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

October 22, 1985

33rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L027 - Tue 22 Oct 1985 / Mar 22 oct 1985

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT FUND

FUTURES PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF SUNCOR

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

FUTURES PROGRAM

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT FUND

RENT REVIEW

FUTURES PROGRAM

DAY CARE

GROUP HOME SECURITY

MUSEUM LABOUR DISPUTE

MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITES

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

POLLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT FUND

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has stated many times, this government places special priority on northern Ontario. With its resource-dependent economy, scattered population, harsh climate and vast distances, that region faces special challenges. But the north also has unique opportunities to maximize the value to be gained from its resource wealth: in the first place, by strengthening and encouraging our resource-based industries, and in the second, by building a more diversified economy around those industries.

Le Nord de l'Ontario se doit de tirer parti au maximum de ses ressources naturelles, d'abord par un soutien renouvelé à ses industries traditionnelles, ensuite par une politique de diversification industrielle.

With forward-looking support from its provincial government, those opportunities can be seized. Some of this support must come in the form of money. We need to make available for purposes of northern development the amounts necessary to achieve the critical momentum of growth and diversification needed in the north.

I am announcing today the establishment of a special five-year, $100-million northern development fund.

Il me fait plaisir de vous annoncer aujourd'hui la création d'un fonds de cinq ans de $100 millions.

These new moneys -- and I emphasize that they are new -- will be directed towards the general objective of fostering viable and enduring economic activity in the north. The fund will in no way replace or supplant the budget of the existing Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mines or that of any other ministry. As a first step we will renew the northern Ontario regional development program, which otherwise would have lapsed because of the lack of funding.

I may be the only cabinet minister from the north, but I am certainly not the only member of cabinet concerned about the north's development. However, I have the important responsibility of ensuring that my colleagues are aware of the north's concerns. Therefore, the Premier has asked me to chair a special committee of ministers that will recommend the allocation of these funds. This committee will meet regularly to review the new ideas and initiatives for economic development in the north.

I will be taking my colleagues to the north to allow them to gain a better understanding of those special regions and to give northerners an opportunity to make their views known at the highest level of government.

Pour superviser la distribution de ce nouveau fonds, le premier ministre m'a demandé de présider un comité spécial de ministres. Ce comité, qui aura de ses rencontres dans le Nord pour permettre à mes collègues de se familiariser avec notre situation, sera chargé aussi d'étudier toute nouvelle proposition de développement économique.

Improved access to government is a vital part of our northern agenda. Another approach we will be examining is the establishment of regional development councils in the north. These will serve to co-ordinate the economic development efforts of different organizations in the north and provide a more effective mechanism for growth opportunities at the regional and subregional levels. This is something we have only begun to discuss with the north's municipalities. I will have more to say on the subject in the coming months.

Finally, to symbolize the new direction this ministry is taking, I have requested, and the Premier has agreed, that we change our name to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. I expect to be sworn in within the next few weeks.

Le nouveau ministre sera dorénavant connu sous le nom de ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines.

The change puts the accent on development, not just economic development but social development as well, because the two must go hand in hand.

In the weeks and months ahead, I will have other initiatives to announce. In the meantime, I hope my fellow northerners in the other parties will support and encourage our genuine attempts to do things for northern Ontario. This is what we are here for, and this is what they are there for too.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister prepared to have the Toyota plant placed in the north, or is this just flim-flam we are hearing today?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Today I would like to outline a new youth program called Futures. The program, which goes into effect on November 4, has been designed to provide on-the-job training, work experience and educational upgrading for young people who face severe disadvantages in seeking and keeping a job.

Futures meets the commitment first made by our Premier (Mr. Peterson) as Leader of the Opposition two years ago and restated by him as Premier just 16 weeks ago in this Legislature. The Premier promised a program that "would guarantee hard-to-employ youth meaningful employment in return for individual efforts at educational upgrading."

The aim two years ago and the aim today are the same. We have designed a program to break the cycle of recurring unemployment by providing on-the-job experience and training for one year for young people committed to working towards grade 12 equivalency. Futures also meets the promise of our government to rationalize our programs so they are understandable and accessible to the public.

How can we best help them? Certainly the answer is not a patchwork of programs with differing names, benefits and eligibility rules. Those members who are familiar with the existing Youth Works and career action programs know that a young person could obtain a much higher rate of pay and much longer placement under the former than under the latter. I use the example to show just how important it has been to rationalize these programs for young people, for counsellors and for employers.

2:10 p.m.

At present, the unemployment rate among young people between 16 and 24 is more than 12 per cent; that is 124,000 young men and women across this province. Our conscience as a society will not tolerate the waste of the talents and lives represented in those numbers. Many of these young people face severe barriers to employment. They may lack educational qualifications, they may lack life skills and, above all, they may lack work experience.

Our challenge, then, was to provide meaningful and accessible support for young people who are determined to break this vicious circle. We set out to consolidate six existing programs for young people into a single, simplified program, and we intentionally skewed the program to provide the greatest support to those young people facing the greatest barriers to permanent employment.

Futures is based on five key principles.

1. Personal commitment: Of all the aspects of this program, none pleases me more than our offer of the guarantee of one year's valuable work experience for those young people facing extreme barriers to employment who make a personal commitment towards secondary school graduation.

2. Support tailored to needs: Futures provides the most support to those facing the toughest employment barriers.

3. Training: Training plans will be incorporated as part of every job placement and the progress of every participant will be tracked.

4. Simplicity: A variety of delivery organizations will be involved, but Futures has consistent rules and common procedures. Within these common elements, Futures maintains the flexibility to focus on those groups in our society and those regions of the province most needing special attention.

5. Consolidation: The new program consolidates and replaces six programs in such a way that inconsistencies, gaps and duplications are eliminated without the loss of services currently being provided. Futures replaces Youth Works, Ontario Youth Corps, Youth Start, Youth Tourism, the Ontario career action program and residential centres.

Futures is not a program to entice young people away from our colleges and universities; rather, it has been designed to provide on-the-job training and to encourage educational upgrading among those who have left our school system before gaining the skills required to participate in today's work world.

The increasingly sophisticated nature of much employment in both the manufacturing and service sectors and the continuing competitive demands on the Ontario economy require a more literate, more numerate and technically skilled work force. To help young people, we will offer a range of services to meet their needs. This includes an initial interview and assessment process; life skills and employment preparation, where appropriate; employment counselling; work experience; on-the-job training; monitoring and post-program follow-up.

The individual basic training plans will be set out by our delivery organizations; they are the 90 campuses of our colleges of applied arts and technology and 55 youth employment counselling centres. This network has worked effectively on our behalf in the past and is now taking on this new challenge with enthusiasm and commitment to our young citizens. The colleges and the counselling centres bring unique capacities to this program and now will be able to better serve their respective clients, ensuring equitable treatment for all. We intend to continue to urge and support the expansion of this network of delivery agencies.

The basic work experience program will provide counselling and up to 16 weeks of on-the-job training. Those participants who are prepared to undertake educational upgrading towards grade 12 equivalency will have access to the program for one full year. Futures participants will be paid the provincial minimum wage during job placements. Those young people who require pre-employment preparation will be provided with training in basic social and work skills. They will receive a weekly stipend of $100 during that portion of the program.

I am pleased to say that the Ontario government is not alone in its support of work experience programs for young people. In addition to a great number of community-based initiatives tackling this enormous problem, the federal government also has a strong presence, and our continuing dialogue will ensure the harmonization of our initiatives.

The solution to youth unemployment must be viewed as a partnership. Through Futures, we are establishing a coherent framework of incentives and support to encourage positive action by employers and young people themselves.

The central focus of Futures will be the private sector -- where the jobs are. It is with expanding private businesses that young people have the best chance of getting off subsidized employment and into productive careers. The program will also support opportunities created by provincial ministries and Ontario municipalities. Priority in all cases will be given to positions offering the strongest prospect of providing skills for, and access to, permanent employment.

This year we will spend $133 million in providing support to 56,000 hard-to-employ young people across the province. The streamlining of provincial programs will, I am confident, overcome the bewilderment and frustration the current maze has provoked. The work guarantee in return for a personal commitment will open the doors to steady employment and personal fulfilment for disadvantaged young people.

Through Futures, we are issuing a double challenge. We call on employers to come forward to create work-experience opportunities, and we urge young people to seize these opportunities to achieve a successful and productive transition from school to work.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF SUNCOR

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. My understanding is that he is the one and only shareholder in the Ontario Energy Corp. My question is based upon some comments he made as interjections yesterday. He said he would take $1 for Suncor, which was somewhat less than his leader's $160 million and somewhat less than the market value.

I wonder if he realizes yet how much he lacks an understanding of the way business works. The very fact that his party is now the government, not the opposition, has yet to sink in. He cannot go around saying, "We may want $650 million for something, but it is worth only $160 million" and expect to get a fair price. How does he expect to get a reasonable price for Suncor if he goes around depreciating its value in public?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thank the honourable member for his question. The first thing that comes to mind is that the day after the former government bought the shares, they depreciated by half. That is the first mistake they made. Anyone who has to take --

Mr. Brandt: How does he know that? He does not know that.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I do. A study was made by a group of knowledgeable people that said the shares were worth $25 to $30 and they had been bought for $50. That is one. Two, if we take this purchase through to its conclusion, we are not going to fool anyone who has any business acumen out there. If we take it to its conclusion, it is going to cost the taxpayers of this great province more than $1 billion.

Of all the deals that were ever made in this House or outside the House, wherever this one was made, it has to rank with the worst deal ever made by any government in any province in this great country of Canada.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. F. S. Miller: By his very comments, the minister is proving exactly what I said. He is running down the value of an asset owned by the people of Ontario, yet he expects the business world to negotiate with him. Are other buyers being courted at this time? Is the minister negotiating with buyers other than Sun Oil?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is a very good question. I would encourage the member to help me find buyers. If he has a buyer who is willing to pay $400 million, as he has suggested all around the place here but he is not willing to name names, I would be very much willing to negotiate with them. If they are starting at $400 million, I happen to have a little business experience, maybe I could get them up to a reasonable price. If the member will give me their names, I will add them to our list and I will be very pleased on behalf of the people of Ontario to maximize a very bad deal the previous government took

part in.

