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

June 10, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to bring to the attention of members an excellent new book prepared by the Reverend Albert Revell of Newmarket, entitled Caring For Seniors -- A Model of Pastoral Care for the Elderly in Long-term Care Facilities.

Reverend Revell is currently the pastoral care director for the York-Simcoe ministries, an eight-year-old interdenominational caring program for seniors. He is also the chaplain to the Newmarket Veterans Association, the Royal Canadian Legion's Branch 426 and the York Regional Police.

In the foreword to his book Reverend Revell states:

"The intent of this book is to create an awareness of the awesome need for laypersons to be involved in ministry to seniors who reside in long-term care facilities or who are shut away in their homes and apartments. Its focus is to help clergy, their churches and the laypeople to understand what ecumenical as well as denominational care giving is all about."

Of particular interest is the

chapter on the multifaith needs of our seniors. How can laypeople of one particular faith minister to those of another? The book gives useful and pertinent suggestions to those involved in working with seniors of various cultural and religious backgrounds.

Seniors, like everyone else, have a variety of needs. Reverend Revell reminds us that there is a key need for pastoral care. I would ask all members to join with me in welcoming Reverend Revell to this Legislature and recognizing his important work in pastoral care.

LEGAL FEES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to bring forward a concern that many members of the Upper Canada Law Society and the constituents within my riding of Dufferin-Peel have shared with me.

The Attorney General has introduced yet another form of taxation in the province of Ontario. This will allow the NDP government to tax the dead. Perhaps the worst hypocrisy of this situation is that the Attorney General felt that an increase that amounts to three times the previous rate was not worth a statement in the Legislature, let alone a debate on his edict. How can this government pass along transfer payments of 1%, 2% and 2% -- "Be creative" -- and then increase some taxes by three times?

What the honourable member fails to realize is that these increases are yet another tax that the consumer will have to pay in the course of doing business. We continue to be the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.

The average person's access to the courts will be restricted because of an increase in court fees. In an attempt to encourage new home buyers, the federal government has recently decreased from 10% to 5% the down payment required for the purchase of a new home. This NDP government chooses to increase the administrative cost of purchasing a home to three times the previous rate.

The federal government giveth and the provincial government taketh away. The great keepers of the little guy are continuing to hit the consumer with taxes, taxes and more taxes.

BIKE AWARENESS WEEK

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to bring to your attention Bike Awareness Week in Peterborough. Bike Awareness Week is aimed at promoting pollution-free, non-motorized transport in and around Peterborough.

Today the Peterborough Bikeways Committee will distribute a map of recreational cycling routes in the county and city through the Peterborough Examiner. Tonight at 7 o'clock there will be a slide presentation on children's bike safety at the firehall on Sherbrooke Street. This Sunday at 1 o'clock, all in Peterborough with access to a bike -- moms, dads, the kids and grandparents -- are encouraged to tie a coloured ribbon or streamer to their bikes and pedal to demonstrate their support for better cycling in Peterborough.

Bicycling is the cleanest, healthiest and most energy-efficient mode of transport. In a 10-mile commute a cyclist requires only 360 calories of renewable energy; a car driver uses up 18,600 calories of non-renewable energy.

Choosing bike travel over car travel means substantially less pollution. Cars produce 2.6 pounds of hydrocarbons and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per mile travelled, in contrast to the emission-free bicycle.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Peterborough Cycling Club and Peterborough Bikeways for their hard work in promoting better cycling. We hope to see everybody on their bikes this week.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On Monday morning Dr Kathy Kovacs, a psychiatrist at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, told a radio interviewer that cutbacks in psychiatric beds in Ottawa-Carleton have created a serious problem.

The interviewer said: "We've been hearing it for a long time now. There just aren't enough hospital beds to take care of the psychiatrically ill, and last week both the Queensway Carleton and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario chopped a few more. Now, how do you decide which patients will be treated in an emergency ward, and what do you do with those who can't be?"

Dr Kovacs responded: "With great difficulty. It's become an increasing problem. It's really gotten to the point that unless somebody is extremely ill, acutely suicidal or homicidal we just can't take them in. There just aren't any beds."

Later the interviewer asked: "Where are we going here? These are probably not the last beds [cut]. It probably will continue. Does that mean at some point the system starts to tear?" Dr Kovacs responded: "Oh, I think it will and I think it's getting close to that. Families are often the ones that [take] the brunt of the problem and they just can't manage any more, and we frequently have them just give up. And you know, it's having a great effect on everyone, and I think we are close to the point of the whole system tearing."

How can the Treasurer increase the Ministry of Labour budget by $100 million and shut out the mentally ill?

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last week I was able to see at first hand the success of a breakfast program at Hillcrest Public School in Owen Sound.

As members will know, our caucus has long been in favour of this government acting as a facilitator between private industry, community groups and boards of education to ensure that our school children start the day with a nutritious meal.

Realizing that studies have shown that malnourished or hungry young people do not perform well academically, the Owen Sound-Grey-Bruce branch of the Red Cross has taken action. In conjunction with other community agencies they've designed a pilot project breakfast program for students in kindergarten to grade 6 at Hillcrest and Alexandra schools. The program, which began in March, will run until the end of the school year and then be assessed. It is funded by donations, not tax dollars. It is open to all children with no means test and is operated by volunteers.

I am delighted to see that Grey is taking an important leadership role in the development of breakfast programs. This is exactly the sort of fiscally responsible initiative my caucus colleagues and I have been advocating for some time. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to follow the example set by the Red Cross in my area and encourage ventures of this sort everywhere in Ontario. Our young people deserve this start in life.

FURANO THEATRE COMPANY

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): This past weekend Huron county's Blyth Festival Theatre became an international culture centre. The Furano Theatre Company of Hokkaido, Japan, presented three performances of its play Kanashibetsu to three packed houses and received three prolonged standing ovations.

The people of Huron county understood and responded emotionally to the story of a Japanese town's disintegration after its only industry shut down. Kanashibetsu is an inspirational play that breaks through all cultural barriers. It is a powerful and moving story of unemployed youth, abandoned by a greedy, uncaring world, who ultimately realize their only hope for themselves and for us all must be discovered within the human community.

Blyth was the first stop of the Furano Theatre Company's tour to New York. Toronto audiences had the opportunity to see this marvellous play last night and will have the opportunity this evening at 8 pm at Young People's Theatre. I urge you all to attend.

I'd also like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Communications, which helped put on this play, and all the staff and residents of the Blyth area who treated their guests with the Huron hospitality we're all noted for. I would also like to thank the artistic director, Peter Smith, who took the time to read this play and realized we need to be told this in Canada. Of course, in Huron county we're the leaders, as has happened so many times. I would especially like to thank all those in the area who supported these people and have supported the Blyth Festival for many years. It's proving we need culture and it's very important for all of us.

MENINGITIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): This past winter parents in eastern Ontario listened carefully to the reports of an outbreak of meningitis in the Ottawa-Carleton region. After monitoring the situation the Ministry of Health ordered a massive immunization campaign for all school-aged children.

At that time I joined the school board directors, the mayor of Cornwall and the representatives from surrounding counties in calling on the Minister of Health to consider such an effort for our area. Members should know that there were three cases of meningitis detected in the Cornwall area, and it was with deep sadness that I learned a boy in Espanola died from meningitis yesterday.

Because of the complexities of meningitis many parents all over Ontario are very anxious to be informed on local cases. Many public offices were flooded with inquiries from concerned parents. I believe the public awareness campaign on meningitis served to address the fears of parents and students. Unfortunately the health unit was not immediately prepared for the onslaught of questions and near-panic.

I hope the Ministry of Health is now working closely with the eastern Ontario health unit and all health units to review procedures on how to deal with this future public health crisis.

LEGAL FEES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On May 29 the NDP arbitrarily imposed a series of sizeable increases to registry fees affecting real estate transactions. These new charges are part of an overall fee increase announced, but buried, in the NDP budget to the tune of over $40 million.

For example, the fee for settling an estate of over $50,000 has tripled from 0.5% to 1.5%. When doing a search on a specific property it used to cost $4 for the name of each previous owner. This fee has also tripled, to $11. When it is considered that a property search can go as far back in time as 40 years or more and can involve 16 to 30 previous owners, the final sum for a sheriff's certificate could be as high as $300. Costs of registering real estate documents may likewise rise over 400%.

It was six years ago that the Liberals began these fee increases as a hidden source of extra tax revenue. The NDP are bringing in unprecedented fee increases to gouge consumers at this critical time of recession in Ontario, all the time without any prior public consultation or notice.

The NDP Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations should be ashamed of herself, just sitting idly by as these fee increases are imposed, increases she knows will only hurt those attempting to buy affordable housing.

I call on the NDP government to stop these hidden tax grabs which punish consumers and hurt investment and commerce potential in our province. It is time for NDP rhetoric on economic recovery to stop and time for the practical measures that will help consumers be part of the strategy of economic recovery in Ontario.

LUSOFEST '92

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It is with great enthusiasm that I rise in the House today to join with all members in celebrating Portugal Day and in particular the Lusofest '92 cultural festival in Hamilton. This past Saturday I attended the kickoff ceremonies for Lusofest '92 at city hall in my riding of Hamilton Centre and am proud to wear this colourful T-shirt, the symbol for this week-long celebration in Hamilton.

