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

October 15, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

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

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I've had an earlier opportunity to express at considerable length in this House my support for the Charlottetown accord and the reasons why I will be voting Yes on October 26. I'd like to use my opportunity this morning to just for a few moments reflect on the process of this campaign, as we are now some 11 days away from what I believe to be one of the most critical votes in our nation's history.

It seems to me that after all the years of debate, of anguish, of negotiation, there has been one point of almost unanimous agreement across the country as this campaign began. That point of agreement was that people have a clear sense that they'd had enough of constitutional negotiations. They wanted this issue resolved. They wanted it to be put behind us so we could all concentrate on other priorities.

Yet, 11 days before the vote itself, after all those years of debate, anguish and negotiation, I believe the campaign itself is proving to have been not long enough. It is certainly not long enough to answer all the questions people want to raise. It's not long enough to respond to that sense of uncertainty that makes people who want to vote Yes just a little bit hesitant, because they don't feel they have enough knowledge of the accord or of its implications.

I've had the opportunity to speak on the Yes side of the referendum at least on a daily basis. I'm impressed that so many people are truly seeking information, that they want to understand what the accord will do and what it will not do, that they want to know how particular provisions have been reached, why they've been reached, whether the accord can be made to work, whether an agreement in fact will allow this central issue to be resolved.

These concerned people do not make the headlines, but there's no question that their concerns are real and that they're looking for the information and looking for the answers. It is a fact that the Yes campaign is literally flooded with requests for speakers who will go out and bring this kind of information to people who are so anxiously looking for it.

These people -- you never see their names in the headlines. You never see their particular perspective addressed in the newspaper or media articles. There's no doubt that the No voices have been the most aggressive voices in the campaign and the most likely to catch attention.

As someone said early on: "It is so easy to be passionately opposed to some part of this agreement. The No side doesn't have to offer any alternatives. They just have to say No."

It seemed to me that at the beginning of the campaign, it was perhaps too frequent that the most passionate expressions of the Yes side focused on the consequences of a No vote. People understandably felt resentful of what they felt to be almost an intimidation. There is no question, though, that the concerns of the Yes side about what will happen if this referendum should fail are sincere and deeply felt.

But for the most part, the Yes supporters have urged people to ask their questions, to give the issues serious thought. The Yes supporters have wanted people to vote Yes, not out of a sense of resignation, not out of a sense of, "Let's get this done," but with a degree of comfort and with a degree even of enthusiasm. The time does seem almost too brief for such a thoughtful and informative discussion.

In many places, the issue becomes divisive. I recognize that this issue continues to be perhaps as divisive for the members of my party as for any other single, identifiable group. That is not because any of my fellow Liberals lack a commitment to our country, but in fact just the opposite.

Many Liberals have found it difficult to give up a long-held vision of what we would like the country to be, in order to reconcile ourselves to the compromises that are necessary to respond to other people's visions, the compromises that to my mind are absolutely essential if any agreement is to be reached.

This has been a truly unique campaign, a campaign in which politicians from all sides of the House, the Premier, the leaders of the opposition and the third party, members of all three parties, have worked together to see that this accord would be approved.

Most of us who support the accord don't have the ownership of having drafted the agreement itself. We would probably all agree that the agreement is not absolutely perfect in anyone's mind, and yet we've risen above our partisan differences to support what, taken as a whole, I believe to be a truly remarkable achievement.

I continue to believe that it requires understanding and tolerance and a capacity for compromise to bring together and to keep together a country as complex and diverse as Canada. We are truly a unique nation, and I think too often as Canadians we tend to forget that.

We are a nation that was founded on a respect for differences, and we are highly regarded around the world as a nation of tolerance. We have in truth become the world's peacekeepers, and this is part of our essence as Canadians. It is also perhaps the most essential challenge that confronts us as we shape a constitutional accord that will assure our future unity.

As I have looked at the accord in detail, I believe every part of the Charlottetown accord responds to a legitimate and deeply felt need, concern, perspective of some region or some group of people in this country, that no part of the accord is unnecessary in ensuring that we can in fact reach agreement.

I certainly continue to believe that the preservation of our nation is a goal worth striving for, and I continue to be, some 11 days before the vote, optimistic that we can emerge after October 26 with the clear and confident knowledge that future generations will continue to take pride in a nation that stretches from sea to sea. I believe a Yes vote will resolve the central issue of whether we stay together in a confederation called Canada.

As each one of us enters politics for one reason only, the belief that through our political involvement we can make a difference, I look on what contributions I most want to leave as a politician. If there is one legacy above all else that as a politician I would like to be able to leave to my children and to my grandchildren, it is the legacy of a strong and united Canada.

I will vote Yes with pride and with a very passionate commitment to the future of this nation.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I am very pleased to partake in this debate on behalf of our party, but more importantly as an individual Canadian and elected member of the provincial Legislature.

I have had the honour, I think, since I've been a member, of having participated in every single committee the Ontario government has had on the Constitution, and during my travels and travails on those three committees I have learned and gained a great deal of respect for members on all sides of the House in all political parties who have served on all those committees.

It's an issue, one's constitution, that I think not many countries have an opportunity to go through. The Chinese people have a belief that in every crisis you have both danger and opportunity, and I think that indeed we have a great opportunity in this country on October 26 if we want to seize that opportunity.

I'm not going to talk about the text and the components of the agreement because I believe enough has been said by plenty of other members, both in the Legislature during this debate and outside by people who, perhaps even more importantly, are not elected representatives.

I will say that I'm somewhat disturbed by what I perceive to be some apathy by the voting public out there. I don't believe that we have communicated to the people in Ontario and in Canada exactly what the Charlottetown agreement or accord means.

I want to say up front that I come at this perhaps from a different perspective than some other members in that I was one of eight members of the Ontario Legislature to initially vote against the Meech Lake accord, and I felt very strongly about that. I also want to say that I voted for the amended version of the Meech Lake accord in this chamber approximately a year later.

I think we've all learned something through this process -- at least I have -- and that is that we should have listened to the people in the first place. Now we are doing, I think, the correct thing in letting the people of Ontario and Canada ultimately have their say as to what they think about this constitutional agreement.

It is indeed unique when you see that the leaders and most opposition leaders of all 10 provinces have unanimously endorsed this agreement. The leaders of all three federal political parties have endorsed this agreement. The leaders of the four native groups or communities represented at the table have unanimously endorsed this agreement. For the first time, the leaders of the territories have been allowed to participate in this process, and they have endorsed this agreement. Such diverse groups as the Canadian Labour Congress and the Business Council on National Issues have publicly endorsed this accord.

I think that says something. It should say something to every single Ontarian and every single Canadian.

This is an agreement that was reached over a great period of time. I have this funny feeling, at least from recently talking to my constituents at the Parry Sound District Municipal Association meeting a couple of weeks ago, that they seem to feel that if they vote No on October 26, it really doesn't mean anything, that the leaders will just go away and they'll negotiate a different deal, one that's more to their liking.

I have to say to those people that this is not the case. We have worked 125 years to come to this point in our history. The opportunity is now and we must seize that opportunity now.

I am sure that there are things in this agreement or accord that I personally would like to see changed. I'm sure that every one of us, every Ontarian and every Canadian, can say that, but being a Canadian and being part of a country means compromise. It means appreciating the concerns and problems and cares of other peoples in different parts of this country.

The spirit of compromise has always been an important facet of Canadian life. This country was founded, of course, other than the native peoples, which we often forget, by two basic immigrating peoples. We have always respected that. We've always respected the differences, as we respect the differences in other peoples who have come to this great land from many other nations around the world.

I don't know what we lose or what Preston Manning loses by acknowledging that fact. I don't know what we lose by recognizing the fact that Quebec is indeed a distinct and different culture. Every single province is different. This country is formed on respecting each other's differences and appreciating them and compromising.

I say to people who are considering voting No -- because I think there's also a misconception out there that "This is Brian Mulroney's deal," or "This is Bob Rae's deal," or "This is a political leaders' deal and we don't like incumbent politicians, period, so if they like it, we don't like it, and we're going to vote against it." That's not what this is about at all.

What this is about is that every facet, every area, every region of this country has finally unanimously agreed upon an accord that we all feel we can live with.

I say to the Canadian people out there and the people in Ontario, if we vote No on October 26, there may be great ramifications indeed for our future as a country. That isn't automatic, but it is certainly a great possibility if the result is No in significant parts of this country on October 26. All you have to do is look around at other countries in the world and see what they're experiencing and the difficult times they're going through to appreciate where we might be a year from now, two years from now, five years from now or 10 years from now.

I don't believe you can cut out of the heart of this country about 30% or 25% of the population and expect this country to survive as we know it today. I think it's incumbent upon every one of us to seriously consider that possibility before we vote on October 26.

I heard on the radio this morning that there's now a new group out there, a third group. They say they have a third option and that will be saying to vote Yes on the 26th, so they feel they are then saying Yes to Canada, but then marking their ballots otherwise, saying they don't agree with this particular accord. That is a copout, I say to those people; that is an insult to the democratic process. At least, if nothing else, you should have enough personal integrity to say whether you're for or against, not trying to weasel out by trying to have the best of both worlds. Quite frankly, that's what that is, copping out of your democratic right and duty.

I say to those people who want to consider voting No and I say to Mr Manning, I think some of his ads border on -- I want to choose my words very carefully here -- deliberate misleading of the Canadian people for his own political benefit. This is not, as Mr Manning says, the Mulroney deal. It's not anybody's deal. It's a Canadian agreement. I feel saddened that individuals such as Mr Manning would choose the future of this country as something from which to try to gain political advantage, particularly in his home province. I think that is despicable. I think that is politics at its worst.

For those Reform Party members out there who think they have something, I think you'd better think again, because if Mr Manning has proven anything during this debate, he has proven that he has sunk to an all-time new low in the politics of this great country called Canada.

I watched the debate the other night between Premier Bourassa and Jacques Parizeau. I respect Mr Parizeau's right to differ; I don't agree with much, if any, of what he said. I find it difficult to take counsel or advice from individuals such as Mr Parizeau or Lucien Bouchard whose primary purpose seems to be to break up this country of Canada. At least they're decent enough to say that up front. We know that's where they're coming from.

I want the people who are thinking about voting No to think about whether Mr Parizeau, Mr Bouchard, Mr Manning, Ms Rebick, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and all the other naysayers or nitpickers out there, if we put those people in a room, could come up with a unanimous concept of what this country is about. Could Mr Manning and Mr Parizeau agree? I find that very difficult to believe. In fact, that is impossible. We know it's impossible.

