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

March 21, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR

Mr Daigeler: Yesterday I had the honour to attend this year's Outstanding Volunteer Award ceremony in the Lieutenant Governor's suite. Dieter Kiesewalter, a personal friend of mine and eminent member of Ottawa's German Canadian community, was one of the 15 recipients from among the over 100 nominations received this year.

Dieter Kiesewalter exemplifies the best tradition of German Canadian immigration to this province. He has been the visionary behind many activities of his community over the past 20 years. Whether devoting his tremendous talents to theatre or music, to multiculturalism, to heritage-language training or to charity and church work, Mr Kiesewalter has played both a guiding and an inspirational role.

In all of his endeavours he has promoted the rich cultural heritage of German Canadians and strengthened their contribution to Canada's economic and cultural life for the benefit of all.

His extraordinary volunteer contribution and that of his whole family to the common good has touched many lives, giving them joy, new knowledge and a sense of purpose. As the award citation said, "Mr Kiesewalter personifies both the spirit and the purpose of the Outstanding Achievement Award."

I am sure my colleagues wish to join me in congratulating Dieter Kiesewalter and his family for this special recognition and in thanking him for his dedicated service.

SOCIAL WORK

Mr Jackson: Ontario is the only province in Canada without some form of regulation for the practice of social work. For six years, thousands of social workers, the public, a coalition of 50 province-wide social service providers and, more recently, community colleges have lobbied the government to enact legislation to protect the public.

Last June the member for York North, the former Minister of Community and Social Services, announced in the Legislature after questioning from our party that the government would move ahead with the regulation of social work and other social service practices.

A Toronto Star editorial aptly stated, "Any Tom, Dick or Jane can hang up a shingle and call him or herself a social worker, surely that's not right."

This is exemplified by the fact that a convicted child molester has legally opened a child care and counselling service in Kitchener-Waterloo. I am shocked that this horror story has not convinced the new Minister of Community and Social Services that regulation of the practice of social work is an absolute necessity.

The Premier, as leader of the third party, in 1987 supported regulation of social workers. He stated in response to an election questionnaire that, "Regulation of the social work profession is an important way to prevent adverse physical, psychological and social consequences for Ontario consumers."

Regulation of the practice of social work would go a long way towards protecting our children and families. It is tragic that public protection is not a priority for the new Premier, not a priority for this NDP government, nor for the minister responsible for protecting children in Ontario.

COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS

Mr Mills: Today is Rural Dignity Day for Rural Revitalization. I would like to take a moment to talk about the importance of community newspapers in rural and small communities and the current threat to their survival.

Living in and representing a smaller community, I know how vital community newspapers are. Often they provide the only source of local news to residents. These newspapers cover all sorts of local board meetings -- everything from school to library to police boards -- keeping them more accountable in the public eye. They also include human interest stories and news and information on current happenings.

There are approximately 350 community newspapers across Ontario which provide this valuable service. Durham East is served by the Orono Weekly Times, the Canadian Statesman, the Newcastle Independent, the Whitby Free Press, the Port Perry Star and the OshawaWhitby This Week.

Today community newspapers are facing a new threat to their survival. This month Canada Post drastically increased postal rates for weekly newspapers. The Canadian Statesman, for example, faces an immediate increase of 50%, or $35,000 a year. Other community newspapers face similar increases and may be forced to close.

In support of this, I urge all members to phone the minister responsible for Canada Post, Harvie Andre, at (613) 992-6124 to demand that these rate increases be reviewed, and I call on those members to call their friends in Ottawa to get rid of this terrible piece of legislation.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mrs Caplan: Today the Minister of Municipal Affairs released the long-awaited report of the advisory committee to the minister on the provincial-municipal financing relationship, originally known as the Ballinger-Hopcroft committee.

It focuses on the need for greater accountability by the province and the municipal governments to the people of Ontario and a clearer definition is called for of each government's role and responsibilities.

The report makes 39 significant recommendations, including the fact that municipalities should have more responsibility for strictly local services, such as roads, that the province should pay the full share of programs which redistribute income such as welfare, and it calls for some tax restructuring.

While it took two years of consultations for this major report to be completed, the recommendations reflect the current sense of urgency municipalities have about services, costs and taxes. Regional chairmen, mayors and councillors whom I have met across the province say that they want the government to act quickly on this report.

What is the response from the minister? He has stated publicly today that the government is beginning a new six-month consultation with municipalities and school boards and the report will then go to the NDP Fair Tax Commission.

This is just a delaying tactic and a clear signal that this government is not committed to implementing the Hopcroft report. It is not listening to the critical issues and the immediate needs of the municipalities. Get on with implementing the recommendations.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Arnott: Once again I want to bring to the attention of this assembly an exceptionally serious problem in my riding. The community of Mount Forest is in peril of losing one of its most critical services, the emergency department of the Louise Marshall Hospital.

As a result of a disagreement with the hospital board, four Mount Forest doctors ceased working in the emergency department at the end of December. Through a special arrangement with the Ministry of Health, locum physicians have staffed the emergency department since the beginning of this year. This arrangement will expire at the end of April. The hospital will then have little choice but to close the emergency department. Without that department, it is questionable whether the hospital itself will remain open, unless an agreement is reached.

I submit that there would not be a health care crisis in Mount Forest today if the Minister of Health were willing to recognize that in rural Ontario the challenge of providing health care services is extraordinary. Because of the unique demands placed on doctors in rural practice, small communities often have great difficulty attracting new doctors to serve their residents. Those doctors who do choose rural practice forgo the benefits of urban life and face heavy and difficult workloads. Rural hospital boards also face challenges unlike their urban counterparts. Local demands for health services have increased while Ministry of Health funding has not kept pace.

The emergency facilities at Louise Marshall are called upon to respond to critical, life and death situations, such as farm, automobile and industrial accidents. For the community of Mount Forest, often isolated in winter, with many tourists in summer and a significant Mennonite community, the demands on its health care system are significant and different.

I call upon the Minister of Health to immediately acknowledge that rural health care poses unusual challenges for rural doctors and hospitals. The minister must respond with new policies which recognize these challenges and will provide incentives consistent with this fact.

COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER

Mr Bisson: I rise today with great pleasure. A milestone happened in the community of Timmins last Sunday. For the first time in over 20 years, we have a weekly paper that is being distributed through our riding in the community of Timmins.

I think this marks a couple of interesting points. I am a firm believer in good competition and being able to get the best out of all the services, and I think it will be good for the newsworthiness in regard to the whole area, talking about the issues of the community of Timmins and the riding in general.

I note that the paper is run and operated by a group of individuals, that it is owner-operated, which is a very refreshing thing to see. People from varying journalism areas, from television, from radio and from newspapers, have got together to start up this new weekly newspaper. It is owned by the employees themselves.

I may add that the stories they carry are interesting. Because it is a weekly paper, it has the opportunity to be able to look at issues in a very concise way to inform the readers of what the issues are within our community.

I also add that they have very good choice in the selection of pictures they put in. Members will notice mine is there, so I am quite happy.

So I would like to congratulate the staff of the paper and the people who worked on a job well done, and hope and wish them the best over the next number of years to a very successful endeavour.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Mahoney: As the Liberal Party critic for senior citizens' affairs, I am quite concerned about the lack of attention that this government is paying to issues of concern to senior citizens.

This morning in the media studio, the Ontario Long Term Residential Care Association conducted a press conference expressing concern about the Minister of Housing including their facilities in his green paper on rent control. They are not opposed to being regulated and they are not opposed to having a cap put on rent increases to the residents, but they are concerned about the methods of consultation, or should I say non-consultation, that seem to have become a hallmark of this government.

To date, the minister has not met with this group and it has had to fight tooth and nail to get an opportunity to be heard during some of the supposedly public consultation sessions the minister is conducting. The minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs seems to be missing in action. Perhaps it is because this government has lumped senior citizens' affairs under the banner of Citizenship and race relations and is not giving it the attention it deserves and the attention our senior citizens deserve.

I call upon the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs to speak up on behalf of seniors. I would like to know what actions have been taken regarding long-term care, regarding recommendations of the Lowy report, indeed regarding any issues of concern to seniors. The seniors are waiting to hear from the minister and so are we in this Legislature.

IAN SORBIE

Mrs Cunningham: I rise today to pay tribute to Ian Sorbie, the owner of the Il Fornello restaurant chain in Toronto. Mr Sorbie has generously underwritten the cost of a breakfast program for the children at Roden elementary school in Toronto. Each day, 168 children receive a nutritious breakfast at a cost of $150 a day, $750 a week.

It is estimated that one in six children in this province lives in poverty. Studies have demonstrated that there is a relationship between hunger and the ability of children to excel at school. Mr Sorbie, recognizing this problem, came forward and, working with teachers and administrators, established this wonderful program.

He feels that his experience can now serve as a model that could be replicated in other schools throughout the province. I agree, and during last summer's election my party endorsed the establishment of a breakfast program for elementary school children in partnership with the private sector. I encourage the minister to begin consultation with others in the business community who wish to work with educators to establish breakfast programs.

Let me once again thank Mr Sorbie for his generous commitment to the children at the Roden school. Thank you.

SUDBURY LAND RECLAMATION

Ms S. Murdock: I am so very proud to represent the riding of Sudbury, as are the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Sudbury East. Together, we form the regional municipality of Sudbury, and outsiders are finally learning that Sudbury is no longer dirty superstacks and slag. We are one of the 10 best cities in Canada in which to live, and Chatelaine has announced that to the world.

However, last Wednesday night the region honoured 80 volunteers in our city who for the past 12 years have served on the Vegetation Enhancement Technical Advisory Committee -- VETAC for short. What they have done over the past 12 years is regreen our city. They have regreened by planting one million trees over 4,000 hectares of land. They have done all kinds of reclamation and cleanup projects because of the mining and logging that have been done over the years in our region. We have won four awards in our city, the Lieutenant Governor's Award and the Canadian Award. Thank you.

JOHN MACBETH

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to pay tribute to a former member of the Legislature who died yesterday.

Agreed to.

Mr Sterling: I would like to pay tribute to John MacBeth, who was a former member for York West who passed away in Tulsa, Oklahoma yesterday while on vacation.

