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

June 14, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CARABRAM

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

DADS DAY

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

WAGE PROTECTION

COPING IN TOUGH TIMES

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

SHOW BOAT

SOCIAL CONTRACT

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

SOCIAL CONTRACT

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

SOCIAL CONTRACT

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ASSISTED HOUSING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

HEALTH CARE

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

VETERINARIAN TECHNOLOGY COURSE

VISITOR

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

SPECIAL EDUCATION

LANDFILL

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

GAMBLING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ACT, 1993

HUMANE SOCIETY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON ACT, 1993

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DES EMPLOYÉS DE LA COURONNE

EXPENDITURE CONTROL PLAN STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE PLAN DE CONTRÔLE DES DÉPENSES

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE COMTÉ DE SIMCOE

TOWNSHIP OF ATIKOKAN ACT, 1993

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT / JEUNESSE EN CHÔMAGE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It gives me great pleasure to rise once again this year to invite all members of the House and the viewing public to a very extraordinary multicultural event that occurs in my riding, the great city of Brampton, once a year. This year it will be on July 9, 10 and 11; that's a Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We have some 19 pavilions, with a new one joining us this year, which is Africa. It should be a very exciting event.

The volunteers who are involved in this are absolutely mega. There are 2,500 volunteers at least. They start working at the end of the Carabram of that year and work right through to make a successful Carabram the following year. In fact, this afternoon in room 351 we will have a few of the people from Carabram in traditional dress with some of the food that will be available in the pavilions.

So I invite you to come out on this July weekend, the 9th, 10th and 11th. It's a very inexpensive event: $7 if you buy your passport in advance or $9 if you buy it at the door. We have passports available through my office. I invite you to come to Brampton, and you can travel throughout the 20 exotic pavilions, seeing their culture, their food, savouring the sights, sounds and tastes of all of these communities without once leaving Brampton. In fact, we'll shuttle you around free on buses from one pavilion to the other in order to avoid any possibility of people drinking and driving.

I invite all the members, as I have done in the past, and anyone viewing the telecast to come out for Carabram. It will be a wonderful weekend.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to advise the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation that two community projects in my riding, the renovation of the Owen Sound family Y and the construction of a new Beaver Valley community arena in Thornbury, require assistance from her.

The Thornbury area has been without an arena for three years, and the community badly needs a centre for sporting and family activities. Their proposal would create hundreds of jobs for local people and suppliers. This work would be of great benefit to this centre, which is presently suffering some measure of economic depression.

Both these projects have the full and strong support of their communities. Local service groups and church organizations have been instrumental in assisting the projects and raising public funds, but they need the government's assistance as well. Both would be a valuable asset to their areas and both would bring much-needed employment to the region.

I would ask the minister to seriously consider each of these worthwhile ventures and do what she can to turn both dreams into realities.

DADS DAY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On June 19, I want to recognize DADs Day. No, I haven't got it mixed up with Father's Day. DADs means Dollars Against Diabetes, and it's a charity drive to benefit all diabetic children across Canada.

On June 19, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the Canadian Building and Constructions Trades Department and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council are all taking

part in the Dollars Against Diabetes charity drive.

The council is organizing a volunteer group from the membership with representatives from all building trades unions across Canada for a June 19 canvass in shopping malls.

Diabetes now affects over 1.5 million people in Canada, and of these, 150,000 are children. The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation Canada is convinced that, with research, diabetes can be cured.

I would like to proclaim June 19, 1993, as DADs Day across Ontario to help increase awareness for diabetes and to raise as much money as possible for diabetes research. I urge all citizens to give generously on June 19. Let's all join in the fight to stamp out diabetes, for our children's sake alone.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The province of Quebec has a law in place which effectively bars Ontario construction workers from working in Quebec. This same law also effectively prohibits Ontario-based construction companies from bidding on Quebec jobs.

Ontario, I am proud to say, has no equivalent law and our borders have not been closed to Quebec workers or construction companies. The situation as it exists is patently unfair.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton, by virtue of our proximity to Quebec, are dramatically affected by this discriminatory law. The Minister of Labour tells me that the Quebec construction barrier will be addressed at upcoming interprovincial trade talks, along with hundreds of other interprovincial barriers blocking the free flow of trade between all Canadian provinces.

I am very concerned that the Quebec construction barrier issue will get lost in the shuffle as 10 provincial premiers enter into lengthy, complicated discussions. It has taken years to erect these barriers and it will take years to dismantle them. The problem, of course, is that the people of Ottawa-Carleton can't wait years for the Quebec construction barrier to come down.

I ask that the Premier immediately have some of his representatives enter into talks with their counterparts in Quebec to address only the matter of the Quebec construction barrier. If these talks do not meet with success, or should Quebec refuse to attend, then Ontario should immediately erect the same construction barriers that Quebec has in place. But before taking any unilateral action, our government owes it to both the people of Ottawa-Carleton and the people of Quebec to formally invite Quebec representatives to discuss this specific and very pressing issue.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Earlier this session, I indicated to the Minister of Labour that it is taking between a year and 18 months for claims filed with the wage protection program to be investigated and settled. At that time, the minister responded by saying, and I quote, "I think at the moment it's between five and six months to finalize a claim."

I would like to take this opportunity to draw the Minister of Labour's attention to yet another example of this program's inefficiency. In December 1991, one of my constituents became unemployed as a result of a company bankruptcy. In the first week of January 1992, he filed a claim. That was 18 months ago. While this person has finally been contacted by the ministry to indicate that the file is being investigated, he has still not been paid after 18 months of waiting.

This is simply appalling. This government has told workers that the wage protection fund would protect them from financial hardship in the event of a sudden layoff or bankruptcy, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is an empty promise for workers.

I want to indicate to the Minister of Labour that despite his assurances, it is not taking five to six months for the wage protection program to settle claims. Unfortunately, many workers are waiting a year and a half for their claims to be settled, and that time line is completely unacceptable. I urge the minister to take action now to ensure that the claims are paid promptly in order that the workers are protected from financial hardship.

COPING IN TOUGH TIMES

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I am pleased to rise today to tell this House about an organization in my riding called Coping In Tough Times. I'd like to welcome today to the gallery representatives from Coping In Tough Times: Nigel Cowling, Frances Ogunsakin, Helmi Soini, Karen Bass and Esther Inglis.

Coping In Tough Times is a charitable organization founded in 1983 by business people in the community to assist clients with the development of a budget plan. The central focus of Coping In Tough Times is to help teach financially challenged clients how to manage their income effectively while maintaining a decent standard of living.

Coping In Tough Times also educates clients as to the rules and regulations collection agencies must abide by, thereby helping to alleviate a major source of fear and tension faced by many people living in a difficult economic climate.

Over 1,000 clients have been served by Coping In Tough Times since its inception. Trained volunteers work individually with clients to assess their current financial situation and to show them how to make appropriate changes in their financial living.

Coping In Tough Times is funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Scarborough and the United Way of Greater Toronto. They currently reside in my riding at 81 Gilder Drive.

Coping In Tough Times volunteers consist of people from a range of financial professions as well as individuals who are concerned in the community. They only have one and a half staff people on a full-time basis, and the rest of the staffing is done by volunteers in the community.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): The residents of London and Middlesex are waiting to hear from the Minister of Education and Training what he plans to do regarding the proposed merger of the London and Middlesex boards of education. There is a great deal of confusion and frustration among the trustees of both boards because the minister has not met with the two chairpersons on this issue but seems more intent on communicating only through the letters page of the London Free Press.

We now learn that late last week in Windsor at a meeting of southwestern directors of education, the minister reportedly said he wasn't going to do anything for a while. The two school boards need the minister to talk directly to the two chairs, Cheryl Miller and Donna McIlmoyle, to lay out exactly what he plans to do.

We know, for example, that the cost of the proposed amalgamation is around $17 million, but the ministry is only recognizing about $5 million. For 14 months now, neither board has been able effectively to plan for the future. First, it was the question of the London-Middlesex municipal boundary changes, and then the future of the two boards.

Minister, it is time to set your cards on the table. Will you call the two chairs and resolve this confusion? The waiting game is only leading to greater uncertainty. Minister, please pick up the phone.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The people of my riding learned today that because of this government's screwed-up priorities, they will be losing the Palgrave GO bus service, which serves communities like Bolton and Palgrave.

This latest announcement lends credence to the theory that as far as public transit is concerned, the Dufferin-Peel region is Ontario's answer to the Bermuda Triangle: an area where GO buses and trains disappear, never to be seen again.

The Palgrave GO bus is the latest victim of Pink-Slip Floyd Laughren and Bob-the-Terminator Rae and their misplaced priorities. It is the latest victim of a government that would rather spend in excess of $30 million on the Interim Waste Authority to inflict on the people of Bolton a megadump they don't want and don't need than spend a fraction of that to support a GO service they do want and do need.

Again we see a government that is willing to spend millions of dollars on garbage but not a nickel on growth.

The only person who likely welcomed this announcement is the Minister of Environment and Energy, who probably is delighted that there will be fewer buses on the roads in Caledon to get in the way of his garbage trucks.

SHOW BOAT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to add my voice to those who have already spoken out on the lack of sensitivity inherent in the choice of Show Boat as the musical play to open the North York Performing Arts Centre in October. The choice of this production is particularly hurtful to the black community.