I don't want there to be any misapprehension or mistake about where the No people stand. They stand against this country, whether they want to admit it or not. I know they hate it and dislike it and say it's improper for someone like me or the Prime Minister or anybody else to say that, but that's exactly what they stand for. Mr Manning doesn't stand for this country the way you and I see it, as a compromise with native peoples and all different regions, respecting the distinct and different nature of Canada. Mr Manning does not believe in that. He doesn't believe in this country the way it is today.

Mr Parizeau doesn't believe in it. And Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for whatever reasons he has other than maybe academic senility, has to find something wrong with everything or his day isn't made.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You're giving him credit there.

Mr Eves: You think I'm giving him too much credit? Well, perhaps I am.

I just want to say to people out there that I don't think you're going to have a second chance. I think your chance to save this great country called Canada and to get it on an even higher plane and get every facet and every area and every region and every people in this country together and go on even bigger and better from here is on October 26. If you say No on October 26, I don't think you're going to get a second chance, and I think that it's only a matter of time before the country as we know it today ceases to exist.

I think that's pretty important, and I think that's pretty significant. I think we should be proud that we have the right in this country to be able to decide that, that the people themselves will decide. It's fine to say that this is not a binding referendum, but I tell you, I don't know how any responsible elected person could not pay attention to the result of the people in his or her own province, or in his or her own country, when they have the right to vote.

I think the people had better think about how important this is. This is more important than any ballot they have ever cast anywhere in their lives. It's their democratic right and it's their democratic duty and responsibility to think about whether they want to keep this country called Canada or not, because it's just that simple. It's Yes or it's No. There's no waffling; there's no in-between. You're either for Canada or you're against it. I'm for it, and I'm voting Yes on October 26.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): In the spring of 1991, together with 11 other members of the Legislature, I had the privilege of sitting on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. As I believe many members in this chamber have already said, some today, it gave us, I think, a unique perspective on the compromise that was reached at Charlottetown.

Because I see my colleague from York North, I believe it is, sitting across the floor, I think I would be remiss to not mention today that I come from Labrador.

Interjection.

Hon Ms Churley: No, I'm not finished yet. I come from Labrador, which I kept bringing up on our select committee time and time again. I brought it up continuously because it gives me, I think, another bit of a unique perspective, both coming from the north and the east coast. But I've mainly brought it up because the member from York North is here, for his benefit.

What we learned, I believe, from that particular interesting experience -- I think we talked to more than 600 groups across the province; it was quite a whirlwind. We heard a number of different variations on the theme of people's vision of what Canada is all about. One of the things that came across most to me was the particular thrust of the people's concern about aboriginal people in this province. Time and time again we heard, from all over the province, that people were aware of the injustices to our native peoples and that they believed the Constitution should right that wrong. I was so impressed at the number of diverse groups from across the province who brought that up.

In my few minutes here now, I just want to speak specifically and address some of the concerns raised by women about the accord, because I think, like my women colleagues in this Legislature and other Legislatures across the country, I'm particularly sensitive to the concerns that have been raised by women's groups.

As a feminist I was very concerned by some of the opinions expressed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Native Women's Association of Canada. It gave me real pause and I really had to do my homework on that issue. But having done that and having talked to a number of feminist lawyers and other feminists, and not just feminists' but others'

interpretations, I came to the view that the Charlottetown agreement, taken as a whole, is a step forward for all Canadians, women as well as men. I really believe that the accord will strengthen and protect equality rights for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal women.

I know that some women -- and not just women again, but I'm speaking specifically to women's concerns -- argue that the wording of the Canada clause is not adequate to ensure gender equality because it only commits Canadians to gender equality and not Canadians and their governments. They say that the Canada clause, by creating a hierarchy of rights, will diminish the equality guarantees of the charter and some aboriginal women fear that the inherent right to self-government will allow aboriginal governments to override the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights.

If I thought that were true, I couldn't support this deal. I'm happy to say that I don't believe that is so. The reality is that all Canadian governments are equally bound to all the terms of the constitutional amendments and the Charter of Rights and presently our Constitution contains two equality protections: sections 15 and 28.

In addition to these sections, the Charlottetown accord will extend additional protection to aboriginal women by guaranteeing the equality rights of aboriginal peoples, and the Native Women's Association of Ontario recognizes this and is supporting the accord. We have to bear in mind that the Canada clause does not give rights; rather it affirms fundamental Canadian values and that includes an equality of men and women and respect for all individual and collective rights.

I just want to bring up one other concern very briefly, and I think it's a very important one, and that is that there has been a lot of concern expressed that the new national social programs such as the national child care program will not be able to happen under this new accord. I think that we have to ask ourselves why it is that there has been no new national social program introduced in Canada since medicare some 25 years ago. This has nothing to do with our Constitution. It is because of a lack of political will on the part of national governments and we have to bear in mind that it's governments, not constitutions, that are responsible for establishing new social programs.

I am voting Yes for this accord. I've put a lot of thought into it. I've talked to a lot of people about it and ultimately I came to the conclusion that this is the right step for Canada to take at this time. I want to assure the women out there who may be watching me and whom I have some credibility with as a feminist that I strongly and firmly believe everybody has a right to their opinion but that on examination of this deal equality for women will not be hurt. I do urge women to reconsider and everybody to try to get as much information as they can and come out and vote on the 26th.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise today and participate in this debate. There has been much said and I'm very proud of the process that we've gone through and the participation of so many members of the Legislature.

At first, I had thought it wasn't necessary for me to speak but I believe my constituents in the riding of Oriole would not only like to hear from me on their behalf how I feel about this, not only to know where I stand, but also how I arrived at that conclusion.

I'm not going to get into a basic discussion of the provisions of this accord because I think that many people, through the Yes committees, certainly the spokesmen for the No side, as well as TV advertising and all kinds of meetings as well, everybody has had copies of the accord delivered to their homes, is being inundated with information. What I'm hoping is that they will think about that because this has perhaps been the kind of debate where some of that thoughtfulness has been replaced by the kind of rhetoric which often doesn't allow for people to really think about what this is really all about.

A few months ago one of the things I was hearing from my constituents was, "Elinor, why can't all of you politicians set aside your partisan differences and work together for the benefit of society?" I heard this phrased in a number of different ways from individuals and from organizations. This was over the summer and through the late part of last spring. People were saying, "What we want you all, broad-brush politicians, to be able to do is work together on the important issues."

I've been very distressed because in the last little while, in response to what I believe is quite a miraculous achievement, we have had people saying, "One of the reasons we're voting No is we think you're all in cahoots, you politicians, trying to pull a fast one or convince us of something that is not in our interests."

So, for today's debate, to those people who are obviously upset because of the recession, because of the economic situation in this country, because of the process, because they don't like any of the political leaders in this country and are upset because things are going badly, I would like to share with them the words of someone I respect. If they didn't have an opportunity to read his words for themselves, I'm going to give them some excerpts from a column by Pierre Berton, written on Saturday, 10 October, which for me sums up how I'm feeling at this point in time. I hope that people will think about that between now and October 26 and think about what Pierre Berton has to say.

He says, and the headline is "Here's Why I Intend to Vote Yes for Canada":

"On referendum day, I plan to mark my ballot with a resounding Yes.

"I am not going to hold my nose as others have grudgingly said they'll do. I will vote Yes cheerfully, even with enthusiasm.

"I will vote Yes to help celebrate a miracle. Somehow, 10 provincial premiers, plus representatives from the territories and the aboriginal constituency, have managed to bury their differences long enough to achieve a compromise.

"For once they stopped arguing about how many angels can dance on a pinhead or how many politicians we need to make up a largely ineffective Senate.

"So nobody is totally happy with the result. What did we expect? Are there people in this country who actually believe any document can be cobbled together to please the entire nation from Tofino to Joe Batt's Arm?

"I'm going to vote Yes because, even if it doesn't stop the squabbling, at least it will slow it down and we can get on with problems that really concern the people -- the economy and the environment.

"I, for one, am weary of all the same talking heads maundering away, endlessly repeating what they've already written at unconscionable length in the daily press.

"A Yes vote won't stifle them, but it will serve to dampen them a bit.

"Nor will a Yes vote solve all the regional problems that are part of our heritage. But I shudder to think what a No vote would do.

"Do those strange bedfellows on the No side really believe that if the country rejects the proposed Constitution, they'll get everything they want in the next weary round of talks? Come on; get real!

"I do not swallow the hokum being ladled out by Preston Manning, that a No vote will put an end to our constitutional troubles. In fact, it is going to lead us into a worse mess than ever.

"Nor, for an instant, do I accept the twaddle being peddled by Jacques Parizeau that a No vote won't be a boost for 'sovereignty' -- or any of the other euphemisms being used to describe the breakup of the country.

"It has everything to do with the breakup of the country, which is why Parizeau is working for the No side.

"Nor do I accept Pierre Trudeau's warmed-over suggestion that by voting Yes we give in to blackmail from Quebec.

"Blackmail has been part of the process from the outset, but not just from Quebec. Everybody has tried to blackmail everybody else. The west, the aboriginals, the women, have all indulged in blackmail.

"The name of the game is not blackmail, but compromise, an old and honourable word with a special resonance for Canadians.

"This quality -- to bend a little in the hope that the other side will also bend -- has shaped our national character. That's why we're so good at peacekeeping in those corners of the world where a lack of compromise has led to horror.

"For our entire history, we have been prepared, in the national interest, to settle for half a loaf. Now, alas, there are some who think they can get everything they want without giving anything in return.

"The country doesn't work that way. Our geography and our history makes us a unique people, able to survive only by bending with the wind.

"It explains why John A. Macdonald and his bitterest political enemy, George Brown, buried their differences in Charlottetown in the interest of building a Confederation.

"Unlike our neighbours, we have never tried to solve our problems by revolution or civil war" -- and I add the editorial, thank God. "We achieved our independence slowly and bloodlessly. Few other nations in the Americas can make that boast.

"That is why Canadians think their history is dull. What they really mean is that it isn't like American or British history, full of gunsmoke and severed limbs.

"We have yet to match the age-old hatreds of the Balkans, but geographical rivalries do define us. The angry ocean in the east, the Cordilleran wall in the west and the 700-mile Precambrian dam in the centre separate us from each other almost as much as the barrier of the language.

"If we are a Confederation, it is because we are really several countries, fenced off from each other by nature, clinging together for a common purpose, both economic and spiritual.

"And so regional interests -- and regional jealousies -- loom large, producing constitutional wrangles and bitter words on the open-line show.

