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

November 25, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L012 - Wed 25 Nov 1987 / Mer 25 nov 1987

GREGORY PUTZ

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

FARM CHEMICALS

WASTE DISPOSAL

CHRISTOPHER CARTER

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

JOHN LANE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

STOMACH BITTERS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

RESPONSES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

STOMACH BITTERS

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

STOMACH BITTERS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

CHILD CARE

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

CONFISCATED FIREARMS

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

ONTARIO HYDRO

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

FUNDING FOR HIGHWAYS

POLLUTION CONTROL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

NURSING HOME

WASTE DISPOSAL

PETITION

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED WOOD ENERGY TECHNICIANS OF ONTARIO ACT

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

GREGORY PUTZ

Mr. Speaker: I call the attention of the House to our visitor at the table, Gregory Putz, Clerk Assistant of the Saskatchewan Legislature, who is on attachment to the Office of the Clerk.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: It is interesting to see the Liberals and the Conservatives tripping over each other here in their haste to shine the shoes of the private insurance companies. Do I ever welcome the chance to answer yesterday’s attack on the western public auto insurance plans by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman).

I do not dispute his figures, but let us put the issue in perspective. He talks about Manitoba’s $52-million loss. Does he not know that Ontario auto insurers claimed to have lost $330 million last year? The difference is that Manitoba had accumulated rate reserves to cover its loss, while Ontarians, according to the insurance companies, had the loss taken out of their property and liability insurance premiums.

For the last two years, the annual rate of increase has averaged two and a half per cent in the public plans. In Ontario, it was 20 per cent each year.

Including the recently announced rate increases in the west, the total six-year increase in British Columbia is 35 per cent, Manitoba 37 per cent and Saskatchewan six per cent. By comparison, Ontario’s six-year increase was over 70 per cent. Including the new increases, average rates in BC will be $482, Manitoba $405 and Saskatchewan $251. I think Ontario motorists would just love to pay those rates instead of the average $640 here.

If the minister in charge of insurance believes all the Conservative member said yesterday -- he is nodding his head -- would it not be wonderful to do that in-depth, independent comparison of the rates, efficiency and fairness of the western public plans with Ontario’s private system? I challenge the minister to have it done.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Harris: Today, the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) Conference on Northern Business and Entrepreneurship winds up in Thunder Bay. Two weeks ago, I pointed out to this House that one of the problems with the conference, from a northeastern Ontario perspective, was that the conference was supposed to be on entrepreneurship yet few entrepreneurs could afford $1,000 and four days off to attend, so most of the representations are government employees or taxpayer-sponsored. Regrettably, nothing was done to correct this.

Last week the government issued a selectively biased report against free trade, but even it indicated the resource industries in the north would benefit. The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), when asked, had not even read his own government report and did not know what was in it. Why were not he or his ministry involved in it right from the beginning? One wonders what is going on.

Recently, in addition to the resource industries of the north, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association came out in support of free trade and said it wants “the Premier to stop opposing the deal. “But press reports indicate the Premier said in Thunder Bay that the resource sector would not benefit, contrary to what his own studies say and contrary to what the industry says.

We have to wonder who in this government, on this issue as on many others, is going to speak up for northern Ontario.

FARM CHEMICALS

Mr. McGuigan: I want to share with present members and especially with the new members the value of this time before question period. It is an opportunity for us to make a statement and sometimes initiate action not only within the government, but also we can use our influence as members of this forum to generate public or private interests in a personal observation.

Today I am pleased to report I have experienced such a success. In May of last year, in a statement to this House, I reported on a series of farm chemical thefts in southwestern Ontario. I pointed out the serious implications this trend could have on the agricultural industry if not put in check. My statement prompted action by a group of concerned citizens from the farm community and chemical manufacturing and distributing industries. Further statements and questions in the House helped the group advertise itself and its reason for being.

The co-operation of the then Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), and the Ontario Provincial Police was very beneficial. The then Solicitor General took time to speak to the group when the cabinet was meeting in Chatham.

Recently the farm chemical anti-theft program announced a net decrease in losses of 65 per cent in only one year. Using ingenuity and initiative and the combined efforts of the OPP, industry, individuals and the press, a self-help program was designed and is working. I am proud to have been involved in such a success.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Miss Martel: Since May of this year, residents of Old Wanup Road in Dill township in my riding have been living with the world’s largest outhouse in their backyard. This is an intolerable situation where untreated human waste is being dumped into the site, which was once a gravel pit. Concerns about site suitability, the potential contamination of the area, the results of ministry testing and the legality of the sanitation company’s permits to transport and dump there have all been raised. The situation involves the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment and, most recently, the Ministry of Government Services.

In September, agreement was reached to dump on a site on the Burwash property and this was approved by the Ministry of the Environment, but the dumping at the Wanup site still continues. The Ministry of Government Services is dragging its feet in getting the Burwash parcel sectioned and transferred to the Ministry of the Environment.

Concerns about the suitability of the Wanup Road gravel pit have now intensified with the winter freeze. Any filtration of the waste will now certainly not take place and we can well imagine the effects of this accumulated waste with the spring runoff.

Despite more questions regarding the validity of the sanitation company’s transportation permits, the MOE has not halted the dumping pending the transfer to the Burwash site, and this raises several questions. Should dumping not have been halted at the Wanup site until the Burwash site became available? Will the Ministry of the Environment undertake extensive testing of the soil and the water in the spring, for the benefit of the Wanup Road residents? Finally, why cannot the ministries of Government Services and the Environment get their acts together when the health of 300 residents is at stake?

CHRISTOPHER CARTER

Mr. Eves: As most members are probably aware, two-year-old Christopher Carter from British Columbia successfully underwent surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children on Tuesday to remove a nonmalignant tumour from his face and neck.

I am sure all members of this House will join me and our party in offering our sincere best wishes to Christopher and his family. The courage the Carter family has exhibited is to be admired.

I would also like to offer my congratulations to the doctors and staff at the Hospital for Sick Children. Their dedication and experience has made the hospital not only a world-class institute but also a caring institute.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Philip: As our party’s critic on government spending and a member of the standing committee on public accounts, I am alarmed at the fact that every single year since 1983 the Provincial Auditor of Ontario has found some form of mismanagement at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

In the auditor’s report released yesterday, there is a stinging criticism of the board’s failure to efficiently manage its inventory. The auditor estimates that over $70 million was tied up in excess inventory. He states that the excess in inventories could be costing the board between $3 million and $7 million in interest costs per year. In addition, one must add increased costs related to warehousing, transportation and so forth.

In 1983, the LCBO was criticized by the auditor for having excessive inventories. The standing committee on public accounts reported in the same year that the board had promised to conduct a study to determine the optimum inventory levels to be warehoused.

On Monday, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), in what can only be considered a pre-emptive attempt to neutralize criticism, delivered a statement once again promising that the LCBO would improve its control of inventories.

I and other members of the public accounts committee are tired of seeing the same old faces making the same old promises. It is time for the minister and his staff to involve themselves in cleaning up the LCBO. I hope that my comments today will have a sobering effect on both the minister and the LCBO.

JOHN LANE

Mr. McLean: I want to bring to the attention of the House that our colleague John Lane, who is retired, is in Women’s College Hospital for a short period of time. I know that he will be watching the proceedings of this House today, and I know that his colleagues here would all like to take this opportunity to wish him well. I am sure that when he watches what takes place here in this question period, it will bring back a lot of memories of this establishment, where he spent so many years enjoying it and working for the people of the province.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Harris: Unaccustomed as we are to getting four statements, I will try to proceed as quickly as I can.

The effort of combining St. Joseph’s General Hospital of North Bay and North Bay Civic Hospital into one hospital and the funding for the same are an issue that has been ongoing for a good number of years. A lot of planning and a lot of detail have gone into it. It was ready administratively to fund about January or February 1986, and we still hear it is going to be next fiscal year before anybody even looks at it.

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

Mr. Harris: It is a disgrace on behalf of this government --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to announce a motion to establish the select committee on constitutional reform. I do so with a deep sense of the historical significance of the constitutional accord reached last June by the first ministers.

Ontario governments have for many years had a constructive relationship with our sister province of Quebec. One hundred years ago last month, the then Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, Honoré Mercier and Oliver Mowat, met at the first interprovincial conference.

Cette conférence signalait la renaissance d’un esprit de collaboration et d’entente entre les provinces de l’Ontario et de Québec, telle qu’elle existait dans les meilleures années du Canada-Uni.

Another Ontario Premier, the Honourable John Robarts, hosted the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference 80 years later. That conference, which opened exactly 20 years ago this week, provided Premier Daniel Johnson of Quebec the opportunity to explain Quebec’s aspirations to Canadians from across the country. It was widely regarded as having initiated the period of constitutional reform which led to the current accord.

More recently, in 1980, honourable members will recall that an Ontario select committee was struck to deal with the question of constitutional reform. The select committee concentrated on proposals to secure individual rights and to promote national reconciliation--proposals that are reflected in the 1982 Constitution Act and the 1987 constitutional accord.

The 1982 document accommodated many interests in our country and brought us a patriated Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter protected individual equality, aboriginal and minority language rights and our multicultural heritage.

Yet the constitutional reform of 1982 did not resolve the fundamental question of the place of Quebec within Canada.

It was in the spirit of trying to complete the unfinished business of 1982 and to rectify the omission of Quebec from our constitutional consensus that the first ministers agreed a year ago to discuss five items proposed by the Bourassa government as essential elements of an agreement.

It is my view that Premier Bourassa’s proposals were consistent with the national interest. They were a constructive approach to the reconciliation of Quebec within Canada as a whole and the basis upon which the first ministers reached an agreement at Meech Lake.

This accord is a vital step in nation-building.

Cette entente répond aux inquiétudes des Québécois, tout en promettant à tous les Canadiens de saines relations intergouvernementales.

The accord secures the voice of Canadians from across the country in our central institutions and it does so, I believe, while preserving the basic rights already enshrined in the Constitution.

We recognize that no consensus is perfect, but the accord does represent a solution in the best Canadian tradition. It is a viable accommodation. In both symbolic and practical terms, it is the kind of agreement that has characterized the building of this country.

