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

November 28, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Mahoney moved resolution 33:

That in the opinion of this House, since every member of provincial Parliament must have a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget, in order to ensure governing parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province, the government of Ontario should introduce reforms to the laws governing the Legislature to ensure that (

a) the defeat of a government bill will not mean the automatic defeat of the government, so that individual members would have more leverage on a government; (

b) governments would only be defeated in the Legislature on express votes of confidence or non-confidence; and (

c) the budgetary process would be dramatically opened up to greater public input before decisions are finalized, and to move most of the budget-making process out from behind closed doors.

Mr Mahoney: I am very pleased to move ballot item 47 and to talk to members of this House and to the public in general about reforms I believe should take place in our parliamentary system.

We all hear from our constituents on a regular basis that they are unhappy with the process they view taking place in this House and in government in general. There is a general malaise in the community, a sense that legislators are not allowed the freedom to perform their duties as perhaps they would see fit. The whole issue of party discipline is coming under a lot of discussion.

Much of this, members will realize, comes out of movements such as the Reform Party, and we hear extremist views calling for things like recall of members of Parliament and members of the Legislature. I am sure members opposite are delighted that a recall procedure is not in place, otherwise there might be a number of current members who would be going back to the polls as a result of the past 15 months in government. Yes, the member for Lincoln can wave goodbye. I am sure he would be leaving, as a matter of fact.

I have not gone that far in this resolution, to suggest that recall is indeed a proper process, because frankly I do not think it is in a system where people are elected in a three-party system. If we were to have recall, I am sure virtually every one of us would face such a motion from the opponents in our ridings.

It does not go that far. It deals, in a very pragmatic sense, with the workings of the government in relation to an MPP. We all know, and I am sure the members opposite would understand from their experience in their first 15 months in office, that the way the system works is that a minister -- or a bureaucrat, in most cases -- will come up with a piece of legislation or a particular bill of some type to introduce. If you are lucky, they will take it into your caucus and you will get an opportunity for input.

If you do not have that opportunity, they will simply come forward and tell you what they are doing and then it becomes the job of the whip -- and I see the chief government whip is here this morning -- to get all members whipped into shape so that they come in and vote en masse. So far the record is quite impeccable. Members have been trained quite well to simply put up their hands or stand at attention. We understand that under party discipline that is basically how the system is worked.

I am attempting to put forward something in a non-partisan and non-controversial sense that perhaps locally elected MPPs can grasp as a rallying point. It is very important to understand that this is not to throw some kind of confrontational aspect forward.

Let's face it, when a member arrives at Queen's Park and gets on a committee, he or she is told, "Today in committee we are going to deal with the estimates for the Ministry of Community and Social Services." The immediate reaction is, "Estimates means that we are going to deal with the next budget period and what they estimate they will spend." In reality, they wind up dealing with last year's budget. How in the world they ever put the name "estimates" on last year's budget has always been a puzzlement to me.

Members are not really having an impact on the budget and neither are members of the opposition, because the decisions have already been made. Oh, sure, members can put forward suggestions asking that they investigate why this was done or why that was done. My resolution says we should have a process where members of provincial Parliament clearly have an opportunity to examine proposals, true estimates of a particular ministry, where we could perhaps hold some town hall meetings and take those proposals to the people in our community.

Some have said: "You know, you've just got to understand that governments have to make tough decisions and, boy, if we are going to leave it to the whim of the individual member or the opinions of the people out there, a government would never get anything done. Sometimes you've got to bite the bullet and make these tough decisions."

I believe we must change the process to allow for more public input into the budget, the legislative process and new bills and to allow members to speak on behalf of their constituents. We know we are not always going to agree. Who can get a consensus on every issue in a particular constituency? It is very difficult. We will always have, particularly in partisan politics, somebody on one side of the issue and somebody on the other.

We have no opportunity now, as members of this House, to even try to build a consensus. Either we are given the budget after it has been developed totally in secret without having any chance for input or we are given legislation and government members are told to carry the can. It does not matter whether they agree with it.

Let's take a look at the committee process. The bills that create the most publicity in our communities, bills like Sunday shopping or public auto insurance, are issues that create a tremendous furore. What does a government do? Governments are all the same in this regard: They draft a piece of legislation and refer it to a legislative committee.

The government members on one side are told: "You will support this bill. Your job is to get it through the committee with as few amendments as possible and back into the Legislature for second, third or final reading and royal assent." The opposition members on the other side of the table are told: "You should oppose this bill. It is your responsibility to put forward amendments, to find loopholes, to embarrass the government if that is doable -- to do all those things. Your job is not to allow that bill to go back to the House too quickly." Automatically we have confrontation.

I remember sitting in a committee hearing in Kingston on rent control, Bill 121. The bickering in the committee was so terrible that somebody in the audience shouted out, "Now, children." It really struck home a point, because that is exactly how the committee was acting, like a group of children.

Unless we change the rules around here and put in a system that says you as government, or we as government when we get a chance to change the particular roles, have identified a problem. Let's take Sunday shopping. We have identified this problem. Some people want to shop, some do not. Some people want to work, some do not. Business thinks it is good, labour thinks it is bad. Let's refer this to an all-party committee and ask the committee to write a report, bring it back into the Legislature and report to the minister so the minister could take the views of the public and the individual MPPs in all three parties and write the legislation.

It would not take one day longer. We would still have committee hearings. It would eliminate the confrontation we experience at all levels of parliamentary democracy. It would allow for each MPP to voice his or her concerns over a particular bill. It would allow for members of the public to have real input. Then the bill could be written and introduced back into this place for the kind of particularly partisan debate that takes place and perhaps belongs in this House. I call it inverse legislation. You simply take the legislative process, flip it upside down and say, "We're really going to go out and try to listen to the people."

This resolution says, "in order to ensure governing parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province," and to ensure that MPPs have "a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget." We can do this kind of thing with the budgetary process. We should let MPPs talk about next year's budget. Let's start in the summer of the preceding year. Let's get the ministries' budgetary process out and have the staff come in. We have committee hearings through the summer, let's assign the standing committee on finance and economic affairs the task of going over what it is going to do next year.

It does not mean the government is required to do what the committee says, but it clearly means that MPPs can say: "We don't think you should do this or that in your budget. We don't think you should follow this or that approach in your legislative agenda. Our committee is recommending that you do the following things." What a refreshing change that would be. What a refreshing change to actually allow members of this House an opportunity for openness.

Let's understand that I clearly add the caveat, to protect the sensitivity of any government, that it will not necessarily mean the defeat of the government. If a member votes against a government bill, it does not mean the defeat of the government; that can only happen on express votes of confidence or non-confidence.

In my remaining 10 seconds, let me ask the ladies and gentlemen for their support of this resolution. Let me suggest to them in an open, friendly, non-partisan way that we need to do reforms in this place and this would be a good place to begin.

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to make a few brief comments on this resolution from my colleague the member for Mississauga West. I support this resolution in principle because it is fundamental to the democratic process that each individual member of this House, whether sitting on the government side or the opposition benches, has an opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of the Legislature. The reforms called for by this resolution would make the contribution of all members more meaningful and better equip us to reflect the wishes and the views of our constituents.

That is what it is all about, to bring the views of our constituents here and to be able to make sure that, when legislation is being dealt with, those views are part of that legislation.

I think we all agree that the most controversial issues, such as the April 1991 budget with its original $10-billion deficit or the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act that will destroy the unique partnership between labour and business, are dealt with in a partisan manner. The opposition lines up on one side against the government backbenchers. Even though the government members may be opposed to these controversial measures, government members are told to support these measures because the defeat of a government bill will mean the defeat of the government.

This government has even gone far enough that when one member voted agin tobacco tax in his riding, he was fired as chairman of the committee, which is totally unacceptable in this day and age.

I believe this resolution will result in some cross-party, issues-based coalitions forming to deal with matters that are really relevant to our constituents and that would result in a true reflection of the views, opinions and concerns of the people who elect us to represent them. These cross-party, issues-based coalitions would dramatically open up the budgetary process to greater public input, rather than hiding the process behind closed doors.

I have had the opportunity to sit on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. When we are going through the budgetary processes, pretty well the same groups come before that committee every year to make their presentations. We sit there and we listen and we hear much the same thing year after year. The governments listen but they do not act. I think that process has got to be opened up whereby there are more people being listened to than I have observed being listened to in the last while.

Perhaps if this had been the case back in April, the people of Ontario would not have been confronted with a budget that contains 14 tax increases, a 219% increase in Ontario's deficit and a debt for each man, woman and child in this province of $5,700. That is the debt of every one. Perhaps if this had been the case back in April, the people of Ontario would not have been smacked in their wallets with a budget that will long be remembered as the beginning of Ontario's slide into the devastating spiral of increasing taxes and decreasing economic activity.

At this point in the discussion, it should be noted that 88% of those in the riding of Simcoe East who responded to a recent questionnaire of mine indicated that they do not think it was appropriate for the provincial government to double Ontario's debt over four years. That is the long-term, four-year goal of this province. That is what the people are saying.

Perhaps if the government had moved most of the budget-making process out from behind closed doors and sought public input before unveiling the budget last April, it would have gained a great deal of insight into the true views, opinions and concerns of the province. Perhaps if the government had consulted with the people of Ontario, it would have discovered that 88% of the population of this province, not just in the riding of Simcoe East that I represent, do not think it is appropriate for the government to double its debt in four years.

I believe if each member of this Legislature, including the government backbenchers, had a real opportunity to impact on such proposals as the government's move to change the Labour Relations Act, it would ensure the governing party would remain sensitive to all regions of the province and to such diverse groups as representatives of labour and business.

A growing number of workers and businesses in my riding and throughout all Ontario are increasingly worried that the proposed overhaul of Ontario's labour and employment laws will result in the destruction of the unique partnership between labour and business. It is a partnership that is necessary if Ontario is to remain economically healthy and vibrant.

As I pointed out yesterday in the Legislature, the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce, with approximately 200 businesses and individuals who employ more than 25,000 people, placed a full-page advertisement in the November 23 edition of the Orillia Packet and Times under the heading "Enough is Enough." This ad stated in no uncertain terms that Ontario does not need an overhaul of these laws because existing businesses cannot afford additional costs and restrictions.