"This year, somehow, a group of Canadians as different as Bourassa and Wells, Getty and Mercredi were for one magical moment able to bury these regional concerns and, in the true spirit of Confederation, arrived at a compromise.

"Instead of nitpicking we should shout whoopee! This is our big chance; I doubt we will get another one. And that's why I am enthusiastically voting Yes."

I couldn't say it better than Pierre Berton said in this

article of Saturday, October 10, in the Toronto Star. I agree with his sentiments. I also doubt that we will get another chance, and it's my hope, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, that we will on October 26 be able to stand up for a proud Canada, strong and confident, a country from sea to sea, that has set about to bury its regional differences, the historical passions being set aside for a brief moment in the interest of all of us, to say Yes to a great country.

I want to thank Mr Berton for his effort and his work, because I've been trying to find some way to express the passion and the feeling that I have and I could not have found a better spokesman. He's an author and a writer whom I respect. I haven't always agreed with him in the past, but I was pleased to share his words with the Legislature today and with my constituents in the riding of Oriole.

I commend to them a thoughtful consideration of this accord. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I would ask them to remember, as I remember, what they said to me a few months ago, which was, "Is it possible for all of you to work together for the betterment and the interests of this country?"

I believe that is what happened. It's much easier for those on the No side to speak passionately about all of those things which they see as flaws. I see it as reasonable compromise. I'm voting Yes because I believe this is in the interest of the province and the interest of our country, and I'm voting Yes with pride and with passion and with the hope that we will leave to our children a stronger and united Canada because of our participation in what has been a difficult, anxiety-ridden constitutional process.

I hope we will be able to put all that passion and anxiety behind us. I suspect we will not, no matter what occurs on the 26th. But I do think that if thoughtful and reasonable people, approach this referendum as an opportunity to speak in a positive voice about that which is reasonable for our future, then I believe we'll all feel better on the morning of the 27th.

I am concerned, as well, about the insecurity and the instability that may come. I don't think that's fearmongering. I do believe that if a No vote prevails, the sun will rise on the 27th, and we will have to deal with whatever the ultimate results are. I would say again, in the words of Pierre Berton, I doubt that we'll get another chance such as the one we have now to move forward boldly and confidently into the future.

For my children, as well as my constituents, my family and my friends, it's my hope that we will be able to put this behind us and move on so that we can address the real problems which are on the minds of my constituents today. A few months ago they were saying, "Can't you all work together?" Today they're saying, "Can't you get on with restoring the economy?"

I hope that as a result of the thoughtful debate and discussion we have had here in this Legislature, people will understand that it is in their interest to allow the minds and the energies, as well as the passions, of those in leadership positions in this country to put their attention to the rebuilding of our economy and getting on in a positive way to building a stronger and better future for all of us.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I am proud and feel privileged to have the opportunity in this Legislature to be involved in this debate.

One of the problems I have had during this larger debate which has occurred outside our Legislature is some of the perceptions that, unfortunately, the public seems to have about their leaders, their politicians. I was astounded some time this week, when listening to Canada AM, to hear that part of the No campaign did not support this particular accord because it was not the product of people -- that it was not the product of people.

In other words, it's unfortunate, but it seems that a certain segment of our population has come to the conclusion that we politicians do not have feelings and do not have the interests of the people at heart. I only hope that as we go through this process and people think about a fairly complex issue, they will realize that politicians on all sides of the legislatures and House of Commons and Senate of Canada are in fact people who are trying to represent the people who have elected and placed them where they take office.

The other part that I found somewhat astounding in terms of the argument put forward by the No vote is the lack of consultation, or the seeking of the legal text. I voted against the Meech Lake accord. I was one of eight members of this Legislature who voted against the Meech Lake accord in June 1990, in the last Parliament of this Legislature. I voted against that because it was a deal which lacked consultation, which did not give the people of Canada the opportunity to put forward their views before a deal was struck.

No one can say they were not consulted on this deal. I believe the consultation at the federal level, at the provincial level, from town to town, within communities was extensive, and I don't believe it could have been greater.

I was very privileged, along with the member for Parry Sound who spoke to us a few minutes ago, to have the opportunity on behalf of my party to be personally involved in some of the discussions by the first ministers leading to the Charlottetown accord. Our Premier asked Mr Harris and Mrs McLeod, the leaders of the two opposition parties, to be fully informed and to fully participate in the discussions. I have in the past congratulated the Premier on doing that. I think it was a very progressive step.

It kept us on the opposition benches informed, and it also allowed us to let Premier Rae and his group know of our opposition to roads he was taking or of particular matters we disagreed with. I must say that I will indicate at a later point just what some of those opposition statements were.

I was lucky to sit in the room behind the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Wildman, who I believe is going to be talking to us in a few minutes, to sit in the same room with Mr Rae and a host of other premiers from across this country. I guess we get isolated in this Legislature and I think we get isolated in our own communities. We forget about the differences that exist in our country.

We forget about the aspirations of the fishermen in Newfoundland, because that doesn't relate to the area I live in or you live in, Mr Speaker. We forget about the concerns in the Maritimes for their future and their ability to provide their people with the proper social services which we have all agreed are necessary and common to Canada. When we're sitting here now with no national energy program, we forget about the anger, the hostility which the national energy program brought to the west in 1982 or 1983 when it was implemented by the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau.

We forget about the aspirations of the aboriginal people, who have for over a century now lived in coexistence with provincial and federal governments. Provincial and federal governments have tried and tried to assist, I think in good faith, the aboriginal people to have a better life, to try to cope with the changing world. But we have failed in that challenge and I think we have all recognized that.

When you sat in the room with all these people from the west, from the north, from the territories -- where they have aspirations to be provinces some day -- from the east, from Quebec and from Ontario, you realize that over the past 125 years Canada has been a tremendous compromise. We have lived over that period of time, and as you study our Constitution and the development of our Constitution since 1867, you start to realize that there were different deals made along the way. When Newfoundland became part of Canada in 1949, we gave six Senate seats to Newfoundland. That was part of the deal.

No other maritime province has that kind of deal. Consequently, Newfoundland is far overrepresented in the Senate in terms of population; we're talking of course of our present.

You realize that as the Constitution developed, as our history developed, there was a lot of compromise. Politicians had to sit around a table and figure out how we could live together. When I went to the first Constitutional conference -- I believe it was in May in Ottawa -- and then I went along with Premier Rae to one in Saint John, New Brunswick -- quite frankly I often went out of the meetings thinking to myself: "I'm really disgusted with our leaders, because here we have our leaders in this room, pounding away at what they want. They want this for their area." There seemed to be no compromise on their point.

Alberta seemed to be so dogmatic about wanting this reformed Senate. To me, being from Ontario, I couldn't understand why anybody wanted a Senate, period. I just couldn't understand that. But seeing how hard they wanted to fight for it -- and not only Alberta, but Manitoba and the other provinces; Newfoundland, which joined in behind them -- and how important the principle was of having a chamber where equality was the rule made me start to understand that my view of the world was certainly not the view of the world as represented by the people of Canada.

But I was really disappointed and disheartened. We went to these meetings, and there seemed to be more of an interest, at least as I interpreted it at that point, on the part of premiers to go back to their provinces and say, "I won; I won this; I won that," instead of going back to their provinces and to their people and saying, "We gave in order to keep Canada together."

I was very concerned at those stages, but I was completely turned around when I had the privilege of sitting during the hearings on July 6 and 7. July 7 was probably the key day in terms of the development of the Charlottetown accord and all the consultations which occurred across this country. That morning at a breakfast, when we were preparing to be briefed by Premier Rae's officials who were numbering at that stage near 20 or 21 because there were a huge number of issues and there was a great deal of consultation going on, I expressed to Premier Rae my concern over his lack of support for the federal position on

section 121, which was the economic union clause.

Quite frankly, I'm still not satisfied with what has been worked out, because I feel that as we devolve powers down to the provinces, we must look for other kinds of glue to keep us together. I saw

section 121, that clause which said that there can't be any interprovincial barriers to keep people from crossing borders to do business, to work, to visit etc, as extremely important to provide the glue to keep our country together if in fact we were going to give provinces more power through this arrangement, and I told Premier Rae that as well.

Then I started to realize, as we went through the meeting on July 7, that people were going to have to give, and although Premier Rae didn't agree with my position and didn't espouse that position at the table, I could understand why I had to compromise what I believed in and support a deal which was struck by a Premier who represents a different political party than mine. I have to compromise my views, as does every other Canadian, in seeking to forge a deal which is acceptable to everyone else.

I want to also indicate that I sat two feet from Premier Rae when we were dealing with the Senate issue in the afternoon. I was concerned that we would give in on an equal Senate at that point, because Quebec had indicated at noontime, to many people, that it would not support an equal Senate under any circumstances. I was concerned with our delegation, the Premier, leaving Premier Bourassa isolated on this issue, and I told him so.

Notwithstanding that, there comes a time when things have to be put together and a deal either has to be made or you can't carry on. Notwithstanding the fact that Premier Rae did give at that point in time on the equal Senate, to a model which I think was much more drastic than the model which we now have in the Charlottetown accord of August 28 -- thank God for Mr Bourassa in terms of modifying the model; Mr Bourassa in effect, in my view, bailed us out on the Senate issue -- what I guess is important is that as I sat there in that room and saw people giving, then it came to me.

I thought, "All of these people I have watched bicker over months about want they wanted to take back to their electorate are willing to give in on some of their major points, some of their major beliefs, in order to keep this country together."

I guess it was one of the greatest thrills I ever will have as a politician, to see in a room aboriginal people, politicians from across this country, say: "I want to keep this country together. I'm willing to compromise tremendously in order to do that." It was a tremendous experience, to see that much glue between the premiers of this fine country and the aboriginal leaders of this fine country to say: "Yes, Canada is worth saving. We will give tremendously in order to keep this together." That to me was the highlight of all those negotiations on July 7 when that deal was struck.

So there is tremendous glue in this country. There is a tremendous desire by the people to want to stay together. That's what their leaders portrayed in those negotiations.

I don't think a lot of people out there realized -- or realize -- that in 1982 we brought back to Canada a very imperfect document. I think there are two things that, in retrospect, perhaps we should not have done. First, perhaps we should not have brought back the document unless the province of Quebec would participate voluntarily at that time and sign that document. The other thing we did, and I think the people should understand that, is that we bound our future leaders, the leaders who were meeting in those rooms I was talking about previously in my remarks, that in order to change anything in the future, you needed everybody to agree; you had to have everybody sign on the line.

