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

November 2, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF TUE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIVE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

NATIVE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRIVATE BOARDING AND LODGING HOMES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

CANADIAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION

HEALTH STUDY

HERITAGE DAY

INTERLINK

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

SUTTON WEST DISTRICT LIONS CLUB

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD / ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL DE 1987

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

CANCER TREATMENT

DRUG ABUSE

NURSING SERVICES

ONTARIO DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

AMBULANCE SERVICES

ONTARIO DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE MAILING

WATER QUALITY

SOCIAL SERVICES

FAMILY VIOLENCE

CASE OF ANTONIO PRETE

INMATE TRANSFERS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PETITIONS

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

TRANSMISSION LINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

COURT REFORM STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF TUE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIVE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Hampton moved resolution 21:

Mr Hampton: I have put this motion before the House because despite the fact that native education is generally regarded as coming under the sphere of the federal government, I think that it is perhaps one of the most important social and economic policies and, as well, one of the most difficult social and economic policies of the day.

I have brought this resolution forward not to castigate the federal government for its native post-secondary education policies. Rather, my task is to try to lay out the rational groundwork as to why this House should send a strong message to the federal government regarding its policies and to try to lay out the rational groundwork why the federal government’s policies must change.

My argument is fundamentally this: If the condition of first nations people, not only in Ontario but across the country, is to improve, it will not improve as the result of government, whether it be the provincial government or provincial governments or federal government distributing a program here or a program there to native people.

The lot of first nations people will improve if they are given the opportunity and the opportunities to improve their own conditions. Put more specifically, if first nations people are given the opportunity to enhance their educational resources, to enhance their capability of controlling their own livelihood and of controlling their own futures, then we will do more in doing that than we can do through any other program.

For example, the province of Ontario has acknowledged that it has some responsibility now in terms of assisting native people with recreation programs, of assisting them in terms of community infrastructures. These are all useful programs, but I would argue that their effectiveness will be severely limited if the capacity of first nations people to develop the skills that are needed in the 20th and 21st centuries is denied. Fundamentally, that is what is happening with the new post-secondary education policy that has been announced by the federal government earlier in 1989.

It is only recently that first nations students have had the opportunity and the encouragement to attend post-secondary institutions. If you look at the history of native education in terms of the residential schools, I would argue residential schools contributed to cultural genocide, which basically in the most blunt terms turned first nations youth off of education altogether.

It has only been a short time since those kinds of elementary and secondary schools have been done away with, and after they were done away with, first nations youth became turned on to education. So it is only since the early 1960s that more and more first nations young people have attended post-secondary universities. It is only in the last 20 years that first nations people have had the encouragement, both socially and financially, to enter post-secondary institutions.

It is only in the last 15 years that we have seen a number of graduates, graduates in law, in business, in social services, in education. Indeed, it is only probably within the last 10 to 15 years that we have seen parole officers of native ancestry, police officers, nurses, lawyers, public administrators, financial managers, all of the things that are necessary to enable first nations people to assume the proper control over their own lives and over their own social and economic development.

That kind of development, educational development, social development, economic development, was provided for and encouraged by the kinds of financial incentives that were there for first nations young people.

What the policies that were enunciated in the spring of 1989 do, however, is to severely limit the funding that is available and at the same time, they limit the circumstances in which it is available. The primary problem with what the federal government is doing is this. The federal government now says in its 1989 policy that there will be so much money set aside each year for native post-secondary education. If more people apply for the funding than there are funds available, then those people who come last in line are deferred. Imagine that. You are simply told, “Defer your life for a year.

We will look at your plan in a year from now. Defer your life. Defer it for a year. Defer it for two years.”

The obstacles which first nations people must overcome in terms of getting to a university or a community college are unbelievable: the social barriers, the cultural barriers, the financial barriers. I do not think I need to repeat in this House that if you do an economic profile of Ontario society and Canadian society, you will find that native people are among the poorest, if not the poorest.

First nations families, by and large, depend on seasonal incomes, seasonal work, that this government’s own record in terms of promoting employment for first nations people is not an enviable record, and if members want to see how bad that record has been, check and see how many first nations people work for the Ministry of Natural Resources in northern Ontario, or how many work for Ontario Hydro, or how many work for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Very few -- too few.

So the barriers that young native persons must overcome in order to get into a university or a community college in terms of social, cultural, educational and financial are overwhelming. But then for the federal government to say to them after they have overcome many of these barriers and they have applied for funding: “Sorry, you have to defer your plans for a year. You defer your life for a year. Come and talk to us a year from now.” That is an unforgivable statement to make to young first nations persons who want to enhance their own educational skills and enhance the educational, social and economic opportunities of their people as a people. It is an unforgivable statement to make.

But not only is that an unforgivable statement to make, the new policy does not contain financial capacity for things like career counselling. One of the things which a young first nations person would most likely need in terms of moving into a community college or moving into a university is career counselling. “Help me. This is all new to me. This is all strange to me. I have never encountered this before. Help me get some bearings. Help me find my way.” There is absolutely no funding available for such things. It is as if you throw somebody out on the ocean with a raft and say, “I hope you can swim.

I hope you can stay on the raft. We are not going to give you any paddles, we are not going to give you an oar to help you find your way, no compass.” That is absolutely unforgivable.

The Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I do not intend to speak on this motion. Our member for London North (Mrs Cunningham) is speaking for our party and she is in committee now, so could we waive her turn and the London North member could speak at a later --

The Speaker: I will remind the member, the standing order says that each party has up to 15 minutes to participate on a rotational basis, so I think that would be within order.

Mr Miclash: I would just first of all like to thank the member for Rainy River for bringing this most important matter before the House. It is a great honour to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party in favour of his motion. There are two things I want to take a look at during my speech today. Both of them involve the federal government.

First of all, I do believe, as the member has stated, that the federal government in some way is maybe sloughing off a little bit of its responsibility, and that is to allow for an adequate education for native people, an adequate education that will allow them to compete on an equal footing with their non-native counterparts throughout the country.

I also think that the federal government has maybe acted in a little bit of a paternalistic way where it has had very little input from our native people. Most of the native people were not consulted themselves to find out how important, as the member has stated, this post-secondary education is to their people.

As well, I would like to say that I honestly believe it is a treaty and constitutional responsibility of the federal government to take care of the educational needs of our native people.

As members know, I am from a riding which contains 23 reserves and a population of about 10,000 native people. I have lived in the riding all of my life. I returned to the riding as an educator and as a counsellor with the Kenora Board of Education and, therefore, have worked very closely with native people, in a high school setting, ready to go on to a post-secondary setting. I cannot tell members how important it is to those native people that they get the proper funding to continue on with what they want to do in life.

I must say as a member I have visited all of my reserves and have seen that people on the reserves are not happy with, as I mentioned earlier, the paternalistic view of the federal government in making work projects for them and contributing to their welfare payments.

As we know, unemployment, as the member stated earlier, is a very high statistic on our local native reserves and in some of my reserves, we are looking at unemployment rates of 80 to 90 per cent. It is something that we want to combat and I feel through post-secondary education we can take a look at combating some of these figures.

As the member has stated, before the March 1989 changes were introduced all native people from high school who were accepted into post-secondary institutions were allowed to go ahead with their plans, and now we put it on a priority system, a priority system that is not allowing all of these people a right to gain that post-secondary education.

I mentioned treaties earlier. When we take a look at the treaties, we find that the federal government is responsible for the education of the native people. When we take a look at a treaty, we must interpret it in today’s times, the standards of today. We know that today it is very difficult for a native person or any person in society to get ahead with their ambitions and their goals with some sort of post-secondary education.

The former member has mentioned that these people are determined to go forth with their self-government, are determined to go forth with an education system within their own society. I think, in order for them to keep pace with some of these feelings and some of these goals, they have to be a partner in society and in order to be that partner have to attain these higher sights than just secondary education.

We know that our neighbours, our native people, are striving for these two goals and, as I mentioned, their own government. In order for them to get into their own government, a government that would work in conjunction with both the federal and provincial governments, they are going to have to receive some of this higher training, higher education and, as well, their own educational systems.

We know that native people are quite proud of their heritage and quite proud of what they have done in the Canadian mosaic in the past. They would like to retain this culture and it is through education that I feel they will do this.

Let me go on and talk about the obligation of the federal government to fund this right to education. In order for these people to fulfil their dreams and for this to become a reality, these costs must be looked at. If we take a look at the costs, we can take a look at it in two ways.

We can take a look at it in actual cost where we put a student through a post-secondary institution for roughly five years on average; that is the average for a degree; we are looking at approximately $7,200 a year. However, if we take a look at keeping that same person, without dependants, as a single on a welfare system or a handout dole system, we are looking at approximately $300,000 to put that person through life.

As I mentioned, I have had a lot of personal experience in watching native people go through secondary school and then post-secondary institutions and then return to their people and help out, whether it be an educator on a reserve, an administrator, a social worker, a police officer, whatever. The difference in the person is exciting. It is truly exciting to see somebody who is able to go back and use a post-secondary education to help their people.

The other cycle that I have seen on the reserve is the welfare cycle, which is a cycle that goes from generation to generation and is a very difficult one to break. I feel, as a former educator, that often the cycle is broken through education. It gives a person a goal, something to reach for and, again, I feel this is very important to our native people.

I just might quote Chief George Watts who stated that, “the real changes are happening because our people are going to university and taking their skills and using them, with the knowledge of our old people, to start to make meaningful changes in our community.” I must emphasize that real changes are happening because his people are being educated. How can the federal government not see this, not realize this among our native people?

The former member also touched a little bit on the provincial government’s assistance in native education. As you know, today our OSAP is open to all students across Ontario and all students have an equal opportunity to go for that assistance. But I must agree with the former member that we are looking at people who have to readjust to a society that maybe they are not used to. A person from a middle-class society who has gone through a regular secondary education does not need that extra counselling, maybe that extra push, that our native people are in need of.

I always look at education as either a “pay now” or “pay later” scheme. I suggest that either we educate or we continue on that cycle that I mentioned earlier. As well, we see that there is no lack of desire among our native people. If we take a look at 1960, we had 64 native students in our post-secondary institutions across Canada. Today that number has risen to 15,000 native students, something that I say speaks very well for their culture, their people, and something that I know that they want.

