The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On February 24 of this year the stunning news was delivered to the people of St Catharines and the people of Ontario that General Motors would be closing its foundry in St Catharines and part of the engine plant operation. It was estimated that over 3,000 jobs would be expected to disappear, along with the so-called indefinite layoffs that took place on March 1 of this year.

I have asked in this House on many occasions that the government of Ontario do everything within its power to be a positive force in terms of retaining future jobs in St Catharines and in Ontario in the automotive industry, and I continue to do so -- being positive, of course, by ensuring that the hydro rates reflect only the cost of the production of hydro, by ensuring that the famous tax on auto workers, which is referred to as the gas guzzler tax, is withdrawn and by making sure that the business climate in the province is such that people wish to stay here.

But there are people who are particularly hit by this whom perhaps people have not been aware of, and those are the many apprentices who work at General Motors. I quote from the St Catharines Standard:

"Archie Maybee was in the middle of his apprenticeship to become a millwright at General Motors in St Catharines when he got the bad news. With only two years left in his training, he and 97 other apprentices were told Wednesday that they will indefinitely be laid off at the end of this month."

I call upon the Minister of Skills Development to provide the necessary funding in order that these individuals can continue this program on a simulated basis under the auspices of the Ministry of Skills Development within the community college setting.

NURSES WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): May 11 to 17 is Nurses Week in Ontario, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the invaluable contribution nurses provide to the people of our province.

Nurses play a crucial role in maintaining our health care system. They work long hours, provide care to patients on a one-on-one basis and constantly make important decisions. As the largest group of health care providers in Ontario, nurses show deep personal commitment to their work and provide care that is second to none.

Nurses work in all sectors of our health care system, including hospitals, public health units, nursing homes, homes for the aged, Victorian Order of Nurses' units, medical clinics and industry. We have all depended on nurses at one time or another and we should recognize the important contributions they make in a variety of settings.

Nursing has never been an easy profession, but it is becoming more and more demanding. Nurses are constantly expected to upgrade their skills and take on new responsibility.

The NDP government's decision to cap transfer payments to hospitals at 1% has also put pressure on nurses. It is estimated that 4,000 health care workers will lose their jobs in the upcoming year and that the majority of those will be nurses. But despite these pressures, nurses continue to provide high-quality health care in Ontario. I would urge all members and all citizens of this province to join with me in congratulating nurses for a job well done.

BILL BOWES

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to one of my constituents. Last Friday I had the privilege of attending a dinner in honour of the retirement of Bill Bowes, deputy chief of police from the Lindsay police service.

It is particularly fitting that we commemorate his contribution to the life of Victoria county during Police Week. Under increasingly difficult circumstances the members of our police forces are called upon to serve the public with efficiency and decorum. Bill Bowes provides an example of an exemplary police officer, not only for those in Victoria county but for those throughout Ontario.

He is described by his colleagues and friends as a supportive, dependable and fatherly man. They say that he "always found the good in people" and that he had a "calming effect on people." He was "the man people turned to when they needed to talk."

After 40 years of service this distinguished man can now look forward to doing the things he likes to do, like golfing and fishing and just relaxing. He plans to travel with his wife, Nina, and is preparing for his daughter's upcoming wedding.

After 40 years of service this man, who is a credit to our community, deserves the best. I wish him and his family well. Also, it is my hope that other leaders in our community will continue to look to Bill Bowes as their role model.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): The Minister of Education is dithering yet another day and keeping the Carleton board students out of school. Despite several breakdowns in mediation talks, he still wants the parties to negotiate.

In this strike, students and parents have been patient for a long time. Their patience has run out. Where was the back-to-work legislation yesterday? Today we are told that the minister will act tomorrow. What's the holdup, Minister?

Clearly the situation has dragged on for too long. Any additional strike day is too much. The board and teachers have had ample time to settle. Obviously they have not been able to reach an agreement despite repeated attempts.

It is your obligation now, Minister, to protect the education of Carleton students. I call on you to introduce legislation this afternoon. My party is ready to move. There's absolutely no reason why this strike should continue for yet another day.

