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

March 25, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Chiarelli: Today I will be introducing a bill which will give municipalities the power to enact bylaws to control the importation of garbage.

It was disclosed last November that Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc, owner of a landfill site in Ottawa-Carleton, had been transporting in excess of 100 tons per day of Toronto garbage to its site, in addition to unquantifiable volumes of contaminated soil. Ottawa-Carleton does not want Toronto's garbage. However, there are other municipalities with existing capacity which seek to import nonlocal garbage.

Unfortunately, the NDP government has put Ontario in a garbage straitjacket. They have no provincial policy and the hands of the municipalities are tied.

I strongly urge the government to prove that it is serious about the environment by endorsing this bill.

When will this government take the garbage straitjacket off Ontario's municipalities?

OAKVILLE-TRAFALGAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Carr: Several years ago, the previous government promised Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital capital funding grants for expansion of both its acute and chronic care beds. Promises were made, plans were submitted, fund-raisers were held and revised programs were drawn up. Everything was finalized to ensure that a plan was in place to take care of the future health care needs of the people. Private industry and the local population worked extremely hard to raise their share of the necessary costs.

Everybody sat back to watch their hospital grow. They are still waiting. In fact, they are beginning to ask for their money back.

This government has not forwarded the necessary funding, and this is a prime example of discouraging private investment in health care services. The same situation exists in other parts of the province.

By 1995, Oakville will experience a nearly 20% increase in its population. The Oakville-Trafalgar hospital will by that time be seriously unable to handle this increase without an expansion of its facilities.

I urge the Minister of Health to have the structures in place to meet the needs of the people of Oakville South. Let's be proactive in planning for our growth instead of merely reacting to waiting lists when people are sick and unable to get the care they need.

BILL HUMBLE

Mr B. Ward: It is with sadness that I rise to acknowledge the passing of a former labour leader in the city of Brantford, Bill Humble, in his 78th year. Mr Humble was very involved in making Brantford a better place to live for working people.

He was past president of the Brantford firefighters association, past president of the Brantford and District Labour Council. He served on the executive of the Dunsdon Legion. Mr Humble was also a Second World War veteran.

Mr Humble's lasting legacy to the city of Brantford and the citizens is our civic centre. Mr Humble and his leadership spearheaded in the early 1960s a community fund-raising effort that raised the capital necessary to build our civic centre.

Too often local labour leaders are forgotten by their communities. I am pleased today to announce that on the 24th anniversary of the opening of our civic centre, the labour council will be proposing to our city council that Mr Humble's portrait and a plaque be installed in the centre itself. This action will ensure that the memory of Bill Humble and his contribution to the citizens of Brantford will not be forgotten.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Cleary: I rise today to urge the government of Ontario to take immediate action to deal with the rising unemployment in eastern Ontario caused by cross-border shopping. The retailers in my riding are not afraid of fair competition, but they need help from the provincial government to level the playing field so that they can compete on a fair basis with American business.

One of the main problems facing the retailers in eastern Ontario is the high cost of gasoline. Cheap gasoline on the US side of the border is a prime example of shoppers going from my riding, and the price difference between Cornwall and the US is higher than it should be. Gas prices in the east fluctuate between 6 cents and 12 cents a litre higher than in central Ontario.

I notice this morning that the people of Toronto are complaining because a recent gasoline price war has ended and the price is up to 55 cents a litre. Well, many motorists in Cornwall are not complaining, because they are paying $1.08 in the US. I sure urge the Treasurer to take note of this.

The NDP has made a commitment to equalize gasoline prices in the north and south. Not only has the current government failed to follow through with this commitment but, as usual, it has forgotten about eastern Ontario.

The loss of jobs in service stations is just the tip of the iceberg. It also means store closings and job losses among retailers. I urge the government to launch an investigation into gasoline prices in eastern Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Cunningham: I find it interesting that during the community college strike two years ago various members of this government made numerous statements in support of the students affected by the strike.

In fact, on 18 October 1989, Richard Johnston said: "The minister well knows that the reason that we are having a strike at the moment is not the particular matters that are on the table, but this is a system which is feeling very much under siege. It is the minister's funding which is making it impossible for the two sides to come together on this matter."

On 26 October 1989 he said, "There is a real need for the government itself to involve itself...so that this strike can be ended as quickly as possible and the lives of these students will not be unnecessarily jeopardized."

Now we have another strike facing post-secondary students in Ontario, yet the minister has been strangely silent on the issue. Students at Trent University have now been out of school for more than three weeks. Both sides attempted to resolve the situation this past weekend, but it appears now that there is no resolution in sight. If a solution is not found this week, the students at Trent University will lose their academic year.

Two years ago the solution was readily apparent to the New Democratic Party, yet today we have had no commitment to examine the underfunding of our postsecondary institutions by the minister. It leads me to believe that that was then and this is now.

ANNIVERSARIES AND TRIBUTES

Mr Malkowski: Today, I would like to recognize the 170th anniversary of the independence of Greece on 25 March 1821. It is important to recognize the birthplace of democracy and the principles cherished there and the longstanding challenges and the hard-won fights once lost and now regained. We wish to recognize the many important contributions of the Greek community in Canada and especially to the province of Ontario.

Another important date of 24 March 1890 is the birthday of Agnes Macphail. We had the pleasure yesterday of hosting a brunch as the first annual Agnes Macphail commemorative brunch in York East, and I wish to acknowledge that date. It is important, as we look back, that Agnes was the first female elected to the House of Commons and was also the first woman in the Ontario Legislature, from York East from 1943 to 1945 and again from 1948 to 1951. I am very proud to carry on the tradition of equality, social justice and economic justice and democracy.

I also wish to recognize the contributions of Vi Thompson and Kay Macpherson for the contributions that they have made to feminism, to social justice, not only for the people of York East but also for all of Canada and all of Ontario.

CAT SCANNER

Mr Bradley: I would like to draw to the attention of the House, and particularly the Minister of Health, the very great need for a computerized axial tomography scanning machine in the Niagara region. As members of the House may know, at the present time there is one machine which exists at the St Catharines General Hospital and that machine is taxed to a very great extent by the usage by those in the medical profession who want to ensure that their residents and those who are in need of this service are indeed receiving it.

The Niagara District Health Council has made representations to the provincial government. I had directed a letter to the Ministry of Health last summer to indicate this great need.

The health council would indicate as well that the cost is somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million. We have had experience in St Catharines previously in raising the capital funds necessary. Archie Katzman headed up a campaign a few years ago which was very successful, which received a lot of public support -- of course, what was required at the time, that indeed there be an approval given by the Ministry of Health.

At the present time we recognize that the CAT scanner is an essential tool in dealing with the diagnosis of emergency situations and of potential diseases that can exist. There are a number of hospitals in the Niagara region which have indicated a willingness to be the host of this particular machine, including the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and hospitals in Welland and Niagara Falls.

LEGISLATIVE ACADEMY AWARDS

Mr Stockwell: It is Oscar time in Hollywood and also here at Queen's Park. While we do not have any nominees for any lead roles, since no one in government has shown any leadership, we do have a few prizes to award.

To the Premier, for his inaction on the York land development issue, a best supporting Oscar for The Silence on the Scams.

To the member for Welland-Thorold, a special award for his powerful performance in Guilty by Suspicion.

For the way in which he cut off the Red Hill Creek Expressway, an Oscar to Edward "Scissorshands" Philip.

On behalf of the mayoralty candidate Jack Layton, who could not be with us today, a best supporting actress award to the member for St Andrew-St Patrick for her bit to help make New Jack City.

To the Minister of Natural Resources, an award for his work on Dances with Moose.

To Ontario's own housewrecker, the Minister of Housing, an award for his performance in Home Alone.

A very special award to our friend in the official opposition, the member for Timiskaming, for his continuing role in Sleeping with the Enemy.

To the member for Oakwood, a special mention for his role in Ghost.

To most of the NDP cabinet, an Oscar for their performance in Postcards from the Edge -- of Obscurity.

To supporters of the NDP government for their

part in their Hunt for Red October, November, December, January and so forth.

To the Treasurer, Sleepy Floyd, who watched a $30-million surplus turn into a $3-billion deficit, a best director Oscar for Reversal of Fortune.

MARINE ACCIDENT

Mr Jamison: I rise today to recognize the tragic loss which has befallen the Lake Erie fishing community of Port Dover. On Monday of this past week, 18 March, the trawler Captain K was returning from a day's fishing on Long Point Bay when it was struck by the Canadian Coast Guard vessel the Griffon in heavy fog and sank. Local fishermen joined in an immediate search effort with crews from Transport Canada, National Defence and the US Coast Guard. However, today there is very little hope for survivors. Lost and feared drowned are Captain Gary Speight and his two crew members, Dean Falker and John Walsh.

An investigation into the events of the collision is being conducted by the Transport Canada safety board.

These men were part of the largest fresh water fishing fleet in the world, which sails on Lake Erie, and Long Point Bay itself is one of the busiest shipping lanes on that lake.

As a fishing community, the people of Port Dover live with these realities every day. They understand that fishing is a lifestyle like no other. It offers unique challenges and rewards, yet as we were reminded a week ago today, it holds its own dangers. We recall with sadness that in 1984, just eight kilometres from where the Captain K sank on Monday, two local fishermen were lost when their boat, the Stanley Clipper, capsized in a storm. This is not to say that as individuals we can ever be fully prepared for the events such as the loss of the Captain K and its crew under such tragic circumstances.

I wish to take this opportunity to express to the friends and family of the crew of the Captain K my own deepest sympathy. I know these men will be greatly missed and I join with the whole community of Port Dover in grieving their loss.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS / COUPURES BUDGÉTAIRES À RADIO-CANADA

Hon Mr Marchese: I would like to inform the House that this government submitted on 28 February a formal presentation to the CRTC on CBC cutbacks. Today I will be tabling this government's position on the CBC service reductions announced last December under the guise of restructuring and expenditure reductions, as submitted to the CRTC.

As minister responsible for both Culture and Communications in the province of Ontario, I shall begin by stating that the CBC cutbacks are an attack on both culture and communications at a local, regional and national level.

Canada is a federal state. As such, it requires a national broadcasting service that both informs and links the various regions and diverse cultures that make up this country. Canada needs this service not only so that we can communicate with each other, but so that we can define ourselves to the world.

There are three issues that affect the people of this province that are of fundamental importance to us: democracy, cultural expression and cultural sovereignty.