I met John when I came to this Legislature in 1977. From 1971 until 1981 he served as a member of the Ontario Legislature for the Progressive Conservative Party. He held a wide array of posts while in government. He was Minister of Labour; he also was Provincial Secretary for Justice and Solicitor General. In 1980, during one of the most important times in our history, he became chairman of the select committee on constitutional reform, which we have heard about coincidentally today.

John also served in many other public positions during his lifetime. Before coming to Queen's Park, he was reeve of Etobicoke. After he finished as member for York West for this Legislature, he became a vice-chairman of the Ontario Police Commission.

I have many, many fond memories of John MacBeth. John was a very large man who loved the outdoors and he loved life. He was extremely well liked in this Legislature, Mr Speaker, as you will remember -- you knew him yourself -- and I believe he was one of the most respected members of this House. I think this was due in fact to the manner in which he carried himself. He was a straightforward person, but he was a very fair person. Most of all, I remember John MacBeth for his class and the fact that he could best be described as one of the most outstanding gentlemen of this Legislature.

In that regard I can remember when John MacBeth was dropped from the cabinet in 1978, and the class of John MacBeth was that he was not angry at the Premier of the day. He understood the process, and I can remember seeing him after the swearing in of the successor to his post when that took place.

I am pleased to have had the chance to serve with John MacBeth for a four-year period, from 1977 to 1981, and I would like to take this opportunity to offer on behalf of my party sincere condolences to his wife, Ruth, his family and his many, many friends. Thank you very much.

Mr Conway: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to join other members of the Legislature in expressing our regret and paying tribute to the late John MacBeth.

For me, it is a bit ironic that John's passing should be observed today, on this, the occasion of the tabling of another report from another select committee on constitutional reform, because that is where I really got to know the former member for York West. It was, as my friend from Carleton has rightly observed, in the summer of 1980 that John chaired, I guess, the first select committee we have ever had here on the subject of constitutional reform, and his conduct in that very difficult matter was exemplary, as his conduct was throughout a long, very distinguished public life.

John was someone who, as the member for Carleton has rightly observed, was a kind and a courtly gentleman who, no matter how heated the debate became, was always very civilized in his response and very tolerant in his participation. I would think that of the many things that might be said of John MacBeth, surely his greatest legacy, both locally in Etobicoke and here in the province, his legacy for me, would be his commitment to and his deportment within the arena of public life.

Hon Mr Farnan: As the honourable members may be aware, John MacBeth was the Ontario Solicitor General from 1975 to 1978, and died yesterday while on vacation in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

His life was one of commitment and dedication to community service. In the Second World War, he saw service with the Royal Canadian Navy. He had been president of the Ontario division of the Canadian Cancer Society and chairman of the board of education in Etobicoke before joining the Ontario Legislature in 1971 as the representative from Etobicoke.

John MacBeth was a gentleman well respected by all parties during his distinguished legislative career. He served as Minister of Labour from 1974 to 1975 and then as Provincial Secretary for Justice before being appointed Solicitor General in 1975.

In his role as Solicitor General, John MacBeth became well known to Ontario's police community. His interest in police training and operational matters was highly respected by police officials throughout the province.

Following his retirement from the Legislature, John MacBeth was named vice-chairman of the Ontario Police Commission in 1982. His responsibilities included the operation of the Ontario Police College and the career development branch and the complaints function of the commission. In this role he also chaired a select committee that prepared the highly regarded, comprehensive report on police pursuit that laid the foundation for the tight police pursuit guidelines we have in Ontario today.

John MacBeth was a congenial man who earned the respect of all those who knew him both professionally and personally. I am sure all members of the House join me in extending to his wife, Ruth, and family our sincere sympathies.

The Speaker: Your comments about this kind and gentle man who served with distinction on behalf of the people of Ontario will be conveyed to his family.

RACE RELATIONS

Hon Ms Ziemba: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to have unanimous consent to observe a very important day. All agreed?

Agreed to.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Today, 21 March, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It has been 25 years since the United Nations proclaimed this annual observance, yet racial discrimination remains deeply entrenched around the world. Ontario is no exception. One in 10 Ontarian residents is a potential target of racism as a racial minority or as an aboriginal person.

It is important for us to acknowledge that racism exists and comes in all forms. Racism is not just simply the outbursts of racial slurs or graffiti. Indeed, it is not simply the outspoken denial of jobs or housing because of colour or cultural background. It is much more than that. It is the unspoken -- the systemic denial of access, and exclusion.

In my recent trips to northern Ontario I have seen the distressing realities of racism. These realities which are faced by the first nations include deplorable housing conditions and an 80% to 95% unemployment rate in some communities. These are inequities and poverties which are not there by coincidence, but they are injustices brought on by institutionalized racism.

In major urban centres the examples of systemic barriers to employment are abundant. Some employment agencies have been able to exclude applicants on the basis of their skin colour, accent and/or cultural background. This is an example of talent which is wasted and abused.

It is both a painful and a dehumanizing experience to be on the receiving end of racial discrimination. Racism, like sexism, is about an imbalance of power. To confront systemic discrimination, we need systemic approaches.

On this landmark day, I would like to reaffirm our government's commitment to eliminate racial discrimination. Mandatory employment equity legislation, which we are working hard to bring to the Legislature in both the private and public sectors, will definitely be part of that solution. We will also be bringing to the Legislature in the very near future a comprehensive and concrete plan for combating racism. This government will act.

We should never forget that this is the anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre. In 1960 over 60 people were killed for demonstrating against the pass laws of South Africa. This is what racism causes.

Last Tuesday I was in Kenora where I attended the conference of Treaty 3 chiefs in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the Kenora march. That march was staged to demand justice and peace based on dignity and equality. I would like to end with their message, "Let us not institutionalize racism; let us institutionalize respect."

Mr Curling: The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination marks the anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa. It was in 1966 that the United Nations declared that this day should be marked.

In 1983 the General Assembly of the United Nations called upon all states and organizations to participate in the program of action for the second decade to combat racism and racial discrimination.

It is important for Canadians to be aware of the nature and scope and the impact of racial discrimination in our society. As Mr Yalden, the Canadian human rights commissioner, so accurately and forcefully observes in his recent report, racism and bigotry are alive and well in Canada.

Quoting from the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

"The daily chronicles of the media make it plain that we are far from immune to xenophobic attitudes.... What is one to make in 1990 of the desecration of cemeteries and places of worship? Or of the sale of pins and posters aimed expressly at promoting racial or religious intolerance? Or of white supremacist rallies that hearken back to the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan and reach the same atavistic drivel?"

There is more. People are being denied jobs because of their race, because of the colour of their skin. Students are being streamed away from the education that they need for reasons that sometimes have little to do with their abilities and potential. This is not a day for more platitudes. As I recall the Sharpeville massacre and as I look to the events of the past year described in the commission report, I am overwhelmed by sadness and anger.

Today in this House, we will be discussing the future of our Confederation. I must ask what indeed is the future of our nation if we do not wrestle this intolerance that tears us apart. This morning I attended a function in the East York community and heard young Canadians of all races from the Holy Cross school sing the anthem, "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee." I ask all members in this House to reflect on that, "We stand on guard for thee."

I do not believe that we will today or tomorrow or even the next day eliminate racial discrimination, nor do I believe that legislation can change the hearts of those who have chosen to hate. I do believe, however, that we should not allow destructive discriminatory behaviour to be rewarded. We continue to create large bureaucracies and agencies to combat racism and racial discrimination without giving them the resources or sometimes the respect necessary for them to function effectively.

What then must I make of the flippant remark made by the Vice-Chairperson of the standing committee on the Ombudsman? When asked about the committee, he said that it is not a pressing committee.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is staffed by many dedicated and sincere people, but they are being crushed by a backlog of cases. Without new resources to deal with the backlog, we are in effect allowing discrimination to go unpunished. What kind of message is this? As Dr Martin Luther King said, and it has been quoted many times in this House: "Legislation cannot change hearts. It can only restrain the heartless."

I ask again of this House too, as we look at many of the policies and rules and regulations and laws that we bring in here for employment equity, that we must make sure that all are being addressed, not only one sector of the society, and that we do not make it the partisan situation. We will never solve it unless we all work together. It is a far road from Sharpeville to Oka.

Mr Cousens: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus in commemoration of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The province of Ontario joins with other provinces and the federal government in acknowledging the need to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in all its forms in our society.

Today, 21 March 1991, marks the 31st anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa, when peaceful anti-apartheid demonstrators were brutally wounded and killed. To mark this tragic event and to highlight the injustice of racial discrimination, the United Nations declared 21 March International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

We in Canada and indeed in Ontario should be proud of our record in the field of human rights. As a nation we were among the first to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Twenty-nine years ago, Ontario was the first jurisdiction in Canada to enact a comprehensive Human Rights Code, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin. I am proud of our commitment to the promotion of equality and justice for all citizens of the world.

However, paying homage to our past commitments is not sufficient in today's ever-troubled world. Much remains to be done. Legislation is not the panacea in promoting understanding and mutual respect for all people. It is only the start. Today is a reminder to each and every one of us to renew our common commitment for freedom, justice and tolerance for all in our province, our country and throughout the world.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Nixon: It is interesting that once again we have a day of singular inaction. The papers report the bankruptcy rate 100% over what it was last year. We are facing the dramatic reduction and perhaps the closing of Spruce Falls Power and Paper, Algoma Steel and Denison Mines. We hear about Stelco's credit rating difficulties. Three days ago, the Treasurer told us that we have lost 196,000 jobs since the NDP took power and that of the $700 million indicated to be spent to assist in that, $34 million will be spent this fiscal year.

This is the sixth month since the government took office and yet this week, after a three-month break, the only announcement of significance was the decision taken by the government on the moose tag lottery.

What is the Premier's strategy for reviving our moribund economy, improving competitiveness, putting people back to work and in fact using the power of this Legislature, which underpins his government, to bring about the actions that the people are waiting for in a recession that is the worst since the war?

Hon Mr Rae: It is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to always put things in a critical light. Let me try to correct the record for the benefit of the people of Ontario who are watching these proceedings.

First of all, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that upon taking office we discovered that the financial figures upon which he ran in the last campaign were entirely and utterly inaccurate. Let me say that undaunted by that fact, the very first thing we did as a government upon our election was to determine that we were going to have the largest capital works program put in place by any provincial or federal government in Canada.