In this 1927 musical, blacks are depicted as passive, happy-go-lucky singing caricatures and props to the white characters at the centre of the story. This portrayal does nothing to enhance goodwill and understanding between the diverse multicultural and racial communities.

Some have suggested that Show Boat is history that needs to be told. In fact, Show Boat is historically imprecise and it is no secret that this musical has been controversial almost since the day it was first staged. Seeing black characters dancing and singing, joyful and even grateful in their subservience, will not allow audiences watching this musical to understand or appreciate the ongoing oppression of blacks in post-slavery America.

To respond to the outcry from the black community by creating a kit that will allow educators to debrief impressionable young audiences about the historical inaccuracies of Show Boat, rather than present something which is factual and which does not stereotype any group to begin with, defies logic.

Within our richly diverse social and cultural fabric, surely a play that celebrates our achievements as a society rather than one that propagates cultural stereotypes and historical inaccuracies could have been found to open the North York Performing Arts Centre.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): In my May budget I described the government's three-part plan for dealing with Ontario's deficit. The plan combined expenditure control, revenue measures and a social contract designed to negotiate public sector payroll savings in return for more job security.

This plan is fair, balanced and necessary. If we do not carry it out, this province will continue to see a massive transfer of its wealth from average Ontarians to bond holders, much of it going outside Canada. That means less money for job creation, for economic renewal and for essential public services such as health and education.

Negotiations on the social contract began on April 5 and reached an impasse on June 3.

The government's last framework offer, presented on June 2, outlined a fair and balanced way of achieving the $2 billion in social contract savings while protecting jobs and services. It contained many ideas from social contract participants, employee and employer representatives alike. It reflected their shared concern for a humane restructuring of government, for more affordable and efficient government, for greater openness and accountability in government and, above all, for the preservation of our hard-won public services.

That framework has become the foundation for the legislation I will be tabling in the House later today. The bill urges employers --

[ Interruption]

Hon Mr Laughren: That framework has become the foundation for the legislation I will be tabling in the House later today. The bill urges employers and bargaining agents to negotiate cost savings at sectoral or local tables in the spirit of the framework and it sets mandatory criteria for agreements.

First, it significantly enhances job security for employees who negotiate an agreement through a $300-million job security fund, providing income protection, extended redeployment rights and retraining.

Secondly, it exempts all public sector employees making less than $30,000 a year, and it guarantees that pay equity will not be affected.

Thirdly, the legislation sets time lines. Transfer payments will be reduced starting July 1. Negotiators have from today to August 1, which is about six weeks, to reach an agreement matching cost savings with the transfer reductions. Employers who negotiate a social contract agreement at the sectoral level will have their cost-saving targets reduced.

Fourthly, if negotiations fail, the bill will ensure that $2 billion in social contract savings is achieved in a fair and balanced way.

It is our hope that the savings can be negotiated. However, if the parties fail to agree, we have a responsibility to protect the jobs of public sector workers and the services they provide.

The bill does not mandate wage reductions or rollbacks but it says that, failing an agreement by August 1 between the parties, there will be no wage increases for employees until after March 31, 1996. This applies to any increase scheduled for June 14 of this year onwards. If that is not enough, the cost savings will have to come from unpaid leaves or temporary layoffs.

The legislation also says that, failing a negotiated agreement, employers must comply with a sectoral redeployment plan to enhance their employees' job security.

Social contract agreements must be filed with my office in order to guarantee that compliance is in the spirit of the social contract and applies fairly and equitably to all employees, and the legislation sets up a mechanism to deal with objections to agreements or disputes.

In conclusion, I want to say categorically that our government finds any prospect of overriding collective agreements painful and difficult, but our pain and our difficulty are nothing compared to what the alternative would mean for this province. This is about jobs and the people who need them. It is about services and the people who depend on them. It is about the social contract that we have with each other that recognizes that sometimes it is necessary to give up something for the common good. Our whole budget plan is based on the idea that we all contribute to the social and economic health of this province.

We urge the parties to reach a negotiated resolution. It is our belief that employer and employee representatives will be able to put aside their differences and remember their shared commitment to quality public services for the people of this province. It is our intention to facilitate these negotiations as much as possible, and we will have materials and teams available to support the parties with their work. This week ministries will be sending employers and bargaining agents details about their cost-saving targets as well as copies of a guide to the legislation.

This government values and respects the work of all who serve their communities as public employees. On behalf of the government, I would like to wish the parties the very best in this endeavour, and on behalf of all of us who live in this province, I thank them for their dedication and commitment to our common good.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Last October, my colleague the Chair of Management Board informed the House of the government's intention to reform the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, otherwise known as CECBA. Based on positive results from consultations with a number of government employees, bargaining agents and staff associations dating back to 1991, my colleague informed the House that he had asked the Ministry of Labour, under whose jurisdiction CECBA falls, to continue this reform process with a view to eventually developing legislation.

Both the public service unions and the government have long desired reform of this important statute, which governs labour relations for almost 100,000 working men and women in the Ontario public service and its affiliated agencies. Compared with the Ontario Labour Relations Act and labour laws in many other provinces, CECBA is a restrictive and outdated piece of labour legislation. It has not been significantly reformed in more than 20 years. It excludes many workers from the rights and benefits of collective bargaining, denies all government workers the right to strike, restricts and narrows the scope of bargaining and relies excessively on costly and time-consuming arbitration.

Furthermore, it has hampered attempts by both the government and bargaining agents to develop the better working relationships that are necessary to improve both the quality of work and the services government provides.

I am pleased to tell the House that after further consultation with all interested parties, I am introducing legislation later today to modernize CECBA and bring it into line with similar laws in other provinces.

These changes will also give both the government as employer and the public sector unions the same rights and responsibilities now available to their counterparts in the broader public sector and private sector.

These reforms are both fair and balanced and will ensure that labour and management take full responsibility for collective bargaining outcomes and the many challenges affecting their workplace during a time of rapid change.

Some of the more important proposals I will introduce later today include:

-- Broadening, as much as possible, access to collective bargaining for excluded classifications and allowing many of these workers the freedom to choose their own bargaining agents. The reforms will not affect employees' seniority.

-- Opening up the collective bargaining process to include all workplace issues, including classifications.

-- Lessening the reliance on binding arbitration by requiring the mutual consent of both parties beforehand.

-- Subject to further consultation, removing crown agencies from CECBA's jurisdiction and placing them under the Labour Relations Act. It bears stating at this time that existing bargaining unit rights and agents will be preserved in all cases under this legislation.

-- A provision that will allow for new bargaining unit structures.

Lastly, mindful that the people of Ontario depend on a variety of critical and essential public services 365 days a year, the public sector will have the right to strike, but it will be contingent on both parties' prior agreement on essential service designations. The public can be assured that essential public services will always be protected in the event of a strike or lockout.

Today's reforms will give working men and women in the public sector rights and opportunities they have requested for many years.

They will allow the government to conduct its labour relations in a system that is fairer, less cumbersome and less expensive.

They will encourage greater maturity and responsibility in public sector collective bargaining and place the responsibility for resolution of workplace disputes largely on the two parties and not on arbitrators.

They are in the best tradition of a government committed to progress for working men and women.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Let me begin by saying how frustrating it is that after all of this time and all of this anguish, all that we have today is a brief statement from the Treasurer and not in fact the piece of legislation in front of us so that we can respond to the details of that legislation.

This is a clear sign that the chaos continues, that this government is still desperately responding literally on a day-to-day basis to try and find a way out of this mess that it has created.

I find it ironic that it is the Minister of Finance who's presenting this legislation. I am sure that this is not a happy day in his political career. I am sure he is torn by what he has just had to announce. He knows that he has to find $2 billion in cost reductions to meet his budget targets. We all agree that this Finance minister and this government must get their budget in under a $10-billion deficit. It is also very clear that the government has to show firmly how it is going to achieve that budget.

But the Finance minister knows that the whole social contract mess has been a disaster from the beginning. Last week, finally, the Premier himself said: "Broad, comprehensive solutions will not work. I've listened and I understand that they will not work." He has opened the door for local negotiations, without enough time to let them take place and with much less likelihood of success in the atmosphere of confrontation that has been created.

Local negotiations were always the way to go and we have said that from the very beginning, but because this Premier has chased his dream of some sort of social contract, this government is now forced yet again into legislative action which is likely to be unworkable if it ever has to be implemented. The Premier said comprehensive solutions won't work, and yet this government intends to present the same comprehensive solution that nobody found acceptable and it is still not workable.

All of the questions that were raised during the social contract circus are still on the table. The bill, according to the Finance minister's statement, says that the $2 billion will be achieved in a fair and balanced way, and we still say, what does that mean? How do we begin to understand what is fair and equitable in all of this chaos? How can this approach work successfully across all of the sectors and all of the contracts that are involved?

It appears from the brief discussion we've had with Treasury officials it has finally been recognized that additional, unpaid leave for people like teachers and nurses and policemen and firemen is simply not going to work. I ask the Finance minister, why do you not simply start calling a wage rollback a wage rollback, because in many sectors that is exactly what you are proposing?

I ask you how a job security fund is likely going to work. This sounds to me like the whole deeming issue which has so plagued the Workers' Compensation Board, only this time writ large across the entire broader public sector.

Who is going to determine who is qualified to hold a particular job? Who is going to determine whether one hospital is obligated to hire the laid-off worker from another hospital? How are you, by the way, going to make up the 20% incentive funds which you're now talking about giving to any local group that reaches an alternative solution?