Mr. Foulds: Even if the initial investment was not a particularly wise one, does the minister not understand that his comments drive down the prices of the shares for Suncor, drive down the return on the investment that he is able to get for the people of Ontario? Does he not think it is his job to protect the investment of the people of Ontario, not sell it out?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Nothing I have said has driven down the value of Suncor. The value of Suncor started going down from the day they sent $200 million of hard-earned Canadian taxpayers' money down south in the form of a dividend, the first dividend that company ever declared. We did not drive down the price and I do not intend to drive down the price.

From day one, the thing that drove down the price was that the price paid was exceptionally beyond the value of the shares. The minute the shares were bought, we took a complete loss in a return to the Canadian people, to Ontarians particularly. Nothing we have said on this side has driven the value of Suncor shares down; Suncor has done that on its own.

Mr. F. S. Miller: With great respect, the street is agog and aghast at the comments the minister, his Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) have made with regard to the way the business world works. The comments are immature; not even that, they would have to be naive. It is very much like the July 11 statement by the Treasurer when he tried to dump on us for the state of the nation and had to take it back because he found his triple-A rating was at risk.

The members opposite are the government. Do they not think it is just playing political football at this point, running down the price, trying to look like a hero next month if they get more?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I say this with the greatest sincerity: this government is not attempting in any way to do anything other than protect the people of Ontario and the dollars that were put up on their behalf, and I think those people are willing to accept the facts as they unfolded. What I am saying is that government, without going into any depth or study, and the former Premier of the province decided to make that kind of an investment and it was a bad investment.

The only thing that has driven the price of it down is the fact that no one studied it. No one realized what the shares were worth when they were bought. When one buys 25 per cent of something, one has to end up being the loser. That is what has happened in this case. The member is not going to make it more valuable by getting up and trying to insult me, saying that I do not know what I am doing. I will tell the members opposite one thing: I did not buy Suncor; they did.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

Mr. McCague: Has the Treasurer asked permission or does he intend to ask permission of Ottawa to impose a capital gains tax in Ontario?

I have a number of alternatives. I have already asked them to reconsider their position and to restrict the advantages of the present policy to small businesses and farmers. We could ask them for an amendment to the tax collection agreement, which would enable us to recoup some of that revenue.

I should point out to the minister that if the policy is maintained, it could mean a loss of about $150 million a year to the Treasury of the province.

Mr. McCague: I am pleased the honourable Treasurer has referred to me as the minister; I am not the minister.

I am not sure from his answer whether he intends to impose a tax or whether he was strictly lecturing his federal counterparts. What course of action does the minister think he would follow if other provinces do not have a capital gains tax and some people look to invest in those provinces rather than in the great province of Ontario?

2:30 p.m.

Mr. McCague: As I understand it, it is just conjecture that if Ontario does it, other provinces would do it. In my initial question, I asked the minister if he had asked or was about to ask Ottawa for permission to levy a capital gains tax in Ontario. I do not believe he has answered that question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I have not asked and I may.

Mr. Rae: These prebudget stripteases are so enticing. I think we should have a special session tomorrow to get even closer to the reality on this.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: My clothes are on.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development.

Lest the minister be accused of an adjective that I am sure he would not accept with any great joy -- that is the adjective "Grossmanesque" -- I would like to ask him a question with respect to the program he has announced today. He will be aware that last year the Treasurer at that time announced a program of $450 million over three years. How much new money is now involved in this new program?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Not only would I not like to be referred to as Grossmanesque, but I would not like to be called Popish either, or Timbrellesque for that matter.

To answer the member's question, substantial new funds will be directed specifically towards this program. As I mentioned in my statement, the commitment for this fiscal year from April 1, 1985, to March 31, 1986, is $133 million. That represents an incremental sum of some $58 million over the amount that was spent by the previous government in the previous fiscal year.

Mr. Rae: No, we cannot have this. We cannot have announcements being made with respect to a new program unless the minister is prepared to come into this House and tell us precisely how much new money is involved. How much money is being put into this program that would not otherwise have been spent in the programs that were announced previously by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman)?

We are entitled to an answer to that question. The minister cannot come into the House and tell us he is announcing a new program with "substantial" additions unless he is prepared to tell us how much is actually involved.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have no hesitation in telling the member how much is involved. I just made a comparison to what had been spent last year.

If the programs that existed in the ministry when I took office had been continued, we anticipated that expenditures would have been in the neighbourhood of $75 million. Over and above that, we anticipate that this new program involving a one-year guarantee of employment will cost us incrementally some $48 million for the balance for the fiscal year from November 4, when the program is put into place, until March 31, the end of the current fiscal year.

Mr. Gillies: In my supplementary, perhaps I can provide the answer the leader of the third party is looking for.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not provoke the member.

Mr. Gillies: Does the member want to hear the answer to his question? The six programs that the minister has cut to initiate his new program had a 1985-86 budget total of $132 million. So in answer to the member's question, the amount is $1 million.

My question to the minister is this: How is he demonstrating his much-touted additional commitment to the unemployed youth of this province merely by maintaining funding that was already in place under the old programs?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The last time the member asked me a question, he had his facts wrong and nothing has changed; nothing at all.

I point out that the allocations for the program have not been discontinued. They have been incorporated and expanded. The horizons on programs have been broadened, simplified and consolidated. The fact is that the incremental spending is what I responded with to the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and not the figures the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) presented.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister suggested in his answer that my facts were incorrect. I am going to send a calculator over to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, if I may --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I think you should throw him out again. There is no sense of decorum for this House.

Aside from quibbling over whether this is recycled money or new money, can the minister tell us how much of this money will be used to subsidize companies rather than employees?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The program has been specifically designed not to subsidize employers but to provide an on-the-job work-experience and training program for young people. An employer will not qualify to have young people in his shop unless he provides a training component.

There will be advantages to employers, but we have not designed the program as a make-work project to increase spending or to give employers a break. They have to provide a training program and we encourage them to do that, because without that kind of training the program will not be effective. Those were some of the deficiencies we identified in the pre-existing programs.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT FUND

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. We in the New Democratic Party welcome his tentative move towards accepting our policy of establishing a northern Ontario fund for economic diversification. I would like to put a question with regard to the practical effects of that announcement.

The minister is aware that one of a total number of only six non-resource-related firms in all of northern Ontario, Lee Canada in North Bay, is closing down its operation on Friday. The closure of Lee, the second-largest private sector employer in that city, will put 240 employees, 95 per cent of whom are women, out of work with no alternative employment for those workers with their skills in that area.

Will the minister explain what he and his government are doing with his announcement today, particularly to protect those jobs and, to quote him, "to foster viable and enduring economic activity in northern communities like North Bay"?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: My ministry has been working with the city of North Bay for the past month to try to find a solution to the question of Lee. Up to now, we have been unable to come to an agreement on price. This is a situation that is very bad. During the next few weeks we will try to meet with the new town council and the economic corporation to try to work out something for North Bay, as we are going to do with other towns affected by unemployment or closures.

Mr. Martel: I am delighted with the minister's conversion on the way to Damascus.

Mr. Wildman: Or to Queen's Park.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Yes. They now have decided that the policies we tried to implement in 1977 are worth while.

With Inco tentatively announcing a layoff of some 1,200 people, with Falconbridge probably going to announce another 150, with an unemployment rate that is already 15 per cent and with people to the tune of 15,000 already having left the Sudbury area, can the minister tell me how this policy is going to be used to assist Sudbury?

For example, would the policy look at leaning on the responsible minister for money to establish a prison -- it is already there -- in the Sudbury area? Would it look at the possibility of a new smelter in Sudbury to process all the nickel and all the precious metals in Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Mr. Martel: This is an important question, Mr. Speaker. Finally, would the minister look at the possibility of using phosphates from his own riding and sulphur dioxide from Inco in the form of sulphuric acid to make fertilizer in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Before making any recommendations to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on policy for the Sudbury situation, I have begun a broad consultation with the groups involved. I am meeting with the companies. I met with some MPPs. Yesterday I met with representatives of the region of Sudbury. This week I will meet with the union. That is part of my consultation. Next week I will try to meet with MPPs again. I met with the New Democratic Party, so now I will try to meet with the Conservatives to try to come to an understanding of which way to go.

I welcome suggestions from all members of this House. I intend to meet with appropriate local MPs and cabinet colleagues to incorporate their ideas. With the help of the Sudbury Regional Development Corp., we will try to face the Sudbury situation with vigour.

With regard to fertilizer, there is a meeting in Kapuskasing on Friday involving all the industrial minerals. I am sure some good ideas will come from that. In so far as the Sudbury situation is concerned, we will try to put everything together by next week to try to do something.

Mr. Harris: What we heard today from the minister was a commitment for five years by a government with a mandate for two years that intends to call an election in one year, but has not yet kept a single election promise. If it is reduced to the one year, they are talking about $20 million a year. Why has the minister waited four months'?

The minister calls it new money. The northern Ontario regional development program, Nordev, initially was $10 million. In the throne speech we called for an additional $10 million to have successful programs; that is $20 million a year. There is not a single cent of new money in this program. The only new idea the minister has is to go back to the government's successful Nordev program. Why did he wait four months, bring development to a halt in northern Ontario for four months and, in effect, set the north back for a full year?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I would like to say that they are there and we are here. Second, I do not have to take anything from the opposition. I will run this ministry as I see fit. If the member does not like the name Nordev, I can call it Fontaine's fund.

I made an announcement a week ago or a few days ago that Nordev would exist. Perhaps I will change the name. I changed the name of the ministry, so perhaps I will change that name and call it something else to stop them talking about it. I admit this is a good program, but there will be other programs that will be implemented that will be as good as this program. I say, "Wait for a few weeks or months and see our action." I have not had 42 years; I have had only a few months. After a couple of years maybe they will say, "Fontaine was not that bad."