Therefore, I don't think the people of Canada understand that if we turn this deal down, the next deal must also be agreed to by everybody. We can't make a deal any more to change the Senate if we have one province that disagrees. We can't agree to change a lot of other parts with regard to our Supreme Court without the unanimous agreement of all the different provinces. People must understand that the document which Pierre Trudeau brought back here in 1982 was anything but perfect.

I've heard a lot of negative remarks about different parts of this deal. It's very easy to pick part of the deal and say, "I don't like it because Quebec is getting 25% of the seats for ever in the House of Commons." People somehow forget that provinces like Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have guarantees as well.

Prince Edward Island has a guarantee of four seats in the House of Commons. They don't deserve four seats in terms of their population, but nobody's complaining about Prince Edward Island.

Nova Scotia has a guarantee, I believe, of 10 seats; I could be out a little bit. It doesn't matter whether their population falls to 100,000, they will still have 10 seats, but I don't see people complaining about that.

The fact of the matter is that the population of Quebec right now is about 25% of the population of Canada and that it is unlikely over the next 20 to 25 years that the population will fall significantly, so I don't believe that guarantee is germane to any kind of debate or justifies a No vote.

We could talk about a number of other arguments. One of the things I have done is to send around to my constituents a questionnaire, as I did with the Meech Lake accord, which asked them their opinion with regard to this constitutional deal. I don't ask them just the question they're going to be asked on October 26, although I do ask that and say to them if they do not want to respond to that they need not because they may consider that a matter of a secret ballot. But I asked them a number of other questions, because I'd like to know, if this deal does fall, which parts they object to most.

I couldn't deal with it all because it's a very complex deal, but there are three questions I asked at the end. I wanted to instil in the people of my riding of Carleton and eastern Ontario the notion of them thinking about what happens next.

I asked them, "If Ontario says No to this deal, what should we do next?" I asked them, "What should we do next here in Ontario or as an Ontario government if some other province votes No?" "What should we do next if the province of Quebec votes No?"

If anybody wants a copy of this particular newsletter to give their constituents an opportunity to participate, I would be pleased to provide copies; or if they want to just use the text of it and rub out Norm Sterling, that's fine as well.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Or just rub out Norm Sterling.

Mr Sterling: Just rub out Norm Sterling, yes.

I think there are three things we get out of this deal, and I think this is what people should understand.

Aboriginal or native people, when you ask them, "Are you a Canadian?" heretofore have been reluctant to answer that question, because I don't think a lot of people outside the native or aboriginal community understand that aboriginals in general have not considered themselves Canadian. If this deal goes through, aboriginal people become Canadians, they become the third order of government in Canada.

It will be the first time in 125 years that everyone who lives here, including the aboriginals, will be under the umbrella of the crown, under the umbrella of Canada. They will become Canadians and they will have to participate in making Canada better. They will not only be getting the powers to govern their own people but will be responsible for living together with those other governments to keep Canada the great country it is.

The second thing is that after 1982, when the west signed the accord of 1982, something happened in this country which was very detrimental to holding this country together: the national energy program of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. As I said earlier in my remarks, the hostility towards eastern Canada and central Canada over this deal still remains in the west. Giving the west an equal Senate says to me, and I think it says to the west: "That's gone. That's the quid pro quo for having done that to us in the west."

Therefore we get the aboriginals within our Constitution, within our country, we get the west back in, because of something that's happened in our political scene over the last 10 years since they signed the deal, and last, I think it's most important that we get Quebec, 25% of our population, a unique part of Canada. We get them within our Constitution, within our country. I think it's a tremendous accomplishment for the first ministers of this country to come together, put together the glue and bring together three disaffected parties: aboriginals, the west and the province of Quebec.

My family has been part of Ontario and Canada for 200 years. I think Canada is worth saving. We must continue to live in a society which compromises from time to time. We have for 200 years. I'm willing to do it this time, I'm proud to do it, and I will proudly vote Yes on October 26.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too am grateful for the opportunity of participating in this debate today. I've enjoyed hearing many statements from all sides of the House as we've debated the constitutional accord signed in Charlottetown on August 28.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I propose not to go back 125 years in time to determine what we were proud of then, but to go ahead 125 years from now and try to speculate on what we as Canadians in the year 2117 might look back on with pride in this particular constitutional accord.

I know many of us who lead healthy lives may still be around in the year 2117, and I'm sure society will have changed a lot. There will still be an NDP government at Queen's Park and hopefully one in Ottawa as well. Many of us will carry miniature Apple computers in one vest pocket and our fax machines in the other.

But at that time, when my children or grandchildren look back on the constitutional accord signed on August 28, 1992, I want them to look back with a feeling of pride. I want them to look back on what was done by the 10 premiers, the leaders of the two territories, the Prime Minister and the representatives of four native organizations to bring together the necessary healing that was required in August 1992.

The problem with 1867 -- I shouldn't really say it's a problem, but the facts and circumstances were that we had several so-called Fathers of Confederation. The constitutional accord of August 1992 I think is significant in that it brought together not only Fathers of Confederation but also the Mothers of Confederation. I'm talking about Mary Simon and Rosemarie Kuptana of the Inuit Tapirisat. I'm talking about Nellie Cournoyea, representing the Northwest Territories. So in bringing together Mary Simon, Rosemarie Kuptana and Nellie Cournoyea, we had representation for women at the constitutional table.

We also had, in terms of process, the broadest possible consultation this country has ever seen. We've had consultation with the disabled. We've had consultation with visible minorities. We've had consultation with environmental groups, students, seniors; the whole spectrum of Ontario society and Canadian society has been represented during those consultations.

My own participation on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation was illuminating, because we met virtually from dawn to dusk in legion halls, in libraries, in city council chambers, in seniors' centres all across Ontario. What was remarkable about that experience -- and I know members on the other side experienced it too -- was the richness and diversity that constitutes not only the people of Ontario but the people across Canada.

I think it's important, as our children and our grandchildren and descendants review the constitutional accord in the year 2117, that they be cognizant that there was a lot of so-called unfinished business in 1982. Inherent self-government had not been recognized for the native peoples of Canada. We finally recognized, as Mr Sterling has said, that our native people constitute a third order of government in Canada, and I'm proud that they can take their rightful place within the context of the Canadian Constitution.

I'm also pleased that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply. I'm pleased that we finally accorded Quebec its status as a distinct society in terms of its unique French culture, its majority French language and its civil law tradition. These are all needs that were crying to be met when the Constitution was patriated with the amending formula in 1982. Those needs, unique to Quebec, have been met in this constitutional accord.

Finally, the other salient issue that will emerge from the constitutional accord 125 years from now was the crying need for change, reform and renewal of our federal institutions. Certainly, in travelling to other provinces, we've heard again and again the need voiced by those other provinces for a form of Senate, an upper chamber, that will be more responsive to regional and provincial needs. I think the people of Ontario have told us that they can accept a more equitable, even an equal Senate, and the motto that our representatives came up with in Charlottetown, I think, provides responsiveness.

I think it provides flexibility in that a double majority of francophone senators will be dealing with matters of French culture, and I think it's important that there be equality within the Senate but balanced, on the other hand, by representation by population in Parliament.

Overall, I'm confident that 125 years from now our descendants will be pleased with the efforts, the goodwill and the healing that has taken place in 1992. For all of those reasons, I will be certainly affirming a Yes vote on October 26. I'm confident that other Ontarians, knowing that the opportunity is at hand, will also affirm that accord, which respects the rights of women, the rights of visible minorities, the rights of the disabled and all ordinary Ontarians and our native brethren under one Constitution, one Canada, one strong and prosperous and forward-looking Canada with a Constitution that's modern, flexible and responsive to the people of Canada.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I am indeed glad to have this opportunity to make some remarks on the constitutional question or dilemma, if you will, that confronts us in this month of October 1992.

It is certainly a culmination of events that has led to this point in our history. Other members have recited the history of the constitutional discussions that we've had over the years as a country and I will not go over that. But I want to shed some light on the way I see constitutional debate, discussion and reconciliation coming to this point and why it's essential for us to begin to understand how people out there feel about what amounts to a lot of legal discussion, debate, wrangling perhaps, over the years and why they feel that way about.

In my most humble way, I, as an elected official, can attempt to understand that and begin to put some perspective on it so that I can better understand perhaps where my constituents share their views today with each other and perhaps have an expression of their views on October 26, one way or the other.

It's important to point out that we should not vilify people who differ with us or differ with each other and that there will be a genuine difference of opinion perhaps expressed on October 26. But I want to put on the record how I feel about this deal and why it's important to move forward, why it's important for our country at this point in our history to look beyond this century, to look into the next century, to look forward to a future with some promise as a country that is united, strong and forward-looking.

Perhaps looking at our differences today is like looking at a family that is ripping itself apart, a family that doesn't get along, a family that has been debating and arguing and has differences, perhaps because members of that family do not have respect for one another, perhaps because that respect has been lost.

I think the process we're involved with right now attempts to reconcile differences within a family, reconcile hurt feelings, reconcile the fact that there perhaps was a lack of respect for each other, perhaps for one part of the family versus another, perhaps for one part of the family that was seeking some solace or some comforting or perhaps for one part of the family that wanted to make a point because it felt that it had reached a stage of maturity and it needed to move forward in and of itself and was looking for some self-esteem and was looking to be more assertive in the future.

That is probably the experience that's shared by most of us in our families. Perhaps my own ancestry permits me to speak in those terms because the concept of family has been a centrepiece and a focal point for my way of life and my cultural ancestry.

The essence of family is truly important and I use that as an analogy because I think that's what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with not just a reconciliation for one side to be equal with the other in material ways or for one side to be equal with the other because that hasn't been so in the past; it's more than that. It's the effort to want to belong to that family. It's the feeling of belonging, the sense of belonging. That's what people are saying today about this country: "Where do I belong? How do I fit in?"

I was involved with the Meech Lake process and perhaps there was a negative expression during the last provincial election -- pardon me, in 1987, prior to the last provincial election -- of a rejection of Meech Lake. That too was an effort to reconcile differences. It may not have been as good an effort as this one is -- that's arguable -- but it was a genuine attempt to reconcile differences among people who had some differences that had been shared over a number of years.

I think this is an effort that attempts to look at emotions, not only the finer print that's contained in the document, to look at people who are disconnected at the present time, who do not feel a sense of belonging, who do not feel a sense of purpose, who do not feel they have a meaningful expression in their own country of who they are, where they belong and what they're going to achieve in the future. That's very difficult perhaps to articulate, very difficult to understand. I believe we've seen this over the last number of years. There's this feeling of fracture, this feeling of not belonging to the whole, not belonging to an expression of what can be something better.