At the end of this, I ask you, how much of this cost reduction is real and ongoing and how much of it is just going to be deferred until some miracle budget year in the future? This legislation is a mess and it will not even achieve the 5% reduction that you need.

All of the questions are still on the table. They are questions that demand answers. There are no answers in the statement that you have presented today. There are unlikely to be any answers in this legislation. All there is is a failure to acknowledge how completely this government has mismanaged this situation from day one. We can only hope that through the common sense of people who live and work with the reality of this world, we'll somehow find a better way out of this mess.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I want to respond to the Minister of Labour, who many people are now calling the Minister of Unemployment. It's ironic that we see this legislation at this time, when the government's energies and this Legislature's energies should be on job creation and unemployment and getting on with improving the economic climate in the province. I'm going to have a lot to say about this legislation, because many of its provisions I have great concern with.

However, what I think is particularly important in this ill-timed but very deliberate piece of legislation today is that it speaks loudly and clearly to the mismanagement of the NDP government in their own labour relations with their own employees. It is disgraceful, sir, the way you have treated your very own employees and this is not going to be enough. This is not going to be enough to restore good labour relations in Ontario.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I first of all want to respond to the Minister of Labour who stood in his place today, I guess, with this bill -- this is the Bill 40 of the private sector, now to be extended to the public sector -- and I do wish to respond to the Treasurer.

Let me just say this very clearly, so that all understand, union leaders, union employees, public sector, private sector: Just as Bill 40 can and will be scrapped, this legislation as well can and will be scrapped, so don't get too comfortable with it. If you think this sop while the social contract gutting and ripping out of agreements is being brought in by the Treasurer has a longer shelf-life than September 6, 1995, which is as long as you can hang on, you've got another think coming. I want that to be very clear.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Let me deal now with the statement by the Treasurer, I guess in the absence of the Premier, who's hobnobbing in Washington, as I understand it.

You know, when I campaigned along with your leader and with the Liberals in the last election, I said you can't carry on with this Liberal-socialism, NDP-style coalition spending, and everybody said I was wrong. We found out today that I was absolutely right. We told you this three years ago when you took office too. We told you two years ago when we said you're going to have to have a 2% increase solution instead of this 15% that you went off of and got everything all out of control.

We told you then when you finally came to a social contract -- you said, "My gosh, what are we going to do? We've got to do something" -- there was only one way to have meaningful dialogue: Tell people you were serious, tell us the amount, $2 billion; second, set a firm deadline; third, give us the "what ifs." It has taken until today to meet those three conditions whereby you can have negotiations.

Now, how far offtrack are you? I liken what you have been doing, just in this social contract talks process, to a 20-storey building on fire. You closed all the first-floor exits and then you closed the second-floor exits and then the third-floor exits. Now you've closed right up to the 19th- and 20th-floor exits and you've left Ontarians, you've left workers, you've left families, you've left them with either the 19th-floor exit to jump off or the 20th-floor exit to jump off this burning building that you and the Liberals created and you put on fire.

One, do nothing -- that's unacceptable; that's the 20th-floor option, in my view. The 19th floor, which is unacceptable, is this gutting and rolling back chaos of a piece of legislation you wish to bring forward.

I'm serving notice today as well on this piece of legislation that I and my caucus colleagues will be putting forward amendments to this bill. We'll be seeking the support of the Liberal Party, we'll be seeking the support of all of the NDP members who believe that retroactive rollbacks, gutting the negotiation process, creating the chaos out there is not the right way to go.

We'll be asking for those amendments to this legislation as we have outlined in our release this morning, that anything we didn't see in there we would be insisting on. We'll be looking for the three-year hiring freeze effective today, to start that attrition time clock going. We'll be asking that implementation of this be for a three-year period, on the anniversary date that contracts come up; on the anniversary date that contracts come up for three years. So we're not retroactively gutting, we're not taking away, we're doing it in a logical, organized way.

We'll be putting forward proposals that on the wage component alone can save up to $3 billion over three years instead of $2 billion in one day and then nothing for the rest of the three years, that will logically provide a long-term solution, not a short-term knee-jerk, something that's building up onuses that are going to have to be paid for when the three years are over. This "days off" will come back to haunt us all. This is not a permanent saving. These can be moved forward so they all come due the day this bill expires. We'll be offering positive alternatives for a long-term, permanent solution to properly downsize the size and the cost of government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Once again, it's a little bit difficult to know how to focus questions when we have not in fact seen the legislation which is clearly going to be an unprecedented piece of legislation. My question will be, of course, to the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Premier who has presented in his statement some indication of the direction that this government intends to take.

It is quite clear from the statement that the Finance minister has made that the legislation is going to be unprecedented in its scope. We believe it is a direct result of the chaos that this government has continued to create, that certainly there are going to be in this legislation some very broad implications for some 950,000 public sector workers across the province as well as the 9,000 collective agreements under which they work.

It is a fact that this piece of legislation could change the face of collective bargaining in this province, literally for ever. We also recognize that the time which the government has now allowed for some alternatives to its legislative hammer to be found is very short. Nevertheless, I ask the Treasurer, as they plan to bring forward this piece of legislation, for some assurance that there can be some kind of limited public hearing, that there will be some way in which we can have hearings that will give us and people in this public of Ontario, as well as people directly affected by the legislation, some understanding of the full implications of what they propose.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I'm somewhat puzzled by part of the

preamble of the leader of the official opposition, in which she complained about not having seen the legislation yet. When I look at the standing orders of this place, we have to go through the routine proceedings before we get into introduction of bills. I don't know whether she's operating in some other kind of legislative framework than I am, but that's the tradition in this House. Simply, all we're trying to do is provide an opening statement that tells you the broad direction of the legislation. Then, when the legislation's introduced this afternoon, it'll be available for everyone to see, at the end of routine proceedings.

When it comes to dealing with the legislation in this assembly, I would assume that the three House leaders will be sitting down and talking with one another, as is normally the case when it comes to talking about expediting the passage of legislation in this assembly. I wasn't clear in what the leader of the official opposition said as to whether she supports this legislation or doesn't. I'd appreciate clarification on that.

Mrs McLeod: I can understand if this Minister of Finance feels that I am somewhat confused in the

preamble to my questions, because they have led to nothing but confusion in what they have presented day after day. As we read media reports about the way in which their position is changing, and as we try and decipher what was in that statement today, there are just too many questions. There are so many questions that are unresolved. They've been unresolved in two months of intense negotiations. They are legitimate questions; they deserve answers.

What I am asking of the Finance minister is to tell us how we are going to get the answers that we need so that we and the public can determine what kind of responsible or irresponsible action this government is taking.

Hon Mr Laughren: Attempting to preserve essential services and at the same time contain the cost of delivering those services is hardly an irresponsible act on the part of this government. That's exactly what we're trying to do. Unless the leader of the official opposition has been living under a bridge for the last six months, she would know what the basic framework is for this legislation. It's based on the social contract. There's been ample discussion all across the province on the social contract.

When she sees the legislation this afternoon, and, I'm sure, engages in debate on second reading of the bill, there'll be ample opportunity for her to put forth suggestions for improvements of the bill. We look forward to hearing her very positive contributions.

Mrs McLeod: I have one very specific question, then, before the legislation is presented. It would appear to us, in the few moments that we've had to get some understanding of intent, that this legislation is not even at the end of the day going to lead to the $2 billion, the 5% reduction in the broader public sector compensation package that this Finance minister needs to meet his budget targets. I ask the Finance minister quite simply, is this real cost reduction on an ongoing basis, or are you not simply deferring a great many of these costs until some miracle budget year about three years down the road?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, absolutely not. It would be shortsighted indeed to achieve savings in the short run or defer savings, because that just puts off for tomorrow a problem we have to deal with today. I can tell you that the people in this province are tired of governments that put off the problems to another day. We're dealing with our problems today as we face them, which you failed to do when you were in government. I wanted to reassure the leader of the official opposition that the $2 billion in savings that we targeted at the beginning of this entire process will indeed be achieved this fiscal year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Talking about delay, it's somewhat ironic to hear this Finance minister talk about delay today when we have a Finance minister who last November understood that his budget was in trouble and is part of a government that did not begin to deal with the problem until about eight weeks ago, and we have had eight totally wasted weeks in the meantime.

It is now four months into the budget year. It will be at least two to three months before any of the solutions that the government has proposed can be implemented. That will mean we are halfway through the budget year, and that means that all of the savings, the $2 billion that this Finance minister must achieve, will have to be achieved to meet the Finance minister's goal in the current budget year.

I ask the Finance minister in all seriousness, how can you begin to meet that target of the full $2 billion in what is now six months of the year? What studies have you begun to do to show what the impact will be on wages, on layoffs, of trying to meet that full cost reduction figure in what is six months of the year?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the fiscal year to which we are referring is the province's fiscal year. Let's be clear about that. The fiscal savings of $2 billion that must be achieved are in the province's fiscal year, which does not have six months remaining, but indeed has until the end of March 1994. I don't think that it's fair, or accurate even, to say that there's only six months left in our fiscal year. There isn't. Count it. It's from now right through until the end of March 1994.