The significance behind this important date is the anniversary of the death of Luiz de Camões, a great Portuguese epic poet who wrote about Portuguese discoveries in the late 15th to early 16th centuries.

Festivals such as Lusofest '92, organized by the Luso-Canadian Cultural Council of Canada, give us an opportunity to express our commitment to the diverse communities which make Ontario and Canada what it is today. June 10 marks a time to appreciate and acknowledge the Portuguese culture and its contribution to our nation.

I would like to introduce to all members the following special guests who are present in the House today: His Excellency Dr Pedro Alves Machado, the ambassador from Portugal to Canada; Mr Marcilino Moniz, vice-consul general, and Ms Ida de Jesus, who along with Ms Anabella Almeida co-chairs Hamilton Lusofest '92.

The Luso-Canadian Council of Hamilton has my wholehearted support and I'm sure the members of this House will join me in commending its efforts and wishing it every success.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Last Thursday the government added yet another link to a long chain of broken promises when it was revealed that the Rouge River Valley, an area in Metropolitan Toronto which the minister knows is of great environmental significance, was under consideration as a landfill site for Metro's garbage. I would ask the minister why she and her government have retreated so completely from the promises it clearly made to prohibit the dumping of Metro's garbage in the Rouge Valley.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I think it would really assist in the debate of what is a very difficult issue if the premises upon which the Leader of the Opposition based her question bore some resemblance to the facts of the situation.

As I said last week in response to a similar question, or maybe it was earlier this week, at the time of the establishment of the Interim Waste Authority and the giving to it of a mandate to seek landfill sites within the greater Toronto area, the issue of the Rouge was of course of great concern to everyone, so in the initial criteria the Interim Waste Authority published last August, one of the criteria it was to use in screening out areas where a landfill site could not be established was the following: Screen out the portion of the Rouge River Valley where the provincial cabinet has declared a provincial intent to establish a park.

As a result of the public consultation around those criteria, the public raised the issue of buffer zones with respect to that, so added to the screening criteria was to include buffers in the Rouge River Valley. None of the sites that have been identified by the Interim Waste Authority deviate from those criteria.

Mrs McLeod: This is an issue I have cause to know very well indeed, and I would understand that the citizens of this area who gave support in part to this government because of the promises it made, without any qualifications at all, feel that all this government is doing in trying to give responsibility to the Interim Waste Authority is simply copping out and avoiding recognizing a full retreat from promises it made.

In case the minister has forgotten the promises made by her Premier, let me quote directly. On December 11, 1990, in response to a question asked by the leader of the third party, the Premier stated:

"I do not know how I can be any clearer.... I was asked specifically...whether I abided by the statements that I had made in the past with respect to there not being a dump in the Rouge Valley. That is the statement that I am making today: No dump in the Rouge."

Now I read in the Toronto Sun of June 7 that the Premier has scaled down that promise to say, "We're determined to see there will be no dump in the park," a quite different and more qualified promise than was made throughout 1990.

I ask the minister how she can possibly try to pretend that this is now some kind of independent decision and that she and her government have absolutely no responsibility for it. Does she not realize that she cannot wash her hands, that the decision about this waste management, if it's a decision to put this dump in the Rouge, will be this government's decision and a full retreat from the promises made in the past?

Hon Mrs Grier: Nothing could be further from the truth. The Interim Waste Authority has been established to apply environmental criteria to the establishment of landfill sites. It has screened out a variety of areas. They have now identified areas where landfills could in fact be located according to those screening criteria. Those sites are now going to be the subject of further extensive consultation and testing until we get down to one particular site.

When the member talks about a park in the Rouge, the member is quite wrong. The lands that were previously identified as having potential for a park, and which an advisory committee was established to examine and make recommendations on -- by the previous government, not by this government -- are all south of Steeles Avenue. That is the area that was initially screened out in response to the consultation and the request for buffer areas. The buffer areas are 400 metres on either side of any tributary of the Rouge. If that isn't the Rouge or the Rouge Valley, I don't know what is.

Mrs McLeod: The memories ring in my head of this minister at an earlier day, as an opposition critic, failing to make that kind of fine distinction in expressing her concerns about the environmental implications of a waste site anywhere in the vicinity of the Rouge Valley.

I think this minister is in some difficulty after Bill 143 in talking about independent processes. I remind her that the environmental assessment process, as set out under the Environmental Assessment Act of this province, provides that all alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking must be considered. I suggest that in this particular situation of dealing with the waste management problems facing the greater Toronto area, this minister has already ruled out at least one of the alternatives which would be considered in a truly independent process, that of course being the alternative presented to the city of Toronto by Kirkland Lake.

I simply ask the minister how her government can claim to be setting up an independent environmental assessment process that's consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act when the independent assessment of all the alternatives to this undertaking has never been carried out.

Hon Mrs Grier: Now we're down, I guess, to what is the bottom line for the Leader of the Opposition, which is that the GTA waste should be sent to northern Ontario. That is not acceptable to this government; that was ruled out by legislation adopted by this Legislature, and that is not a quick, easy, fair or environmental solution to the problems of the greater Toronto area.

LEGISLATIVE

SCHEDULE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I now know why they replaced that rickety old roof up there. All of us would be through the top of it if we had known about these rule changes before the construction started.

I looked at the material sent out by the House leader of the government party. They say they want to introduce 121 bills in this House. I've been spending a whole lot of time looking in various places in this document, this book that tells us about the procedure of the Legislative Assembly, and others. Can the government House leader tell us where he has been prevented from introducing those bills and will he table today the list of all 121 pieces of legislation he says he cannot introduce in this House?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I understand very clearly that we can introduce legislation into the House, but the difficulty has been that the opposition doesn't want to deal with legislation in the House. I go back to the example that I think is absolutely the best example of them all, and that is the fact that for the first time I can ever recall since I've been in the Legislature, it took over a year to get budget bills from the 1991 budget through this Legislature.

The opposition parties simply don't want to have this place work smoothly. The rules that we're proposing are not unusual at all. They're completely in line with rules that are in place in legislatures across the country, and at the national level they've been brought in by parties of all political stripes.

Mr Elston: Not here.

Hon Mr Cooke: No, not here. You're right. But it's about time the Ontario Legislature became as efficient and effective and used taxpayers' money as wisely as some other institutions in this country do.

Mr Elston: The honourable member for Windsor-Riverside, the government House leader, has been reading his briefing note on the Ontario Labour Relations Act. That is the exact same explanation they give for that change in the rules unilaterally at this time as well. Without consensus, the members cannot perform their tasks. Without consensus, this House does not operate.

To the government House leader: Can he tell us why he refused to introduce any of the legislation, in fact introduced fully 14 of 17 government bills since, I think it was, May 26 in this House? If we were to be given the opportunity internally to debate these bills in a reasonable fashion, how was it that you expected us to do our work if you won't bring any of that legislation to the House in a first reading form so that we can debate it? Was it your plan to leave us without anything to say so that we would be at risk of not being able to do our job for the public?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm not quite sure I understand the point of the House leader's question. What I do understand is that what happened is that we came into the Legislature last fall and for the first six months the Legislature was in session, we didn't deal with any legislation at all. The opposition parties wouldn't allow us to pass anything. We came back this spring and we're still having to deal with legislation that was introduced last year because the opposition parties wouldn't deal with the legislation.

This government respects the role and the need for the opposition parties to present their points of view and to put forward opposing points of view, but I think the people of this province expect the government to make decisions, and the ability of this Legislature to vote on issues before it. The opposition parties simply don't want us to even be able to vote on issues before the Legislature.

Mr Elston: The business of this House is ordered by the government. It is the business of this government to move the bills into first reading so that not only the members of this Legislative Assembly but the members of the public at large can see the legislative agenda.

It is no coincidence that the development of the labour legislation took until Thursday of last week to come forward in first reading fashion and that it was followed quickly by the most repressive steps taken in this Legislature by any government at any time. I want this member to tell the public the truth, and I want him to tell us the truth today. Wouldn't he agree, I should say, that the truth is that he brought the labour legislation here on Thursday, followed by unilateral rule changes, following the Sunday shopping bill, following his desire to stampede legislation through this Parliament without the people's opposition being able to speak clearly and carefully about that agenda?

Hon Mr Cooke: Nothing could be further from the truth. The Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments were introduced last week. It's always been the intention of this government and of the minister to have a full debate at second reading, and I read in the paper --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: That's not true. He wouldn't even listen to the people who came to his forums.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Bruce.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: It has always been the intention of this government to have a full debate of the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments at second reading and to have public hearings. But I read in the paper and hear on radio from the Labour critic from the Liberal Party and the critics from the Conservative Party that they don't even want to allow us to have second reading on the bill.

They don't want to have public hearings and hear from the people of the province about the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments. We want to go out. We want the legislation passed here and then we want to go discuss it again, through a legislative committee, with the people of the province. That's the appropriate process to go through.