The entrenchment of the 1987 constitutional accord will remove one of the main barriers to a constructive approach by the whole country to the political and economic challenges ahead of us. The accord unblocks the constitutional reform. When it is enshrined, it will establish a new confidence in reform among all Canadians and a new attention to the Constitution.

This accord should not be seen as the last effort at amending the Constitution. The accord’s passage will make possible initiatives on related constitutional issues. We propose a select committee with the twin objectives of completing past commitments, assessing the terms of the accord in the light of the need for national reconciliation and looking forward to the needs of the future.

Constitutions must be living documents, fashioned with the informed participation of all interested citizens. The hearings on the constitutional accord are of vital importance for this province in its participation in national affairs. This government is committed to a process that is open and accessible -- a process which respects the right of all individuals and groups to express their views.

I welcome the opportunity for all Ontarians to participate in this significant development in Canada’s future.

STOMACH BITTERS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to inform the House of the government’s intention to revoke

section 60 of regulation 581 under the Liquor Licence Act in order to take stomach bitters off retail store shelves and restrict their sale to government liquor stores.

As members know, stomach bitters have always been exempted from the requirement for sale in Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores because they were unpalatable and considered to have some value as a digestive aid. For years, this exemption caused little concern and even fewer problems but in recent years stomach bitters have become the available and affordable drink of choice of some people.

I am sure the members are also aware of a Toronto coroner’s jury recommendation on Monday that the sale of bitters be restricted to the LCBO.

Even though the jury found that consumption of bitters may have been only incidental to the hit-and-run death of the man in question, its recommendation to remove bitters from unrestricted sale is a reflection of growing community concern. This government must be responsive to that concern.

I am sure no one in this House is so naive as to think that the removal of bitters from retail store shelves will significantly alter this human tragedy. The real problem is alcohol abuse, not bitters.

Alcohol is a controlled substance in Ontario and bitters has rapidly evolved from being an obscure digestive aid sold in small quantities to become one of the major sources of cheap and available liquor for some individuals. The time has come to bring bitters under control.

The regulatory changes will require that all stomach bitters be removed from retail store shelves as soon as reasonably possible. A reasonable phase-out period for store sales is required to give manufacturers and importers time to reposition their products and follow through with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s listings procedure. As well, importers, distributors and retailers must all be given a fair period of time in which to dispose of existing stock and arrange for the new distribution process.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to announce details of the increase in operating funds for Ontario hospitals in fiscal year 1988-89, as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) reported last Wednesday.

In keeping with this government’s commitment to continued sound fiscal planning while maintaining the integrity of our hospital system, I am pleased to announce that Ontario hospitals will receive an overall increase of about 6.9 per cent in operating funds for the next fiscal year. The hospitals will receive a basic grant increase of about 4.4 per cent in this period. In addition, the budget increase allotted by my ministry will feature a further 2.5 per cent for growth in hospital programs.

The base on which the increase will be applied has yet to be determined. That will be done once the ministry and the Ontario Hospital Association complete the review of the disposition of funds normally allocated by the ministry for the employer contributions required by the hospitals of Ontario pension plan.

The 2.5 per cent increment for growth in hospital programs will be used for new programs to be started in the next fiscal year as well as ministry-approved programs started or expanded in 1987-88. The funds will be used for growth in life-support programs in designated teaching hospitals and other major hospitals. These programs include renal dialysis, cardiovascular surgery, chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition, interocular implants and perinatal health.

The increase for growth will also include funding for workload increases due to hospitals treating more patients and an additional one per cent for hospitals with fewer than 50 beds.

The increase will enable hospitals to meet inflationary pressures as well as the usual costs associated with growth. We would also hope that hospitals will be among those groups that will be submitting proposals for the special programs referred to by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) when he announced the multi-year, $100-million innovative health strategies fund.

The increases I am announcing today will bring total ministry spending on hospitals for fiscal 1988-89 to approximately $5.4 billion.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As members may be aware, the chief of police of the Niagara Regional Police Force this morning announced that he would not be laying charges as a result of the extensive investigation into allegations of wrongdoing within that force. I had earlier indicated that a determination as to whether or not charges would be laid was a precondition to any consideration of a public inquiry into the force.

The board of commissioners of police, as a result of the determination that charges would not be laid, has renewed its request that an inquiry into allegations of improprieties by members of the Niagara Regional Police Force be conducted. A decision has been made to accede to that request.

I believe that such a course of action is now in the public interest. It will be necessary to consult with the Niagara regional board to determine the appropriate terms of reference for the public inquiry. We will do this with all possible haste, having regard to the need of careful delineation of the scope of this inquiry.

RESPONSES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the statement made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today with respect to Meech Lake. I have to say to him, however, that I think most people would regard with scepticism his talk about participation. The fact of the matter is that he himself has participated twice in an event which was attended by nobody other than himself and 10 other first ministers. To talk now of participation smacks to me of some pretty hollow rhetoric.

We have a reality which is, in my view, a most unfortunate one where we have basically been left with a complete fait accompli by the Premier and by the other first ministers. They have negotiated one agreement and then proceeded to make some minor changes in other negotiated ones.

Native people were not at the table. The representatives of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were not at the table. Indeed, it is fair to say that no one else in the political process was at the table. To turn around now and say that the establishment of this committee is going to be some kind of an exercise in participatory democracy is a rather sad joke in the light of the reality that the Premier and other first ministers have signed the document and basically told us to take it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

I can tell the Premier that is not the way in which we intend to pursue this; that there are changes in the accord which are necessary; that we discussed those changes when he came back to the Legislature twice in the spring of last year; that he knew full well that a minority Legislature would have led to a quite different kind of participation than the one we are permitted in the current circumstances of the House.

I can say to the Premier that if he regards this as any kind of example of participatory democracy, he has a very different understanding of democracy and participation than we do on this side.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Reville: Responding first to the announcement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) of increased operating funds for Ontario hospitals, may I say that the big numbers and the clever arrangements of percentages do not disguise the fact that this is very much a business-as-usual approach to a health care system which is not working well enough. Nothing has been done to address the imbalance between the funding of teaching and nonteaching 1400 hospitals or to assist hospitals in improving their accountability to our communities. It is altogether a rather disappointing statement.

STOMACH BITTERS

Mr. Reville: Turning to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), may I say I am very pleased to see that the minister has taken the action he has taken, getting the bitters off the counters of the corner stores, where they have become a magnet for those who are vulnerable.

I should point out that while we are aware of the most recent coroner’s jury recommendation, members of the House will know that previous coroners’ juries had made the same recommendation that the government is now belatedly implementing. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and I were raising this matter in this House two years ago. I regret to say that we have had to have further deaths before the government could see its way clear to take the appropriate action it has now taken.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: I want to reply to the comments by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). The first thing I want to do is to commend her and congratulate her for proceeding with the public inquiry.

It is five years since I first called for a public inquiry in this House. Her government cannot be faulted for not implementing it during those first three years. I suggest it can for the last two. I suggest to the minister that a lot of problems that have existed in that force over the last two, three or four years would not have existed if we had had that public inquiry when it was first asked for.

I know the great majority of the police officers themselves will welcome this public inquiry. A great majority of them, of course, are good police officers. They will welcome this opportunity to have themselves cleared, and all of the other officers, but those who may be bad eggs within the force and should not be there will then be revealed through this inquiry. I think this is the final move towards improving the public image and the reality of an improved police force in Niagara.

One final thing I say to the Solicitor General is that this public inquiry must be real. It cannot just be a facade; it must be a real public inquiry by an independent head, perhaps an independent jury.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Brandt: I too would like to comment on the statement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with respect to the establishment of a select committee on constitutional reform. I find somewhat surprising the comments the Premier made on the last page of his document where he indicates, “This government is committed to a process that is open and accessible -- a process which respects the rights of all individuals and groups to express their views.”

I say this because it was our party that pressed, I think in a very positive way, for such a committee to be established. There was no comment about that in the Premier’s release today, but the fact of the matter is that we did call for such a committee to be established, I think for good and valid reasons.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He does not like it.

Mr. Brandt: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), the Premier says, does not like it. The reason the Leader of the Opposition does not like it is that he has the same concerns I have about the way this committee is going to be set up.

Is the committee going to listen to those groups that feel they have been alienated in some way or left out of the process as it relates to the Meech Lake accord? Are their views going to be heard? Is this going to be a committee that will accept any amendments? What will the process be for forwarding these amendments to the other premiers and the Prime Minister of this country if, after study, they are proven to be valid?

We recognize full well that Ontario as the largest province has a particularly sensitive role to play. Former premiers and nation builders in this province, such as Premier John Robarts and Premier William Davis, played that role in a very sensitive, careful and thoughtful fashion because they recognized in many instances that what was good for the rest of the country was good for Ontario as well.

We agree with the Premier in his statement that Quebec has to be brought in as a full working partner of Confederation, but we say to him that it is absolutely paramount that this committee work in an effective way to get input from native groups, women, the territories and others who want to express their concerns about the accord and to have their views heard and then carried forward in a positive way to the next stage of this process.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). What the minister has really told us here today is that her basic increase to hospitals at large in Ontario is 4.4 per cent. If a hospital has a particular program that qualifies in one of these specifications she has laid out on page 2 of her statement, then it may be lucky enough to get some of the other 2.5 per cent. I want to make it clear that what the minister is really telling the House and the hospitals in Ontario today is that they are getting a basic increase for inflation of 4.4 per cent.

I note that in the fourth paragraph on page 1 of the minister’s statement she makes reference to “once the ministry and the Ontario Hospital Association complete the review of the disposition of the funds normally allocated by the ministry for the employer contributions required by the hospitals of Ontario pension plan.” l hope the minister will take into account the concerns of hospital workers expressed last week in the media with respect to that plan and how their funds are being used.

This statement is really nothing more than a statement by her predecessor which made a great to-do about hospital capital allocations. Then we found out that what he had really done was take the 1985 capital allocation and flatline it for the next five or six years. We do not think that is acceptable over here. This does not provide an increase of funding. It just accommodates for inflation.