As the member stated, however, the new system is going to limit that funding. What we have found out is that there is a good possibility that come September 1990, we will be looking at 1,000 native people who will be turned away from our post-secondary institutions because of that limiting of resources for them.

I talked about the paternalistic attitude of the federal government. When you talk to native people, you find out that they were presented with this concept, this idea, as a fait accompli. They were just told; they were not consulted. They were told, “This is the way it is going to be.” I do not think that is fair to our native people and I think that is a strong point where there has been a true lack of consultation with them. As I say, they want and they deserve what others in this country have, and I really feel that they will look for a secure future and a fulfilment of their dreams and aspirations.

To do that they will have to continue to push for more funding from the federal government.

Just in closing, I would again like to thank the member for Rainy River for bringing this issue forth. It has given me an opportunity to speak on behalf of some of the people in my riding and to present their views, along with my view on this very important matter.

Mr Pouliot: I too join in supporting the private member’s ballot item placed in Orders and Notices by the member for Rainy River.

If ever there was a human rights problem in Canada, it is with the native peoples. This is what the Canadian human rights commissioner had to say following the most recent decision of Pierre Cadieux, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to limit the federal subsidies for native post-secondary education. He calls it an example of the litany of misunderstanding. That is what he refers to the decision as.

The Canadian government has chosen to deny, to cap, to put a ceiling on, to limit spending on native education, more specifically on post-secondary native education, while being fully cognizant, very much aware, that the traditional economies can no longer fulfil the daily needs of the first nations. In order never to assimilate but to integrate and to cope with technological changes of a modern era, you need an education. The current dollars that the minister would forward towards that goal are an investment in the future, not only for natives but for the Canadian society as a whole.

One need not do a lot of research to acquiesce that if you are a native person in Canada today and if you do not have an education, you are much more likely to end up in jail than any other person in Canada. The certainty that you will not get a permanent job is real, for jobs are at a premium in remote and desolate communities; or if you do happen to get a job, you will get a very low paying one. You will be poorer than the poor and you will marry what you are, by and large, The cycle will continue.

Society will have to pick up the tab, both emotionally and in dollars, of an even higher rate of substance abuse, mainly alcohol, and a higher rate of suicide. Despair, no belief that tomorrow will be better than today: that is the alternative, that is the cost.

Everyone needs an education. It is one of the sacred gifts, one of the ultimate gifts in society: the right of access. The people cannot do it. They do not have any money. They need their future recognized with an investment today, not a major investment but an investment to say, “Give us the tools to defend, to survive and to cope in society.”

I was paid a compliment last June. I was invited as the guest speaker at a graduation exercise in the township of Nakina. The township has a small elementary school that welcomes people from Aroland, which is a native community nearby. Consequently, the majority of graduating students at the Nakina school were people from Aroland. They were natives. I remember so vividly, as if it were yesterday, as if it were now. The people just filed in during the graduation procession, standing proud, and those were grade 8 students, standing tall indeed.

I recall the valediction oration, and it spoke exactly about the right to an education. For a moment the people who sat rigid, erect, proud, representing what is the best in people, which is the achievement of an attainable goal, saw the future with unlimited confidence.

They did not have much. The little paper hats were exactly that; they were little paper hats and there were no silk linings. Some of them had running shoes. There is nothing wrong with running shoes -- you get good wear -- but for a graduation exercise -- it mattered little because they had so much to look forward to.

They did not take anything for granted and they were clutching, hanging, their little diplomas. They could go back home; they were community leaders. The whole community felt it was impacted by young men and women graduating from grade 8. The ramifications were enormous. This was an achievement. Somebody had arrived. Somebody had made it. Somebody was to be like the others: a community leader.

With high respect for my distinguished colleague, I would like to conclude by saying that in terms of human dimension and in terms of doing our job, when we read every word on the resolution, we do not have to search long and hard, because this is what it is all about. That is why we are here. We are here to endorse the resolution. We are here to put clout on the government and say: “Respect the treaty rights. Respect the deal that you made with the forefathers. Put your best foot forward. Say yes to education.”

Mr Jackson: I rise today to support the resolution on native education and to support my friend and colleague the honourable member for Rainy River. As all members of the House can appreciate, education has become a central key in the unlocking of a future for members of an ever-increasing technological and industrially modern society. As the pace of that development quickens in this province, so does demand for greater and more specialization in how we deliver that education.

Today it is a commodity much sought after by all of our citizens, not only because it promises employment and it offers empowerment for groups that have not had it, but also because it has opportunities for our citizens to take greater control over their lives. As we deepen our awareness of our surrounding environment and the society we live in and as we get a better sense of the history of this province, we learn to develop our own capacities for original thought and insight as we come to understand ourselves in relationship to our history and to our people.

The resolution, therefore, that we are debating today has to do more with our understanding of our founding peoples, of our native peoples, and their desire to obtain the special key to their future. which is education and which is just as central to them as it is to all other Canadians.

Our native peoples have never been given the educational opportunities promised them in the original treaties signed in the last century. The treaties promised schools on the reserves themselves, together with paid teachers. However, native children were shipped off to residential schools where they were exposed to great pressures to assimilate culturally with mainstream society, where they were forbidden to speak their native languages, where they were forbidden, quite frankly, to have the intimacy with their own families as they sought our

interpretation of their educational needs.

By the 1960s, in this province only 3.4 per cent of natives had ever even finished high school education, while a very tiny minority -- the statistic is frightening -- ever went on to university. But with the development of the federal post-secondary student assistance program, there were, in 1977 and 1978, more than 3,500 native students enrolled in universities, with 15,000 enrolled by this year. At approximately $9,000 per student, which is spent under the terms of the program, this number has driven its budget up to $130 million.

Unlike other programs which were created to help our native peoples it is very clear that this program works and this program is successful. It has meant employment to nine of 10 graduates among our native graduate pool of 1,000 for last year and for this year alone. It has meant tremendous relief for native women who often suffer lower employment with poorer opportunities for career advancement than any other single group in our society because, of those 24 to 44 years of age among native women who are on the experienced labour force and did not work in the 1980s, their proportion was 5.3 times that of non-native men and 2.9 times that of native men.

This program has proved that, with a little support from the government, support that this government is bound by treaty to provide anyway, our native peoples are more than capable of breaking free of poverty and lack of economic independence which have traditionally limited their own self-actualization. Not only are excellent native leaders being produced with the help of this program, but as Robert Rosehart, the president of Lakehead University, said, good role models for the native community are being produced as well. In his words, probably you could find a few examples of abuse; like any other government program, it’s not perfect, but it is accomplishing things.

Yes, it is accomplishing things and yes, we could find a few examples of abuse if we choose to look at that. But the overall positive impact of this program on our native community, which is truly for the original people who founded this nation, is such that it deserves continuing support from every single member of this House.

When I say from all of us, I also include the Liberal government of Ontario. I say to the Minister of Education (Mr Conway), where are his educational priorities with respect to our native community in this province? Are he and his Premier (Mr Peterson) content to sit back and let others totally do the work which they should be taking an initiative in as well?

At a time, for example, when this government is busy promoting heritage language education in our public school system, there are three native languages that domestically are part of our culture, and our culture alone, here in Ontario, that are at risk of being lost not only to Ontario and Canada, but to the whole world. We could lose those languages because there is no concerted effort to save and preserve them. There seems to be a serious contradiction in the value that we put on that culture which our native people so rightly cling to and they so rightly respect, but we are losing it.

What I believe this government should be doing, quite frankly, is funding specialized teacher training for those teaching in Metis and aboriginal languages for their students, while boards should find specialized in-service training to assist in the development in that regard. I also believe firmly that a department of aboriginal studies should he established, possibly at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, known as OISE, with both federal and provincial funding, to study and promote that native culture and language which somehow we seem frightened to help preserve.

In addition, we should be looking at ways in which to put local control of native education back into the hands of the native community itself. What our native people are concerned about is that the recent announcement of the cap on this program, the $130 million budget, could lead to the turning away of as many as 2,000 native students from universities and colleges, students who have the desire to continue their education into post-secondary levels.

This is also something which all other Canadians should be concerned about. Let us make no mistake. In the words of Grand Chief Georges Erasmus: “Canadians want fairness to native people and they just want to know in return that natives are not abusing the system.” Conversely, all Canadians should know that our native people do not want something for nothing. Their culture is in possession of values of individual effort and providing one’s worth, values which we hold in admiration as well.

The native peoples did not ask to be placed in the cycle of poverty and misery that we somehow have put them in. What they ask is some help to move out of it. and to date they have more than proved that they, as native graduates, can join the Canadian economic mainstream in ever-increasing numbers, to be followed by other native students who are inspired by their example to study, to graduate and to seek economic, social and cultural independence.

One argument that is advanced against expanding this program’s budget is that the treaty signed more than 100 years ago did not cover post-secondary education. But it must be remembered that when the treaties were signed, something like a post-secondary education was not nearly as important for living in society as it is today.

The expansion of this program’s budget will prove much more costly than the already burgeoning welfare budget of about $350 million that goes to our native people, but their message to us is that they do not want to be on welfare. They want to go to school and then they want to work.

What kind of example will we be showing them if we renege on legitimate responsibilities sworn to in treaties and established by custom to help our native people, in effect to help them help themselves, and if indirectly we help contribute to the continuation of that vicious circle of poverty and misery? It must be broken.

I therefore support my honourable colleague’s resolution and commend him for coming forth with it on behalf of native peoples and, I know, for a group of constituents he holds very dear to his heart.

Let us invest in our native peoples’ future. It is an investment that is fiscally responsible. It is an investment that brings solid returns and rich dividends to the native students, graduates and indeed the entire native community. It is therefore a great investment in our province and in our nation.

Mrs Cunningham: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in the House and have an opportunity to speak on the importance of native post-secondary education in our province and in our country. The only comment I would make on the resolution is that I would rather censure the government than condemn it. It is just a word that I feel is more appropriate under the circumstances. I know that to get change we are going to have to work with our federal partners as far as possible and this is our opportunity to send a message to them today.

I think there is a much deeper issue here at hand today and that is the matter of how native education is perceived and how we deliver it. We are all mistaken if we think it is comparable to the experience of the children of middle class families across this country. My children grew up in a culture that stressed education and were encouraged throughout their education by family support that we would hope would be possible across our country, but we recognize that many native students do not have this support. They need this support and we would be foolish to look the other way. They need support in every way.