I hear about some of the tactics the opposition parties say are being used. I just invite the members of the public and all the members of the opposition to look at the speech that was made in the House the other day by the member for Renfrew North. Is that the kind of party Lyn McLeod wants to lead in Ontario and the kind of speech we are to hear from one of her members of the Legislature? That's why we need changes to the rules in this place.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment. I ask the House to come to order.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a very special group of people, legislative interns from the province of British Columbia who are seated in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome to our assembly.

Start the clock, please.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday I rose and spoke to you about the language being used by the Minister of Labour in referring to a member and what she intended or did not intend, which in my opinion amounts to imputing motives. The member for Windsor-Riverside has done so again. More than that, Mr Speaker, he has used language which is designed to create discontent in this chamber and in fact cause grave disorder. Mr Speaker, you know what that is designed to do and you have not asked him to consider his words carefully.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, indeed I'm aware that often there is language which, while it cannot be described as unparliamentary in nature, is accusatory. Accusatory language which is inflammatory does lead to disorder in the House. I have asked all members in the chamber to please try to use temperate language so that we can have an orderly debate in the House. I understand full well what the member for Bruce has brought before me. I can only urge members to try to use language which is temperate in nature.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: You will be aware, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga North.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on a point of privilege. It has to do with the last response given by the government House leader. The government House leader responded to a question by a member of our party, our House leader, that one of the reasons these rule changes were put forward was because -- and I think Hansard will be clear -- of some statement that I made as the Labour critic for our party dealing with second reading.

Mr Speaker, I believe this to be a matter of privilege of a personal nature to myself. The point the House leader is alluding to is a statement I made on Friday that was broadcast on Monday which indicated that as a result of a committee set up by the Premier dealing with labour and management we felt it would be best that this bill be sent to that committee prior to the government bringing forward the bill for second reading. At no time did we talk about the process dealing with how we would debate the bill on second reading.

The point of privilege I bring forward is this: The government House leader just two minutes ago made that statement, which is erroneous, about a statement I made and has stated that the reason they introduced the rule changes was as a result of that statement. I would invite that member of the Legislature to stand and correct because of the fact that statement dealing with where the bill should be taken was made by me on Friday, it was broadcast on Monday and the House leader filed those rules the Thursday before.

In other words, he is alleging that the reason he introduced those rule changes was as a result of a statement made by me which, first, wasn't, and, second, had not yet even been made by me.

My privileges as a member have been prejudiced. The minister has in fact misstated everything that has been stated. I invite him to stand in his place and tell every member in this House that you are in fact incorrect.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member will know that the Speaker is not in a position to assess the veracity of statements which are made in the chamber. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the views expressed by the government House leader and the member for Mississauga North.

I would also ask members to please seriously consider raising points of order and privilege outside of our question period time, if at all possible.

The member for Parry Sound.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Would you as the Speaker please consider restoring approximately five or six minutes to the clock, because you're taking away from every member in this Legislature --

Interjections.

Mr Eves: Shut your yaps over there and listen; you might learn something. What a classless bunch of buffoons. Would you please restore the six minutes?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound: First, his choice of vocabulary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This House stands recessed for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1408.

Mr Eves: I withdraw the comment I made earlier.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound: I sincerely appreciate his withdrawal of the comment. Also to the member for Parry Sound with respect to his point of order: I understand fully that in the last two days the third party has been placed at a disadvantage which is not of its creation.

I am reluctant to add time to the clock for the reason that I had, just prior to the member rising, asked members to try not to raise points of order or privilege during our question period. I guess I'm a bit reluctant because, by adding time to the clock, perhaps what I am inadvertently doing is encouraging members to raise points of order and privilege while the clock is running.

However, since I am sympathetic to the point that the member raises, what I will do is to monitor the time very closely and as we approach the end of the hour, if there is an opportunity to be flexible with respect to questions placed, then I indeed will do so.

Start the clock. The leader of the third party.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the minister responsible for the GTA. The minister knows that absolutely no one is happy with the Interim Waste Authority list of 57 potential landfill sites, particularly those near the Rouge where the Premier stood two years ago and swore there would be no dump.

Minister, yesterday you assured us that these sites will undergo a full environmental assessment. If this is true, then the Kirkland Lake proposal would be considered as an alternative.

So I would ask you this, Minister: Were you telling the truth yesterday when you said it would be a full environmental assessment? Will the Kirkland Lake option be considered? Or in fact will the 57 sites undergo a Ruth Grier selective environmental assessment?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The 57 sites will undergo an environmental assessment just like many others. In fact, three of the 57 -- not 57, let me correct that very precisely -- the three sites that are identified as a result of the Interim Waste Authority's process will undergo an environmental assessment.

Let me remind the member, the leader of the third party, that there are environmental assessments of landfill sites going on at the present time that have gone on in the past, and in each of those applications an area has been identified within which a landfill site will be selected and then submitted to an environmental assessment. Only Metropolitan Toronto had the right to seek a site anywhere across the province. Under Bill 143, Metropolitan Toronto and any other municipality that is part of the greater Toronto area will be finding sites through the auspices of the Interim Waste Authority within the GTA.

Mr Harris: So what you have described to me is the abbreviated, selective Ruth Grier, not a full environmental assessment as you said yesterday.

I have received a letter from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. Once again, the brothers and the sisters of the unions have come to me to speak on their behalf because they have no voice in this Legislature.

Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, the union has asked me to support the proposal of Rail Cycle North, which the minister will know is the Kirkland Lake site. The union estimates that nearly 300 jobs and $13.3 million would be generated for the local economy.

Minister, if your government is so committed to creating jobs in this province, why have you singlehandedly wiped out the option of creating 300 jobs in northern Ontario? Why have you given the back of your hand to the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, the brothers and the sisters that now must turn to me for help, and why have you turned your back on an option that may very well be -- and we'll never know under your selective environmental assessment -- the best site for the sake of the environment? Why have you done all these things?

Hon Mrs Grier: The leader of the third party has got to recognize the inconsistency in the questions he's posing. On the one hand, he is saying a full environmental assessment requires examination of all possible sites anywhere within the province of Ontario. On the other hand, he says, "Just look at Kirkland Lake."

What he doesn't recognize is that if a municipality or an agency is to select a site anywhere in the province of Ontario, then all sites in the province are back on the list for evaluation, and that means not just Kirkland Lake, it means Marmora, it means Plympton, it means sites in Nottawasaga, it means sites in Orillia, it means any potential landfill site throughout the province.

That is not an acceptable way to deal with the waste of the greater Toronto area. The acceptable way is what this government has done, which is to get serious about waste reduction and then find a landfill site as close as possible to the source of the generation of the waste. That's what the Interim Waste Authority is doing. That's the environmental approach to waste management.

Mr Harris: But it is acceptable, Minister, to ship a million tonnes of waste south of the border to the United States to have it incinerated and blown back on Ontario? That's acceptable under the Ruth Grier environment program for Ontario?

We have community after community telling us that they don't want a landfill site. The minister named a whole host of them. On the other hand, we have a community in northern Ontario crying out to be considered. We also have Metropolitan Toronto asking that it be allowed to be considered. Seventy per cent of Kirkland Lake voted in favour of having an environmental assessment. We know it will create jobs that cannot possibly otherwise be created without that proposal going forward.

I ask you again, why do you refuse to consider a solution to the garbage crisis that has the full support of the community, that will create jobs in northern Ontario, that Metro wishes to have as one of the sites to be considered and that may in fact be the best environmental option? Why do you refuse to even consider that?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me just draw attention to yet another inconsistency in the questions posed by the member. The site that Metro had identified and wanted to use was not in Kirkland Lake. It's in Boston township. That's 15 kilometres from Kirkland Lake, in somebody else's backyard. It was not in Kirkland Lake. That has never been part of the consideration.

But let me again say to the member that under the Environmental Assessment Act you don't take a site that happens to be available, or where a commercial arrangement happens to have been made, and then do an environmental assessment of that site. The basic of the Environmental Assessment Act is to compare alternatives. If you're looking at a comparison with Kirkland Lake, you have to search everywhere else, not just in northern Ontario but right across the province. That is not acceptable to those other communities, to this government or to anyone who wants there to be an environmental solution to waste.

Mr Harris: I thought the purpose of an environmental assessment was to pick the best site for the environment. In not considering Kirkland Lake, you're eliminating that as a possibility in favour of the Rouge.

The Speaker: Is this the leader's second question?

INVESTMENT FUNDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, I thank you because my second question is not to the same minister. In fact, in the absence of the Treasurer, my second question is to the Chairman of Management Board.

Mr Minister, I have in front of me a copy of a leaked cabinet document dated September 23, 1991. It outlines the NDP government's plan for the Ontario investment fund. It says that money for this fund will come from a list of public sector pension plans. Minister, two of those funds, OMERS and HOOPP, have already said they will not let the NDP government get its hands on their pension funds.

Minister, as Chairman of Management Board and a member of the policy and priorities board of cabinet, how does your government plan to proceed with this voluntary fund if there are no volunteers?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): I would be happy to try to answer the question, except that I understand that my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is involved directly in this issue, can give a more direct response to the question asked.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I can inform the member that at this stage the Ontario investment fund project is undertaking consultations with private enterprise, the banking community, the business community, the trade union movement and those people who are most likely to wish to have access to the kinds of funds that are needed for long-term investment in value added products. I can tell you that several meetings have been held, they've been very successful, and the Treasurer has assured that anyone who will participate in this will do so on a voluntary level.