Mr. Wildman: In the light of his statement today and the comments he made in North Bay, quoted in the Nugget on August 14, in which he called for an economic strategy to help avert plant closures in the future and said that if Lee Canada executives had approached him he could have helped out, can the minister fill out his statement today by explaining to us the source of the new moneys involved in this program and how he is going to ensure this is an ongoing fund and not a one-shot deal over five years? What exactly is this government's economic strategy for job creation through economic diversification in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, in answer to this question, I will go back and consult with the people in the north. It will not be my decision; we are going to form some economic regions. I am going to consult with the municipalities, the chamber of commerce, labour and other businessmen who are not involved in those associations, and in the next few months we are going to have this in place. That will really dictate which way we are going to go. We will try to have a vision. We are going to try not to go and put a bandage over it every time something closes. We will have to prevent that from now on.

With the members' help, with the help of the people in the north and that of other people, we are going to do it. I am going to try to have a program that is going to be decided together with the people in the north.

Mr. Gordon: Is the minister not aware that what we are listening to today in this House is some pretty hypocritical bafflegab.

Mr. Speaker: Which minister?

Mr. Gordon: The Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines.

The minister told the people in Sault Ste. Marie this summer that it was very important to get a plant such as a Toyota plant in northern Ontario. If he is really interested in northern development, is he prepared to say in this House today that he is going to sit down with his cabinet colleagues and put manufacturing in the north, or is this just, as he said, consulting with the unions, consulting with the regional chairmen?

People need jobs in the north. We are tired of welfare. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: If this question were asked by me after only two or three months over here, I would say it is okay. But when a government that was there for 42 years asks a question like that, to me that is obscene. There was no Toyota plant in this province for 42 years; there was never a direction in the north towards those kinds of things, we are going to try from now on to have a direction and to try to bring in those industries. Maybe we will not do it tomorrow, but we have to do it in the near future, and I have already told my colleagues that.

Those people across there did nothing, and now they come and talk for nothing.

Mr. Bernier: I have listened to a bunch of gobbledegook. I still do not know what the minister is trying to say and what he is doing in his statement, but I want to ask him a question. I notice he is setting up some regional economic development councils. Will he tell the people of northern Ontario that he is dismantling the Municipal Advisory Committee, that he is dismantling Commerce Northwest and setting up some new structures that will mean nothing? Tell the people of northern Ontario that.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would like to know what the member is talking about in referring to those associations. I never said I would disband Commerce Northwest or Commerce Northeast. I said MAC would be incorporated in those new councils and that there will be more than eight. If I increased that to 10 there would be about 20 mayors instead of 16. I do not believe it is only the mayor who should dictate the growth of the north or the new vision of the north. We should ask the farmers, the small guy and the union where the north should go.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I find it hard to believe the Conservatives can be asking questions about secondary industry in northern Ontario.

Beyond consultation, what are the minister's intentions concerning the secondary industry we need to develop in northern Ontario to balance the ups and downs of the resource sector to which we are so subject? Does the minister recognize that deindustrialization of the north is going on, and what is he going to do about it in specifics?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I think we will have to have a completely new study of the north to attract the industry that is going to be viable and that will service what is going on today. We should look at tourism not only as a day-to-day affair. I think we should go after some attraction that will bring tourism to the north not only for a summer or a winter but year-round.

So we will be looking. With the municipalities, with the chamber of commerce and with the members we will have to build together a new program for the north. That is why I say I am open to suggestions, and it is not by --

Mr. Bernier: Who is making policy'?

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Attends un peu, toi, là. Énerve-toi pas.

Mr. Gordon: The minister should let us know when he knows what it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the minister completed his answer?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It is not by delaying things that we are going to do that; it is by working in the communities. Together I think we should try to have a redprint for the next 20 years. The blueprint is gone; it will be a redprint from now on.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Housing, and I want to say how thrilled I am to see that he is still in the cabinet. I want to ask a question about his position on rent controls, since he said one thing in the House and, apparently, when he went out into the scrum, he said -- and I am quoting from last Saturday's Toronto Star -- that he is prepared to lift rent controls if vacancy rates reach a "comfortable level."

I want to ask the minister, and I hope he will give the House a clear answer, is it his position that rent controls should be or could be removed when apartment vacancy rates reach some magic level, three per cent or whatever it is? Is it his position that rent controls should be removed when vacancy rates reach a comfortable level?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for Bellwoods. I am glad he missed me. His concern for me is very much appreciated.

I am here to state and also to confirm that rent review will remain a continuing policy of this government. As I stated, the government will continue to examine features of the rent review system and will continue to do so to ensure we have a system that works well for both landlords and tenants.

Mr. McClellan: What did the minister mean when he said outside the House that he was prepared to remove rent controls if vacancy rates reached a comfortable level? Does he mean what he is saying in the House or does he mean what he is saying outside the House? Is he prepared to remove rent controls if vacancy rates reach some kind of comfortable level, some magic figure of three per cent, two per cent or whatever it is?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Whatever magic figure is being quoted outside by others can be used at any time. I know the member himself does not take the newspaper and press reports as the facts of what I said. I tell him again that rent review is a committed program under our government and will remain so. Whether we want to speculate about these magic figures is something else that other people will say. We will always review the fundamentals of rent review today and tomorrow and not speculate about any magic figure.

Ms. Fish: I do not think there is undue speculation here; nor do I think there is someone else who is making a reference. I think what we are seeing is a real hidden agenda that was exposed with a slip of the tongue in a scrum outside this House. That is what we are dealing with.

We are dealing with a minister who is finally showing where he truly stands because he is the one who raised the spectre of removing rent controls based on vacancy rates. No one else did; he did. He was repudiated by the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Fish: Will the minister please answer the original question? Will the minister confirm that under no circumstances of cost or vacancy rate will rent review be removed?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to get Bill Barker in here.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am surprised the honourable member would ask such a question, given the sorry record her party left behind. This government did not create this terrible shortage of affordable homes that we see today. Yet the member asks me to give a commitment on lifting these rent controls.

We are working hard in the early mornings to come up with a housing policy that will bring affordable rental units into this province, so everyone can live very comfortably.

Ms. Fish: Then the minister will not confirm that he will keep rent controls.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. Lest the minister think I am being unduly mean, I would like to compliment him on pursuing the objective I set in the ministry of rationalization of the programs. I happen to think there is some good stuff in his program.

My question is about funding and about the magnitude of the minister's commitment. In his reply to the question asked by the leader of the third party, the minister said there was more than $50 million in new money.

The programs he is replacing had 1985-86 budgets as follows: the Ontario career action program, $24 million; Youth Works, $53.7 million; Ontario Youth Corps, $28.2 million; and the Youth Start resource centres, $26 million.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gillies: I have sent the minister a calculator. Will he please tally up that row of figures and tell me if he gets $131.9 million?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: He did send me over the calculator, but I tried it and it does not work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the question was, "Would you try the calculator?" You did and it would not work. Therefore, I do not think there is any answer. Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to reflect on the numbers the member provided. Those may have been budgetary figures, but they were never contained in estimates. They go back to the commitment of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) to a three-year, $450-million program. Those figures were never contained in estimates.

The real comparison must be between what was spent in the previous fiscal year and what will be spent in this fiscal year. I will explain why. The reason is simple. The real effect of the Futures program, with the one-year guarantee, will not be felt in this fiscal year because we have only a few months to run. The real effect of the guarantee will be felt in 1986-87 when those young people are allowed to continue in the program and have the educational upgrading.

3 p.m.

A young person coming into OCAP would have come in about now. It would cost the same to keep him in the Futures program as it would for the period he would have been in OCAP. With OCAP, he has to leave at the end of 26 weeks. With this program, he is allowed to stay for a full year.

The real effect, the real incremental spending, will have to be in the next year.

I do not want to play a numbers game with the former minister. It is a foolish game to get into. The fact is that the commitment is a substantially new commitment to try to deal with a very difficult problem, and that is the hard-to-employ in this province.

Mr. Gillies: I would say to the minister if he wants the calculator to work, he should turn it on; and I do want it back, please. I am still a Tory. I want it back.

The point is that the minister has today announced a program budgeted at $133 million. He is replacing programs that were budgeted. The source of my figures is the very same briefing book to which he referred. I was in that ministry and budgeted $132 million. Why is the government not prepared to make the kind of additional commitment in the magnitude of $100 million of additional money that our government offered in our spring throne speech? Why is he merely announcing today a program continuing existing funding?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We could play the numbers game here all afternoon. The fact is that the full effect of this program and the additional costs this government has committed will not be felt in 1985-86; it will be felt in the future years. If the former minister wants the full incremental value of the programs, he can wait a couple of days and he will hear more about it from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon).

We have mounted a program consistent with our commitment to guarantee young people one year of employment, we have done that. If he wants to throw figures back and forth he is perfectly welcome to do it, but the point is lost.

Mr. Lupusella: Considering the real number of chronically unemployed people in Ontario in May 1985 reached the magic figure of 568,000, and considering we have a great number of people who could not find a job as a result of the economic recession that took place in 1981 and never went back to work, is the minister prepared to announce new programs to help these kinds of people and the remaining people who have been unemployed for so many years?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not disagree with the honourable member's assessment of the problem. Certainly we do have an unemployment problem in this province that goes beyond what the Futures program I announced today is designed to deal with. This is a program that is specifically directed at hard-to-employ young people between the ages of 16 and 24. It is not the be-all and end-all, even for that group, because the problem is so enormous.

The client group the member is talking about, particularly the 25- to 44-year-old who has been in the labour market for a long time and then has lost his job, has a problem. The Ministry of Skills Development is looking at that and examining it. We want to find creative new ways to incorporate training for that client group so we can be of assistance. It is not in Futures, I acknowledge that, but this is not the last program this government is going to announce with respect to employment in this province.

DAY CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services regarding the proposed Queen's Park Child Care Centre. In March, her leader, speaking in the Lakehead to the Lakehead Women's Commission, promised that child care "will be accessible, affordable and available to all who require it."

Lately, both the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have been talking about the work-place day care centre here as a positive example of what can be done in the private sector. What steps is the minister going to take to make sure this centre is accessible and affordable and not just available to members of the Legislature and deputy ministers who can afford the full-fare rates?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Let me clarify for everyone the model of the Queen's Park Child Care Centre that was approved by cabinet. The Ministry of Government Services has provided space on the main floor of the Macdonald Block for a nonprofit, co-operative day care centre, which will be run by the parent users of the centre. This is to encourage other employers to follow our example to provide work-place day care. The model was suggested by the women's directorate. The provision by this government will be the space and the utility of the centre.