With respect to the individual companies which the Leader of the Opposition has talked about, we have established the most progressive and the most effective process of dealing with the issues that have happened. We have brought the trade unions, the business community and the financial community together in the same room at the same time as we strive to find solutions that will bring those communities together. That is what we were committed to doing, that is what we are doing and there will be more as we face this recession.

We are going to be working in partnership with all the people of the province in a positive way to deal with this most serious economic crisis, and that is exactly what we are going to be doing.

Mr Nixon: The Premier has at his disposal a cash flow every working day of $180 million. Whatever the state of the budget when he took office, and we will have a chance to debate that on many occasions, he cannot say that a $43-billion budget does not contain within it the fiscal levers to do something about an economy in a tailspin. Instead of taking action, he has had a series of strong commitments through what he calls the democratic facility to review and study, to delay, to send people away on tours to gather information but to take no action.

We have heard that rent controls are going to have long-term study. Garbage disposal and the whole area of the environment, which was a principal area of concern for the government, has largely become moribund even though it is led by one of the best ministers in the government. The job guarantees that were very much put forward by the formerly vocal and activist Labour critic seem to be simmering along in some sort of review and we have heard nothing about it. Auto insurance is going to be reviewed now that the Premier has disposed of the one obstacle in the way of his getting his own policy enacted.

Sunday closing, God help us, is going to be reviewed by another committee -- I cannot wait for that -- and so it goes.

I wonder if the Premier does not feel that in his own words it is time to stop polishing his glasses, trying to start the Edsel, and apply some leadership in this House and in the province to solve our problems and move the economy of the province forward and out of recession.

Hon Mr Rae: If it is the --

[Interruption]

The Speaker: Visitors, you are welcome here, but I am afraid you are going to have to just listen quietly. Visitors --

[Interruption]

The Speaker: Sergeant, escort them out, please.

[Interruption]

The Speaker: All of them out, please. We will have a 10-minute break, folks. We have grave disorder.

The Speaker ordered the galleries cleared.

The House recessed at 1415.

The Speaker: I thought you folks were noisy. Before the interruption, I believe the Premier was in the midst of responding to a supplementary by the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I was just about to get to my feet to answer the question from the person of whom, as I say, it can fairly be said as a former Treasurer is fully aware of all the circumstances we now face as a government and the challenge we now face as a government. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that there is no issue to which this government and I attach greater importance than dealing with the recession.

The antirecession package we announced in November, which is over $450 million and will have produced, by the end of this fiscal year, nearly $1 billion in new investment, is, as I say, the most significant anti-recession package being implemented anywhere in Canada by any level of government, and we are working with other groups, all groups in our society, to deal with the situation we face.

We not only face a general problem across the economy which we are trying to deal with, we also face in community after community very particular problems. Just this morning, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, I spent at least half the morning dealing with businesses and with groups of people together trying to deal constructively with the problem, with the resources of government we have, and we are going to continue to do that as effectively as we possibly can.

Mr Nixon: The implacable logic of my series of questions was somehow lost by the demonstration, and perhaps I have even lost the rush I got from my adrenal glands when the Premier started talking about their budgetary problems.

I think probably I could, in the way of a question, make a comment along the lines of the Premier's answer. I am sure he did spend all morning trying to keep the business community operating. I am sure the policy and priorities board of cabinet meets endlessly. I am sure the various cabinet meetings and special meetings must be tiring the cabinet ministers out. I am sure they are sitting around their boardroom tables with their ADMs thinking that they are governing. Nothing is happening over there. Take it from me, I know when something is happening and when it is not. Nothing is happening. They may think that they are busy but they are busy doing nothing.

I put the question to the Premier, is he not aware that there is only one authority, only one office, only one man who can make the government operate, can make the deputies and the ministers produce the material which must be brought into this Legislature which will in fact begin to fulfil the high expectations of the people who elected him, in fact fulfil the high expectations that we in opposition have had in observing the Premier and his cabinet?

It is almost unbelievable that after six months, and three months away from the Legislature, we do not have a legislative program. We feel the government members are keeping busy, as Terence Corcoran said in the Globe and Mail, with their highest priority putting off to tomorrow what they don't understand today.

I simply say again that while we can attack and criticize individual ministers, nothing works unless the leadership coming from the premiership is effective. Does the Premier not now realize that it is not effective, that it is not working, that the government is not progressing, that the economy stays in recession.

Hon Mr Rae: I think it is a little sad that someone of the experience of the Leader of the Opposition would be so entrapped in his own bitterness and negativism that he would describe a capital works program worth $1 billion as doing nothing. The Liberal government, between 1987 and 1990, wrote the book on doing nothing. That is why it was tossed out by the electorate on 6 September.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Curling: We had the fastest-growing economy of any province in this country and still he actually said we were not doing anything.

While my leader may have lost the rush, I will come with a couple of tons of information and hope we can get some answers.

My question is to the Solicitor General. I hope that today he will eliminate the rhetoric and give me some answers, because on 13 August 1990 on the CBC his illustrious leader, the Premier, promised the people of Ontario a province-wide common pause day. My question is very simple. Will the Solicitor General please tell the Legislature whether or not his government intends to establish a province-wide common pause day?

Hon Mr Farnan: The answer to the question is that after consultation with the province and after listening to the concerns of all of the interested parties, we will bring forward legislation in due course. The questioner has a problem. When he was on the inside, when he was a member of government, he had all the information. That was then. Now we have the information.

Mrs Caplan: I think the Solicitor General, in his response to the first question, again just fumbled and mumbled. We certainly did not hear clearly. We heard clearly from his leader during the election campaign in August when he promised a province-wide pause day, and until we see a clear statement from the Solicitor General, we can assume that in fact is the policy of the government and the leader.

Since the issue of cross-border shopping is a very important and complex one here in the province of Ontario, if the Solicitor General is truly tuned in to the concerns of border municipalities, then he will know there is a need to address this extremely important cross-border shopping issue and to do so expeditiously.

To this point in time, his government has refused even to sit down with business and industry together to form a task force. What I am asking him today is whether or not he will outline for us the policy of his government and his ministry as it relates to cross-border shopping. Can he respond to the concerns of the retail industry in those municipalities affected by cross-border shopping in this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: First of all, in the throne speech we made a commitment to a common pause day. The government has reiterated that. Yesterday and today I have said we will have consultations. We will be meeting with those communities that are cross-border. We will be listening to their concerns and hopefully we may be able to find accommodation. I can give the honourable members guarantees that yes, we will sit down with all of the concerned stakeholders, will listen carefully and will attempt, in so far as is possible with the principle of a common pause day, to incorporate their concerns.

Mrs Caplan: I would say to the Solicitor General that his fumbling and his policy inconsistency are creating havoc in border communities across this province, that the commitment to a province-wide common pause day and the commitment to deal with the cross-border shopping issue are in fact linked and complex. We have been urging an action-oriented task force, and I would ask the Solicitor General today, will he stop the fumbling, will he stop the inaction and will he agree to an actionoriented task force to deal with cross-border shopping?

What we heard today from Buffalo's chamber of commerce says that this situation will be a bonanza for Buffalo retailers. If he were an Ontario retailer, he would be very concerned about the long-term prospects.

Will he commit today to that kind of action-oriented task force and clear up this inconsistency in policy that we are hearing from him?

Hon Mr Farnan: No matter what legislation eventually comes down, we will never please everybody. I can promise the House only this, that we will bring forward the best possible legislation we can, and that a principle of that legislation will be a common pause day.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. The select committee on Ontario in Confederation was established in part to answer the question, according to his government and his government's paper, "What does Ontario want?" This was question 8 of the discussion paper he presented. Now that the public consultations held on this document are over, I would ask the Premier if he is satisfied he has the answer to that question, and if so, I would then ask him now, what does Ontario want?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party. I want to pay tribute to all the members of the committee from all three parties and in particular I want to express my appreciation to the Chairman of the committee, the member for Dovercourt, and to other members of the committee who I think really have served us extremely well in this first stage of this constitutional consultation.

The question to me, asked by the leader of the third party, was, do I feel I have the answer? Well, I have been around long enough to no longer have any of those feelings, and I think it is important that the first phase of consultation has taken place. It is also important for the House to have the debate which is going to start this afternoon and carry on until Wednesday. I will be speaking in the debate on Wednesday afternoon and I will be making very clear the direction the government wants to follow in consultation and in discussion with other members of the House and with the committee, whose work will be ongoing.

A few things are very clear and I think they have been made very clear in the committee report. Ontario wants the country to work and very much wants the country to stay together. That is a very strong consensus. I think the committee report indicates how strongly the people of the province feel about the need for change in order to deal with the constitutional crisis we now face.

I think the people of Ontario are generous and fundamentally respect the diversity of the province and the diversity of the country. I was very heartened to see the consensus on aboriginal rights. That is a very profound statement for the province to make. I was very heartened to see there is a sense, in the report, of the need for dialogue with the province of Quebec and all the provinces and regions of the country, as we seek institutional change, as we seek a genuine change which will allow us to have the feeling we are making a new country and building a new Constitution for Canada.

I think the committee has made an important contribution. This government will see the report as an important message to us, and I can assure the leader of the third party we are going to be very, very actively involved, as actively involved as it is possible to be in keeping the country together and in making sure that we can make Canada work better.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the Premier's response. I realize it is difficult to have all the answers and nobody has them all, of course, on this complex issue. I also appreciate that given the document that Ontarians were asked to respond to, I think they responded quite well.

One of the aspects of that I would like to ask the Premier specifically about is what concerns me. I heard on the Spicer commission this morning that more than 50% said: "If it means giving concessions to Quebec, it is not worth it. We don't want them." One of the difficulties, when Canadians or Ontarians make that kind of statement, is a lack of understanding what that means.

I would ask the Premier now, as I asked him before and was hoping would be in this document, if he has done any economic impact studies on what it means to Ontario and what it means to Canada should Quebec decide sovereignty-association is a preferred option. I think Ontarians need to know that before they flippantly say, "Oh, if they want that, let them go.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the leader of the third party that I think his comments as well as his question are very constructive, and I take it in a very constructive way. Let me also say that the member for Willowdale, who I know was speaking this morning in the press conference, made a tremendous contribution to the committee's work. I think we all feel that. I accept the point entirely that there has to be a great deal of discussion and education, not just in Ontario but in the whole country about what the options and what the real costs and benefits of these options are.