1340

AUTISM SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services to the lack of adequate services in my community for adults and their families with autism. The Waterloo-Wellington Autism Services organization has recently written to the minister, stating that the situation for adults with autism in our region has worsened rather than improved in the last 18 months. Several of the 60 adults identified by this organization are in immediate crisis. An exceptionally high proportion of adults with autism remain in institutions, while others are being forced by a lack of other options to apply to schedule 1 facilities as a last resort.

Waterloo-Wellington Autism Services has appealed to the minister for a commitment for funding for a five- or 10-year plan which will allow it to develop the kind of coherent, viable and cost-effective service in stages. I want to urge the minister to seriously consider these requests to ensure that necessary services and resources are provided to meet the needs of adults with autism in our region.

MINE DISASTER

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I stand today in the House for an issue I think most of us have been watching in the media: the Westray coal mine in Nova Scotia. As people have been watching, some 11 miners have been killed, trapped underground. Another 15 are still missing and have not been found.

As a former underground worker at the McIntyre gold mine in Timmins I understand the feeling the families are going through, because of having seen that before, unfortunately, at first hand. It is not something we would like to see happen. Our thoughts and best wishes for those people in Nova Scotia, enduring this and going through this traumatic experience, are with them in a part of this.

I think it also brings us to the point that we have to remember we must do everything humanly possible as legislators in this Legislature to make the workplace a much safer place. We know over 200 workers are killed per year in Ontario -- last year alone -- and some tens of thousands are maimed or injured. I think it's upon us as legislators to keep that in mind. The cost of not doing something at times is quite dramatic. I ask members of the assembly to take the remaining 20 seconds in silence for those people in Nova Scotia.

The House observed a moment's silence.

RABIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature today the tremendous outbreak of rabies occurring in the district of Timiskaming. So far this year we've had 100 cases of rabies confirmed in the Timiskaming district. This is the largest number of any northern district. Just to give you a comparison, Nipissing is number two in occurrences this year with five cases, so it is really out of control. According to government officials, and I'd like to quote one, "This is the most severe outbreak in a concentrated area we've ever seen."

I am very concerned about the health threat this poses to my constituents, domestic pets and livestock on our farms. To date, Agriculture Canada has spent $200,000 testing and destroying livestock infected by rabies. OHIP has been billed over $47,000 to date for inoculations for people who suspect they have come in contact with rabies. Not only is this outbreak costing a tremendous amount of money to control; it is also causing incredible anxiety in our communities.

Today I am calling upon the government to immediately commence a bait-drop program across the entire district of Timiskaming to minimize the spread of rabies next year. I agree that such a program will not have much immediate effect, but it has a good chance, according to officials, of reducing next year's outbreak. I realize the process is expensive, estimated to be about $85,000 for the bait alone, but I believe this will be money well spent.

I also hope the Ministry of Natural Resources will approach local municipalities to help them with other inoculant programs via live-trapping animals and inoculating them where they pose a danger or threat. I am calling upon the government to act now.

POLICE WEEK

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This week we celebrate Police Week. The dedication of our hardworking police forces within my riding of Dufferin-Peel should not go by unnoticed. The Caledon OPP, the Shelburne detachment of the OPP, the Orangeville Police Force and the Shelburne Police Force work together to protect and serve the residents of Dufferin-Peel.

Their task has become increasingly challenging with the lack of support and funding from the provincial government. They are operating with budget restrictions that are making their job increasingly difficult.

Some areas of our province don't even have 24-hour policing, a problem brought on by the continued budget cuts in this NDP government. This government continues to preach improved relations between the police forces and Ontario citizens, yet it is not willing to put the needed resources into education and training.

Notwithstanding the difficult conditions our police forces are faced with, they have introduced several invaluable initiatives within my riding of Dufferin-Peel that have resulted in our police working together with members of our community to make Dufferin-Peel a safer place. The introduction of Crime Stoppers and Neighbourhood Watch are two such examples. When given an opportunity, the community and police can work together to make our province proud again.