The independent parent board, which has been brought together on an interim basis until the centre is up and running on January 1, will have the opportunity to design the program, hire the staff and make the decisions for the users of the centre, the parents of the children who will be there. They will have the opportunity to apply to Metropolitan Toronto for provincial day care subsidies. They will set the rates for the centre and make the decisions for the day care centre at Queen's Park.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister has failed to add that a commitment has already been made to unionized rates comparable to those in the rest of Metropolitan Toronto. To be able to maintain the salary level for the staff, the rates will be at the top end of the scale. This means a number of the secretaries and clerks of this government will not be able to afford the rates of that centre, but they will not be eligible for subsidization.

Is the minister willing to look at a direct grant to that centre, as the city of Toronto has done for its centre, to make sure the fees can be lowered for those people at the lower-income levels who are not eligible for subsidy in government offices?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The rates have yet to be established. The parent members of that independent board will be setting them in the near future. I will be willing to discuss their needs and concerns with them. I am not a member of that board. There is a member who is a liaison from the Ministry of Government Services to ensure that the centre is up and running by January 1.

In response to the question, an advertisement was placed in Topical in August requesting volunteers to serve on this parent board, and 18 applications were received from people to participate. The board was selected on an interim basis until it is up and running on January 1. All the issues dealing with the hiring of staff and programming will be dealt with by that board. As a very interested partner, since we are providing the space for them, we will be available to discuss their needs with them.

Let me say very clearly --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: -- that this is the model proposed by the women's directorate to encourage other employers to provide work-place day care. It was not the government's intention to run a government-subsidized --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GROUP HOME SECURITY

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Undoubtedly, the minister now has had an opportunity to investigate and review the case reported last week in the media of a 13-year-old girl who was abducted twice from the same group home in the Peterborough area and used in a juvenile prostitution ring. Can the minister tell the House exactly how this was allowed to occur?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member's reference is to a young girl who was picked up in Toronto by the police and returned to the home. In one of the two cases, the young lady, rather than being abducted, was a runaway from the home.

I am sure the member will recognize there is no way we are putting locks on the doors of group homes and that people do run away. It has happened before and it will happen again. Working in co-operation with the police, my ministry will pick up these young people and return them to the homes, but we have no intention of putting locks and chains on them.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Eves: With respect, the facts of the case, as reported on two different days in the newspapers, indicate that although there were some cases of young people running away, one particular girl was abducted -- she did not run away -- from the same group home. That is the question I am asking the minister. Is he telling the House today that a full week has gone by without any action whatsoever to ensure that young people in group homes are safe from abduction, not running away?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The area office in that region has been in touch with that group home and has reviewed the procedures it is using, and if changes are necessary they will be made. I have to reiterate that in the case the member refers to me we are talking of a runaway.

MUSEUM LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. It is in regard to the labour dispute at the Royal Ontario Museum which started on September 26. The minister has not taken any steps to ensure that a just settlement occurs.

Given the fact that Eddie Goodman, the chairman of the board of trustees, has admitted publicly there are inequities in the salaries of ROM employees; given the fact the museum management has said it cannot resolve these inequities because it feels bound by the three per cent wage guideline, which was put into effect by the Tory government and which it appears this government is maintaining that guideline; given the fact --

Mr. Speaker: Given those facts will you ask the question, please?

Mr. Grande: Yes. The present Premier (Mr. Peterson) has no confidence in that board. He calls it an archaic structure, a repository for political hacks and irresponsible. How can the minister remain standing on the sidelines when the first-class reputation of the Royal Ontario Museum is at risk because of the actions of its board?

Hon. Ms. Munro: The Royal Ontario Museum is an arm's-length agency, as the honourable member knows, and I am confident the board of trustees and management are taking up any disparity in wages with the union. In terms of the negotiations currently under way, I am confident the collective bargaining process will be followed. That is where the matter rests with me at the moment.

Mr. Grande: Is the minister telling us she is willing for employees of the Royal Ontario Museum to stay out on the sidewalk for another month? Is she aware, for example, that the Toronto Free Theatre has rented the planetarium to put on its production of Thunder, Perfect Mind and is going to be losing $105,000 in revenue if the production does not go on?

Mr. Speaker: Are you aware, Minister?

Mr. Grande: I am told that if the Toronto Free Theatre does not have the planetarium by this Friday the production is going to be delayed. Given the state of emergency, is the minister not willing to commit herself to asking the union local and museum management to come to her office and do everything in their power --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grande: The question is not finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have spent ample time.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am meeting with the union local in a couple of minutes.

MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITES

Mr. Leluk: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Citizenship and Culture. As the Minister without Portfolio, what are the responsibilities assigned to him by the Premier (Mr. Peterson)?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: The former minister will note that starting next week I will be going throughout Ontario meeting with a number of people, especially in the multicultural community, to determine whether there is really a fit between the services that are being provided by the ministry and the facts as they are out in the field. I know the former minister would have liked to have done that and probably did not have enough time to do it.

Second, as the member is aware, the Premier has also asked me to take responsibility in the area of the disabled. Those are my two responsibilities.

Mr. Leluk: In the June 27, 1985, issue of the Hamilton Spectator, the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), the other minister, said that since her ministry does not have a parliamentary assistant, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) would perform that function. She went on to say, and I quote, "I think he has had some good ideas along with the bad and I think he will be fine."

Is the minister a minister of the crown or a parliamentary assistant? How do the duties assigned to him by the Premier conflict with his duties as parliamentary assistant assigned to him by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: The former minister will no doubt realize there are many people to meet and many things to do in that ministry. Had he taken the opportunity and the time to work this out, we would not have so much work today.

I have not seen the specific report, but I can indicate to every member today there is absolutely no reason to believe I am a parliamentary assistant. Further, there is absolutely no reason to believe there is any problem within this ministry between the two ministers.

Mr. Rae: I wonder if the minister can explain why the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, admittedly a ministry of great importance but one that has a far smaller budget than almost any other ministry in the government, has two ministers,

whereas all the other ministries have only one. Can he explain that?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: Across Ontario there is a real need within the multicultural community to determine exactly the mandate of this ministry and how it reflects in that community. The mandate was previously determined by the former government. At this time we would like to see precisely whether this mandate serves the ethnocultural community across Ontario.

In terms of specific budgetary items, I do not think it should be divided that way. It was the determination of the Premier to decide just where this work had to be done. Since it is a lot of work, he decided I would be the best person to do it in that ministry in addition to my other responsibilities.

PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired and the next item is petitions. Before I recognize any member, I would like to refer all members to standing order 29(b):

"A member may present a petition from his place in the House during the routine proceedings under the proceeding `Petitions.' He shall endorse his name thereon and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, the number of signatures and the material allegations."

I have noticed over the last number of days that there have been quite lengthy petitions, and I do not feel it is necessary to read all the "whereas" clauses. I think the first paragraph and the "therefore" would be sufficient.

3:20 p.m.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have several petitions addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petitions basically state:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement without delay the policy on the funding of the completion of the separate school system in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.

"We further petition that this Legislature protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition signed by 731 residents of the good riding of Perth. It endorses Bill 30, asking that it be applied retroactively, and asking that the legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of separate schools. It was organized by the Kilroy Council of the Knights of Columbus in Stratford.

Mr. Taylor: I have a petition of a similar nature addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system. It is signed by Mr. Paul Spooner, Grand Knight of St. Patrick's Council, Knights of Columbus, and 18 others.

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition signed by some 160 residents of the city of Ottawa addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Dispensing with the "whereas" clauses, as you have requested, it reads:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985."

Mr. McNeil: I have a petition containing 400 signatures on behalf of Council 1467, which reads as follows:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement without delay the policy on the funding of the completion of the separate school system in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985."

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. McFadden for Mr. Gregory; on the standing committee on public accounts, Mr. Ashe for Mr. Harris.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Allen moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Allen: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the election of the regional chairman by a general vote rather than by the members of the regional council. It also undertakes to give the regional council rather than the cabinet the right to appoint a majority of the members of the Hamilton-Wentworth Police Commission.

POLLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Pursuant to government policy, I want to table another poll that has come to my attention. Copies of this poll have been put in the library and given to the leaders of the opposition parties. Members can read it at their leisure. It looks like a hot one.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing November 1, 1985, and ending December 31, 1985.

Mr. Wildman: When I was speaking in this debate on Friday I was dealing with the urgent need for the implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. I dealt with the questions of participation of Indian people and the need for a really independent forestry audit so we can deal with the urgent requirement for regeneration to deal with the economy, particularly related to forestry, in northern Ontario.

I indicated I had some very serious questions about the report by Mr. Fahlgren. One is that it seems particularly weak in dealing with the mining sector and with tourism. While it is strong in its recommendations with regard to forestry, the criticism of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the record of the previous government in that area, it does not really offer very much with regard to mining and tourism. Frankly, it is a complete failure in regard to economic development and diversification of one-industry, resource-based towns in northern Ontario.

We believe the government must take concerted action to bring about the kind of economic diversification which would end the boom-bust cycle the economy of northern Ontario has had to endure ever since the earliest developments in northern Ontario.

Yesterday, I introduced a resolution in the Legislature calling for the establishment of a mining reserve fund, along the lines of the Manitoba government's mining reserve fund, to be part of the northern Ontario tomorrow fund the New Democrats have advocated for years. The history of mining in particular, but resource industries in general, in northern Ontario has been one of boom and bust.

The residents of communities and municipalities in northern Ontario suffer extraordinary dislocations and financial hardships when there are shutdowns related either to market conditions or to the depletion of the resources. The Manitoba government has attempted to respond to this situation in the northern part of that province by establishing a reserve fund the provincial government can use to provide financial assistance for adjustments required to alleviate such dislocations and hardships that result from shutdown.

All of us in the north have recognized that the history of development in our area of the province has been one of boom and bust. This is largely related to the lack of government planning over 42 years of Conservative rule, with the result that the hopes and dreams of too many Hemlos have been dashed after 20 or so years by the harsh realities of the Atikokans of our region. Residents of northern municipalities who have dedicated their working lives to the development of their communities suffer extraordinary dislocations and hardships when once-thriving mining operations are shut down because of poor markets or resource depletion.