If the government had sought input from the public, from the labour movement, from business and from members of this Legislature before setting out to change our labour laws, it would have discovered that such amendments are not necessary and will further add to the damage already caused by the April budget. They will damage this province's already fragile ability to compete in the world marketplace.

The Minister of Labour or one of his colleagues in the government back benches should have stopped by a recent town hall meeting in Midland -- perhaps the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's busy

schedule did not allow him to be there -- which was held to give representatives of labour and business an opportunity to discuss the promotion of competitiveness and prosperity.

The minister or one of his backbenchers would have discovered that labour and business do not want the proposed changes to our labour and employment laws. I have his attention; he is looking. They want unions to be toned down, they want workers to have an opportunity to choose whether or not they want to belong to a union and they want the government to stop forcing industries to leave Ontario because of labour laws.

They also want what I suspect most members of this Legislature want, and that is for the government to scrap the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. They do not want the government to give prospective investors one more reason not to invest in Ontario. They want the government to develop proposals that address job creation and attraction. They want proposals that will invite and retain employer investment in Ontario.

As I noted earlier, I support the principle and spirit of this resolution. I believe that had it already been in place before the April budget and before the government announced the changes to its labour laws and employment laws, the people of this province would have ultimately been the winners. They would have been winners because they would have been allowed to participate, along with their elected members, more directly and fully in Ontario's democratic process. I support any measures that open up the democratic process.

I support moves that give all members of this House a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws, the budget and issues of certain people in all regions of this province.

I had the opportunity this morning to attend the breakfast for the forestry industry of this province. It so happened that I left home in Orillia at 5 o'clock in the morning and arrived here at 7:30 in time for that very important breakfast. What the forest industry was discussing this morning, and it left a lot of concern with many of the members who took the time to attend with this very important industry in Ontario, was that there are 75,000 jobs there.

They indicated to us the four major concerns they have. The four major concerns have to do with the Ministry of the Environment hearings that take place in the forest industry, the costs of the Workers' Compensation Board, the increased fees and rates and the hydro rates. They indicate that if it is true that hydro is going to increase 14%, many of them will be out of business. The fourth major concern they have has to do with the labour laws. Those are four very important issues to labour in this province.

The minister was there, and he spoke about how the investment taking place in British Columbia and Quebec is far superior to what is taking place here in Ontario by those companies that are in business. It shows me they are afraid to further invest heavily in the forest industry. Why? Because of our hydro rates and because of some of the labour laws they are initiating. It is very clear why this forest industry in Ontario, which provides 75,000 jobs, is --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would suggest that you should speak to the resolution.

Mr McLean: I think this has to do with the resolution and I want to carry on with this aspect because this resolution has an awful lot to do with the budgetary process and would dramatically open up greater public input. That is

section (

c) of the motion I am speaking to when I talk about whether they are investing in Ontario or whether they are investing in Quebec or in British Columbia. These are decisions that are not finalized when we are dealing with the budgetary process in the finance and economic affairs committee.

When we are dealing with that process in the committee, we see that the funding for the non-profit, free credit counselling services, a last-ditch agency for desperate consumers who in good faith want to pay their bills, has been cut from this budgetary process by this government in order to allow those people to pay their own way, which they see as important.

When we look at offloading and downloading when we are talking about the budgetary process, I think this resolution this member has here today to open up the process to allow members to have that free vote they feel would be so important to their constituents -- if this motion had been in place when the member for Lincoln had the opportunity to vote for his constituents, there would not have been the problem that was created within his own party.

For many years I have come to this Legislature with the views of the people I represent. I get them every week, and I respect those people's input and I accept it. That is why the people and the public today are so upset with their politicians, because we have a government here that made all kinds of promises. Once they got elected, they came to Queen's Park, formed a government, and all of a sudden they have changed those commitments.

That is what we are talking about, accountability, and that is what members are talking about, accountability to their constituents. That is why we read of other parties in this province and in Canada that are saying: "We want to open up the process. We want our members to be able to vote as their constituents feel they should vote."

This resolution from the member for Mississauga West really does that and I would urge every member in this Legislature to support it. I do not know how any government member here today could not support this resolution. It gives every member of the provincial Parliament an opportunity "to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget, in order to ensure governing parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province." I think this is a very important resolution and I commend the member for bringing it forward.

I hope that perhaps the member for Lincoln will have an opportunity to speak on it and express his view that a free vote is so important in this Legislature and the reasons it is so important. Too many politicians forget that we are the servants of the people who elect us.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I am pleased to rise today to speak on the resolution by the honourable member for Mississauga West. I do not often get a chance to speak in the House because I do not have a portfolio. I do not make ministerial statements or member's statements. I am waiting to hear from the Speaker if I can answer questions in question period. I thank the deputy whip, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, for squeezing me on to the speakers' list.

I agree with the member for Mississauga West, whose resolution reads that MPPs need "a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget." The people of Ontario would certainly also agree that they want their elected representatives to speak out for them.

It was because of an interest in shaping public policy that I decided to run for public office in the first place. Now, in my capacity as the MPP for Niagara South, I bring the concerns of my constituents to caucus, cabinet and this House so that we may work to address the issues that concern them.

Weekly, I meet and discuss the area's concerns with individuals, business people and community action groups from Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Niagara Falls and the smaller communities of Ridgeway, Crystal Beach and Stevensville. Groups from all across Ontario, such as Port Cares, Fort Erie COPE and the Project Share program from Niagara Falls, are all welcome to participate in the government process. These community outreach groups reflect the concerns of all Ontarians and it is my privilege to bring those concerns to this House.

It was a pleasant surprise last September to become a member of the NDP government in Ontario and it is an honour to be the voice of the people of Niagara South in this fine Legislature. I also want to stress the role of MPPs in Her Majesty's loyal opposition. New Democrats have had years and years of opposition and I am proud of that history and the contributions of such people as Mel Swart, Stephen Lewis, Donald MacDonald and Ted Jolliffe as well as the members of our caucus who have served on both sides of this House. I think back to J. S. Woodsworth and his caucus and the enormous influence they had on Canadian history.

All MPPs, regardless of party, have an important influence in the political process. Through the work of individual MPPs in the House, in committees, in our constituencies and in our caucuses, all members, government and opposition, have an opportunity to make a difference. For that reason, I was touched, as were many members in this House, by the remarks of the Lieutenant Governor on Monday when he said to all members, "I just want you to know that if at any time I can speak out in terms of letting the people of this province, of this country, know how hard elected members pursue their responsibilities and with such excellence, I will do so."

Today's resolution also refers to ensuring that government parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province. Let's just look at the members who sit in the chamber. This is the changing face of government: women, including a record number of women in cabinet; a registered nursing assistant; teachers; lawyers; small business people; grassroots community activists, and the first-ever elected deaf representative in the world who uses American sign language.

The chamber is starting to reflect the population of the province. It is no longer simply white middle-class men who decide what is best for the rest of the population. I am proud to be part of a government which is not only sensitive but also more reflective of the population of Ontario than any other government to date. We have only to look at the historical pictures in the hallways of this building to see how far we have come.

I also support the part of the resolution by the member for Mississauga West which refers to opening up the process to greater public input. I am proud to be part of a government which opened its doors to those who have traditionally been excluded from the decision-making process.

One of the first things this government announced was the creation of the Fair Tax Commission to look at the entire tax system and make it fairer. The 10 commissioners come from all walks of life and bring with them the perspectives of business, labour, community groups and other organizations. Some are tax specialists, but they all want to create a tax system in Ontario that is fair.

This government's first budget was introduced after extensive consultation with various interest groups, all sectors of society, including communities, labour and business. In some cases, we were hearing from groups that were being heard for the first time. The standing committee on finance and economic affairs held several weeks of pre-budget consultations and recommended that the process be expanded. Our Treasurer has already announced that he will be expanding the pre-budget consultations.

The Premier has said that we want to share with the Ontario public as much as possible the information that is going to allow them to see what the choices are and what the consequences will be of the various steps and choices.

The people of Ontario, as well as the members of the newly elected government, were shocked to learn last fall that there was a $2.5-billion deficit rather than the $23-million surplus we had been led to believe existed. We do not want to see that repeated. We do not want to see that happen ever again in Ontario.

Other issues we have consulted extensively on include the select committee of Ontario in Confederation, including travel to remote communities all across Ontario and discussions around the social charter, and family support, so that women and children get money which is rightfully due to them. Of support orders filed, 75% are in arrears. Over $400 million in support payments are unpaid. This is an important part of the fight against the poverty of women and children in Ontario.

We consulted extensively on rent control and introduced legislation which protects tenants from huge increases in rent. This list goes on. We have talked with people in Ontario.

Kapuskasing: After weeks of discussion, the Ontario government, Kimberly-Clark, Tembec, the employees ownership group and Ontario Hydro worked out an agreement together to save as many jobs as possible at Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. To date, the employees, the community of Kapuskasing and the surrounding area have raised $15 million. This shows what can be done when people work together.

Bill 70, the wage protection fund, gives laid-off workers money owed to them. Bill 115, the Sunday shopping legislation, protects retail workers while addressing the concerns we hear from business and municipalities.

There are major consultations in progress presently on reforms to the Labour Relations Act, employment equity, long-term care and several other initiatives made by this government. Again, these are opportunities to hear from individuals and groups that have never been heard from and have never been part of the decision-making process.

A fine example of openness and sensitivity of this government is our appointments process. We have opened up the process and are encouraging greater public participation in agencies, boards and commissions. The record of this government on public input speaks for itself.

In conclusion, I support, in principle, the resolution by the member for Mississauga West. However, I will be voting against it. I think it is up to the governing party, whichever party it may be, to show the political will to remain sensitive to all regions of the province, to allow individual members to have leverage on government and to open up the budgetary process. This government has that political will.

Ms Poole: I am very pleased to speak to this resolution by the member for Mississauga West. He has been talking about reform to Parliament for many years and how to make it so that individual members in this Legislature would have more influence and be better able to reflect the views of their constituents. He was fighting this battle long before it became popular or trendy, so I am pleased to support his resolution.

When we were elected to this place, one of our major requirements, at least in my mind, was that we would reflect the views of our constituents, fight their battles and help make their lives better. It may seem idealistic, but that is one of the major reasons I ran for Parliament. What I found when I came here was that this was not the situation. There was very little freedom of individual members in this Legislature to vote their own conscience and to vote according to how their constituents would wish them to vote.