We believe that if the partners out there, the employees and the employers in the public sector, sit down in the spirit of negotiation and goodwill in order to protect services, we will indeed be able to achieve the $2 billion in savings this year. As a matter of fact, we are committed to achieving those $2 billion in savings in this fiscal year.

Mrs McLeod: There are just so many questions. There are tremendous challenges for the people who are now being asked to undertake local negotiations, if they are to attempt to begin to even meet those targets in the balance of this fiscal year.

The leader of the third party has offered some solutions. He suggested that, after all, it can be relatively easily done through attrition, that all you need is a hiring freeze. The Treasurer, the Finance minister, has understood that that doesn't work if you have to replace a policeman or an ambulance driver, and that's why you've built some exemptions into this legislation to cover that sector.

The leader of the third party has suggested that you simply have a wage freeze, that this will be a large part of the solution. The Finance minister clearly understands that many contracts have already been reached which provide wage freezes for at least this year and maybe for the next two years as well. So those sectors get no reductions by simply freezing their wages. Will those sectors get some reduced target?

I ask the Finance minister, when will each of those bargaining partners, each of those in the different public sectors, understand clearly what the financial targets are, what the 20% incentive will mean? Will the 20% be reduced from the target? Exactly what are the financial targets and when will they know?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's a fair question. We will be sending out this week the specific reduction targets for everyone out there in the public sector, employers and bargaining agents alike, and all will receive the unreduced target number as well as the reduced target number if they're able to reach agreements, either at a sectoral level or at the local level. Our partners out there will get the information to which you appropriately refer before the end of this week. As a matter of fact, we hope to send it out tomorrow, I believe, so there should be no problem with them having all of those targets this week.

Mrs McLeod: I still obviously have some very real concerns about broad-brush comprehensive solutions which the Premier himself acknowledged last week could not possibly work, and I'm sure our questions will continue to raise those issues of the unworkability of these broad-brush solutions that are being proposed this afternoon.

Let me raise one specific question that we've raised in the past, and that has to do with exemptions. You will recall that the Premier, perhaps in a somewhat too casual moment in Hamilton, indicated that Hamilton municipal workers would be exempt from any social contract provisions because they had already done their share.

There are many municipalities, many hospitals, many school boards where, through the process of collective bargaining, people feel as though they have taken responsible and realistic action, where they feel as though they have begun to do their share.

Let me simply ask the Finance minister, as he proposes to bring in this legislation, will there be any exemptions? Will there in fact be any room for special cases to be made to reflect the reality of real life situations?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do appreciate the fact that a lot of municipalities and social agencies have worked very hard in the last year to make their delivery of their services more efficient and more cost-effective. At the same time, I believe that if we were to try and build a long list, or even a short list, of exemptions into the legislation, we would be opening a door that would see the savings of $2 billion very quickly begin to unravel. So there will not be exemptions in the legislation.

However, there will be in the legislation an understanding that if, for example, a local bargaining unit comes to an agreement with its employer, that agreement must be approved and must meet the broader framework or principles involved in the social contract so that as much as possible services and jobs are protected at the local level, and we must not forget that what has driven this entire exercise has been savings in compensation at the public sector level.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Minister of Finance. First of all, let me say that on the day when this legislation is being brought in, I suppose I should feel that the world is a safer place because all living Rhodes Scholars are posing for photo ops in Washington. However, I want to tell you how disappointed I am that the Premier is not here in the House today with this legislation.

To the Minister of Finance: For the past period of time since we started talking the social contract, and I got a sense that you were actually beginning to get serious about cutting back on all the Liberal spending, you know that I repeatedly asked you and the Premier to consider as part of the solution, part of the fourth option, the idea of an immediate hiring freeze on the public sector.

This obviously is not the entire solution -- there are many other things, as we put forward, probably 18 or 20 proposals -- but this one alone would over a three-year period permanently reduce the size of the public service, gaining potential savings of up to $6 billion over three years. It would do so without undue hardship to families. It would do so, if you are upsizing at the same time, without job loss. It would do so at the same time without gutting contracts and agreements and slashing away at things that are already in place.

I would ask you, Minister, why is there no mention in any of your statements or announcements today or in the legislation of a hiring freeze as part of the solution?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, in view of the fact that the leader of the third party talked about the Premier's absence in Washington, I should tell him that he is in Washington meeting with United States trade representative Mickey Kantor, and surely any Conservative would know why he should be down there talking about trade problems between this province and the United States.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): It's too bad the federal Tories aren't carrying out their responsibilities with regard to trade.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Prime Minister designate heading down to Ottawa --

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Washington.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- to try and correct some of the problems caused by her predecessor, but we'll see in the next few months whether or not that happens.

The leader of the third party asks about why there's not a hiring freeze. The trouble with a hiring freeze is that it's unbelievably crude and simplistic. If, for example, there is somebody delivering an essential service who retires because of an early retirement incentive or retires just through the normal attrition factors, if that person retires and is a correctional officer, a fireman, a policeman, whatever, then surely to goodness the leader of the third party understands that a hiring freeze simply doesn't work if you are interested in preserving essential services all across the province, and that's one of the major components of a social contract, to preserve essential services.

Mr Harris: I think you'll find that we have seen, in the statements today and in the bill to be introduced in the House, the classical definition of "crude" coming from the NDP, coming from the Minister of Finance, coming from the Minister of Labour, when you talk about solutions.

You would know, Treasurer, that you and the Premier and your cabinet waited far too long before taking action to get savings this year. Some transfer partners are now six months into their fiscal year. You also know that you're not going to be able to meet the compensation cuts without either mass layoffs or complete chaos in the delivery of services, and you're going to need additional savings to meet your budget target.

We would like you to meet or exceed your budget deficit target, so let me ask you this: Why is it that there is no discussion to allow the dedicated men and women in the public service and in the extended public service to encourage them to be able to bring forward their ideas -- whistle-blowing protection, a way to put an end to what they call year-end burn-off -- some of the ideas that we have put forward to cut back on government spending, setting priorities and identifying the programs no longer productive or necessary?

Why is it that we have nothing and no discussions going on in these areas that could substantially reduce the burden on the deficit and on the taxpayer, because we all know your $2 billion coming out in wages is achievable over a fiscal year, over a year period, but not in one year when it's half over.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the leader of the third party is making the same mistake the leader of the official opposition is. No social partner out there -- school boards, municipalities, social agencies -- none of them are more than two and a half months into our fiscal year, and it's our fiscal year which is driving the $2 billion in savings. I hope we can put that to rest: We're not asking people out there to achieve savings in six months; we're saying that in the balance of our fiscal year we wish to see those savings achieved.

The other matters that the leader of the third party raises I think are most appropriate. We're prepared to sit down at any point and talk about other ways to achieve savings and to cut out waste. As a matter of fact, you may recall that on the social contract table, that was one of the things that was being discussed, but when those talks ended on June 2, of course, we entered a new phase. But there's absolutely nothing to prevent us from sitting down, and we want to, with employees to talk about ways to achieve savings, and as has been said many times in this House, the whistle-blowing legislation to which he refers will indeed become the law of the land in this province.

Mr Harris: I would like to ask the Treasurer if the Minister of Labour, who had no statement to make today, at the cabinet table or in this process attempted to speak up for those things he did in opposition.

When we had a restraint program that, I might add, was not retroactive, gutted no contract, but dealt on the anniversary, the Minister of Labour at that time said he wanted to know what the government was going to do to square that proposal with the

preamble of the Labour Relations Act, which was to protect free bargaining?

The Minister of Labour at that time wanted to know why the bill before us removed from several hundred thousand public service workers in Ontario basic and fundamental rights to free collective bargaining. At that time, the Minister of Labour wanted to know how the government could reconcile what it was doing with the arbitrary cancellation of contracts that were in there, and fourthly, the Minister of Labour wanted to know, how do they justify tearing up legal contracts?

Now, that was a plan that was not retroactive gutting, as your plan is. That was a plan starting on the anniversary date of contracts. There was no statement by the Minister of Labour today telling us how he was going to protect the rights of 940,000 workers. I thought there would have been.

Did he, at the cabinet table, speak up and answer these questions that he wanted answered when he was the opposition? Now that he has the power to do so, did he say anything on their behalf?

Hon Mr Laughren: If I understand the leader of the third party correctly, he's asking me to discuss what a cabinet colleague said at the cabinet table. Perhaps he did that when he sat at the cabinet table. I'd be very surprised if he did that, however.

All I would say to the leader of the third party is that I've sat at the cabinet table with the Minister of Labour now for two and a half years, and I have never, ever been in a debate on any issue on which the Minister of Labour did not make a positive contribution.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. I want to return to the question of whether the government should help needy people by building and subsidizing housing or by expanding the already existing shelter allowance program.

Your own figures, Madam Minister, show that the average shelter allowance is $354 a month, while the average non-profit subsidy is $854 a month. Obviously, we can help far more people with a shelter allowance than with non-profit housing. We can also give them more choice as to where to live, and if we stop building non-profit housing and redirect the money to shelter allowances, we could eliminate the long waiting list for assisted housing.

Minister, whenever I raise this option, you refuse to consider it, yet I am now hearing from the NDP's traditional constituency that this is what they want. Why are you ignoring their advice to cut non-profit housing and expand shelter allowances?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I have never ignored the contributions from the member for Mississauga South, and I have never avoided the discussion of whether we should be engaged in building new non-profit housing. I'm always pleased to speak about it.