QUEEN'S QUARTERLY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise to share some good news about a journal that is published at Queen's University in Kingston. The journal is Queen's Quarterly, and the good news is that it has recently won two awards from the Conference of Learned Journals, a US-based association. The awards were for best design and significant editorial achievement. It is the first time a Canadian journal has won two awards in one year.

I have the spring 1992 issue with me, and I can tell you that it amply confirms the judges' opinion. This issue has as its theme the relationship between the citizen and the state, a subject of crucial importance. The eight writers who address this topic are drawn from the first rank of Canadian and international thinkers. They richly support the editor's objective of spreading academic discussion beyond the walls of the university to readers throughout Canada and abroad. But there's more. Essays, arts and letters, science, poetry, reviews -- this list still does not exhaust the topics on the contents page.

The spring issue is also representative in being a feast for the eye as well as for the mind. Attractively illustrated and laid out, it delightfully shows why the journal won an award for design.

Our congratulations to editor Boris Castel and designer Peter Dorn.

I urge my colleagues and the viewing public to sample the delights of the Queen's Quarterly for themselves. It's found in many public libraries and bookstores, and certainly the publisher welcomes subscriptions.

Next year, Queen's Quarterly will be 100 years old. I think we can say with confidence that it has an exciting future in bringing the critical issues of the day to readers in an enjoyable manner.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for a brief tribute to a former officer of the House. I believe the parties would agree.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agree? Agreed.

DAVID CALLFAS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Recently the Legislative Assembly lost a very good friend, a friend of the House of many years. David Gerald Callfas, who used to sit at the table in front of us and was assistant to the predecessor of our present Clerk in the years 1968 to 1986, passed away peacefully on May 3. We of course pass along condolences to the family.

We all remember David Callfas as an individual who was extremely kind to everyone, a friendly individual, a very helpful individual. We all know that the table, as is the Chair, is neutral in this House. For this reason, when I was in opposition, as I was at that time, I particularly appreciated the advice that was provided to me as an individual member and a new member of the Legislative Assembly. I think all of us who sought his advice and his many years of learning -- let's put it that way -- were better members as a result of it. I believe this House operated in a fashion which was conducive to respect for one another as a result of the kind of information he provided and the role he played in the Legislative Assembly.

To a certain extent, we often judge or draw certain conclusions when we look at an obituary and see where the family of the person has requested that any donations happen to go. In this specific case, it's to the Children's Wish Foundation. Any of us who knew David Callfas well would know that was in keeping with his own personality and his own concern about others in the community.

So on behalf of the Liberal Party, and I'm sure all members of the House who served at the time David was at the table, we express deepest sympathy to the family and regret at his loss.

1350

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I would like to associate the Progressive Conservative Party's feelings and sentiments with those of the member for St Catharines, who has expressed his sympathy to the family on behalf of the Liberal Party.

As a member of this Legislature during a period when David Callfas was here assisting us, I want to say to everyone that he was a very competent and a very good Assistant Clerk. He helped many of the members, and we will remember his help over the years he served with us.

I would like to express our deepest sympathies to his wife on the passing of David and we would like to express our heartfelt thanks for all his service to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): On behalf of the NDP caucus I'd like to join with the opposition parties in paying tribute to Mr Callfas. He served in the Legislature for about seven or eight of the years I was a member; he first began at the Legislature in 1968. I didn't work quite as closely with him as I have with officers since then, as I wasn't House leader back then, but I know there is a long tradition in this place of very professional and non-partisan staff. He certainly was in line with that tradition.

As the spokesperson for the Liberal Party said today, his kindness and friendliness in this place made this Legislature probably a better place than it would otherwise be if we didn't have people like David serve the Legislature and the people of the province. On behalf of the government I'd certainly like to offer our sympathies to the family and pay tribute to a long period of contribution to the democratic process on David's part in the Ontario Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to thank the member for St Catharines, the member for Carleton and the government House leader for the kind and generous remarks you've made today. With the indulgence of the House, I too fondly remember the dedication Mr Callfas brought to his job, to this chamber and indeed to the assembly. Your remarks will be forwarded to his family. With them go our deepest sympathies for a person who served with honour and distinction this assembly of Ontario.