I can say to the leader of the third party that of course it is only natural that this government, as well as other governments, as well as the various organizations, labour organizations and business organizations and others -- the Business Council of National Issues, for example, has published a number of reports and is doing a great deal of work; there is a study ongoing at York University which is being carried on by a number of people who are looking at these issues, and I can assure the leader of the third party that this is very much the first stage. I accept that this is the first stage.

It seems to me that part of the leadership in the beginning is listening, and I want to respect that and we are listening.

I can also tell the leader of the third party that when it comes to the question of process, how we get people around a table and how we try to forge a new understanding about a new Canada, and when it comes to what those reforms might look like, I can assure him that those are precisely the kinds of discussions I want to have.

I want to say to him, and I would say it directly to the Leader of the Opposition as well, that I do not intend to negotiate on behalf of the province on my own. I do not intend to act as if this is some kind of one-person operation from this perspective.

We are going to need to draw on, not just in some token way or in some minor way or in some symbolic way where one is asked to go to a meeting and never is told anything -- we are going to have to have a genuinely non-partisan process which involves the hearts and minds of the members of this Legislature and the people of the province in reaching out to other legislatures and reaching out to other people in finding a solution.

We are going to have to drop all this partisan nonsense as we attack this thing together, recognizing of course that there will be comments about who is doing what and who is not doing enough. We have to do more, we will do more, but the point I want to make to the leader of the Conservative Party is that we must, in this case, do it together as Canadians.

Mr Harris: Let me say that the Premier and I have had a number of discussions on this process in the past and he knows that I agree with the consultation and that more is necessary and that I think it has to be a cooperative approach.

What I am saying to the Premier is that I find myself -- he has all the money and all the resources -- still in a bit of a vacuum, and I know that virtually every person who appeared before the committee was in a bit of a vacuum, asking to respond to issues we know will be on the table, whatever that table is, issues like the triple E Senate.

We know there is going to have to be Senate reform or western Canada is not going to agree to the new document, but Ontarians do not know, and the Premier has not given them any analysis or any study -- and he could have. I would ask him if he has any plans under way to do that now as to what does this country look like, what does it mean to Ontario when you have an effective, elected Senate, the triple E Senate?

Second, the long-standing, 25-year demand of Quebec that it have sovereignty over language issues, that language be a provincial responsibility: We need to have an analysis, an impact study. What does that mean in Ontario if the provinces have responsibility over language or, as the committee has pointed out, culture or communications or immigration? We need to know what that means. Francophones need to know what that means for their desires and aspirations in Ontario. Anglophones need to know that, in and outside of Quebec.

Native self-government is another one. They have unanimously come forward and said we have got to address native issues, but we do not know what native self-government means. I suggest to the Premier that neither does anybody else, because we have not been able to agree on it. But surely we have to give some of that kind of information saying: "If we had native self-government, here is how it would work at Nipissing No 10 Obijway band right beside North Bay. Here are the powers they would have. Here is where the money would come from."

I would ask the Premier if he would allocate those resources that I asked him to allocate last fall, and again in my criticism of this document, as soon as possible so that we can get informed input back, we can do some education and get some informed input back to help us all in making decisions on behalf of Ontario and on behalf of Canada.

Hon Mr Rae: I will try and answer briefly to the leader of the third party and say that my short answer is that resources have already been allocated, as I announced in December, to a special secretariat that has been set up in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, which is obviously going to be preparing material and providing the kind of education he is talking about.

Let me just make one other comment to the member. I do not disagree with anything he has said. I think he is absolutely right. The only addition I would make, however, is that the committee is ongoing and if the committee feels that it itself needs more resources to conduct some of these studies, or that it wants additional information itself, I am quite happy to have the committee negotiate the kind of budget that will allow it to do that kind of work, so that kind of work would be done for the committee.

We do not have any monopoly on information; we do not have any monopoly on truth in this regard. The member is quite right that we have to get down to the short strokes and we have to get down rather quickly to doing that. I can assure him that is already under way within the government, but it is important to get it out into the public. I agree with him about that as well, and that is exactly what we are going to be doing.

I did want to wait for this report and give this committee a chance to travel across the province before making further statements on behalf of the government. I will be making a speech in this House on Wednesday. I will be speaking 10 days later, on 5 April, in Ottawa to a conference on national unity to which I have been invited to give a speech. I will be setting out there, with greater clarity, I hope, some of the directions the province of Ontario feels are going to be necessary in order to make this debate really happen and make it constructive and keep Canada together.

The Speaker: Point of order.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My --

Mr Speaker: I am sorry, leader of the third party, there is a point of order.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr Sola: Mr Speaker, I have got a point of order, I think, that comes under

section IV,

article 16. It comes under "Order and Decorum and Conduct of Members" of the House. It says: "In the case of grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker or Chair may, if he or she thinks it necessary to do so, adjourn the House or a committee without motion, or suspend any meeting for a time to be named by him or her."

With this in mind, I would like to ask you whether it is appropriate conduct for any member of this House, particularly ministers of the Crown, to applaud actions which result in your having to adjourn the House for disorder. I myself noticed at least two ministers applauding when the disorder took place in this House, and I await your ruling.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point of order raised by the member. I did in fact order that we recess due to grave disorder. My words may have been lost because of the volume of sound in here. It was my judgement that because of the disturbance we were not able to conduct our business as normal, and so that is what happened. The disorder was not caused by any member of the assembly.

While I am on my feet, at the time when the disturbance occurred, between then and when I announced the recess, unfortunately the clock continued to run for approximately two minutes. I would like to add two minutes back to the clock at this point. So we will continue.

Mr Sola: Mr Speaker, I think you did not answer my point of order.

The Speaker: To the member -- if he would be seated, please -- I made a ruling based on my judgement, not on a request by any member of the assembly, and in my opinion the disorder was caused by some visitors in the gallery and it was not assisted, aided or abetted by any member of the assembly. I thank you for raising your point.

The leader of the third party with his second question.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Harris: My second question is also for the Premier. He has known for the past six months that he would soon be faced with a decision regarding Sunday shopping. He has known that he would either be forced to uphold a law he had previously vigorously fought against and opposed or that there would be no law at all. In view of that, can the Premier tell us specifically what studies he has undertaken on the impact of Sunday openings and will he table them in the House with us today?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I had better refer that to the Solicitor General because he is more knowledgeable than I am in these areas.

Hon Mr Farnan: I appreciate the question. The reality of the matter is that the previous legislation, in a sense, opened up a Pandora's box. We have had to live with that legislation and in fact, as the leader of the third party knows, we have had to wait for a decision from the Court of Appeal.

The leader of the third party will also realize that major retailers had indicated that they were going to open on statutory holidays and Sunday of next week, so in the sense that the ruling of the appeal court upheld the current legislation, we welcome that. However, our position in the past was that we had made certain criticisms of that legislation, and we still believe those criticisms are valid. We are now placed in a position where we will enforce the current legislation while we continue the consultative process that has been taking place over the last several months.

We have met with over 60 interested parties. I have invited to meet with me all of the major chain retail stores and we will be meeting with the municipalities of Ontario and particularly we will be meeting with those cross-border communities that have specific concerns.

It is an ongoing process of consultation. It is a consultation process, though, I would remind the leader of the third party, that we do not intend to rush; neither do we intend to drag our feet on the matter.

Mr Harris: I would suggest to the honourable member that he has dragged his feet for at least six months, as his government has for eight months. He has known there was a problem whichever way the decision went.

Both the Solicitor General and the Premier, during the campaign, during these past six months here in the House, even now, have said to us that they plan to take into account the concerns of border communities. I would ask the Solicitor General this: Given that 90% of Ontarians live within an hour and a half of Sunday shopping across a border, is he telling us that he now thinks one of the top priorities for his government is to come up with legislation on Sunday closings or on a pause day for 10% of Ontarians?

Hon Mr Farnan: As I have indicated, I am prepared to listen to those interested parties. I am prepared to listen to the leaders of the opposition parties, to their critics, to all members of this House and to those communities that are going to be affected. Not only will we listen to them, but we will carefully evaluate whether or not we can incorporate their concerns into the legislation that we bring forward. Any more than that, we cannot promise.

Mr Harris: Let me ask the minister this: We have had now in excess of eight months where Sunday openings have been self-regulating. There has been no legislation in place, so Sunday openings have been selfregulating or optional, and we now have this eight-month experience for the first time in Ontario's history. We have never had this experience before. We do not have to go out and say, "What would happen if..."; we have had eight months of experience.

I would ask the Solicitor General, during this eight months, with the exception of the complaints from the unions, has he learned anything? Can he tell us, has church attendance fallen? Has family life disintegrated? Have overhead costs risen? Have any businesses closed as a result? Can he tell us, has there, in fact, when it has been self-regulating, been wide-open Sunday shopping? Can he tell us if he has any analytical study of any of these things happening?

Hon Mr Farnan: I can tell the member this, that if I ask somebody, "Do you want to work on Sunday?" the answer will probably be no. If I say to them, "Would you like your husband or your son to work on Sunday?" the answer will probably be no. If I go to the workers in those large retail stores and ask them, "Do you want Sunday shopping?" the answer will probably be no. If I go to the Ontario Federation of Labour and ask, "Do you want Sunday opening?" the answer will probably be no. If I go to the church groups, the answer will probably be no. If I go to the small retail stores, the answer will probably be no. I know there is one group that will say yes, and that is the large retail stores.

The Speaker: I have stopped the clock for a moment. I draw to members' attention that in the first two questions for both opposition leaders and the responses which were given we have occupied almost 40 minutes. Backbench members may wish to note that. Let us continue.

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: I have a question today for the Minister of Natural Resources. I read very carefully yesterday his lengthy answer on the changes to the Algonquin Provincial Park management policy, but I believe his response in no way explains away the frustration and the confusion and the chaos that he is creating with the various involved and interested parties in that park. In fact, as I am sure the minister knows, the Huntsville Herald News called for his resignation yesterday, they are so angry about this -- ironic indeed in a town that he just delivered a bunch of MNR jobs to the week before.