Each of us has to make that kind of commitment to a country. It's not easy to understand that, perhaps. I say this particularly with respect to younger people who haven't found their way in their lives yet and are seeking an expression of that understanding, where they will lead in the future, what they'll become and their place in our society. It's more difficult to impose that kind of understanding on people who haven't found themselves perhaps and are looking to become part of the society.

Then you look at what's happening in the whole society with respect to discussions about the Constitution and whether we're going to remain united. Of course there's a considerable degree of heightened cynicism about all our institutions, about the politics we see today.

Unless we reconcile our constitutional differences -- because that's the only way, my friends, to do that -- unless we come together and say, "Let's put this behind us because it is important to do that," then I believe the cynicism will continue to grow in our society, particularly on the part of young people, particularly on the part of people who do not feel as of right now that they have a stake in our country for one reason or another. Perhaps they find themselves unemployed, they find themselves having lost their businesses or their farms.

I think it's essential, it's absolutely crucial, that we put this kind of debate, this kind of acrimony, if you will, behind us. I think that has been the backdrop to the politics in this country over the last 10 years, that kind of bitter division which has led us to this point in our history.

I want to say something about those people who have commented on the No side, those people who have said they will continue to pursue their views on the No side. I respect them for that, but I would like to point out another analogy. I would like to say that they view this country perhaps not with the same generosity of spirit as those of us who would set aside our differences, look forward, look at it as though we were part of a family and say, "Look, I have to make some kind of accommodation for this part of the family, that uncle or that cousin or that child who isn't quite the child I thought he would be but has some difficulties or some problems."

I think the people on the No side look at this in the way you would look at a business partnership. Business partners look at a business relationship -- I've gone through this in my own experience -- and say, "Look, you haven't done this, that and the other," or perhaps entering into a partnership would say, "We need to detail and document and perhaps in a partnership agreement list all of the things which need to be done, each of our responsibilities."

Those things are detailed in the last aspect of every detail about that agreement. It's done so because there's a concern for material loss. It's done so because of a consideration of economic questions. Those partnerships are doomed to fail because you can't put everything down on paper that you want to. I defy anybody to do that. You cannot foresee every possible circumstance, and that's exactly what we're saying with this Constitution.

People on the No side are saying they look at this perhaps as an agreement among business partners and have said, "Look, you haven't put this in," or, "You haven't put that in," and, "This detail is missing," and, "I don't see where I fit in," and, "You're going to get this, and I'm not going to get that, and therefore I'm voting No because it just doesn't meet my expectations and we haven't put it down on paper."

I would strenuously argue with those people who think that a Constitution has to and should contain every last detail of every aspect of our lives in this country; it cannot possibly do that. Ultimately, what's important is the common spirit we share about the country we live in. The essence of the country, what we think about ourselves, what our identity will be in the future, if in fact we will have a future together, I believe, are probably far more important than anything we could put on paper.

As many people have said in the past, an agreement is only as good as the people who put it together. Quite frankly, in the end that will probably prove to be more significant than the fact that we've left out this representation or that representation, and I don't believe that's the case with this deal.

Just to touch on that for a moment, I think there is great consideration of a variety of aspects of our society that are contained in this deal. I think those have been adequately met. I don't believe for a moment that a better deal could have been constructed. In fact, if we remained where we were, it would not take into consideration this reconciliation.

It does not say to the separatists, "Look, we're giving in to you." We're not dealing with this in a spirit of providing them with another opportunity in the future to say, "We want more." We're not talking to the separatists; we're speaking to people in Quebec who are reasonable, who want to be recognized, who want to be part of this country with a sense of respect, as all Canadians do, who want to feel that they belong to something that promises a better future for themselves and for their children.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): Today I want to share with you my concept of Canada and why I will be supporting the Charlottetown agreement. I believe that the referendum to be held on October 26 is of great significance and importance. It will shape our future and certainly will shape the relationships that exist within our country for years to come.

Like millions of other Canadians, I chose Canada as my home, and Canada welcomed me. Canada provides me with the opportunity to live, work and raise my family in a secure and safe environment, and hopefully, like others, to retire with some dignity and security. Canada also offers to my boys, and to the children of those viewers who are watching, a promise of opportunity for the future.

But Canada, as we all know, is much more. Canada is a family. It's a family of individuals, of provinces and of regions. Like any family, there exist within that family differences in roles, different needs and different concerns. In any family, given the fact that we must live together, there are tensions and indeed sometimes crises. What is important in a family is how these tensions and crises are resolved, be it through communication, listening and sharing, through sensitivity, through generosity and, indeed, through compromise. But the end result of this process is family unity.

At the end of a process of sensitivity, generosity and compromise is the possibility of community, caring and commitment.

The Canadian family is no different. Indeed, there are differences: differences of vision from one region to another, deeply held convictions of vision of Canada from one region to another. There are certainly tensions and we would be foolish to deny those tensions tearing at the seams of our country. The resolution, the only resolution, I put to you and to the people of our province, comes through understanding and compromise.

I see the Charlottetown accord as a moment of opportunity. I look at what happened there and the leaders, with vested interests, with visions that are very significantly different, in a moment of generosity, in a moment of caring, were prepared to make those kinds of compromises that could indeed build strength into our family of Canada.

Ordinary men and women did something extraordinary. They accepted the responsibility, the leadership responsibility. They put aside that vested interest, that narrower vision that perhaps was from a province or a region, and they took the grander vision. They took the vision of a Canada and they realized that in order for the division of Canada to survive, they had to somehow make compromises to their regional or provincial vision.

Indeed, they proved themselves statesmen in their dedication to the whole reality, not to a region but to the Canadian reality, and somehow or other in that moment of opportunity they balanced differing interests. The end result is community, caring and commitment. There is the possibility with this agreement that our family remains together, united because of a spirit of sensitivity, generosity and compromise.

I will support the agreement and I will urge my constituents and the people of Ontario and Canada to show the same sensitivity, generosity and compromise that was exhibited at Charlottetown.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am very pleased to enter into this debate today. Yesterday at Eglinton station in the rain we had an unusual coalition of people campaigning for the Yes committee. We had Conservative MP John Bosley, NDP provincial members Margery Ward and Gary Malkowski, myself as the Liberal member for Eglinton riding and Murad Velshi, the former Liberal member for Don Mills.

These six politicians from three different parties went out together. What momentous occasion could have brought these people together with such different beliefs, different political values, particularly in an atmosphere which is very partisan and often hostile? Well, the occasion and the issue is Canada and our great love and our great passion for this country. We are united in our belief that we must work together to preserve this country.

There will be those who say the Charlottetown agreement is not perfect and they are right. We could not ever reach perfection, but what we reached in a generosity of spirit was a consensus -- a consensus with 10 provinces, two territories, the aboriginal leadership, the federal government -- a consensus that took into account the multicultural community, the distinct society of Quebec, the feeling of alienation from the west, the equality of men and women. It took into account the very multifaceted society that we are in Canada today.

So I agree, this is not perfect, but it is something that can help this country stay together and that can give this country the type of leadership we need to get on with it, to get out there and to work on the issues important to Canada.

We have one of the most important, one of the best countries in the world. Other countries recognize it. Why cannot we as Canadians get together and realize that we cannot take the risk of losing what we have? I am a feminist, I'm obviously a woman, but I don't agree with the National Action Committee when it says that this is not a deal that guarantees equality for women.

I would like to read you two passages from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Section 15: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Section 28: "Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons."

This is confirmed in the Canada clause. I hope we will all vote Yes on October 26. Our country is counting on it.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for her participation. Further debate?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): It's indeed a pleasure for me to wind up the discussion on this very important matter before the House on behalf of the government and to express my appreciation to all members of the House who participated in the debate and have put forward their views as sincerely and with such heartfelt feeling as I've heard throughout the debate. I particularly want to thank my colleagues who have accommodated giving me some time, particularly my friend from Durham West who has given up his place in order to make it possible for me to have a little more time.

I approach the debate not from a feeling of fear, as some have done, about what might happen if the accord that was reached in Charlottetown is not voted for across the country and then subsequently ratified, but rather on the basis of what is positive about that accord. I don't think anything can come from negative feelings such as fear. We should be proud of the achievement of our leaders in this country, from every part of the country, and representing both the native and non-native governments in this country for the remarkable achievement that this accord really is.

Think about it. Seventeen different delegations with very different views, coming from very different regions and backgrounds and origins, came to an agreement, despite having very, very strongly held views which often were in conflict. But they came to an agreement, as many members have said in this Legislature, because of their desire to have a united, prosperous Canada that all of them obviously valued a great deal, just as every Canadian values the opportunity and the privilege to live in this country. This indeed was the Canada round.

Everyone in this country, when they look at the Canada clause and read the Canada clause, will find himself or herself spoken about in the Canada clause. No one in this country today, unlike previous examples, can look at this Constitution and not believe that they are part of this country and part of the Constitution. Yet we did respond to the genuine concerns of Quebec and other regions of the country such as western Canada and the Maritimes, as well as the aboriginal people.

It is indeed the Canada clause, and Canadians are now being given an enormous opportunity to express their views directly on whether or not this Constitution and this accord is the way to go for the future of this country going into the 21st century. It's a great opportunity but it's also an enormous responsibility, not only for each Canadian citizen, but also for their children and their grandchildren.

We will be voting on October 26 to express our views one way or the other on whether or not this is an approach that can lead to a new partnership in this country.

I believe this is a chance for an historic reconciliation in this country, and for that reason I'm recommending the Charlottetown accord to my constituents and to Ontarians and Canadians generally, because I believe that this accord can bring Canadians together, that it can heal the wounds of divisiveness that have plagued our relationships in Canada for many, many years.

This is an inclusive accord. It does not create, as some have suggested, a hierarchy of rights. The charter applies to every aspect of this Constitution and protects the fundamental rights and freedoms that all of us hold so dear in this country as Canadians.

Many have said and talked about in the debate that this is not a perfect agreement, that there are things in it that some individuals and members of various groups and regions of the country would prefer not to be in it and that there are other things that might have been in it that aren't, so perhaps we have not reached the kind of accord that should be voted for on October 26. But we all must recognize that this was a matter of negotiation. It was much like collective bargaining, but unlike collective bargaining, where you usually only have two sides involved in the discussion, we had 17, representing Canadians from all over this great land.