Statements by ministers.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): What would have been certainly a joyous and good-news statement is somewhat dampened by the news, which I've just heard, of David's passing away. I can say that when I was first elected in 1975, he was always there for all the new members elected in that particular election. He was of tremendous help to me as Chairman of committees over the years and a really decent human being.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): The matter I rise on today is to provide details of several economic renewal initiatives of this government. These initiatives are an integral part of the government's plan, outlined in the budget, to encourage jobs, training and investment in Ontario. In addition, I would like to update members of the House on the progress of my ministry's industrial framework.

As members of the House are aware, my ministry is working with representatives of business, unions, universities, governments and other organizations to develop a paper on industrial policy. We hope to release the paper later this spring.

This paper will outline a framework on industrial policy for governments, business leaders, unions and communities. We believe the paper will provide a common ground for action by all parties in the public and private sectors.

It will reflect our values as a society. It will help strengthen competitive fundamentals, the things we need to do well in order to compete. It will be an Ontario-based industrial policy which will start the discussion around action and implementation. It will explain the need for our society to change the way we invest, the way our government works with companies and the way we manage change in the future.

As I've said before, this framework has a simple organizing principle: the idea of moving to higher value added economic activity. This is critical to the creation of long-lasting, highly skilled, well-paying jobs. As the members of the House know, job creation is the first priority of our government's budget.

With our industrial policy framework in mind, I would like to provide details of several initiatives that will help to create jobs and encourage investment.

First, as the Treasurer noted in his budget last month, we will introduce a sector partnership fund, a three-year, $150-million funding commitment to all economic sectors, to move those sectors to higher value added activities. The fund will provide financial assistance for cooperative initiatives that have broad support from their sectors and will strengthen the competitive fundamentals for their sectors as a whole.

I have released today more information on the fund, on what it will do and how it will work. Our government is already consulting widely with the automotive, aerospace, plastics, food processing, tourism, furniture and forest products industries, among others. While my ministry is the lead ministry on this initiative and my ministry works directly with many sectors, at least 10 other ministries are involved and will coordinate participation of their relevant sectors.

The introduction of the sector partnership fund demonstrates a new direction of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. In the future, MITT will place more emphasis on the importance of working with economic sectors, not just individual companies.

This change means that my ministry will work with business, labour, industry associations, universities and other specialized institutions to encourage higher productivity through entire sectors. We will encourage the formation of new linkages, information and technology transfers and new commercial relationships.

The government is not picking a list of winning sectors. Instead, we are prepared to work with any sector in Ontario that is prepared to strengthen its capabilities and identify useful sector projects. Opportunities for upgrading competitiveness and sophistication exist across the province.

This does not mean that the government is abandoning support for individual firms. The Ontario Development Corp, the Ontario International Corp, Small Business Ontario and various MITT programs will continue to provide support for individual companies.

However, we believe our new emphasis will help to improve productivity and competitiveness and that this is a wise use of public funds and a smart economic policy. We view these measures as a strong, clear signal to the business community that we are committed to improving the long-term business climate of this province.

In order to fuel this economic renewal process, new private sector investments will have to be encouraged. Ontario must be seen as a good place to invest and reinvest. The province has numerous advantages, including a highly skilled workforce and an excellent quality of life. Such factors are becoming increasingly important to firms' investment decisions. Ontario must build upon these strengths and must market them aggressively.

For that reason, our government will be upgrading our investment promotion, attraction and retention system by introducing a one-stop shopping service for investment. My ministry is putting in place this new system to seek out and facilitate investment and to manage requests to the provincial government in a professional and efficient way.

As a prominent part of the system, a new Ontario Investment Centre will be created. It will provide detailed and up-to-date information to investors who are choosing a site for new investment. The centre will give investors access to computer databases, interactive videos and electronic maps. Ontario communities will be invited to use the centre to showcase their infrastructures, industrial facilities and cultural assets. We expect the centre to be set up and running by the fall.

Furthermore, my ministry is establishing an evaluation program and advisory board for the Ontario investment and worker ownership program announced by the government last October. The evaluation program will assist the employee groups to retain professional advice for feasibility studies on employee ownership proposals. The advisory board will evaluate and recommend the approval of such proposals.