We have considered the matter very thoroughly and, like other governments before us, we have determined that the creation of new non-profit shelter is a very important way of addressing the overall housing needs of Ontarians.

I have pointed out before to this member that the province of Ontario spent over $2.5 billion in shelter allowances last year through the social assistance program, and it spent an additional $80 million through the rental subsidy program administered by the Ministry of Housing. All those payments go to the private sector market, or almost all of them, and she is asking us to expand that program without increasing the supply of affordable rental shelter. We think both have to happen.

Mrs Marland: The minister may question who is giving me this advice to expand shelter allowances and cut non-profit housing, so let me just tell her. This advice is from disabled persons who want to receive a direct subsidy that empowers them to control their own lives. This advice is from members of unions and the NDP who cannot get through to this government. This advice is from public housing tenants who are fed up with deplorable living conditions, and this advice is also from non-profit tenants who have witnessed how poorly their housing projects are managed.

Minister, I ask you again: Will you consider their sound advice if you won't even listen to me?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I accept sound advice from all quarters. In fact, when there is advice, I welcome it.

This government's commitment is that it has allocated funding for over 30,000 units of non-profit housing, which in itself generates over 45,000 jobs, full-year-equivalent jobs, since we came to government, and we will be allocating another 20,000 units of non-profit housing over the next three years.

We believe the supply of affordable housing has to increase. We believe it's a good investment for this province to have affordable housing that will stay affordable, and with all the difficulties there have been with programs, we're working very hard to improve the quality of non-profit housing in this province.

Mrs Marland: I guess the answer is that they're doing this because it creates jobs. While the minister says it's affordable, she should really talk to the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp and see what it is currently saying. They are the first housing corporation in this country.

I want to ask the minister about some information her deputy gave to the standing committee on public accounts. I asked Mr Burns where families that receive shelter allowances live. His answer leaves 539,000 families unaccounted for. I also requested an update on non-profit housing subsidies. Your ministry doesn't even know how much non-profit housing costs. This is incredible, when you plan to build another 46,000 units. Even your figures for the number of units under subsidy are wrong. They don't include stock that was built prior to 1986. It's amazing.

The public accounts committee had to wait 10 months for your deputy's answers and then they were riddled with errors or incomplete. Minister, just when will you be able to give us the full and correct answers to our questions?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's very simple to provide an overall average cost, and that has been provided to the member and the public accounts committee. As of April, the average annual subsidy was $11,300, including the rent-geared-to-income portion and the capital cost. But that does not answer the full extent of the questions which the committee and the auditor have been interested in. Those will take time to provide, because it means going back through the accounts of each individual development since 1986. We can certainly provide the member with accounts before 1986.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. That's a new, wonderful title. Last week I met with members of the community, youth employment workers and various youth groups at St Christopher House. The theme of the evening's discussion was "Beyond summer employment: Long-term strategies for youth employment." The appeal by these groups is that funding for youth employment and training programs be increased to 20%, responding to the high level of youth unemployment in Ontario.

Government spending, as you know, has increased by 19% since you have taken office. The Futures youth program has fallen behind. In spite of the additional funding to your Jobs Ontario, the $102-million Futures program remains the largest initiative to help young people find jobs. The Ministry of Labour has received a 39% increase since the NDP has taken office. The Futures program has only increased by 7% over three years, less than the increase in inflation. Minister, help me respond to the youth who have felt that you have abandoned them to no jobs and no hope.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I know the member has a legitimate concern and a real concern, and he quite appropriately raises youth unemployment in Ontario. It is serious. That's why this year we'll be spending overall about $180 million on youth employment programs across all different ministries and why for the summer, when it's particularly acute, we've put an additional $25 million into youth employment, and used Jobs Ontario Youth, for example, to top up various programs.

I think it's not appropriate to say that we've abandoned the unemployed youth in the province this year. We've certainly done what we can. I don't disagree with the member for Scarborough North that there's much more to be done, but I think he appreciates very well, as a fiscal conservative, that there's only so much we can do in terms of putting money into any particular program this year.

Mr Curling: I've listened carefully to the minister, but youth unemployment has increased from 12% to over 19% over the last few years. This government has decided to put important youth programs such as Futures on hold -- that's how it feels about it -- yet the Ministry of Citizenship has been allocated a 57% increase since you have taken office. Minister, how do you explain that 57% increase for the Ministry of Citizenship in comparison to the below-inflation funding, as I indicated before, for the Futures program? Again I say, give our most disadvantaged group a chance, a hope in our future. Why do youth programs seem to be the last priority in your government?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's really unfair to imply -- or even say directly -- that youth employment programs are the last priority of this government. That really is not fair.

For Jobs Ontario Youth, we're putting in $14 million this year for programs in Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa and Hamilton; for the summer Experience programs, $7.5 million plus a top-up of $2.2 million from Jobs Ontario Youth; for the Environmental Youth Corps, $9.7 million plus an additional $2.2 million from Jobs Ontario Youth; for the northern Ontario training opportunities program, $3.5 million plus another $2.6 top-up from Jobs Ontario Youth.

The member referred to the Futures program. We are spending, if you add the Jobs Ontario Youth to the Futures program, over $100 million this year on the Futures program. So for the member for Scarborough North to imply that we've got no priority for youth employment programs in this province, he is absolutely wrong. We are doing everything we can.

Of course we can't guarantee full employment for all the unemployed youth in this province. If the member for Scarborough North is saying that his party is prepared to come out and take a position on guaranteed employment for youth in this province, I'd like to hear him and his leader stand in their place and say that.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to ask the Treasurer a question, based upon the statements he's made today on the Ottawa board and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. As I understood from some of the interaction, he plans to have the Metropolitan Toronto board and the Ottawa board write him, on behalf of their taxpayers, cheques for up to $90 million, I guess, and some $75 million in Ottawa.

I wonder if the Treasurer can confirm that he'll be calling on them as part of this process, as the Treasurer gives them no money for their grants for education; whether he's serious that he expects the taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa to write out a cheque to Floyd Laughren and Bob Rae, and the Minister of Housing for her 5% increase in her wage package. Is that what he really wants and expects us to believe?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): As the Minister of Education and Training has been meeting with those boards, I'll refer the question to him.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'd just indicate to the leader of the third party that I have discussed with the representatives from the boards, and I get the very clear sense that they understand that they need to be cooperative and want to be part of this whole process because they're as concerned about maintaining Ontario's financial health as anybody else in this province is.

They also understand that it would be terribly unfair if all the other boards of education in the province participated in this --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Want to bet they're going to write you a cheque?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- other boards where their wealth is much weaker, in other parts of the province, that it would be terribly unfair if Metro and Ottawa did not participate. They have indicated that they want to cooperate, they want to discuss with our government how this can best be done, and we intend to listen to them and work with them to do it in a cooperative way.

Mr Harris: I have met with representatives of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, and over their dead bodies they're going to write you a cheque. That's what they told me. I assume the taxpayers in Ottawa are not going to write you a cheque to feed the Minister of Housing the 5% increases in pay that she wants to give either.

Let me ask you this: The Treasurer indicated in part of the discussion that there were other ways, that there's money going to school boards other than legislative grants, intimating that if you don't get the cheque you're going to hold something else back. Can you tell us what other ways you have to extract money from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the Ottawa school board?

Hon Mr Cooke: I know it is always the approach of the leader of the third party to say, "Either do it our way or tell us what the 'what else' is going to be." It's the approach of this government that we want to work with people, want to try to find solutions that everybody can live with, and I believe that the school boards in Ottawa and Metropolitan Toronto want to find those common solutions as well. They don't buy the kind of confrontation that the Conservative Party always wants to start up.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I have here a story from the St Catharines Standard. In it, environmental reporter Doug Draper says that your ministry is urging the province's Environmental Assessment Board to approve Ontario Waste Management Corp's bid to build a huge hazardous waste disposal plant in my riding. Mr Draper got his information from a report submitted to the Environmental Assessment Board by your ministry.

In this 259-page document, your ministry says that it sees only advantages to approval of the OWMC undertaking and that the risks associated with the undertaking are far less than the risk to the people and the environment of Ontario if the plant is not built.

I am sure you're aware that I am very much opposed to the Ontario Waste Management Corp's bid to build this toxic monstrosity in Lincoln. I'd like to remind the House that thousands are against this too. Would the minister please tell me why his staff believe that the OWMC approach to Ontario's toxic waste problem is deemed acceptable when many others believe it is not?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I am fully aware of the member's views on this matter, as well as the many views of his constituents, and I appreciate him bringing it before the House.

The report to which he refers and the newspaper referred to is a very lengthy one -- as he's indicated, 259 pages -- and I think there are a few comments taken out of context perhaps. But having said that, I'm sure the member would agree with me that there are other ways of dealing with waste in this province in terms of the government's commitment to reducing and reusing and recycling rather than simply disposing of waste.

I also hope that the member would appreciate that, as minister, I should not prejudge the joint panel's ruling, and I won't do that. I will just say that when the board comes forward with this ruling, if it approves such a facility, then the government will decide what next steps to take on this project.

Mr Hansen: Can the minister advise this House and my constituency whether or not it can still afford to build OWMC's $250-million white elephant, given the province's debt crisis? This plant was originally to be built for $60 million; over $120 million has already been spent on the environmental assessment.