During last spring's election campaign, the Liberals claimed they recognized the need to stabilize the north's boom-bust existence based on primary resource extraction. They singled out the need for government policies to deal with the economic vulnerability of one-industry towns since most areas of the north are subject to the wild fluctuations of national and international markets.

To deal with these problems, in the spring the Liberals promised northern voters they would ensure that a larger share of the profits and products of the north's primary industries would be reinvested there to create jobs. They said they would stabilize financing for northern municipalities faced with increased expenditures for services, either in boom or bust situations.

3:30 p.m.

The resolution I proposed yesterday was one approach to obtaining adequate revenue from resource extraction to provide for reinvestment to generate employment and stabilize municipal finance in northern Ontario. It is one the current Liberal government, if it is serious about its campaign pledges, could implement.

The announcement today by the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) of a northern Ontario development fund of $100 million over five years does take one small, tentative step in that direction. Unfortunately, it does not go as far as we believe is necessary, and we have said that over the last many years, particularly during the last three provincial elections.

It is not clear from the minister's statement what the source of the new money will be, or for that matter how much of the $20 million for this year is new money. The minister indicates it is all new money.

I hope he can also indicate this is not going to be, in his view, a one-shot, five-year program, but rather an ongoing program that has as its source of financing the revenues to the provincial Treasury of resource extraction from northern Ontario. I hope we can reserve a fund, as has been done in Manitoba. I am afraid, though, from the minister's statement today that is not what he is proposing.

Also missing in the minister's statement today is any indication of an industrial strategy, an economic strategy to deal with the problems we have raised in the Legislature this afternoon. I applaud the minister's concern and his sincere attempt to consult with northerners about the needs of their communities, but something more than consultation is needed. The government's responsibility is to come into the communities across northern Ontario and indicate the directions in which it thinks it should be moving to stimulate both public and private investment in northern Ontario.

On Friday we will see the closure of one of the very few non-resource-related manufacturers in northern Ontario. More than 200 people will be put out of work but there is no indication from this government or from the announcement today of what the government is going to do to deal with the deindustrialization of northern Ontario.

In the past, we northerners have talked in this House, sometimes ad nauseam, about the need for secondary manufacturing and industrialization in northern Ontario. We are now at the point of talking about a situation that is far more serious than stimulating new development. We are talking about the need for the government to protect the small amount of secondary manufacturing development that already exists in the north, because these plants are closing. The ones that are not closing are cutting their work forces so much that we are seeing very little employment in the north and very few employment opportunities for our young people.

I know the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines is concerned about that, so I hope that, while he was unable to make the announcement today about an industrial strategy, a strategy for diversification of the economy of northern Ontario communities, he will be coming into this House soon with a proposal for a strategy for development in the north.

We have had enough of the ad hoc approach of the Tories in northern Ontario. We have had enough of grants being handed out to react to the situation in Atikokan, for instance, when we had 25 years before that situation developed to do something to plan for economic development in a community like Atikokan.

We have to move in a concerted fashion to bring about meaningful economic development and meaningful secondary manufacturing in northern Ontario. To throw money at a community after the barn door is closed is not the answer. We have to move in a concerted way so that we know the expenditures we are making as a government in northern Ontario will have the effect we want them to have, which is economic development and jobs across the north. We do not want to continue this roller-coaster cycle we have been on ever since northern Ontario first opened up.

This statement today does not go far enough. It is a first step, but we need more from this government.

I want to close by pointing out that the minister has indicated interest in certain developments such as the thermal mechanical pulp plants that have been proposed for communities in northern Ontario. He has indicated interest and has travelled with a tremendous amount of energy across northern Ontario, visiting almost all the communities in the north to listen to concerns. He has consulted; now is the time for action. When are we going to get a TMP plant in the Wawa-Dubreuilville area, Timmins, Hearst or wherever? When will we hear those kinds of announcements for northern Ontario? How are those kinds of announcements going to be tied to an overall strategy?

I want to add one thing. I am particularly concerned about the current protectionism in the United States and how it will affect the lumber industry in northern Ontario. We have a situation where a couple of the many protectionist bills now before the US Congress will probably pass and could even override a presidential veto. It would mean a tremendous loss of jobs and would have a devastating effect on lumber communities across northern Ontario.

I do not think the answer is to jump on the free trade bandwagon of the federal government. I believe we must be involved as a province in the discussions for sectoral access to the American market so as to convince them we are a fair trading partner and we deserve better treatment than is being proposed in Congress today.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is in Washington this week to have discussions about trade. I hope he will be able to come back with positive indications that the lumber industry in northern Ontario is not going to be threatened, but I am not optimistic. That makes it even more imperative that this government, in concert with the federal government, the municipalities and the private sector, develop an industrial strategy, an economic strategy for northern Ontario.

The government should start by implementing the parts of the Fahlgren report that deal with community participation, with the participation of Indian people, and particularly with the need for a concerted effort to regenerate our forests and to stabilize the forest industry in northern Ontario. That has to be done in conjunction with an economic strategy. I encourage this government to respond to the Fahlgren report as soon as possible and to expand on the announcement of the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines in the House today.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a pleasure to rise and participate in the debate on interim supply. This is a very important aspect of running a government because without supplies and funding we would not be here today. I realize these funds operate the many ministries of the government and that approval from this House has to be obtained. There are a few things that are difficult to comment on at this stage of the game, particularly because the government has not yet brought down its budget. Without a budget, we have to do some speculation, speculation that sometimes can be right and at other times can be hit and miss at best.

I have dug up some quotes from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in the last year or so. It will be interesting to remind him of a few of the statements that were made and the things that were promised, prior to May 2 in particular and throughout a number of years prior to that. I understand he made some promises not long before May 2.

3:40 p.m.

I am wondering whether this interim supply debate has to do with funding trips to Collingwood. I realize that Collingwood is a very fine town and has many attractions. However, I wonder whether the interim supply bill we will be approving some time later will go to fund and promote more escapades of this type.

I must ask the Treasurer about funding for agriculture. My two distinguished colleagues from the north dwelt on northern resources and the forestry industry, which is very important not only to northern Ontario but to parts of eastern Ontario and throughout Ontario. Many hybrid poplars were planted in eastern Ontario with the assistance of the former government.

This will be feed to supply the Domtar industry in Cornwall primarily. I think an excellent job of reforestation has been done in eastern Ontario. I hope the government of the day will ensure this endeavour continues to be supported and is encouraged on some of our marginal land.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How are the poplars doing in Edwardsburgh?

Mr. Villeneuve: The poplars are doing quite well. The first crop will be coming off within a number of years. That was an excellent program, and I hope this government continues to encourage it.

Funding for agriculture is most important. On many occasions the Treasurer has said he would, without reservation, double the $330 million that was allocated by the previous government. I encourage him strongly not to let us down.

Last week the annual rate of inflation was announced at 4.1 per cent across Canada. Why was it not higher? Because the cost of food went down; the price of red meat, fresh vegetables and fruit went down. The agricultural community is carrying an inflation rate that is actually deflation to them. In effect, it is preventing inflation from going up much quicker. Should three per cent of the population of Ontario carry this burden alone? I feel that agriculture, and particularly income in agriculture, must be addressed very directly in the upcoming budget.

When food costs go down, 97 per cent of the people in Ontario cheer. Everyone in Toronto cheers. The three per cent who produce it say nothing, but tighten their belts and work harder just to make ends meet. This is a very important economic situation. The value of farm assets has gone down approximately 20 per cent from this time last year, according to a Farm Credit Corp. survey.

We used to see studies by some of our professors, our learned people from the universities, who tell us farmers are making all sorts of money. They reinvest their appreciating assets in capital. Several years ago we were told they were making around $40,000 a year. Things are not nearly as rosy as some people would like us to believe, and that situation is being borne by less than three per cent of the population of Ontario.

In answer to a question, the Treasurer said he might question the federal government about the possibility of reinstating capital gains. That is the only small door a retiring farmer has; it is his retirement income. I plead with the Treasurer under no circumstances to add any burden to our agriculture community, particularly in these very difficult economic times when the sale of their property may well be, and in most cases is, the farmers' retirement asset.

I do not believe the real cost of farming will ever be known. I am not talking about profit; I am talking about the cost of farming in this day and age when sales of farm real estate properties are very slow, if indeed they sell at all. When sales do occur, they very often occur at fire-sale prices.

Talking of fire-sale situations, I notice the Treasurer is hiring some new staff to study the idea of possibly liquidating Suncor. If he is going to liquidate Suncor, he is going to have all sorts of values placed on it in the front pages of every newspaper across Ontario. As the Treasurer has an auctioneer sitting on his front benches here, I suggest he might as well give it to him; he could auction it off for him and probably do a better job.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We did not write that story. That was in the Globe.

Mr. Villeneuve: The Treasurer is showing his hand. If I may suggest to him, Kenny Rogers sings a song called The Gambler. I suggest the Treasurer buy it and listen to the words very closely. There is a good message there for whoever is dealing with him on the Suncor business.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The minister said it best. We did not buy it.

Mr. Villeneuve: The triple-A credit rating of this province has been maintained during some recent years that were not easy. Economically, they were the most difficult years since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The triple-A credit rating stayed with Ontario up until very shortly after May 2. It is now being looked at very closely and it is on the verge of being lost. These situations are very grave indeed and will cost more money.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), I understand, spent some time in Japan not very long ago. I hope he discussed a certain car manufacturing company and the possibility of bringing it to Ontario. I noticed in the papers not very long ago that he was being misquoted and that he did not say the Toyota plant was coming to eastern Ontario. I hope he has been going to bat for the people of Ontario to bring this car manufacturer to this province.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: He is a number one salesman.

Mr. Villeneuve: I hope he is a number one salesman. That could bring economic advantages to Ontario, particularly to the part of Ontario the present government has always accused the former government of forgetting, the part that lies east of Kingston. We are still there. However, there seems to be some apprehension on the part of some of the ministers in this government about even mentioning it. The Treasurer could find no better area than eastern Ontario. I will expand a little bit on some of the things that have been done.