When they have the courage to come forth and ask for it, we should give it to them, and it does take courage for any member of our society to say: “I am different. I have not had the same kind of opportunity and I need it,” especially our native students.

Twenty-seven per cent of all Canadians go to university, but only four per cent of natives do. The numbers speak for themselves. Just saying that they can get student loans and go to university will not do. They need more. Grants are an encouragement, but loans are a debt burden few students enjoy assuming, a burden that may turn and does turn native students away. As a matter of fact, it turns all students away. The debt load of university graduates in our province is something we should all be ashamed of. There has to be a better way of supporting our young people who need our help, the kind of help that we, as members of this Legislative Assembly, ought to be fighting hard for.

Funding native students could be justified purely as sound economics. The Nielsen task force reported that 90 per cent of natives who attend university find employment whether or not they graduate, and that is wonderful in itself. Yet the national average for native unemployment is 55 per cent and as high as 90 per cent. Which 90 per cent do we want? Do we want to pay welfare for 90 per cent of the native population or do we want them to attend university and live in dignity? Do we want them to be able to pay their own way some day and have some hope in their own education and an education for their children?

Our vision is very shortsighted in this province and in this country. Education is not just for today; it is for ever. When only 20 per cent of natives finish high school and only four per cent finish university, why should we even have to consider a change such as has been proposed by the federal government? We need a level playing field for all our students, but especially for our native students.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): The Speaker humbly apologizes to the honourable member for Port Arthur (Mr Kozyra) on missing the rotation.

Mr Kozyra: It is my pleasure this morning to stand and support the resolution as well. My 40 years in education, 17 in the classroom as a student and the rest as a teacher, have impressed upon me tremendously the importance of education in all its levels, so it is with pleasure that I support this resolution which strikes at the very heart of some of the problems.

I am proud of the fact and the role that the two higher levels of education in Thunder Bay, Confederation College and Lakehead University, play in furthering the cause of native post-secondary education. In the Thunder Bay situation, though, on the negative side, the one that must be addressed, is the fact that we have over 10,000 natives in Thunder Bay, many from northern reserves and many facing tremendous difficulties of adjustment.

In a fast-paced society that is economically and educationally driven, these people, as indicated by the member for Rainy River, suffer from tremendous social adjustment difficulties that we can only begin to comprehend. These cutbacks by the federal government to the post-secondary program only make that matter worse.

There is a critical need for more education. Less education or a slowdown contributes tremendously to problems like illiteracy, unemployment, welfare, hopelessness and destruction.

I would like to read from a letter. This letter is an open letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada. These social conditions were described for the native population of Canada:

The proportion of Indian children in institutional care is five times the national average. Education: 20 per cent of aboriginal students complete grade 12 compared to 75 per cent for other Canadians. The income of native Canadians is 50 per cent of the national average or less. Unemployment runs between 35 to 90 per cent, depending on the size and location of the community. Violent deaths are three times the national average and infant mortality runs at 60 per cent higher than the national rate.

The irony of the cutbacks to this program is that what the federal government saw as the need for cutbacks was based on the success of the program. It is a strange reaction to a successful program.

I would like to read from a letter in which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Pierre Cadieux, the federal minister, explains the rationale for these cutbacks. I would like to point out the irony and the tragic paradox here. He says:

“Dear Chiefs and Councils:...

“The post-secondary student assistance program is widely recognized as one of the most successful programs my department has ever undertaken.” So far so good.

“The number of post-secondary students has increased from about 3,500 in 1977-78 to some 15,000 in 1988-89.” So far so good.

“This extraordinary growth in student numbers has caused the post-secondary budget to expand from $9 million to $130 million.” Now, there is the rub.

The federal government chose to focus on purely financial aspects to cut back on a very successful program. Rather than taking a look at the whole picture, rather than recognizing what an important step this was, what tremendous progress socially and educationally was being made by the native Canadians and emphasizing that, it chose to focus strictly on the budgetary implications and decided to have the cutbacks.

I think they misread the situation. I think that rather than seeing this as a problem, they should have seen it as a tremendous opportunity, a challenge and an opportunity. I think they missed their chance, but it is not too late if we can convince them to go back.

What kind of impact does this federal decision have? It continues to impose 1987 ranking criteria. It continues to impose a 12-month Canadian residency clause. It restricts the level of tuition support to students attending private or foreign schools and it restricts the level of travel assistance. It caps the level of assistance for living expenses. This capping of the overall program funding results in (

a) reducing the number of students able to attend post-secondary schools and (

b) forcing Indian administrations to reject student applications during an academic year.

It imposes new and harsher time limits to complete degrees. It eliminates doctoral level assistance when assisted for a master of arts degree. It imposes federal

interpretation of self-government and economic self-reliance on students. It forces Indian administrations to give student statistics to the federal government for a national database instead of an Indian-controlled database. It forces Indian administrations to reduce the level of funding for students. There are all these negative implications of these cutbacks.

In the limited time that is afforded me, I hope I was able to show that rather than cutbacks, what is needed is an augmentation of the funding for post-secondary education.

Mr Wildman: I want first to congratulate my colleague the member for Rainy River for bringing this matter before the House. It is a most important one and of crucial importance to the future of the native community, the aboriginal people and the first nations of this province, as well as the whole country.

I want to say at the outset, though, hopefully without sounding as if I am preaching, that I am a little disturbed about the tone of the debate. While I welcome the comments of many members, I think language is important whenever you are dealing with any topic, but particularly when you are dealing with matters that relate to race and ethnic groups. It important to understand the nuances of language. I think it is unfortunate when members of this House or members of the white community refer to the native people as our native people in the same breath as condemning paternalism.

I think it is important to recognize that the first nations signed treaties with the white government, the crown, and that under those treaties a number of things were guaranteed. One thing that was guaranteed was education sufficient to allow the members of the first nations to prosper and to compete.

That has been open to

interpretation. The federal government historically has always taken the position that this treaty right initially only applied to primary education, and then to secondary education as well. The federal government has never accepted post-secondary education as a treaty right, but rather as some sort of gift that white governments can extend or curtail.

In 1964, there were only 60 aboriginals enrolled in post-secondary institutions. It was not until 1975 that an exclusively post-secondary education assistance program was established by the federal government. Now we have the current policy that was instituted this year, the program my colleague is referring to in his resolution. He pointed out that under this program, a certain budgetary level will be set and if there are more students than anticipated, those students at the bottom of the list will have to defer their education for a year or two. Also, limits have been placed on the length of time that a student can take to complete his or her studies.

As my colleague the member for Port Arthur pointed out, essentially what has happened here is that we have a successful program, a program where large numbers of students started to take advantage of the possibility of post-secondary education to the point where that 60 had grown to 15,000 or more by last year.

In essence, what has happened is that when the cost grew to over $120 million, the federal Conservative government said: “This program is too successful. It’s costing too much. We have to cut back.” It was not until the enrolment of aboriginals in post-secondary educational institutions increased dramatically that the government suddenly said, “It’s costing us too much.”

Even if you think just in terms of dollars and cents, this is false economy. Many speakers in this debate have argued about the cycle of poverty that too many native people in this country experience. Surely any politician or bureaucrat concerned about fiscal responsibility should recognize that by investing in education, by helping students to gain the tools that will make it possible for them to compete individually and collectively in our society and in our economy, we will be saving money in the long run.

It costs enormous amounts of money in social and economic breakdown because of the fact that too many aboriginals in our society do not have the skills they require to compete in a modern society. Give them those skills and the native people of this country will compete with anybody in our society. But it is not enough for us to stand here and say, “Somehow we have to do things for our native people.” They are not our native people. They are the first nations of this country and they deserve the treaty rights that were guaranteed them when they gave up the land so that we could settle it.

We have to recognize what the white man’s purpose of education of Indian people has been right from the beginning and I think we have to say it clearly. The purpose of education of Indian people in our society has been assimilation. The purpose has been to eradicate the Indian culture from our society, and that is why Indians, aboriginals, have not done well in our education system. Is it any surprise that the people of the first nations would reject our education system when it was designed to deny everything that was important and dear to them?

Give self-government. Recognize self-government. Guarantee self-government. Give our first nations, the people of this country who deserve it more than anyone, the right to control their own affairs, particularly their education. Extend to them the resources they require and they will compete and do well and we will learn from them.

Mr Hampton: I want to thank all my colleagues who spoke on behalf of the resolution -- my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot), my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), the member for Kenora (Mr Miclash), the member for Port Arthur, the member for Burlington South (Mr Jackson) and the member for London North. I thank them all for their eloquence and for taking the time they obviously have taken to look at this issue very seriously.

I want to conclude by restating the theme of my argument. It is simply this: The federal government’s native post-secondary education policy, as enunciated in the spring of 1989, is the epitome of shortsighted social and economic policy. The 1977 policy on post-secondary education assistance for first nations people permitted 15,084 first nations people to attend post-secondary education institutions in 1988-89. From those 15,000 students will come many of the leaders of tomorrow’s first nations communities and organizations.

The first nations people do not want something for nothing from the federal government or from the provincial government. They want only the opportunity to control their own cultural, social and economic destiny. One of the keys, and I would argue the greatest key, to gaining control of this destiny is education. The $120 million spent by the federal government on native post-secondary education assistance in 1988-89 is very likely the most productive spending the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development engaged in in that year.

I want to repeat what many of my colleagues have said here today. The federal government has a choice. It can fund native post-secondary education assistance so that more and more first nations people may get the kind of training, the kind of education, the kind of skills that everyone will need in the 20th and 21st centuries. In doing that, I am convinced they will return to their own communities and they will improve their own communities. They will provide the guidance, the skills, the leadership that their own communities want, need and have asked for.

I want to send a strong message to the federal government today. The message is this: Think again. Do not cut off your nose to spite your face. Do the right thing. Do the good thing in terms of social and economic policy and fund native post-secondary education and we will all be better off because of it.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs Marland moved second reading of Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Mrs Marland: It gives me great pleasure to move second reading of Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act. I wish it were not necessary to debate this bill today, not because I do not enjoy the process of debate, but because it is disturbing that steps proposed in my private member’s bill have not already been taken.