STOMACH BITTERS

Mr. Runciman: We on this side are naturally pleased with the announcement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) with respect to the withdrawal of bitters from grocery stores. I guess we also have to be critical, as we have been over some period of time, along with the New Democratic Party, about the delay in taking this kind of action. I know the minister’s predecessor took this to cabinet some time ago, but in my view it was delayed for purely crass political reasons last summer. After three coroners’ inquests, we finally have action.

They failed to take action last year because it drew attention to their ludicrous policy of putting beer and wine in grocery stores. They have now backed away from that. We are very pleased and we welcome the action, but it comes at least three deaths too late.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Harris: With reference to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I was surprised there was no operating grant announcement for the new joint hospital in Nipissing. This is a hospital that has been sitting there waiting for the last five years. When is she going to announce that funding and the capital to go along with it, if, as she says, she increases the capital?

ORAL QUESTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. B. Rae: There is a question about Meech Lake I would like to ask the Premier. He talks in his statement today about the importance of “informed participation of all interested citizens” and that he welcomes “the opportunity for all Ontarians to participate in this significant development in Canada’s future.” Is the Premier saying when he says this that he anticipates the possibility that the committee will recommend some changes to the document he signed, and if that is the case he will accept those changes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will tell the member what I anticipate. I anticipate this will be widely discussed in this province. The committee may make a decision to go and have consultations in other provinces. They will want to gather up the best information they can about the national mood and the consequences of the Meech Lake accord, legally, politically and in terms of our relationships with the rest of the country.

If they come to the conclusion that there is some serious error that could be fixed, then obviously they will make that recommendation to us. They will assess that in the light of the political realities of the country, the positions of the other provinces, and they will make their recommendations to us on that basis. I look forward to their advice. That is why we are having the committee hearings.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the Premier can explain a couple of what I think most people would now regard as rather serious problems with the accord. If I can ask him to address one, I wonder if he can explain to the House and to the provinces, as they begin this process of participation, how it is that the creation of new provinces and the admission of them into the family of Confederation as full participating members will now require the approval of all 10 provinces, which, as the Premier will know, is completely different from the situation up to 1987?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Leader of the Opposition is right. Presumably, the committee members will look at that question, they will have advice from all quarters and they will give advice to the government on that matter. I am not sure what the problem is that the member is raising.

Mr. B. Rae: The problem I am raising is that the Premier has participated in the process, a basically secret process that he was involved in over two nights, which resulted in an agreement with which many people have problems, including those who expressed their concerns at the federal level when they moved motions to amend that were not accepted by Mr. Mulroney because Mr. Mulroney said, “The deal is signed and that is it.” If we have the same attitude here in Ontario, what we are going through is just going to be there for show, not real.

I am asking the Premier to explain why he personally signed a document that basically means that the Yukon and Northwest Territories will not be admitted as provinces because it gives a veto to every single province in the country.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say with great respect to my friend that he is not necessarily correct. He is correct in terms of the new rules that would be applied to the admission of new provinces, but he is not correct in prejudging the results of that. I do not think his

interpretation in that regard is fair.

Let me carry on for a moment. The member suggests some secret meetings and the suggestion that it was signed in stealth in the middle of the night. Let me tell my honourable friend, and I am sure he followed this debate -- starting with Maîtriser l’avenir, a document put forward by the Quebec Liberal Party -- and as someone who follows these matters, I am sure he was informed about it, as this went through rigorous public discussion for a year or two. Lots of people had an opportunity to express their points of view. I admit there were many who were astounded that a deal was at all possible. There are lots of us who had input into that particular document.

I am not standing in front of the member telling him it is perfect. It has to be assessed in terms of its effect on our future.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Can it be changed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course it can be changed. In response to my honourable friend’s question, albeit from the benches, of course it can be changed.

The unanimous veto in the accord applies only to a very limited number of issues, i.e., institutional reform. The general amending formula still applies to the vast majority of the items under constitutional reform. I invite the member to look at it in detail.

I have heard a lot of people express reservations about the accord, and I say to them as charitably as I can, I think some of them do not understand exactly what is in it. They are reacting to some perhaps quick assessment that is not accurate. I say to the member, we will now have the time to debate it through, as his federal colleagues did, and he will put forward any ideas he and his members may have to improve it. They will ascertain whether it is possible to do that and then make a decision whether to support it or not to support it.

Mr. B. Rae: If I may say so, the Premier is starting out the process of consultation with a rather condescending, patronizing approach in which he says that people who disagree with the Premier are uninformed. That is really a refreshing way in which to start out this process.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: My question to the Premier has to do with the question of free trade. I gather the Premier has now said outside this place that it is not the intention of the government to enact the sections of the free trade agreement having to do with the distribution and sale of wine. Can we take it from this statement that it is the intention of the government not to enact any legislation or orders in council which would have the effect of implementing the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At the moment, I am not aware of any other areas specifically that require complementary provincial legislation. We have asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to do a complete constitutional audit in that regard and give us his advice. At the moment, I do not have that advice. The member will know that, unlike himself, I like to think these things through very carefully before I just jump out and then have to change my position 16 times as my honourable friend does.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) started this style last night. The style of personal insult is one that I think ill becomes the government. It ill becomes the Premier of this province and the Deputy Premier. If that is the way they want to start conducting the business of the province, fine, but let us be quite clear who is setting the tone around here. It is the Premier, and if that is the way he wants it to go, that is the way it will be.

I would like to ask the Premier a question specifically with regard to the question of the auto pact, which he did not choose to mention in his comments yesterday. Can we take it from what the Premier is saying that he is prepared to take steps with respect to wine -- that is, prepared to say that Ontario will not move -- but that that is as far as it goes? What precisely is he prepared to do on behalf of those auto workers, hundreds of thousands of whom heard his very clear message in the campaign that there can be no agreement that guts the auto pact? He agrees the agreement does in fact gut the auto pact.

Now we have honed down the issues. One at least we know is under provincial jurisdiction. I have said very clearly that the wine provisions in that agreement would wipe out our wine industry and we are not prepared to accept that. We have sat down with the wine industry, the grape growers. We have worked out with them a package we think is acceptable to keep them competitive, to bring them into a better position than they are at the present time.

We believe, assuming the federal government can negotiate this properly, which the member may want to raise questions about, that we can save the industry, that we can keep it competitive and respect our multinational trading obligations, something my friend opposite obviously does not respect from the comments he has made so far.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier will know that there are five weeks to go before the agreement is to be signed by both the federal government and by the President of the United States. The Premier has announced one step which Ontario is in a sense not prepared to take. That is the only announcement he has made with regard to this agreement which has any impact on the agreement, apart from the statements and speeches he has made with regard to the overall agreement.

Time is running out. The House will be adjourning in the middle of December and, for all we know, in view of the timetable put forward by the government House leader, we will be lucky if we get back here in 1988. Can the Premier tell us what other specific steps Ontario plans to take to make sure that the free trade agreement simply does not happen?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will respond to the question. I have been asked this on many occasions by the member and by his colleagues. We do not announce steps that we want to take if in fact we cannot take the steps. It requires a very thoughtful look at where all of our jurisdiction lies.

We have done that. We have done that with respect to wine, and that is the one area where it is clear, in my view at least, it is under provincial jurisdiction. It is not clear in other areas that legislation for implementation would in fact be required.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Your party misled the public.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member’s friend to his right is still quite bitter about September 10, and I can understand that, but he keeps yapping about the same thing. I say I do not think the public believes that. He may -- and I understand the personal bitterness he is going through at the present time -- but I think we are exercising the power and responsibility we have in a constructive and positive way.

We will continue to do that. We will continue to make our views known. As the members know, we are starting meetings this afternoon and this evening with our federal colleagues in that regard, but they know very clearly that we are not prepared to implement those provisions of the free trade agreement with respect to our wine industry.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Premier. He will be aware that a number of different groups in Canadian society, such as native groups and women’s groups, as well as prominent Canadians such as former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Senator Eugene Forsey, have come out in opposition to and have concerns about certain parts of the Meech Lake accord.

He will also be aware that closer examination of the provisions of the accord has demonstrated some areas of very crucial concern, especially as they relate to the opting-out provision and the implications of declaring Quebec a distinct society.

Given the concerns that have been raised and given that members of his own party have expressed similar concerns, would the Premier be prepared to state publicly and uncategorically here today that the select committee on constitutional reform, which will be appointed today, will have as part of its mandate the requirement that it propose and adopt and be able to adopt meaningful and constructive amendments to the Meech Lake accord where individual members and their own free conscience -- without a party whip vote; a free vote -- think it is required? Will the Premier agree to that here today as a means of strengthening our country and the accord itself?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not believe it will strengthen our country, and the answer to the question is no.

Mr. Eves: Why would the Premier not be prepared to commit himself to a free vote by the members of his party on such a very, very important procedure? I presume the reason this committee is being appointed is so that this Legislature and the elected members in this Legislature can have some meaningful contribution to this process. I presume it is not just a sham he is throwing up to meet a commitment he made several months ago, after he has already made a deal.

I am not sure that the Premier recognizes the importance of this accord. It was conceived in greater haste than the free trade agreement and has some greater implications for the future of this country.

I ask again, will the Premier agree to grant the committee that right, and will he indeed acquiesce to the recommendations and findings of an all-party committee in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We discussed this on many occasions before, the matter of having a committee hearing. We think it is important. Some of the other provinces have chosen to do the same thing.

One can look at the accord, and I agree with my honourable friend there is lots of difference of opinion, including in our own party; and his own party, obviously, because he takes a different view, I gather, from his federal leader on this matter.

I recognize this, and this is a matter for all Canadians, but I tell my honourable friend as well, as frankly as I can, I am not prepared to opt out of my responsibility to try to build a stronger country and I believe, on balance, that the accord is in the interests of a strong and united country.

Mr. Eves: The Premier will be aware that earlier this month Jean Chrétien, a co-signator of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a former Liberal cabinet minister in Ottawa, urged the Premier to move an amendment to the accord that will declare, without question and without fear of judicial override or disagreement, that the Charter of Rights has supremacy over the Meech Lake accord. As a straightforward and common-sense request, it is an amendment that I think every member of this House, every Ontarian and indeed every Canadian supports.