1400

Together with continuing work on the Ontario investment fund, these initiatives indicate that this government is listening to the business community and is committed to improving the investment climate in this province.

In coming weeks I will be providing further details on initiatives aimed specifically at benefiting the small business community.

First, we will introduce an initiative called Clearing the Path for Business Success, outlined in the supplementary budget paper on investment and economic renewal. This initiative will reduce the government paperwork faced by startup businesses.

A new Ontario innovation and productivity service will provide expert advice to small- and medium-sized firms on technology, management, marketing, organization and training issues. These programs are a direct result of the work of the parliamentary assistants committee for small business, chaired by my PA, Mr Norm Jamison.

Finally, I will be announcing enhancements to the Four Motors international technology network, which will strengthen Ontario's technology and commercial links to Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

These initiatives support our budget commitment to put women and men of Ontario back to work. Together with the capital works, housing and training initiatives of the other ministries, these measures will help to increase the long-term productivity and security of the Ontario economy.

In this increasingly complex world, Ontarians must change what we do, how we do it and how we relate to each other. If we make the right changes, we will increase our productivity, strengthen our international competitiveness and empower ourselves to determine our economic future according to our own needs and values.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That does it; I'm crossing the floor.

The Speaker: Responses, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd hate to see us lose the member for St Catharines to that statement.

RESPONSES

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): There are eight pages to this announcement, but I found one that he refused to read. It's the ninth page. It begins by saying that the Canadian Bond Rating Service lowered the province's credit a notch to AA from AA-plus, saying it expects the government's deficit to hit about $11.1 billion this year.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): You thought it was going to be $15 billion.

Mr Mahoney: I think it will be higher than that.

The company is sceptical of the loud-mouth Treasurer, Floyd Laughren's ability to keep his deficit under control.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Mississauga West should withdraw that.

Mr Mahoney: He's interjecting. I wish you'd keep order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment.

Mr Mahoney: It goes on to say on the ninth page of this statement that it marks the second straight year Ontario's NDP government has watched its credit rating slip following the release of its budget, and further, the Dominion Bond Rating Service in Toronto has put Ontario's long- and short-term debt on rating alert because it also has questions about the size of the deficit.

It seems to me that if you're going to give a minister's statement on industrial strategy, that you should at least make some reference, Minister, to the credit rating that you have allowed to slip in this province.

In the closing part of the statement on page 8, the minister says that we must "empower ourselves to determine our economic future." Minister, when you folks took office, the total debt of this province was about $39 billion. Your projections take it to your figure of $77 billion when you're finally relieved of the burden of governing, and perhaps as high as $80 billion. If that's what you call, to use your words, empowering yourselves to determine our economic future, I fear for the future of all our children.

The comments made in this statement with regard to the ministry working with representatives of business, unions, universities, governments and other organizations to develop this policy are absolutely laughable.

The universities have been slashed to the quick. Colleges, facing a 24% request increase in enrolment, have had their budgets slashed and cut, and yet you purport to be the government that is promoting training. We know the college system can deliver that training, but you've abandoned them. How can you say you're working with them?

Other governments -- talk to the municipal sector -- are facing a 1% increase in transfer payments, facing their own budget problems, and yet you purport to be working with the government. Your Premier calls the federal government "the absconding debtor," and yet you purport to be working with that level of government. Let's face it, all you're doing is creating animosity, creating an atmosphere of confrontation with all other levels of government. And you actually stand there, Minister, and say in a statement that you're working with business, when business has been saying to you: "For God's sake, withdraw your reforms to the labour legislation. Listen to us."

You go on to say that you have consulted with the business community. That's true, you have, except that it's one-way consulting. They talk, and you just leave the table and don't do anything. At a time when you announce a $150-billion funding commitment to all economic sectors, you're taking $1 billion a year out of the economy in a tax grab. This is absolutely a joke. You're just packaging something up with some ribbons to try to confuse people and get them to think you're actually doing something to announce some kind of industrial strategy.