I expect it will surprise members of this House, as it surprised me, to learn that there is no mechanism currently in place to ensure that bottled table water, whether spring, distilled, treated or demineralized, meets provincial standards for drinking water. More and more Ontarians are consuming bottled water.

In 1987-88, sales of spring water in Ontario expanded 58 per cent. Indeed, I expect many of the members who are taking

part in this debate drink bottled water, trusting that such water is free of bacteria, toxic chemicals and taste of chlorine. However, bottled water is not subject to the Ontario drinking water objectives.

Before I speak specifically about my private member’s bill, I want to state that the bill does not deal with the broader issue of provincial standards for tap water. That is a topic beyond the scope of this debate. I want to state for the record that I have every confidence in the public water supply. My family and I drink tap water, not bottled water, However, we cannot ignore the fact that many people are consuming large quantities of bottled water, a commodity for which there are no provincial standards. These consumers of bottled water must be protected.

The purpose of my private member’s bill is to ensure that all bottled water sold in Ontario meets the minimum requirements of the Ontario Water Resources Act. The bill also provides the authority to make regulations governing water dispensers used to dispense bottled water.

I would like to provide the House with some background information on the bottled water industry, the consumption of bottled water and the status of the relevant legislation. This background will put into perspective the bill before us.

The bottled water industry currently has two major components. The largest component which markets bulk water primarily serves people who question the purity of tap water or who do not like its taste. This bulk water is used for everyday drinking and cooking and is packed in large plastic jugs or larger carboys. The second component includes sparkling and nonsparkling waters, which are largely substitutes for soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. Finally, there is a third and minor component: mineral waters with reputations for alleged restorative powers.

Bill 61 was drawn up primarily to regulate the large market for bulk bottled waters, since these waters tend to be a substitute for conventional public drinking water supplies and therefore may be consumed in substantial quantities. The marketers of bottled water range from small family businesses utilizing local spring water sources to larger firms such as Nestlé Enterprises Ltd of Toronto, which holds the Crystal Springs label in Ontario. The majority of companies are small businesses that serve limited local areas.

The bottled water industry in Canada is still young. The national value of this industry has been estimated at $110 million and the volume of bottled water consumed is approximately 210 million litres. By province, the largest market is in Quebec, followed by Ontario, whose accounts total 28 per cent of Canadian sales.

As I mentioned earlier, the Ontario market is growing rapidly. In 1987-88, spring water sales grew by 58 per cent. The bottled water companies have established an industry group, the Ontario Bottled Water Association. The OBWA is very concerned about protecting the public safety and the industry’s image from amateur or unscrupulous operators who would take advantage of the current growth potential in demand for bottled water. Therefore, the OBWA is also anxious for the Ontario government to develop regulations for bottled water.

In Quebec, where the popularity of bottled water developed earlier than in Ontario. the provincial government enacted laws and regulations in 1974 to control a market rife with abuse and ignorance. We must take action in Ontario to ensure that a similar situation does not arise.

The only regulations governing bottled water in Ontario today are under the Canada Food and Drugs Act, revised statutes of Canada,

chapter F-27, which as amended provides for the regulation of prepackaged water and ice under part B, Foods, division 13. Basically, the federal regulations require that mineral water or spring water be from an underground source but not a public community water supply and be potable, free of coliform bacteria and not chemically altered. Labelling requirements are included, relating to source location, total mineral content, fluoride content and any added fluoride or ozone.

Definitions are also provided for distilled, demineralized and carbonated waters.

Local health units are charged federally with the responsibility for inspecting food processing plants. Therefore, the health inspectors will inspect water bottling plants and spot-check the products in retail outlets. These checks are primarily for bacterial levels. Federal inspectors may also do spot checks.

At the provincial level, as I have pointed out, there are currently no laws relating to the quality of bottled water. Ontario drinking water objectives apply only to public water supplies which provide water for domestic purposes and serve more than five private residences. The only Ontario control which applies to new sources of water for bottling relates to the need for a permit to take water if more than 50,000 litres per day are to be withdrawn.

No water quality information is required for a permit to take water. As well, the Ministry of the Environment could not prohibit the taking of water based on water quality factors. In any event, such a permit is not required if less than 50,000 litres is to be taken daily.

Therefore, at present, bottled water quality is regulated only by federal requirements, much like any other food. These regulations are not enough.

The federal regulations do not, for instance, require that springs be free of dangerous substances beyond coliform bacteria. Nor do they require that the springs be removed from sources of pollution or that they be protected from any risk of accidental contamination. They do not provide for sufficient inspections of the product and production facilities and, finally, they do not go far enough in defining the various classifications of bottled water. In Quebec, for instance, there are regulated designations of mineral water, spring water, treated water and demineralized water.

In drafting a bill to correct the omission in the current Ontario Water Resources Act, the legislation that exists in the province of Quebec, as well as in the United States jurisdictions, specifically at the federal level and in California and New York, have been studied.

The bill before us would add bottled water to the drinking water supply to which the act applies. It would also expand the regulatory authority under the act to include: (

a) prescribing standards for water that is sold in sealed containers or packages; and (

b) governing the manufacture, repair, service and sale of water dispensers other than water dispensers that are connected to a municipal water supply.

It is important that these standards be prescribed by regulation rather than by statute because of the speed and flexibility required to develop, implement and adjust the standards.

The Ontario Bottled Water Association has already developed a model bottled water code and would be happy to work with ministry officials to ensure that thorough regulation of bottled water becomes a reality.

In closing, I want to emphasize the urgency of immediate action to ensure that the bottled water consumed by the people of Ontario meets appropriate standards for purity and quality. Bill 61, the Ontario Water Resources Amendment Act, provides the means to this end.

Mr Adams: I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate, particularly because one of my colleagues on this side of the House is the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) and, as all members of the House know, she has unparalleled experience in the waters of Ontario.

The proposed bill of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) certainly has some merit. Increasing numbers of Ontarians are buying and consuming various brands of bottled waters for a variety of reasons. They may believe they are buying a pure source of water or they may simply prefer the taste of carbonated water over tap water. Frequently, bottled water is consumed in restaurants as a noncalorie, nonalcoholic drink. Certainly, as the member says, the public is entitled to feel confident that the quality of bottled water is at least comparable to that of tap water.

Bottled water, as the member for Mississauga South said, is regulated in Canada by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare which is responsible for its examination, analysis and control. The federal food directorate of the health protection branch checks bottled waters for compliance with federal regulations. They define spring water as potable water from underground sources or springs, not municipal waters, containing less than 1,000 milligrams per litre total dissolved mineral salts. Mineral waters contain in excess of 1,000 milligrams per litre total dissolved mineral salts.

According to federal criteria, these waters may be produced domestically or imported and may be ozonated prior to bottling. Aside from carbonation and fluoride up to one part per million, the waters may contain no chemical additives. The source of the waters must be bacteriologically pure and the bottled water must not contain any coliform organisms, that is to say, as determined by standard methods of analysis. The water should have a total bacterial count not exceeding 100 organisms per millilitre.

Testing for compliance with these regulations is carried out on a spot-check basis by the federal food directorate, either from samples obtained at the retail level or from the bottling plant. However, analysis is not carried out for some important heavy metals, organic substances such as pesticides, radioactive substances or specific bacteria other than the coliforms that I mentioned.

It is clear that the federal regulations do not control the quality of bottled water as comprehensively as the provincial drinking water objectives control our municipal water supplies. Ontario has health-related and aesthetic drinking water objectives for no fewer than 49 parameters. The Ministry of the Environment also uses guidelines set by other agencies, including the World Health Organization and the US Environmental Protection Agency, to assess the quality of this province’s drinking water.

The Ontario drinking water surveillance program is a monitoring program providing immediate, reliable, current information on drinking water quality. When I use the word “current,” there is no pun intended. Raw, treated and distributed water is currently being monitored at 55 water supply systems. Analysis for up to 180 parameters is carried out monthly at each water system, including microbiological, organic and inorganic substances as well as process parameters.

In 1987, for example, when 43 water systems were being tested, more than 18,300 tests for metals such as lead, copper, iron and zinc were carried out on treated and distributed water. Over 32,600 analyses for pesticides were completed at the same time, as well as approximately 24,000 tests for volatile substances. Tests of this sort are not carried out by the federal government on bottled water.

At each water supply system, water samples are obtained for both raw and treated water and generally at two sites in the distribution system. At all distribution system locations, two types of samples are obtained: a standing-water sample and a free-flow sample.

The standing sample consists of water that has been in the household plumbing and service connections for a minimum of six hours. These samples are used to make an assessment of the amount by which the levels of inorganic compounds and metals may be changed by standing in the plumbing system.

The drinking water surveillance program was initiated in 1986 at 22 locations and expanded to 43 in 1989. It is presently under way in 55 locations and will eventually include all municipal drinking water supplies in this province. Currently, nearly 75 per cent of the 7.2 million people in Ontario who receive water from piped municipal systems are covered under the drinking water surveillance program.

Results from the program have been used in the preparation of a report published by the Canadian Public Health Association entitled A Comprehensive Survey of the Status of Great Lakes Drinking Water. Data have also been supplied to epidemiologists from other government agencies and universities carrying out research into the effects of drinking water on human health. They are also supplied to consultants, the public and, of course. municipalities. I understand the most up-to-date annual reports are now being finalized and will be published later this fall.

Most of the municipal drinking water in Ontario is treated through coagulation filtration, and chlorine is used as the disinfectant of choice. The Ministry of the Environment is also investigating some innovative treatment techniques. For example, a Niagara Falls pilot plant study is addressing specific contaminant removals through the use of granular activated carbon. As well, a water plant optimization study was implemented in 1986 to ensure that the water treatment plants throughout the province are applying treatment technologies which provide maximum protection for householders.

This study is currently in place in 41 locations. The study will result in a manual for individual utilities on operation and design criteria, as well as practical recommendations for individual plants.

The Ministry of the Environment has also carried out and funded a number of research projects to investigate water disinfection processes, including a study of ozonation as an alternative to chlorination for drinking water. The Ministry of the Environment research staff continues to keep abreast of European and United States work currently under way to ensure that duplication of effort is minimized and that state-of-the-art technology is being applied here in Ontario.

While an intensive monitoring program such as the drinking water surveillance program may not be necessary for the regulation of bottled water products, it would certainly be prudent for the federal government, and specifically for Health and Welfare Canada, to step up its surveillance program to encompass more parameters than are currently tested. The province would certainly urge the federal government to carry out its mandate and improve its regulation of this most basic food product.