The city of Cornwall, in conjunction with the town of Massena -- twin cities across the St. Lawrence River from one another -- has made a pitch to the Toyota people to consider seriously bringing its plants here, one to northern New York state and one to eastern Ontario. We have several international bridges; we have a double rail line; we have the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have all the attributes and, in particular, we have an abundance of energy and available labour.

3:50 p.m.

I will give the members an example. The Kraft Ltd. plant at Ingleside expanded approximately a year and a half ago. It required 175 new employees. The advertisements went out, and in order to fill 175 positions at the Kraft plant in Ingleside, 4,350 applications were received. I believe that is reason enough to consider this area of Ontario as a very viable location for any future car manufacturing plant or any other manufacturing operation that may be looking to come to Ontario.

In closing, I wish to touch on several situations that are rather strange. I will quote the Treasurer here. When someone suggested the Liberals should join the New Democratic Party to beat the Tories a heading said, "We Don't Need the NDP's Aid to Beat the Tories." The present Treasurer is quoted as saying:

"`We feel we are a very distinct alternative to the other parties,' said Mr. Nixon, and he laughed at a report that current Liberal leader David Peterson had referred a similar question to him during Peterson's recent visit to Kingston. Peterson is reported to have suggested that the notion of a Liberal-NDP alliance might receive" the present Treasurer's support. "`No way,' Nixon said with a grin. `No way, not at all.'"

Now I go to the other side of the House. I have a great little newspaper called the Standard-Freeholder of Cornwall. It says here, "Rae Rejects Samis's Suggestion." Members will all remember that George Samis was an NDP member from the great riding of Cornwall. He was the only right-wing socialist they had; they no longer have any. I quote from the Standard-Freeholder:

"Ontario NDP leader Bob Rae says it is absolutely not on the agenda to consider a coalition with the Liberals in a minority Tory government, possible on May 2. Rae told a radio interviewer Friday that the Ontario Liberals are unpalatable" -- my, they must now taste better -- "to his party because they are more right wing on many issues than the Tories.

"The remarks came just days after George Samis, former NDP member of the Legislature for Cornwall, did not seek re-election and told supporters while campaigning with Rae that he still believes a coalition is the only way to oust the Tories." Listen to that. The guy is no longer here.

"`Otherwise,' Samis said, `the two reasonably strong opposition parties in Ontario will continue to split the anti-government vote and allow the Tories to waltz to a handsome majority in the future.'

"`My problem with the Liberals is that I have seen them in action from another movie', Rae said in a CFRB interview to be broadcast April 28. `I was up in Ottawa as the federal NDP finance critic before entering provincial politics and I was there during the last days of Pompeii,' he said.

"`To me, they were a governing party that had no real sense of what people are all about. They went hither and yon in terms of policies. They had no basic principles in terms of what they wanted to do and became a very right-wing party when they were in power in the last few days in Ottawa. That is where I get my sense of what the Liberal Party is all about. That is how I remember them and that is how I see them.'"

We have a marriage of two nonconsenting parties here, and they renew their vows on a daily basis in this chamber. It is an unbelievable situation. These are quotes from the horse's mouth.

It has been a pleasure addressing this debate on interim supply.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am always a little bit confused when speaking on interim supply. As is sometimes the case on the budget and on the various ministries, I am never quite sure how we organize this House so that we end up debating the estimates and the budget long after we have spent the money. The need for interim supply might not be as great if we had more of an industrial strategy and a plan as to what we want to do and where we see Ontario and the people of this country going.

Some of our priorities in the province are a little out of whack. I want to raise two or three of the issues that affect ordinary people these days. I wonder why we are not dealing with some of the more fundamental issues of where we want to take Ontario. For example, we have a number of disputes going on in the province in regard to an issue that is a major one for working people. That is the question of first-contract legislation.

We have been arguing for it for a long time. It has been high on the agenda of the organized labour movement and it has been high on my personal agenda. Probably because of some of the nasty first-contract strikes that have occurred in the province in recent years, the Liberal Party saw it as worth pushing in the election campaign. We have no bad feelings about their picking up our ideas. We just want to make sure they carry through, because they campaigned before the people on an issue we have pushed for a good number of years.

First-contract legislation will probably stand or fall by whether it is a remedy that will be established only on the basis of some unfair bargaining test or whether it will be a right of workers in a first-contract, newly organized situation. I admit I have some reservations about what I hear from the new government and the responsible minister.

It is important to deal with this problem. We have had a number of situations that have become nasty, where workers and citizens of small communities have begun to question the system of justice in the province. Let me give an example. We now have a strike in Kapuskasing by the employees of a caisse populaire. As I understand it, some 40 employees, mostly women, a lot in the age group 20 to 28, have been on strike since June.

They have been trying to establish a first contract. Those employees know that some 70 caisses populaires organized in Quebec have contracts, but in Kapuskasing they have not been able to establish a first contract.

The administrator there, Gerard Pouliot, is the problem, not only from the point of view of the workers and most of the community, but also that of the Ministry of Labour. Its key people have said this is a lot of the problem in that town. Petitions have come in from the community with some 1,600 names. In a quickly organized campaign, almost half the employees of the caisse populaire are asking that they get down to business and negotiate a contract.

The stumbling block in this situation is the administrator. The Ministry of Labour has been involved in this dispute for some time, but it can get nowhere. A week ago, we thought maybe they would get back on track. There was a meeting that I understand lasted about seven hours. However, it was not a face-to-face meeting and the arbitrators had to go from one side to the other.

It ended up with the management of the caisse populaire submitting a new offer to the employees that was even worse than the one that had been on the table for a number of months, on which there had been no action, with literally no benefits and extension of the contract period to 1988.

The employees went to see their local member -- I believe it was the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) -- but they did not get a lot of help from him either. They argued for first-contract legislation in the meeting with him. Incidentally, this is not the only first-contract strike going on in the province; there are a number of them. They reported to me that he simply told them: "That is no answer. It would not be retroactive. That will not help you."

4 p.m.

They did not leave the meeting very satisfied with the answer they got from their local member. They certainly were not satisfied with the arrogant and arbitrary actions of the administrator of that credit union. The employees there simply are not receiving justice and are being hung out to dry, as has happened in all too many first-contract situations across Ontario.

When we cannot deal with a simple issue such as that and cannot find ways and means to bring some justice to organized workers, there is something wrong with our system.

We are running into delays, and I want to warn this government of them, with respect to decisions at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. There may be a major restructuring necessary there. It is not unusual now to wait one and two years for decisions in difficult cases.

We are having problems in getting awards set by the Inflation Restraint Board. A classic example of that involves the workers at the health clinics in Simcoe and Hamilton. Those awards were made literally years ago and the money still has not been paid to the workers.

We have a situation that should not be allowed to continue and some real problems with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I can tell members that a matter taking one and two years there is not uncommon, and I suspect we need a total restructuring of that commission if we are going to begin to achieve any justice for people in Ontario.

I want to deal also with a situation I think is ludicrous, and that is the problem involving public health nurses across Ontario. We already have four groups out. I think they have been out for a time. It has been a number of months in Kingston. Some 85 employees have been locked out in Windsor since October 4. They want binding arbitration. That is not an approach that has ever made me feel too good about a situation, but it is their desire.

Unlike some of the hospital workers, public health nurses are not a legislated essential service. That is the reason given for not being willing to move on this. We had some ambulance drivers in here, and they are in much the same situation. We are told the Ministry of Health would not approve a 75-25 per cent split, the current financing arrangement with the public health nurses, if parity were allowed. In other words, if the local boards agreed to increase the wages so the public health nurses could come close again to the hospital nurses the local municipalities might have some troubles with respect to provincial percentages. I find that totally unacceptable.

As I say, apart from the group that has been out for five months now in Kingston and the lockout that started on October 4 in Windsor, the Chatham and Porcupine public health nurses are also now out, and I believe a whole string of them will be out in the next very short time.

When I started to look at this, I went back and dug up the Hansard report of a debate that took place in the second year I was in this Legislature; it was on November 4, 1976. I want to read a comment. I do not know where they went wrong because it was not resolved, but it is a statement, rather than an answer to a question, by the then Minister of Health, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller). The statement reads as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, some honourable members have inquired about the ministry's position in current negotiations between public health nurses and local boards of health. I would like to make a brief statement which hopefully will clarify the situation.

"Honourable members will recall there has been a historical relationship between the wages in the nursing profession. Back in 1974, an arbitration board awarded significant increases to the nursing staff at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. The ministry agreed it would pick up its share of costs where similar settlements were negotiated across Ontario, both in hospitals and boards of health.

"Because the ministry pays the total cost of nursing salaries in hospitals, there was little difficulty in nurses negotiating settlements similar to that awarded at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. However, in the public health field, where municipalities share the costs of these programs" -- and it is a 75-25 split -- "public health nurses were not able in many instances to maintain the parity they had previously enjoyed with their counterparts in the public hospital field. In the past couple of years, this situation has been aggravated by subsequent settlements.

"In order to rectify this situation, my ministry is prepared to provide additional funding on the same ratio as it cost shares health unit budgets. This will be provided up to an amount which would establish parity on an hourly rate basis between registered nurses in health units and registered nurses in hospitals."

That did not last very long, and in spite of that very definitive statement by the then Minister of Health we were back into the same situation before the defeat of the previous government. We are into it now and have been since this Liberal government has been in power.

I suggest to ministers and members of this House that we all give lipservice to the one major problem we have in the health care field, which is that we are not doing enough on the preventive side. That is one of the things I hope can keep people out of hospitals and cut down some of the heavier, direct costs of hospital care. It is absolutely essential we do more in the preventive care field.

Which group of employees is more qualified and whose direction is more oriented towards preventive medicine than the public health care field employees and public health nurses? Yet while we have a definite statement that it should be done and the minister saying, "I will do it in 1976 for that period of time," nine years later we have the same problem, only worse, with respect to the difference in salaries between public health nurses and hospital nurses. As yet this government is not willing, even with what has been a trickle and may become an avalanche of strike and lockout situations over this issue.

My God, if it was proper then it should be obvious now. It should be underlined now with respect to preventive care. There should be immediate action taken by this government to rectify the issue regarding the nurses.

I want to deal briefly with one or two other comments that I think are appropriate. I still remember 1978 or 1979 -- I forget the year -- when I moved a resolution that got support in this House on private pension reform. I never made any bones about the fact that the public pension route is the road that offers the best chance of security for the Canadian people, but we all recognize the desperate need for reform of private pension plans.