I think the confusion was continued yesterday in the minister's response when he said that this was a unique situation to this park, where Brian Blomme, a ministry spokesperson, a couple of weeks ago said, "This new policy is also being applied in most of the other provincial parks" -- well, that is what he said -- "to create a good climate for land claims."

It may be that the minister's difficulty is that he has a conflict between his duties as minister of native affairs and Minister of Natural Resources.

The mess the minister has created, I think, begs the question further. What, if any, discussion happened in caucus before this was leaked out, or in cabinet, or was this the minister's own initiative?

Hon Mr Wildman: In response to the last comment by the member, the member knows full well that the government has made a strong statement of commitment to negotiate aboriginal land claims in this province. It also has made a strong commitment to negotiating self-government for aboriginal peoples in this province. So any decisions that have been made with regard to negotiating land claims in this province have been made in that context and they have been made in the context of full consultation in our caucus and in our cabinet.

The member will know that indeed the Algonquin situation is unique in that it deals with a particular claim that involves the whole area of the Ottawa River watershed from about Hawkesbury to Mattawa, including the whole city of Ottawa and the region of Ottawa-Carleton, of Parliament Hill, and the largest single area of crown land within that whole large claim area happens to be the jewel of the Ontario park system, Algonquin park. This is a very difficult situation. It is unique because of that claim.

At the same time, the member will know we are involved with trying to respond to the Supreme Court decisions with regard to the aboriginal right to hunt and fish, the Supreme Court decisions in the Sparrow case and the Sioui case, which recognized the aboriginal right to hunt and fish while protecting conservation of public safety and also in one case dealt with hunting in provincial parks. The two are related, of course, but they are also separate.

Mr Ramsay: I would like to congratulate the minister that the explanations are quite good; they are coming after the fact and the interest groups now are wondering why the decisions were made and why they were not consulted. He himself in his response yesterday said he did not want to conduct the consultation "in the glare of the public eye." Now I have read it today, that is what it said, and I would suggest that he go back to take a look.

Hon Mr Wildman: I said the negotiations, not the consultation.

Mr Ramsay: No, he said the consultation, and I would ask him to go back and take a look at that.

The sports operators, the tourist operators for the park and all the surrounding area are a little upset that he did cancel a meeting with them at the Sportsmen's Show this week and would like to see him.

As he knows, this subject has been reported far and wide, as far as the Miami Herald, so he is in both Heralds, Miami and Huntsville, but it is occurring at a very critical time when the tourist operators are trying to sell their tours and their trips into Algonquin park and the surrounding area and they are having a difficult time trying to explain to their clients and their potential clients with regard to the safety of those clients in that park. I would like to ask the minister, is he and his ministry and is the Minister of Tourism and Recreation doing anything to help those people explain to their clients that outfitting is safe in Algonquin park this year?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member will know, first, that the articles in the Herald are a result of some leaked material that was prepared early on in the process and was not adequately full in explanation.

The fact is, the story in the Huntsville Herald indicates quite incorrectly that the Ontario native affairs secretariat is carrying out all of the negotiations and that Ministry of Natural Resources officials are not involved. That is quite incorrect. The deputy minister, right down to the parks manager, Ernie Martelle, have been directly involved in the negotiations and have been very helpful in the negotiations.

With regard to the consultations, the initial consultations took place early on, but they were not intended to take place until we had a final position that we were going to be able to present the people to consult about. The leak occurred earlier than we anticipated and that is why it occurred before the consultations. We are participating now in consultations with the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Friends of Algonquin Park and so on.

With regard to the tourist outfitters, representatives of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Natural Resources have met with them to explain their --

[Interruption]

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please? Okay, remove them, please. Stop the clock.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Premier. Could the Premier explain to this House and myself his sudden reversal, maybe a rationale for his sudden reversal, on lot levies and exactly what transpired in the last little while to change specifically his position? The question is to the Premier because I think it is important we find out exactly the rationale behind a 180-degree turn.

Hon Mr Rae: The situation that we faced on lot levies, and I hope this is a fair description of the situation, is this --

Mrs Caplan: That was then, this is now.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: The difficulty we faced was that the legislation was in place. It was obviously one that was relied on by a number of boards of education and municipalities with respect to their funding needs.

We as a government were faced with the reality that, given our own economic situation and given the overall fiscal situation we face, which is, I would say to the member for Etobicoke West, a challenge for the government, as it is for anybody else, we simply decided, on the basis of the situation which the province now faces in terms of a deficit which now stands at $3 billion and the prospects of a higher deficit in the next fiscal year, that we simply could not afford to do away with lot levies. It is as simple as that.

Mr Stockwell: I will remind the Premier of a quote from the Toronto Home Builders Association questionnaire that the Premier filled out and sent in:

"Lot levies are simply a new method devised by the Liberals to duck responsibility for the provision of important services around the province. The Liberals have not adequately funded municipalities. Lot levies are a method appealing to the Liberals because it gets them off the hook and dumps the cost on to new home buyers."

It seems to me that every time we deal with an issue where the Premier's government has reversed itself, he quotes to me the deficit. I think it is an interesting approach. He quotes to me about dollars and cents, and we all know, in my opinion, having sat on Metro council, that this is blood money. It is blackmail. We know that this is in fact a tough time, but the Premier's position was very clear, and in my opinion, pre-election, he was right. It now seems apparent and the question is that the Premier is selling his principles. It is a principle that he stood for.

It is a principle that people could have affordable housing, and we know full well that affordable housing in Toronto is very difficult to find.

Could the Premier please answer this, the people of the province of Ontario have to know, what is the price on his principles? What is the price tag? They voted for these kind of principles and they are being sold out: When, how much and how often?

Hon Mr Rae: I must say there is a particular kind of charm and style to the member's questions which I think I can already detect. I now know what to expect for the next several years.

I would say to the member, first of all, let's put this in some perspective and try to be fair. With respect to the question of educational development charges relating to boards of education, the government decided, on the basis of our current financial situation and on the basis of the fact that the whole package with respect to educational financing reform is being dealt with by the Fair Tax Commission, that we could not accede to the request that we abandon willy-nilly the educational charges, so-called lot levies, with respect to educational development.

The whole issue is being looked at by the Fair Tax Commission. There are questions of fairness here. There are also questions, as the member well knows from his experience in municipal politics, of affordability. We are right up against those questions today as a government. We will continue to be. We are going to continue to do the very best that we can over the life of the government in dealing with the fairness questions. It is something which the Fair Tax Commission is going to be looking at.

As for this year, the member will know that there are certain boards whose requests for those charges have had to be met, because if we had not met them, they simply would have taken the government to court.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Perruzza: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Downsview riding, which I have the honour of representing, is largely a working-class riding. The majority of my constituents work in construction, in factories and other heavy industries where the chances for work-related injuries are very high. My office -- and I am certain other offices -- has had problems regarding specific cases and has often received no response even after several messages have been left. I am concerned that many adjudicators are insensitive when dealing with injured workers, resulting in frustration and tension among injured workers and their families.

The Workers' Compensation Board is much like a dinosaur, a bureaucratic nightmare. My question to the minister is, what action is his ministry taking in the short term to ensure that injured workers are treated fairly, compassionately and efficiently by the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member is well aware that we are concerned about the operation of the WCB and the many problems that are coming to our attention from workers. While most claimants are treated fairly, there is a growing number who have real, legitimate complaints in terms of the operation of the board.

I can tell the member that we expect to see some significant changes in the administration of the board very shortly. The government is in the process of finding both a new chair and a new vice-chair of administration. We hope to be announcing these key positions in the very near future. Our message to this new administration is, very clear, and that is that we want resolved the problems of adjudication, the problems of delays, the problems of service to the employees of the board, and that is something we will be closely watching at the time.

I am sure the member is also aware that it is an arm's-length relationship with the board. We do not directly run it, but certainly we are aware of the problems that are developing.

Mr Perruzza: I thank the minister for his answer, but it seems to me that that is more of a short-term solution. I would like to ask the minister what they are doing in the long term to simplify the workers' compensation system so that it is easier to understand, is efficient and ensures that injured workers receive fair and equitable compensation for their injuries.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do not think that the workers' compensation system can ever be made simple. Certainly we can improve the efficiency of the system, and that is what we are trying to do. We think the office of the worker adviser, for example, has done a commendable job, given the kind of pressure that is on it.

But we are also aware that we are really not going to solve the problems of the Workers' Compensation Board until we do a much better job of health and safety and prevention of accidents in the workplace in the province of Ontario, and that has got to be one of our main aims.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health. It has to do with an area that I am sure she will agree is growing. I am not exaggerating in saying it could be reaching crisis proportions. I am speaking now of longterm care. As the minister will appreciate, the former government did announce, I think about a year ago, quite a comprehensive plan for long-term care. That was then and this is now, of course.

I say it is growing to a crisis proportion for a variety of reasons. I think the minister is no doubt aware that there are literally hundreds of community groups that are waiting for action from the government. An arbitrator recently said to the union that the arbitrator was unable to reach a fair settlement with the workers because nursing homes were not adequately funded. I think it is fair to say there are a number of civil servants waiting for direction from the ministry.

I wonder if the minister today might give us specifically her timetable on when she will be announcing the government's plans for long-term care.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I would be pleased to let the critic for the Liberal Party know that the proposal dealing with long-term care and the proposal that we will be taking to the public in consultation is now going before cabinet, so we should be able to provide him with very substantial kinds of information on that score within a short period of time.

Mr Phillips: The problem I am having is that the major consultation took place actually -- sadly for us, fortunately for this government -- about six months ago, and the people of Ontario had the major consultation, and that was of course when they voted for the NDP and voted for the Agenda for People. They spelled out in there their plans for dealing with the issues in the province.

Believe me, the people of the province are waiting for action on long-term care. What I want today from the minister is assurance that when the budget comes forward it will include the funds necessary to implement their plans for long-term care. We cannot wait for another year. We must ensure that those plans and those programs are provided for within this budget, which comes out, I believe, next month.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The Treasurer hears the question, and I know that he understands that the financial needs for long-term care are terribly important in this province. We will make our submissions to the Treasurer, and certainly the program that this government will be placing before the Legislature and the public of Ontario will have funding attached.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Witmer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The wage protection fund announced by the Premier last October is conservatively estimated to cost about $145 million. Ministry officials have indicated that about 10,000 laid-off workers have already applied for compensation under this yet-to-be-created program. Could the minister please indicate to this House how his government intends to finance the wage protection fund?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member will also know, if she has taken a look at the discussion documents that are out with some of the stakeholders in the community, that some of the issues we have to resolve and are currently now compiling our material on as a result of the input from the questionnaire are how the fund will be financed and the extent of the coverage and how fast we can move on it. We are in the process of looking at that now and will be bringing the recommendations to cabinet very shortly and hope to be in in this session of the House with a draft bill.