I find it notable that the government whip took almost all the government's time, not allowing its private members to have an opportunity to speak. I know the member for Welland-Thorold would have had many comments to make in this House. He has been deprived because their whip brought out the whip.

She said such things as that their government had made moves to reflect the general makeup of the population in this House. I say to her that it has to be more than tokenism. Yes, the government has 10 women in its cabinet. We Liberals had six women in our cabinet, but every one of those women had influence and power and could effect changes. I wish I could say the same of those 10 women in the NDP cabinet. Too often the NDP will bump up the numbers simply so it can say it has done this wonderful thing, but what does it really mean? When they say they have opened up the public input and the public process to include those who had been excluded, I say that is nothing but a sham.

I will give members a perfect example. This government spent $500,000 -- at least it acknowledged it spent $500,000; it probably spent much more but hid it through consultant fees and other ways. They acknowledge they spent $500,000 on distributing a tenant flyer for Bill 4. When this holier-than-thou government took a look at the reactions of tenants -- it had polling to do this which it has never shared with the House -- the polling showed that tenants had no awareness of this mailout, they were not aware of public hearings and they really did not know what Bill 4 and Bill 121 were all about.

The government made a big deal about the fact that it was involving tenants. They have to go beyond this and do it the right way.

To get specifically to the resolution, what the member for Mississauga West has proposed is a way to open the doors for members to exercise more freedom of choice in this Legislature without bringing down the government so that in an incident such as when the member for Lincoln voted against his government last week he would not be punished for doing it. Instead, he should be congratulated for standing up for his constituents and doing what his constituents would have wanted him to do. We have to ensure that members are doing what is right for the people, not what a majority in the cabinet has decreed.

There is a lot of diversity in this province from one end to the other. There are many people in this province who do not share the same ideas as those in other parts. For instance, my colleague the member for Kenora deals with very different problems than I do. I deal with problems such as market value assessment and tenant protection, while issues such as highway transportation and the quality and availability of health care are far more important to his constituents.

Let's open up the process so the member for Kenora can vote as he wants to and the member for Eglinton can vote how she wants to, in the best interests of our constituents. This resolution will accomplish that. I firmly support this and think that any free-thinking member of this Legislature cannot fail to do so.

Mr Kormos: I have three minutes and 47 seconds. I have been here for a little bit longer than some of my other colleagues in government. I sat among the 19 people when there were only 19 people in opposition, and I have been in a few of these debates during private members' hours wherein there are 50 minutes to be shared among the speakers. I have never in my party experienced an occasion when that time has not been equitably split. However, I am going to extend the member for Lincoln a courtesy that was not extended to either him or me and ensure that he has at least two minutes and 30 seconds.

That clearly does not give him an opportunity to say all he would want to say; it does not give me an opportunity to say all I would want to say.

My position in this regard is probably reasonably well known. I think it is incredibly important that people in this Legislative Assembly recognize their obligations not to those powers within the caucus that put them in or out of a cabinet chair but to the powers that put them in or out of this Legislative Assembly. Those, of course, are the people who live and vote in our respective ridings. The people in those ridings will be far harsher with each and every one of us should we fail to serve them than any whip or House leader or party leader could ever be.

I am in support of this resolution. It is the most modest of proposals. It echoes McGrath, and of course everybody here knows what the McGrath report said. It echoes what was said most recently and most articulately -- far be it from me not to plug a book when it is a good one -- in A Capital Scandal by Fife and Warren, required reading which is available at This Ain't The Rosedale Library on Church Street or down in Welland at Marg McPherson's For the Love of Books on King Street. The members should buy it and read it. I surrender the floor because my time is so brief.

Mr Mancini: I rise to support my colleague's resolution. The member for Mississauga West wants to open up the process here in the Legislature. My colleague wants to give authority and responsibility to the members of the Legislative Assembly. I believe that up until a few short years ago most people believed their member of the Legislature did in fact have authority and responsibility.

My experience has shown me that particularly over the past four or five years, and made even more sensitive by the past 16 months, the people in my constituency believe the elected members of the Legislature basically are a bunch of water boys. They believe this for a variety of reasons. They attend meetings in ridings with their members. They present letters and petitions to their members. They present policy papers to their members. Some of them join political parties. Some of them attend political conventions. Some of them pass political resolutions.

Some of them belong to associations, organizations, businesses and unions, all of which try to further their own individual interests. It no longer comes to them as a surprise that the members of the Legislature in fact do not have the authority and the responsibility they once believed we had to make an impact or to influence important legislation or the views of the powerful people at the centre of every political party.

I have sat in this Legislature under a Conservative government, I have sat in this Legislature under a Liberal government and I am sitting in this Legislature under a socialist government. Far too many things are the same. In every situation, a small group of people at the centre -- how they get there sometimes we do not know -- control and direct the complete operations of this Legislature and all its committees.

I was saddened to hear the speech by the government whip. I was saddened for two reasons. First, it was obvious the speech was prepared for her, which I consider to be fundamentally incorrect when we are speaking on a resolution that talks about giving more authority and responsibility to members of the Legislature. She was reading what was prepared for her.

Second, I was disappointed because she did not fundamentally address the points on this resolution by the member for Mississauga West as to how we could increase the authority and responsibility of the members of the Legislature. That is what I want to do today.

I want to make it very clear and plain for all who are listening in this assembly and for all who are watching that I have not been happy with the way Parliament has been run during my 17 years here. It has been consistent through every office and through every party in power. All that have held office have had the same attitude towards members of the Legislature: We are here to support the power structure that seems to gel in the middle and that seems to want to run everything that affects the members of the Legislature, the Legislative Assembly, the committees and everything we have to do.

I can recall during my early years in Parliament there were a number of reformers in all political parties. We got together and asked what we could do to give members of the Legislature more authority and responsibility so that we could better represent our constituents. That is what it is about.

During campaign time, we all run door to door, street to street, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, township to township, town to town and say, "Send me to Queen's Park and I will speak for you." But after the election is over, we sit idly by and allow the superstructures that have developed here to prevent us from doing that. Anyone who does not want to admit that has no intention of representing the wishes of his or her constituents.

A number of years ago, a group of reformers from all parties -- I can remember Mike Breaugh, Sam Cureatz, myself and a few others -- asked, "What can we do so that we can truly represent our constituents?" We wanted private members' bills, which we have now on Thursdays. However, that system has been perverted by the government whips and the people at the centre of power in all parties. We wanted more responsibility in committee, but now that has been perverted by the government whips and by the people at the centre of power in all parties.

We saw what happened to the member for Lincoln when he wanted to speak for his constituents. We saw what happened to the member for Welland-Thorold when he wanted to speak for his constituents. We need fundamental change, because the people are way ahead of Parliament.

Mr Hansen: I think I am going to choke in only a minute and 40 seconds the member left me in this speech. I have to say one thing. About a week after I was removed from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the member for Mississauga West said in one of his speeches to Port Colborne residents that this is a good idea he has proposed today in this resolution.

I will say with the time I have that I will support this resolution. I think there have to be changes made. The changes did not just happen in England; they were made because members stood up until the government finally realized there were problems with the process. I think some of these particular ones on the government would be defeated in the Legislature on express votes of confidence and non-confidence. I think we still have to show the government has power on certain bills.

I will support this resolution. I will wait for the day that the opposition parties will stand up and not vote as one party. When we had the Sunday shopping issue, I imagine there were some members on the other side who would have liked to vote for their constituents.

I have to take a look. Here at Queen's Park I have not found one person who sits on this side of the House or that side of the House who voted for me in the last election to send me to Queen's Park. I have told the people in my riding that I will take the message of what they want to Queen's Park, not what Queen's Park demands of my constituents.

Mr Sola: Before I start on my speech, I would like to correct the record as to the remarks made by the government whip regarding the deficit. I will quote from the auditor's report on page 15.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You must speak to the resolution.

Mr Sola: I will try to get that in.

The resolution attempts to remain sensitive to every region of this province: northeastern Ontario, northwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario, the Golden Horseshoe and rural areas. This resolution by the member for Mississauga West, for instance, would allow members of the government to vote against Bill 118 because it would allow those members from rural Ontario and the outlying regions who do not have access to natural gas to vote against the bill because they do not want their constituents to support a conversion for something they do not have access to. They do not want to be subsidizing areas which are richer and which have opportunities they do not.

For instance, it would allow the member for Lincoln to support his constituents without fear of retribution by the government front bench, as happened to him when he was fired from his position as Chair. It would have allowed the member for Welland-Thorold to remain true to his convictions, unlike the NDP government, and continue to promote public auto insurance instead of reneging on that heritage commitment as his NDP government has done.

However, perhaps the designation of express votes of confidence would have created the unusual situation where the member for Welland-Thorold would have been the only one to have remained true to the basic plank of the NDP government, and even the front benches would have been voting themselves out of office.

The defeat of a government bill not automatically meaning the defeat of the government was the original intention of Parliament, if I can recall back to my schooldays. It was only monetary bills and express bills of confidence that would have resulted in the defeat of a government.

I support the member for Mississauga West in his resolution.

Mr Mahoney: I would like to thank the members who have spoken in support of this resolution. I appreciate the support of the member for Lincoln and the member for Welland-Thorold particularly. The member for Lincoln said he would like to see the day when the opposition would vote freely. I should tell him this is not about bringing down the opposition. Obviously this is not the problem. The problem is the solidarity and the whipping of government; that is really what the thing speaks to.

Quite frankly, I think the speech by the chief government whip really indicates exactly what the problem is: that the government does not understand the intent and the principle of this resolution which says we are all equal. We all arrived in this place with the support of our constituents. We all campaigned for whatever party and whatever platform on the basis that we as men and women were going to do the best possible job we could on behalf of our constituents. The chief government whip, by saying she supports it in principle but is going to vote against it, clearly demonstrates exactly what the problem is.

I am going to be particularly interested to see how the government members are whipped by the chief government whip. Clearly there are some people with principles like the member for Lincoln and the member for Welland-Thorold who are standing up on behalf of their constituents. Maybe there will be some others who will support this.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I sincerely hope that Mr Hope, I hope, will do so as well. It is easy for you to say.