In order to approach the issue of democracy at the basic level, I think it would be useful for us to think about the principles and values which are necessary to give meaning to the right to seek, receive and impart information, as it is written in

article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Without public consultations, the CBC's board of directors decided to close some of the public's local television stations across Canada. A national broadcasting system without local and regional partners is profoundly undemocratic in that it denies the people of this country the opportunity to participate. We are returning to a centralized Toronto/Montreal-dominated communications pattern that does not reflect the interest, expressions and cultures of the rest of the country.

In a democratic society, the ability to participate in the public broadcasting system should be a right, not the exception. We need to increase the diversity of sources of information in Canada and we need to expand the production base of different kinds of programming. In short, we need to recognize the universally public character of communications in democratic public life in the same way in which we recognize this character in the fields of health and education. A public broadcasting service is a service for the public, not for those in the CBC who manage and control it, nor for those in the federal government who would like to destroy it.

Si nous avons à coeur l'épanouissement de notre société, nous devons avoir un concept des valeurs, des perceptions et des visions de notre population afin de mieux nous connaître et de mieux nous comprendre mutuellement. Nous devons exprimer et diffuser nos cultures diverses de sorte que nous puissions apprendre et partager notre diversité. Nous avons tous besoin de réfléchir également sur notre propre culture.

In Ontario, the CBC has denied access to the public broadcasting system to Franco-Ontarians by closing down CBLFT. At a time in the history of this country where the voice of francophones outside of Quebec is of the greatest importance, the CBC has silenced one of the few means for them to speak to one another about issues of critical importance. Equally important, it has silenced their capacity to speak through the network to the RadioCanada television audience in Quebec, an audience that badly needs to hear what francophones outside the province have to say.

In effect, the corporation is furthering the assimilation of francophones in Ontario into the predominant anglophone cultures and isolating Quebec from the rest of the country. This, from the national corporation that is charged with the responsibility of contributing to a shared national consciousness, is totally counterproductive in the view of the government of Ontario. For almost 400 years francophones have lived and made valuable contributions to every facet of life in Ontario. They must not be denied the right to cultural expression.

Issues of cultural sovereignty are familiar to most Canadians because of our proximity to the United States. The constant deluge of US books, magazines, feature films and TV news, sports and drama has made us aware of the importance of protecting and nurturing our cultural identity.

In Windsor the CBC has closed the only Canadian TV station, leaving Windsor and area residents to the Detroit broadcasters for local news. When the free trade agreement was announced, the country was promised that our cultural sovereignty was not at risk, that our cultural institutions and industries would not be threatened. While many of us decried the free trade agreement as a major step towards Canada's economic integration with the United States, we also feared the social and cultural integration that could follow.

The role of TV as a means of cultural expression and identity cannot be underestimated; it has become a major form of communication. To hand a large chunk of southwestern Ontario to the producers and advertisers of the US TV industry is

an act of wilful neglect and incomprehensible stupidity.

The government of Ontario is not willing to see parts of the province delivered solely into the hands of foreign broadcasters. We need the federal government to make the commitment to renew and enhance public broadcasting, particularly at this time when it is of undeniable importance to every Canadian.

The government of Ontario has made its representation to the CRTC, along with many other governments, organizations and individuals. The responsibility for the current crisis lies directly with the federal government, for it must fund what it has mandated.

RESPONSES

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Henderson: This very pusillanimous motherhood statement masquerading as a ministerial statement seems to me to bring the processes of this Legislative Assembly to a new low.

This statement is notable for what it does not contain. We knew six months ago something about what this government was promising to do in the area of culture and communications. We know less and less with each succeeding month, and we know less still now.

Let me quote to the minister some of what his party and his government promised in the area of culture and communications six months ago. They promised: "We would promote the utilization of artistic resources throughout the entire range of government services. New Democrats would increase government support to culture and the arts to at least the rate of inflation on a yearover-year basis. New Democrats would move to ensure income security for artists. New Democrats would ensure a method of payment for public use of art.

New Democrats would exempt artists' materials and their work from the provincial sales tax." It will be interesting to see how that one works out. "New Democrats support funding for artists' co-operatives for the practice, production, performance, exhibition and sale of their work. New Democrats are committed to funding the development of local venues to support both local and touring artists. New Democrats would ensure that the arts become integral to Ontario's education system."

From those promises, one rather came to expect a network of drive-through art and culture centres scattered about the province of Ontario. What has the government in fact done? At a time when a $540-million Ontario film industry is waiting for an answer from this government -- about 1,000 or so jobs and the continuity of those jobs -- the government has cancelled funding for the Ballet Opera House Corp and, oh yes, incidentally reminds us about the mandate of the CBC and disagrees with the cutbacks.

There have been no significant ministerial statements since this government came back to this Legislative Assembly. The moose tag legislation is looking bigger and bigger with every succeeding day. To say that this ministerial statement is too little, too late, would be flattery. It is in fact nothing too late.

Mrs Marland: I thought we were actually dealing with ministerial statements. This, however, is simply ministerial posturing. I think we have to be very concerned about this position by this minister.

I would have expected this minister to make some specific program initiative announcements, which is what is usually done during ministerial statements. I am certainly disappointed, because there are all kinds of things waiting for action by this minister; the Ontario Heritage Act might be a good example. Certainly we have been expecting an announcement now for the last month to save the Ontario film investment program, which is just that: It is an investment into the economy and jobs in this province. This is what this minister seems to be sitting back and lacking; he lacks a total understanding of what we are dealing with.

This is no new announcement. In fact, it is simply an attack on the federal government. Is that not particularly interesting when you look at the position of the Premier of this province at the moment who says he wants to exercise restraint, he does not want to spend money? We certainly agree with that. But how interesting: When the federal government takes the same position as the Premier of this province, one of his ministers turns around and argues against the position of the federal government.

I think it is really quite revealing that we have a position here where the federal government is using restraint, is using judgement, albeit some of the areas of its decisions we do not necessarily agree with. But is it not ironic that the government turns around and criticizes it when its own Premier is saying he has to use restraint; that is why he cannot keep his Agenda for People promises? Frankly, I think this has been purely a political stump speech.

When the minister looks at his own responsibilities with TVOntario, I have to ask, are we going to see the native outreach programs and perhaps the drug program scrapped in order to honour the collective agreement which has to be made with the people who are employed within TVO? The member for Etobicoke West is very concerned that Polka-Roo may not even be able to sleep well tonight, based on the minister's statement today.

We are very concerned about this kind of statement coming from a minister who chooses not to act in the best interests of art and the film industry in the province today which are crying out for help. They are crying out for an investment of $10 million or $15 million which in turn brings back a return -- that is factually accurate -- of in excess of $90 million.

We simply ask this minister: Is it his intention that we let something like the Ontario film investment program in this province die because they do not want to make the investment to keep it going, not recognizing the tremendous return which is dollar for dollar a worthwhile program that should be kept?

Mr Villeneuve: I find it very sad to hear the minister forgetting that he is in government and indeed acting very much like someone in the opposition. That is exactly the rhetoric that we used to hear from these people when they were on this side. They had all of the answers and they found fault with everyone. Well, they happen to be in government now. The sanctimonious, pompous statement that was just made that had nothing in it positive really is not worthy of having been said in this House.

I belong to the group called Friends of TVO and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, there is a group --

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. Could we have the banner removed, Sergeant? Remove the banner, please.

The clock was at 50 seconds. Would you continue?

Mr Villeneuve: There is probably more in that banner than the whole statement by the minister anyway.

The Cornwall area has been pleading for a low-power transmitter for TVO for several years. There is a whole area of southeastern Ontario that does not receive the TVOntario signal. I have petitions and I will be bringing them to this House, asking for a low-level transmitter to cover the Cornwall-Long Sault-Ingleside area that right now does not receive TVO. I find it sad that the minister takes the time of this House to attack the CBC and the federal government when he has a lot to do right in his own neighbourhood and his own backyard.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you, as Speaker, to look into whether or not the ministerial statement today complies with standing order 31(a), which reads as follows: "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy," -- meaning provincial government policy -- "ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed." I would ask you to carefully consider the minister's statement -- I do not expect a reply today, Mr Speaker -- and come back to the House and inform us whether in fact this does comply with standing order 31(a).

The Speaker: I appreciate the point of order which you have raised and I will consider it and I will report back to you later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, if I may. The minister will be aware that since he has been appointed he has presided over the worst job creation in Canada, comparing all of the provinces on a per capita basis. Since the NDP took office an average of 1,600 jobs a day have been eliminated. Bearing in mind the Treasurer's commitment in this regard and the minister's vociferous views expressed over many years in opposition, while we are not calling for an apology from him, can he explain the total ineffectiveness of his initiatives in this regard so far?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition will know that Ontario is the manufacturing heartland of this country of ours and that Ontario is the area that has been hardest hit as a result not only of the free trade agreement but also the high dollar and the high interest rates.

I think that we have taken some actions. The Treasurer has moved to put $700 million in the capital works fund as a useful attempt to try and deal with that specific problem. I can also tell the member that, in our announcements on the labour adjustment fund just a few weeks ago, we set up an office of the labour adviser in the province of Ontario. That office alone has already, just since the announcement, set up committees in 29 plants to help the workers in those plants, which makes a total of 77 working labour adjustment committees we now have in place in the province of Ontario.

We are in the process and will be shortly bringing in additional safety-net legislation in terms of the wage protection fund.

In terms of the actual job creation, that is a much broader issue, and I am not sure it is totally the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

Mr Nixon: I quote from the NDP Agenda for People, its commitments made before the election:

"The recession is here. We want to provide relief for those who need it most, protecting people's investment in their farms, their small businesses and their jobs. We propose adjustment and training measures to protect jobs today and in the future, all of those concepts that are universally supported and in fact were supported by just under 38% of the electorate."

Since that commitment was so clearly made and accepts the concept that the recession is here, would the minister not feel a matter of concern, statistical or otherwise, when he would think that during the one hour of this question period 200 more jobs will be lost statistically as Ontario continues to suffer at the hands of whatever is causing the recession?

Would the minister not agree that he simply cannot say that this is a matter that is too big for Ontario or too big for this province or too big for this $45-billion provincial budget, and accept some of the responsibility that he was so quick to bring to the attention of those of us who had the responsibility of government when in fact the province was growing and not receding?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition will also understand that it is a little easier when the province is growing than it is when we have got the kind of a situation that his government left us in the province of Ontario. I think the very fact that we have put $32.5 million of new money into the retraining programs, into the labour adjustment programs, that we have added money to the transition fund, that we will be very shortly down with additional protection for workers in these situations, is a clear indication that we are trying to respond to the issues that we are facing in the province of Ontario.