I would say that I personally am in favour of this motion, but I would not like to see our resources channelled away from quality municipal water to quality bottled water.

Mrs Grier: Let me start by saying that I am a little surprised by the concluding remarks of the member for Peterborough. He says that he supports this bill but does not want to see our efforts channelled away from maintaining our better water supplies. Let me point out to the member that we would not need a bill like this and we would not have a large and growing industry in bottled water if the people of the province had confidence in this government’s attempts to provide safe drinking water for everybody in the province, not just for those who can afford to buy bottled water.

This is the kind of legislation that we wish we did not have to have but that we, on this side, support in the absence of any legislated standards for drinking water, regardless of its source for all the people of this province.

I have tabled on a number of occasions a safe drinking water act as a private member’s bill from our party, which indicates we would like to be able to guarantee people in this province that they have a right to safe drinking water, that there are legislated standards, that they have redress if, in fact, their drinking water proves to he contaminated and that they know whom they can hold responsible if they find their drinking water is contaminated, is unhealthy or is causing problems that have not yet been identified. We do not have such standards.

If this bill passes and if it has the support of the other side and becomes law, then we will have standards for bottled water and we will not have legislated standards for municipal water supplies or for well water. I find that a little ironic. When we raise this question, as we have done as recently as discussion of estimates with the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), he has two responses.

One is that he would much rather clean up the sources of our drinking water, get at the sources of the problem and clean up the supply than legislate standards; second, that under the increased surveillance and the testing that has been described by the member for Peterborough, it is not as necessary to have drinking water standards as he thought it was when he was in opposition, at which time, of course, he supported a safe drinking water act for the province of Ontario.

Let’s look at the minister’s efforts to clean up the sources of contamination of our drinking water. The minister always mentions the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. MISA was announced in 1986 as the answer to all of our water quality problems, an answer that was to be in place and completed by 1989. We are now near the end of 1989 and, lo and behold, we do not have yet, under MISA, one single regulation requiring compliance with the MISA standards, and we will not have a completed MISA program until, at the best guess, 1992.

This government seems to be content to await efforts to get at the sources of contamination of drinking water for ever rather than to give that the sense of priority that we feel it ought to have.

The second thrust of the government’s policies, of course, is the increased surveillance and testing. But I think it is useful to note what the Provincial Auditor said just last year when he examined the drinking water surveillance program that the member for Peterborough has just enunciated. What the auditor said was: “The ministry’s monitoring and control procedures to ensure water is treated in accordance with ministry requirements were weak. There was incomplete information on the quality of drinking water. Most water treatment plants were not regularly inspected by environmental officers to ensure compliance with legislation and ministry requirements.”

He went on to say: “When asked about the lack of inspectors in certain Ministry of the Environment regions, regional staff responded that if there had been a serious problem, they would have taken appropriate action. Yet, this could occur only after they were informed of the problem via the Ministry of the Environment laboratory.” The auditor said: “It is imprudent to restrict inspections to situations where problems have already been identified, since the purpose of regular inspections is primarily preventive and protective.”

I could not agree more and I think that indicates a real lack of confidence in the drinking water surveillance program that this government has put in place. It is obvious that the public shares that lack of confidence, because the public, as the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) has pointed out, is voting with its dollars to buy bottled drinking water.

This will have the effect of creating two classes of people, those who can afford to buy bottled water and perhaps assure themselves that their drinking water is safe, and those of us who drink it from the tap and always have in the back of our minds the cumulative effects of the minute quantities of toxics that we know are in that drinking water. With 200 different toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes, we know that there are bound to be elements of those toxics in our drinking water.

If we do not take our drinking water from the Great Lakes, if we take if from wells or other sources across the province, can we be any more assured that our drinking water is of a high standard? I think the answer to that is also no.

Just last year the Minister of the Environment released a report looking at the effects of pesticides on drinking water supplies. The minister admitted that weed and bug-killing compounds were found in rural areas in southern Ontario from Lindsay to near Windsor in half of 42 wells and 13 of 18 municipal, treated water supplies tested. Many of them were cancer-linked substances such as alachlor, although they were below levels considered unacceptable by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare.

The minister stated when he released that report, “This study shows that the decades-old trend of increasing use of pesticides is threatening our drinking water.” If we are acknowledging that our drinking water supplies are threatened, whether they be from the Great Lakes or from other sources, surely the kind of standards that are contemplated in the legislation before us today are required not only for bottled water but also for public water supplies.

There seems to be an indication in the comments of the member for Peterborough that somehow this is a federal responsibility. That is arrant nonsense and one of the greatest of the copouts that we have seen from this government over issues of the environment. Surely the provision of drinking water is very clearly within the purview of the provincial government and the responsibility of setting standards for that is a responsibility the provincial government ought to assume.

It is now six years since Pollution Probe issued a report called Drinking Water: Make it Safe, a report that looked primarily at drinking water supplies in the city of Toronto and that caused a great deal of concern because of its findings about the variety of toxic chemicals that were in treated water, the effects of the chlorination of drinking water and the creation of new hazardous compounds. Nothing much has happened since that report came out other than increased monitoring, increased surveillance and greater knowledge about the number of chemicals that are found in our drinking water.

There has been no leadership from the provincial Ministry of the Environment in setting the standards that I have already said are called for or in taking the lead in looking at bottled water. As the member for Mississauga South has made clear, more and more people are turning to bottled water, yet there seems to be no willingness on the part of this government to show leadership in assuring those people that their bottled water is any safer than the water from public supplies.

Once again, the environmental protection office at the city of Toronto is showing the way to this government, because a very extensive study is currently being carried out by that department, looking at 66 brands of bottled water. That is the number of brands that are available on the market in Metropolitan Toronto. They are looking for almost 150 different compounds and they are examining the point of use. They are going into a number of homes and looking at the effect of the devices that are put on the end of the tap and seeing how effective they are in protecting our drinking water.

That study is going to be released early in 1990. I hope this ministry will examine its results carefully and will take action, not only to protect all of our drinking water supplies from public sources, but also to follow through on the initiative of the member for Mississauga South to protect those people who have chosen to buy bottled water so that they too can be assured that their drinking water is safe.

I support this bill very warmly and hope it receives support from all sides of the House.

Mr Jackson: I am very pleased to be given an opportunity to rise and debate on a private member’s bill, Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act, which has been brought forward by our distinguished colleague the member for Mississauga South, who really has established her awareness and her sensitivity for environmental concerns, not only prior to her arrival here in the Legislature, with her commitment to educational programs and the work in her own community of Mississauga, but also here as the Environment critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. It is no surprise then that this has become a very important issue, and it is her first private bill of this newest session.

I believe this piece of legislation, which would ensure that the same standards of water quality testing that are applied to municipal water sources should also be applied to bottled water sources, is long overdue in our province, so I commend the member for bringing it forward.

Members in this House will certainly recognize that in the last 20 years or so we have witnessed the rise of two factors, a rise in consumer awareness and a rise in the environmental protection movement. These two movements have certainly not developed independently of one another, but each has influenced the other in deepening our understanding of how we are affected by the results of our chemical tampering with the natural environment.

What we see happening today is what we might call a popular consumer distrust of what is chemical or what has been brought under the influence of chemical contaminants of any kind. Modern consumers today have clearly demonstrated their concern for the potential dangers to human health which often lurk, frequently undetected, in various products which they use in their everyday lives by their consumer choices for various products which they consume. People no longer accept purely on faith the assurance of companies that what they are selling is healthy and obviously poses no long-term health risks or the threatening of their own personal wellbeing or that of their children.

I can say from a personal perspective that as a legislator and as an awaiting parent that both Elaine and I were concerned. Our unborn daughter at the time, Amy, was very fortunate to have a mother who was very committed to ensuring that Amy’s life chances were enhanced as much as possible. She was not smoking, she was not drinking, she watched her diet, and yet when we came to the consumption of water, we realized we had limited confidence in the municipal water source, and I think we had every right to feel that way.

None the less, that was our decision as citizens of this province, that we had limited confidence in our water supply, so we sought out bottled water as an alternative leading up to, during and subsequent to the pregnancy.

We realized very clearly that all we had were assurances from companies, different coding. There was a whole series of problems associated with our consumer choices which we felt that we should be empowered to be able to make intelligently. So again, from a personal point of view, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for her initiative.

This is an initiative which consumers and consumer groups have taken all across this province. It is laudable and it is very supportable. In a society where lifestyles are often in a state of flux, the natural or often holistic approach to what we do in life has emerged with greater interest and greater strength.

The popularity which holistic approaches such as naturopathy enjoy today is just one additional indication among others of the strength and maturity of consumer decision-making and consumer awareness, back along sort of the back-to-nature movement or, as I say, a more natural approach to consumption.

The consumer awareness movement has also affected the readiness with which we perform the normal, nonreflexive task of turning on our kitchen tap water and pouring ourselves a glass of what we presume to be clear and clean water. Today, we are all aware of the immense natural and human catastrophe of water pollution. We see films and read books of the deteriorating quality of our water in our Great Lakes. We see signs, petitions, protests because of the pollution of our Great Lakes. We view pictures of the effects of chemical contamination on birds and wildlife and the fish that we ultimately consume.

The public perception is clear and the public is alarmed and the public does react, even if only by making consumer choices. Quite frankly, consumers have been turning more and more to bottled water as an option over tap water.

Again, municipal water quality standards may or may not serve as an adequate assurance for the safety of tap water for human consumption. Or it could be that tap water does not taste good. Finally, it could even be that people buy bottled water because everyone else seems to be doing it. But the fact is, it is being done.

However, an organization such as Pollution Probe, which has done some extensive research on this subject, has also indicated that another problem is developing, which also applies to the other food products as well. That problem has to do with the introduction of chemicals into water so as to purify it or to improve its taste, while at the same time creating new and untested chemical compounds which may prove potentially harmful, if not more so, than those contained in the other, standard sources of water that we drink in this province.

This problem arises more specifically when the question of private water purification companies, rather than bottled water companies, is considered, but it can be said to also indicate clearly the need for regulations which would at least ensure that bottled water in this province meets with the same minimum standards which are applied to municipal water sources.