Mr Harris: I think a more accurate answer to my question can be found in the NDP's own leaked cabinet document. Page 5 states, under "Labour Relations": "Access to public sector pension funds may require policy and financial tradeoffs in terms of the government's labour relations and compensation strategies."

Minister, this cabinet document of 1991 clearly states that your labour reforms are part of a tradeoff for public sector union support of your investment fund. How do you explain that?

Hon Mr Philip: From initial meetings with both the labour movement and with the trust companies and other members of the financial community, we don't need any tradeoffs. People are approving of this program. They think it's a good idea, and indeed many of them say they can't understand why the Conservatives, when they were in power, didn't do anything to create this kind of investment fund.

Mr Harris: A reason, I suggest, that you appear to believe that the public sector pension funds will come forward is that you know you've bought them off. You increased pension funds, as the document said you were going to do -- for example, OMERS last year; you've brought in the Labour Relations Act, as it says you probably would have to do to get their cooperation and get their funds, and then -- and I'm glad it's this minister, because on page 4 of the leaked document it says, on access to funds, that "a pension-based financial institution may require guarantees or subsidy by the government."

It further says that "treasury board should review expenditures on technology and industrial development" -- try to find the money there within existing funding -- "to guarantee a rate of return to those public sector pension funds."

Can the minister confirm to me that in addition to the tradeoff of the labour legislation changes, in addition to enriching the pension funds to get their cooperation, you also plan to use taxpayer dollars to guarantee a rate of return to force these pension funds to give the money to you to develop them as you see fit?

Hon Mr Philip: Our discussions with the business community and indeed with the trade union movement and others who are on our advisory committee suggest that there is a need for this fund, that it will be a good investment on a long-term basis, and I can tell you something else: that it says we have said --

Mr Harris: This says you are going to give them a guaranteed return. That's the question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the leader of the third party.

Hon Mr Philip: The guarantee will be that the trade union movement and others recognize that the real guarantee is investing in this province, and that's what we're giving them an opportunity for. Unlike the Conservative governments, we will not use public pension funds to subsidize the public treasury. That's what we won't do to their pension funds.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): For the past few weeks the standing committee on finance and economic affairs has been examining Bill 150. Last week I addressed a question to the Premier on it and I think he was confused. I think he thought I was asking him about this Ontario investment fund rather than the aspects of Bill 150.

I know you want to know to whom this question is being addressed, Mr Speaker. I'm getting to that. I was hoping to be able to go back to the Premier and ask him about it. He, unfortunately, is not here. I thought maybe I would go to the Treasurer and ask him about it. He, unfortunately, is not here. I thought I would go to the Minister of Revenue and ask her about it, but she, unfortunately, is not here. So I thought I would then have no recourse but to go to the Minister of Labour.

This bill has two aspects. One of them is the creation of a venture capital fund and the other is the provision for tax breaks for employees who get involved in worker buyouts. The very nature of the bill -- and its title is Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations Act, 1992 -- "labour sponsored" -- would suggest that this is an initiative sponsored by labour for labour, but it appears that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact labour is not at all supportive.

For example, here's what the Ontario Federation of Labour told us: "Why should union members and other employees be the central focus of raising the necessary moneys, rather than those individuals and institutions with capital who are in the business of providing it for a fee?" They went on to say, "We remain unconvinced that there is any advantage for our members" -- we're talking about members of the Ontario Federation of Labour -- "to use their hard-earned moneys for purposes of bailing out small companies."

The question is: If the Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations Act is indeed a bill by labour for labour, don't you think you should be spending some time getting labour on side supporting it?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the member should recognize that it's a government bill, not a labour bill, and that the initiatives, in terms of workers' involvement and workers' investment, have been well established at both Kapuskasing and Algoma Steel, and I think those are success stories.

Mr Kwinter: Minister, I lived through some of the history of this. This was a labour initiative. Back in 1988 they came to us and said they wanted this. This was a labour initiative.

If it isn't enough that the 800,000 members of the Ontario Federation of Labour are not going to support it, perhaps the minister will be interested in the Canadian Federation of Labour. Tomorrow Bob White will be crowned head of the Canadian Federation of Labour, but Bob White is clearly --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Kwinter: You may call it elected; I say it's a coronation.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): You're talking about the wrong labour organization.

Mr Kwinter: I'm not talking about the wrong labour organization. I'm talking about the fact that he is clearly against both aspects of the legislation. That's both of them, both the venture capital fund and the worker buyout provisions. Mr White's lieutenants, James O'Neil and Sam Gindin, met with our committee, and here's what they had to say.

Mr Gindin told us: "We think that's the wrong direction to go," and "To lure workers with major tax breaks which may not be in their long-term interest is also a dangerous thing to do." Mr O'Neil, the secretary-treasurer, summed it up by stating, "If the government is serious in its attempt to increase workers' participation in the economy, it hardly makes sense to begin by introducing a proposal the labour movement itself, in convention, has rejected."

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary.

Mr Kwinter: I'm going to get to the question. Are the minister and his government prepared to thumb their noses at labour, including its largest voice, and ram a piece of legislation through the House that is not supported by the people who are supposed to be the proponents and by the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries? Are you prepared to ram this through notwithstanding that they're not supporting it?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sure the member recognizes that you don't ram it through. It's a voluntary program and the workers have to want to be involved in it before they are.

I think also the member should clearly understand that there are differences in the labour movement, as there are differences, I think, in his party or in our caucus. There are those who support it and those who don't, and I'm not sure how you make the argument that we have to listen to what one or two say or not listen to them. We will take a look at the benefits of the legislation in terms of workers' involvement, and let me tell you, there is a real need for it in Ontario.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, responsible for the Ontario Lottery Corp. A recent

article in the Windsor Star stated that the Ontario Lottery Corp is testing coin-operated ticket vending machines in Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham and London.

Minister, one month ago you stood in this House and announced you had no intention of going ahead with introducing video lottery terminals. You also claimed you had consulted with many interested parties on the future of gambling and gaming in this province.

I'm certain that if you had consulted with the coin operators' lottery association it would have expressed grave concerns over the unfair competition your new machines place on its traditional amusement games. Minister, is the introduction of these new lottery ticket vending machines the thin edge of the wedge for the introduction of slot machines in Ontario?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): First of all, I'd like to address one of the issues the honourable member mentioned. These are not video lottery terminals, nor are they associated with or like video lottery terminals.

The second point is that this is something that has been suggested by the Ontario Lottery Corp. It is within their purview to deal with matters that are of an operational nature, and this is one of those cases.

I would say to the honourable member that there has been some discussion at the lottery corporation pertaining to this particular issue. There has been some suggestion that they would try some trial basis or temporary measures to see how the machines would work and how the people in the province would respond to those particular machines. At this point I'm not aware that they are actually in the locations that have been mentioned.

Mr Arnott: The minister is overlooking the fact that video lottery terminals, which he has stated he will not introduce, and coin-operated ticket vending machines are essentially the same thing. In effect, there is no difference whatsoever.

It appears the Ontario Lottery Corp is on the offensive. In the past three months we have all been mailed flyers that entitle us to free lottery tickets: "Millions to be won in Ontario"; "See inside for valuable lottery coupons"; "Buy two Lottario tickets and get one Lottario ticket free."

Even more alarming, Minister, is the revelation that your machines will be placed in supermarkets, doughnut shops and bowling alleys, where they will be easily accessible by children. It's very ironic that at a time when your government expresses concern about children accessing cigarettes from vending machines you have no concern about them accessing lottery tickets.

Earlier this year, Minister, you assured us that video lottery terminals would be placed in licensed establishments where they would not be accessible to minors. Why, then, are you now putting your new machines in areas where no restrictions will be placed on access?

Hon Mr North: I will try to reiterate to the member across the floor that there is a tremendous difference between video lottery terminals and the machines he's describing. The lottery corporation investigates options it has in terms of raising revenue at different points throughout the province and at different points throughout the evolution of lotteries in this province. I would say to the honourable member that a number of different ideas have been looked at and a number of different options have been considered. This is one of the options that's being considered.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Energy. I think a number of us, particularly in the Niagara Peninsula -- Mr Bradley included, undoubtedly -- would have received a press release from Brock University outlining its new thermal heating and cooling system. The university remarks very proudly that this new system will save it $300,000 a year in electricity costs. So my question to the minister is, what other kinds of energy efficiency programs are available from the Ministry of Energy to help industries and institutions with their energy bills?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): It would be inappropriate for me to try to list all the specific programs here this afternoon. Suffice it to say that Ontario Hydro has a number of programs that focus on electrical energy. The Ministry of Energy also has a number of programs that focus on all of the range of energy fuels used in industry.

I think the best approach the member can take, because all the programs are targeted at efficiency and therefore, in the industry's perspective, at saving money as well as energy consumption, is that industries that have specific concerns or questions should probably contact my office or the ministry directly so we can direct them to the appropriate program section.