The resolution called for earlier vesting, portability and some form of central agency so workers who spend only five, six or seven years at a job will not lose their pensions. Sure they get their money back with limited interest, but they lose those pensions. The resolution called for the ability to accumulate them so they can retire in some dignity. That would have been only a little bit of the answer to the needed reforms, and everybody agreed that was a good idea and it went through this House. Yes, all three parties in the debate largely agreed.

As a result of that, we set up a select committee on pensions, which made the same recommendations, probably even stronger, in 1980 or 1981. We never saw a darned thing done about it by the previous government even though we had that. Once it won its majority in 1981 it literally told us to go to pot, as it did on so many things. We have not seen any action yet by this government. I still believe improvements in the public pension area are important in the province, and by not taking action, by not making this a priority and dealing with the reforms needed in the pension area, we are adversely affecting an awful lot of Canadian workers.

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to speak in response to a couple of learned papers at the gerontology conference in Hamilton. I noticed that one of the speakers I was responding to, Dr. Schaie, outlined the difference in approach that was needed to deal with older workers in this province and country of ours.

As he outlined some of the necessary steps in the situation that actually exists with respect to pensions, I could not help but think that in Ontario half the work force does not have private pension plans and a heck of a lot of those who do never get anywhere near the full benefit out of them because of years of service and age, or because they do not have vesting or the portability. Less than half of the workers have private pension plans. In his paper, Dr. Schaie concluded that a relationship between affluence and successful intellectual ageing was very obvious.

If that is the case, many Ontario workers are clearly at a disadvantage.

4:10 p.m.

In his paper at the conference, Dr. Welford talked about the value of job changes throughout one's working life and recognized some of the problems in achieving the needed changes. In Ontario, only one third of the work force has pension vesting provisions and pensions are still not portable. That is the very argument we were making in this House six years ago. For many workers it is difficult, if not impossible, to change jobs and absorb the financial consequences of such a decision.

That also means the whole idea of retraining, of moving, of the changes that are needed in the work force, in lifestyle and jobstyle, are impossible when we have hamstrung our people with the kind of restrictions we have on pensions.

I bring to everybody's attention that we agreed back in 1978 and 1979 with many of the things I am talking about. We put them in a select committee report of this Legislature in 1981, and we are still sitting here with no action on these essential measures.

It seems to me also that we have to take a look at some of the dangers. I would like to see a little more concern on the part of the new government over deregulation. My God, if one thing hit home to me in the hearings we had in the select committee on economic affairs, it was the story we were told by the Canadian trucking industry. They made it very clear that they opposed free trade and free trade talks, but if they were going to happen we had bloody well better be prepared to look at deregulation first and in a hurry. They were all for that, unfortunately, or at least some of them were for it.

When we take a look at the story they gave us of what happened down in the United States, we begin to wonder. What happened down there with deregulation two or three years ago was that they shook out almost half the industry and many of the small companies. The big boys survived, and some of the environmental and safety and health concerns fell by the wayside as small companies tried to stay in business.

The prices went down, and that is supposed to be the plus side, so everybody can truck their stuff a little more easily. But the prices stayed down for only a year or so, then all of a sudden they were right back up to the sky again. They have shaken out half the doggoned companies and half the organized union workers in that industry. Maybe that is the aim of some in this House; it sure as blazes is not my aim. We should take a careful look at the calls we are getting for deregulation.

We had the ambulance workers here today. To some extent, they are in the same boat as the public health workers. How is it in an industry we are funding we cannot achieve something to which the government and all parties agreed?

There were individuals in both the Liberal Party and my party who had some reservations, but we finally went along with most of the recommendations made about province-wide bargaining in the building trades. We seem to shy away from seeing there is any kind of a province-wide equity or justice when it comes to health care workers or ambulance drivers around this province. Is it not time we took a look at why we should have major differences in salaries for some of these workers in Ontario?

Finally, and I think this ties in with an industrial strategy, I wonder what we are doing. We are talking about the make-work projects announced by one of the ministers and the amount of money he is prepared to put in for young workers. We are involved in a big debate on whether free trade makes any sense. We all know the changes we are facing in terms of the new technology in Ontario, the rapid pace at which it is entering what we know as the work place and what it is going to do to change drastically the work place, the work force and the kinds of jobs people will be doing.

As I have said before, we are willing to fund computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing centres -- I do not disagree with that -- to fund ways and means of speeding up the introduction of the new technology in the work place. What we are not doing anywhere, as I can see it, is taking a serious look at exactly what is the future of work and jobs in our province.

We are certainly not taking a serious look at two issues that I think are paramount in the new technological society: control and distribution. How do we control the tiger we are building in terms of the ability to produce? How do we ensure a fairer distribution of the results of the new technical ability today?

I submit we have lost sight of an important factor; that is, we no longer have any problem in producing almost any kind of product or food. We can produce, not only for our own country but for the world as well, almost anything we want. The statistics we hear from those involved in the new high-tech industries, in the robotization and computerization, in the chip technology that is going on, tell us we are likely to be able to do it even faster, in greater amounts, more easily and with fewer people.

We are not taking a serious look at the fact that the problem of production is no longer a problem. The problem we have in society is one of distribution. The biggest game in town, in the international community, in the industrial world and even in the local industrial world, is the paper game of takeovers, mergers and the big boys getting even bigger. That sure as blazes, in my simple way of looking at things, is not dealing with the problems of ordinary people.

If we can produce anything and everything we need, and I think we now can, when are we going to start looking at how we can do a much better and fairer job of distributing some of the benefits of that new society? We are not touching that question at all, I submit to this House.

At a time when history is being made and things are changing faster than ever before, we are going to have to shoulder one hell of a load of blame if we do not come to grips pretty quickly with the problem of seeing that ordinary people get a fairer shake out of our country's tremendous ability to produce and provide. That is not being shared fairly with all the people in this province.

These are the issues we are failing to address. There are a number of others. I wonder when we are going to get down to what the future does mean for people in this country of ours.

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to join this debate and use the opportunity to enlarge on some of the themes, some of the concerns and some of the things being said inside and outside of this House about the employment of our young people.

I share the frustration of many members of this assembly and of many people across this province that, despite the economic recovery, the new jobs and the new economic activity within this province in the past year, a proper proportion of that renewed activity and the benefits of a reinvigorated economy are not being experienced by our young people.

I saw figures recently that indicated that of all the new jobs created in Ontario in the past year, less than a quarter of them went to people under the age of 24. The reasons for this are self-evident. Many of the people in the labour force who are looking for employment have lesser levels of education or lesser levels of skill and experience.

In a work place where employers can be reasonably choosey about the people they want to hire, young people often get the short end of the stick. I sometimes think if all the words expended in this assembly by all of us on this issue could be translated into dollars and jobs the problem would have been licked long ago; but the problem goes on.

What does the future hold for us? What will happen in the coming year? The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Ontario Manpower Commission and just about every other forecasting agency or expert in this field tell us the level of youth unemployment will not drop significantly in the next year. Even as the economy and employment levels continue to improve, they will not be affecting too many of our young people. We bring these concerns to the House.

With great interest, I listened to and read about the program the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) proposes to introduce. I have read his statement only once, but I will be going over it very carefully. I believe there is some merit in what the minister is doing. He is running with the concept that there should be consolidation of programs, elimination of overlap, elimination of duplication of programs --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member for Brantford called it "youth employment stew."

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: I did indeed. The Treasurer reminds me that I once called it "youth employment stew." We set in place a management team in the ministry to eliminate that problem. The minister has taken yet another step in addressing that problem, and I compliment him for it. I will not be quibbling about that point.

However, there are many issues that have to be addressed, not the least of which is the ministry's future as the delivery mechanism for these youth employment dollars. Back on April 2, the current Premier, the leader of the Liberal Party, said, "The skills development minister would not be needed if the other ministers were doing the job." He said if he formed a government he was going to do away with the Ministry of Skills Development. He said that during the election campaign.

I gather the minister has had some consultants in his office looking at the way he proposes to organize this whole area with respect to coordination and consolidation. I do not know what they have told him, but I would hazard a very good guess they went back to my friend the minister and told him the present idea was right. They told him one had to take all the training, apprenticeship and youth programs out of the 12 different ministries and agencies in which they have resided and pull them together into one shop, with one central administration and one minister accountable to this House.

I am guessing that is what the consultants told the minister. I hope that is what he has been told because I am absolutely convinced it was the right course of action. I look forward to the day when the minister stands in the House and informs us Bill 9,

An Act to Establish the Ministry of Skills Development, will be put on the Orders and Notices, debated by this assembly and passed. I hope we will have a very clear and unequivocal statement to that effect in the near future.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It will be in the early fall.

Mr. Gillies: I believe early fall has arrived. I would say to the minister there is a lingering concern and unease among the many people and agencies that deliver these programs, among the administrators of the community colleges and the youth employment centres, the municipalities and the secondary schools.

All of these people are saying, as they said to me and are now saying to the new minister: "For God's sake, we think you have got it together here. We think you have the mechanism that is going to properly co-ordinate these programs. Is it going to stay?" Because of statements made by the current Premier in the past, there is a lingering unease as to whether this mechanism will stay in place. I urge the minister to make a clear statement on that in the near future.

I think the program announced today offers some possible benefits. I want to review it very carefully, but with respect to pre-employment counselling, follow-up and duration of program, I can actually say the minister may have moved in some of the directions I believe our government would have were we still in power. However, I would say to the minister the dispute we are having about the number of jobs and the dollar commitment in this area is not trivial, and it is not one on which I will easily surrender.

We are not talking only about dollars that somehow go out of the Treasurer's coffers across the province and disappear; we are talking about dollars that give incentives to put young people to work. In a province, in a country with unemployment levels amongst our young people of more than 12 per cent, much worse than in some of the other industrialized countries of the west, I believe this is a very serious disagreement the minister and I are having.

The minister has said today, both inside and outside the chamber, he disagrees with me that the budgeted figures for the programs that are being eliminated so that he can introduce his new program are of the magnitude of $132 million. I believe I am correct in saying he has suggested to the media we have included summer programs and other things superfluous to what we are discussing in my figures.