So how do you come to an agreement? Well, you come to an agreement by listening to and hearing what the other participants have to say and seeing how their aspirations and needs can be responded to, and ensuring that your needs and aspirations can be dealt with as well. What Canadians can be proud of is that their leaders listened and heard the others around the table and responded and compromised.

There are those who would think that compromise is somehow undesirable, but if anyone studies the history of this country, we will all recognize that Canada is indeed in itself, in reality, a great compromise, and that is something we can be proud of in this accord.

I suppose you could get a perfect deal. Any one of us could think up what would be the perfect deal, the perfect arrangement for this country, in our own view. But that is not possible to achieve if you are really going to listen to the others and what they believe the perfect deal might be. If you all are wed to the perfect arrangement, then you're not going to be able to meet the needs and concerns of the others. The great achievement here is that we have in fact done that.

I'm afraid that in the referendum, this great opportunity for Canadians, this great responsibility for Canadians, there will be others who will decide to vote one way or the other, Yes or No, for reasons that I don't think deal with the merits of the agreement or the accord. Some may decide to vote No because they don't like the leaders who negotiated the accord, or they would have preferred to have other people involved in the negotiation. Some who vote Yes might be voting Yes simply because they want to get this over with and dealt with. I have some sympathy with that view.

I would like to deal with some of the other pressing matters facing this nation and I believe this accord will help us to do that, if it's ratified. But that in itself should not be a reason to vote for it.

Canadians must look at the accord, they must study it, they must become informed, and they must discuss it with their neighbours and friends and family and determine on the merits of the agreement whether or not they can support it. I encourage every Canadian to do that.

There have been a number of concerns raised. There have been concerns raised about the agreements with regard to the federal spending power, whether or not this would mean that because in certain areas of provincial jurisdiction provinces could opt out of national programs with compensation from the federal government, we could never have new national social programs instituted in this country. Many have suggested child care as an example of one such program that is desirable and that most of us would want to have instituted in this country that might be difficult under this agreement.

I believe the opposite is true. If one looks at medicare and the history of medicare and how it developed in this country, beginning in Saskatchewan, in a small province that moved forward and led to other Canadians coming to the conclusion that this kind of program should be provided to all Canadians, and then persuading the federal government and the provinces to move together in that regard, as long as, as is pointed out in this agreement, there are national standards that must be met, I think this provides the flexibility that will indeed enable us to move forward with new social programs, not prevent us from doing so.

It will make it possible for a province or provinces to move forward, and in doing that persuade other provinces and the federal government to move forward on a national program.

If there is an individual province or provinces that want to opt out, they will not be able to obtain the compensation, unless they have a similar program meeting national standards. I believe this makes it possible for us to have a national child care program some time in the future. I also support this and recommend it to Canadians because of the inclusion of the social and economic union.

I believe Ontarians should be particularly proud of this provision in the Constitution, because of the efforts of our Premier in bringing this forward early on and throughout the process, and persuading other governments to agree. This social charter, if you want to use that term, commits governments to maintain the social programs that we have all come to realize help to define us as Canadians, as compared to our neighbours in the great nation to the south, for instance. These are indeed part of the essence of what it is to be Canadian and to share the wealth and the opportunity of this nation.

In Ontario, of course, many of us have had some concerns about the accord on the Senate. It's certainly true that as an Ontarian who has been involved in this process for many years, I would have preferred, frankly, not to have had any Senate in a new arrangement in the Constitution. But it became obvious throughout the discussions that if we were going to have an agreement and if we were going to respond to the needs of other regions in this country, we would have to move on the Senate in order to deal with the concerns and aspirations of western Canadians in particular, and also the people of Newfoundland and the government of Newfoundland, but particularly westerners.

As Ontarians, of course, being the most populous province, we were concerned about the proposal for equality of Senate representation by province and what this would mean for our representation in Parliament as a whole. We raised the concern about representation by population in the House of Commons, that if we were to be underrepresented by population in the Senate, we should not continue to be underrepresented as we have been in the past in the House of Commons, the chamber that represents the population of this country. Other provinces heard our concern in that regard.

So while they were presenting their need for an equal Senate, they acceded to Ontario's concerns about proper representation in the House of Commons; again, listening and hearing one another and responding.

We agreed to an equal Senate and then the question was: How would the Senate be elected? There were concerns raised about this subsequently by Quebec and those matters will be dealt with as the Senate evolves, I'm sure, in the future. There were questions about gender equality and the province of Ontario, the province of Nova Scotia and subsequently other provinces indicated that they wanted to move forward to ensure gender equality in the Senate.

We were concerned particularly about how the Senate would operate to ensure that it would not hamstring Parliament, that it would not prevent other legislation from being passed, beyond taxation on natural resources which was a particular concern to the west. The proposal was made for joint sittings between the Senate and the House of Commons which of course then would protect central Canada's concerns as well as the concerns of western Canada and the Maritimes.

I believe that the move on the Senate, on the House of Commons, the representation by population, the 18 extra seats with three more to come in 1996 responds to the needs of Ontario.

I'm concerned, though, about some of the comments that have been made about the guarantees for the province of Quebec in the House of Commons, which had similar concerns about the Senate, particularly in relation to its preservation of its linguistic distinctiveness that is confirmed in the Constitution. So the guarantee of 25% has been given. It is important for us all to recognize, as has been said in this debate, that historically the people of Quebec have constituted 25% to 27% of the population since 1867, and the projections are that by the year 2010 Quebec will still represent in the neighbourhood of 23% to 25% of the population.

For me, as the minister responsible for native affairs and that part of the negotiations, perhaps the most important reason I have for recommending this accord to the people of Ontario and to the people of Canada is the enormous progress we've made on the aboriginal agenda. Who would have believed in June 1990, when Elijah Harper, the MLA for Rupertsland, stood alone in the Manitoba Legislature and said no to not being included, that just two years later all the governments of Canada would have recognized the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people and been prepared to entrench that in the Constitution? Who would have believed that?

This is an enormous achievement. It makes it possible for aboriginal communities to take over roles that federal and provincial governments have had in the past. It also provides for an orderly transition process for the transfer of programs and jurisdictions. It makes it possible for aboriginal people in Canada to control their own affairs in a way that no other indigenous people anywhere on the face of the globe has the opportunity to do.

I said that I approach this accord and recommend it to Canadians on the basis of pride of achievement. If there is anything that Canadians can be proud of, it's the commitment that their leaders have made to the indigenous people of North America residing in Canada. We can be a model for the world.

Keeping in mind that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to aboriginal governments, and that is clear, and that the concerns of native women -- the Ontario Native Women's Association has come out in favour of the agreement because it believes that the wording that has been arrived at protects its legitimate concerns -- I believe we've made enormous progress that will make it possible for us to have greater justice and recognition for aboriginal people in Canada, for them to have greater self-respect and pride, and for us all as Canadians to be proud of a more just and equitable society that should come out of the development and the negotiation of the implementation of the inherent right to self-government in that part of North America that is Canada.

I have a tremendous respect for the aboriginal leadership that negotiated this agreement. I wish them well in explaining it to their people and I commend the agreement to all Canadians.

Having said all this, we all must recognize that a constitution is just a framework, just a blueprint. In itself it will not resolve all the problems we face. For those who would look at a constitutional accord and say it doesn't deal with this matter or doesn't deal adequately with that matter, I say to them that whatever is written on paper in a constitution, however well crafted, all it does is enable governments to respond to the concerns of their people and to deal with their needs and aspirations.

It's a blueprint. It enables governments to work together, to cooperate to resolve the problems we all face, but if there is not the political will to resolve those problems, it really doesn't matter very much what is written in the Constitution. We've many examples of that around the world.

I want to close by saying that all Canadians have a choice to make on October 26. I invite every Ontarian to be involved in this process, in whichever way he or she chooses to be involved, but I invite them to be involved, to become informed, to study the accord, to discuss it with their neighbours, and above all to exercise their democratic right to vote for only the third time in Canadian history, to express their opinion on the future of this country.

I will be voting Yes on October 26. I'll be voting Yes for inclusiveness, for generosity, for stability, for balance. Yes, I'll be voting for Canada and all Canadians.

I would at this time like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Wildman has moved adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry? Carried. It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.

The House recessed at 1201

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I stand here today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole to congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays, the city of Toronto and all of Canada.

Yesterday saw a lot of firsts. On my way home from this Legislature, for the very first time I tuned in to the radio ball game. I listened to the sixth game of baseball's American League Championship Series.

Yesterday, the Blue Jays accomplished a great feat, winning the American League Championship Series. I heard it on radio and then, a first, I tuned it in when I got home. Often it's been my family who have been the fans and sports watchers, but last night I was the one who initiated turning on the television set.

It was a first. A Canadian team has never achieved that before, and I believe it very fitting that it was the Toronto Blue Jays, one of the most successful baseball franchises ever, to be the first to achieve this goal. As Blue Jays fans everywhere watched Candy Maldonado reach for that last ball, we all knew that the World Series dream was now a reality.

I'd also like to praise the Blue Jays fans who've waited for this long-deserved achievement. It's no surprise to me that the Blue Jays fans poured on to Yonge Street last night and exemplified what Torontonians and Canadians are known for: well-mannered behaviour, courtesy and lots of fun. It was a great display of pride in our city, our country and our team.

It doesn't matter if you're a diehard Blue Jays fan or an occasional fan like me: Everyone was proud. We wish them good luck in the World Series.

JUNIOR CITIZENS OF THE YEAR

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): In the midst of stories about crime, violence, riots and school dropouts, this is a good-news story about Ontario Junior Citizens of the Year.

This award program is coordinated by the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, with financial assistance by Bell Canada, and the award is given to outstanding young people aged 16 to 18 who represent the "good kids" we all know.

Every young person who is nominated receives a certificate of congratulations. The dozen or so winners are chosen by a committee of newspaper editors and representatives from Bell. They select the recipients.

The Ontario Junior Citizens of the Year receive a plaque citing their accomplishment, a lapel pin, $200 and a family portrait with the Lieutenant Governor.

Nominees may be involved in worthwhile community service, have overcome disabilities that may be psychological or physical, or have performed acts of heroism, perhaps endangering their own lives.

I take particular pleasure in congratulating Ina Kota, who was named Junior Citizen of the year for 1991. Ina is a resident of Oakville and earned her award for her work in helping immigrant youths and adults integrate into Canadian society. She also makes time to raise funds for charitable and religious works and pursue an operatic career.