Ms Haeck: I appreciate that response, because I know there are people in my riding who are very interested in saving money on their electricity costs. I hope you think about it too.

A number of my constituents work at Ontario Hydro at Queenston, at Sir Adam Beck, and I know they will be interested in learning how these conservation programs instituted by the ministry will affect plans to expand that facility.

Hon Mr Charlton: The energy programs being pursued by Hydro and the ministry have a number of benefits. I guess the most important one from the individual's or the company's perspective is the money they will save. But those programs will have no impact on the redevelopment of the Beck hydro-electric site. In spite of the need to pursue, as quickly as we can, energy efficiency initiatives in this province, we will have a continuing need to pursue other forms of energy, most specifically the ones represented by Beck, which are environmentally sound and renewable in nature. That project will proceed fairly quickly.

ONTARIO ROUND TABLE ON ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Last week the Minister of the Environment stood in the House and commended the former government for its efforts in establishing the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. Members of this House will know that the round table was set up in 1988 under the leadership of the member for St Catharines to bring together government, business, labour, agriculture, environment and community groups under the chairmanship of our now House leader to create a provincial strategy for sustainable economic development.

Minister, since taking office you have almost always been the sole representative of your government at round table meetings. Your cabinet colleagues for the most part have refused to take

part in round table discussions and have offered little or no substantive contribution to the round table. In the absence of any significant support from your cabinet colleagues, do you think you can keep the round table alive?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I have to differ with the question from the member. Certainly there has not been full attendance at all meetings by all the members of cabinet on the round table, as there has not been by all the representatives of the private sector or all the environmentalists. In fact, we've a meeting tomorrow and there'll be a number of people in Brazil who won't be at the round table.

The fact that not everybody goes to every meeting of the round table has not in any way negated the efforts, the work and the very real contribution that the members of the round table have made under that government and this government to the development of policies, concepts and strategies for sustainable development in the province of Ontario.

I think the round table was a very good initiative. I've said that from the beginning of its incarnation. I think the contribution of the current report that is almost completed and will be presented to the Premier, a strategy for sustainable development, will do a great deal to advance the dialogue and the debate around how we can match and mesh the environment and economic decisions that have to be taken as we restructure the economy of this province.

Mr McClelland: Madam Minister, it seems that in many respects -- and we all know this -- you have abandoned many of your principles and stated causes of the environment prior to your swearing in as Minister of the Environment. You're certainly at odds with your cabinet colleagues, many of them, with respect to the Ontario water and sewer main corporation, you were abandoned yesterday by the Ontario Global Warming Coalition and it seems very evident that you are about to abandon the Ontario round table.

Minister, we understand that the round table that you've just praised and talked about is effectively starting to wind down as of this Friday. Frankly, given the statements you have made in this place, your stated support and the fact that you said, even last week, that having developed and arrived at a strategy there remained considerably much more to do, I find it somewhere between difficult and impossible to believe what's happening with the round table.

I'd like you to respond directly, Minister, to the rumours that the round table is being wound down, that you are shutting it down. If that's happening, why are you allowing that to happen, Madam Minister?

Hon Mrs Grier: Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the previous government the round table was given a secretariat with a mandate of three years to prepare a strategy on sustainable development and present it to the Premier of the day. Premier Rae will be receiving that strategy from the round table, I hope, some time within the next month or so, later than we would've liked, because the target had been that the strategy would have been available by the end of March.

The mandate of the secretariat was extended until June. We have run over and so there has been a time collapse between the production of the strategy and the end of the mandate of the secretariat. That work is being done and is being bridged from within the Ministry of the Environment, but we've made it very clear that there will be a round table in the future. I have asked and the members of the current round table have agreed to have their terms of office extended until September so that we can complete the work within the current mandate.

The round table, as a multisectoral, consensus-building operation, has proved invaluable and has been a model that has been copied in other jurisdictions in parts of the United States and in lots of local communities across this province. It is something that is here to stay.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd like to ask a question on the multisectoral, consensus-building table. That's a good one.

To the minister, is it true you've commissioned a study to study the effectiveness and the need to continue the round table discussions, a study held by a private citizen that was financed by this government? The question categorically is, have you in fact commissioned a study to determine whether or not you should even bother with the round tables any more? I ask you directly, did you in fact commission a study and what did that study say?

Hon Mrs Grier: I did not commission a study as to whether or not there ought to be round tables. I asked Dale Martin to examine the work of the round table and to recommend to me the form in which the round table should continue, what improvements should be made in its operation and how best the round table could be structured to continue as a multistakeholder, consensus-building operation to carry through on the strategy for sustainable development that it was recommending to the government.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Bring out the snorkel equipment.

Mr Stockwell: We now discover that yes, they've commissioned a study by Mr Dale Martin, the professional snorkeller from the city of Toronto.

My question to the minister of the Environment and the GTA is, how much did you pay Dale Martin to do this study, when did he do this study, was he double-dipping, in fact collecting from the Ontario Municipal Board while doing this study, what was the study, what did it say and finally, why was this study not tendered publicly? Why was it given directly to Mr Martin and obviously the associated payments given to Mr Martin?

Hon Mrs Grier: It was not a very extensive study. It was not a very wide-ranging study. I don't honestly know at this point what it cost. I will get that information and make it available to the member. It was advice to me as to how we might best continue the valuable work the round table has done and what form that work should take in the future.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the member and the other members are doing a very real disservice to the efforts that have been put into the round table by the previous government and by this government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Mrs Grier: I've concluded.

WATER CONSERVATION

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Last fall I introduced a private member's bill that would amend the Ontario Water Resources Act and require that all new water fixtures such as toilets, faucets and shower heads meet certain efficiency standards. Recently your ministry changed the regulations under the Ontario Water Resources Act and will phase in mandatory use of efficient units. Can the minister please tell me what these new requirements will be?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'd be glad to do that. In the Ontario Gazette of March you will find new regulations that will become effective on January 1, 1993, which will require the installation of energy-efficient shower heads, water-efficient shower heads and water-efficient faucets in all new buildings and major renovations as of that time. The requirement for the efficiency of toilets will be that no more than a maximum of 13.5 litres be used per flush.

I might add that this has been a very slow process, from the point of view of this minister, because my concerns are very much weighted with energy efficiency and with water efficiency. I am particularly concerned to see if we can't move ahead a bit faster with improvements to the standards which have already been announced.

Mr Hansen: I'm very happy to hear about these changes, Madam Minister, as they fulfil the intentions of my bill. My supplementary question deals with how the manufacturers of fixtures and toilets are going to cope with these changes. Did your ministry consult with and seek recommendations from the manufacturer of toilets and fixtures before making these changes?

Interjections.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I know the opposition finds this very funny, but it is in fact a very important matter. It has to do with the way we're going to conserve water use in this province over the next while. This has enormous implications for our ability to constrain costs in terms of the cost of new sewers and new waterworks. If we are able to reduce the amount of water we're using in our buildings by the amounts that are technically possible now, we're going to make enormous gains both economically and in terms of protection of our precious resources.

We are continuously consulting, and if I may say so, pushing manufacturers in this province to be able to meet standards which are now technologically available.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, you will be aware that one of the most important changes in terms of the funding for school boards was the innovation brought in by our government to look, instead of in terms of capital at one year, to extending that over a three-year period to give school boards that sense of stability so they would know what they were going to have to do and what moneys they would have in terms of building.

There is a rumour that is going on throughout many school boards right now, and that I've had phone calls about, that as there has not been any announcement as yet regarding school capital, the ministry has decided there will not be an announcement this year. I would like to ask you to say to the House very clearly that before we rise on the 25th of this month, you will make a very specific and definite commitment of school capital financing.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I thank the member for the question, because that issue is one we are looking at very vigorously now within the ministry. I understand and have agreed very much with the approach taken by the previous government to announce the capital projects three years ahead for exactly the reasons the member has indicated. The member will recall, I'm sure, that there was an indication in the budget that we were looking at different ways of spending capital dollars and that within that we would be talking to people in the communities and in the affected stakeholder groups about that.

Clearly the education capital is one of those areas we're interested in talking to people about.

However, I would still like -- and we are working this through -- to be able to look at announcing the projects we'll be funding before the House rises. My hope is that we can still do that. If we are not able to do that, I will certainly give an indication to the House and to school boards as to how early we ought to be able to do that, but my hope at this point is that we can still do it before the end of June.

Mr Beer: I have concerns about the nature and the form of the minister's answer, because what I clearly hear is that if there is to be any kind of announcement, it's going to be based on a very different set of guidelines and proposals. I think what school boards need least at this point in time is yet another indication of instability in the way in which they are funded.

I would ask the minister again, are you saying to the House and to school boards that if you come before the House to make an announcement, you are going to be announcing capital again in the range of some $300 million, which has been the amount over the last number of years? Will that be applicable to all school boards, that they are all going to be able to participate in going after those funds, or are you saying you're changing the system completely so that only certain boards -- can you be clear? This is causing a great deal of instability in the system and I think the boards need to know clearly what the intention of the government is.