Very definitely, what the chief government whip has laid out is exactly what we have to stop in this place. It is exactly what we have to change, the attitude that the government will do what the government pleases: "We'll man the torpedoes and to hell with what the people out there think. The members will do what we tell them."

I hope members will show some courage, forget the whip and vote for this resolution.

SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

Mr Harris moved resolution 6:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that one in six children in this province is living in poverty and that the April 1990 Report on Food Banks by the standing committee on social development recommended the creation of school-based meal programs to provide a basic level of nutrition and that the statement to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs by the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario recommends such a program, the government of Ontario, after consultation with educators and in partnership with private sector sponsors, should establish a breakfast program for elementary schoolchildren.

Mr Harris: In 1968-69 and 1969-70, two years, I taught school in a senior public school, grade 7 and 8 children. It was not a poor area of the city of North Bay that I was teaching in, and I am going back of course now in excess of 20 years. I was responsible for what we call lunchroom supervision. All the children at our school ate lunch at school.

I was astounded by two facts: (1) the massive amount of food that was thrown out at the end of the lunch period each day and (2) the number of children, some admittedly from what members would consider poorer families, who either did not have a nutritious meal or who had nothing to eat at lunchtime. At that time, two working parents in each family was not so prevalent and single-parent families were not near the extent which they are today, particularly in many parts of the province.

We set up at that time, in response to these two things, a very simple program. We knew that many times their mothers did not pack exactly the lunch the child wanted. It may have been very nutritious, but it was always somebody else's lunch that was better than the one they had. We set up tables in the lunchroom, and under the auspices of children who were 12, 13 or 14, they could take their lunch and put it on the table. It was an exchange.

Out of that very simple program that cost absolutely nothing -- my fellow teachers accused me, a bachelor at the time, of getting a free lunch, which I did many days with the amount of food that was still left over -- it was amazing the number of children who ate somebody else's nutritious lunch, compared to their own, just because it was different. It was also significant that there was no embarrassment; there was no stigma attached to those who did not have an adequate lunch, as all children came up and shared this table.

I have since been very concerned about the increasing numbers of children who are not receiving the proper nutrition and the effect that is having, particularly in the early childhood years, on their education. In the past 25 years this thought has stayed with me. I have been very intrigued whenever there is a new study out on the correlation between lack of nutrition and lack of performance in school.

There are more and more studies coming out each day on this that reinforce the fact that there is something wrong with our attitude in Canada, as we look around to other countries of the world where, regardless of political philosophy, there is a philosophy that children ought not to be hungry. There is something very dramatic and very cost-effective and in many cases without cost in taxpayer dollars that we can do to make sure this does not happen, at least for those days when children are in school.

As members know, I get an opportunity once every two years or so to bring forward, through private members' time, a bill or a resolution. I believe this resolution, if it is supported by the Legislature and goes somewhere afterwards, if there is some initiative on the part of the government, for the fewest amount of dollars can have the largest single impact on children who are dropping out of our school system, who are not learning as they should learn, who are our most valuable resource. We are losing dramatically because of a very correctable problem and a simple nutritional problem in school.

I could share with members, and I will a little bit now and later as I sum up, the many studies that have been done that point out that hungry children are hampered in their ability to learn, in their concentration levels. They are hampered physically and academically in school. Specialists agree that children follow very predictable trends of learning and development in early stages and that the early years in the education system have a profound impact on the child's future development.

Failures in the early years have serious detrimental effects on a child's self-perception, and in many cases he or she never recovers. Regardless of the ability they had when they went there, they never recover in the later years.

Conclusively, children who go to class hungry are tired, they are disinterested and they tend to do poorly in school. Other interesting information is that children go to school without breakfast. The resolution that calls for a breakfast program is not limited to breakfast. It is nutrition, because there are many children who might have breakfast but do not have an adequate lunch. There are many children who are hungry at different times.

There are many successful programs that are providing nutrition, not simply through a breakfast program or a lunch program, but on an ongoing basis throughout the day in the classroom or in a central location. There are many running without any cost to government at all, without any taxpayer dollars at all. There are some with minimal startup costs to taxpayers. There are some with a very minimal cost to the taxpayers, with the majority being volunteers, donations and corporate sponsorship.

I attended a meeting yesterday with about 20 people, experts in this field, who run successful programs -- some nutrition programs throughout the day, some breakfast programs, some lunch programs -- in Toronto through the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, the Catholic school system, the public school system, teachers' federations from London and Waterloo. There were a number where we had consensus, but one thing was very clear: It should not be 100% a government initiative. It required the support and the involvement of the school, the community, the teachers, the principal and those in and around that particular school.

This is something the government can do at not a great cost. This is something that, if the Premier would take it on, would very quickly help children and indeed our whole society and its productivity. I have found in talking to a number of corporate sponsors who are involved and potential corporate sponsors that they would jump at the opportunity to help once they have seen the statistics and the facts of the tragic loss, not only to these children as individuals but to our society as a whole.

None of these corporate people I have talked to want any recognition. In fact most of them want to be anonymous so they are not out there with their names as a target and 100 other people will come after them for money. One of the things that was stressed was that there not be corporate involvement for corporate gain; ie, you do not want to get somebody hooked on your brand of soup and have that as the reason why you are donating your brand of soup. I have not sensed that from one single person in the corporate sector I have talked to. In fact it is the exact opposite. They do not want their name particularly associated. They just want to help.

I am asking for support for this resolution today. I am trying to elevate it. It has been talked about many times. David Peterson, the former Premier of the province, outlined it in the last campaign. He scooped me by three days, so we did not continue our announcement in the last campaign. It has been talked about by many members of the Legislature but it falls through the cracks. The Ministry of Educations says, "Don't take it out of Education dollars." The Ministry of Health says, "Don't take it out of Health dollars." The Ministry of Community and Social Services says, "Don't take it out of Comsoc dollars."

Indeed, it is one of those where it is easy to say: "We supported the resolution. We can sleep now. We're good Christians, and Christmas means more to us now that we supported this resolution," and a year from now not much more will have happened. I am asking for support today for the resolution. Indeed, I am asking for all of us in our caucuses, in cabinet, to say, "How do we make this a reality so next year we're not in the same position?"

Mr Martin: This morning my heart is gladdened as I listen to the member for Nipissing speak about this subject and speak in support of an initiative that I think all of us in this House would be more than willing to support, certainly a principle that should underlie everything we do here. I think government, in its essence, is about making sure the resources that are available to an area, a province, are distributed equitably and in a way that provides opportunity to people, particularly children, to be all they can be.

I was also heartened to hear of the member for Nipissing's personal involvement as a noon-hour aide serving lunch to children. I would like to begin my few comments today with a story of my own. My father was a janitor for a long time in a separate school in a community in northern Ontario. At one point in his tenure as janitor, there was a young boy who came to school each morning without having had breakfast, and on most days not having any lunch with him.

My father, being the sensitive, caring man he is, recognized in this boy the things being pointed out today by some of the studies that have been done around poverty and children and children's ability to operate in school if they are hungry. He recognized some of the symptoms and realized that this boy was coming to school hungry, so he would invite him into his janitor's room at lunchtime and share with him his sandwiches and his cookies. They became, through that interaction, very good friends.

The story then jumps ahead about 15 years, with my parents in a huge house they had acquired because they had many children. All of us had gone on to work or school. It was an empty house and they were feeling quite alone in their retirement years. At 1 o'clock in the morning this particular night the phone rang. It was a long-distance call from Calgary, and it was this same young boy my father had shared his sandwiches with calling him to say that today he had got his first job and that he wanted my dad to know.

I suggest to members that there is a connection between this boy's ultimately being successful and contributing and participating constructively in the world he is now living in by having a job, a job he was obviously excited about, and the fact that somebody noticed he was hungry when he was young and going to school and took the bit of time that was required to feed him.

I guess it is in the light of stories like that, which so many of us could probably tell from our personal experience and the experience of people we have talked with, that we know this resolution brought forth by the member for Nipissing this morning is a good resolution. It is the kind of thing we in this House should perhaps be focusing more attention on and giving more time to and contributing more resources to.

Just recently the Minister of Community and Social Services and myself had a meeting with some folks at a downtown school in Sault Ste Marie. The topic of discussion was the integration of children's mental health services. We had parents, we had teachers, we had officials from school boards at that meeting. The first item on the agenda -- we were expecting it might be different -- was the issue of children and poverty, and nutrition and food, and the possibility of a breakfast program.

I like this resolution. I like it as a suggestion. I think it speaks to a real need in our province today. Certainly no one in government or on the other side can deny that we do have in front of us a real challenge around the question of poverty, particularly where it affects children.

In a report by the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition on poverty in Ontario, I think in April 1991, there is a comment made at the very beginning about the issue of poverty: "What is most shocking, however, is that 400,000 children in this province live in poverty and that 25% of the children who are poor in Canada grow up in this province."

With those facts and figures in front of us, I think we really do need to look at ways that we as a community can come together most creatively in front of this question. I refer as well to an

article in a magazine put out, I believe, by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It says: "The Ontario New Democratic Party's 1984 report is right. For the poor, education means burdens, not opportunities; imprisonment, not liberty. As child poverty numbers continue to climb in this recession-ridden 1991, the education system must come under greater scrutiny."

The question is, how are we hindering students living in poverty? The answer is a complicated one and is going to require all of us putting aside some of the old blocks that get in the way of our co-operating around something that calls out not only to our minds but to our hearts, as we go back to our constituencies each weekend to meet people who tell us about the effect and the impact this recession is having on them and on their families.

I suggest to members today that the greatest obstacle to this particular resolution coming into reality is one of attitude -- our attitude and the attitude of people in general out there in our communities -- around the issue of poverty and why people are in poverty. It is also one of misinformation, misunderstanding and philosophical base re the question of why some people find themselves in need of social assistance programs and other people do not. I think we all need to get into a very honest and truthful discussion about those particular issues, particularly at the grass-roots level in our communities.

I agree with the member for Nipissing that we need to focus on this. I agree that it needs to be a co-operative effort. All the partners who have a vested interest in children in the communities need to be involved. I would suggest to members that my colleagues who will speak to this issue after me will talk to some specific programs in their communities, as there are in mine, where church groups and community groups have come together already to support schools that have recognized hunger as an issue for some of their kids and have begun actually to answer this question.