I thank the members of the Community Newspapers Association and Bell Canada for their initiative in recognizing the youth of Ontario who work hard to contribute their valuable skills and energy to improving life in their communities.

EVENTS IN PETERBOROUGH

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): In an age where the mass media often dictate culture, the Peterborough community is actively working to define itself, listen to its past and ensure a participatory culture for the future.

This past summer, several initiatives put Peterborough at the forefront of cultural community development. I share them with you as a model of a vibrant society. Grants from the Ministry of Culture and Communications gave assistance to these projects, reflecting the progressive thinking within that ministry.

The Peterborough Festival of Arts gave background support to several projects. The Cavan Blazers, written and directed by Rob Winslow about historical happenings in Cavan township, was performed on his family farm by Fourth Line Players. Due to its success, the play was extended to twice its original run and given prominent national media coverage.

Harvest Moon Rising, written by local author Peggy Semple, was produced by Bea Quarrie of Quarrie Productions and Susan Spicer of Writers Workshop Theatre to wide local and critical acclaim.

Otonabee River Chronicles, performed on Labour Day weekend in cosponsorship with the Peterborough Labour Council and Ground Zero Productions, was the culmination of a summer-long research project to investigate local history through stories borrowed from labour, women, natives and so-called "ordinary" Peterboroughians. The result: A multimedia outdoor presentation captured lost voices in a moving and dynamic exploration of community myths and folk tales.

There are also many other local projects, like the 500 Years Timeline and the New Music Festival that strive to address the search for community and our place in it.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today, at 4:30, hundreds of merchants and residents will be rallying at the historic site of Montgomery's Tavern in my riding to re-enact the Mackenzie Rebellion of 1837. I will be joining them. We will be marching in protest to the front steps of Metro hall, where we will symbolically hand over the keys to our homes and our businesses.

You may ask what catastrophe is on the horizon that would force the people of Toronto into rebellion. That catastrophe is market value assessment.

This convoluted, tortured scheme was dreamed up by a group of NDP councillors to save their necks in the next election, at the cost of Toronto businesses and ultimately our homes. Even people who support market value assessment in principle are disturbed by this politically opportunistic plan that some Metro councillors are trying to force down our throats.

There are many people who say the current property tax system is unfair and that reform is long overdue. Frankly, I agree with them, but not with this plan and not at this time. In the midst of a recession, this plan could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Under Metro's scheme, Toronto businesses are looking at tax increases of 200%, 400% and in some cases 800%. Estimates in my riding of Eglinton are that if this plan goes through, two thirds of the small businesses will be closing their doors for ever, and our home owners are facing the same devastating picture.

We in the Legislature will soon be forced to take a stand on this issue. I say to all members: property tax reform, yes, but not at the cost of destroying the city of Toronto.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I join my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel to speak against the latest NDP tax grab, the corporate filing program that began in July of this year.

Burlington companies struggling to cope under the recession were recently hit with yet another hidden NDP tax. In a letter from the Consumer and Commercial Relations ministry, they were ordered to pay a fee in the amount of $50 for profit corporations and $25 for non-profit corporations. The ministry threatened that failure to pay the fee would result in "serious consequences."

Among the numerous letters I have received from outraged constituents is one from Patricia Yurincich, which best summarizes the anger shared by many: "By providing a toy-lending library and a drop-in centre for over 100 families in Burlington, we are providing a service for the community -- and yet they stick it to us!"

Fred Wyeld contacted me to say that the filing fee does not even make opening the books of one of his companies feasible. Peter Sticklee, a businessman who dared to complain by calling the 1-800 number to say the fee could represent a day's net profit for a small company, was told in a callous way by a civil servant that he "could always write it off."

This tax is dishonest, it's hidden and it's excessive. Halton residents saw through the Liberal GTA tax grab and responded by throwing out almost every one of their members in the last election. Ontario residents are seeing through this latest NDP tax grab, and their message is clear: "If NDP politicians write us, the taxpayers, off, then at the next election, Noel Duignan and his socialists can write their seats off too."

JAMES NICHOLAS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm really pleased to be able to advise the Legislative Assembly this afternoon that James Nicholas of Welland has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His nomination was made earlier this year by Professor Jan Tinbergen, a Nobel laureate himself from the Netherlands.

James Nicholas is a long-time Welland resident who has been a professor at Niagara College for years now, since the beginning of that college's operation in the community. He has been a leader in this country in the peace movement and is the international secretary of the World Council for Global Cooperation, a conglomerate, if you will, of Nobel laureates that he brought together and led to the point where they created the Toronto Appeal. That Toronto Appeal was presented to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in a private audience by James Nicholas in May 1992 and earned the support of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

James Nicholas, I tell you, is a worthy recipient of this nomination. I am confident that all of the members of this Legislative Assembly join me in congratulating James Nicholas and his family for his accomplishments and for that recognition of his work. I extend special thanks because James Nicholas has been my teacher and my mentor, and he and his family are long-time friends. I'm sure we all wish him every success.

OSCAR PETERSON

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I want today to pay tribute to a great Canadian and resident of Mississauga, Dr Oscar Peterson. Many of the members present will know him as Canada's ambassador of jazz, a pianist and composer of international fame. This year he joined that group of exceptional Ontarians who have been awarded the Order of Ontario.

As chancellor of York University, Dr Peterson is inaugurating the Oscar Peterson Opportunity Awards. Dr Peterson strongly believes that education is the key to personal success and to harmony both in Canada and throughout the world.

The Oscar Peterson Opportunity Awards will provide high school students in the Jane and Finch area in Toronto with the opportunity to attain higher education. The awards will provide financial assistance to junior high school students to enable them to continue their studies towards university, to candidates for teacher education, and to first-year fine arts students.

Tonight at Roy Thomson Hall these awards will be launched -- very appropriately, I might add -- with a gala tribute to the man whose vision and dedication made them possible. It is billed as a unique evening of film, music and friends, with Norman Jewison as master of ceremonies.

I extend my congratulations and best wishes for success to Dr Oscar Peterson and his many friends and family who will join together this evening to pay tribute to him.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I must admit that at 6:22 yesterday evening I was not in my seat in the Legislature. Like the Premier and the Treasurer, I was elsewhere, seeing for myself, first hand, the first time a Canadian team, or a non-American team, has made it to the World Series.

The Toronto Blue Jays have done what the Premier, the Treasurer and the NDP government can't do, and that is to increase tourism in the province of Ontario. The World Series will bring some $23 million in tourism into the Metro Toronto area and will result in an increase of 50% in hotel accommodation while it's taking place.

The Toronto team, of course, was the first in league championship history to wrap up a series in six games. They overcame the largest deficit ever -- which is something I wish the Treasurer would take into account -- to win the game on Sunday afternoon in Oakland. This will of course give exposure for Toronto, Ontario, and indeed Canada throughout the world.

The franchise is 16 years old, and I've been a season ticket subscriber for some 12 years. I couldn't help but notice a banner at the game yesterday which said, "Our Canada includes the World Series." By October 25, we could well be world champions, and I hope that by October 26, our Canada will include everyone.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to recognize work each one of us can do to help our environment. In particular, I call attention to Bell Canada's office complex in London, Ontario.

Two weeks ago, this office began its Zero Waste program. Waste is being significantly reduced by using the 3Rs approach. Reducing waste production has been accomplished by using smaller waste-baskets accompanied by blue box recycling bins. Reuse has been accomplished by using non-disposable coffee mugs. Recycling of all paper, cans, bottles -- and even food waste, by vermiculture or worm composting -- helps accomplish the third R.

These simple means can have enormous results. Bell Canada's office complex in London plans to produce 17.5 times less garbage by the end of 1993, reducing trash output from a present 385 kilograms a day to only 22 kilograms a day by the end of 1993.

I would also like to call attention to the work being done at the London Free Press. Virtually all 800 employees take part daily in recovering waste as well as reusing ink in the printing of this daily newspaper.

These success stories in London are but two examples of the numerous efforts across Ontario to help the environment by using the 3Rs approach. I commend Bell Canada, London and the London Free Press for their initiatives in waste reduction. May other corporate citizens follow their lead in significantly reducing the amount of garbage produced in this province.

PAULA TODD

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would say, Mr Speaker, on a point of interest more than anything else.

It has come to my attention and the attention of a good number of the members that one of the members of the press gallery, Paula Todd, is being assigned to other duties out of Queen's Park. On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I just wanted to rise and extend our warmest congratulations for her elevation to new duties, to thank her for her coverage over the years and the thorough way in which she has done her work.

Without being too lavish, lest somebody thinks she is representing one party instead of the others, we do wish every member of the press gallery, when he or she moves on to other duties, every best wish when we find out about it in time, and I thought I would raise that now for the House's edification.

The Speaker: Would anyone else like to contribute to the point of interest?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of interest, I have known Paula Todd in her capacity here for some years now. She has certainly been a very direct, forthright reporter, and much more than that, I might add. I've had the privilege of appearing with her on Global TV on a couple of occasions. She certainly is very insightful and has always brought a high degree of professionalism to her profession. I think we hear all too often about the criticism we have sometimes of people in the media. I just wanted to say to her that we extend our best wishes in her future endeavours.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I wasn't aware that one of the leading lights from one of Toronto's leading tabloids was leaving Queen's Park, but I do wish Paula Todd well. Since she writes for the Toronto Star, I wasn't surprised that a Liberal member was the first on his feet to wish her well. I would echo the sentiments of the members opposite in commenting on Paula's qualities as a journalist and wish her well in her new endeavours.

The Speaker: I think indeed, member for Bruce, that you have found in fact a point of order in all this, and I'm sure the remarks by the members are greatly appreciated.

Mr Elston: Will you put this together and send it to her paper?

The Speaker: It might appear in the Star.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a former member for the riding of Durham North, Mr Bill Ballinger, who is seated in the members' gallery west.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I'd like to welcome Bill Ballinger back to these confines as well.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I am today releasing the Ontario Economic Outlook document, which outlines the state of our province's economy.

The events in recent weeks in Canadian and international financial markets highlight the uncertainty we face in attempting to predict and manage the economy. Despite this uncertainty, we have a responsibility to provide our best understanding of the outlook for the economy and of the policies needed to support recovery. That is the aim of this document.

The outlook document shows that while there has been some growth in the Ontario economy, that growth has been quite moderate compared to past recoveries. The Economic Outlook's figures are testimony to the depth of the restructuring that is taking place in the Ontario economy. The economy has grown 2.7% compared to the 8.3% in the first five quarters following the last recession. Unemployment will decline painfully slowly. Growth in employment will resume only in the fourth quarter of this year, and in 1993 we expect that some 100,000 jobs will be created.