In this way, there will be a uniform standard for most of the water available for public consumption, and perhaps more important, it will mean that should the standard be changed or upgraded in response to scientific data or water quality and testing procedures some time in the future, it would immediately apply to our drinking water supplies completely across the board, including bottled water.

I believe that this legislation and the problem which it addresses raises one further point. That point has to do with an apparent change in how we have come to understand the availability of pure drinking water for all from the standard sources as opposed to specifically bottled water. Clearly the popular shift from using municipal water to bottled water and water purifiers is one which should send a message to local and provincial governments about consumers’ confidence in existing water testing and water purification procedures.

Consumers always have a choice, and will continue to choose bottled and purified water for any number of reasons, but is it not time for governments to start testing their own water quality standards and municipal water purification methods against the recommendations of scientifically based conclusions having to do with the enhanced provision of safer drinking water for all? I believe that such a time has come and that such a project is reasonable, given the state of our engineering technology today and the public will to support it.

Consumer choices of water from varying sources should be protected, but the ensuring of sate drinking water from all sources, including municipal ones, according to updated standards and water purification methods should be a guaranteed right of all citizens in this province.

I close my remarks today by commending my colleague the member for Mississauga South for undertaking her current initiative. It is an important first step in the long journey which lies ahead in the area of consumer and environmental awareness and protection for the citizens of Ontario.

Miss Nicholas: I am standing today to also support the adoption of tougher regulations governing the quality of bottled water. I would like to support my colleague the member for Peterborough in his suggestion that the regulation take place at the federal level, since we are discussing a food product which is distributed and bought by Canadians right across the country. Canadians have the right to expect that foods and beverages available in Canadian stores have been judged to be safe for consumption by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, and this should hold doubly true for bottled water.

The drinking water provided by Ontario municipalities is certainly subject to a very thorough monitoring and testing process through the drinking water surveillance program. What is just as important is that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is committed to protecting and improving the quality of the province’s surface and ground water, the sources of our drinking water, Initiatives such as the MISA program, the 17 remedial action plans across the province, the beaches cleanup program and the revision of the model sewer use control bylaw will all serve to ensure a continued high quality of drinking water for people across this province.

The MISA program will lead to new regulations and standards aimed at controlling and reducing pollution, including toxics from municipal and industrial effluents discharging into the environment. MISA establishes a new approach to water pollution in Ontario. Indeed, it is the first systematic water pollution reduction program in the province’s history. MISA adds a regulatory component to enforce effluent standards based on the best available technology economically achievable.

There will be two regulations: a comprehensive effluent monitoring regulation and an abatement regulation. All nine industrial monitoring regulations have been developed. MISA will cover all industries, those discharging directly into the environment and those discharging indirectly to the environment via municipal sewers. Compliance with the abatement limits will clearly be defined. Violations of limits will trigger immediate remedial action and possible prosecution. These limits will be periodically reviewed and lowered to take advantage of technological advances to reduce the toxic discharges even further. Under MISA, we are headed to the virtual elimination of water pollution in Ontario.

A similar process is being followed to impose monitoring and abatement on the thousands of other industries whose discharges are indirect by way of municipal sewer systems. MISA is expected to result in dramatic reductions in the amount of pollution entering our waterways. In the long run, the continuing pressure of MISA and the improvement of pollution control technology will ratchet down the flow of toxic substances from our industries even closer to the zero discharge level. That is good news for commercial fisheries, workers, tourist operators and anyone drawing drinking water downstream.

As a result of the International Joint Commission’s 1985 report on the Great Lakes water quality, Ontario, in co-operation with the federal government, agreed to develop remedial action plans to restore water quality in the 17 Canadian areas of concern. The remedial action plan process incorporates extensive public involvement in all phases of its development, defining water use impairment and water use goals and objectives, evaluating options and preparing the draft plan and, finally, monitoring the implementation of the plan.

The Ministry of the Environment has taken the lead role in the development of remedial action plans and has provided enhanced funding for remedial action plan development. For example, for the 1989-90 fiscal year, the budget is approximately $2.4 million, of which $750,000 is dedicated to public involvement. As a matter of interest, the federal Ministry of the Environment committed only $600,000 to the program for 1989-90.

Ontario is also working jointly with the state of Michigan to develop binational remedial action plans for the St Marys, St Clair and Detroit rivers. From my personal experience of having to live beside one and swim in the other, I am grateful for the programs that are being initiated in this way.

It is clear from these initiatives -- and there are others which I cannot describe in detail at this time -- that protecting, restoring water quality in Ontario is one of my major priorities and also one of this governments. I welcome Bill 61 and concern about bottled water. I know that I had the opportunity with Peter Gzowski once to do a water testing and tasting of quality of bottled water. I had the opportunity to savour all of them. As some of us have the ability perhaps to sample fine wines, I had a chance to sample all our fine bottled waters and chose the selection of mine, which I will leave a mystery today, my favourite bottled water, and it was not even sparkling.

I think that we should assure ourselves that it is safe. I think the member for Mississauga South should be commended for putting forward Bill 61. I can only hope that the idea was not one that she struggled with as she walked through the halls of the Legislature and saw in every corner that we do have bottled water in the Legislature, and perhaps it is not the quality that she would hope or would want to enjoy throughout the province.

So I support the bill. I hope that we would consider it at the federal level rather than just the provincial level. I have enjoyed speaking on Bill 61 this morning.

Mr Charlton: I rise to support Bill 61 as well. I was glad to hear at the very end there the member for Scarborough Centre indicate she will support the bill.

It bothers me somewhat to hear all of this discussion about federal standards. There is certainly nothing wrong with pursuing federal standards so that all Canadians have the right to the same quality in any product that they consume in this society of ours, but Ontario has the ability, has an opportunity to act in the absence of federal action around the question of bottled water. In the absence of federal action, which we can spend a year or perhaps 20 years trying to lobby the federal government to proceed with, we have an opportunity to provide protection for Ontarians through standards that would be developed as a result of Bill 61.

I would like to, for a few moments, because I do not have very much time, just deal with the question of standards which are set out in this bill and how they relate to drinking water in general, not just bottled water. As my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has mentioned, we have on several occasions introduced private members’ bills for a safe drinking water act in this province. I first introduced that piece of legislation in 1982.

We have no drinking water standards in the province in Ontario. It is time the government members started to understand that. We have what are referred to as water quality objectives. and they are precisely that -- objectives. We have not yet obtained those objectives.

There is no enforceable standard and, second, even if we had an enforceable standard, the citizens of this province have no clear right or ability to enforce that standard. So in addition to the question of standards -- and we support the standards that are set out in this bill -- we need a right on the part of the citizens of Ontario to ensure that they have access to those standards once it is passed.

I hate to be the cynical one in this debate, but we have seen government in this province, we have seen government in other provinces and we have seen government nationally set regulations and standards in a variety of areas and then allow exemptions and exclusions from those standards and regulations. The present government may very well be committed to cleaning up the problems in our water sources in Ontario.

That has nothing to do with the pressures that may be brought to bear on future governments to allow things to happen that are not presently happening or that are eliminated over the course of the next few years. That is why we need standards and that is why we need the right on the part of Ontario citizens to ensure, when their government does fail them, that they have the right to enforce those standards.

Bill 61 deals specifically with bottled water. I support the bill and the standards it proposes because perhaps it will be the first step to having overall clean drinking water standards in Ontario. One of the realities we have to face is that although some people drink bottled water for aesthetic reasons, because of taste questions, the burgeoning in the bottled water industry is as a result of people’s lack of confidence in our municipal drinking water supplies. That lack of confidence is not misplaced.

We have done a bad job of protecting the environment in Ontario. We have seen all kinds of chemicals introduced into that environment and into our water supplies and there are serious questions about our ability to remove all those chemicals. On the other hand, there is not an ability in Ontario, or worldwide, to provide all the residents of this province with bottled water, even once we have put in place legislation to ensure its safety. So we have to do both jobs and perhaps this can be the start of a move down that road.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South wishes to wind up or wind down the debate.

Mrs Marland: I want to express at the summation now, my appreciation for the support of this bill this morning, which I am sure in a few moments is going to he demonstrated by a unanimous vote of this House. I do appreciate the fact that the government members and the official opposition members who have spoken support Bill 61. I think it is very significant that we are jointly sharing in the responsibility of the protection of the public, which is simply what Bill 61 is about.

One area that I did not address in the bill, but which I think would be worthwhile addressing through regulations to this bill -- I must give credit, actually, for this comment to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert). His comment to me, which is something I have thought of in the past but did not think of earlier is week or today in my earlier comments to the House, is that through regulation I hope the government will see a way of mandating and requiring the bottlers of water to have some kind of recyclable bottle.

The fact of the matter is that today bottled water comes in any number of sizes, shapes and types of plastic, and that is a concern, I think, that all of us in this House share. I know that we support recycling: we certainly do not support increasing the volumes of plastic and shapes and sizes of plastic bottles that have to be disposed of through the public waste stream. So I hope that will be something that the minister will look at when they draft the regulations for the bill. And then we will combine everything.

We will combine the protection of the members of the public who choose to buy bottled water, and I emphasize again that my family and I are drinking the public tap water and I am very confident in the public tap water, which receives over 1,300 tests annually. I feel that if people have a choice to do everything else in life, then it is up to them to choose whether they buy bottled water. We just want to be sure that if they do make that choice, they are protected, and that is at this bill will do.

So I will look forward to the vote on this hill and at that time I will ask for the bill to be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Speaker: It appears that completes the debate on both private members’ ballot items. so we will deal first with ballot item 23, private member’s notice of motion 21, Mr Hampton’s resolution.

NATIVE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

The Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved resolution 21.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The Speaker: We will now deal with Mrs Marland’s motion for second reading of Bill 61. I would advise the House that I have not received a petition signed by one third of the members objecting to a vote on this item. However, I still will ask whether there are any members opposed to a vote on this motion.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Marland: May I request that this bill be referred to the resources development committee?

The Speaker: The request has been made. I will have to --

Mrs E. J. Smith: I believe that it has been requested that it could be effectively dealt with in committee of the whole House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I believe our standing orders state that a private member’s bill will go to committee of the whole House unless a majority of the House wishes it to go to some other committee. The request has been made and I understand there is an objection to it. Therefore, will have to put the question to the members in the House. I hope you will recall we have done this on one or two previous occasions.