I will be supporting the resolution today and I will be urging the rest of the House to do so. It is one of the most important things we will face in the next few years in this province.

Mrs Caplan: I rise today to participate in this debate with a good degree of sadness. The leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing, has posed a resolution which is not new. There is no new information that has been provided that has not been known for quite some time. Experts agree that providing children with a nutritious breakfast facilitates improved school performance. There is a direct correlation between the two.

We have a patchwork in parts of this province with breakfast programs at this time. I am very aware of that in my own riding of Oriole in the city of North York. There are a number of excellent breakfast programs but, quite honestly, there are not enough of them.

The reason I am quite sad is that I am aware that on August 21, 1990, a breakfast program was announced for this province. The program was to provide $1.50 per child to defray costs of food. The total program was laid out as a real partnership and as a real opportunity for what I think would have been one of the most significant health promotion and disease prevention programs available in this province. The program was to be funded by the Ministry of Health's health promotion branch and the total cost was estimated at $18.5 million.

It was part of the Liberal government's commitment to the vision that we had stated so clearly in our throne speeches, and to the health goals for Ontario that were developed by the Premier's Council on Health Strategy. I was very proud to serve as vice-chairman of that very important body. The Premier's Council has continued. We have not heard from the new government whether it has accepted that vision, nor have we heard whether it intends to proceed with those goals. In fact, from the first Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, we heard that their goals are different.

Let me repeat what the health goals of our government were for Ontario. We said the first goal should be to shift the emphasis to health promotion and disease prevention. The second was to foster strong and supportive families and communities. A breakfast program, the one that was proposed in August 1990, would have gone some way to achieving those first two goals in a real partnership with the community, with the private sector. It was in fact modelled on the very successful breakfast programs that have been developed, as I said, in a patchwork across this province.

For the first time there would have been an opportunity for real partnership in reaching out to meet the needs of children in our province. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that even in times of economic restraint and difficulty, the priority must be for our future and for our children.

The concern I have is that what we have seen from this government is absolutely nothing. The program had been approved by the former Treasurer. The funding was in place and it was there. What we have seen from the NDP government is that it has shredded its own Agenda for People. They have said to the people of this province, "We're not going to do what we said we were going to do." They have said that very clearly time and time again and I for one have said that is a really good thing, because some of the things they promised to do were really dumb.

But there were some things we promised to do that they should have done already, and this is one of them. That is why I am sad to rise today to talk about how important it is that we all get together and make sure that children have the opportunity to reach their own potential and do as well as they can in school.

The quote I would like to put on the record is from August 21, 1990: "It's hard to develop a full mind on an empty stomach." I also want members to know, and I think the member for Nipissing would agree, that it is not just poor children who suffer from undernutrition. We do not want to label children who need to have a good, healthy breakfast as only poor children.

While we know that is a particular problem for those children who live in poverty -- the numbers are growing and it is a real concern to me that we have that awful reality in our province today -- there are also children from every socioeconomic stratum who go to school undernourished and who would benefit from the opportunity for a good breakfast as part of the school breakfast program.

We should all be supportive of the notion that all children, regardless of economic background, should have the opportunity to learn and grow and benefit from our public school system, from our educational system. We should collectively agree that one of the ways of letting them do that is to make sure they have the opportunity for a nutritious breakfast. I would state again that this opportunity was announced as part of a comprehensive government program, ready to be implemented and put in place. The funding was there. I do not know what has happened to it.

I know it was going to be funded through the health promotion branch of the Ministry of Health. I know the program was going to include the community development opportunity of getting everybody involved to achieve that goal of real partnership.

One of the most successful health promotion programs to date has been run by MTHA breakfast club programs. I recently attended their annual breakfast. That is an opportunity of partnerships where the private sector, the public sector, MTHA, the city of North York and the boards of education participate. On numerous occasions I have worn the apron and have been a celebrity chef. I have seen the happy faces of those children as they came together and played and had a good, nutritious breakfast. Working with me those mornings have been school principals who tell me of the improved performance of children in the classrooms.

I am sad this morning that, 15 months after the last election, 16 months after this program was announced, 16 months after the dollars were available, this government has done nothing. It could have been implemented, and here we are today debating a resolution by the leader of the third party which, as far as I am concerned, should have been done, could have been done and, sadly I say, would have been done. I cannot understand why it has not been done, because the effects are absolutely clear.

We know what the statistics say. We know that undernourished children score poorly on cognitive, perceptual and psychological tests and show diminished verbal abilities. While poverty increases a child's chance of being undernourished, undernutrition can exist at all socioeconomic levels.

The development of a breakfast program for children in this province is not one that will only combat poverty, although it will take some steps towards making sure children who are victims of poverty have the opportunity for a good meal. I am not saying it is the solution to poverty; it is not, but it is one of the solutions to breaking the poverty cycle, because you would ensure that those children have an opportunity to learn. You would also ensure that those children from other socioeconomic levels, while not living in poverty, have the opportunity to learn to achieve their potential.

I would say to the members of the government caucus, who I am assuming are going to speak in support of this, if they are not going to do what they said they were going to do, how about doing what we said we were going to do? How about putting in place the program that was there, that was designed, that was ready to go? Stop the talk. The time for action is now. The time for action was 15 months ago. The rhetoric, the words of concern, are all very nice, but it is now time to do something.

People are telling me, "We're tired of talk, we're tired of consultation, we're ready for action." They have the opportunity to do that; they are the government. I am glad to see that their members of caucus today, during private members' hour, are standing up and saying to their government: "Do it. Do the right thing."

I will be supporting this amendment with the hope that this government will implement the program that was ready to go. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this important debate.

Mr Jackson: I am very pleased to be able to rise in support of my leader, the member for Nipissing, to express support for his resolution today and also to recognize his long-standing concern, as has been expressed in our caucus over the years I have had the privilege of working with him.

On the other hand, I am very disappointed that we have to use private members' time to deal with an issue I believe all members of this House share as a concern, and that is the issue of child poverty and the extended concerns as they surface about those children who attend school on a daily basis and who attend hungry, who attend undernourished, who attend with a whole battery of social and physiological problems that will result because they are children who arrive at school undernourished and hungry.

Unfortunately we have only been given one hour of the House's time for this important issue, but it would be wrong for us to pursue this in a partisan way. We as a caucus disagree with the various approaches. We disagree, for example, that we would need $18 million, as was suggested in a proposal by the Liberal Premier in the last election. We might disagree, for example, with the socialists on the issue of rent control when we see more and more of the community having to spend more and more of their limited dollars on housing. We know we disagree on the issue.

We would provide a shelter subsidy so that there is enough disposable income for a family so it can acquire those other necessities of life besides a shelter, which seems to be an uncontrollable expense in this province.

I simply want to say that as politicians we should be taking the position that to simply hand out food and to simply extend a hand of charity without in the same breath speaking out and dealing with the issues and attacking the root causes of poverty would be wrong. Failure to do that, in my view, would be to perpetuate the very problem.

I had the privilege of sitting on the standing committee on social development and doing the work on the Report on Food Banks. We listened to various jurisdictions in North America that have entrenched programs with food stamps and what not, and we were strongly cautioned not to get into that. That is why I think, as we move to this issue of breakfast programming, we are hearing from those people in the field who work in this area that we should not turn to government to entrench this as a government program, that in fact we should look towards community-based solutions; we should look to the contribution of the private sector.

I know that sounds like a dirty word to some members of this House, but imagine that this is part of the corporate responsibility within a community, part of a community responsibility to share those resources, that we do not always have to tax persons, take $10 from them, spend $3 or $4 on bureaucracy in Queen's Park and then send $6 back for them to work with. Let's let our communities deal with these commonsense solutions within the context of their own community.

It is in that context that our leader and our party are presenting this case to address the issue of those children who lack the nourishment and lack the basic sustenance of a breakfast when they start their day in school. My leader, the member for Nipissing, has indicated that these are not just poor children. These are also children who have parents who have to leave at 7:30 in the morning. Both parents are working and there just is not enough time to feed the child.

We have cases where the child's metabolic rate is such that he is just not interested in eating breakfast, but maybe by 10 o'clock it is important that he get some food. We have to listen and make sure we are clear that all children are different, but all children should have a basic right to a breakfast in the morning because it is so integral to their learning and to their socialization.

We have to make sure that when we deal with this issue we do not stigmatize those children who need it. What is so beautiful about the breakfast program in existence today is that it is treated like a club. Kids bring a quarter. Not all the kids can afford a quarter, but they are asked to bring a quarter and participate in a breakfast club. It is a fun thing to be involved in, and not a case where the child is out in the playground and the bullies are pushing him and saying: "Ah, you're one of those poor kids. You're taking a breakfast in the morning." All children are welcome.

All children are asked to participate, to be involved, and it becomes quite a nice activity for all of them. We have to be careful not to stigmatize the program, and that is what my fear is with lots of government funding thrown at a problem like this. Allow volunteers within the community, volunteers in the corporate sector, to participate.

I want to suggest we have to be very careful about how we teach our children the whole concept of charity. I had a revelation recently from my daughter who goes to school. She is in kindergarten. She is told to bring a snack. Last week she said, "Dad, I'd like to bring a snack because one or two of the kids don't bring snacks." At first I was really proud of my daughter that she had embraced this concept she should share.

But then I became a little concerned that we are now involved in a bit of a charitable act and in fact what we should be trying to suggest is, what kind of program would allow my daughter not to see the children in her class as different on the basis of income, different on the basis of opportunity and different on the basis of privilege? I appreciated her sense of charity, but by the same token, how are we, as parents and as a government and as a school board, helping her if we are not helping her to understand that?

I am always fond of quoting a Zen proverb which exists in virtually every school in this province: Give a child a fish and he will eat for a day, but if you teach a child to fish, he can eat for a lifetime. I think in that proverb rests the whole point of what we are trying to stress here, that we cannot turn to government for a daily handout of taxpayers' funding. We must teach our community the true nature and the true face of poverty and its effects, and in turn we must involve our community in seeking true solutions so that we can pass on a lifetime of dignity and equal opportunity for our children who are struggling with this issue.