Will the Premier make the commitment today that these and other amendments that may be made in committee will be adopted to protect, without question, our Charter of Rights?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member’s question points out what a difficult debate, indeed what a strange debate in many ways, this whole discussion has become when he quotes Jean Chrétien as an authority on the matter, and I end up quoting Brian Mulroney. It just shows how bad things have got in this country.

I understand the opinion of M. Chrétien and a variety of others, and I have applied my mind to this question as well. I believe, as I said, that on balance it is very much in the national interest. I invite the member, as he gets his leader to appoint him to that committee, to travel the country and get a sense of the country. He should figure out the ramifications of this. My honourable friend may come back with a little different view than he has at the present time. This can be an extremely positive experience for everyone. It can be an extremely constructive exercise in nation building.

I think the honourable member will want to ask himself the consequences of putting forward amendments that could wreck the deal. He will ask himself that personal question before he puts his imprimatur on his recommendations, whatever they happen to be.

Mr. Speaker: It is time for a new question.

Mrs. Marland: I wonder why we are entering into this debate at all, if amendments will not even be considered.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As this minister knows, the opting-out provisions of the Meech Lake accord jeopardize the possibility of a national day care program, a consequence I am sure the minister must consider very serious.

Will the minister withhold his support for the Meech Lake accord until the select committee on constitutional reform has an opportunity to report on the possible impact this opting-out provision will have on a national day care plan?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member may be aware of the fact that on December 2 and 3, next week, social services ministers from across the country will be meeting with the federal minister in Ottawa. At that time, we are going to be given the details of the national plan and the way in which it impacts on the various provinces, the various sections of the country.

I am obviously concerned about a national standard and national objectives, but I think the honourable member would also be aware that my first responsibility has to be to be able to put into place in Ontario, as we outlined last June, the program we think meets the needs of our citizens. I must say to her that if, in fact, I am presented with that kind of a proposal, I will support it.

Mrs. Marland: The minister is saying this meeting is taking place on December 2 and 3. I find that an interesting statement in the light of today’s date, because in the Toronto Star on November 20 the minister stated that he would probably support the federal day care plan. He was, in fact, quoted as saying, “The signal we’re getting from Ottawa is they’re favourably disposed to what we want to do here in Ontario.”

The minister having made that statement, I would like to ask him if he will tell this House what the specifics are that he heard from the federal government regarding the amount of funding, the time frame for the implementation and the scope of the federal program. lf he does not have that information, I do not know how the minister can make the statement that what he hears is good.

Mr. Speaker: The member has already asked three questions.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not have the details the honourable member is requesting. My response at that time, and I will repeat it again, is that we have been given an understanding that the kinds of conditions Ontario set forward in its own program last June are generally acceptable to our federal colleagues. It was on that premise that I made the statement I did.

The honourable member will remember that we clearly identified what we intended to do with respect to access, affordability and wages, how we intended to deal with the profit nonprofit problem and, more than anything else, as far as the federal government was concerned in terms of cost sharing, to allow Ontario sufficient flexibility to do all of these kinds of things.

What I am hearing, without knowing any of the details -- I can quite candidly say to my honourable colleague, I do not know any more of the details than she does; if I did, I would share them with this House and with her -- without knowing those details, the sense I am getting is that Ontario probably will not be very disappointed with the national proposal. I am hoping what I am hearing is correct. If what I am hearing is correct, I will support it.

Mrs. Marland: I suppose it is a matter of the

interpretation of the word “hearing,” because I do not know how the minister can hear and yet not know. It is interesting that he is choosing not to reveal any specifics on the federal day care plan, because obviously the negotiations are ongoing. I stress that he “chooses” not to reveal anything that is making him think the way he does, because earlier this week the Premier (Mr. Peterson) set a precedent when he revealed details about this government’s position with respect to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations.

Again, I ask the minister to reveal the details of these negotiations. I would also ask what his intention is with respect to allowing the maximum flow-through of all federal moneys to the entire day care sector when the federal program is made public.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not sure I fully appreciate the last part of the honourable member’s question, but if she is asking if I will give a guarantee on behalf of our government that all of the moneys which come to us for that reason will be used for that purpose, I can tell her that my cabinet colleagues have made that very clear.

Mrs. Marland: To the entire day care sector?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Yes, to the entire day care sector. That is the point I have made.

The honourable member will be aware of the fact that two of the significant changes we wish to make and have announced we will make, to the extent it is possible, are: first, providing direct grants to all centres that are now in existence and in the future for only the nonprofit; and, second, that we move from needs testing to income testing for all families. That is the desire of Ontario.

Under the present cost-sharing arrangement, we would not be able to carry out either of those initiatives in the profit sector. We cannot do that. It is that kind of flexibility we have advised our federal colleagues is so important and necessary for Ontario. That is the reality of Ontario. That is the reality we have to deal with in Ontario. Roughly half our families and, obviously, half the children who currently use the two sectors of the system have to be, in our judgement, treated fairly and equitably.

So if that is what the honourable member means, the answer is yes, but I need that flexibility on behalf of all members in this House and on behalf of all the citizens of Ontario. At the present time, we do not have it.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Treasurer, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), and because the Treasurer has been speaking so much lately about the high standards of funding given to the universities of this province.

I have just shared with the Treasurer a memo sent out last week from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations to all its member associates and all the universities in the province. OCUFA indicates that the overcrowding problem is now so severe that it is getting requests back from their staff faculties about whether the staff is liable in case there should be any problem with a fire or other kind of emergency caused by the overcrowding.

The memo, as I share with the House, indicates they have a legal opinion that there might be liability. They advise the following steps: contact university safety authorities, contact university administrators to attempt to rearrange classes, contact or have faculty association contact municipal building and fire inspectors, and cancel classes.

Can the Treasurer please tell me why it is that we have come to this point in our universities, if he is providing the kind of funding that is dealing with the overcrowding situation?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am providing adequate funding to look after the students who present themselves and are accepted at our provincially assisted universities. On the other hand, I think the advice given by OCUFA to its members is reasonable, up to the point where it suggests they unilaterally cancel classes. It seems to me the responsibility would lie with the administration of the institution.

In the case where there is a problem, we have statutes of the province that can obviously be brought into play. I sincerely hope that is the course of action that would be taken and that the administration would bear the responsibility in this regard.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I realize the Treasurer has just received instant legal advice on this. I do not want to debate the niceties of whether their legal advice is appropriate or not. The fact of the matter is that day in and day out in our universities now the building code and the fire code of the province are being ignored in order to conduct classes on a day-to-day basis. Somebody is going to be liable, including this government, if there is a major tragedy.

Will the Treasurer guarantee us that he will provide enough money, and explain how he is going to do that, to make sure the building code and fire code of this province are adhered to in our universities, as they should be, now in this year and especially next year when the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions program means there will be many more students going to universities than there are presently?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the universities are adequately provided for, not to the extent of services the members of this House would wish, but on balance with other substantial responsibilities we have, we feel the universities are adequately provided for.

CONFISCATED FIREARMS

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Recent reports indicate that a number of municipal police forces in Ontario engage in the practice of selling confiscated firearms to weapons dealers. Is the minister aware that

section 18 of the Police Act permits police forces legally to sell confiscated firearms?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I thank the member for the question. Yes, I have only recently become aware of this practice and that it is in fact legal. We have no present universally applied directive or policy in this regard and I will be looking into this matter.

Mr. Eves: Given the realities of the situation, there is the distinct possibility that some of these firearms could fall back into the hands of the criminal element in society. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of police forces in Ontario voluntarily choose to destroy rather than sell these firearms. I hope the minister will agree with me that this is too serious an issue to be left to choice. Can I then count on her support for my proposed amendment to the Police Act this afternoon to eliminate the sale of these firearms by municipal police forces?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member will be happy to know that I will be looking into this for myself and without his assistance.

Mr. Eves: I am sorry. You are too late.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: He is free, of course, to enter anything he wants.

I advise the member that the Ontario Provincial Police, which does come directly under the venue of the province, does have a policy on this and does destroy guns. This policy, which has been in effect for some time, would present a reasonable starting ground for discussion with the police forces that have not already adopted it. I foresee very little trouble in probably getting their opinion that this should be a universal method.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the conversion of apartment units into hotel units at 25 Wellesley Street East here in Toronto. She has known about this for some time since the bill was introduced. Can it possibly be true that the reason she has even ceased to investigate this, even though she knows these are apartment units now already converted into hotel units, is that in a year and a half her ministry has been unable to find an apt description for a hotel room?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The legislation dealing with the conversion of apartments into apartment hotel or apartment suites does look into the whole question of definition. I am not aware of exactly the decision that has been made at 25 Wellesley Street, but if there are any concerns about any buildings the member knows of, he should please bring them forward to us and we will look into them.

Mr. Breaugh: I am going to start looking for a staff job in the ministry.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is what we understand.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Put your money where your mouth is, Nixon.

Mr. Jackson: And then there were 18.

Mr. Breaugh: Paul Coffey and I are in the same league.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: When the government introduced this, it said it was aware of the general problem. The minister of the day said: “We want to act now. We want to act immediately.’’ These people are under fire in a number of ways -- rent review, being evicted; 20 of the 46 units are already hotel units. Now they are advertising openly, publicly. The government can see exactly what they are doing. There is no question. They have already converted these apartments into hotel units.

How does the minister explain to these people -- and I have copies of their letters, so I know the ministry is aware of it -- that the problem here is that with all the minister’s wisdom and all of her staff, she cannot define a regulation that defines a hotel room?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I will make no comment on the honourable member’s job prospects with the Ministry of Housing.

Regarding the question of the apartment hotels, let me just say that we are very concerned about people not losing their accommodation and we are committed to making sure they do not lose their accommodation. There are, however, a variety of ways of describing accommodation: hotel suites, apartment hotels and apartments. The member will know there is a legitimate role for apartment hotels in a city like Toronto to which people come and where they stay for significant periods of time. We are looking at the matter of 25 Wellesley Street and we will make sure that people are protected.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday the minister implied, in response to a question I posed, that the Environmental Assessment Board has a say in determining the future energy needs of the province. He knows, or he should know in any event, it is Ontario Hydro and his own ministry that are responsible for this. The Environmental Assessment Board has nothing to do with it. Ontario Hydro has been telling us the future energy needs of this province will be outlined in its demand-supply options study, which we all know is now more than a year overdue.