I will state unequivocally here and now that is not the case. The six programs that have been eliminated to facilitate the future programs are not summer experience programs, the Ontario youth employment programs, they are the year-round programs that we introduced as part of the 1984 budget.

If the minister will go back and look at his figures, he will find what I am saying is true. I also have looked at the ministry estimates, the estimate papers which we have so far, that would indicate we had budgeted under the old programs, under the youth envelope, something in excess of $119 million, I believe, plus the Ontario career action program, which the minister will know came out of the training portion of the ministry as opposed to the job creation portion.

Therefore, I believe the program announced today, while it may have merit in its program design and I will not condemn it out of hand, is using recycled money. It is using money we would have committed under the old programs.

Mr. Warner: Maybe he was misleading the House. Does the member think perhaps he was misleading the House?

Mr. Gillies: If so, I am sure he did it inadvertently, I would say to my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), because I think the Minister of Skills Development is a man of unimpeachable integrity and I would not besmirch his character.

However, again in these ongoing discussions we had discussions last week arising out of the failure of the ministry to fund adequately some of the programs that were about to expire in expectation of the program announced today. The minister again disputed with me that there had been a turning off of the tap on the Ontario Youth Corps and Youth Works.

One of the great things about being in opposition is receiving brown envelopes. I hope my friends in the NDP have this experience some day now that they have surrendered utterly to the government. Today I feel I have somehow lost my innocence; today I got my first brown envelope.

It is a memorandum dated September 27 from Bill Wolfson, the very excellent administrator of the Ontario youth secretariat and a very fine public servant. It is his memorandum to the ministry program managers of the Ontario Youth Corps, dated September 27.

Mr. Philip: They did not shred that one?

Mr. Gillies: Apparently not. If I may quote, in a document dated September 27 he told his ministry program managers, "Under the youth corps program, new commitments for employment must not be made," and the word "not" is underlined. New commitments of money must not be made as of September 27.

In all the years I worked with Bill Wolfson I never doubted his word, and I do not doubt his word in that memorandum either. So it would appear there was some winding down of programs before the initiation of the new program.

This leads me, then, to wonder whether there is money left unexpended in the budget of the old programs. Again I believe that to be the case and I believe that if the minister checks, if he does not already know, he will find there was money unexpended in youth corps programs. I have reason to believe it may be something in excess of $2 million.

As part of this debate and as part of the process the Treasurer will go through in setting his spending priorities for the coming year, I want to urge him and the Minister of Skills Development to increase their commitment. I want to urge them to increase the magnitude of their commitment to the young people of our province.

I believe we as a government demonstrated our commitment in this area and we pledged a further $100 million in funding for training and youth employment before the new government took over. I would urge the minister to lobby the Treasurer. I see they are sitting together; they may be talking about this very thing. Lobby our friend the Treasurer for some more money.

He can do so with the full knowledge that if he asks the people -- and the Treasurer will know this, because the polls have been released; he has the polls -- if he checks the polls he will find that if he asks the average taxpaying citizen in this province what he believes are the most important areas in which government can expend funds for the benefit of its people, number one is a tie between health care and youth employment spending. He could increase this funding and bring about the kind of meaningful program we need with the full support of the people.

4:30 p.m.

In days to come, we will also talk about apprenticeship and training programs. I want the minister to consider that thousands of young people across the province are going into apprenticeship programs and about half of them graduate from the programs. That is a real problem, but it is not a new problem. In a report dated March 1984, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the current Minister of Community and Social Services, highlighted that very problem. He said, "Before the recession, apprenticeship conditions relative to new registrations were 39 per cent in 1981 and an average of 56 per cent in the years preceding the recession."

He was saying that before the recession about half the young people going into apprenticeship programs finished them, and that since the recession the number appears to have gone down. I want to enter into a dialogue with the minister in the days to come, during the estimates or whenever we have the opportunity, as to what we can do.

I believe we have to build a new type of apprenticeship mechanism. We have to make the programs modular. They should be shorter in duration and more flexible because many young people in our fast-moving society today are not prepared to make a four- or five-year commitment to an apprenticeship program.

I ask the minister to consider whether these programs should be completely redesigned, such that a trainee can go into apprenticeship and take one module of work for perhaps six months, go out into the work force for a while, come back and take another unit of work for another period of time, and so on; and at the end of a given number of programs receive his apprenticeship papers. Such a system would be more flexible, more reasonable and more in tune with the type of economy and work force we have today.

The minister and the Treasurer will know as well as I that people change their full-time jobs, their professions, more today, and they will do so more in the future, than at any time in the history of the world. It is expected the average person going into the work force today will have no fewer than seven full-time jobs before he retires. We have to build in the flexibility required by that. We have to reflect the changing society in our programs.

We will disagree over some of these issues. I suspect we will agree on many others. In his budget on Thursday and in all that he does to set the spending priorities of this government for the coming year, I urge the Treasurer to increase dramatically his commitment to youth employment and training and to try to make a real dent in the problem and strike a blow for the more than 125,000 unemployed young people in this province.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to use my opportunity to participate in this debate to discuss some of the major concerns facing consumers. In particular, I would like to focus on some of the concerns of my constituents in Sault Ste. Marie and of others across northern Ontario. An issue that must be addressed by the province, as well as by the federal government in Ottawa, is the issue of corporate concentration in our economy.

That is a growing phenomenon in our country. Competitive forces are being replaced by monopoly interests, particularly in northern Ontario, and this is restricting the choices of consumers on the products they can get and the prices they have to pay.

The escalation of prices to consumers is of concern, particularly to myself and other members representing northern Ontario. We face high costs of gasoline, heating fuel, electricity and other energy costs, for example, in an area where we have a colder climate and we need more transportation because of the distances involved. The Treasurer should consider doing something to relieve the fuel price disadvantage in northern Ontario compared to the prices available to consumers in southern Ontario.

As well as the price issue, we are seeing rationalization of operations in a number of areas, which is creating job losses. We are seeing unproductive investments, where one firm is using its financial resources to purchase other firms in the same business. These investments are not generating new capital equipment or plant expansions, but instead are being used as an opportunity to shut down facilities and rationalize operations, and this is causing job losses.

As a result, we are seeing greater levels of unemployment, particularly in northern Ontario. This is an area where, in terms of the budget, of the tax revenues that are available to the province and to the federal government, and of the social costs of supporting the high level of unemployment, we are facing a considerable disadvantage in not addressing this problem of concentration of power.

I would like to address a few specific examples of concern to me. First, I would like to talk about the situation in the retail grocery store industry in my home community. In Sault Ste. Marie most of the major grocery outlets are abandoning the community. The concentration of the grocery business is falling more and more into the hands of one major player. For example, Loblaws has now almost abandoned northern Ontario. They sold two of their major stores to A and P in the Sault and are left with only one bulk food store in the city.

This is a store that consumers do not much enjoy using. There is no personal service available in the store. It has cut down considerably on staff. Grocery items are not individually priced, which causes tremendous inconvenience and confusion in the minds of consumers. This is an issue I hope the province is addressing. The volume pressure on clerks in the bulk food store operation results in consumers having to do much of the work of bagging their groceries themselves. This creates a situation where the elderly in particular are not interested in using such a facility.

Another major chain, which used to be the largest chain in the Sault, was Dominion Stores. They appear to be abandoning their business all across Canada. In the Sault they sold four of their stores to A and P a year or so ago, along with about 90 stores across the province that were sold to A and P. At that time A and P agreed to purchase the Dominion chain as a separate going concern.

4:40 p.m.

Another major chain is Safeway, which has one store in the Sault. It now appears they are abandoning the city as well. There are indications they are about to close that store and not to build the new, larger facility they had previously planned. As a result, in the Sault right now A and P controls seven of the 10 major grocery outlets in the city.

Last week they announced they would close one of their outlets in the western end of the city. This is one of only two grocery operations in the western half of the city of Sault Ste. Marie. As a result, the closure will severely restrict the choice of consumers in the Sault who are living in that part of the town as to where they can purchase their groceries. They are subject to no choice in terms of the price charged in the A and P store that remains there.

A and P notified 48 full-time employees of layoff in the Sault. For a city that has an unemployment rate approaching 20 per cent, this move by A and P is a major blow to our community. That particular store employs about 25 full-time employees and the fact that 48 employees have been notified of layoff suggests very strongly that other store shutdowns are to come.

In fact, the management of A and P has said that if economic conditions do not improve there could be more closures in the city. In other words, if nothing changes there will be more shutdowns. It may be that all four of the Dominion Stores in the Sault may eventually be shut down by A and P.

As a result, there is a growing level of consumer dissatisfaction in our community. Consumers are not happy with the lack of choice of locations at which they can purchase their groceries. They are not given a choice of different types of grocery operations because 70 per cent of the market is now in the hands of one operator, A and P.

There is fear that the monopoly situation will have serious consequences in terms of prices in the city. We need some type of tough legislation that will ensure concentration of power in an industry like this cannot go beyond a certain level for one major player in the market.

It would also appear that arrangements have been made between some of the major players for other communities in northern Ontario. I understand that in Thunder Bay a similar type of rationalization is going on, but in that case the major player is not A and P but Safeway, which is buying up the outlets of the other major grocery store operators in that community.

One would wonder whether Safeway and A and P have made a decision to split up the operation between communities like Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, with Safeway abandoning Sault Ste. Marie while A and P abandons Thunder Bay. Meanwhile, Dominion has abandoned both of them and Loblaws is quickly fading out.

This is one example of corporate concentration in northern Ontario, but there are others. In the past I have discussed the problem of gasoline prices in northern Ontario, in particular in Sault Ste. Marie where there are no independent operators remaining. Gasoline prices in the Sault have been at a fixed level now for nearly two years.

It is a major, high-profile issue in the city and there is a serious question about whether price-fixing is in place in that industry in our community. The operators in the Sault tell me that all the prices are set here in Toronto and the gas station operators in the Sault have no control over the prices being charged. I strongly believe we need a major investigation into the pricing policies of the major gasoline companies in the north.

One of the major players which could be having a positive effect is Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada has purchased Gulf Canada recently and, in doing so, has further concentrated the number of stations in the hands of relatively few companies, bu