

Now Canadians will have their say, and clearly, on October 26 they will be allowed to speak on this issue. I urge all the people who are watching us today to support this agreement on the basis of its content. I believe it achieves what Canadians have asked us to do: to address outstanding grievances, to reconcile our differences and celebrate our diversity, to protect what we cherish and value and to provide a flexible framework for future generations. I can say with confidence that a Yes vote will allow us to harness these achievements and move forward together as a nation. It's time that we ended the uncertainty over our constitutional future.

What are some of the elements of this accord that we can speak to? We have a Canada clause that talks about fundamental values and speaks to aboriginal peoples constituting a third order of government. It speaks to Quebec being distinct and I say there that it's time all Canadians acknowledge an historical and sociological fact, that Quebec is different, that they speak French, that they have a different culture and that they have a civil law that is radically different from the rest of the country, and to acknowledge that takes nothing away from any of us.

It speaks as well about racial and ethnic equality, and I have to say that I feel included in that language. I feel that all Canadians are included when we speak of racial and ethnic equality. We have never had such a clause before and its inclusion should make everybody feel they are protected.

It speaks about individual and collective human rights and freedoms for all people, which means everybody is included in those protections. So that clause too is very powerful. I think most Canadians would agree with me that this does a good job of capturing who we are as a people.

On the issue of aboriginal self-government, some people will know that in 1867 our Constitution contained only six lines about our aboriginal peoples. I can say with pride that it's time that we correct that injustice and I believe that through this accord we have done that. The Charlottetown accord does this by recognizing the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves. The Ontario government has strongly supported that agreement and we're proud of the role we have played to make that happen.

On the social and economic union, I want to say that this is a ground-breaking section. It has been strongly promoted by Ontario. In fact, this is something I have done actively for four or five months, as I toured Ontario to promote and to defend a social charter. Across Ontario everybody from all walks of life said that they wanted to preserve those social values, and for the first time our Constitution will express this shared vision by entrenching a set of obligations on governments to maintain and enhance Canada's social and economic union.

This agreement commits all governments in Canada to a health care system that is comprehensive, universal, portable, publicly administered and accessible; to providing adequate social services and benefits to ensure that all residents in Canada have reasonable access to housing, food and other basic necessities; to providing high quality primary and secondary education to all individuals resident in Canada and ensuring reasonable access to post-secondary education; to protecting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively; to protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations.

The economic union objectives include the goal of full employment, ensuring that all Canadians have a reasonable standard of living achieved through sustainable and equitable development. In my view, the social and economic union clause in the Charlottetown accord helps to protect the network of social entitlements that Canadians have come to expect.

On the division of powers, again there is a theme that connects here and it's a theme of unity through diversity, and that too is reflected in the division of powers. The devolution of power from Ottawa to the provinces that many people have feared has not happened. Instead, the provinces will have a clearer role in areas which they have traditionally overseen, but we still maintain a strong central government, which is what we all want.

Protection for intergovernmental agreements, which we have put into this accord for the very first time, gives us protection. It will say that the federal government will no longer be able to unilaterally change agreements with provinces, as it has done to us. Ontario has been the recipient of that loss; Ontario has been hurt by such changes. The Charlottetown accord will help to protect our interests.

On the Senate, I have to say that many of us were opposed to the Senate. Many of us felt we should abolish the Senate. Indeed, there was sentiment about that across Canada, but we could not, in good conscience, say no to provinces like Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, that wanted to have a Senate that was equal, elected and effective. To be able to respect the diversity we, in the end, said we will have an elected Senate and end the patronage system we've had for far too long.

In my view, that's good. We have an equal Senate, and that's fine too, but what we are going to get, where people want it effective, is a Senate that will not be effective enough to cause gridlock in the House of Commons. That's what we didn't want. We believe we don't have this with this accord. That protects our interests. It will not be a confidence chamber able to bring down the federal government. And that protects our interests.

We will have 18 MPs as a result of the losses we've had in the Senate. We feel this gives us greater representation by population in the House, where Ontario has been underrepresented for far too long. This will give us an opportunity to send an equal number of men and women to the Senate, to which I am bound and to which this government is committed. What we have achieved is, again, unity while respecting diversity.