It has been reported that this study was completed last summer. What does the minister say? Is it complete or not and when will it be released to the public?

Hon. Mr. Wang: I understand the Hydro board will be reviewing the DSOS shortly, if it has not done so already, and I expect we will have it for the House soon.

Mr. Runciman: I do not know what “soon” means, another year perhaps, but over the past year we have had conflicting statements from the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who says there is no crisis, and the chairman of Ontario Hydro, who says there is a crisis regarding the future energy needs of the province. Will the new minister settle this dispute? If he will not freeze Hydro’s activities, as I asked yesterday, will he at least tell us whether his government intends to follow the recommendations reported to be in the demand-supply options study, and that is to build another multibillion-dollar nuclear power plant?

Hon. Mr. Wong: In order to answer the honourable member’s question properly, as I indicated yesterday, it is necessary to have all of the information in order to make such large billion-dollar decisions which cover such a long time span.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Jackson: This is what is keeping you out of cabinet.

Mr. Callahan: It is the members’ time. We will wait.

Mr. Jackson: Oh, now you want to be Speaker. Thanks.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Callahan: This government has consistently indicated that food banks are not the solution for providing adequate food for those people who are unable to afford proper food for themselves or their families. The minister has also been on record as favouring some other proposal. I recently asked the minister if he would discuss with his cabinet colleagues -- more specifically, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr.

Riddell) -- the possibility of some plan being allowed through the marketing boards to provide for surplus goods to be sold at cost to some permanent facility that could then distribute the food in a more humane and perhaps more dignified way to people who are unable to pay for it themselves.

I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to confer with his colleagues and perhaps could report to the House whether that is possible and whether he would consider developing a plan of that type.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have spoken to the Minister of Agriculture and Food about the potential reaction of marketing boards to allowing farmers to produce beyond their quota and that excess production being made available, for example, to food co-ops, of which lower-income -- and I said “lower,” not “low” -- families might become members. The minister’s response was that he was not sure himself how they would react to it but that he as a minister would be quite prepared to discuss it with them. He has had no initial negative reaction to it.

It has not gone any farther than that, but I would be quite prepared to co-operate with my colleague in Agriculture and Food to see whether there is any merit in that and whether we can get together the food producers and the food users in this province in a way that is helpful to both of them.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question to the Attorney General in his capacity as the Minister responsible for native affairs in the province. Would the minister agree that the Meech Lake constitutional accord is indeed a setback for the recognition of the constitutional rights of the aboriginals of this country and this province and for the guarantee of Indian self-government?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not of that view now, but I would be glad to hear the honourable member’s view.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister clarify what his view is? It seems to me that in the previous constitutional amending formula, even with that formula, we were unable to reach a definition of aboriginal rights through four conferences or to have an agreement of all the first ministers of this country.

Now, with the unanimity rule, would the minister not agree that it is even more unlikely that we will be able to reach a definition of aboriginal rights and an entrenchment of those rights and the rights to Indian self-government in the Constitution of this country?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would ask the member to observe two points. First, there is a notwithstanding provision in the Meech Lake accord which applies to protect all existing constitutional or other rights of aboriginal people, notwithstanding what the Meech Lake accord may say. That is a very full protection indeed.

Second, on the question of general constitutional reform, he well knows that the native people felt very aggrieved that their efforts to obtain a constitutional amendment respecting self-government was not achieved last year.

One of the practical reasons I believe it was not achieved is, as the member knows, since 1981 Quebec did not participate in the constitutional renewal process until the renewed Constitution that Prime Minister Trudeau had promised that province was to be made available. I believe if Quebec had seen fit to participate in that process, we might have had a different result. One of the good things about Meech Lake is that Quebec is now participating in the constitutional process as a result of this renewal.

FUNDING FOR HIGHWAYS

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. On page 5 of the Provincial Auditor’s report, which was tabled this week, it says:

“The provincial highways program is to provide and maintain a highway system that will satisfy the needs of the people of Ontario. Expenditure on capital and construction activities totalled $214.7 million in 1987. In our view the determination of construction priorities was questionable in several instances. We also felt that some priorities should be established on a province-wide basis; all are now decided on a regional basis.”

In view of the fact that many rural municipalities throughout Ontario feel their highway networks are not satisfactory to them or to the people who use them, would the minister tell us here today that he will see to it that they have additional funds in 1988 so they can go ahead and plan now to upgrade those roads and not let them go further behind?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the figures the honourable member mentioned were in fact from the 1986 auditor’s report. The figure he mentioned is, I think, the highest capital budget the Ministry of Transportation has ever seen, certainly in the last 44 years, as a percentage. We thank the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for his generosity in meeting those needs and addressing those needs, and we are working on 1988.

I could tell the member further that some of the changes we did make when we took over this responsibility was to work very closely with all the municipalities across this province in longer-term planning and funding of their and our mutual needs.

Mr. Wiseman: I go back to the Provincial Auditor’s report, which says the provincial highways program is to provide and maintain a highway system that will be satisfactory to the people of Ontario. I ask the minister to talk to his House leader, who I know has visited many of the municipalities that I have. I have read some of the reports the reeves have sent me, with a copy to the minister’s House leader, at which time they said they are not satisfied with the amount of money they have and that their road networks are falling farther and farther behind.

The minister did mention the $215 million that was put into the program in 1986, but most of that money, as he knows, did not go into rural or county roads. The Ontario Good Roads Association convention is coming up. Would he consider again letting those people know he is going to put an infusion of fresh dollars in, so that they can plan their work for 1988?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member would know that the figure he is mentioning is the highways capital allotment to the ministry, not the amount of money we transfer to the municipalities, which is in excess of $1 billion in total from the ministry.

Certainly, I would be the first to suggest that we inherited a very fine highway and road network in this province, and it has improved dramatically in the last two and a half years.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Provincial Auditor noted that in 1985 the Minister of the Environment had had information on only 147 of the 300 companies that discharge directly into Ontario’s waterways. Of that 147, only 39 reported results of toxicity tests, and of those 39, 31 failed the test.

Earlier this session I drew to the House’s attention the ministry’s 1986 report on industrial direct discharges. In 1986, the number of companies reporting had increased from 147 to 154. Can the minister tell the House how many of the 154 reported toxicity tests to the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member may be aware from her detailed knowledge of this, toxicity tests essentially apply only to very specific industries. For instance, the pulp and paper industry is one category of mill which is involved in toxicity tests. It is the one I would say is the most often used in terms of the toxicity test.

The member would know that as a result of identified problems with this particular problem, that is the toxicity test, we appointed an expert committee of three individuals, scientists and engineers. These people are experts from universities and from the private sector who have travelled to places such as Finland and Sweden, across Canada and in the United States to determine the best method of avoiding the kind of toxicity which is produced.

I am pleased to report to the member that some of the initial results they have been looking at, some of the initial programs that have been put in place in other countries, have in fact offered some hope that we can avoid even producing these toxins by changing the process.

Mrs. Grier: I tried to ask a very direct question that required merely a number as a response rather than an explanation of what toxicity tests were.

Mr. Speaker: Try it again.

Mrs. Grier: I will try as many times as I have to, but we on this side of the House are finding the minister’s rambling and imprecise answers very tiresome.

As a result of a morning’s work on his 1986 report -- because he does not tell us very directly how many toxicity tests were performed or what the results were -- we find that of the 154 companies that reported in 1986, 50 reported toxicity tests and 12 passed. So we are no better off in 1986 than we were in 1985, and only eight prosecutions were launched in 1986. Can the minister, who boasts so frequently that we have the toughest environmental laws in North America, tell the House when he is going to begin enforcing those regulations?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would know -- again, she is expert in this field -- that the problem is the system. She has identified the problem. I have identified the problem. That is precisely why I have brought in the program called the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. The problem is that we have guidelines at the present time --

Mr. Jackson: It does not include the secondary effluents.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member who interrupts would know that his government put guidelines in effect. Why, I do not know, because whoever puts them in effect knows they cannot be enforced.

Mrs. Grier: Enforce the guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You cannot enforce guidelines in the court; you can enforce standards. The whole purpose of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is to get standards we can enforce.

As part of her question, the member mentioned prosecutions. I can tell her that in 1984, there were 54 prosecutions and 57 convictions. Last year, there were 179 prosecutions and 138 convictions by the Ministry of the Environment, and in the first six months of this year we have initiated 114 prosecutions and obtained 83 convictions. It is moving up every time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham is waiting patiently for a new question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Another late show?

Mr. Cousens: Could be.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing to welcome her back after taking a day off. It has been some 58 days since this minister has been appointed to cabinet and since that time there has been no announcement, there has been no statement, and no action.

Yesterday morning, it is said, she met with the mayor of Toronto, His Worship Arthur Eggleton, who presented a 22-page report on the housing crisis in Toronto. As a result of that meeting, I was hoping the minister would have made some kind of an announcement, and maybe she can now. Did either of them touch on the need to determine an emergency plan for the homeless for this winter?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The situation of the people in this province and in this city who do not have a place to live is a very serious one. I have visited some of the places where people who currently have no place to live get shelter for the night. All members who have done that know how dreadful those places are and how much help the people who are currently homeless need.

The mayor did not raise this question in his discussions yesterday. What we discussed was a general approach to solving the housing situation in Ontario. In particular, he raised his concern that our approach be one that took into account the various areas that make up the greater Toronto region. This is exactly in line with the work we have been doing and with the announcement in the throne speech of a greater Toronto co-ordinating committee looking at the problems of the greater Toronto area in a unified fashion.

Mr. Cousens: I am very surprised that the mayor did not raise that as one of the issues on the important and urgent problem we have in Metropolitan Toronto right now.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: It is obvious the minister did not raise it with him, either.

From the ministry’s own statistics, approximately 45 people will die this year in Ontario because of homelessness. Our hostel network is overwhelmed. People are living in tents and makeshift homes, all because they cannot find decent, affordable housing.