Mr Nixon: The Treasurer and the Premier, in response to similar questions, have said we have the largest and most effective job creation program in Canada. You would be aware, Mr Speaker, that the province of Quebec, for example, has committed $1.5 billion to money that is already flowing and is not waiting for the next fiscal year. Would the honourable minister not recall the following quote that came from him on 29 November 1988 when he said, "Action on additional worker protection, plant closing justifications, additional severance, workers' benefit and pension protection and retraining and occupational adjustment programs cannot wait or be fluffed off to the feds."

I simply put that to you, Mr Speaker, because you would know that the honourable Minister of Labour has all of the labour bosses, all the presidents of the unions, eating out of his hand. As a matter of fact, I think they have breakfast and lunch in his office, when they are not eating in the cabinet room.

Under these circumstances, why cannot this minister, who was most vociferous in bringing forward his proposals and private member's legislation, get off the dime at least in small measure and bring forward some announcements, perhaps some legislation which is going to accomplish the aims that he put forward so strongly when he was a member of the opposition for all those years and which were echoed by the agenda of his own political party before it took office?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition should know that I agree with him: that we cannot fob it off totally on the federal government. I think he should also know, however, that I am proud to sit down with the labour leaders in the province and try to discuss the issue with them and I do it on a regular basis.

I think he should also be aware that I have sat down with as many business leaders as I have with labour leaders over the last two or three months in my office and in my boardroom as well. I think he should also know that the province of Quebec has spent its money over a much longer period of time than has the province of Ontario.

In addition to that, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that he, I think, will be quite pleased. I am gathering from what he says that we will not find opposition to the very measures he is talking about that we will be coming forward with very quickly.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister has been shaking his sabre for six months and we will look forward to some action, other than some sort of a footling attack on the CBC and moose tags.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services and it is relating to this same thing, because surely we would all agree that the approach to the expenditure announcements from the Treasurer and the action that the Minister of Labour might have taken, and he says will take some time in the future, are supposed to be reflected in the responsibilities that the Minister of Community and Social Services bears directly, that is, serving those people who are unemployed and have run out of unemployment insurance benefits and who are swelling -- those people who have had to apply and many of whom are receiving the welfare benefits that she administers or assists the municipalities in administering.

Can the minister indicate how closely she is working with the Minister of Labour in seeing that the commitments of dollars that have been repeatedly announced by the Treasurer and his colleagues are going to have some effect in reducing those who are running out of unemployment insurance and in fact are presently in receipt of welfare assistance through a variety of programs?

Hon Mrs Akande: In actual fact, we have moved quite a distance along in getting people back to work and addressing the needs of those who have moved very quickly from the unemployment insurance rolls to social assistance. We have been assisting in making sure that the municipal and the provincial are actually working not only in getting them back to work, but also in supporting them in their needs in terms of child care, in terms of services for the disabled, to address their particular needs, and in terms of providing those additional costs which in fact support their being back in the workplace.

Mr Nixon: Perhaps this would clarify the question a bit, but I am asking the minister to indicate to the House what the linkage between her responsibilities and those of the Treasurer and the Minister of Labour is in that the resources, the scarce resources of the government of Ontario, are directed into those communities which are suffering the most from unemployment and the concomitant increase in the welfare rolls.

Hon Mrs Akande: I have said and I will say again that I am working closely with all my cabinet members, including the Minister of Labour and the Treasurer, in seeing that the direction of those back-to-work programs does serve the needs of many who are on social assistance rolls or who would be on social assistance rolls if those programs were not implemented.

Mr Nixon: The only information we have on these matters is that which we are able to gather and hear from the various statements and from the media, from statements made by a number of ministers. For example, the welfare case load growth in Dufferin county has been 120% year over year and yet the allocation from the Treasurer's $500 million, which is the announced amount, has been zero.

The Elgin county welfare case load has grown by 104% according to the statistics that are publicly available and yet the allocation, as nearly as we can determine, from the $500 million that has been announced of the $700 million that has been promised of the $1 billion that the Premier refers to has been less than 1%.

In Hamilton-Wentworth, the welfare case load has grown not by this 100%-plus, but by 56.7%, a significant load for that municipality, and yet the commitment even in that important area, well represented by people who have the labour leaders eating out of their hands, etc, is about 1%. It is difficult for us to see a relationship between the responsibility that the Minister of Community and Social Services has and the $1 billion that the Premier is referring to that is going to be spent in anti-recessionary measures.

I wonder if she could clarify that matter and give us some additional information that would verify her statement that there is a relationship, however obscure that appears.

Hon Mrs Akande: In actual fact we are addressing the needs of people in the communities to which the member refers. I have not the actual numbers of those who have been served, but certainly there is a direct attempt, through the Minister of Labour and through the Treasurer and through all of us, in fact, to make sure that those needs are met and that those people are absorbed within the back-to-work program and that they receive the assistance that is required in order to enable them to take advantage of those particular opportunities.

WOMEN IN FILM

Mr Runciman: My question is for the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I want to wish her well in her new responsibilities, with some reservations, of course.

My question relates to something I am sure she is familiar with and that is the decision recently announced by the Ontario Film Review Board with respect to its refusal to restrict the distribution of triple X videos, videos that contain explicit sex. I am wondering if the minister can explain to us her views with respect to this matter, whether she considers this kind of material pornographic or art, and if she considers it pornographic, what does she intend to do about the film board's decision?

Hon Ms Churley: I unfortunately will not be able to answer the member's question directly today. To nobody's surprise, I am aware of the situation that the member has asked the question on and I am not going to give my opinion today and I am not going to answer my question today. I spent the day being briefed on the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, etc. I have yet to meet with the film board. I will be doing that shortly and I hesitate to answer on this particular subject until I have met with the film board, but I would be very glad to answer the member's question very soon.

Mr Runciman: Perhaps the minister would like to refer that to the member for Welland-Thorold. I am sure we would get an answer. I find that surprising. Obviously the new minister has been subjected to a crash course from the Premier's office on how to refuse to answer a question in this Legislature. It is strange that she has no opinion when we have the former minister turfed from cabinet for appearing fully clothed as a Sunshine Boy in the Toronto Sun.

This minister was close to tears on Metro council when she had a motion to ban bikini contests in Toronto, and she said, quote: "It sends out the wrong message to women. You can get by on how you look, how big your breasts are." Well, what she is saying apparently is, "Bikini contests, no; explicit sex, yes," or at least, "I do not have an opinion." I ask the minister, what has changed? Why does she not have an opinion on this today? Let's see some action.

Hon Ms Churley: The member will see some action in the very short future on this. I certainly do have opinions on certain issues and members will be hearing about them shortly. I believe, as I think we all do, that there is a difference between sexuality and sensuality and the exploitation of women's bodies as sexual objects, and that is the area I will be looking at. It is a very sensitive area. I will be talking to the film board about this area, but as I said, I will get back to the member and answer the question more specifically in the near future.

Mr Jackson: This issue has been of quite a bit of concern in the last few years and it has been raised in this House. On 27 February 1989, I raised the question in the House with the then government and I tabled order paper questions about the link between pornography and violence against women. The government gave the exact same answer the minister did, that it was unaware or it did not want to make a public statement.

In the order paper question based on some of the research data we shared with the government, the government of that day clearly stated that there is a link between pornography and violence against women. We are asking the minister a simple question because the imperative is there. We have a company that has just opened up in this province. It has opened 20 triple X adult video stores. Two of them have opened up in the community of Burlington.

One of the conditions is that people have to come in the front door and they have to sign a letter which says that they personally support the freedom of an Ontario adult to rent or purchase adult videos. It goes on to say that they have the support of the Ontario Film Review Board. The minister can answer this House today because I have heard her comment on this in the past. Does she believe that there is a link between pornography and violence against women? If she agrees, what is she doing about these video stores that are opening up in my community and communities all across this province?

Hon Ms Churley: It is a very important question and a very important statement today, one which, as the member knows, I take very seriously. I do believe that there is a link between pornography and violence against women. There is no doubt that I believe that. I believe that everybody in this House knows that.

Regarding the question as to what I, as the new minister, am going to do about this particular problem, I must say at this point I do not know enough about the issue to be able to answer today. I want to be able to give a clear and concise answer about where I am going to take it. I do not want to give any information today that tomorrow, after talking to the film board and other interested parties in this issue, I will have to turn around and redefine. It is a very important question and I take it very seriously, as does my government. I will be getting to this very soon.

It is a personal priority of mine, as the Speaker knows and the House knows, and I will be looking into it very, very quickly.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I appreciate the numerous notes I have received, and members may wish to welcome at this time in our midst a former member of the House, a longstanding member for the riding of St George, Margaret Campbell.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is for the other new minister, the Minister of Financial Institutions, and it deals with automobile insurance. Last week, it was suggested in the Toronto Star, and I am not sure if this government is as close to the Toronto Star as the former government was, but in any event, the Star suggested that the minister or the government plans to introduce an auto insurance plan similar to that of Quebec. There will be a meat chart to determine how much compensation is given to accident victims.

In November 1988 the Premier and then opposition leader told the House how he strongly opposed the use of a meat chart in determining workers' compensation benefits. The Premier told the House, "The idea is not acceptable that a bureaucracy would have the power unilaterally to say: 'This is how much you are going to get. This is what your finger is worth. That is what you are going to get and you have no right of appeal.'"

Clearly, the Premier opposes meat chart justice. Therefore, will the minister assure the House that his auto insurance bill will not be a meat chart plan similar to that of Quebec?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member for Leeds-Grenville is well aware that the government is in the midst of developing its legislation on auto insurance, which we hope to introduce this spring. I am not aware that the government has made a decision, and therefore the story in the Star last week is obviously incorrect in terms of precisely what this government will introduce in terms of legislation some time before the end of June.

I can assure the member for Leeds-Grenville, however, that it is our intention to deal in a very full and thorough way with creating a public auto plan in this province that is both fair and that deals with the issues that have been debated here in this House.

Mr Runciman: The minister used twice as many words as the other new minister to say he does not have an answer or he does not know. I want to say that the minister is on the record just last December, just a few short months ago, as voting in favour of the right to sue for innocent accident victims with my legislation. He probably very much regrets that 60 seconds he took in the House that day. In any event, he is on the record. He told us he was voting for the restoration of the right to sue because it deals with the most offensive part of Bill 68, the threshold.