These are the highlights of the Charlottetown accord. I believe it's fair, equitable and a sensible set of proposals, and it provides us with an opportunity to move out of a crisis situation and into a new era of stability. To those who say the deal is not perfect, I agree, no agreement can ever be perfect, but they must realize there will be other opportunities in the future to return to the Constitution and make changes. The Constitution, in my view, is like a living tree which must be amended from time to time to keep pace with changing needs.

I will be voting Yes on October 26, and I will be devoting my time and energy in the coming weeks to explain to the people of Ontario why this agreement merits support. Ultimately, the Canadian people will have their say in the future of our country.

I want to leave one final thought before I terminate my comments, and that is, if I had it my way we would have had two questions in the referendum.

One question would have been: Do you dislike some politicians? Answer Yes to that and move on. The other question: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?

If we had done that, we would have focused people's attention on this accord, and people would have realized that what we have in this accord is something that will stand up to scrutiny.

I believe the Charlottetown accord will serve well the interests of our children, your children and mine, and I am proud to have participated in the development of this accord.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): It's an important moment in our history that we are addressing today, and because this moment is so important I wish to put a few comments on the record.

I know that right now there are other important events happening as well and we're competing with other interests. Perhaps later on in the evening some people will still be following our proceedings, as they are repeated in the evening, and I'm addressing myself especially to those who are watching on television, because most of us in this House have had opportunity to reflect in depth about the Charlottetown accord and I will probably not be able to convince anyone one way or the other.

But perhaps there are some people out there who are still wondering, and perhaps even some who may be thinking to vote No at this point, to whom I wish to address a few remarks, not so much from intellectual discourse but from my own personal experience, where I grew up and why I think what we have here is very much worthy of our support.

Frankly, I believe that with all the remarks that have been made here in this House, with all the comments and commentaries that have been made in newspapers, in periodicals, over the radio, on television, there's very little to add to the arguments on either side. I think that in the end it's going to be emotion that will probably sway the vast majority of this country.

Frankly, emotions are a dangerous dimension of our own being, because we can get carried away with emotions, but then again, they can also be a positive force to encourage us in our undertakings and move us forward. I certainly hope that come October 26 our emotions will be positive ones, generous ones, and that we're not going to take the approach of "Give it to them," or "I don't want to hear anything more about this." Let not our negative feelings about whatever it is carry the day on this very important matter for the future of our country and for the future of our children.

I respect people who will vote No. There are people in my riding, people in my party, who feel very strongly that this is the wrong direction to take, and they're very emotional about it. But I too am emotional, because I feel this accord does reflect my vision of what Canada is, what Canada should be and what a modern democracy is all about. That modern democracy, in my opinion, is above all the achievement of coming together through consensus rather than confrontation. In the end, that's what it boils down to.

You can certainly impose a particular view that you or I might see as the right way to go, but I think we have progressed far beyond that approach to politics. What this agreement reflects is consensus, working together, sitting down and negotiating and talking it out. Yes, it has taken a long time, and it is a cumbersome method of achieving results, but in the end, what political means have borne more fruit than that method of sitting down and working things out together?

There have been too many instances in our history, in European history -- frankly, we're still facing it today -- where people fail to sit down and work things out, even if they're tough, even if they have different opinions.

For me, it's a tremendous achievement to have so many people from such different backgrounds coming together day after day, week after week, and yes, even year after year, still trying and coming up with a solution. I think that's an achievement, something to be proud of in the international community. I think that's something we as Canadians should hold up and be proud of. When we look around, we see how many negotiations have broken down. People have simply given up and said, "The other side doesn't want what I want, so therefore I'm going to walk away." There are too many instances of that kind of approach to politics.

Here we have the clear witness of what we as Canadians have always had as our approach to making politics, that is, sitting down at the table, negotiating, compromising, working things out. I think that's great. Rather than weakness, I consider that strength, and that's something I'm proud of. The Charlottetown accord, in my view, follows this tradition of policy-making, and I hope for many years we will continue that policy-making.

I certainly agree this will not be the end of it. It should not be the end of it. There will be continued negotiations, but it can be done, as it is being done in this accord, on the basis of sitting down together, working at it, discussing it, putting forward ideas and ultimately arriving at a solution, even if it takes several tries. Let's face it, we have tried. There has been so much effort that has already gone into this constitution-building, and now we have an agreement. I think we should be ready to say Yes and accept the result, the fruits, of that work.