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me tell the member that we are talking to school boards about some of the things we are considering, so they do in fact know what we are contemplating. Let me also say very clearly that nothing we are contemplating changes in any way the range of the funding that will be provided. That will clearly still be in the $300 million to $330 million area that we have been providing.

What we are looking at is whether we ought to be changing the way in which those funds are provided, the issue of debenturing being one of the issues that's being considered. Also what we are obviously looking at is how we mesh that with some of the other announcements that were in the budget with respect to some additional capital dollars that I've again been indicating to school boards, some of which will be available to us, as well as what we can be doing with respect to the multi-use facilities and some of the funds that my predecessor announced would be available for that.

We're trying to bring all of those pieces together. As I say, I hope to be able to have some announcements here in the House and for school boards before the end of June.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We have time for a question with no supplementary.

COMMODITY LOAN PROGRAM

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I will have to stretch my initial question then, if I have no supplementary, and I appreciate your warning me.

To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Mr Minister, on March 25 of this year you announced the commodity loan guarantee program, and I and most farmers thought that because of the early announcement in March, it would be available to farmers for the costs of their planting time. Well, planting time has come and gone and commensurate costs with those have also come and gone. Farmers are waiting.

Mr Minister, when will you have the commodity loan program up and going? There are no application forms. When will farmers be able to apply, and what interest rate will they be paying on money that you've borrowed from the Bank of Montreal?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I share some of the member's concern about not having this loan program available for farmers before planting. That was my plan originally. We ran into some problems in negotiating with the financial institutions.

The Bank of Montreal was the institution selected to work out an arrangement between the corporation and the bank. Papers have been signed and the application forms, which I had hoped were going to be available last week -- I'm told they should be available this week or next week.

I recognize the member's concern. This was a program that we wanted to get out, but it's a new program, it's a new type of program, and I think it's worth doing well. The corporation we've set up wanted to make sure the program runs well.

The member asks a question about the interest rate. It's my understanding that farmers are going to have an opportunity under this program to borrow money at prime.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads as follows. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

That is a petition which has been signed by a number of individuals with National Steel Car Ltd of Hamilton, and I have affixed my signature.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 176 names from members of my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my name to that petition.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York-Durham.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's Durham-York. My petition reads:

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues surrounding land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information on their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions and collect commissions on resales of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents in long-term leased communities and where they fall under the rent review legislation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report on land-leased communities and to propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

I see I've got a page here from Prescott-Russell waiting for me to sign this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for Durham-York and recognize the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Scarborough North, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Scarborough North.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to table which calls for the government of Ontario to immediately end exclusionary zoning in the province by amending the Planning Act so as to require all municipalities to permit the creation of additional rental units that meet health and safety standards in neighbourhoods zoned for single-family housing.

YOUTH MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have one more directed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated its objective to eliminate the youth minimum wage differential by 1992; and

"Whereas such action will seriously reduce available job opportunities for Ontario students;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Until the Minister of Labour can assure the Ontario student population that no student jobs will be lost by the elimination of the youth minimum wage differential, we urge the government to maintain the current differential."

I have not affixed my name to the petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

Mr Speaker, that petition --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. There's too much noise in the House. For those who want to conduct conversations, I would invite you to go to the lobbies. Thank you. The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: Do you want me to read the whole petition again, Mr Speaker?

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): No, no, never mind.

Mr Offer: Okay. That petition has been signed by members of North Park Electronics Ltd of Rexdale, Ontario, and I have signed my name to that petition.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

There is a large number of signatures on this petition, which I am happy to sign also.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 186 hardworking members of Local 3767 of the United Steelworkers. These workers from Brantford have asked me to present this petition and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, support your government's amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It's about time."

I've signed my name to the petition as well.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's signed by 172 people from the areas in and around Cornwall, Prescott, Sarnia, Bradford and Sudbury, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will unquestionably increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have signed and fully endorsed this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here from 72 constituents of the county of Middlesex, in particular the townships of North Dorchester, London, Westminster, Delaware and West Nissouri, and they ask the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the Brant report and to reduce the size of the annexation so that valuable farm land can be protected in the county of Middlesex.

I have signed my name to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition of 566 names of people from Thornbury, Kanata, Burford, Brantford, Ashton, Kingston, Wainfleet, Guelph and Fonthill, and it's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here that the member for Middlesex asked me if I'd present for her:

"Whereas the report of John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended massive, unwarranted, unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to the destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve the municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I know the member for Middlesex would wholeheartedly support this and I affix my name.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario containing 149 signatures from all across this province:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour relation legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have affixed my name to that petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here signed by a number of residents from the Sutton-By-The-Lake community:

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information on their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resales of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents of long-term leases and where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report on land-leased communities and to propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

It's been signed by people like the Barrows and the Dixons and the Gouthros, and I affix my name.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition that's been signed by residents all over my riding. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is against United Church of Canada policy to indulge in any type of gambling -- gambling casinos bring crime to a community, not everyone has the self-control to limit their betting, low-income people will suffer from unwise use of their resources,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Be it resolved that the Toronto Conference United Church Women do strongly object to the Ontario government's proposed legislation to promote offtrack betting, sports lotteries and gambling casinos."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

It's signed by 415 people from places like Timmins, South Porcupine, Sault Ste Marie and Ancaster. I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here:

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues surrounding land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information on their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place an unfair restriction and collect commissions on resales of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents with long-term leases and where they fall under the rent review legislation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and release the committee report on land-leased communities and proposed legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live on land-leased communities."

I affix my name to it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr10,

An Act respecting the City of London;

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the Pembroke and Area Airport Commission;

Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr33,

An Act to revive Cinquemani Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr42,

An Act to revive Tri-Delta of Toronto;

Bill Pr94,

An Act to revive the Rideau Trail Association;

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers;

Bill Pr86,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 61,

An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles de Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)

Mr Duignan moved first reading of Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): The bill amends the Environmental Protection Act to prohibit all further waste management systems and waste disposals in the Niagara Escarpment plan area set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION / MOTION DE CENSURE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On behalf of Mr Conway, I move want of confidence motion 1.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please read it.

Mr Beer: Yes. I also understand, before I read it, that there has been agreement the time will be split equally among the three parties.

The Deputy Speaker: There is agreement the time would be split. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Mr Beer, on behalf of Mr Conway, moved want of confidence motion 1:

Whereas the number of unemployed students between the ages of 15 and 24 has gone from 11.1% in September 1990 to 18% in April 1992;

And

whereas the government has not provided additional job opportunities for students;

And

whereas the private sector has also had to reduce the number of opportunities offered to summer students due to an inability to compete in the current economic climate of the province of Ontario;

And

whereas the Ontario student assistance program was recently reduced by $10 million;

And

whereas the number of students applying for student venture capital has declined significantly demonstrating the students' lack of faith in the province's economic performance;

And

whereas the youth of this province are seeing no investment in their future by this government;

And

whereas this government has managed to increase spending in other sectors which are not in crisis, thus calling into question its spending priorities in this time of recession;

Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of standing order 42(a), the House no longer has confidence in the government.

Mr Beer: I rise to begin the debate on this particularly important issue because I think all members must have an increasing sense that there is a crisis out there in terms of youth unemployment.

I want to begin by reading a quote from some eight years ago that was made by the now Premier of this province who said, "I suggest to you that the fight against youth unemployment is one part, a crucial part, of the fight for full employment in our society."

It is our contention that the actions of this government since its election have done nothing to raise the issue of youth employment to the level where, quite frankly, it needs to be because of the problems we're facing in our society today.

If you go back and look at the throne speeches, at the budget, at the announcements by ministers, particularly in those areas responsible for youth, you will see very, very little, if anything, until most recently that is focused on this problem. I believe we can quote a great number of statistics. We can go through all kinds of alphabet soup of programs that are supposed to help young people.

But the first thing we have to do and what I want to put before the House at this point is to recognize that when we talk about our young people being the future of this province and of this country, if that is to have any reality, to have any meaning, then we have to ensure that in the area of employment we are bringing forward programs, we are working with the private sector and we are working with the educational sector to make sure that in fact that happens.

When we look at the current situation, as was stated in the motion, we see that there's been a dramatic increase in youth unemployment. How do we go about trying to deal with that? How do we find the kinds of jobs that are necessary? I think here it is critical that government take the lead.

In 1985, when we first became the government, one of the most innovative programs we brought in was the Futures program. I would say to the government today that what you need to do is go back and find, in 1992, the emotional, financial commitment to that kind of program but dedicate it to young people and dedicate it to the 1990s because, if members will take their minds back and remember what was at the core of the Futures program, it was to be focused to ensure that for those young people who were at risk, who needed training, who needed certain kinds of education, those programs would be available and they would be guaranteed two years of employment.

It was a remarkable initiative for its time. It was vital to giving young people a sense of faith, a sense of hope in the society and that they would have a place in it. It was a remarkably successful program.

What is missing at this point is that this government has tried to approach the question of youth unemployment in bits and pieces. What we've got to do is bring it all together, to say that this is a crisis and that the government will have the role of leading the way to a solution.