The economic figures also mean a continuing financial challenge for our province. Revenues will recover only slowly. At the same time, our population continues to need increased government services such as training, social assistance, education and health care.

In our April budget we forecast a $9.9-billion deficit for the current fiscal year. While slower-than-expected nominal economic growth will reduce our revenues this year, we remain committed to achieving that budget deficit target.

We believe that government leadership is an important ingredient in helping the economy reach its full potential. I am confident that with the economic initiatives undertaken by our government, working in partnership with the province's adaptable and highly skilled workforce and its dynamic business community, Ontario can build a strong foundation for a sustainable recovery.

Times are still very tough for a lot of people. It is precisely for this reason that it is imperative that we continue to move forward with our economic agenda. That is why I would also like to take this opportunity to report briefly on some of the highlights of our economic plan -- those that relate to jobs.

Major macroeconomic levers -- trade policy, monetary policy, interest rate levels -- lie with the federal government. However, even though a provincial government cannot solve every problem, it does control some important economic levers, and has an obligation to use them.

In our budget last spring we made a substantial commitment to job initiatives which will support some 90,000 jobs in 1992-93.

In June I announced that various ministries would be investing $360 million this fiscal year under Jobs Ontario Capital. The moneys are part of a five-year, $2.3-billion fund designed to invest in strategic economic infrastructure. With the remainder of this year's $500 million allocated from Jobs Ontario Capital, it is expected that a total of 9,800 jobs will be created.

Our $3.4-billion investment in base capital, which is in addition to the Jobs Ontario Capital, will support a further 67,000 jobs this year.

The Jobs Ontario Homes fund will support $2.1 billion in construction, creating 20,000 additional units of much-needed affordable housing. As the program gears up in the coming years, it will support some 30,000 jobs.

This summer, in response to the needs of our young people, our government created the Jobs Ontario Youth fund, which quickly and successfully created 8,800 summer jobs for young people.

Another initiative, the Jobs Ontario Training fund, has commissioned dozens of training brokers serving communities in every corner of this province. Some $1.1 billion in funding will be flowing over three years through these community brokers to employers who in turn will train and employ the long-term unemployed and those on social assistance while providing training credits for an employer's current workforce. Over the next three years, this program alone will support 100,000 jobs, 10,800 of them this year, the program's startup year.

Our government is also funding programs to help older displaced workers. We operate Ontario help centres in 18 major communities and will soon establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

In our budget we announced a total of $930 million for training and adjustment programs, the largest such commitment in the history of this province.

In addition to jobs and training measures, our government has taken steps to encourage investment, which will also help job creation. The $150-million sector partnership fund and the Ontario investment and worker ownership program are examples of our government's investment initiatives.

Our government is creating and supporting jobs today, and in each case we are doing that with a careful eye to the future and on what government can reasonably do.

We have come through some difficult times and we still face some challenges. But we also have a wealth of assets to help us deal with these challenges. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world, a highly skilled workforce and abundant natural resources. Our culture is diverse, our infrastructure modern.

Ontario has faced economic changes more than once in its history. It has made the transition to a highly industrialized economy based on exports. This transition was accompanied by dislocation and often hardship, but Ontario made it successfully.

The current challenge facing the economy is to increase its orientation to high-skilled, high value added activities in all sectors of the economy. Business services and knowledge-intensive industries based on technology and skills will supply about 40% of our employment growth over the next two years, reflecting the shift in the structure of our economy. With government playing a role as an active partner, I am confident that Ontario can again make this latest transition successfully while easing much of the hardship and dislocation through job support initiatives and through the safety net created by our continuing commitment to social programs.

There will be many challenges ahead, and Ontario is well equipped to deal with them. We have also got a head start on many other countries. The Economic Outlook also points out that our economy is forecast to grow at 3.5% a year over the 1992-1996 period, a stronger pace than any industrialized country. If we work together as partners, I believe Ontarians can continue to enjoy the prosperous and fair society for which they have worked so hard.

The publication of this Economic Outlook marks the beginning of budget preparations and will be part of our pre-budget consultations to come. I have asked that it be sent to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs so that my colleagues will have the opportunity of discussing it in detail if they so wish.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd respond to the Treasurer's Economic Outlook to say that it's sad reading. I think all the members of the Legislature will be disappointed with the news in it, and I would say to the Treasurer I think it's an admission that the economic plans of the government are not working. We see the unemployment rate in the rest of Canada dropping and the unemployment rate in Ontario going up. In August the rest of Canada's unemployment rate dropped; Ontario's went up significantly. In September's unemployment rate, every single province dropped but Ontario.

I would say that this is one in a series of documents, almost every two to three months. The latest document we had was the one dated June, the Treasurer will remember, Ontario Economic Report. That time it promised that there would be job growth occurring in 1992 and, sadly, we see that we are losing more jobs again in 1992. The unemployment rate will go up; the number of jobs will decline in 1992 in Ontario.

I will say to the Treasurer that the saddest thing in this document is the lack of an economic plan to get the economy going. I think the people of Ontario will remember that the Premier, a year ago, said: "We have an economic program. We have a training program. We have something called the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board that will solve our training needs and we will bring in the legislation" in the spring. We have not seen that. That was supposed to be the cornerstone of your economic renewal plan.

You promised that you would have the Ontario investment fund well under way by now. It is still out for consultation, and by all accounts, at least two of the major potential partners in it have said they don't want to participate in it. That was going to be another cornerstone in your economic renewal plan.

You said that the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments would bring in harmony and partnerships in the workplace. I will say to you and the government, as directly as I can, there has been nothing that has so divided the business community and the labour community as that bill and there is nothing that has done more to harm potential investment in this province than that bill. That's not mentioned in your economic report card.

You brought in the worker ownership program, which was supposed to be something that would encourage participation by the workers in this province, and the major participant in it, the Ontario Federation of Labour, said it will not participate. They won't participate in it. They say they won't do that.

So what we've got now is, sadly, the major cornerstones, the blocks, that were going to be used by Premier Rae and this government to get the Ontario economy going, every single one of them is not working.

What we've got today, as you will see in the document, is that Jobs Ontario is the cornerstone of this. I would say to the Treasurer, as I've said many times, it is telling the people of Ontario about a program that frankly is spending less money this year than you spent last year. I'm not saying, "Go out and spend more money." I am saying, "Be straight with the people of Ontario." The Jobs Ontario Capital fund, and I hope all the members of your caucus understand this, is spending less money in 1992-93 than was spent last year.

I accept you will maintain 90,000 jobs, but you are not creating one single new job. I would say to the Treasurer that your Economic Outlook is a document that will be greeted, I think, with a good deal of sadness in the province, particularly by those people who are out of work, which indicates that rather than your promised unemployment rate dropping this year, economic growth recovering in a very significant way and 125,000 new jobs this fiscal year, you now are saying that's not going to happen. We see our unemployment rate continue to rise.

The most important thing to the Legislature is the promised economic renewal plan with the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, with the Ontario investment fund, with peace and harmony through the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments and with the whole worker ownership. None of those things is here before us. What we've got is not only sad news, but the saddest news is that the economic plan the government had promised, that the Premier a year ago said we would have here, is not here.

I not only am sad about these numbers; I question the future numbers in this document as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses from the third party?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I had hoped there would have been some kind of good news or some kind of recognition on the part of the Treasurer with regard to the present problems we face in Ontario and our economy.

He continues to hold out the false figure of $9.9 billion as our deficit. He has no assurance from the federal government that he is going to receive $1.2 billion, which he is counting as revenue. He has no assurance that he is going to sell off assets of this province worth $1.2 billion -- he hasn't found a buyer yet -- which he assumes as revenue in his budget statement for this year. He has also jiggered the books, as we all know, by postponing a $500-million payment to the teachers' pension fund.

We have never had a Treasurer fool around with the books or create bogus accounting as we have with this Treasurer and with this government. When one reads the economic forecast today and reads the budget of this Treasurer some six short months ago, one is shaken by the fact that his projections for economic growth are now admittedly out by 35% from what his budget stated six months ago. If he's out by 35%, how can his revenue projections be in line? He says he's going to hit his target of $9.9 billion.

His projection in his budget some six short months ago as to how much unemployment was going to take place in this province was 9.6% unemployment. Today we find out the sad news that the Treasurer was wrong again. It's going to be 10.8%. That's an error of 15%.

I find it mildly amusing that not only is the Treasurer within this document trying to predict what's going to happen next year; he's trying to predict what's happening five or six years hence. This Treasurer can't even predict six months in advance, let alone six years in advance.

We are shaken by the incompetency of the economic forecasting and the economic planning of this government. The business community, the investment community and the workers of Ontario are looking for stable fiscal management. They are not getting it from this government because report after report corrects previous projections, normally going in a more detrimental direction for the province of Ontario.

There are two things this Treasurer could do in order to help the economy of Ontario. I don't think this document today, quite frankly, helps the economy or helps anybody in this province at all. There are two things this Treasurer can do: Get tough and quit spending; speak to the Minister of Labour and kill Bill 40. That will help more than anything else.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): We've been telling this Treasurer for two years that he can't continue to tax and spend like there's no tomorrow. Tomorrow is finally here and your economic plan has been an absolute disaster. Ontario's economy is the worst of any of the provinces. Your $9.9-billion deficit, you will have to have massive cuts to reach that. This Treasurer, in this day and age when consumer confidence is shaken, says he may raise taxes. This Treasurer worked 20 years to become Treasurer. It's going to take us 20 years to clean up after this government leaves.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): In regard to the announcement today by the Treasurer, these numbers are very serious and very discouraging. The saddest part about the announcement today is that these numbers aren't even accurate. These numbers don't reflect the economic state that this province is in.

This Treasurer has gerrymandered these numbers. He's massaged them to bring them in to look even better than sadly they look today. This Treasurer is using the people of Ontario and he's using them in the saddest way possible: through unemployment and welfare gerrymandered numbers. Mr Treasurer, you should be ashamed of yourself.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a special visitor from Germany, the Honourable Monika Griefahn, who is the Minister of the Environment of Lower Saxony, Germany. Welcome.

TRANSPORTATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Before we begin question period, I would ask whether or not the Treasurer would consider making a statement in the House in response to the accusation of Premier Frank McKenna that it is Ontario that is responsible for the failure to go ahead and implement the national transportation program.

I make this request as a point of order because certainly the Treasurer and others of us in this House will be asked to respond to Mr McKenna's statements as we leave the chamber and I, for one,