As I said, my words today, which obviously have to be brief because there are other members who want to speak, are an attempt to put on the record my own feelings about this matter, perhaps to convince one or another person out there. I should tell you that I have tried in my own riding to send out a mailing to as many people as possible, to share with them how I feel about this accord. I have included some of the articles that have appeared in the press, and hopefully they will help people make up their minds. If anybody is interested, of course I would be very pleased to send them a copy.

What struck me in my discussions and exchanges with people were two points. The first one was that people said: "The federal government is giving up too many powers. We're decentralizing." Frankly, I don't see that happening at all; in fact, rather the reverse, because what has happened over the years is that the federal government has entered in areas where the provinces had been given responsibility under the BNA Act. What now appear as federal responsibilities are really provincial ones, especially of the province of Quebec, but not only the province of Quebec.

They're very hesitant and, I think rightfully so, critical about the federal government moving in in certain areas that are, by the BNA Act, the responsibility of the provinces.

Now, it is true that over time we have realized that perhaps it's better to have the federal government look after certain areas. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's done together and as long as it's done without imposing the views of one government on the other. In my opinion, this framework of being able to work out who is going to do what -- is it going to be the province, is it going to be the federal government or is it going to be both governments together -- the decisions on that question are going to be made possible by this accord. Now, what is wrong with that?

Again, this will take more time. It requires negotiations, and if you want to see immediate action on a particular topic, it probably won't happen. But who is to say that one view is the only one to proceed with?

Take the example of medicare. We're all proud of medicare but, let's be realistic, how did we arrive at that program which is now country-wide? Well, it was first proposed by a province. They experimented with it, they put it forward and soon some other provinces realized that Saskatchewan was on to something very good and they said, "Yes, we too would like to provide the service." In the end, the provinces came together with the federal government and said, "We want to make this program nation-wide, we want to establish certain criteria," and there was cooperation between all the partners in Confederation. I think that's the way Canadian politics has worked and should work in the future.

The Charlottetown accord, I think, takes this approach. It makes it possible for the federal government to provide leadership. That leadership is not imposed on the provinces but agreed upon through consensus and through cooperation. I think that's a good approach. This is not bad; I think this is very good. This is in the best tradition of Canadian politics and I think in the best interests of all of us.

The other concern, which frankly makes me very sad sometimes, is that many people say: "Well, we are sick of always giving in to Quebec. We're giving too much to Quebec." There's a lot of frustration, emotion and concern of people out there, and I have to be realistic. Even though I don't agree with this attitude, I think it is fair and it is something I as a politician have to deal with.

But for anyone who feels like that, unless your mind is totally made up, do take a look at what has happened here. Where is it in this accord that we have given special powers to the province of Quebec? You can mention, first of all, the "distinct society" clause, but the "distinct society" clause is very clear. It does not give any new, additional powers to the province of Quebec. It's even mentioned in the accord that this is an interpretative clause. So in the light of the distinct nature, the distinct character of the francophone people in Quebec, the Constitution should be interpreted. When it comes to conflicts over the

interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will have to take into account that Quebec has certain traditions and has a predominantly French culture. It also has to take into account that there are francophones in other parts of Canada, including of course Ontario, and that this is a very important element of the Canadian identity.

I think that is great. I think, again, that is one of the great attractions of Canada internationally, having that second main culture within the Canadian identity. I think we should be and have to be prepared to recognize that, acknowledge that and be proud of it.

Yes, there are some negative experiences that we have had. A lot of people still refer to the sign law in Quebec, and frankly I feel that politically this was certainly a grave mistake that was committed at the time. It turned a lot of people off, and where there was a generous attitude towards Quebec, from one day to the next it really hurt a lot of people.

But look at this accord. What does it do? It certainly does not give any major new powers, any new, significant powers to Quebec that are not given to any of the other provinces. So if people are saying out there, "We're sick of always giving in to Quebec," I don't see where one can argue that on the basis of this accord.

I do, however -- and I mentioned this already -- feel very strongly that we should recognize, as we're now also doing in justice with the natives, the special place, the special identity and the special character of the francophone community and the francophone culture in North America, particularly in Canada and in Quebec. With this accord, I see that taking place in harmony with all of Canada. The current government of Quebec accepts the provisions that are put forward in this accord, and in my opinion we must strengthen the support and the position of the current gover