Mr Hope: I share some of the concerns the member for Burlington South has just raised, and dealing with the resolution, I must say it is one of very few things I agree about with the member for Nipissing. I agree that the resolution being put forward is one I will be supporting.

As we talk about the children and about healthy minds and healthy bodies, short-term costs, long-term gain as far as our health care systems are concerned and making sure that the young people, the future leaders of Ontario and probably of Canada, are actively involved with healthy minds, these times are very unfortunate, as the member for Burlington South alluded to, and we must stop the effects that are happening to create poverty in our areas.

One of the unfortunate things I have a hard time understanding is why the member for Nipissing has attacked this government's initiatives in Back on Track, which are helping more people through social assistance, making sure that through a 10% and a 7% increase that they have more income to provide the basic needs of living today.

I wish we could get things very straight on where we are going. But one of the effects it is causing, especially in my riding of Chatham-Kent, where I am really seeing it very much lately -- I know there are a number of people here today in the members' gallery. For instance, Ron Tack, who is one of the councillors in Wallaceburg, is very concerned about what is going on in his area in Wallaceburg, which is part of my riding. We have Derry McKeever here, who is president of the labour council and who is very concerned about the job losses and some of the impacts that are causing the devastation of poverty.

I will not keep pointing fingers, but I must allude to the goods and services tax and the high interest rates. Everybody asks us why there are high interest rates. A lot of us working people have to borrow money in order to keep things ahead, and as interest rates go high, our cost per month goes high. The UIC cutbacks were affecting a lot of people in my area.

But I want to get back to the issue the member has put forward here today. I think it is very important that our education system, which plays an important role in the development of our children for the future in this competitive marketplace -- we must be a highly competitive, highly skilled labour force into the future, and I think it is important that we start to address those needs in making sure we can be competitive into the future.

I am not saying at all that the parents in my community are neglecting their children. We are not saying that. It is a basic matter of survival, with the increase of costs of housing and rent, and now this government is making a number of initiatives there, but I am sure parents care about their children. The member for Burlington South mentioned his daughter. I have two young children who go to school and they can identify very clearly when somebody is in need of food or is not able to bring a treat. They are there with open arms for these people.

But I know the parents in my community, whether they be single or double or both working or whatever it may be, are very concerned about their children's future, which is very important.

But one of the things I want to get out, because I know my friend the member for Guelph wants to talk a bit, is that I had a particular issue in my riding where allergies play a significant role, and what I am very concerned about is that if we start the breakfast programs, we must make sure we identify the children in our school systems who have very severe allergies that could cause death. I had an incident in my community where this happened and it was a simple treat. It was bring-a-treat day and what happened is it caused a fatal devastation to the family.

So one of the elements we have to make sure of is that when we bring in something like this, we identify other areas that may be affected.

I will be supporting the resolution of the member for Nipissing. I think it is important. I think we have to go beyond just breakfast; it ought to include lunches. It is very important that we develop healthy minds in order to have healthy bodies and control health care costs and put the perspective back. It is a learning process and we are all going to learn together.

I know the Minister of Community and Social Service, the parliamentary assistant and the ministry are very dedicated to the children of the future and the children of today and making sure we have effective programs that will meet their needs.

Mr Curling: I rise today in full support of the honourable member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, and to echo also the sound words of my colleague the member for Oriole.

As recently as November 23, 1991, young people from Ontario and New York gathered together at a youth conference in Toronto sponsored by the Hunger Project of Canada, of which I happen to be one of the directors, to keep a promise. As members may remember, that was echoed in 1990 -- I think somewhere around September 29 or 30 -- when 71 world leaders got together to say that we must address and keep the promise to the children suffering from malnutrition and starvation.

We do not have to go far. Right here in our own country and our own province, there are children who are being neglected or who are not able to get sufficient food in the morning, which is more or less the sustenance of the day.

We are not here today to sing praises or point fingers, but I want to take this opportunity to thank people like the mayor of North York, Mel Lastman, who, when I was the Minister of Housing, approached me to start the breakfast club; Rick Gosling, a bureaucrat who worked hard over the years, and Jean Augustine, who is now with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, who carry on the tradition of the breakfast club, which has shown tremendous results of what is happening.

The wellbeing of our children requires political action at the highest level -- as a matter of fact, at all levels. We may come in here today and say we support things in principle. I would like to see that after today we move to some action. I agree with the honourable member for Burlington South who stated that we are going to take one hour of time to move forward with what really should be a government initiative. What we hear is a defence and praise of what the government of the day has done.

Let us recognize the fact that there is a need. It is really appalling to realize that thousands and thousands of our children today who go to school during the day have not had breakfast. We have seen tremendous results from the breakfast club that is now in place. We have gotten reports back from teachers and the board of education about the level of the attention span, which has increased, and marks, which have improved. Therefore, we have gotten their best work.

If we do not protect or encourage our young people, later on in life we will pay for that. Sure, we can find much rhetoric, especially in this House. In all parliaments of the world we find beautiful rhetoric, beautiful words. We just have to research all the Hansards and find every word to fit very lovely phrases. But it is not phrases, it is not talk we want; it is action. As members have heard me say many times, we must stop talking the talk but we must walk the walk. We have an opportunity today in which we all can get together. I urge the government that we form a committee to address this issue.

Many times we have said this is a non-partisan issue. There are times when we drift into pointing fingers. If we want to point fingers, we should point fingers to children now in the school system who are going without any breakfast. We should point to them and direct our energies and our resources to them. The reward and what we will get from this will be something more beneficial for this province and this country.

I want to thank the honourable member for Nipissing again for bringing this forward. He has my full support on this resolution.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with honour that I speak in favour of the resolution this morning that we establish breakfast programs throughout Ontario with the help of the private sector.

I just want to put on the record today a couple of programs that are working, so that when the government takes a look at this, it will have at least a couple of ideas with regard to implementation.

We all know -- school boards, teachers and parents across Ontario have told us -- that there is a need for breakfast and snack programs. In fact, it has increased this fall. That is what we are hearing. A year ago when we asked for this, we knew there was a need, but the need has increased this fall.

The London Board of Education receives excellent support from the Maycourt Club, which is a women's service club. They do a lot of fund-raising for children's services. It is not just that the school board does this by itself; it relies on service clubs and the private sector to help. There are more than 30 schools involved in London today.

There are also a number of staff members who supplement the program financially and volunteer their time to oversee it. It is a significant commitment from staff and I am sure everyone is very appreciative. At this time, I would like to congratulate the staff in London and around the province who feel it is part of their commitment to their pupils to make sure these kinds of programs happen in school. We have all heard that children who are hungry cannot learn. They strongly believe children have a much better frame of mind and are much more able to learn when they have had a proper meal.

Most of the schools are moving towards a snack program, although they have breakfast programs at this point in time. It is done in a very quiet way so the children who really need the food are not singled out in any way. The London Home and School Association should also be congratulated for its involvement. It makes a donation to the Maycourt Club.

I am already on record talking about the studies that indicate there is a relationship between hunger and the ability of children to excel at school. Recognizing this problem in Toronto, Ian Sorbie came forward and, working with children, teachers and administrators, established a breakfast program for the children at Roden Junior Public School. Each day 168 children receive a nutritious breakfast at a cost of $150 a day. He feels this experience can now serve as a model throughout the province.

Establishing a breakfast or snack program for elementary school children in partnership with the private sector is an initiative that my party supports and that many individuals across the province support. It is with pleasure that I have the opportunity to speak this morning in favour of the resolution by the member for Nipissing. I hope we have given the government some precedents upon which it can work to make certain school boards across the province and children who go to school hungry will have an opportunity.

Mr Fletcher: I am pleased to rise today in support of the resolution by the member for Nipissing. I think it is about time this Legislature discussed the problem of child poverty. It is not an issue that is brand new; it is an issue that has been around for a while and is something that has to be addressed.

In my own riding of Guelph we have a church group, also supported by teachers and the principal of Tyler School, Mr White. A few years ago, they implemented a breakfast program for the students of that area. At first it did not take off because there was a stigma attached to it. People thought only poor people would go to this and you would be labelled as a poor person. But as the stigma was replaced and people began to realize there is a relationship between nutrition and learning, more and more students began to take advantage of the program, which is supported by the Wellington County Board of Education. It is a program that is working well and supplying a basic need for students.

If I have a concern about this resolution, it is a concern about the private sector's involvement. If the private sector really wishes to help out and reduce child poverty, it should start paying a decent wage to parents and creating jobs instead of leaving the country. It should start looking at its social responsibilities within communities and become good corporate citizens, as we hear they wish to be. I do not think we can always rely on the private sector to be there when we need it.

I agree with the member for Nipissing that the government must do something in order to help with the problem of child poverty and what is going on in the school system. I think it is important that every member in this Legislature supports this resolution and shows concern for what is going on. But I know one of the objectives for the government of this day is to try to reduce the amount of child poverty. The best way to do that is to make sure we have an economic system that can support the populace.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Curling: We have 10 seconds.

Mr Mahoney: We might as well use it.

Mrs Cunningham: In 10 seconds?

Mr Mahoney: In 10 seconds, I just want to say I support this resolution. I think we all know that a hungry child will not learn well. This is a step in the right direction.

Mr Harris: I thank all those who have taken the time this morning to be here and those who have spoken in support of the resolution.

In summing up, who are the hungry children? Many have talked, and my resolution talks, about those children who are living in some definition of poverty, below a poverty line or where the resources are not as great as they are for others.

That is only one component. Certainly, in surveys that have been done and in experiences where trial programs have been brought forward and in existing programs, low-income families are part of the problem. A

part is simply information. What is nutritious? There are many inexpensive alternatives available. Part of the program is the health component, as was mentioned by the member for Oriole, the nutrition component, for both parents and children.

In his study, Dr McIntyre suggests that we should not always equate breakfast with bacon and eggs. In fact, far more nutritious are such lower-cost options as cereals, toast and peanut butter. So part of the program is educational and is aimed at all children in that area.

But Dr McIntyre goes on to say that there are many of what he calls the hidden hungry because we do not pick them up under statistics of what we consider children living in poverty -- children of shift workers, children who for whatever reason are left to make their own breakfast without a lot of parental involvement in the home, because the parents are out working, and do not make their own breakfasts. These can be children of all income levels.