Given the minister's stated policy, will he assure the House that he will restore the right to sue for innocent accident victims, a position he took a few months ago?

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me first of all say very clearly that I in no way regret the short time that I spent on my feet during the debate on the bill of the member for Leeds-Grenville last December.

Second, the question that the member has raised is a question which does not deal with the problem. The question of tort is a solution, not a problem. Innocent victims are what have to be dealt with. This government is pursuing a whole range of options to deal with not just one issue that we found at fault in the Liberal auto insurance legislation, but closer to 100. We will be introducing legislation this spring that will deal with, hopefully, all 100 of the major problems we found with that legislation.

Mr Runciman: That is a very disturbing response.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The question posed by the member for Leeds-Grenville has certainly brought about a great deal of interest from even his own colleagues; and I think, to his own colleagues, he would like to place another supplementary.

Mr Runciman: I was wondering about that myself, Mr Speaker. I want to say, though, that that response is very disturbing, given what I and the member for Welland-Thorold went through last year. We went through months of very moving testimony, probably the most moving testimony that I have heard in my years as a legislator -- witness after witness testifying about concerns about innocent accident victims in this province, people who had no vested interest, someone like Jeremy Rempel, who appeared before us in a wheelchair and seriously injured.

He had nothing to gain but he was very much concerned about the Liberal legislation and about innocent accident victims in the future in this province.

Now we have this minister standing up and his colleagues and the Premier abandoning a principle they fought for in this House, filibustered in this House, ran an election on. Now they do not have the guts to stand up in this House and say, "We still support that basic principle." I am asking the minister simply to repeat what he said in December, "Yes, I support the right to sue for innocent accident victims." Let him say it right now.

Hon Mr Charlton: We share the views of the member for Leeds-Grenville regarding innocent accident victims and we intend to remedy the problems of innocent accident victims in the legislation we set out. It is unfortunate that the member for Leeds-Grenville, although he was in the cabinet for a very short time in the spring of 1985, seems to forget that governments do not stand up in this House and announce their legislation to the questions of opposition members.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mrs Caplan: I have a question today for the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding the minister's refusal to act expeditiously on the issue of municipal conflict of interest in time for this fall's municipal elections.

Last spring, almost one year ago, the Liberal government announced its intention to legislate comprehensive reform to municipal conflict-of-interest legislation by the 1991 municipal elections. An

article in this morning's Globe and Mail about the sale of Fairbank Memorial Park, which the minister also refused to take action on, questioning very seriously some of the proprieties of members of that council, speaks to the urgency of this matter. An 18 January news release announcing the introduction of new municipal conflict-of-interest legislation next fall quotes the minister as saying, "Municipal politicians have a right to know exactly what is expected of them and the people have a right to expect a high standard of behaviour from their representatives."

However, under the NDP's timetable for completing the new bill, municipal politicians will not know what is expected of them and the public will not know what standards to judge candidates by until after November's municipal elections. Will the minister explain today why he is not introducing his new legislation before the end of June so that it can be fully discussed and be in place for the November fall municipal elections?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member will be aware that under her minister, Mr Sweeney, a committee was to be established to review a report on conflict of interest at the municipal level. He never proceeded with the committee, so we have proceeded with that committee. We have put a time limit on that committee to report back to me by the end of July so that we can proceed as quickly as possible this fall with new conflict-of-interest legislation.

But I can say to the member that whether it is under the existing conflict-of-interest legislation or whether it is under new conflict-of-interest legislation, I do not believe that any of the activities in the city of York that have been reported in today's paper would be acceptable under any circumstances, so the new conflict-of-interest legislation is not nearly as important as addressing some of the concerns that exist in that city and all of us in all three parties indicating that that type of behaviour as reported in the paper today is completely unacceptable to all of us.

Mrs Caplan: My question to the minister is, what in fact is he doing about it? So far he has done nothing, and in fact his news release of 18 January stated that most of the committee members were appointed last summer to begin that consultation. That is in his own news release.

He stood in the House last fall, almost six months ago, and stated that he had a number of concerns about the actions of city of York council and the sale of Fairbank park. He said he was concerned about the loss of park land, he was concerned about the way the council had sold the land, he was concerned about the lack of public consultation on the sale of that park land, he was concerned about the refusal of the city of York to acknowledge even that it had a problem, but he refused then to take any action and to this point he has taken no action.

Last spring, the Liberal government introduced Bill 152, regulating the disposal of municipal assets and requiring open municipal meetings. This legislation would have prevented any future secret deals, such as the Fairbank park sale, from occurring and ensured that all council meetings were open and accountable to the public, as well as ensuring that any land sales went through a fair and open tendering process.

I agree with him that there have been very serious allegations that the standard of behaviour is unacceptable, that the level of cynicism in our society and the concern about members of public office must be addressed and must be addressed quickly. This minister has done nothing, and I would ask him why, after six months in office, he has not at least tabled the legislation, Bill 152, so that it can be in place before the municipal elections.

Hon Mr Cooke: That question is almost as long as the member's answers used to be.

I would agree with the member that there were a number of initiatives that had been announced by her government and that we are reviewing, but she must understand as well that we had five weeks or six weeks in session before Christmas and these have to be seen as an entire package. We are bringing in the new conflict legislation, we are reviewing the open-meetings legislation and the disposal of public lands, but in the immediate future I certainly intend to re-examine the whole city of York issue and see if there is some action that we can take as a government to restore public confidence in that local government.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: The minister's own committee of NDP members on farm financing recently stated, "Ontario farmers continue to experience low incomes and economic uncertainty." Farm income is expected to drop by some 15% to 20% here in Ontario again this year, the fourth year in a row. Over the last year, farmers have worked with the provinces -- and I underline "farmers have worked with the provinces" -- and with the federal government to develop a pair of linked, complementary safety net programs known as GRIP and NISA, gross revenue insurance plan and net income stabilization account.

The minister has announced that Ontario will participate in the first, the GRIP. Could he tell us when he plans to announce that we will be participating in the NISA?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The NISA the member alludes to is under consideration by my ministry. We are looking at a number of other programs as well. There are some other urgent situations in the farm community that need addressing. We have put together several programs. We have asked the Treasurer for funding for some of those programs. We will be reviewing our priorities. We would like to make sure that the money that we have available to this ministry is spent in the best possible way. NISA is on the list, and I am not sure whether we will be announcing participation in NISA or whether we will be announcing some other program that may serve farmers who are in greater need.

Mr Villeneuve: This was set up by farmers and it was in conjunction with both levels of government and it is intended that GRIP and NISA work together. They support and complement one another as a program for agriculture, and if the minister goes with only one and not the other, he is eliminating a number of sectors within the agricultural community. Will the minister now announce that he will not overlook any sector of Ontario agriculture and tell us that he will be participating in NISA as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It is not our intent to overlook any sector. GRIP, although it is a long-term, 15-year program, is intended to serve the needs of farmers in the short term, to help them get over the hurdles in the short term. NISA, as the member suggests, is a longer-term plan that I believe would serve agriculture and farmers well in Ontario, and it is certainly a plan that I can support in the long term.

However, the way the plan is set up, it suggests that farmers would have money to set aside in a plan which would act as a savings plan, what they would have for a rainy day, and the provincial and federal governments would match the dollars that the farmers put into that plan. I would say to the member that at this point in time we have other farmers who do not have any money to put aside, who in fact need money to go into the planting season with, and we would like to probably address their needs first, very much keeping in mind, though, the need of farmers to have NISA for the long term.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Martin: Cross-border shopping is a sensitive issue, especially in constituencies like my own, Sault Ste Marie. Due to poor economic conditions, in order for consumers to shop cheaply they turn to the United States market. Now the retail markets in border towns like Sault Ste Marie are suffering due to excessive cross-border shopping. My question today is to the Minister of Revenue. In light of the federal government's plan to fastlane border crossings, what is the Ontario government planning to do to relieve the economic impact on communities affected?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I, like the member for Sault Ste Marie, come from a cross-border community and am very aware of the difficulties that we face being a cross-border community. I should add that my federal counterpart did not consult with the Ontario government on the new pilot project. I have asked officials of the Ministry of Revenue to get back to me on details of the new pilot project that they are launching so that we can look at it and assess the effect this program has on cross-border shopping and our retail sales tax.

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Brown: My question is to the Premier. I want to raise with the Premier today the issue of Elliot Lake. The Premier would be aware that unemployment in Elliot Lake is running at about 62%, he would be aware that we have lost 2,500 jobs in the mining sector and he would be aware that in January 1990 the Minister of Natural Resources urged the former Premier to buy 100% of Ontario Hydro's uranium needs in Elliot Lake. He would be aware of all those things. He would be aware that he himself confirmed this promise in August of this year and he would be aware that his own party's convention just three weeks ago confirmed the commitment.

Yet we were quite surprised that last week the Minister of Energy said that the Ontario government will not direct Hydro to pay the price that Denison Mines wants for its uranium and went further, to say that this company is just not viable in this province. My constituents are confused, my constituents are frustrated. Is the Premier going to honour his commitment and buy 100% of Hydro's needs in Ontario or is he not?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say directly to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, as I spoke to him last week -- and I have spoken to the mayor, I have spoken to the members of the trade unions involved, I have spoken to the leadership of the community as much as I can and we have also been talking to Ontario Hydro. The Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Natural Resources are scheduled to go to Elliot Lake next week to have some more discussions, and the member is certainly going to be invited and involved in those discussions.

I would just make one observation to the member, and that is to say that the difficulties that the Denison company has now and has had for the last while really have nothing to do with Hydro. They extend well beyond the boundaries of this province, as he will know. They have to do with developments in British Columbia; they have to do with developments overseas as well. The company's difficulties are very real and very significant and are not directly related to the question of the Hydro contract.

So I would say to the member that, obviously, previous statements that have been made and objectives of policy that have been made are important to us. We also have to take into account the realities with respect to the situation at Denison. We also have to take into account the realities of the costs of the contracts as we have now discovered them to be, because we have an obligation to do that. I can only tell the member that he will be very much involved as we come to a solution of this issue.