Mrs Witmer: I asked the minister specifically how he intends to fund the wage protection fund. I would suggest to him, at a time when there is mounting economic insecurity, at a time when people in this province are suffering from job losses and plant closings, at a time when our neighbours to the south are actively recruiting businesses and encouraging them to move south of the border, that this government do everything possible to stem that tide of businesses going south.

I would suggest that the minister focus his efforts on keeping jobs in this province, I would suggest that the minister focus on skills training, and I would like him at this time to reassure the workers in this province that he is responsible for protecting their jobs, that he is responsible for providing them with compensation, that he will not allow more jobs to move south of the border. Is he prepared to make a commitment at this time to the workers that he will not introduce a payroll tax to finance his wage protection fund?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member will know that when the matter is now just being drafted and not yet taken to cabinet that I am not likely to tell her specifically what we will suggest in terms of payment. I think she also must understand that we recognize the tough and severe times we are in and the fear of the business community. I can tell her also, though, that there are workers out there, from the Canada Packers, the Deilcrafts, the many other plants around this province, who have lost their jobs and now are sitting with unpaid wages and vacation that have to be taken care of. So there are a number of things that we are going to have to balance in making a decision on this matter.

[Later]

Hon Mr Mackenzie: May I be allowed to correct the record, please? In response to the question that I just answered I mentioned that we had a large number of workers who are sitting without payments being made, and that is true. We have several thousand who have applied to the wage protection plan. I mentioned plant closures such as Deilcraft and Canada Packers. That was an ill-advised choice of words. I am not sure that any of their particular workers are involved in not getting money, but some of the others, as I say, several thousand, are in the province.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the record is corrected and more information is given with respect to a question, sometimes there is supplementary time available for the questioner. I would like to propose that you allow the member for Waterloo North to pose a supplementary with respect to the corrected record. I think it is only fair.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, my understanding of the rules is that you have a supplementary question when in fact there has been a question asked of the minister. He has come back into the House to respond. Because of the time of the question, he did not have the response. It is not my understanding that another question is permitted when in fact he has gotten up to correct the record.

The Speaker: That is correct.

Mr Elston: Just on that point, Mr Speaker, when questions are answered here, the supplementaries flow from those questions as answered by the minister. When the information is corrected after the fact, it allows the minister an unfair advantage, because the supplementary is posed in relation to material which was either incomplete or unavailable to the questioner. I am only standing to ask that my colleague from Waterloo North be allowed to examine a supplementary in relation to new information provided to her at this time.

It is obviously not a partisan issue, because she is a member of a different caucus from ours, but I think it is important when new information comes that in fact any member -- and it would pertain also to a member of the New Democratic Party as well as to the Liberal caucus -- would be allowed to ask the supplementary with full knowledge of the facts and not some errant piece of information.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point of order raised by the member for Bruce. I draw to the member's attention the fact that the minister rose to simply correct the record and offered some information to correct the record, not additional information available for debate, and that is normal practice in this House. But I appreciate your raising it, and I will review the matter again, but to my knowledge that is the practice we have followed for some considerable time.

GUN CONTROL

Mr Owens: My question is for the Solicitor General. In 1990 in the city of Scarborough there were 626 offences using offensive weapons, which is up from 473 in 1989. A Metropolitan Toronto committee is currently holding hearings with respect to gun control in this city. The Toronto Star today reports that the federal Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell, will introduce legislation in the next session with respect to gun control, including some of the recommendations that came from the committee studying Bill C-80. What steps is the ministry taking with respect to gun control?

Hon Mr Farnan: Firearms control is a public safety issue that I consider to be very grave, and it is also of grave concern for policing services in the province of Ontario. However, the member is quite correct, firearms legislation is under the direct responsibility of the federal government.

I have written to the federal minister, Kim Campbell, and I believe my colleague the Attorney General likewise has written in very strong terms supporting Bill C-80 and urging a national firearms amnesty that we want to participate in. We are watching very carefully the new gun control law as it goes through the Justice minister's hearings; we are looking at those hearings and the response to those hearings and we want to see that legislation coming through this session.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Miss Martel moved that Mr Harnick and Mr Villeneuve exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

BUCKHORN WILDERNESS CENTRE

Mr Drainville: It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of 329 citizens of the ridings of Vlctoria-Haliburton, Peterborough and Hastings-Peterborough.

We also have today Norma and George Macphail, who are in the gallery representing the 329 citizens. The issue they have petitioned this House about is the Buckhorn Wilderness Centre, which has become private property, and they would like it to become crown property.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr B. Ward: I have a petition signed by approximately 100 people from the city of Brantford requesting that two full-time judges be appointed to the city by 1 April.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC, previously grade 13, history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproved. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking, such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view."

It has been signed by 238 people.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION

Mr Silipo from the select committee on Ontario in Confederation presented the committee's interim report and requested that it be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration pursuant to standing order 36(b).

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Silipo: Briefly, thank you. I would just like to note two things, first of all, the thanks of the committee to all of the staff, both here in the Legislative Building and the legislative services and external staff who assisted us with the work of the committee. We know there were a great many people who helped us to pull the report together and helped us in our work and we want to express our appreciation to all of the staff.

Also, I would just note that the report is a unanimous report from the members of the committee, and in that way I also want to express my appreciation to the other members of the committee for the collaboration that was shown in the process.

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to call the order for consideration of the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

Agreed to.

Hon Miss Martel: There has been an agreement among the three parties to divide the time equally in this debate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Consideration of the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

Étude du rapport provisoire du Comité spécial sur le rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.

Mr Silipo: I am pleased to rise today to open debate on the interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

As I noted earlier, this report is a unanimous report, and I think that continues a tradition which has been longstanding in this assembly on issues that relate to constitutional matters and the future of the country. The three parties have managed to come together on those issues, and I want to just again note my thanks to all of the members of the committee from the government side and from the opposition parties for the manner in which we were able to work together. I certainly was very pleased. It certainly made my life as the Chair of the committee a lot easier.

But I think that above and beyond the practicalities there is that value I think we all share of being able to come together on issues as important as this and to rise above partisanship and to express our views together.

The report opens with an observation that a Constitution cannot remain static. Just as a country evolves over time, so does a document that codifies those fundamental values we have as a country, defines our national institutions and divides the exercise of the legislative powers that express what the country is all about.

I think it is in that context that we place our report, in the realization that we are at an important crossroads in our evolution as a country and that in looking at the many issues we had before us, we need to recognize that change is inevitable and that what we are contemplating in the days and months and years to come is looking at restructuring the essence of this country and how we translate that into the constitutional document and indeed into the whole other relationship between the different levels of government, and not necessarily just the federal and provincial governments but indeed the third level of government, the municipal level of government, in that aspect.

As people know, we were given a mandate as a committee to review and report on, first, the social and economic interests and aspirations of all the people of Ontario within Confederation, and second, what form of Confederation can most effectively meet the social and economic aspirations of the people of Ontario. Obviously, in our interim report we do not presume to be able to answer those questions fully, but we do believe that we have been able to at least set some clear directions and at the same time proceed from there to set the stage for the next part of our work.

Before getting into some of the issues that we address in the report, I want to note that the extensive travelling we did during this time allowed us to visit some 20 different communities across the province and I think gave us all, as members of the committee, a closer understanding of the reality of Ontario across its different regions.

On a personal note, I know that being in those different regions and going through the travel we did, as a member from Toronto it certainly gave me not only an appreciation for the different parts of the province but also a much greater level of respect for my colleagues from outside the Toronto area in terms of what they need to go through on a week-to-week basis in doing their work as members of this assembly. I think it is something that perhaps can really only be known by people who in fact go through that kind of

schedule on a week-to-week basis.

We heard from many individuals and groups, over 600 people, who talked to us throughout the process. For me what came out of the many people who spoke was, above all a profound interest in the kinds of things that are happening to our country and to our province and a great deal of interest by the people of the province in wanting to be involved in the process of change. People said to us very clearly that they expect leadership from government, that they expect us to take a leadership role in addressing the many issues we need to address.

But they also said to us very clearly that they do not want politicians to assume or presume that we have the answers and that the public out there can be left out of the process.

If there is one message that came out very clearly it was that people intend and want us to make sure that they continue to be involved at all stages of the process. I think that is something that not only we heard but I hope we reflected very clearly in our report and will reflect in our continuing work in terms of how we structure our discussions in ensuring that as we proceed to look at some of the issues in more detail, we will also ensure that the public, in many ways, continues to be involved in that process.

In terms of some of the values that people spoke to us about and some of the things they felt bound us together as a country, we were, first of all, I think struck by the level of emotion with which people spoke. While people may not have talked to us in terms of specific details of giving us proposals that would resolve the problems that we have, there was a very strong sense that something that was very valuable to people was in jeopardy of possibly disintegrating.

I think that feeling came across to us time and time again. People talked to us about the kinds of values that they see are inherent in describing Canada -- values of tolerance, values of respect for each other, values of not only accepting but respecting and wanting to enhance the kind of diversity that exists across the country -- and talked to us about the concept of equality. People recognized within that, that equality, for it to be true, was not necessarily the same thing for everyone or the same thing for every region and that in fact there were different ways that we needed to be able to express that.

There were, as I said, a great many positive comments on the question of the cultural and racial diversity of the country and that is an inherent part of what makes us unique. There was certainly a great deal of comment about the sense of wellbeing for others that I think we share and the kind of value that people place on the social programs and some of the other underlying basic things, which we tend to take for granted sometimes but that in fact set us apart as a country from other countries.

We certainly share, as a committee, that view of the majority of people who spoke before us of the tolerance and understanding and respect for the diverse elements of our society that are indeed basic values which need to form the basis of any renewal that we embark upon.