Ayes 14; nays 29.

The Speaker: The request has been denied and it will go to committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We would be happy to give unanimous consent to go into committee of the whole immediately.

The Speaker: That is very nice. However, I must remind the member the clock is not moving as swiftly as it should. It is now after 12 o’clock so I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1202.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRIVATE BOARDING AND LODGING HOMES

Mr Reville: This week, two people were sentenced to terms in jail for their role in abusing vulnerable people. One was sentenced to jail for five and a half years and the other was sentenced for four months. These two people had systematically abused, both physically and emotionally, very vulnerable people who had been discharged from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and sent to be looked after in a private boarding and lodging home. I assume that the sentences were appropriate.

The culprit that has been left out of my story so far, of course, is the Ministry of Health, which discharged the people to the care of these boarding and lodging homes. The 23 people involved in the Cedar Glen matter are only 23 of literally tens of thousands of people who are developmentally handicapped, psychiatrically disabled or simply frail and elderly, who exist in circumstances similar to this throughout the province. I think it is long past time when a full investigation of the private boarding and lodging home industry is done by this government.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Harris: Last Wednesday, on one day alone, there were six accidents at the intersection of the two major cross-Canada highways, Highway 11 and Highway 17, at North Bay. Why? Because after years and years of lobbying, despite many accidents and despite letters and petitions to this Liberal administration, this government refuses to build a flyover interchange at the intersection of the two major cross-Canada highways crossing through my community.

What I would like to know is how this government can find $143 million to subsidize and give to the large insurance companies but we cannot find less than one per cent of that amount to build an overpass to avoid six accidents in one day, to avoid accident after accident over the last number of years since the four lanes on Highway 11 opened?

At a time when we -- residents of North Bay, the chamber of commerce, the city council -- are told, “The traffic count doesn’t justify it; that is how these things are determined,” the traffic count is 61 per cent higher than at the flyover that is being built currently in Huntsville at the interchange of Highway 60 and Highway 11. We demand action now.

CANADIAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION

Mr Velshi: I would like to take this opportunity to inform this House, on behalf of the Canadian Diabetes Association, that November is designated for its annual fund-raising appeal.

Diabetes is Canada’s third largest cause of death, with the incidence increasing each year. Over one million Canadians have diabetes. In Toronto alone, over 100,000 individuals are afflicted. It affects five per cent of our workforce and is estimated to cost the Canadian economy over $2.5 billion each year.

The Canadian Diabetes Association is a national, independent, self-financing organization. Its purpose is to improve the quality of life for all those affected by diabetes by being the leading force in research, service advocacy and education.

Remember, insulin is not a cure. Please help the Canadian Diabetes Association find one.

I would like to recognize three representatives of the Canadian Diabetes Association who are here in the House today. They are Ruth Schwartz, a fund-raising co-ordinator, Mabel Hurgott and Eva Goodger, who are volunteers.

HEALTH STUDY

Mr Wildman: In 1984 the Department of National Health and Welfare instituted a study of mining communities in Ontario and Quebec to determine how the incidence of cancers and other diseases compared in those mining communities to the national average. That study was published in 1986.

The study indicated that in Elliot Lake there was a significant increase in obstructive lung disease and ovarian cancer among women. However, the author of the study, Dr Yang Mao of the federal department, indicated the sample in Elliot Lake was not large enough to get definitive findings and he suggested a follow-up study. For some reason, the Department of National Health and Welfare has failed to act on the recommendation of Dr Yang Mao.

In response to that. I suggested that the provincial Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), in her capacity as the minister responsible for protecting the health of Ontario residents, do a follow-up study in Elliot Lake, an epidemiological study, to find out if Dr Mao’s findings were correct and if they were, what should be done to try to lower the incidence of cancer in Elliot Lake.

For some reason, the Minister of Health does not take this seriously and is not following up on the study, so the uncertainty in Elliot Lake continues.

HERITAGE DAY

Mr McLean: Mr Speaker, my statement today concerns my private member’s bill, Bill 7,

An Act respecting Heritage Day, which received second reading on 25 May 1989. You will no doubt recall that Bill 7 would name the third Monday in the month of February as Heritage Day. I believe it is important that my private member’s bill receives third reading and royal assent because Ontario’s heritage is about our past, our future and our present. That means it is about the kind of province and the quality of life we will all have in the future.

Ontario is a growing community of people from many generations, many countries and many cultures. This is a community of people we should appreciate and celebrate on the third day of February each year. It is a legacy we must focus our attention on and a legacy that deserves improving and enhancing for our future. By proclaiming Heritage Day in Ontario we would increase awareness of the scope and value of our heritage and cultural resources, and encourage all participants to preserve, promote, protect and develop their diverse heritage and cultures.

I look forward to receiving the support of all members of this Legislature to ensure that Bill 7 receives speedy passage so we can all celebrate Heritage Day in February 1990, which coincidentally marks the fifth anniversary of Heritage Week celebration in Ontario.

INTERLINK

Mr Adams: Sadly, links between the generations are not so strong as they were. For various reasons, young and old do not mix as they once did. Interlink is an intergenerational program that brings together old adults and young children through the celebration of words and music.

I attended an lnterlink event in Peterborough. A choir composed of seniors and elementary school students entertained with songs and recitations. It was clear that rehearsals for this fine evening had developed a close rapport between the older and younger members of the choir. Their enthusiastic performance, obvious friendship and mutual respect extended that rapport to the audience. Both Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary schools have been involved.

Through Interlink, the young benefit from the experience and patience of the old; seniors benefit from the energy and enthusiasm of youth. Interlink was founded by Thelma Edelstone. It was brought to Peterborough by the county board of education, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the city recreation division, Fleming College and the Kinsmen. I commend this program to all members as a fine way of enriching of their communities.

I close with a verse from Bill Beaith, a senior member of Inlerlink:

Young and older as you pass by:

As you are now, so once was I.

As I am now, so may you be.

Prepare, young people, to follow me.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Wildman: This government, quite rightly, has made a great to-do over the inadequacy of the federal government’s approach to transportation and the demands or suggestions that have been made by the federal government to cut back on the rail passenger service in this country.

Ironically, at the same time that the provincial Liberal government is criticizing the federal Tory government, the provincial Liberal government is proposing to cut back on the passenger service in the Ontario Northland Railway. Talk about hypocrisy. On the one hand, it is opposed to destroying the federal passenger service that serves the whole country, while at the same time it is cutting hack on the number of trains that serve the northeast and are under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

Let’s get it right. If it is opposed to them at the federal level, improve the passenger service in Ontario and in northern Ontario and expand the service of Ontario Northland. If the federal government cannot he persuaded to meet its responsibility, take up the slack.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Jackson: I wish to bring the House’s attention to an

article which appeared in this morning’s Toronto Star entitled “Male Students Mock Anti-Rape Campaign.” I want to share with the House the fact that there have been obscene and violent messages displayed in the men’s residence at Queen’s University in response to the annual “No Means No” campaign against rape, sexual assault and the growing incidence of date rape that is occurring all too frequently at Ontario high schools and campuses.

This government must take this more seriously-- which it did not do yesterday with its announcement of increased publicity only for this crime. This government must realize -- I hope the Attorney General (Mr Scott) does -- that we have no victims’ rights legislation in this province, whereby victims of sexual assault have the right to he interviewed by police of the same gender and the right to he interviewed and to be examined by competent medical staff sensitive to the physical and psychological affects of the violent crime. We must understand that our court system impedes the pursuit of justice for victims of sexual assault because of what the courts’ attitudes have been traditionally.

We should remind the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) that he was asked specifically to include a 14th goal of education in this province that would develop an awareness of those stereotypes and assumptions that contribute to the unequal position of women in contemporary society. Unless he gives meaning to this, women in this province will continue to be vulnerable because of male attitudes as offensive as were displayed in Kingston yesterday.

SUTTON WEST DISTRICT LIONS CLUB

Mr Ballinger: My wife, Donna, and I recently had the pleasure of attending the Sutton West District Lions Club charter meeting in the town of Georgina, one of the five member municipalities in my riding of Durham-York. Lions Club members from communities across southern Ontario were in attendance to help celebrate this very special occasion.

What was so special about this particular charter evening was that this was the newest Lions Club to accept both male and female members into its club. In total, 26 men and women from Sutton accepted the oath of membership from past district governor Ernie Stefaniuk.

International director Gil Constantini praised the Sutton West District Lions Club for having accepted the challenge of Lionism and for including women members into the Lions organization. He also predicted that women would become more and more an integral part of Lions.

Lions, he said, have the ability to effect change around this world, which in turn benefits all mankind. Mr Constantini also pointed out that Lions Clubs are growing in numbers behind the Iron Curtain, in countries such as Poland, Hungary and Estonia.

In accepting the charter from international past district governor Tom Barker, charter club president Wayne Woods thanked the Mount Albert Lions Club for sponsoring the Sutton West club and indicated how extremely proud the new club was to he a member of the Lions international family.

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, there has been an agreement by all three parties that each would make statements with regard to the constitutional accord.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD / ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL DE 1987

Hon Mr Scott: Last week a legislative committee in New Brunswick and a task force in Manitoba issued reports and proposed recommendations to their governments respecting ratification of the 1987 constitutional accord or, as it is commonly called, the Meech Lake accord.

At about the same time, the Premier of Newfoundland circulated a letter addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada containing his observations on a number of substantive issues with regard to the accord. It is my understanding that these observations of Premier Wells will in due course lead to a set of proposals from Newfoundland for modifications to Meech Lake.

With the publication of the New Brunswick and Manitoba reports, the two provinces that have not yet passed the Meech Lake resolution have now set out their reactions to the accord. With the end of this phase, it is appropriate for Ontario to respond to these reports.

I will be pleased to table today an assessment prepared by my ministry of the Manitoba and New Brunswick reports. On the basis of this assessment, I propose to comment briefly on the reports and on their implications for the future of constitutional evolution in Canada, bearing in mind that these are reports Manitoba and New Brunswick made to the premiers of their respective provinces and may not reflect the final position adopted by those premiers and those governments.

The views expressed by Premier Wells in his letter also deserve careful consideration and a detailed response. but it would be unjust to address Newfoundland’s position prior to the release by its Premier of its formal proposals.