Will the minister not consider our party’s suggestion of establishing an emergency housing directorate so that, at the very least, we can prevent such unnecessary deaths in the months to follow?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: To begin, may I simply correct the suggestion made by the member that I had a day off yesterday. I spent yesterday afternoon meeting with the Ottawa groups and with the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants’ Associations.

As to the question he has raised, we are now actively working to find emergency housing for any of the unfortunate people who find themselves on the street. The people from the Metro Toronto Housing Authority and the people from the Ministry of Community and Social Services do indeed go to those people and find them emergency shelter as a matter of course now.

What this government realizes is that no short-term answers will work here; that finding someone a bed for the night is a necessary but not sufficient answer to his or her difficulties. Our commitment is to make sure that there will be housing in place, decent housing which people can afford, so that the people who have to be on the street some of the time now will find permanent accommodation, because that is the only answer to this problem.

NURSING HOME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of the process that is going on in St. Thomas, where Caressant Care, which bought Rest Haven Nursing Home on September 6, 1986 -- this issue has been raised in this House before -- will be moving the 40 nursing home residents from Rest Haven Nursing Home to its Caressant Care facility and moving 50 rest home residents from the Caressant Care nursing home to Rest Haven, which they are now going to convert into a rest home.

I would like to ask the minister if she is prepared to use her power under the Nursing Homes Act to not allow this forced relocation of residents, and whether she has reviewed the literature that indicates that forced relocation of elderly people in nursing homes or rest homes is very detrimental to their emotional and physical health.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In response, let me say that I am not familiar with the specific case that the member raises in the House today, and I would be pleased to have an opportunity to look into that case.

Having said that, I would like to state that I am committed to allowing not only residents of nursing homes but the elderly population generally to live as independently as they can and with dignity in those homes when they require those kinds of services.

I will acquaint myself with the issue the member raises today and I hope in the future, when he asks the question again, I will be better able to respond.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I asked the minister's predecessor the question and he never bothered to respond. His ministry officials have been involved in this issue for a couple of years and they have not been able to resolve the issue. In fact, at this point they have approved the forced relocation of these residents in this nursing home.

I would like to ask the minister also to make herself aware of the fact that this nursing home chain, Caressant Care, owns 661 nursing home beds in southwestern Ontario. It is becoming a large monopoly, along with the other chains that exist in this province. Does the minister not understand that one of the major problems in this community, in St. Thomas, is that when her ministry approves the purchase of Rest Haven by Caressant Care, this type of thing is bound to happen with a monopoly? They own all the nursing home beds in the city of St. Thomas.

Is she prepared again to use the power granted to her under the Nursing Homes Act to stop the buying up of nursing homes by these large chains and increasing their power in the province in various communities and regions?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: To respond on a philosophical basis as opposed to a specific given in this particular case -- and I do make the commitment to the member to listen to his concerns and I will do what I can to familiarize myself with the particular instance -- on a philosophical basis, my concern is that patients and residents in nursing homes receive the highest quality of care that we can ensure they are able to receive.

My commitment for the future and the announcement from this government is our approach to expansion of the nonprofit sector in the nursing home environment. He will be aware that in his own community we have been looking to fulfil that commitment to ensure that we do expand that sector wherever possible when we receive proposals where we can approve non-profit nursing home beds. I am happy to let him know that I will take a look at the specific he has raised in the House today, but my approach is one of quality of care for patients as the number one priority.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I know he is aware there is a very large, important meeting taking place tonight in the Pickering High School. Will the minister confirm whether or not he has received a formal application from Metro Toronto asking for an exemption from the environmental assessment process for the proposed Brock South landfill site and does he have any comment on that application for exemption?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have not received it personally at this time and I am not aware if it is in the Ministry of the Environment at this time. I have, as the member has followed through the news media, the proposal that was made, the vote that took place at council. I think there were three or four resolutions that were before Metro council. I am aware that they have an intention of doing that. I have not received it yet in any form and I am not in a position to be able to comment on it until I have received it.

I want to ensure, as I know the member would, that we have a full evaluation of the circumstances surrounding any proposal that Metropolitan Toronto would put forward. They have indicated that they have a garbage crisis, as they would refer to it, and they are looking for ways in which to handle that garbage crisis. The member, being from Mississauga, will agree with me that one of the best ways of doing that is to implement a full recycling program in Metropolitan Toronto and all of the incentives are there and all of the upfront money is there for them to become involved in that.

I think that would serve to alleviate part of that problem, but specific to the member’s question, I have not received that yet.

Mrs. Marland: The minister knows there are three bases upon which an exemption to the environmental assessment process can be made. The first one is environmental insignificance, and we certainly know that is not so in this particular site. The second is public interest, and we know what the people think, especially those in the Durham region who live in close proximity to this proposed site. The third is an emergency.

I heard very clearly the minister’s comments where he was talking about the fact that they may have a request for an emergency based on what he has heard so far, albeit through the media. I would ask the minister if he considers there to be a real emergency in view of the existing facilities -- and we certainly are aware, through the same sources I suppose, that the existing facilities have in fact about another 12 years for Metro Toronto. But in view of the existing facilities, what will the minister do when Toronto makes that request and claims it is an emergency when, as he has just said himself, they have not begun to explore their garbage recycling alternatives?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am aware that a former Minister of the Environment, Bill Newman, indicated he was denouncing the previous government’s handling of that particular site, Brock landfill site, and said there had been misinformation provided in that regard. I am aware of that and I understand he will be speaking on that tonight.

I am wondering if the member is advocating, for instance, that the Keele Valley landfill site should run 24 hours a day. One of the problems I guess when they look at all of the other alternatives -- and I simply look at all those alternatives. I would have to be convinced in any case. As former ministers would know, if there is ever an emergency, a minister has to be assured in his or her own mind that in fact there is an emergency, and our ministry officials would, of course, have to evaluate that circumstance.

But when you look at the various alternatives, I heard the member mention 12 years, and l think she would have to know that if she is thinking of Keele Valley, you run the trucks 24 hours a day in and out of there.

PETITION

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have a petition signed by approximately 568 residents of the city of Windsor and addressed to the Legislature, petitioning the need for legislation of mandatory programs for child abuse therapy offered by the children’s aid society.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The main purpose of this legislation is to implement changes to the unconditional grants program for 1987 which were previously announced by my predecessor in November 1986. The legislation will also make two housekeeping amendments to the act.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Grier moved first reading of Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Grier: The purpose of this bill is to aid in the enforcement of the rules of the road as they apply to bicyclists. It adds the requirement that bicyclists provide identifying information to police of ricers who request it, and I commend the legislation to the government.

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED WOOD ENERGY TECHNICIANS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. McGuigan moved first reading of Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Association of Registered Wood Energy Technicians of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Explanation?

Mr. McGuigan: The purpose of the act is to set up rules and regulations to govern the --

Mr. Speaker: Sorry. Is this a private bill?

Mr. McGuigan: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, no explanation is allowed. That can be made in committee.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Eves moved first reading of Bill 48,

An Act to amend the Police Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Eves: The purpose of this bill will be to prohibit police forces from selling or trading abandoned, lost, stolen, confiscated or seized firearms. The bill would require police forces to destroy all abandoned, lost, stolen, confiscated or seized firearms when those firearms were no longer required for the conduct of a legal action.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Peterson, resolution 5:

That a select committee on constitutional reform be appointed to consider and report on the 1987 constitutional accord, signed at Ottawa on June 3, 1987, and tabled in the House on November 23, 1987 (sessional paper 74), and matters related thereto; that the committee submit its report to the assembly before the end of the spring sitting of the First Session of this parliament, provided that if the House is not sitting, the committee have authority to release its report by depositing a copy of it with the Clerk of the assembly and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the chairman of the committee shall bring such report before the House in accordance with the standing orders; that the committee have authority to sit concurrently with the House and during any adjournment of the House, subject to the approval of the three party whips; and that a full Hansard service be provided for all of the proceedings of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On behalf of the government, it is a great honour to join the debate in support of this particular resolution.

Honourable members will know that in the spring of 1980 our fellow citizens in Quebec were asked in a provincial referendum to vote whether they proposed or not to continue as part of the Canadian Confederation. They were promised in the course of that referendum by our national leaders and by leaders from all across the country that a vote for Canada was not a vote for the status quo, and the people of Quebec were assured time and time again that in return for a no vote in that important, perhaps critical, referendum, Canadian federalism and our Constitution would be renewed.

Ontario and its leaders at that time added their voice to those promising change to Quebeckers and on May 9, 1980, in this Legislature by a vote of 111 to zero, the Legislature approved a resolution calling for “a new Constitution to satisfy the diverse aspirations of all Canadians and to replace the status quo which is clearly unacceptable.”

A short 11 days later after a hectic referendum campaign, the people of Quebec delivered their part of the bargain. Quebec, by its vote, put its confidence in the Canadian Confederation and just as important in the assurances of constitutional change that had been solemnly made by all of us to it.

But in the constitutional changes which brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, two years after the referendum, the historic concerns of Quebec were, as everybody conceded, not addressed. On the other hand, concerns relating to equality rights --

section 15 of the charter -- multiculturalism, aboriginal rights and minority-language education, all mentioned in the charter, were given constitutional recognition; only the concerns of Quebec were left out.

The 1982 Constitution failed to make good on the promise we had made in the referendum that there would be adequate protection for the distinct identity of Quebec. When we promised that, those words caused no difficulty. Rather than having its distinctiveness within Canada recognized and protected in 1982, Quebec saw its powers reduced by that Constitution without its consent.

The sentiments in Quebec following the events of 1982 have been graphically described by a number of people, but among them Solange Chaput-Rolland, a member of the Pepin-Robarts commission and one of the leading campaigners for a no vote in the referendum. After the 1982 round, here is what she said:

The exclusion of Quebec by the 1982 negotiations, which she so graphically described, had serious consequences for all of us. Within Quebec, the provincial government refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The National Assembly inserted clauses in each of its laws purporting, pursuant to

section 33, to override the charter.

Further, Quebec refused to discuss future constitutional changes, a point I made to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) today. This meant, for example, and this is only one example, that when first ministers met last March in an attempt to entrench an aboriginal right to self-government in the Constitution, the government of Quebec refused to participate. This, of course, made it virtually impossible to secure adequate support for an amendment. As we know, that meeting, regrettably, ended in failure.