I think one of the things that has surprised a number of us on this side of the House has been the way in which it appears that the government is slowly whittling away at the role of the Ministry of Skills Development. That ministry was created very specifically so that there could be again a focused attempt to look at the young people who were going to need help, to find the kinds of skills programs that would meet that need and then to put those in place. But what we have seen since this government came into power is not a focus, is not one minister being able to take hold and to say to this House: "These are the kinds of programs that we need. This is what I'm going to do."

The first thing this government needs to do at this point is say, "We have a crisis in terms of youth unemployment." The statistics I read out in the motion, the number of unemployed students aged 15 to 24 going from 11.1% to 18% in 18 months -- anyone going anecdotally and talking to his sons, his daughters, the friends of his sons and daughters, will recognize that there is either very little employment opportunity out there, that kids who had reasonable jobs last summer are now having to take ones in which there is much less money available, or there simply is no work.

One of the things that struck me during the short time I served as Minister of Community and Social Services was when young people in the age group of 15 to 24 drop out of high school -- and we know that number is in the range of up to 30% -- and they don't have the skills, they don't have the training, they don't have the education, they face a future that is really without hope, and we simply cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow the number of young people, again between 15 and 24, who month after month are increasing the ranks of those who are on social assistance.

When we then look at some of the social turmoil we have had in the city of Toronto and other parts of the province, that is but the tip of the iceberg of telling us there is a crisis out there. One of the key ways of ensuring that we don't have that crisis and that we're able to resolve those issues is precisely to see that there's a government that's going to move forward and take some very concrete steps to bring about youth employment.

Si nous pouvons souligner la crise qui existe actuellement dans la société ontarienne, il faut aussi dire que s'il y a un manque de programmes pour la population globalement il y a, même plus important, un manque de programmation pour la communauté francophone en ce qui concerne l'emploi des jeunes.

Donc, dire qu'on peut simplement mettre le point sur peut-être un groupe ici ou une région de la province là, ce n'est pas suffisant pour résoudre ce problème. Donc, je dis au gouvernement qu'il est très important de dire au ministre de la Formation professionnelle que c'est à lui de nous dire : «Voici les programmes que nous, comme gouvernement, allons mettre en place. Voici les actions que je vais prendre pour travailler avec l'industrie, avec les commerces et avec les institutions éducatives pour assurer en effet qu'il y aura des programmes de formation pour les jeunes qui vont en avoir besoin.»

Without that, we are simply not going to be able to lower the rate of unemployment that we currently find among young people.

I was given a number of speeches that have been given over the years by the Premier, by the Treasurer, by a variety of members in this House on all sides, in all three parties, and it is probably fair to say that we have come close to developing a full program around youth employment. But we have always pulled back from really making sure that what we have is something that is going to work.

That's going to have to be one in which this government says, first of all, that it recognizes that, broadly speaking, there is a crisis facing our youth with respect to employment; that we have to go into our schools and look at the kinds of programs that are there. What is it that young people are learning? What are the kinds of apprenticeship programs, the various job programs, the cooperative education programs that are going to enable those young people to find work? What are we doing at the community college level?

What are we doing in terms of universities to ensure that those who graduate are going to have jobs?

The area that gets left out so often when we're doing all of this is for the young people who don't fall into those different categories and who are simply out there, often on social assistance. They get lost and that number keeps growing, and it grows at our peril if we are trying to develop some sort of truly just society, a society in which young people will have work.

If we're to deal with this we need to redirect some funds. Again, the motion has said very clearly that "the government has managed to increase spending in other sectors which are not in crisis." This is a sector which is in crisis. There are programs within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, for example, to deal with employment. There are some $50 million there. Some of those funds could be immediately and specifically directed to this question.

Those funds could be used to develop a coordinated program where we set out those young people who are most at risk, the kinds of skills and training they are going to need, and put that money there. Those dollars could be directed to ensuring, even in the short term, employment opportunities for young people. We have to recognize that if people are unemployed, if they don't have jobs, we are going to be paying a whole series of other costs.

Yesterday we had the report that came out from the social assistance task force looking at bringing about new legislation to ensure that people on social assistance are going to be able to get the kind of training they require for jobs.

Clearly what that report said, and the importance of it in terms of improving programs like supports to employment and developing other employment transitional programs for young people, was that if we don't do that we're going to be paying through charges against our correctional system, we're going to be paying because more money will have to go out on our welfare system and we're going to be paying because those young people are not going to be able to add to the economic value of our society.

But we pay in the worst way because we lose those young people. They don't get the opportunity to contribute to society. They don't have the opportunity to find jobs. They then become disillusioned, they're without hope, and it's at that point that the kinds of events we have seen over the last few weeks can happen. We have to recognize that within that is simply a question of those young people seeking to have a sense that they belong in this society and that we believe it's important they have those opportunities.

As we begin this debate and listen to both my colleagues and others who will be speaking in this debate, we as members of this Assembly have to say that we are committed to seeing that this is a number one, front-burner issue, that government has a clear and direct responsibility to act, to lead, to bring the players together and to come up with specific programs which can take advantage of dollars that are already there in the budget and that can be redirected to ensure we help young people.

We do that in two parts, both in the short run and by setting out very clearly in direction to the Minister of Skills Development that we're going to have to have brought into this House a program directed, in my view, to young people, to youth, and to see that that has multi-year funding and will involve all of those other sectors, so that young people, whether they are in college, whether they are in high school, whether they have had to drop out of school, will have training opportunities and jobs that they're going to be able to take advantage of.

I ask that all of us, as we look at the problem facing us, recognize that this is the first requirement: that we make that commitment to our young people and then make the commitment to make the changes we're going to have to to ensure we can provide the employment our young people need, require and deserve.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): This is quite the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Mr Conway's want of confidence motion. I'd like to speak to it as it appears on Orders and Notices.

The first statement Mr Conway makes is that "the number of unemployed students between the ages of 15 and 24 has gone from 11.1% in September 1990 to 18% in April 1992." One has to wonder about the reasons our young people in Ontario are unemployed during these times. I'd like to begin by taking us back a few years.

We know it's always been a challenge for young people to get summer jobs, and young people have always had to take challenging jobs, some of which they wouldn't choose if they had a choice. But I think their families and their schools and the employers of this province have always tried to give them just that: a beginning in different kinds of summer work so that we could, of course, establish a value system and give them an opportunity to earn some dollars to put towards their education.

I don't think young people have changed. I still think they're looking for those opportunities, and I believe most of them would do almost anything to work. But the people I'd like to talk about today are the young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who aren't looking for summer jobs: those young people who have either dropped out of school or who have finished their education by age 24 who are looking for permanent jobs.

Why is this issue on the agenda today? I think it is for a couple of reasons. I think one of the reasons we have unemployed students is the state of the economy in Ontario today and probably for the last two or three years. When we look to the private sector, the business community, to give our young people opportunities, it is looking at laying off its most important workers. They're looking at reducing the number of days people work, they're looking at changing full-time employees to part-time employees and they're looking at phasing out work in Ontario altogether.

I think that debate is probably for another time, but it's an extremely important one in these times. If we don't have industry and business investing in Ontario -- Canadian industry, North American industry or industry from other parts of the world -- if we're not the kind of province people are excited about that they can invest in and know that we'll make it work on their behalf through confidence, hard work and our ability to be competitive, our young people will have fewer and fewer jobs. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to talk about that today.

When we talk about the Ontario student assistance program, many of our young people who will not have the opportunity to go to university or to the colleges of their choice this fall for a number of reasons are very concerned, as is pointed out in the motion this afternoon by the member for Renfrew North, that the OSAP program was reduced by $10 million.

I'd like to begin my comments on colleges and universities by saying that if Ontario wants to be a player on the global stage something must be done to our deteriorating university system. It's hard for me to stand here as a graduate of the secondary school system in the late 1950s, someone who looked forward to going to university along with my friends -- and I have to say that at that time there weren't very many of us who had the opportunity. I grew up in this great city and graduated from Oakwood Collegiate.

Many of us wanted to go on, but the universities didn't have the spaces or the college system didn't exist or many of us couldn't afford to go, but more important, you had to be an excellent student to go.

At the same time, we take a look at what the students who are in our universities tell us with regard to their buildings. Their physical facilities are deteriorating. They're subjected to classes bigger than any of us could ever imagine. Students aren't receiving, in their view, the quality of education they deserve. Their complaints are very specific. They wish they had more time with their professors or their instructors. They would expect that if they were able to contribute in any way to their own tuition they would get the quality and the time they deserve.

At the same time as the need increases for post-secondary education, there is going to be a severe lack of faculty to teach these students.

Today this gives me an opportunity to talk about vision and planning. Between now and the year 2000 -- and I think this would be interesting for any member of the House to know about -- 50% of all new jobs will require a university degree. These are the projections we hear and read about in the research that's being done, not only in our province and in Canada but across North America; 50 % of all new jobs will require a university degree. This is a reality that we have to face and it is being reflected now in the number of mature students we see returning to university.

Many say they're going back because they can't get a job. One has to wonder why they're not getting jobs. Is it because there aren't the jobs available? I think for many there aren't, especially for the traditional summer-type jobs we know about. The kinds of jobs being offered to our students, our young people, require tremendous amounts of training and technology. We know and Ontario knows that would be the specific area we are failing in.