Mr Brown: I appreciate that the Premier will keep us all involved and that the Premier is concerned and that the Premier is concerned with the diversification, but I would tell the Premier that when Algoma Steel is in trouble, he goes to help Algoma Steel. I would tell the Premier that we have grave difficulties in Elliot Lake, and what he is telling me is nothing new to either me or the people of Elliot Lake. I would tell the Premier that we need some time in Elliot Lake. We need four or five years to make sure the diversification plans can come together and the people of Elliot Lake will have jobs.

They made a specific promise to the people of Elliot Lake, a very specific promise, and the promise demands an answer today. Is the Premier going to buy 100% of the uranium in Elliot Lake, and if so, Elliot Lake lives, or if he is not, should we get the U-Haul trailers out now?

Hon Mr Rae: That kind of comment really does not help the people of Elliot Lake. It does not help the problem. No, it does not. It does not deal with the issue.

I can say to the member, when he was in government he may not have been aware of the Denison contract. He may not have been aware of the Rio Algom contract. He may not have been told about that by his colleague the Leader of the Opposition and by others.

I can only tell him what we are doing for Elliot Lake. We are taking the same approach that we have taken with Algoma, and that is to say that we are going to sit down with everyone. There has already been an announcement of $15 million for the community of Elliot Lake announced this Christmas, and I can say to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin that we are going to be doing everything possible to see that the community has a strong and diversified future.

That is precisely the direction which this government wants to take, but I can say to the honourable member that it would be absurd of us to take action without the kind of consultation which needs to take place with Hydro and with the community and with everyone, which is precisely what we are going to be doing.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister and all members of this House should be aware that tourism is Ontario's third-largest industry and Ontario's largest private sector employer, employing some 16% of the Ontario workforce. The minister should also be aware that Ontario's tourism industry is in crisis. Ontario has lost between $360 million and $380 million over the past year in retail sales due to cross-border shopping and visits to this province by American tourists have substantially declined. Would the minister please tell this House what specific action he has taken to address these problems?

Hon Mr North: On the issue that the member speaks of we have talked at length to a number of different tourism groups and we have asked them their thoughts and we have been trying to gain some simple knowledge as to whether or not they feel that there are things we can do that are viable. Some of the things they have asked us to do is they have asked us to bring a working committee together that would help them to give presentations to the Fair Tax Commission or other groups which government feels it is going to develop, and that will give them, they feel, the opportunity they need to address this problem in a way that is beneficial to them.

Mr J. Wilson: It is fine to keep going around the province making tourism industry groups feel good, taking helicopters and making announcements in northern Ontario, but what the industry needs now is action.

The minister will know that several months ago the federal government introduced a $4-million marketing initiative strictly for southern Ontario, and it is the first time in the federal government's history that it has earmarked money specifically for a region. It has also over the last year doubled its marketing budget and its commitment to the industry.

The minister was quoted in the 9 March edition of the Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin saying: "I back the federal government's new campaign. It's a shot in the arm for the region. Southern Ontario has been hit hard by the declining auto industry. I've been on the phone to the federal minister anticipating a discussion meeting with his office."

I suggest that the exact opposite is true. In fact, I have had discussions with the federal minister where he tells me that some two months ago he tried to get a meeting with the minister and he has not returned his phone calls. He has not co-operated with the federal government in order to address the problems of the tourism industry. It is a three-way street. It is federal, provincial and private sector. When is the minister going to get off his butt, phone the federal government and co-operate with its new initiative?

Hon Mr North: I would like to address the member's concerns. First of all, I would like to say that we have been in contact with the federal minister's office. Members of our office have been in contact. We are very interested in initiatives that the federal government brings forth. We have actually spoken to cabinet and caucus about these issues and we would like to entertain any other offers that he wishes to make.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Drainville: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Mines, if I might. As the minister obviously knows, there has been a significant slowdown in mineral exploration in the northland. We also know that numerous companies have been closing their mineral exploration offices, that there have been cutbacks in the number of personnel they have. In 1990 it is estimated that $200 million will have been used for mineral exploration, which is 15% down from 1989 and 40% down from 1988.

I would ask the minister, in light of these very difficult statistics and the very difficult time that the people in the north are having in the mining industry, what the minister and his ministry will be doing.

[Applause]

Hon Mr Pouliot : Quelle modération. You are right, Mr Speaker, I will not refer the question. In fact, it is the most interesting and insightful question because it deals with the 40% of note.

We are talking about 60 operating mines, no less, 80,000 to 85,000 direct and indirect jobs, putting $170 million, by virtue of a production surpassing $7 billion, in the pockets of the Treasurer of Ontario to afford social programs such as health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, education services.

But wait. The money is coming back. Through the prospectors' assistance program, what we are doing is we are putting money in the pockets of prospectors before they even have a chance to put rocks in the box. We are also supplementing, for people who have been given a chance to dream, the mineral incentive program. It is being augmented to the tune of $2 million to give a further chance to get closer to the day where production will be achieved. We are on the verge of concluding an agreement with the federal government that will produce an entitlement of some $30 million in a collective spirit.

Alas, not all is well in mining, for it was these people at the federal level who pulled the rug with the flowthrough share system. We are doing all we can in Ontario.

The Speaker: I hesitate to ask if the member would like a supplementary. No? Thank you.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Offer: My question is for the Minister of Inaction. I notice that I think all of them opened up their briefing books, but I will place it to the Minister of Labour.

The minister will remember, as we do, the announcement that he and the Premier made in the aftermath of the Massey-Varity sellout of plans for a wage protection fund. Last week bankruptcy statistics showed that, with the recession, Ontario is also in a deep bankruptcy crisis. All we have seen of this promise is the minister's directionless discussion paper, which lists literally dozens of options for what will be covered and how it will be paid for. They refuse to act at a time when action is necessary. People do not know what to expect or when.

Will the minister today confirm that any legislation he puts forward -- and that is a big "if," but if he does put forward any legislation -- will he commit today that there will be an opportunity for business and labour, public consultation on that legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member I would think knows that we have gone through a consultation process with the options that are there. The member should also know that when we bring in the legislation, and we will be taking a look at the options and presenting that legislation in this session of the House, at that point in time it will probably go out to committee and there will be a chance to participate in the discussions on that bill.

Mr Offer: The minister will then be aware, by his own admission, that the very earliest time for getting a wage protection fund in place will either be late fall or early winter of this year. That is the very earliest time, as the minister has now committed to public consultation after the tabling of this legislation. The Premier told workers in October to start lining up for their cheques. Thousands of workers have taken his advice. They have stood in line this past fall, this winter and, by his own admission, will have to continue to stand in line spring, fall and winter of this coming year.

Bankruptcies in this province have shot through the roof, and the minister has raised the roof even higher with expectations that he will keep his promise. Thousands of workers are now asking the question, when will the minister be bringing forward this legislation, and will he be bringing forward this legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member was not listening or he would have heard me say that he will see the legislation in this session of Parliament. We would like to see it through --

Mr Offer: You said that last session also.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No, we did not say last session. We would like to see it through before the House adjourns in June. We will make that effort. If I heard correctly from the member's leader, maybe we will be able to get it through the House by June, but he will see the legislation very shortly and we will see how fast we can work it through the House. That will depend to some extent on the members opposite.

INMATES' ACTIVITIES

Mr Carr: In the absence of the Minister of Correctional Services, I will address this to the Premier, if he could wait a quick moment. On the front page of the Toronto Star today there is a headline about eight convicted criminals who were sentenced to perform community work actually played volleyball during that period of time. Neither their agency, whose job it was to find the men work, nor the probation office knew the men were playing volleyball every Monday for three hours. Ad hoc volleyball games are breaking out across the province.

My question to the Premier is this: Will he instruct the Minister of Correctional Services, if the Premier does not believe this is appropriate, to review the procedures to eliminate this type of practice?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I am sure you will appreciate that the minister is very much in charge of this and I will refer the question to him. I obviously will bring it to his attention when I see him some time this week. I am not sure when he will be back. Obviously it is something of which he will want to be aware.

Mr Carr: I will then ask a supplementary to the Premier that hopefully he can answer. It is now spring in Ontario. There are a lot of things that need to be done in this province. There are river banks that could be cleaned up, there are trees that could be planted, hospitals and seniors' homes that need assistance, not to mention some border crossings that are looking for someone to direct traffic on Sundays. Will the Premier instruct, under the circumstances, the Minister of Correctional Services to have the people deal with some substantial issues and not spend time serving volleyballs?

The question comes to the fact that we have in this province a situation where people, when there are actual jobs that could be done by some of these people serving sentences, are in fact playing recreation. Will the Premier give us the commitment today that he will make sure they get off the court and get out there and do something constructive with their time?

Hon Mr Rae: As I said in my answer to the first question, I think the fairest way to respond is simply to say that I will raise it with the minister.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

I come from an area in Ontario which up until two years ago had the lowest unemployment rate in all of Canada. Many of the unemployed workers, especially in the automotive sector, feel their job loss is a direct result of the Canada-US free trade deal.

Would my colleague please tell the Legislature how Ontario views these negotiations and what Ontario will be doing in support of Ontario constituents when these negotiations commence?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: You're looking well rested.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I thank the member for Mississauga West.

The federal government has led Canada into yet another round of free trade and it is a direction which Ontario does not support. There are several reasons for this position in terms of trade and the likely economic gains for Ontario are minimal at best. We view the trilateral negotiations as an extension of the Canada-US free trade agreement, and that agreement has not worked for the people of this province.

Quite frankly, we do not see how this trade agreement with Mexico can be other than an exacerbation of what has already been an unfortunate circumstance for the workers and many companies of this province. We feel and have concerns that these negotiations could lead to even further concessions which would translate into increased adjustments for Canadians. To support these negotiations would be to imply that the federal government's performance to date in helping workers adjust to these layoffs and job losses has been okay, and that too has not been all right with this government nor is it likely to be. We are in fact not at all satisfied with the results of that free trade agreement.

However, I want to indicate to the House that the government is not opposed to multilateral trade and quite frankly supports GATT initiatives and the kind of trade liberalization which all of us have enjoyed in the past and hope to foster into the future.

Mr Turnbull: What are you going to do about it?

Mr Stockwell: Rip it up, just like you were going to do with the GST.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can understand that the opposition does not want to hear particularly from this side --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. Would you stop the clock, table. Would you restore 30 seconds to that, please. That is the time that I had stopped. It would be helpful if we try to have succinct answers to questions that are posed. Do we have a supplementary?

Mr Cooper: I understand that the President of Mexico, as well as the leader of the opposition in Mexico, will be paying a visit to Ontario early in April. Given the Ontario government's obvious opposition to the proposed trilateral negotiations, would the minister tell the Legislature if he intends to raise Ontario's concerns with these two visitors?