Hon Mr Wildman: I know that the rules of the House preclude members from being pejorative or controversial in their questions. I would say in response to my colleague's comments and question that, should the joint board approve the facility, the government will then determine its next steps. Some of the issues that will be taken into account are the estimated costs and the fiscal situation. I'm sure my colleague the Minister of Finance and my other cabinet colleagues will be very interested in the costs that might be involved in such a proposal.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Health. In her absence, I will address it to the Deputy Premier.

This week, some 400 residents and internes begin their final examinations in general and family practice, in paediatrics and in psychiatry. A few weeks ago the Minister of Health said that those doctors should work for a quarter of their negotiated fee schedule. Then she said they should work for three quarters of their fee schedule. Then she said that she was going to accept, full-blown, the report of the Evans committee, but she wasn't certain if her cabinet would approve of the recommendations of that committee.

In less than two weeks those doctors will be ready to practise, but they will still have no firm indication, despite our requests and demands in this House, of where they can practise or how they will be paid.

I'm asking the Minister of Health today to tell the House what her final decision is with respect to how our new doctors will be treated, how they will be paid and where they can practise.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): My answer to the member is that this is not a decision that is made unilaterally by the government or by the Minister of Health. It is a decision that is negotiated with the Ontario Medical Association. As the member has said, certainly our first proposal was a deep discounting of new entrants to the profession. As a result of concerns that had been raised in the work of the provincial coordinating committee on post-graduate medical education, a report was prepared involving a number of different bodies from the academic health scientist centres, with the Ontario Medical Association and the internes' association present.

The proposals of that committee have also been put before the Ontario Medical Association, and I'm pleased to be able to tell the House that since the conclusion of the negotiations with respect to the social contract, there have been a couple of meetings with the OMA, and both the OMA and the ministry are determined to conclude this particular portion of the negotiations as quickly as possible.

Mrs Sullivan: There is no time left. In less than two weeks, 400 highly trained specialists, general practitioners and family practitioners will be ready to work. They don't know where they can work; they don't know how they will be paid. When can we expect any kind of a reasonable response from this minister, who is Health minister, who sets the policy, who has announced on four or five different occasions different policies? Will she tell those young doctors and the communities in which they were expected to practise when and how they can practise and how they will be paid? We need to know now, today.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me point out to the member that regardless of whatever, I think, is negotiated with the OMA, there are positions today for many of those new physicians in the underserviced areas of this province. She should perhaps consult with her own members from northern Ontario. I can certainly tell you that my members from northern Ontario have received many, many calls, as have hospitals, as have community health departments --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Halton Centre, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- as have areas in the north. More doctors, finally.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Dufferin-Peel.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy, the minister responsible for the environment. We're all concerned with the release of toxic chemicals into the Great Lakes system and we all know that this is a serious problem which demands the attention of all governments, specifically the province of Ontario and the federal government.

This past weekend at a conference here in Toronto, a representative from Pollution Probe, Paul Muldoon, pointed to recent studies which indicate that children whose mothers ate fish from the Great Lakes have serious cognitive problems and other physical problems.

The Canada-Ontario agreement, as you know, which is a federal-provincial pact which outlines how each level of government will implement the Great Lakes water quality agreement, has now become fully expired; it became fully expired about two months ago. This agreement outlined how Ontario and the federal government planned to clean up the Great Lakes.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): This is really something, to have this kind of comment from a Conservative member. The question is not whether they're prepared to come back to the table; it's whether they're going to bring any money with them.

Mr Tilson: All of a sudden there's a problem. This Canada-Ontario agreement was negotiated by a Progressive Conservative government over 20 years ago and it was renegotiated year after year after year. It only was when your government came to power that the whole thing collapsed. Your government is doing absolutely nothing with this problem; absolutely nothing. It was criticized last year by the Provincial Auditor. MISA will require $6 billion to get the entire waste and sewage infrastructure back on course.

The United States -- the various eight states -- collects data on the volume of toxic chemicals released into the Great Lakes and there's no similar plan in the province of Ontario, no process that's under way. When is your government going to take action on this serious problem?

Hon Mr Wildman: I recently wrote to the Honourable Jean Charest, suggesting that perhaps we could return to the table as soon as possible and suggesting that it would make sense, if the federal government wants to negotiate international agreements with the United States of America, that the federal government be prepared to share 50-50 the cost of cleaning up the Great Lakes when in fact the province has been spending tremendous amounts of money and the federal government has been touting what we're doing without putting a dime on the table.

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The city of St Catharines has expressed some concern about Bill 7, the waste management legislation. I know the minister and some of the other members in the House from the Niagara area are aware that the region of Niagara is one of the few in the province that do not have the power over their own waste management.

While Bill 7 would allow for the regional government to take over waste management from the lower-tier municipalities, the engineering department of the city of St Catharines in particular has expressed some concerns over this change in jurisdiction. Specifically, the city feels there would be a delay in dealing with waste issues in the St Catharines area if waste management powers were to switch to the region. As you may know, St Catharines has adopted the club approach and has joined with three other Niagara municipalities to find a new landfill site. The city has said any change in jurisdiction will slow this progress and process.

In addition, as the agent of this so-called garbage club, the city of St Catharines has entered into some long-term contracts to provide various waste management services and is worried that a change in jurisdiction will impact these contracts.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Ms Haeck: Mr Minister, how will Bill 7 affect these contracts in the city's search for a new site?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The bill is permissive. I don't think that should pose a problem to the city.

Ms Haeck: The other concern expressed by the city is that the regional approach to waste management will be more costly for it since, as a larger municipality, it will be expected to subsidize waste management activities in the smaller Niagara municipalities. They also worry there will be job losses in the engineering departments of the various Niagara municipalities because of this streamlined, centralized approach.

Mr Minister, can you alleviate the concerns that the city has with respect to the expense of the regional approach to waste management? Can you advise me if there will be any provisions for employment for those staff members affected by this change in jurisdiction?

Hon Mr Philip: Yes, there is.

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Those of us, including you, Mr Speaker, who have sat in this House for years can well imagine the wording of a question about an industrial accident had it been the present Minister of Labour when he was in opposition. I well recall some of the inflammatory language which was used on those occasions, but I won't use that tack today.

I simply want to ask the minister, knowing that the people of St Catharines and the Niagara region and no doubt particularly the families of the people who died in this unfortunate accident and the workers who were directly involved in this accident, I think we would like to have from the minister a report in the House -- it's a few days after, now; it's not the exact same day -- on how such an accident could happen, particularly in light of the minister's stated strong commitment over the years to occupational health and safety and his desire to see his ministry be able to respond in the best possible way to circumstances which might point to an industrial accident.

Can he tell us how this accident could possibly happen and what action he has taken, and his ministry, to ensure that we don't have a repeat of such a tragic event?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): We expect the forensic testing of the equipment in the next couple of days. We have a team onsite. We had inspected the site and the new platform a number of times over the last couple of years. So there is not the hard information yet. I made it clear to this House last week that as soon as I had the information it would be passed on to the members in the House.

Mr Bradley: There has been announced by the treasury board of the cabinet an across-the-board cut in the last couple of years. I believe it's been an across-the-board cut in the amount of money allocated and the staff that is allocated to each ministry. Governments usually try to determine what their specific priorities are going to be before invoking those particular cuts.

Could the minister tell us if he feels that today, in June 1993, he has sufficient staff and resources still available to him to be able to carry out the necessary inspections and investigations to not eliminate -- because that's totally impossible, to be fair to the minister and to everyone -- not to totally eliminate, though that would be our goal, but to reduce significantly the risk of accidents of this kind from happening.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's one of the issues that would be at the top of my list. We did increase the number of inspectors and we're putting in place a number of programs that deal in the health and safety field. We have seen some substantial improvements in the last six months in the health and safety record in the province. We will meet the requirements we have for cutbacks, but we will not do them in areas that are essential or front-line service, at least to the best of our ability, and at the moment I am satisfied that we can deal with it.

We had some 17 fatalities across the province last year, of which five were as a result of falls. During the first six months of this year, we've had three fatalities in the construction industry reported, which is considerably better. If it holds that way, and with the number of improvements that are going on in the training programs, I think we're on the right road.

VETERINARIAN TECHNOLOGY COURSE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Centralia College of Agricultural Technology was closed and will be non-operational at this time next year. Can the minister explain why the veterinarian technology course is being moved to Ridgetown when indeed the new facilities have been built in Kemptville and are ready for occupancy if indeed that course were moved there. Can you explain why it has gone to Ridgetown?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): We're exploring the possibility, yes, of the vet tech program moving from Centralia to Ridgetown. We're also, as part of that package, looking at the equine program, which was at New Liskeard, which would move to Kemptville. These are, however, sort of temporary, early explorations that we're making to see how we can make best use of the facilities that are at Kemptville and Ridgetown.

Mr Villeneuve: Yes, Mr Minister, the facilities are there, and I gather that the principal of the Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology has stated that an addition has to be planned. Do you have an estimate of the cost of this addition, and indeed the cost of moving the staff to Ridgetown as opposed to moving into a ready-made establishment at the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. It's a little bit more complicated than that. At Kemptville we have facilities that will house the equine program which was at New Liskeard, that can be looked after at Kemptville. When the member suggests that there are facilities at Kemptville, that's true, but the facilities that are there are being used now for other things. They were built a number of years ago and were never used in fact for a vet tech program.