Older people are returning to university because they too, in today's workplace, find it's much more complicated, technology-driven and information-sensitive. They're going back either while they're working, or taking leave of absence or their employers are providing the opportunity for them to return to university because although they've been in the workforce, they too need to be upgraded.

All available predictions about the next 10 years suggest this trend will increase. I've already stated that OSAP will be reduced by $10 million. Cutting $10 million will reduce the amount of assistance available at a time when the recession has seriously affected the incomes and opportunities of students. At the same time, universities have stated that there will be more than 2,000 first-year places in universities and applications to colleges will be up some 24%.

I've been participating in the social development committee in the last few weeks, which has been reviewing the Ontario student assistance program. We've heard from a number of organizations and university presidents who are very concerned that the quality of education is rapidly deteriorating. I'm looking forward to being part of the information-provider responsibility that I have in speaking with that committee as it tries to develop some recommendations for this government.

Given that we have had some very interesting and responsible suggestions I hope, as an all-party committee, we can embark upon some new approaches in the whole area of OSAP funding that perhaps none of us would have agreed with at other times if they hadn't been such desperate ones. But we know we have to inject more dollars into the system for the students.

There is another issue I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about, the issue of crown foundations. This was a recommendation during those hearings that was supported by many of the presenters. It's one this government is very much aware of. The establishment of crown foundations in Ontario would certainly put us on a level playing field with other provinces.

It's my understanding that the government is about ready to bring forth this bill. I strongly encourage that because as an individual and certainly in my capacity as the Progressive Conservative critic for Colleges and Universities, it is my responsibility to speak as much as I can to the private sector about getting more money into the university system. If this is a vehicle by which they can do that I think, like the province of British Columbia, we should be taking advantage of it.

If we don't do that, many of us will be faced with watching money leave this province, not only to other Canadian provinces, but to American universities where people have obtained their graduate degrees, and even more importantly outside this country.

I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is here today. I hope he would support and bring forth that bill as best he can, which will help us with the crown foundations because we need that money in our universities. We need it especially in the area of industry, trade and technology training. I would be most grateful if that could happen.

I would like to say also that in the area of the debate today, where we're talking about a non-confidence motion in the government because of the lack of support for young people, the lack of support for education and training and the lack of support, I would say, with regard to the management of our education systems, I have to talk a little bit, too, specifically -- I think today is an opportunity to tell the government about something it can do now.

The crown foundation one is something that should definitely come forward before this session adjourns, because all of us are facing our universities and our colleges on a day-to-day basis and we know the challenges they are facing and the resources they're losing. In fact, even if they were to become more efficient, which I think they can do, and even if we were to give them more money, it wouldn't be enough to help the problems in the short term.

Here's another specific one for the government: With regard to skills training, we know right now we have a wonderful opportunity in Ontario to work with the Canadian government in establishing skills training programs through the OTAB vehicle, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board vehicle. The government announced that it would be supporting this restructuring to the province's training system.

I would say that there wouldn't be a member in this House who doesn't know that this issue has been out for public consultation. We all agree that the responsibility for workplace training, labour force adjustment measures, apprenticeship reform and re-entry training will be transferred to the new agency, which will be run by business, labour, education and the social-labour market partners.

It's a tremendous responsibility. It's an opportunity we shouldn't miss. But there are some concerns and if the government doesn't listen carefully to the concerns as they are being presented to it, either by members of the opposition or members of its own government, I think in the long term, if anybody is visionary, we're going to lose some of the partners we need. It's not too late.

I'd like to list the concerns as we see them and as we have presented them in the House in the past. Perhaps some of them will be new.

First of all, the public that has been involved in making presentations before the committee tells us that the government, believe it or not, on this issue is moving too quickly, that adequate time must be allocated to debate the proposals and to locate the best people to serve on the OTAB and the local boards. I have raised the tremendous concern about the makeup of the board itself in the past. I'm not going to dwell on it today; the minister knows about it.

With regard to the local boards, I've raised the issue that we have a great deal of expertise in the province that was established -- or at least the vehicle was established -- some eight years ago. Many of these local training boards as they exist right now have, I think, some of the best resources this province has ever known, and some of them are working very well with their local communities.

I would hope that where they're working -- not where they're not working but where we have good people and where they are working -- we ought to keep the best people who have established the links with the business community, with the education community and with the labour community. We shouldn't lose the wonderful links we've established. Those people should be a priority for this government when appointments are made on local boards.

I think one of the issues that has raised the concern of people who have taken the time to go before the committee to advise the committee -- I shouldn't say committee; I mean the panel -- has been the process itself. I raised it and I talked to the deputy and I can't believe it hasn't been changed. I think our province has lost a great deal of credibility in supporting the five-minute presentation.

Can you imagine asking people to communicate with the people they represent, whether they be a training body themselves, whether they be representation from industry, whether they be a representative from labour, going through all the loopholes it takes to get the support in order to go before a panel of this government, only to be told that you've got five minutes?

Mr Speaker, I should tell you that I brought this to the attention of the minister on day two of these panel discussions and that process did not change. I think we lost a lot of credibility by supporting it.

The business community is particularly alarmed by the prospect of an additional payroll tax for training. If we could get this model up and running as they have in Europe, in West Germany, in Brussels and in the United Kingdom -- and we know these models and we know they're working; we know it took a long time to get them going -- if we could work with the communities, we would get that kind of support.

But if we're not going to work with all the different partners and if we're going to slap them with another tax before they've ever been asked for specific contributions -- I'm now talking about large corporations that have not been asked, that now have sent some of their training people over. When I was in Brussels in January, that's what I saw, an American motor company training people who could have been trained in Ontario. I see again the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology watching me as I speak. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to him about these kinds of things and after today I will phone his office and try to arrange some time.

There are no unorganized labour representatives on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. Unorganized labour makes up 70% of the labour force. This particular concern has been raised on a daily basis through my office and certainly to the panel members. There has to be an answer to it. One has to take a look at how one gets unorganized labour represented. I think this government in particular should be the government that speaks up and says there is a way, even if all you do is go to the local chambers of commerce and say, "Give us a couple of people." If you want it to happen, it will happen.

The community industrial training committees are already effectively networking with their labour and business partners. They have identified the training needs of the community. The question is, why are we dismantling something that is already working and starting from scratch?

I see that my time is coming to a close and I'd just like to finish by saying this: I don't think rewriting curriculum or putting vast amounts of money into our education system or even testing students or even talking about year-round schooling are the simple answers to what I see as being a very big challenge for this government and the education systems in Ontario.

I would sum up by saying I don't think we put our resources into the front lines the way we should. We have administrative-heavy school boards, administrative-heavy colleges and administrative-heavy universities. We have classes that are too large at all three levels. We need a major redevelopment of the administrations of all of our education and training sectors in this province, and the money must go into the front lines, meaning with the educator and with the student.

The other issue I need to say something about today is that the curriculum in our elementary and secondary schools is long overdue for a major injection of training skills at a very early age. We wouldn't be talking about youth unemployment today to the extent we are if these young people were to stay in school and the school systems were to provide the ongoing training throughout the summer, just like they do in other parts of the world. Ontario and Canada are falling further and further behind.

This government will not change this overnight, but what we need from it -- with our help, I would expect -- would be a long-term plan. We don't have it. We don't have the political will and we didn't have it with the Liberals.

I have to say at this point, and I'll take the opportunity, that I'm surprised to see this kind of motion coming from the Liberals, because they had five years. I'm looking at the former Minister of Skills Development and I know how often he and I talked and I know that he was frustrated because he couldn't get the job done. Why? Because we need the political will and we need a plan and we all have to buy into it and just get on with it. Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate? The honourable member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I must congratulate the member for London North on what I think is a set of fairly reasonable comments in this debate, comments that I certainly can identify with. She talked about the OTAB program, and what we have tried to do with the OTAB program is recognize that bureaucracies and very large institutions are often insensitive to the needs of business, to the needs of working people and to the training.

When we look at the European models, when we look at the Japanese models and some of the models in the Far East of societies that are so much more competitive than we are and that have developed industrial strategies that work, we recognize that training has to be much more at an industry level than it is at the present time. That is the purpose of the OTAB consultations, and I can tell you that in my riding the OTAB consultation gave fairly widespread openings for people to discuss and have considerable input at great length.

I agree with the member for London North with the need to get entrepreneurship or skills at the very grass-roots elementary school level. Indeed, that's what my ministry is doing, and I am consulting with school boards on the entrepreneurship program. As the member for London North well knows, I've been involved with the Creative Education Foundation for a number of years, and indeed that's the only cross-border reason I go to Buffalo at any time, because I think they've set up some very interesting research there in teaching entrepreneur and creativity skills.

We're actively pursuing our entrepreneurship program and I am quite prepared to discuss it with any school board and we are happy to send speakers and facilitators in.

I'm also concerned, quite frankly, when I look at the past record of governments here: that they have really done very little to remedy what I consider to be a very serious problem in making us competitive. If we look at the number of engineers who graduate in Ontario, while it may be better than other provinces, it is still very small in comparison to Japan -- indeed about half the rate per capita of the Japanese.