Hon Mr Pilkey: In light of the Speaker's very sage direction, yes, the Premier and I will be doing exactly that.

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr Cleary: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Can the minister clarify for this House whether or not he supports the St Lawrence Parks Commission's call for business partners in order that the five parks closed in February 1990 be opened and operated in a financially viable manner?

Hon Mr North: I appreciate the question from the member. Presently we are working together with the commission on some joint ventures, and one of the things that we are interested in is looking at ways that we can keep these parks open. We are very disappointed at the aspect that the parks have been closed. They were not closed, as members will understand, by our government, but we are doing everything that we can at this point, working with the commission, to look at the options that are available, and hopefully we will have something in the very near future. I thank the member for the question.

Mr Cleary: Can the minister guarantee for this House and for the people of eastern Ontario that the parks will be open this summer?

Hon Mr North: I will try to be as polite as I can about this. We are not the people who closed the parks. I am sure the member will understand and know who closed the parks.

Mr Bradley: But you're the government now. You have got the limo. You have got to give the answer.

Mr Runciman: This is a pretty big flip-flop.

Hon Mr North: You will understand, Mr Speaker, that they closed the parks; that was then. We will try to open the parks; this is now.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga South.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South was recognized before time had expired on the clock. I will allow her the opportunity to place a question and for a response.

ONTARIO FILM INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications and it concerns the Ontario film investment program, which he and I both know expires on 31 March unless this government renews the funding.

The minister also knows that the $15 million spent by the government on the program in the fiscal 1990-91 year generated $120 million worth of film production. In other words, the program creates jobs and stimulates the economic activity. He also knows that without an incentive program such as the Ontario film investment program, Ontario cannot compete with other jurisdictions like Quebec, which offers generous tax write-offs to investors in film production.

It is a very serious economic and cultural decision that this government should have made before this deadline expires, and we simply ask the minister today, will this government make a commitment to renew the Ontario film investment program in order to ensure that Canadian films continue to be made in Ontario and the revenue and jobs are generated that are so much needed?

Hon Mr Marchese: I am very well aware of the benefits of the film industry, in Ontario in particular. In fact, it generates $220 million worth of investment, so it is not a matter that we are not aware of.

We have met with all of the different industry people who have told us about the needs and the benefits to this government. I recognize those benefits. I also recognize that this film investment program was sunsetted for two years and we are now having to deal with this in terms of renewal. I can assure the member that we are looking at it with respect to all of the needs of the people of Ontario. I hope to be able to have an announcement very soon.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr Hansen: I present this petition on behalf of 214 residents of Lincoln. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to strongly urge the Legislative Assembly to enact laws which would protect the rights of the unborn child and to withdraw its decision to fund abortion clinics in Ontario.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

Mr Villeneuve: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" -- this is a petition signed by 356 people petitioning the government and the Ministry of Transportation to keep the licence-issuing office open, office number 440, 2nd Street West, in Cornwall, Ontario, and I agree with them.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

M. Chiarelli propose la première lecture du projet de loi 41, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Chiarelli: The bill would amend the Environmental Protection Act by giving municipalities and, in territory without municipal organization, local service boards, the authority to make bylaws prohibiting the depositing of waste from outside the municipality or board at sites within the municipality or board area. The bylaws could prohibit this either absolutely or unless certain conditions set out in the bylaw were met.

The bylaws would be effective even in the case of a waste disposal site in respect of which the owner or operator had previously obtained an approval from the director under the Environmental Protection Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION / RAPPORT PROVISOIRE DU COMLTÉ SPÉCIAL SUR LE RÔLE DE L'ONTARIO AU SEIN DE LA CONFEDERATION

Resuming consideration of the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

Suite de l'examen du rapport provisoire du comité spécial sur le rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.

Hon Miss Martel: There has been an agreement among the three parties to divide the time evenly

Hon Mr Hampton: I am honoured to have this opportunity to address the Legislature on the future of Canada. It is indeed a privilege, as Attorney General, to participate in discussions which allow us to define the direction of future constitutional debates.

The report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation provides us with the framework of issues that need to be addressed as we talk about the future of Canada. I would like to commend the committee on the fine work it has done to this point. I know that their future work will contribute significantly in defining Ontario's role in helping to build a new Canada.

The constitution of any country cannot remain static. This is especially true in a country like Canada, where differences are encouraged, indeed celebrated. A constitution must reflect the changes that occur as a country evolves and as international influences are brought to bear upon our lives. The status quo is no longer acceptable. The events of the last year clearly pointed out that changes must be made.

A united Canada by necessity must include the first nations and Quebec. This is the cornerstone upon which all discussions must be rooted. We must be committed to working towards making the fundamental structural changes necessary to keep Quebec in Canada and accord the first nations their legitimate position in this country.

With this debate, Canada has the opportunity to build a new Canada that is based upon what we share in common and at the same time recognizes the unique perspectives that exist in this country. We have an opportunity to have our constitutional laws, conventions and practices reflect our goals for social and economic justice.

Canadians have a lot in common. No matter where we live, whether it is a large urban centre like Toronto or a small northern community such as the one I come from, we all deserve a certain quality of life and believe that standards should be shared by all. This quality of life includes things like food on the table, shelter, security, friendship, dignity and accessible and affordable health care. These form the basis for the common values that bring us together and define our identity.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982 is one expression of our shared values. However, it is important to recognize that respect for fundamental rights did not begin in 1982. Prior to 1982 many provinces, including Ontario, had passed human rights codes and, of course, the federal government had enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights. The charter succeeded in securing for the people of the country rights which could not be legislated away by any government of the day.

Let us not underestimate how important Canadians view those rights. Without question, Canadians have a real sense of the significance the charter plays in their day-to-day lives. I believe it is important to continue to pursue not just constitutional means of securing our fundamental rights but also through expanding protection through legislative initiatives such as the human rights codes and pay equity. The notion must be reflected through changes made to the institutions that govern our lives.

The committee emphasized the importance of involving women in any process of change, as well as the importance of affirming gender equality as a fundamental value shared by Canadians. The equality of women is fundamental to their continued meaningful participation in society and is recognized in

section 15 and

section 28 of the charter. With 52% of the population in Canada being women, it is simply unacceptable to consider constitutional negotiations without full and complete representation of women from all backgrounds at every level of future discussions. This alone is sufficient reason to oppose constitutional amendments drafted solely by male first ministers. Women must be at the table.

The committee also, through a number of presentations by disabled individuals, was able to obtain a better understanding of the barriers they face to full participation in society. Although the charter specifically guarantees that individuals with disabilities be treated equally, there are structural, institutional and attitudinal changes that must be made in order to secure full participation in our society. I fully support the committee's initiative to continue to explore these issues.

As we build a new Canada, respect for and affirmation of both individual and collective rights will continue to be a central shared value. Collective rights and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. It is important that we reflect upon and recognize that there must be both a balance between competing rights and a balance of individual rights in the interest of the broader community as expressed through democratic institutions.

I would like to discuss another important issue. No debate can take place without the active participation of the first nations and the consideration of their legitimate position in this country. I am pleased to see that the matter of justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples was one on which there was the widest consensus before the committee. Aboriginal peoples had functioning societies for thousands of years before we Europeans arrived, with their own social and justice codes that worked well for them. We recognize that aboriginal people have the inherent right to self-government based on their occupation of the land prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Within days of becoming government, the Premier formally recognized the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. Self-government is more than a land claim agreement. It is more than a piece of paper. Self-government means community control over all aspects of everyday life, including not only those decisions that address physical needs but also those decisions that embrace the spiritual needs of a people.

Governments have for too long adopted a paternalistic approach towards aboriginal peoples. We who are responsible for creating geographic prisons must now ensure that control over the institutions and services that affect the lives of the people of the first nations is returned to them. The first nations must be at the table. I believe that future constitutional discussions must address the entrenchment of the principle of aboriginal self-government. I believe that aboriginal peoples must fully participate in the important decisions that affect them.

We must address issues such as protection of traditional values, quality of life, resources, language, education, family relations and the care of children, economic opportunities, land claim negotiations and the administration of justice. After the first nations have defined their priorities, we must work with them to identify the resources necessary to enable them to develop their own solutions.

Indeed, the consensus that the select committee heard across the province provides a strong mandate to this government as it pursues its agenda on self-government, land claims and improvement in quality of life within aboriginal communities. I repeat, no debate can take place without the first nations.

Another area I wish to address is the issue of regional disparity. I admit that my comments reflect in great measure my own experience as an individual who comes not from the heartland of Ontario but from the hinterland of Ontario and the hinterland of Canada, often referred to as one of those have-not regions. Where I come from, the public sentiment most frequently expressed is that of being on the outside looking in.

I grew up watching television, listening to radio and reading newspapers from Winnipeg, which expressed western Canadian views and political grievances. I have great empathy with the often expressed view that too many important decisions in our country are made from the central Canada, southern Ontario and Quebec perspective, while the rest of Canada is asked to tag along.

As someone from northern Ontario, I know well the struggles faced by people living in regions that do not include Metro Toronto. Most discussions regarding regionalism in this country focus on five distinct geographic areas -- the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and the territories -- but in fact the northern region of this country, from east to west, shares a way of life which is completely different from that which is experienced by 80% of Canadians who live below the 49th parallel. A person who lives in a town in northern Ontario shares more common values with a person who lives in northern Quebec than with a person who lives in Toronto.

Regional disparity is not an interprovincial issue. Residents in northern Ontario, in this richest of provinces, suffer from chronic underemployment and reduced opportunities. Have-not regions are not only financially poorer but their economic base is more narrow and more fragile. As a result, there needs to be extra attention paid to what elsewhere might just be weathered as a downturn in the economy.

Since the time of Confederation, governments in Canada have been aware of the disparities in services, rights and opportunities that exist between regions of the country and between regions within a province. Although sharing has long been a fundamental value to Canadians and an active government role in promoting equity between persons in regions has been a persistent theme of our history, the assistance has been ad hoc, piecemeal and often tardy.

In 1982, we took a major step forward. All governments agreed to enshrine in the Constitution, through

section 36, an open-ended recognition and commitment that all Canadians, wherever they may live, enjoy equal economic opportunity and essential public services without an extra tax burden.