When he says there will have to be some expenditure at Ridgetown to accommodate the vet tech program, he is correct. However, it is also true that the facilities at Centralia were in bad need of upgrading and capital improvement as well, and that for a number of years there have been proposals to do something with the facilities at Centralia. They have been on the books for many years. There were plans to do some upgrades at Centralia as well.

There will have to be some capital upgrades at Ridgetown, the member is correct, but we are trying to balance the programs and make sure that they're available in Ridgetown and Kemptville. We can't put everything in Kemptville. I know the member would like to have that, but we do have to spread the different programs around the colleges that we have.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Essex-Kent.

VISITOR

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to know whether you have taken the opportunity to introduce Sid Ryan, the president of CUPE, who is in the public gallery.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): That is not a point of order but certainly of interest to a lot of people.

HEALTH CARE

These are men and women who have spent many years in school training themselves in order that they may serve Ontarians with the best medical help and knowledge available. However, they have read the proposals put forward by your ministry to limit the number of practising doctors in Ontario and they have several related concerns.

Specifically, can you tell the doctors in Essex-Kent what studies and statistics were used by your ministry to determine which areas of the province are underserviced by general practitioners?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to expand on that. First of all, let me say to the member, as I did to the member for Halton Centre, that the discussions with respect to physicians' incomes and any discounting thereto are under negotiation with the Ontario Medical Association. But I think both the Ontario Medical Association and the ministry and indeed ministries across the country agree that we have to find a better way to manage our professional resources if we are in fact to maintain the quality of our health care system as well as constrain its expenditures.

The underserviced area program is a program which quite frankly has not produced the right physicians in the right place at the right time, and since 1991, in response to the member's specific question, that has been a program where communities, self-designated and in conjunction with their local government, the boards of health, the district health councils, identified the physicians that they needed.

I hope that as a result of our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association we can come to a much more precise definition and finally resolve this long-standing issue.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That was a very lengthy reply. The minister, I think, knew that you were waiting.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the member to give his supplementary, because I interrupted him.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member for Essex-Kent to ask a brief supplementary? Agreed.

Mr Hayes: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the other members of the House. It will be very brief.

Minister, how often will this list of underserviced areas be updated, and what flexibility will be built into it to allow for retirement, sickness, educational leaves, leaves of absence etc? What I'd like to know is really what flexibility would there be and how often will the underserviced areas be updated?

Hon Mrs Grier: The updating of the areas that are designated as underserviced is continual, but I'm very pleased that as a result of the work of this provincial coordinating committee on post-graduate medical education, one of the proposals that we are now discussing with the OMA is in fact a complete revamping of the program so that we develop some formal regional mechanisms for medical human resources so that we can not only respond to the different needs in different areas, but do some long-term planning to ensure that we have the appropriate resources in the appropriate regions.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty;

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles, free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I have signed the petition.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board, at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting, decided to loosen the guidelines for films/videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films/videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of the true human sexual activity but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature

"(

a) to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board, May 6, 1993;

"(

b) to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable Marilyn Churley, to review the criteria for appointments of members to the Ontario Film Review Board, and

"(

c) to ensure that prospective appointees reflect traditional and moral values of the people of Ontario."

This petition contains hundreds of names of concerned individuals, and I am happy to lend my support by signing this petition today.

GAMBLING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition signed by nine of my constituents to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

It is signed by 10 members of Mississauga, and I will add my signature to it.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition here that was given to me by a Mrs Wannamaker of the senior citizens' club in Trenton, Ontario, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many of the senior citizens of Ontario are widows or low-income, therefore many of them cannot afford to pay for drugs prescribed by their doctors;

"Therefore we, the undersigned members of the Trenton Senior Citizens Club, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reconsider the changes to the Ontario drug benefits program regarding price changes and cost-sharing etc, which will be a hardship to many senior citizens of Ontario, low-income families and also those on welfare."

I present this to the Legislature and I have signed my signature to it.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition signed by 500 members of the community in and around Winchester and Chesterville. It's addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by either downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community, for the purpose of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believe that quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning- disabled provides the lowest total-cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible;

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

"Firstly, to maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"Secondly, empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

This is the first of many such petitions. I have signed it and fully endorse it.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here that has been sent to me by the salespeople at ReMax Realty in Keswick in support of a letter to the office from York Region Real Estate Board, the political affairs committee, and they would like to reiterate their concerns. The petition is to eliminate the sites of York region and redirect tax dollars into research for waste management as alternatives that do not turn land into garbage. I affix my signature to this.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services lab, diagnostic laboratory and the college on May 1, 1994,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to reverse its decision to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services lab located at Centralia campus."

That's signed by 2,640 petitioners and I have also signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here like many of the petitions sent to the Legislative Assembly around the casino issue. I'll just read the bottom.

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video terminals in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have another petition that has been submitted to me by a Diane Cyr and many of the other concerned parents, teachers and pupils at the Sir James Whitney School in Belleville, Ontario, and it reads:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by either downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community, for the purpose of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believe that quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning- disabled provides the lowest total-cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible,

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

"

(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"

(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

I support this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that was submitted to me by members of the OPSEU in my area, and it reads:

"To the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of the Quinte area, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it, and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of the public services."

Again, I have affixed my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have another petition that was submitted to me by the Bridge Street United Church in the city of Belleville, Ontario. The petition was gathered by Mrs Morgan, the administrative secretary, on behalf of the Bridge Street United Church. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

Mr O'Neil: I have another petition --

[ Interruption]

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Sergeant?

Would you please reset the clock, and with the indulgence of the member for Quinte, I failed to see the member for Kingston and The Islands had a petition to present.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition signed by some 25 people in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

Mr O'Neil: I have a similar petition that has been forwarded to me by the members of the North Trenton United Church congregation in Trenton, Ontario, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 48,

An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Laughren moves that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program and that it now be read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am tabling with you today legislation called the Social Contract Act. This legislation will enable the government to complete the third element of its fiscal plan: the $2 billion in social contract savings.

Legislation will create a job security fund for employees and will exempt public sector employees earning less than $30,000 a year. This bill will reduce transfer payments by $2 billion effective July 1. If employers and bargaining agents fail to reach an agreement by August 1, the legislation mandates that there will be no wage increases for employees until after March 31, 1996. If that is not enough to offset the transfer reductions, unpaid leaves or temporary layoffs are permitted.

It is our belief that these negotiations will reach a successful conclusion. We will give the parties as much support in this work as we can and we wish them our very best in their endeavours.

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Morin, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Gloucester.

HUMANE SOCIETY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Chiarelli, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr82,

An Act respecting the Humane Society of Ottawa-Carleton.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DES EMPLOYÉS DE LA COURONNE

On motion by Mr Mackenzie, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 49,

An Act respecting the Collective Bargaining of Employees of the Crown and other matters Relating to Collective Bargaining / Loi concernant la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne et d'autres questions relatives à la négociation collective.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The form of the bill is designed to achieve four key objectives: to establish a balanced labour relations system that will better serve the needs of both the government as employer and its employees; to establish a system of free and equitable collective bargaining; to foster mature, responsible collective bargaining relationships; and to promote consistency in the labour laws that govern Ontario workplaces.

EXPENDITURE CONTROL PLAN STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE PLAN DE CONTRÔLE DES DÉPENSES

On motion by Mrs Grier, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 50,

An Act to implement the government's Expenditure Control Plan and, in that connection, to Amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act / Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le Plan de contrôle des dépenses du gouvernement et modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé et la

Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE COMTÉ DE SIMCOE

On motion by Mr Philip, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 51,

An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe / Loi concernant la restructuration du comté de Simcoe.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'm proud to introduce the County of Simcoe Act,

an act that will streamline municipal government in that county and make it more cost-efficient and cost-effective. I'm introducing the legislation because it was what locally elected people have requested. County councillors and others have worked on the study and come to an agreement. They've also brought their request to the provincial government and their local MPPs to help it be implemented.

In introducing the legislation, I would like to recognize the hard work done by the MPPs for the area, MPPs from both the opposition and the government, and I look forward to their continued cooperation in getting the bill through second reading and getting it into committee where the people of Simcoe can have yet another opportunity for input.

TOWNSHIP OF ATIKOKAN ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Wood, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr38,

An Act respecting the Township of Atikokan.

OPPOSITION DAY

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT / JEUNESSE EN CHÔMAGE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, we have a resolution to present to the House today and to be subject to debate which we feel is of the utmost importance.

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion number 3:

Whereas Ontario's young people are facing a job crisis; and

Whereas the unemployment rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years of age is currently at 20.4%, which is an increase over very high rates we have seen over the last two years; and

Whereas the unemployment rate for youth has increased by 9 percentage points since the NDP government took office; and

Whereas more than 190,000 young people are currently out of work in the province of Ontario; and

Whereas the ongoing levels of high unemployment point to a chronic and deep-rooted economic problem; and

Whereas the NDP government's commitment to summer jobs programs has no strategic plan to help youth deal with the unemployment crisis; and

Whereas the NDP government's response to this crisis has been ad hoc and has not dealt effectively with the obstacles young people are facing; and

Whereas the NDP government has failed to show leadership in the management of its own summer employment opportunities for youth; and

Whereas the NDP government's Jobs Ontario Youth does not address the needs of young people of varied employment needs across the entire province of Ontario;

This House resolves that urgent action is required and that the following initiatives be included in an action plan to help our young people get the education, training and jobs they deserve, and that these initiatives be funded by re-allocating funds from failed NDP training programs such as the Jobs Ontario Training fund:

-- Funding for the summer employment for youth should be increased to $60 million in recognition of the extraordinary crisis facing students this summer.