The Meech Lake accord is itself a phase in the ongoing process of constitutional renewal in Canada. Its immediate source is the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. That historic event was achieved without the concurrence of Quebec and over its profound objections.

As a result, despite the promise made in Ottawa and in numerous provincial capitals of a renewed federalism, which featured prominently in the Quebec referendum of 1980, patriation and the entrenchment of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms were both accomplished without the formal agreement of a province that represents more than a quarter of the population of our country.

Faced with this reality, it was widely recognized that any further constitutional progress depended on a constitutional reconciliation with Quebec and on its return to full and willing participation in the Canadian constitutional family.

To undertake that process in the spring of 1986, the government of Quebec circulated widely five proposals for securing Quebec’s willing assent to the Constitution. These five points were: (1) recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; (2) a greater provincial role in immigration; (3) a provincial role in appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada; (4) limitations on the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction; and (5) a veto for Quebec on constitutional amendments.

These five proposals, when they were made, were greeted positively throughout Canada as a most reasonable basis for renewing Canadian federalism.

In August 1986, the premiers of all the provinces and the Prime Minister, meeting in Edmonton, agreed to limit the next round of constitutional negotiation to Quebec’s proposals and to defer other constitutional issues to subsequent rounds.

This so-called Quebec round of constitutional negotiations culminated, almost a year later, in meetings first at Meech Lake and then at the Langevin Block. The result, unanimously agreed to by the first ministers of Canada and its 10 provinces, was the Meech Lake accord.

I have dwelt at some length on the events leading up to the Meech Lake accord because it is only by keeping this background in mind that one can understand and assess the agreement that was reached.

The Meech Lake accord was the result of a recognition that securing Quebec’s active and willing participation in the constitutional process was a necessary prerequisite or precondition for any further constitutional development in the country.

It was based on a general agreement as to the basic reasonableness and acceptability of Quebec’s five proposals for achieving that participation, and the accord was made possible by a decision to limit the subject matter of that round of negotiations in so far as possible to these proposals and matters arising from them.

It follows that assessment of the unanimous accord produced by the Quebec round must take place in the context of the history and the process that produced it.

The first point to note in this regard is that the agreement was reached and a series of constitutional adjustments responsive to Quebec’s five proposals were arrived at. The Meech Lake accord does not settle once and for all the outstanding constitutional issues facing Canada nor does it correspond in all its detail to the position most favourable to any province. The accord is clearly a compromise. None of the participants, including Quebec, was successful in achieving all of its goals.

The first question that a Legislature considering the accord must ask itself is whether it agrees with the overall goal of securing national constitutional reconciliation based on Quebec’s five proposals. If the answer is yes, then recognizing that the accord constitutes a compromise among many different parties with many different interests, the next question is whether any aspects of this particular compromise are so fundamentally flawed as to make it impossible to ratify the accord without immediate change, so that we can go on to the next round.

There is no impropriety in pointing out imperfections and in suggesting improvements to the accord, but if such improvements do not attract unanimous approval then, given the importance of the fundamental goal of constitutional reconciliation, no party should without very great care and thought for our future as a nation make them preconditions to its agreement to the accord as a whole.

It is in this context that the select committee of our Legislature that studied the accord described it as “an enormously important piece of unfinished business in Canada’s constitutional history,” and although our committee concluded that there were improvements that could be made in subsequent rounds, it recommended that the accord be ratified by the Legislature in its existing form, as indeed it was.

In the same context, I can inform members that in my judgement neither the New Brunswick nor the Manitoba report identifies any fundamental flaws that would justify reopening the accord, but that several of the preconditions for ratification proposed by Manitoba strike directly at the heart of the accord and would amount to a rejection of the very principles upon which it is based.

Turning first to the report of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly to its Premier and its government, it is important to note that all of its observations and recommendations are made in the context of an acceptance of Quebec’s five proposals and a recognition of the crucial importance of securing the overall goal of national constitutional reconciliation that underlies the exercise.

The New Brunswick report contains a number of observations on what that committee considers to be shortcomings or oversights in the accord. Some of these observations correspond to observations made by our own select committee; others find no parallel in the Ontario select committee report, and indeed some of the proposed modifications in New Brunswick would likely be unacceptable in Ontario. All these recommendations from New Brunswick, however, are put forward as a basis for discussion for proposed improvement and not necessarily as preconditions for securing New Brunswick’s assent to the accord as a whole.

On this basis, the concerns identified by New Brunswick can and should form the subject matter of ongoing discussions, that like the concerns and proposals raised by Ontario and others will form part of the continuing process of constitutional evolution.

The report of the Manitoba task force to its Premier and government proceeds entirely differently. Although stating support for the overall goal in the accord of constitutional reconciliation, the Manitoba report recommends that approval of the accord be withheld unless six specific changes are made as a precondition. As I have stated, it is my view that none of these six recommended changes address fundamental flaws that would just reopen the accord, but several would go directly to its heart and would in effect reject three of the five proposals on which the accord is premised.

The first of Quebec’s five proposals is recognition of its distinct society. This proposal is addressed through that part of the accord that deals with linguistic duality and distinct society.

The clear purpose of that clause is to respond to Quebec’s proposal that it be recognized as a distinct society while safeguarding the rights of linguistic minorities both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, and without changing the division of powers under the Constitution.

It is important to emphasize that this clause does not confer any new powers on the province of Quebec. This was the conclusion reached by the Ontario select committee and I am pleased to note that this conclusion is not contradicted by either the Manitoba task force or the New Brunswick committee.

Although the Manitoba task force states its support for recognizing Quebec’s distinct society, it recommends that the clause not be ratified unless three specific changes are made. As I have suggested, in assessing these proposed changes it is necessary to consider whether they respond to fundamental flaws and beyond that, whether they would be consistent with the principle underlying the accord of effective constitutional recognition of Quebec’s distinct society.

The first proposal from Manitoba recommends withholding assent unless the list of fundamental characteristics referred to in this clause is expanded beyond the recognition of Canada’s linguistic duality and Quebec’s distinct society. No doubt, as the Ontario select committee noted, it would be symbolically appropriate and, indeed, preferable that the list of fundamental characteristics of Canada be fuller and more comprehensive.

The purpose, however, of this particular clause is not to list all the fundamental characteristics of Canada but merely to identify and give constitutional recognition to two characteristics that have not previously been entrenched as interpretive principles.

Other possible fundamental characteristics, including multiculturalism and aboriginal rights, are already recognized in other clauses of the Constitution. Bearing in mind the purpose of this clause, the omission of a fuller list is surely not a fundamental flaw.

A second objection raised to the linguistic duality/distinct society provisions in the Manitoba report relates to the nonderogation clause. This provision specifies that nothing in that clause is meant to derogate from multiculturalism as an interpretive principle, not from existing aboriginal rights and treaties recognized in the Constitution.

The worst that can be said about this proposal is, as numerous constitutional scholars have noted, that it is redundant since there is nothing in the accord capable of derogating from the constitutional protections of multiculturalism and aboriginal rights. The Manitoba task force, however, recommends that the accord not be ratified unless the derogation provision is expanded to include the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Canadian courts are already using the concept of the distinctness of Quebec society as an interpretive tool with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights, especially when they come to consider, as the Constitution requires them to do, whether a particular provision is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

The Manitoba task force proposal would prevent courts from looking at Quebec’s distinct society in such circumstances. In other words, not only is the Manitoba proposal not addressed to a fundamental flaw in the accord, its result would be to overturn the status quo and leave Quebec with less legal recognition of its distinct society than it now enjoys.

A similar observation may be made with regard to the recommendation to withhold ratification unless Quebec’s role is described as “upholding” rather than, as at present, “preserving and promoting” its distinct identity. Given that the existing clause does not confer any new powers on Quebec, this change either has no impact and is therefore not addressed to a fundamental flaw or it represents an attempt to take away something already enjoyed by Quebec. In that case, it too would be inconsistent with the basic principles underlying the accord.

A second major principle among Quebec’s original proposals was a limitation on the spending power as applied to shared cost programs. In such programs, whose constitutionality has never been tested, the federal government initiates programs in areas that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the provinces and provides a portion of the funding. The benefits to the provinces of federal funding are obvious, but in order to enjoy these benefits, a province must either accept priorities and provisions different from those it might choose for itself, or risk losing federal assistance.

If the province decides not to participate, its citizens will see a portion of the federal income tax they pay spent elsewhere by Ottawa on a social program from which they derive no benefit at all.

The solution proposed by the accord is for the first time to confirm the right of the federal government to set national objectives in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, but to balance such right with the right of a province, not only to opt out of the program but also so long as it institutes a program of its own that is compatible with national objectives set by Ottawa, to be entitled to compensation from the federal government for its tax dollars paid.

Far from being an example of a massive and unwarranted transfer of power to the provinces, as has sometimes been claimed, this provision in fact simply proposes modest limits on an extension of federal power into the realm of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

The Manitoba task force report recommends withholding ratification of the accord unless this clause, as a precondition, is deleted from the accord, because it finds the clause “controversial.” The rejection of a provision whose fundamental flaw is never identified in the report amounts to a rejection of any qualification on the federal spending power and would likewise constitute a rejection of a second of Quebec’s five proposals.

We turn to the third proposal. Prior to the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, it was generally thought that Quebec had, by constitutional convention, acquired a right not to have constitutional change imposed on it without its consent. This assumption as a result of the patriation case proved to be incorrect, and under the terms of the Constitution Act of 1982, constitutional amendments in a number of areas are capable of being made on the basis of the consent of the federal government and two thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of the country.

The accord responds positively but within limits to the essence of Quebec’s proposal to limit such unconsented constitutional change.

The accord recognizes the principle of constitutional change to significant national institutions ought not to be imposed on a province against its will. It also recognizes the principle that all provinces, and not just Quebec, ought to benefit from this right. The accord therefore selects a small class of national institutions and requires that amendments to these be subject to unanimous consent. For all other constitutional amendments, two thirds and 50 per cent remains the general formula.

The Manitoba task force report to its government concludes that a requirement of unanimity will make more difficult the prospect of Senate reform and therefore recommends refusing ratification unless reform of the Senate as a precondition be made subject to the “general” amending requirement, rather than unanimity.

I bring to the members’ attention that other provinces no less committed to Senate reform tha