Section 36 has been given little more than lipservice by past and present governments, and that is a very sad fact. One only has to look at northern Ontario to ascertain the devastation brought about by the loss of federal financial commitment to national programs and the special impact of constraints in economically vulnerable regions as we struggle through an economic slowdown.

As the committee examines the relationship between constitutional and economic change, economic disparities must be given a full hearing. We need to determine what type of national structure, operating under what rules, will help us to meet our goals for social and economic justice.

Let me repeat: Canadians have a lot in common. They have a common right to quality of life that must be ensured and protected through a strong central government. Our national institutions must be strong enough to protect our quality of life, yet be flexible enough to allow for the redefinition of particular needs and concerns that are evident in the different regions of our country.

We need a strong Canada. It does not and cannot exist in isolation. We must be assured that Canada, through institutional means, represents and protects our interests in the international arena. Canada must be a strong participant within the context of the global community as it evolves. It seems out of step to consider fragmenting into a number of isolated regions while other nations are grouping together to form strong and protective alliances. At the same time, we have to consider the type of changes necessary to ensure that regional differences and concerns are represented in our federal institutions.

As we debate again what it means to be a Canadian, we must ensure that we identify the economic, cultural and social values essential to us as Canadians. As I read the report of the committee, I saw time and time again the awareness of the people of Ontario of the complexity of the debate. The majority of people in Ontario care deeply about Canada remaining whole. They understand the importance of affording the first nations their legitimate place in Canada, accommodating Quebec's special needs and maintaining a vital and productive economy in the face of American economic power.

Many contributors, especially from northern Ontario, expressed the need for our constitutional discussions and reforms to address the worsening plight of the have-not regions of Canada. The message is clear: Any constitutional reform package must address the current manifestations of the dominating themes of Canada's history.

I believe that to a great extent we find ourselves in political and constitutional difficulties now because too many of our political leaders over the past 25 years have either not understood or too frequently ignored the depth and breadth of our constitutional fabric. Consider, for example, the alienated message that is inherent for agriculturally based western Canada when a Prime Minister elected from the heartland of Canada tells western farmers that he has no responsibility to help sell their wheat in the midst of a severe 1970s agricultural recession.

Consider also the tears in our constitutional fabric that resulted when the federal government of the day in 1980 insisted that it had the right and power to unilaterally amend our Constitution without regard to the opposition or aspirations of dissenting provinces, the first nations or our minority communities; or again, the implementation of a Canada-US trade agreement on the basis of a narrow economic agenda while trying to ignore the impact on some of our most symbolic national institutions.

This cuts to the heart of our sense of what it means to be a Canadian in the shadow of American economic power and political ambition.

I believe, likewise, that there is much that we can learn and must learn from the failure of the Meech Lake accord. We must appreciate that the process surrounding the 1982 amendments to our Constitution and the Constitution Act of 1982 itself substantially altered the constitutional reform process for the future. Canadians who had never been heard from before, or whose voices were easily ignored in the past, became passionately involved in our constitutional process. Women, aboriginal people, multicultural groups, language minorities and people with disabilities entered the 1981-82 debate and spoke with a strong collective voice. Their place in Canada could not be ignored.

After people fought long and hard from 1980 to 1982 for important constitutional changes, it was a critical error to believe that they could be excluded from the Meech Lake discussions. The public reaction to the closed-door, backroom boys approach was negative and became overwhelmingly so when attempts at public participation in the Meech Lake process were rebuffed.

I believe the public's opposition to the Meech Lake closed-door approach has been well documented by the committee. The committee report states:

"The need of the people of Ontario both to participate in constitutional discussions and to be kept informed of their progress was raised time and again. Closed-door meetings of first ministers were strongly criticized There can be little doubt that the Meech Lake process left people with a profound sense of disenfranchisement."

I believe that the committee is absolutely correct in its view that in its next stage it must find innovative ways that ensure effective public participation in the whole of the constitutional reform process. Failure on the part of Ontario or other provinces to find creative ways to ensure meaningful and effective public participation in ongoing constitutional reform discussions is bound to lead to the same public backlash that surrounded the Meech Lake accord and ultimately led to its defeat.

The committee report on page 26 states:

"Many witnesses commented on Ontario's role in negotiating and creating a new constitutional arrangement. It was argued that Ontario should play a leadership role in constitutional negotiations both because of its historically close relationship with, and proximity to, Quebec, as well as its size and economic strength within the Canadian Confederation."

The committee's position, as stated, is: "We agree with those witnesses who argued that Ontario should promote...native and language issues; cultural diversity; and free trade."

For a number of reasons there is a great deal of misunderstanding across our country as to the meaning of the constitutional processes and events that have occurred in Canada over the past decade. Ontario must attempt to lead the discussion on the different

interpretations that exist across Canada about those constitutional processes and events. While it may not be possible to achieve agreement on what has happened in the decade of the 1980s, it may be possible to at least achieve some common understanding.

As Attorney General, I look forward to the process that lies ahead with a sense of excitement and not a little trepidation: excitement because of the potential to build a new Canada which reflects the shared values of 25 million Canadians; trepidation because so much is at stake: the very future of Canada. I am honoured to play a role in this endeavour, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make these preliminary observations today.

Mr Sorbara: It is a pleasure for me to join in this debate, particularly following the Attorney General. I want to say to him that I listened carefully to his remarks and I want to congratulate him for what he has had to say today on the issue of Canada's Constitution. It appears that he worked on remarks that were appropriate to the occasion, and I am reminded that the Premier has said on many occasions, and other premiers before him, that this issue really is not a partisan issue; it is one that we all join in together, trying to find, in this case, solutions that are appropriate for not only our province but this great nation.

I want to begin by congratulating the members of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, and in doing so, to say a specific word of congratulations to the member for Dovercourt, who as a new member of the assembly took on a very challenging responsibility as he chaired that committee. The other members of the committee, each of the members of the committee worked diligently, I am told, from very early in the morning until very late at night, for days and days and days, and travelled on a

schedule that I think no other committee in the history of this Legislature has matched.

I want to say a specific word about the contributions of our own members of that committee, that is, the member for York North, the member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for Mississauga North. As it turns out, given that we have just come out of an election some six months ago, those members, along with the member for Parry Sound, really represented on the committee the voice and the ears of experience.

I think what they did, besides listening diligently and questioning thoroughly the witnesses who came before that committee, is they shared their own experience as to the conduct of select committees and therefore, I think, helped the new members of the committee, those from the New Democratic Party and from the third party as well.

I just should say in that regard that the first report of the select committee will add significantly to the debate that is now going on in Canada on the question of the future of the Canadian Constitution and amendments that are to be made thereto. I do, however, look forward to the committee's second report -- I presume that that will be its final report. I say that because this first report, as thorough as it is, sets down some basic principles that the committee thinks must be taken into consideration as we continue to examine this question.

We will look forward down the road to the comments that the committee will have after its next round of work and the investigations that it will be making in conjunction with that next round of work.

I must say that in order for the committee to do that work effectively, there will come a time -- I would suggest to the Chairman of the committee and to the members of this House -- very, very soon when this committee, the members of this House and the people of this province will have to hear from the Premier of the province of Ontario and have to hear from the government of the province of Ontario what their views are in respect of constitutional change. I do not think that issue and the question of where the Premier is coming from can come any too soon.

There is a long history in this province, a history summed up as eloquently as it could ever be done by my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand in a speech about a month ago to members of our own party --

Mr Nixon: A great speech.

Mr Sorbara: It was a great speech, indeed, I say to my leader. But in that speech the member for Brant-Haldimand made it perfectly clear that there is a powerful historical tradition in the province of Ontario of premiers of this province taking a strong leadership role whenever this country has been confronted with constitutional issues.

In recent memory, David Peterson fought very strongly right across Canada to try to ensure that the Meech Lake accord was passed. He was one of the key players in the negotiation of that accord and one of the key players in the attempt to have the Meech Lake accord passed. As my leader said a month ago in that speech, he paid the political consequences for taking that leadership role.

If you go back a few years before that, Premier John Robarts and the establishment of the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference really set the agenda for almost 20 years and, I think, took the steps that led directly to the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 under the leadership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

So the committee and the province await word from the Premier of Ontario as to where he stands and what he thinks needs to be done in order to get us beyond the current constitutional impasse that seems to be impeding progress in Canada. This issue cannot be underestimated, because until we hear from the Premier, all of the rest of the work that is going on in Canada is going to have to await final resolution.

The work of the Bélanger-Campeau commission is about to be presented in the province of Quebec. We know very well where Jacques Parizeau stands on the Canadian Constitution and we know well where Premier Bourassa stands on the Constitution.

Premier Frank McKenna has spoken out strongly about his views as to where we should be going. Premier Clyde Wells of the province of Newfoundland has made his views very clear. He has called on a number of occasions for the creation of a constituents' assembly in which we could vest the authority for leading us, guiding us, through the constitutional dilemma that we face right now. Other premiers, certainly, throughout western Canada have made their views clear. The Premier of Alberta has been eloquent in his call for and defence of a reconstituted Senate, the so-called triple E Senate.

Indeed, the Premier of the province when he was in opposition spoke eloquently and passionately and in great detail and with great intelligence as to where he thought Ontario should be going. I remember the standing ovation that he received in this very House when he explained to the members of this House and to the province generally why his party was supporting the passage of the Meech Lake accord. He received a standing ovation. It was a passionate speech. It was a brilliant speech and it was delivered with an understanding of the constitutional issues that this country faces of a level that few of us can ever hope to reach for.

The results and the realities of 6 September 1990 are that the Premier, who was at that time the Leader of the Opposition, has now assumed a different responsibility, and we anxiously await the direction that he can provide for the province of Ontario in resolving our constitutional dilemma.

While awaiting his direction, there are just two or three things that I would like to say at this point in time in the debate. Now that the committee has reported to the House, members of the House have an opportunity to make some few comments, and that is what I propose to do today in the brief time available to me.

I think there are two issues that we should remind ourselves of as we move towards a more thorough discussion in the House. Two myths in this debate desperately need to be corrected before we can make any real progress, I believe.

The first issue is that, in repatriating the Constitution and bringing to the Constitution a Charter of Rights in 1982, the rest of Canada did not reject the province of Quebec. In fact, as so eloquently described by the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau just a few days ago across the street at Convocation Hall, when he delivered, I think, an eloquent examination of the so-called patriation case that the Supreme Court heard in 1981, there was absolutely no rejection of the province of Quebec as the patriation process went from consideration in the House of Commons to legislatures to the Supreme Court of Canada and, finally, to Her Majesty the Queen for ratification.