The children of non-breakfast eaters: There are many people who can well afford breakfast who do not eat breakfast. A 1985 health promotion survey found that 18% of adults do not eat breakfast. Regardless of income or time availability, they just do not eat breakfast. Parents who do not recognize the importance of eating in the morning will not encourage their children to eat breakfast. Children have much smaller stomachs -- a pretty obvious statement -- and cannot afford to go without a meal the way adults can. They cannot afford to make it up at another meal time. That awareness must be raised.

In order to lose weight, obese children may be encouraged to skip a meal, but children's metabolism is much different. While I do not think this is recommended as a healthy way even for adults to lose weight, for children it is devastating to skip a meal completely. Given the metabolism of many young children, perhaps four, five or six meals a day are better, including some nutritious portion for all of those meals.

That is the first thing I wanted to make sure we understand. We are not just talking about poverty in a breakfast or nutrition program in our schools. If we tripled the amount of money or if employers paid everybody 10 times more money -- aside from the fact they are going broke now and how ridiculous that is -- that would not solve the problem of nutrition and children in our schools who are not learning as they should, who are experiencing failure at an early age, a devastating time of their lives, for want of nutrition. It is important we understand that.

There are three criteria all the groups I have consulted with feel are important. This is non-political in a philosophic sense. The first criterion is that it must be open to all. It is not a breakfast program or a nutrition program geared to income. When we look at those children who right now are found wanting in the area of nutrition, it is not just those you can set criteria for, whether it is poverty or working mothers and fathers; it must be open to all.

The second criterion they all agreed on was that the community must be involved. It must not be a 100% government initiative or a 100% school initiative. The community itself must be involved, the education involved in that being an important component.

The third criterion is flexibility. The requirements in one school and one neighbourhood might be very different from the requirements in another school and another neighbourhood. The requirements in North Bay might be very different than the requirements in a Cabbagetown or Regent Park school.

Those are the parameters. Those are the criteria. What they all agree on is that we must move on it. It is not particularly expensive but it requires some will. We cannot afford to allow the argument: "Should it be Health or should it be Education? Where are we going to find the money?" It is not a very large sum of money. Spending by this government this year I think is up $7 billion or $8 billion. It was similar under other Conservative or Liberal governments. We must find this money.

Finally, I would ask all members who have indicated they will support this to raise in the next caucus meeting: "How are we going to follow up on this, Mr Premier, Mr Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Leader of the Conservative Party? How are we going to make it happen?"

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The House divided on Mr Mahoney's motion of resolution 33, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 50

Abel, Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Christopherson, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Harris, Hope, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Kormos, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Martin, McClelland, McLean, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, H., Owens, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Sola, Sullivan, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, M., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 12

Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Haeck, Lessard, Klopp, MacKinnon, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger.

SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Harris has moved resolution 6.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Curling: I wanted to comment briefly on something I read in one of our local tabloids, as my friend the Treasurer would say. Responding to reports that some labour leaders are using public money to hire family and friends, former Ontario Federation of Labour president and hiring committee member Cliff Pilkey had this to say: "You want us to hire people off the street, people we don't even know?"

It is precisely this kind of game that has been used for so long to effectively deny employment opportunities to women and visible minorities and others who are outside the network. Obviously, when it comes to employment equity, some of our unions, despite their fine words, have a long way to go when it comes to their own hiring practices.

Finally, speaking for the Chevrolet and other assembly line workers whom I have known, I would like to let the OFL bosses know that these are skilled, intelligent and professional men and women, any one of whom would be as capable as sons and daughters of important labour leaders.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Runciman: The NDP government is threatening to change labour legislation in this province and it has Ontario businesses scared stiff. I think the comments of Toronto labour lawyer Stewart Saxe are bang on. He says: "The proposed labour legislation favours unions, not workers, and is payment for labour's electoral and financial support of the governing New Democrats. Government is sending a message that Ontario is closed for business."

Mr Saxe is the son-in-law of former NDP member Morton Shulman. That is right, a former NDP member.

Not surprisingly, the Ontario Federation of Labour wants the government to strengthen its proposed strikebreaker law by preventing companies from shifting production to another location during strikes. The truth is that labour bosses want to hold all the cards and do not give a damn about the future of companies which employ their members.

In fact, we have evidence that some of these highly paid labour leaders prefer to keep the big labour bucks in the family. Today's headline reads, "Relatives, Pals 'Pig Out' in Union Jobs." The story describes how nepotism is running rampant at the Workers Health and Safety Centre. The 22-year-old daughter of Gordon Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, got a $57,000-a-year job at the centre. Of course this job was not advertised. I wonder how many union members would have liked to have applied. The union staffers are disgusted and call it scandalous nepotism.

It is time the Premier put a collar on his labour organizer, the member for Hamilton East, by initiating constructive discussion with business. Otherwise the jobs that he and his union boss buddies want to protect so badly will be gone for ever.

NATIONAL FARM WOMEN'S CONFERENCE

Mr Sutherland: It was my pleasure recently to attend the fifth annual National Farm Women's Conference in London. Speakers included the Minister of Community and Social Services; the member for Essex-Kent, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food; the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the honourable Joe Clark, and the federal Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the honourable Mary Collins.

This was an important and successful conference and I want to congratulate conference chair Donna Lund, a Belmont-area farmer, and two of the many Oxford county organizers, Betty Semeniuk and Elaine Ball, for a great job.

The conference touched on a number of issues important to farm women today. Women have always played a major role on the farm but have seldom been recognized for it in the past. In the latest census, 126,880 women reported agricultural occupations, yet more than half of them were unpaid. The value of their labour is estimated to be worth more than $1,000 per week. Without their unpaid contributions, Canadian farm families, already facing drastic times, would be in even tougher shape. The majority of these same women hold off-farm jobs as well to help pay for living expenses that cannot be squeezed out of the land due to depressed commodity prices, international trade wars and drought.

The stress experienced by farm families is taking both an emotional and physical toll. I sat in on a session about abuse put on by the Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis group. As one of only a couple of men in the audience, it was both enlightening and educational. I encourage all members of this House to enter into the discussion of abuse and how we can bring about a solution.

WETLANDS

Mr Brown: Less than one hour ago the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Canadian Environmental Law Association released a document which they had obtained in a brown envelope.

Mrs Caplan: Call the cops.

Mr Brown: Yes, call the cops. This leaked document, entitled Confidential Draft Policy Statement: Wetlands, was produced for the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Natural Resources and is dated April 17. In September of this year the two ministries, under the direction of the Minister of Natural Resources, released for consultation a document called Policy Statement: Wetlands.

Even a quick examination of the documents brings one to a very disturbing conclusion. The first document, the uncirculated, leaked document, is far stronger with regard to wetland habitat conservation than the one put out for consultation. What is surprising is that the Minister of Natural Resources left such an obvious written and spoken record of his concern for wetlands, and yet allowed a very unprogressive document out for consultation while shelving the document that was closer to his views when in opposition.

The minister appears to be like Mr Bush. Campaigning in 1988, George Bush was for the preservation of wetlands. He is nowhere to be seen on that subject today. I think we should start calling the Minister of Natural Resources George Bush Wildman.

NORTH YORK BOARD OF HEALTH

Mr Harnick: In 1989 more than 116,000 schoolchildren benefited from North York health department education programs which provide information on substance abuse, tobacco prevention, nutrition, sexuality and decision-making. The department also provided individual assessment, education and referral services to over 13,000 elderly persons and care givers. Furthermore, the department responded to more than 25,000 community requests for environmental inspections. The North York public health department serves 550,000 while providing a vital link between the community and its services and programs.

Since 1967 health units outside of Metropolitan Toronto have received a provincial grant of 75% of their budgets. The North York Board of Health currently receives a provincial grant for 40% of its budget. The province dictates that boards of health perform 22 mandatory health programs, which represent the major portion of general programming for all health units in Ontario, yet the funding ratio between the North York Board of Health and other boards outside Metro is drastically different.

I call upon the Minister of Health to address this funding inequity and provide the North York Board of Health with a similar percentage of funding as the province provides to boards of health outside Metropolitan Toronto.

GIFTS THAT GIVE

Mr G. Wilson: Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending Gifts that Give. Gifts that Give is a unique holiday bazaar that this year featured 34 non-profit groups working in the areas of peace, development, the environment and social justice. Hundreds of shoppers spent over $32,000 to fund worthwhile projects both here at home and abroad.

For example, you could purchase certificates from Kingston Literacy for a family reading kit in the name of a relative or friend or buy a health education package for a whole community from Street Kids International. The variety of gifts was remarkable. You could adopt a whale, plant a tree in Africa, buy an acre of local conservation land or sponsor cataract surgery. More traditional gifts were available in the form of crafts, clothing and household items from many areas of the Third World.

To promote peace and nuclear disarmament, Kingston Operation Dismantle, the organizers of the event, sold coffee mugs and posters, while Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War offered colourful "Protect the World" T-shirts.

I remember Gifts that Give for the happiness I felt and saw around me. I believe this happiness was an outcome of the spirit of solidarity encouraged by the bazaar, the kind of spirit we like to associate with Christmas. Congratulations to Judith Wyatt and Kingston Operation Dismantle for Gifts that Give, in itself a gift to our community.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr McClelland: It grieves me to stand in this Legislature day after day after day and express our party's profound disappointment in the Minister of the Environment and this NDP government. They have the audacity to try to push forward such a draconian piece of legislation as Bill 143, their Waste Management Act.

The government introduced Bill 143, which has severe implications for all municipalities, during the municial election campaign. They attempted to sneak this bill by while most municipal politicians were busy on the campaign trail, hoping they would not notice. My friends opposite should be advised that municipal politicians have noticed. They will not allow this bill to go forward without full consultation and significant amendments.

I do, however, have some very good news for the Minister of the Environment. I have received a memorandum addressed to members of the Toronto council from the works department. In fact, I would be very surprised if the minister herself did not have that memo in her possession. If she does, as I expect she does, she will know that the Metro works department now projects that the lifespan of Keele Valley is well into the year 1999, in fact into mid-1999. The minister must be delighted with this news, since there is now no reason that she and the NDP government cannot keep their campaign promise to have full environmental assessment on the expansion of the Keele Valley site.