Quebec’s exclusion as a result of 1982, notwithstanding the referendum of 1980, was a deep and nagging wound for all Canadians and for all of us. It was a wound which, if left unattended, might some day threaten again the unity of the nation in an even more profound way.

In order to heal that wound and to restore Canada to a measure of political and constitutional health, first ministers met earlier this year and eventually arrived at the constitutional resolution which has been laid before the House today. Its genesis was a public speech made by representatives of the new Quebec government about a year and a half ago and its five proposals were widely debated across the country in the proceedings leading up to the first ministers’ meetings.

The key to the agreement was the decision by provincial Premiers in August 1986 to limit the discussions to that list of five proposals which had been put forward by the strongly federalist government of Quebec. These five proposals were widely recognized across Canada as being moderate and constructive. I believe that Quebec’s proposals made a year and a half ago should be recognized as

an act of profound political courage and national statesmanship.

This government believes that the constitutional resolution laid before the House is demonstrably in the national interests. In our judgement, it represents an essential and historic act of national reconciliation. It will bring to an end what we regard and what we must regard, all of us, whatever our views, as an intolerable situation: the constitutional isolation, in theory, in law, in fact, of Quebec from the rest of Canada. In the judgement of the government, it will do so while maintaining individual and group rights under the charter to which we are all also committed.

This government wants a full and open scrutiny of the terms of the accord. That is why the government proposes that the constitutional resolution be referred to a select committee on constitutional reform and related matters. The committee will have an opportunity to hear the views of the citizens of this province and report back to the House.

Like all statecraft, the Meech Lake accord is not perfect, but neither was the Constitution Act of 1982. That is demonstrable. Nor, indeed, was the original Confederation compromise of 1867. That was demonstrable. Canada, like all non-revolutionary societies, has been built and sustained through political compromise rather than abstract theorizing. The 1987 constitutional accord is not the end of the journey but another milestone in the continuing process of nation-building. I believe the accord is firmly within the Canadian tradition. It respects and honours the delicate balance between the unity and the diversity of the Canadian nation.

Let us take some parts of it, the “distinct society” provision, for example. Clauses 2(1)(

a) and (

b) of the constitutional resolution provide that the Constitution is to be “interpreted” -- that is the word used -- in a manner consistent with the existence of language duality in Canada and the fact that “Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.”

This

section does not confer any powers whatever. It is an interpretative provision which will be used by courts where other constitutional provisions are unclear or ambiguous. This clause, so widely debated, therefore confers no power and is an interpretative aid alone. It instructs courts in cases of ambiguity to take into account the existence of language duality and distinctiveness in the process of

interpretation.

A second important point is that this clause does not override anything in the Charter of Rights. Since it is merely an interpretative provision, it is subordinate to the charter. All Quebec laws, including those passed in order to preserve linguistic duality or promote the distinct identity of Quebec, must comply, like any other laws, with the charter. If a law violates the charter, then the law will be invalid.

The government of Quebec, in entering into the negotiations that produced the Meech Lake accord, has affirmed its acceptance of the Charter of Rights. M. Gil Rémillard, the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs, indicated in his speech at Mont-Gabriel in May 1986 that the charter is a document which Quebeckers can be proud of.

M. Rémillard has pledged for his government, “We want the fundamental rights of Quebeckers to be as well protected as those of other Canadians.” Thus the Meech Lake accord, far from undermining the charter, ensures its solemn and symbolic acceptance by the government of Quebec.

Take a second example about which there may be debate or concern, the federal powers and their reach as a result of the accord. One of the criticisms of the accord has been that the federal government has sacrificed too many of its powers to the provinces.

It should be noted, first of all, and there is a specific provision to this effect, that nothing in the accord diminishes the legislative power of Parliament. All existing federal powers remain intact and untouched under the accord. The accord does clarify and constrain the use of the federal spending power, which was not previously a power explicitly granted to the federal government, but the constraint is a relatively narrow one.

Federal spending is only limited in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and the limitation only applies to future shared-cost programs. It imposes no limit on existing programs nor does it apply to federal funding provided directly to individuals or institutions.

Finally, even in the case of shared-cost programs undertaken in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provinces are required to undertake programs or initiatives compatible with objectives defined by Parliament in order to receive compensation. I believe it cannot be demonstrated that any program initiated by the federal government in the last 40 years would have failed to meet the test that the accord stipulates.

At the same time, the spending provision makes plain that the federal government has the constitutional right to attach conditions to money it offers to provinces within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I emphasize that because it was a point worthy of debate, that nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government given the power to spend money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is now provided for, and it is a matter of right that the federal government can attach conditions to moneys it offers to provinces within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

In the government’s judgement, this represents in totality a reasonable compromise between those who argue for an unlimited federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial responsibility and those who would impose much more severe limits on that power. It is a much narrower restriction on federal power than was proposed, for example, by the federal government itself in the 1960s. We have not gone as far in the Meech Lake accord as the national government of that day proposed to go in relation to spending power.

Moreover, the principle that provinces should have the right to opt out of federal programs is by no means novel. In fact, the major shared-cost programs that have been undertaken since 1960 have made provision for a provincial variation in the nature of the programs delivered, and this amendment will permit provinces to tailor programs to the needs of their residents while meeting program objectives defined by the federal government.

A third matter that will be referred to is, of course, the amending formula, and the resolution provides for two changes in the amending formula. The Constitution Act of 1982 had provided that the province could opt out of certain constitutional amendments and apply for compensation if the amendment related to education or other cultural matters. Under the Meech Lake accord, this right to apply for compensation is broadened to apply to any amendments transferring powers from provinces to the federal government.

The second change to the amending formula involves amendments to certain federal institutions, as the Senate and the House of Commons, and to amendments creating new provinces. Formerly, those amendments required the consent of the federal Houses and seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population. Under Meech Lake, the consent of all provinces would be required.

Here we see, I believe, an important example of the delicate balancing of federal and provincial interests in pursuit of national reconciliation. The class of amendments subject to unanimity involves matters which have important effects on the country as a whole. Further, the Meech Lake process itself is testimony to the fact that unanimity is, as indeed it has been in Canada for 120 years, a workable requirement.

Mr. Laughren: Is that how the other provinces got in?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Of course that is precisely how the other provinces got in, by requirement of unanimity.

The accord also provides for a provincial role in future appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada. In future, the federal authorities will make appointments from lists of candidates submitted by the provinces. These proposals will not grant provinces undue control over these national institutions. No appointment can be made unless the candidate is acceptable to the federal government. Further, once the appointment has been made, the appointee is not subject in any way to provincial control.

Let me turn to the matter of the hearings that are referred to in the resolution. The accord, as a result of this resolution if it is passed, will now be the subject of public scrutiny and debate by the citizens of Ontario. Two things, I believe, need to be kept in mind during that debate.

First, I believe that the accord cannot be analysed against some purely hypothetical or abstract alternative. The accord must be analysed in the light of the absolute necessity of achieving national reconciliation and discharging our promise of 1980. It is not sufficient to ask whether there is an alternative set of proposals which might theoretically be superior to the accord as written. The real issue is not one of theory; it is whether there is an alternative set of proposals which can accomplish in fact the critical and overriding task of national reconciliation.

When members of this House and citizens of the province come to consider the accord, I would ask that we might all remain mindful of the paramount objective of national reconciliation. To those who propose amendments -- and many will when the committee considers those amendments, we might keep in mind the following questions.

First, how serious is the alleged flaw? Second, must the flaw alleged be corrected immediately, or is it possible the problem can be corrected at some future time, possibly by including it on the agenda for immediate attention by the first ministers at the 1988 first ministers’ conference? Third, is the harm identified so significant that it would justify putting at risk the broad consensus we have achieved in pursuit of the overriding objective of national reconciliation?

In addition to these particular questions, there is a second general consideration that I hope might be kept in mind in the provincial debate on the accord. The issue for Ontarians is not simply whether to amend or to reject the accord. There is also a larger important question relating to the future of constitutional reform, which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) referred to earlier during question period in a slightly different context.

Much of the criticism of the accord has focused on the process through which it came about, and one of the questions the select committee may well want to investigate is ways in which that process might be improved. The committee may also want to investigate future substantive initiatives for constitutional reform. It is for that reason its mandate is to inquire into the Meech Lake accord and related matters.

In tabling the constitutional resolution before the House today, the government reaffirms the commitment it made on June 3 in Ottawa. We are confident the proposal is an honourable and historic reconciliation of our fellow citizens in Quebec within this country. We are now proud to ask the House and the people of Ontario to participate once again in this exercise of nation-building.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to start by saying I find it curious, to put it mildly, that we would be addressed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at 1:30 on the importance of participatory democracy and giving the people a chance to have their voices heard, and that the Premier would then choose to be absent for the initial discussion of the reference of this matter to the committee.

I might add that this is the second such occasion on which the Premier, among many others, has chosen to be away. He was not here for the reply to the speech from the throne, either by myself or by the leader of the Conservative Party.

This may well be the precedent he is trying to set, that he does not take this place seriously and does not take discussions here seriously. That may well be the attitude he chooses to reflect and to express. There is not much any one of us can do about that, except to comment on it.

I recall well, when I first came here, that there were times when Mr. Davis was not here, but there was never a time when he was not here when he did not take the trouble to speak to the leaders of other parties and say that he could not be in the House for an occasion such as this. Never, not in my experience. This is the sign of a government that has completely lost its sense of proportion and its sense of the importance of this place.

Either this place is going to be an assembly that will have the chance to debate things and have those views heard or it is not. The fact that the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who is after all the first minister in the House, chooses to be absent or away for debates on occasions such as this is, in my view, reprehensible. It shows a contempt for the House, a contempt for the views of other members and a contempt for the perspective of other parties. It does not bode well for the kind of give and take we normally expect to see in the House.

It shows a particular contempt because one of the problems that I think even the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) recognized, since he said it is one of the issues that has been identified by people who are concerned about the Meech Lake accord, is the criticism of the process. That is a criticism I raised today in my questions to the Premier and in my reply to his initial, very brief statement to the House. It is something that I think we have to address.