We heard also a great deal about aboriginal peoples and it was heartening I think, as has been noted and as we have been saying throughout the process, to hear the great level of consensus that there was, obviously from native peoples but also from non-native peoples, about the need for us to address the kinds of injustices that we as a society have allowed to be perpetuated against our native peoples for years in the question of land claims and the question of self-government, and that we need to come to grips with as governments and as people and that we need to address in a very fundamental way.

As we conclude that

section of our report, we state that we believe the government has a very clear mandate to proceed and continue on its course, as begun indeed by the previous government, to continue to negotiate and to reach solutions with native peoples on the process of self-government and land claims, recognizing that there is obviously a great role that the federal government needs to play in that area as well, but also recognizing that Ontario can and should continue to play a major role in ensuring that the land claims issues get resolved, that the question of self-government gets addressed, that we do indeed answer the kinds of specifics of what selfgovernment means, as the leader of the third party was asking about earlier on today, and that we ensure that in the constitutional framework the issues of aboriginal peoples are right up there and up front on the agenda and dealt with in future constitutional discussions.

We also obviously heard a great deal about the question of Quebec's future in Canada. As we note in our report, this was probably the subject of some of the most passionate testimony that we heard. The feelings were at times raw on this issue. There was a strong sentiment that people wanted us to keep Quebec within Canada, but I think we also need to acknowledge that there were some people who felt that Quebec should simply be let go.

We do not agree with that latter view. As a committee, we expressed the opinion that we need to do whatever we can to ensure that Quebec remains within Canada. We believe that the potential of Quebec separating from the rest of the country is real, not something that can be taken lightly, and therefore requires a real, concerted effort on our part, on our government's part, to ensure that we are addressing that issue in a very real way.

We think that the consequences of Quebec's separation would not be very positive, to put it mildly, but would be very serious for all of us, obviously for Quebec and for the rest of us, and that everyone at the very least needs to be aware of what those consequences might be in whatever kind of level of detail we are able to.

You can describe the consequences in economic terms, you can describe them in terms of the kinds of loss of trade and other kinds of possibilities, but it seemed to us that beyond those kinds of issues the potential for Canada without Quebec has implications that go to the very heart of our identity as a country. That, it seems to us, is really at the basis of any discussion that we also pursue in that area.

We obviously have not had the opportunity to be able to set out in any kind of a clear way, in any detail, the ways in which we can respond to what is happening in Quebec, but we believe very clearly that respond we need to. We will be looking during our next phase at various possibilities in which we can hopefully provide to this assembly and to others some possibilities that need to be addressed.

Je voudrais aussi dire que la question du Québec et son rôle dans le Canada, l'avenir du Québec dans le Canada, est évidemment une des questions les plus importantes que nous ayons eues devant nous. Certainement, nous savons qu'il y a ceux dans la province qui sont prêts à abandonner le Québec ou à dire que le Québec devrait se séparer mais nous, comme comité, soutenons la position qu'il faut faire tout le possible pour retenir le Québec dans le Canada.

Nous voulons un Canada uni avec le Québec là-dedans, mais nous reconnaissons que, pour en arriver à ça, il faut être prêt à contempler des changements pour que ça puisse continuer. Nous croyons que la séparation du Québec aurait des conséquences majeures et sérieuses pour le Québec, mais évidemment pour nous aussi en Ontario et pour le reste du Canada.

Donc, il faut vraiment qu'un changement se produise pour que le Québec demeure un partenaire au sein de la Confédération. Même s'il n'y a pas dans notre rapport des détails en ce qui concerne répondre aux exigences du Québec, nous espérons, et moi je l'espère sincèrement, que le Québec reste dans le Canada et que notre rapport au moins donne une idée positive, qu'il soit reçu d'une manière positive en ce qui concerne notre volonté envers le Québec et envers notre volonté de trouver des solutions, même si on n'est pas en ce moment, dans notre débat, dans une situation de pouvoir répondre d'une manière précise à cette question.

Therefore, while we are not in a position as a committee to respond to the call for official bilingualism on the part of the francophone communities, because we believe that is an issue that requires a great deal more discussion, we do understand and appreciate the very strongly felt feelings on behalf of our Franco-Ontarian citizens of the need to continue to expand the provision of French services, particularly in the area of education. This is one area that they highlighted for us time and time again in terms of having a continuum of services from kindergarten right through to university or college. That is an area that we need to take a look at.

We also very clearly heard from a number of people who are opposed to not only any idea of official bilingualism but indeed even to the concept of Bill 8 itself. While we do not agree with those views as a committee, we certainly do recognize that there is a great deal more information that needs to be provided to people across this province and that a number of things can be done in looking at the implementation of Bill 8 to at least provide more information to people about the consequences or the implications of Bill 8 in those areas that have been designated for bilingual services, and use that as a vehicle hopefully to provide a better understanding about those issues.

We heard, as I mentioned earlier, a number of comments made about the question of multiculturalism. I think that what struck us and certainly what we reflect on and agree in our report is the issue that the multicultural diversity of the country and of the province is not a recent phenomenon, that indeed it is something that has been a part of the history and the evolution of this province and of this country and that anything that we do in terms of constitutional discussions, in terms of looking at redefining our constitutional framework, needs to keep that very much in mind.

There are great strengths that we have within our society that are reflected in the kind of tolerance that we see and that we want to continue to enhance towards the multicultural, multiracial reality of Canada, but we also got the sense that we need to be prepared to move beyond simple tolerance and acceptance and to develop a real understanding of the values that exist within our entire population as reflected again in that kind of diversity that we see within the ethnocultural makeup of the country. There are great strengths that we can draw from that on a societal level and indeed on an economic level in terms of trade and other benefits.

We heard in this process from women, and I think, if anywhere along the process, that it was when women were talking to us that the issues of process themselves became in effect very clearly put before us in terms of their importance. Women talked to us about many, many issues. As they were there as representatives of various organizations, they spoke to us of course about all of the issues that I have mentioned and that I have not mentioned. Obviously they had and continue to have a great interest and role as women and as members of our society in all of those issues that affect us as a country.

But they then talked to us very clearly also about specific needs that they have and that we need to continue to address. They underlined for us, and we agreed very much, that in the process of constitutional change we need to make sure that the kinds of gains that we have made towards gender equality not only are not jeopardized, but perhaps, it seems to me, are looked at in terms of protecting and enhancing.

That is something that we need to keep very much in mind in our processes, and one of the ways of ensuring that is by making sure that women, individually and through their organizations or whatever way, are involved in all of the processes that are set in place towards constitutional reform.

We heard also from a group of people who I know we would not have heard from if the member for York East sitting next to me, who is a member of our committee, had not been also a member of our committee. We may have heard from them, but we may not have heard from them in quite the same way. That was, of course, disabled individuals. We heard from a number of deaf individuals but we heard also from people with other disabilities.

I think we learned a great deal as a committee as a result of what those individuals said to us about the kinds of barriers that exist for people with particular disabilities, the kinds of barriers that those disabilities place them in in terms of their being able to fully participate in society.

While a lot of the comments that they made touched on the whole range of lack of services that they want us to improve as government, it also struck a chord with us in terms again of some of the basics that we all need as citizens to have if we want to participate in the evolution of this country. While we will be examining in more detail how the rights of disabled people can be more effectively addressed in the constitutional framework in our next stage, we certainly keep in mind very much the kinds of comments that were made to us about the needs that exist for people with various disabilities and how in fact governments need to continue to be very conscious of and to address those issues.

We were asked to look at some of the economic questions, and I think it is fair to say that this is probably one of the areas in which we have at this point the least to say. I think that again we just need to be very clear and open about that. We did not hear from the people who spoke to us a great deal in the way of specifics about how that related to the constitutional framework, with a couple of very important exceptions that I want to note.

Even before I get to that, I want to say that we certainly did hear a great deal about what was happening to people economically and how people saw that that meshed or did not mesh with anything else that we were doing other than it was something that was obviously important to them. It has often been said that we can talk about constitutional matters, but if we are not talking about the bread-and-butter issues that affect people, all of it is just an academic exercise.

People obviously talked to us and were conscious that our hearings were happening during the recession, so these issues may have been in fact more prominent in people's minds. None the less, my own sense is that they would have been in any event. But we did in hearing also begin to see some of the threads and the links that exist between the question of economics and how they affect people in a real way; what it means to people to not have jobs or what some of the economic policies of this government or the federal government might mean to them and indeed how that translates into a constitutional discussion.

One of the areas that we heard a little bit about that I know the committee will be looking at in more detail is this whole question of the relationship between economics and the Constitution, particularly as to whether we should be looking within the Charter of Rights at enlarging not only some of the basic rights and protections that we provide for individuals, but indeed some of the basic rights that we provide in there in a common way. I think again that is something that we will be trying to address in some further way in the next stage of our work.

I want to just add a couple of comments about the role that people saw that we as a province should be playing and then touch also on some of the issues related to the whole process of constitutional reform. There were certainly, as I said earlier, many comments about the role that people saw that governments ought to play and particularly the role that people thought that we as a province should be playing in the constitutional discussion.

People saw that because of our somewhat unique role in terms of being one of the larger provinces in the country, in terms of our historical links with Quebec, in terms of the kind of trade links and other kinds of links that we have with Quebec and indeed with the other regions of the country, we are in a position where we can play that kind of traditional mediator role that Ontario has played, but at the same time ensure that the issues that are important to us and to Ontarians also get put on to the discussion table.

We think that there is in fact this dual role that Ontario can and should continue to play to try to bring the different regions of the country together, but also to make sure that the various issues that were put before us are addressed and are indeed addressed in a collective fashion, not by separating them out or by saying that one is necessarily more important than the other.

Lastly, I just want to talk a little bit about the process of reform. There were many things that we heard about how we could change some of the structures, how the Senate should perhaps be reformed to a triple E Senate, how referenda should be used perhaps as another method and, when you bring those issues closer to the process of constitutional reform, how we perhaps should be looking at the concept of a constituent assembly and again the use of referenda in terms of arriving at ways of answering all the questions before us.

Whatever we may think as individuals about the value or non-value of each of those possibilities, the one thing I think that is clear above all of it is that there is a real sense out there that people want to be involved in the process of constitutional reform and that whatever structures we put in place, whatever solutions we may propose, we need to keep that very much in mind.