She now has up to eight years to complete an environmental assessment. I do not know what excuse she is going to try and dredge up for this one, because there is none. I await with anticipation the minister's announcement of the significant amendments to Bill 143 we are going to see.

TERRI-LYNN SHERWOOD

Mr Eves: I would like to rise today in recognition of a constituent, a nine-year-old girl who resides in Burk's Falls, in the riding of Parry Sound. Today at lunch she, along with several other Ontarians, received a 1991 fire prevention and public education award for her courageous and decisive action this past March.

The Burk's Falls fire department is also to be congratulated for distributing a pamphlet throughout schools in the area.

This nine-year-old girl had just gone through the public education process in the school system when disaster struck one evening in their family home north of Burk's Falls. Remembering what she had read and what she had been taught, she got the rest of her family members to crawl on their hands and knees to a window on the second floor, whereby they escaped down a TV antenna tower affixed to their house. Her mother, Mrs Sherwood, had no sooner reached the first floor when the entire second floor of the house, the entire house, in fact, became engulfed in flames.

With Terri-Lynn today is her younger sister, Jessie; Mr Allen, the principal of the school; Mrs Colvin, her teacher, and of course her mother, Mrs Sherwood. I would like to congratulate Terri-Lynn on her very courageous, decisive and lifesaving action, one I think we can all learn from.

PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS' COMMITTEE FOR SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Jamison: Today I rise to give special notice to the formation of the parliamentary assistants' committee for small business. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology today announced the establishment of a committee of parliamentary assistants for small business. The committee will bring forward the concerns of the Ontario business community and advise the government on new ideas and initiatives in support of small business. I have been appointed chair.

"We are strengthening our government's ability to address the needs of this crucial sector of our economy," the minister stated. "This committee is a first step in that direction. It will give us a dedicated link to the small business community in Ontario."

The committee will begin meetings with the small business community and representative associations before the end of the year.

The mandate of the committee is to provide and encourage channels for listening to business owners and associations; to ensure that the Ontario government has a positive, co-ordinated approach to small business; to help ensure that the government's agenda is implemented in a manner sensitive to the success and growth of small business in Ontario; to serve as a liaison among key ministers and ministries related to small business and with caucus; to consider the existing programs for small business and ensure that they are effective, accessible and designed to provide maximum benefit; to develop a process for reviewing existing regulation and screening of new legislation to advise the government on new ideas and initiatives and --

The Speaker: The time has expired.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SKILLS TRAINING / RÉGIME DE FORMATION

Hon Mr Allen: On the first day of this session of the Legislature, this government reiterated its commitments to rebuilding the Ontario economy. This remains our single most important priority.

La relance économique est notre priorité ultime.

Today I am pleased to announce the launch of a key component in our strategy to ensure the prosperity of this province, the restructuring of Ontario's training system. Every day, people and employers in Ontario are making tough transitions. Employers are facing one technological challenge after another. They are under increasing competition. Workers are making tough moves from schools to work, from job to job and from skill to skill.

To make these transitions successfully, to attract and sustain economic investment essential to our province's prosperity, we must make sure Ontario has highly trained women and men able to respond to the challenges of the modern workplace, more jobs for Ontario and a trained worker for every job.

We cannot achieve this overnight, but we must act now. We must act now to ensure that Ontario's training and adjustment systems promote the lifelong learning that lets people upgrade and learn new skills. But we cannot do this within the current system.

Cela ne peut se réaliser du jour au lendemain. Nous devons agir dès maintenant pour que le régime de formation et d'adaptation de la main d'oeuvre de l'Ontario favorise l'apprentissage permanent, c'est-à-dire, un apprentissage permettant aux personnes d'améliorer leurs aptitudes ou d'en acquérir de nouvelles. Mais cela est impossible avec le régime de formation actuel.

Ontario spends much more on training than any other provincial government in Canada, but despite this tremendous investment, despite the best efforts, our current training system is confusing for employers, workers and the unemployed. We have 10 ministries delivering 48 programs.

Dix ministères offrent 48 programmes de formation.

There is serious and costly duplication and overlapping of programs to deal with and a major gap that we have to close now. That gap is the skills gap, the hole into which laid-off workers or the unemployed are continuing to fall because employers already in Ontario or those wanting to invest here cannot find enough skilled workers for the jobs they have to offer. That gap will continue to loom large and menacing unless we address the fundamental problems within our current training system.

We cannot solve these problems simply by changing program guidelines or even by injecting more money. It is time to do some basic rethinking about the way Ontario makes decisions about training and about labour force development. We have begun that basic rethinking. This morning, as Minister of Skills Development, I announced the first step in the implementation of a new training and adjustment system for our province.

It is our government's intention to establish a new training board for Ontario. This new board will be the key mechanism for encouraging more private sector investment in training and skills upgrading. It will also eliminate the overlap and confusion of the current training system by better co-ordinating programs and services and it will enhance access to training and jobs for all Ontarians.

I also released today a paper entitled Skills to Meet the Challenge: A Training Partnership for Ontario, which is to serve as the framework for the final province-wide consultations on the mandate and structure of this new training board.

Preliminary consultations done by this government, by the previous provincial government and by the federal government all confirm that there is strong agreement on all sides for such fundamental restructuring of our province's training system. There is also strong support for the establishment of an autonomous agency to implement this restructuring.

While the provincial government will be responsible for seeing that the training board's initiatives respond to government policies and commitments, the new training board we shall establish will be an autonomous agency and it will be led by representatives from business, from labour, from training providers and from community social action groups.

Cet organisme sera dirigé par des représentants des entreprises, des travailleurs et travailleuses, des fournisseurs des programmes de formation et des organismes d'intervention socio-communautaires.

In the past, we have thought of employers and employees as the only labour market partners, and often the partnership did not work too well. We have reached the stage in our development where we have to work together in new ways. In this training structure, business and labour, as the principal labour market partners, will play the lead role and will work in collaboration with training providers and community groups on the board to give direction to the whole project.

We have decided to share the direction of our new training system with these people, not only because they are best placed to identify and respond to training needs but for other reasons also. First, we want to multiply the ways business and labour will work together to develop more co-operative workplaces and more co-determination across the face of the economy. Second, as a government, our single most important priority is the rebuilding of our province's economy.

Our strategy for rebuilding this province's economy is founded, however, on social justice. We want to see all Ontarians creating and sharing in our prosperity, and this new training structure reflects that principle. Up to now, the design and delivery of training has not benefited those who are unemployed and underrepresented in the workplace to the extent that it should. We have not been successful in helping these people make that crucial transition from training to work.

Because these people will also be represented among the leadership of the new training structure, their training and skills upgrading needs will be met. Those entering the workforce for the first time or those re-entering the workforce after a prolonged absence will now find real opportunities for employment through our training system.

But including these people in our training system is not only a question of social justice; it also makes good economic sense. Why? Because it is estimated that by the year 2000, a full 85% of all new entrants to the labour market will be women, racial minorities, people with disabilities and aboriginal people -- people underrepresented, underemployed or unemployed at this time. If Ontario is to rebuild its economy, if we are to prosper within the Canadian economy, within the world economy, we must invest in the training and skills upgrading of these people. Social justice demands it; our economic wellbeing depends upon it.

Notre bien-être économique en dépend.

The new training system we are announcing today will be the key mechanism for ensuring Ontario's labour development programs are designed, delivered and assessed in the context of our province's economic and social objectives.

On a local level, the new training system will be supported by a network of local labour market boards jointly designated and funded by provincial and federal governments. Like the new province-wide training system, these local boards will also be steered by the four labour market partners I have referred to. Our government, in co-operation with Employment and Immigration Canada and with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, will be consulting broadly about these local boards in the coming weeks.

The establishment of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board marks a major shift in Ontario's traditional approach to decision-making about training and adjustment. Let me emphasize that in making this radical change, our government is recognizing the crucial role of business, labour, training providers and community social action groups. We want and need their knowhow. We need their experience and their skill in identifying and responding to the training needs of the people they represent.

Within this broad partnership, we shall be relying in particular on the leadership of business and labour. I am confident that we shall see developing here the same new spirit of co-operation that this government is encouraging, not only in training and adjustment, but in labour relations and health and safety in order to build a fair and more productive economy.

We as a government shall of course continue to provide broad policy direction to the new training board and ensure that the board's activities support the government's economic and social objectives.

In training, as in so many other areas today, we must think globally and act locally. The importance of training and skills upgrading to Ontario's people and to our mutual economic wellbeing is an issue that crosses all party lines. In that spirit, I would ask all members of the House for their support in reaffirming and making a success of this exciting new approach to training in our province.

Finally, I want to thank all those who, over many months, have laboured so hard on this project. Several ministries have been involved, but I want particularly to thank the Deputy Minister of Skills Development, Thomas Sosa, and his staff; the Deputy Minister of Labour, George Thomson, and his staff, and the new deputy in charge of the whole OTAB project who, with her staff, has put together endless hours and days in order to bring us to this launch of the new Ontario training and adjustment program in Ontario. I just want to note that deputy Naomi Alboim is in the gallery this afternoon with her father, who is visiting from Montreal.

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: I think it is very clear that everyone in this House and across the province agrees that training and training reform should be a top priority of government, so it is good that finally we see the NDP's plans after more than a year's wait.

When the Premier's Council on technology of the Peterson government recommended the establishment of an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, it cautioned against this new training structure becoming an elaborate bureaucracy that is even more complicated than the one it is designed to replace.

Unfortunately, I feel the minister is well on his way to falling into this trap. His greatest goal seems to be to satisfy NDP support groups, in particular unionized labour. He tries to cover so much training territory and involve so many special interest groups, his reforms will take at least another year just to get off the ground. By the time the OTAB consultation process is finished, the consultation on local councils initiated and completed, the appropriate legislation introduced, discussed and passed in this House, I am sure we will be well into 1993.

Of course, in the meantime, thousands of workers will be left out in the cold. There is nothing whatsoever in this announcement to help workers now.

Also, there is a clear trend, the way I read this document, to minimize the importance of business in training decisions. The OTAB governing body will not be bipartite or even tripartite; it will be quarpartite, if we want to call it that: labour, business, the education community and NDP interest groups euphemistically called in this consultation paper "social action organizations."

On reading the document, I am left with a very unpleasant feeling that the minister thinks everyone understands the training needs except business. A third concern I have is the m