-- Funding for the successful Futures program should be increased by 20% to reach approximately 34,000 young people, an additional 6,000.

-- Co-operative education programs at all levels of education should be expanded.

-- A scholarship system that encourages businesses to contribute to the further education of youth should be established.

-- A pre-university program should be established to help young people improve their grades and gain increased access to universities.

-- A database system providing youth with information about training, education and job opportunities across Ontario should be established.

Mrs McLeod: I welcome the opportunity to speak to our resolution, one which we consider to be of the utmost importance and one which comes forward at a very critical time for the young people of this province, but I do not welcome the reality that this matter of youth unemployment has reached truly crisis proportions and that the proportions of the problem have become greater literally year by year for the last three years.

Day after day, we have raised this matter and raised our concerns in this Legislature. We want this issue to be on the front burner for this government at this very critical time, and we demand that this government give the young people of this province the attention they so desperately need, that the government not leave them stranded while it continues to be preoccupied with trying to clean up the messes it has kept creating.

Our young people cannot wait. They cannot be left off to the side, becoming more and more disillusioned, more frustrated and more discouraged. Our young people simply cannot be allowed to become defeated and hopeless. We recognize that this is a complex and multidimensional issue, and my colleagues over the course of this debate will speak on a range of the matters that concern us.

I want to just begin to describe the problem, the stark reality that the young people of the province of Ontario are facing in May 1993. One hundred and ninety thousand youth are unemployed, that is, in the age group of 18 to 24. Obviously, the unemployment concerns extend well beyond that age, but that's the age we use in which to try and describe the statistical dimensions of the problem. I reference May because that is the last month for which we have statistics.

One hundred and ninety thousand young people in that age group, then, were unemployed in the month of May. One hundred and ninety thousand young people represents 20.4% of the population in that age group, but there are areas in which the unemployment levels for that age group are even higher. In the Peterborough region, youth unemployment is 26.4%; in northeastern Ontario, it's 28.5%. It's clear that the statistical figures will be somewhat different from region to region and that in fact they will change from month to month, but the human cost of that kind of unemployment is truly immeasurable and it must be changed.

It is a complex issue. We have continuing concern for the high numbers of young people who continue to leave school before they've completed their high school education. These young people will simply not have the skills that will be needed for success in a world in which higher and higher levels of skills are going to be needed. There will be very few jobs for unskilled young people in the future.

But today, in June 1993, the reality is that there are very few jobs for anyone. In fact, we are seeing a new phenomenon in this province, a phenomenon which we never, ever expected to see, and that's the phenomenon of highly trained college and university graduates who cannot find work. There are far too many young people who are going to leave their graduation ceremonies this month and walk right into unemployment lines, and this is a truly tragic waste of both talent and training.

The difficult economic realities we face in this province have resulted in a shortage of career-track positions as downsizing in both the public and the private sectors slashes the number of entry-level jobs. Our young graduates are competing with so many laid-off older workers who have extensive job experience. They are competing for jobs that simply do not exist, and, where there is a vacancy, they are competing with people who have so much more experience on their résumé that they have very little hope of success in that competition. I would say to you, no wonder the young people of this province are feeling discouraged.

It's quite clear that the only way to address the real problems of youth unemployment is to address the overall issue of the job shortages in this province, yet this government continues to pursue policies that drive away businesses with its high taxes and its anti-business legislation. This NDP government has destroyed the economic vitality of this province, it has mismanaged its economy, and it has left very little for our youth. The only real hope for a better future seems to me to lie with a new government, a government that will create the kind of conditions that will encourage new investment and reinvestment, so that we will see jobs maintained and new jobs created.

In the meantime, it is clearly essential to ensure that we are providing our young people with the education and the training they will need to fill the jobs that can be created in the future. But training itself can become a very discouraging process these days, because the people providing the training are constantly challenged by the question, "Training for what?" Unless we have jobs, our training programs cannot hope to be focused and effective.

Our young people, whom we are encouraging to stay in school, encouraging to get the training they need, are simply not sure that the efforts they make to obtain education and training are going to be worth the effort, because they see far too many people who have an education who want to work -- their friends, their relatives, these same people who have done all they needed to do to get the skills they needed, who want to find those jobs and simply can't find a job in the field they're trained for.

I have to admire the youth of this province, because in spite of the discouraging realities that they know they face today, they continue to apply for spaces in our colleges and our universities. They continue to believe that if they secure the education and training they need, they will be able to contribute to the future of this province and to lead productive and fulfilling lives. I think they recognize that continuing their education and their training is a better and, I would suggest, a much less costly alternative to sitting on unemployment lines.

Yet even here the young people of this province are frustrated as the spaces in our colleges and universities for next fall are reduced, as college applicants receive conditional offers of acceptance while the NDP government wastes more and more time in pursuit of the impossible: 118,000 applied for 70,000 openings in our college programs. I ask, what will happen to the 48,000 who do not get in? Where are they going to go? It is absolutely essential that some real effort be made, and made now, to give the young people of this province some encouragement and some greater support.

We have offered this government some very constructive suggestions for steps that could be taken immediately. I draw the government's attention, in all seriousness, to steps which we believe would be a way of reaching out to our young people and giving them some hope and some support.

Our proposals would support 6,000 more young people in the Futures program so that more of our chronically unemployed youth would get that little bit of a head start they need. Our proposals would expand cooperative education opportunities to give young people some of that job experience they need so that they can compete successfully with older workers who have more job experience on their résumés.

Our proposals would see the setting up of a scholarship program in conjunction with business so we can both help young people feel encouraged to go on with their education and provide some financial support to be able to do that. We would encourage the setting up of pre-university upgrading programs so that young people can get the background they need in order to be successful in obtaining spaces in post-secondary programs. We would establish one-stop-shopping networks to provide young people with information about the jobs and training that may exist.

I would say to the government, because we are all concerned about budgetary restraints and where the dollars are going to come from, that these proposals are costed out to the last dollar, that they can in fact be carried out at very little cost and that the dollars can readily be found by redirecting the allocations for existing programs that are not working.

These programs can be put in place for very little cost, if only this government were prepared to make the young people of this province a real priority.

Lastly, we have urged this government, day after day, to create more summer employment for young people. We were dismayed to find that the entire $14 million that the government had put in place for its new program, its only new program for young people, is targeted to job creation in only four communities. We agreed with the addition of $14 million and supported the government's initiative in providing this job program for our young people when it was first presented a year ago, but we cannot support the targeting of this program to only four communities.

The minister has said, in response to our questions, that these four communities were chosen because of their high unemployment. We agree that there is high unemployment among our young people in Toronto and Ottawa and Hamilton and Windsor. The young people of those communities need jobs, but so do the young people in Peterborough and Belleville and St Catharines and Sudbury, where youth unemployment is even higher.

There is simply no excuse for shutting the young people in every other community of this province out. There is no excuse either in this government pretending that existing government programs for young people have not been cut. If you cut the budget from your existing programs for youth, such as the summer Experience program, you are providing less support, and it doesn't matter how you shuffle the number of weeks that are worked to be able to hire as many students as you hired last year so the numbers look good. When you cut the budget for young people, you've cut the support that young people need, and that is unacceptable.

To add to the crisis, at the same time that the government was cutting back on its programs for youth because young people are not a priority, all of the businesses that traditionally have hired young people in the private sector are reeling from the impact of the disastrous budget that this government brought in. The hospitality industry, the tourism industry, the construction industry, the retail sector, all those areas where normally the young people of this province can look for summer employment are all being forced to cut back on their permanent staff and they are simply not hiring young people this summer, so the crisis and the concern continue to build.

If this government does not act now to help our young people, I am afraid that we are faced with the prospect of a truly lost generation, a generation of young people who, in their frustrations and their anxiety, become angry and alienated. We must not abandon our youth to hopelessness.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do want to say a few words and assure everybody that there's not a dissenting voice in my entire caucus for what I'm about to say. I'm quite confident of that. They've all given me their enthusiastic support to proceed on their --

[Applause]

Mr Harris: You can hear that right as I rise to speak.

I want to say that I will support this resolution that has been put forward today. I want to make a few comments on the specifics and some of the details. I want to indicate that my support is based upon raising and getting debate and awareness and allowing some discussion, which the government hasn't done, on a very, very important issue, that of our youth today, how discouraged they are, not just youth unemployment but the lack of opportunities and of hope that our young people feel today in the province of Ontario.

I think this is something that, as we look at the impact of the recession, the impact of this restructuring that's going on, the impact of eight years of absolutely disastrous government policies in this province of Ontario, if it's affecting anybody perhaps more than others, it concerns me the most -- and it's been negative on most of us -- I really feel for our young people.

I had a chat last week with a teacher in North Bay, Mr Brunette, who came in to see me, and I thought, "Well, here's a teacher;" -- Moe Brunette's his name, one of the outstanding teachers in North Bay -- "he wants to see me. He's probably concerned about social contract talks, about what's happening with the government," and I was fully anticipating this would have been the discussion.

He came, and he really and truly -- and he's a friend of mine as well -- I'd never seen him, this man who has worked hard all his lif