In my initial reaction to the first tentative agreement from Meech Lake, I spent some time speaking to this question when I spoke to the House back on May 26. I do not want to be accused of quoting myself but I did spend some time then talking about my experiences as a private member in Ottawa during the earlier constitutional negotiations and my experiences here with this question of constitutional reform.

At that time, the Premier referred to the events that took place at Meech Lake, and subsequently at the Langevin Block, as being an experience of national reconciliation and national bonding. I must say I find that description of what has taken place rather offensive. What we have is a process in which the people have not been involved, in which indeed even the legislatures have not been involved. Our only involvement has been absolutely post facto.

It is true that governments may have been involved, and it is certainly true that they have had an opportunity to discuss the meaning of each clause, why some clauses are there and others are not. But whenever I have asked questions in the House on this matter the Premier has not been particularly forthcoming, as he was not today, in explaining why it was that certain changes were made that have had a serious effect on the accord itself.

I want to make it very clear. I will say what I have said before about this. It is extremely important in the history of this country that Quebec be a voluntary signatory and participant in the Canadian Constitution. That is an extremely important fact of life. It is one that differentiated my response to the Meech Lake accord from that of Mr. Grossman when he was the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Grossman and I were on television in a debate during the previous election campaign which the Premier did not choose to attend, again perhaps a harbinger of debates to come and of attitudes to come. The Premier chose not to attend that.

We had a very full discussion of Meech Lake, and I put forward my concerns at that time. I want to put them forward again today, but I want to put them forward against the background where I say to the Attorney General that he does not have to give us a lecture on this side of the House about the importance of including Quebec in the Constitution.

There is no question about that. I for one am not going to accept an argument that says if we raise a single question, if we point to a single flaw, if we raise some major concerns, that even in doing that, we are somehow engaged in

an act of quasi-disloyalty towards the country in this process of national reconciliation.

I hope we do not get into this business of the kind of attitude expressed by the Premier this afternoon where he basically implied that anybody who did not agree with him was somehow less of a Canadian patriot and less someone concerned about bringing the Constitution together than he is. That attitude is not going to do. It is an attitude which we will not accept.

There are a great many people in this province and in this country who have concerns about the Meech Lake accord. They are legitimate. They do not stem, as the Premier has said, from people not understanding the accord; they stem from people having a different point of view.

I hope we have not reached the stage in this debate where everybody who has a different point of view is immediately going to be seen to say: “You are not expressing the view of Canadian solidarity that is appropriate.” I certainly do not intend to take that attitude, and I am very deeply disappointed that it seems to be the attitude of the Premier.

I think the Attorney General in his remarks today did put forward the case for the Meech Lake accord in a way which reflects the legal scholarship and sense of constitutional history which the Attorney General, quite rightly, reflects in the province, but let me also say there are some other points of view which need to be addressed and which, in my view, the government has not addressed particularly directly in its responses.

First, with regard to the “distinct society” clause, I do not take the view that the clause in and of itself reflects a threat to the country and to national unity. I read the remarks of the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), who spoke at some length about Meech Lake in the throne speech debate. I must confess that I do not share his view, and I gather that neither do the Premier and the Attorney General, that in somehow recognizing the “distinct society” clause, we are giving a special status or a separate status to Quebec that is totally and utterly different from that which we accord to other provinces.

I do not take that view. I take the view that what we are doing in the “distinct society” clause is simply recognizing a sociological and cultural reality of our time. When people say Prince Edward Island is also different, York South is also different, some other part of the country is also different, some other community is different, that is true; that can well be said.

But it would be denying our history as a country to fail to recognize the distinct character of Quebec in this country and in the history of North America. It would seem to me to be only appropriate that our Constitution express that. For that reason, I have never been able to understand or appreciate -- and I am still trying to, because I respect his views -- the really vitriolic view which was expressed by Mr. Trudeau with regard to the impact of this clause.

It seems to me there is, however, a broader point that needs to be made. My concern about the clause in which the phrase “the distinct society” is contained is not that it sets Quebec apart. My concern is that it is in a sense, as the Attorney General has described it, an interpretative clause that is designed to aid the courts in their

interpretation of the entire Constitution. In that sense, as an interpretative clause about Canada, what troubles me with this whole

section is not that it sets out something with respect to the question of Quebec, which I think it is only appropriate that it should do, but that it does not touch on other matters.

I have real difficulty, and I think many people do and I hope the House and the country do eventually, with an interpretative clause that is completely silent on the subject of our native people -- our first citizens, as Jack Stokes used to insist they be called. I have real difficulty with what I think has been one of our chief failures as a country, and what business that still remains to be done, and that is that if you want to talk about national reconciliation, you cannot just talk about it in terms of Quebec. National reconciliation, if that phrase is to have the meaning it needs to have, includes Quebec, certainly, but it also includes others.

I know the Attorney General will say these are subjects for another day. Ultimately, that may be a conclusion I reach as well. I have not reached it yet because I am not as persuaded as he is that we have to see the accord as unamendable or unchangeable. Not having been involved in the process, it is inevitable that I would have that point of view, but I think I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that we do not share the view that this is the end of the road and that there is nothing useful we can do in trying to change it.

It has been the subject of a very extensive debate within many communities. The member who shares the northern part of my constituency at the federal level, Mr. Marchi; the member who shares the middle part of my constituency, Mr. Nunziata; and the member who shares the southern part of my constituency, Mr.

Witer -- all from different political parties -- have raised the question of our sense of ethnic identification and, if we were interpreting the Constitution and drafting an interpretative clause that gives colour and substance to the entire Constitution of this country, whether we would not really want to say something about the fact that we have all come here from many different cultural traditions and reflect those cultural traditions in our life and work.

To use the phrase, we are not a melting pot as is the United States; we are a country that takes great pride in not only recognizing but also nourishing, protecting and encouraging ethnic diversity and a sense of ethnic history and ethnic identity.

I think all of us have come to see this. Certainly in our political lives, as we get to know different parts of the province and many different communities, I think we all realize that this is not just a matter of folklore, that it is not just a matter of speeches that one gives at various banquets; it is a matter that speaks very directly to the meaning of this country, that we reflect a different kind of immigrant community than others do. We have chosen as a country, very creatively, and I think very courageously, to recognize the histories and the diversity of the country.

Therefore, I think the interpretative

section is flawed. I will get to the question of how deeply flawed, but I think it is flawed, not because it includes Quebec but because it does not include other people. If I can make a general point about the Meech Lake document, I think its flaw is that it speaks only to the Quebec agenda, and does not speak to some other agendas which in my view are also extremely legitimate and important; and because of its rigidity it does not provide for a good enough process to deal with this question of how we include others who have not been included in the deal or who have been very directly excluded from the deal.

That, I think, is the fundamental question which the House is going to have to address, which we are going to have to address and which the committee is going to have to address.

I want to make a couple of other points before l come to this question of rigidity.

I am not one of those who comes from the school of what I would describe -- and I do not mean this uncharitably -- as those, principally within the Liberal Party itself, who have been most critical of the deal because it fails to give absolute primacy to the Charter of Rights. I have said this before and I will say it again, l am not one of those who thinks that the failure of the Constitution in 1982 to make the charter absolutely pre-eminent in all respects was a mistake. At the time -- and I am prepared to confess mea culpa -- l was critical of the “notwithstanding” clause. I would not be so critical today.

To those who say we are not covered by the charter adequately, or it is possible that governments may do something that will in a sense affect the charter one way or the other, I can only say it seems to me from my brief experience in political life and public policy, admittedly always from this side of the House, my observation is that it is probably wise not to give either the courts or the legislatures the absolutely final word in these matters.

It is probably wise to have a kind of dialectical approach where we say, “Let us hear what the courts have to say and let the legislatures consider whether that is really what they want to do,” to give some kind of flexibility, which makes us different from the American Constitution, but which I think preserves the sense of democratic input and some broader concepts of rights that we as legislators might have and that courts from time to time might not have.

To use a shorthand phrase, I think the “notwithstanding” clause is a very effective safety valve. I think it would be a mistake to get rid of it. I think the drafters are to be congratulated for having found it in 1982.

I myself am now persuaded that those who say the problem with this whole Meech Lake accord is -- particularly, l think, this has been the view reflected in the women’s movements that have commented on the accord -- that it necessarily is a bad thing because it continues this process where provinces can, in a sense, move away from the charter. I am not persuaded that is a terrible thing.

I make the observation that the idea that the courts are necessarily going to be the best protector of anybody’s rights is a view I do not share. I think experience would tend to confirm that you need a combination, a chemistry, if you like, of courts and legislators and yes, the population, people fighting and determining to fight for their rights, and that kind of dialectic before we get the kind of result we want.

Nor am I, unlike many members of the Liberal Party, one of those who believes that the

section of the Constitution with respect to the spending power necessarily limits or takes away from the rights of the federal House which it now has. I think there has been a lot of real misunderstanding about this one, and I think frankly a lot of debates which are really quite out of keeping with what has taken place, such as the allegation that was repeated again today by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) that it would be impossible to have a national day care program with this

section of the Constitution.

I just do not share that view. I do not see that as part of what we have agreed to or what the Premiers have agreed to. I do not see that as being in this document. I do not see it as a necessary consequence of what the Premiers and the Prime Minister have agreed to.

I will be interested in hearing from people who feel that it is. Having spent a little bit of time thinking about it and reading about what various decisions have been and what the practice has been over the last 35 or 40 years, I really do not think it makes that kind of change. I know one rhetorically would like to think that it does or might want to make the point that it does, but I myself must say I do not feel that is what is taking place.

I think it is worth remembering the words of Pierre Elliott Trudeau before he was Prime Minister, when he was a law professor in the faculty of the University of Montreal. He was writing in a book in 1961 entitled Social Purpose for Canada, where the future Prime Minister talked about the meaning of co-operative federalism and what some of the advantages were of having the kind of flexibility that our federal system has.

I cannot quote verbatim because I do not have the quote in front of me, but I remember the passage vividly because it struck me as I read it as a student so many years ago. When I was hearing him now, I realized how very different his views are, which is fine, but I just think it is worth reminding people of what he said at that time.