In fact, Mr Trudeau in his speech reminded us that when the House of Commons voted for repatriation of the Constitution and the inclusion in it of a Charter of Rights, some 71 of the 74 members of the House of Commons from the Province of Quebec supported the address to Her Majesty for repatriation of the Constitution. Indeed, some 35 members of the Legislature of the province of Quebec voted in favour of repatriation as well, and as he pointed out, that represented on a weighted average 65% of all of the representatives from the province of Quebec, both federal and provincial, who expressed their support for repatriation of the Constitution.

Above and beyond that, as he pointed out -- I am just repeating here -- public opinion polls taken at that time, in 1982 in the province of Quebec, suggested that there was overwhelming support for bringing the Canadian Constitution to Canada, finally, after some 59 years of trying.

That exercise was broadly and generally and strongly supported by the people of Quebec, so that in 1984, when the government changed in Ottawa and the new Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, started to suggest that an historic wrong had been done to the people of Quebec by repatriation, it was really the now Prime Minister of Canada that was foisting some deceit on the Canadian people. That, I think, is at the heart of the problems that we confront today.

The second myth that I think needs to be corrected as we carry on with this debate is the myth that goes as follows, that the failure of the Meech Lake accord was somehow a rejection by the people of Canada outside of the province of Quebec of the interests and the needs of the people of Quebec in that constitutional exercise.

If we have a look at what happened during the Meech Lake debate, it is clear, at least in my understanding of it, that there was no rejection of the aspirations of the people of Quebec in the failure of Meech Lake. Indeed, this assembly and every other assembly in Canada but for the assembly of the province of Manitoba passed Meech Lake. Yes, in Newfoundland, under the leadership of Clyde Wells, that assent to the Meech Lake accord was rescinded. But even Clyde Wells was prepared finally, after the famous Langevin meeting, to accept the Meech Lake accord in the interest of all of Canada.

There was really only one legislator, in the province of Manitoba, who, in powerful, eloquent and passionate parliamentary style, brought about, I suggest, the demise of the Meech Lake accord. We have to accept that for better or for worse. I think that Elijah Harper, in doing what he did, was making a powerful statement about the status of aboriginal peoples in Canada, and we accept that. The Attorney General himself, who, I regret, has not been able to stay for the rest of this debate, made the point about -- I wrote down his remarks. He said there shall be no further debate without the participation of Canada's first nations, and I agree with that.

Elijah Harper took the opportunity to make a point, but he made a point within the context that every other Legislature was prepared to pass, in the case of Manitoba, or had passed the Meech Lake accord and had adopted it as a resolution of each of the assemblies in Canada.

It was a very difficult debate. Those of us who were here at that time remember what a struggle it was, not because of what was sought by the people of Quebec -- legitimate aspirations, I believe, each one of them -- but because in trying to respond to those aspirations, as every parliamentarian in Canada attempted to do and every province in Canada attempted to do and I think every individual in Canada attempted to do, there was increasing concern that it was inappropriate to have a so-called Quebec round. I think I can understand that.

I think if one thinks about the history of our aboriginal peoples, one can understand why it was such an affront to think about having a so-called Quebec round.

If one thinks about the historic yearnings of other regions of Canada, including the western provinces and British Columbia, for significant and substantive constitutional reform, one can understand why some areas of Canada and some legislators in Canada and some parliamentarians felt that it was inappropriate to have a socalled Quebec round.

If we return to the first myth that I talk about, which is that Quebec had been rejected in 1982 -- it had not been rejected in 1982 -- we can understand why so many parts of Canada and so many of us felt that real constitutional reform would not happen by undertaking a Quebec round, but by undertaking a process that looked at a wide variety of constitutional issues that currently and still confront Canada.

So where are we to go from here? I would be presumptuous in the extreme if I suggested to anyone in this House that I had all or any of the answers, but I just want to put three points on the record.

First of all, I think that the government of Ontario, this assembly and the people of Ontario have to continue to exercise the role that they have historically exercised in Canada on these matters; that is to say, our interests have to go beyond our borders. If the government of Ontario takes a new approach, and that is to say an approach that puts the interests of Ontario first, we are in grave danger of having this debate deteriorate to an extremely acrimonious one.

Historically Ontario has articulated the interest that it has in Confederation and made that a part of the agenda, but has gone well beyond that to try to understand and explain beyond its borders the importance of a strong fabric for Confederation from sea to sea to sea. I plead with the Premier, as he reflects on the way in which he will articulate sooner or later Ontario's position, to remember that historic role, that the interests of Ontario do not stop at the borders of Ontario but spread right across this nation.

The second point I want to suggest to this House is that we ought not to fear a significant reform of the allocation of powers within Canada. That is to say that I do not believe that there is anything particularly sacred in

section 91 and

section 92 of the British North America Act. The division of powers such as they are, such as they were established in 1867 and modified through a variety of amendments over the past 124 years, has served us moderately well, but they are not sacred. There is nothing, I think, sacred in suggesting that property and civil rights must remain a so-called matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

For example, we regulate the Ontario Securities Commission exclusively in the province of Ontario now. I do not think it would be sacrilegious to say that in re-examining which government should do what, that we might want to look at allowing the federal government to regulate securities in Canada. I think we should consider doing that if it makes sense, given the way in which other jurisdictions organize themselves, to have constitutional responsibility for securities being vested in the federal government. I do not think that reforms of that significance should be considered anathema. I use securities just as one example.

I think that as we continue down this road, no document should be rejected out of hand. I heard some reaction, for example, to the so-called Allaire report suggesting that it was a recipe for the end of Canada. I am not attracted to the Allaire report. I think it has very significant weaknesses. I think that the powers that it takes away from the federal government and that the powers it wants to vest exclusively in the federal government would leave Ottawa with very few of the economic and social and cultural levers that are, in my view, necessary to ensure that there is a strong Canadian Confederation.

But let's not reject it out of hand. Let's invite further discussion not only on that document but on all of the other documents that are being generated, including the Bélanger-Campeau commission report when it comes out in a very few days.

The third point, the third principle that I would like to point to today is that in redefining ourselves as a people, rebuilding the foundation of this country, reconstituting ourselves, rewriting the documents that are the underpinnings for all of our other laws, I think it is important to remember that in the absence of a strong central government, each of the participants, each of the provinces and the territories and each of the regions of Canada are going to be, I believe, very seriously threatened by the kind of forces that are at work in the world today.

The globalization of the economies of nations and the world community is such that Canada will need to have a central authority, a central government, that is able to bind us together and unite our regional economic strengths and our regional cultural strengths and the individualism of our various communities across Canada into a strong central authority. We need to be looking at our Constitution in ways that give us the ability to reconfigure ourselves to meet the world community in a way that allows us to be as significant and even more significant a player than we have been in the past.

If we simply try to rewrite the Constitution to respond to the urgent pressures of today or the disaffections of today or the grievances of today and we fail to look at a longer-term and a stronger Canadian nation, then I think that we will be doing a disservice to our children.

The constitutional law of the country is not like the laws that we pass here. Once we have torn away the foundation upon which all of our other laws are based, there is an urgent need to reconstruct that foundation to support all of the other things that we are going to be doing for decades and decades to come. I think that the process we are undergoing now provides each of us with a marvellous opportunity to reshape Canada into a nation that is not only the pride of our children, but the pride of every other nation in the world.

Mr Eves: It is a privilege and an honour for me to participate in this debate this afternoon, as indeed it has been a privilege and an honour to serve on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I am perhaps either luckier or unluckier than some other members of the House in that I have had the privilege of serving on the two preceding constitutional committees that this Legislature has had, one to deal with the Meech Lake accord and one to deal with the issue of Senate reform in the country.

I would like at the outset to compliment the Chairman of the committee, who I think did an excellent job with a very, very difficult time line, subject matter and logistically overwhelming task from time to time.

I would also like to congratulate the committee members, perhaps many of them more so than myself, because of the fact that many of them endured just about every, if not every, single session that the committee held throughout the province. I cannot stand here in the House and say that, although I think I did attend more than 50%. The member for Willowdale and others certainly did more than that and then some. It was indeed an arduous process, but one that I think was very worth while.

I think that the issue of the Constitution of one's country and related issues are really issues that should be and are appropriately above partisan political debate. If I had my way, and I have had this discussion with previous leaders in my party and I know that other parties have had this discussion as well, I do not think that there is a place for a whip to vote on an issue such as amending the Constitution of one's country.

That certainly was the case in this House with respect to the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party in the last several votes that were been taken with respect to the Meech Lake accord and an amended version thereto, or companion resolutions, as they were referred to. I certainly hope that will be the tack that is taken in the future.

I think that the committee has barely scratched the surface, unfortunately for the committee members, with respect to this very important and overwhelming issue. I have the personal opinion that the time line given to this committee is too short to accomplish the very serious task that has been given to it. I say that in a very constructive critical fashion, not a political critical fashion.

I think the time line for the interim report was quite arduous but, more important, I think that to expect this committee to deal with the issues that it has raised in its interim report and come to some conclusion or recommendation with respect to them by 27 June, I believe, of this year is going to be wellnigh impossible if it is going to do its task correctly.

I have unfortunately a slight sense of déjà vu about this because I can recall being placed in this position with the issue of the Meech Lake accord as well, with similar time lines. Although I must say that this committee has been somewhat more open than the previous committee on the Meech Lake accord was, I do not think that our efforts to date have been quite as focused as perhaps they could have been. Hopefully in the second phase of our deliberations we will become somewhat more focused with respect to the issues that we have to deal with.

I believe that before we can understand where we are going in this whole issue of the country and the Constitution, we have to understand where we have been, before we can fully appreciate the situation that we have before us and how we propose to deal with it. I might say that I was cheered by the enthusiasm that many of the relatively new members of the Legislature from all sides of the House displayed during our deliberations. I think that on one or two occasions perhaps some of the new government members were a little more partisan than they had to be; however, that is the way of the world, I suppose.

Perhaps after they have served on some other committees they will come to appreciate that this committee is not the place to indulge in trying to score political points on political issues, especially when the issue that we are supposed to be focused on is the Constitution of the country.

During the Meech Lake process, there were several items that were not dealt with -- at least, I felt they were not dealt with -- appropriately in the Meech Lake accord. That debate started, as members will recall, in 1987. We voted on the Meech Lake accord, as it then was, in this House on 29 Ju