Whether we agree that referenda at the end of this process would make sense or whether we agree that constituent assemblies make some sense in terms of looking at a way of doing business on the constitutional framework, the underlying issue is that the people of the province need to continue to be involved in the process of constitutional change, because it is not just a process of constitutional change for the sake of going through an exercise. It is in effect the very essence of the structure of the country that we are in the process of changing.

I think I would like to conclude by underscoring that in our sense as a committee, and certainly in mine as a member of that committee, Canada is at a crossroads in its history. The things that are happening now are at least as serious as are some of the kinds of issues that were under discussion at the time the country decided to come together. It is the whole process of renewing, I think, the vision of Canada and renewing the structures that reflect that vision that we are in the process of doing.

Therefore, in all of this it is essential that whatever the structures are that we put in place to help us get to those answers, we make sure that the people of the province continue to be involved and that we exercise the leadership they asked us to by making sure that as we put forward suggestions, as we put forward proposals, we continue that open line of dialogue with them.

I look forward to the next stage of our work. I look forward also to the debate in this House, because I think it is important to hear from not only the other members of the committee but the other members of the Legislature on this issue, in being able then to take also those thoughts and keep those thoughts in mind as we embark on the second stage of our work.

With that, I reiterate my thanks, as Chair of the committee, to the other members of the committee for the kind of co-operation and collaboration that was demonstrated in the process. I think it is an indication of the kind of positive attitude that we need to try to transcend even this Legislature to our relationships with the other parts of the country if we are indeed to resolve the kinds of issues that are before us as a country.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would just like to bring to the House's attention before I begin my formal remarks that when we began the process of hearings of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation there were three women who were appointed to that committee and, unfortunately, the two government women have had to leave because of assignment to other duties. I would like to formally congratulate one of the very strong members of the committee, who did not miss one of the 600 presentations, and that is our new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Riverdale.

Because I am the only surviving woman at this moment, I have decided that I would like to narrow the scope of my remarks today to encompass the ideas and views we heard from the women of Ontario, women who generously gave of their time and talent to share with the committee their special perspective of this important subject, its complex and far-reaching challenge.

We were privileged, as our Chairman said, to hear from women from all regions of the province, including native women, francophone women, visible-minority women, disabled women, women representing business and women representing the labour movement, rural women and urban women. I propose to share with this House today some of the views raised by the women of this province in response to the questions posed by the discussion paper, Changing for the Better.

As the committee report states, women speaking as individuals and for groups addressed the whole range of issues discussed in this report. Their perspective as women added depth to these discussions and particularly helped in our consideration of aboriginal issues, disabled, social and economic problems such as poverty and insufficient support to employment. We cannot overemphasize that the involvement of women, as our Chairman has brought to the House's attention, is key in this process of change.

Throughout my remarks I will be quoting from the presentations of many women. In the interest of brevity, however, I will not be mentioning any of their names or the organizations they represent. This information, however, is appended to my written remarks and will be available to anyone who wishes them.

Let me begin by taking questions in turn. What are the values we share as Canadians? We heard many eloquent comments on the values and visions of what it means to be a Canadian. In Ottawa, one of the presenters shared with us her moving assessment of the qualities we shared. She said:

"We believe that there is a strong Canadian identity. We are united in our desire for peace, order and good government, concerned for collective rights and individual welfare. We like to think that we are tolerant, able to compromise, value freedom of speech, social justice, caring and sharing with others. Many of us value the French language that makes us different, and we value being a middle power with a role as international peacemaker.

Whenever we travel abroad, we are always very proud to be Canadian, and when we meet other Canadians, we have an instant friendship, not at all muted by whether they have a different language or a different background, because we are all Canadians abroad."

One woman from Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council told us that "As Canadians, we share many resources and programs envied worldwide." She reminded us to: "revisit our vision of the future with positive workable solutions. We must dialogue with Canadians all across the country. All Canadians, in whatever region they live, whatever ethnic background or income bracket they represent, are all equals and deserve to have a voice in the future of our nation."

A woman in Thunder Bay hopefully told us: "We face a very serious but not hopeless situation. I believe that there is a bit of a renaissance happening in Canada, and if that rebirth is encouraged, stimulated and fostered, it can be part of a developing new sense of national purpose.... It will not be easy, but most truly worthwhile efforts are not. It is important. Let's give this wonderful country our best shot for all of our grandchildren."

Ontario's women feel very deeply the frustrations as the yet unrecognized potential of this country has not been achieved. In Collingwood, the committee was told that:

"I am very proud to be a Canadian, but...I do not believe as a country we have ever reached our potential.... Part of that has to do with our complacency.... I think this is a golden opportunity to do something differently and to really bring about some significant change in our country.... This is the time when we have some potentially creative energy that we can focus and turn to dealing with the very gutsy, crunchy issue we have, which involves, in my opinion, major revision of the Constitution." Gutsy, crunchy issue from a woman of this province.

"A government...can be very strong by providing a vision, by exercising leadership, by encouraging people to really work through their differences...in other words, be catalytic leaders...team leadership, partnership and consensus building."

Professional women, too, spoke clearly about their vision of this country. A London lawyer, who is in the House with us today, spoke most movingly about her country and the solution she sees to the present constitutional difficulties. She suggested to us that:

"Before any constitutional changes are considered or recommended, we must first seek a healing in the hearts and minds of people...straight from the heart of regular people -- an expression of how they really feel about this country.

"We must get the message to Quebec and to our native peoples that we care, that we are sorry they have been hurt, but that the rest of Canada is hurting too and that we would like to sit down together and work out our differences.

"We need to pay heed," she reminded us, "to the Hebrew prophet: 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.'

"Lester Pearson, a former Canadian Prime Minister,...said that in seeking after solutions for the future, 'Patience, strength, prudence and vision are the four qualities' to guide our way.... The real struggle is to come back first, face to face, with what we are, with what we have become and with what we want to be." That is the contribution of a woman lawyer in this province.

"We need fresh vision, fresh hope, fresh courage to approach the days ahead.... Where is our leadership? The responsibility rests on more shoulders than one. We all bear the responsibility, but particularly the people in leadership positions like yourselves, and the premiers and the judges and MPs and senators of this land, and the heads of labour and industry and religion.

"I believe in the future of Canada," she said. "And I believe enough in Canadians to rally to the occasion, to forgive old grudges, to let heal the wounds of the past, to cast off cynicism and to stand up for this beautiful land. But it will take the whole country to seize the vision. It must be separate and apart from party politics or cultural or religious differences or barriers of language or race. It must be felt as one.

"We need to mobilize like we never have. We need to cast off our personal cares and stand up for the greater good."

Moving words, Mr Speaker, I am sure you would agree, words from the heart that the committee listened to with care, and words which I think most Canadians should heed as we enter into further discussions on the future of our Confederation.

In Ottawa, we had a deputation from the Council of Women of Ottawa and Area, and I would like to close this

section by quoting from the

preamble of a document this group sent to the 1980 constitutional commission. Its visionary words speak even more clearly to us today.

"Recognizing the vastness of our land and the diversity of its inhabitants, we realize that a federation is only possible through the triumph of our will for a common citizenship overarching, yet respecting, the differences of region, race, language and religion of our peoples.

"The identity of Canada is not fixed. It will evolve and be re-created by succeeding generations building on this heritage."

Now, the next question: How can we secure our future in the international economy? As our Chair has said, this is the area we have explored the least. But the women of this province spoke to our committee. We are reminded by the women that Ontario's future lies in its financial viability. Canada's future lies in the economic sharing between the have and the have-not provinces. Federal-provincial co-operation, not provincial sovereignty, will facilitate the appropriate distribution of our country's great resources. Canada will not survive as a nation without economic security for all of its partners.

All Ontarians need to understand clearly and simply what the deficit is, how the deficit is caused, what is the relationship to the provincial debt and the national debt. These are questions we must ask ourselves.

In terms of the recession, we need to know the contributing factors. What part does the world economy play? What

part is affected by the United States economy? and on and on, questions we know we still need to ask ourselves and to interact with others upon.

"What roles should the federal and provincial governments play?" was our next question. In the area of federal-provincial division of powers and constitutional reform, the women of Ontario shared their expertise and insight. In Sault Ste Marie, the business and professional women's club suggested that:

"In considering future amendments to the Canadian Constitution, we would urge the government to put procedures in place to ensure that any changes in the Canadian Constitution Act affirm the rights and freedoms of women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and francophone minorities outside of Quebec, and to ensure these changes are consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada.

"We would ask the government to develop a democratic amending process for constitutional reform, with full, prior public debate of all issues under the Constitution and full participation of all those involved."

The committee's report noted that a number of witnesses argued, particularly in the context of federalprovincial divisions of powers, that it was important that all provinces be treated equally. Other witnesses argued that recognizing the equality of the provinces does not mean treating them the same. Equality often requires instead that different groups be treated differently. This could involve recognizing, for example, particular cultural and linguistic characteristics of a region as giving rise to needs in other regions.

The committee recognizes that to achieve equality requires society to recognize and take account of the particular needs of those people who have been excluded historically from full participation in society, including aboriginal people, women, disabled individuals and visible, linguistic and cultural minorities. I and many of the women in this province agree with that position.

How do we achieve justice for Canada's aboriginal people? Some of the most heartfelt and articulate presentations we heard in our travels across the province, as our Chair has recollected, were from native women. We were told that:

"Native women have an important role. They always have and always will." We heard them state, "We are the mothers, the wives, the nurturers and the life-givers. The women in native homes are the ones who most directly feel the effects of a poor economy. They attempt to make the best of housing, feeding and clothing their families on meagre welfare allowances or, if they work, minimum wage."

These women also play a vital role in the maintenance and protection of language and culture: "Most northern women are fluent in their first language, whether that be Ojibway or Oji-Cree, and it is the women in the homes who pass this skill on to their children. Language is the basis of our culture," they said, "and a skill we must keep."

Native women also shared with us their special perspective on the concept of the Constitution and government. A perspective of Canadian history that we in the non-native population do not often hear: "The Constitution as it is designed, the Indian Act as it is designed, the policies that govern Canada, the policies that govern this province -- nowhere in those policies does it show me respect for people, respect for land, respect for animal life, respect for water and air."

Or as we heard in Dryden: "A Constitution which is built on...the acceptance and recognition of aboriginals as full and equal constitutional partners will be stable, solid and surely