You talk about one-stop shopping. I hope the first office you open is in Niagara Falls, New York. That's where it's needed for one-stop shopping for investment, because that's exactly where they're going. They're fleeing here, and you know it.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): That is absolute bull. I dare you to ask me a question on that.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it's nice to see you get excited, you know. It's nice because we noticed how you were falling asleep while you were reading this. It's nice to see you get a little excited.

You announced an Ontario Investment Centre. Have you talked, Minister, to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which for years has operated the Computerized Ontario Investment Network, known as COIN, where they put investors and investment opportunities together? It's been going on for years, and you come up with some fancy new Ontario Investment Centre. I wonder what the cost will be for that. Why don't you work with the private sector, which already has the infrastructure in place?

You talk about an evaluation advisory board for investment opportunities for workers. That's crisis management so that workers have somewhere to go to find out how they can bail out the company to save their jobs. Give us an announcement that means something, not just puffery and political foolishness.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm afraid the only jobs that are going to be created by this announcement are for the people who wrote it and the people who spent all the time typing the eight pages of this garbage that came out here today. Here we've got lists, pages and pages of jobs being lost. In my own riding we have Tridon, 550 jobs, and nothing in here to help them. The problem is that you've been overtaxing, overspending, overgoverning, overregulating and overlegislating in an oversimplistic approach to public policy for far too long.

Here are the Ontario Chamber of Commerce's recommendations. This is what it said, and nothing in there from that. In February it gave you recommendations on the economy, on your terrible Ontario Labour Relations Act, on pay equity, on employment equity, on the provincial deficit, on Ontario health costs. There is nothing in there for those people. We may as well throw these things away that they produce for you.

On the next page they produce other recommendations: the Workers' Compensation Board, $10 billion in deficit: $45,000 for every company. There is nothing about this in that statement. You've driven the private sector out of day care with your ridiculous policies, out of housing with your housing policies. The private sector that does the job faster, better, cheaper and at no expense to the taxpayer is being thwarted, shut out and penalized by you socialists.

The only people who are going to be happy are the people in Buffalo, New York, because Buffalo Bob strikes again. The only way the people of this province are going to get any opportunity is if they boot you people out.

I refer to some of the job losses that are in here. This particular minister produces this. He talks about some of the things -- I have met with German bankers who say, "We're telling people, 'Don't come to the province of Ontario: 20% tax advantage versus the United States.'" We're the highest-taxed province in Canada, the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.

1410

Your Premier's over in Japan. Nobody wants to invest until you clean up your act here; 88% of the businesses say they don't want your labour relations in there. There's nothing in this statement. Talk to your buddy beside you. The single-biggest factor to driving investment out is your crazy labour relations. It is nothing but a cynical payback to the big labour unions that support you.

I have sat in this ministry, which I thought would be a good-time ministry. The most depressing part of this particular critic's responsibility is going around and talking to businesses that are suffering day after day because of this government's socialist policy. There's nothing in here. The only people who are going to survive and get any jobs out of this are the people who created it and the people who typed it, nobody else. You aren't helping small businesses.

In the recommendations from the chambers they talk about the tax structure. They say the two biggest factors are the taxes and the regulations. Your Treasurer turns around with $1 billion in new taxes. That will wipe out anything you do with regard to helping it.

Very clearly this statement we have waited so long for, so patiently for is a complete and absolute waste. This minister should be embarrassed. We should bring in a new minister and get rid of him, so we can have somebody in here who is going to do something to bring jobs and prosperity back to Ontario, because obviously this minister is a complete and absolute failure.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's very distressing that when the announcement comes about the credit rating for this provincial government not a word is uttered by this government, this government that in fact stood and chastised any other government that was put on credit alert. Mr Treasurer, it's disappointing that you cannot stand up and defend your budget against the charges of these credit-rating companies that your deficit is miscalculated and misstated.

This government just doesn't seem to understand. Your taxes are too high. You've increased spending by 20% in two years. You've increased the deficit by $23 billion. You're out of touch. The only way you're going to attract industry to this province is by taking steps to reduce the taxes, recover from this deficit you've foisted on the public and examine your spending habits.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology standing up here and announcing empty words and rhetoric will not attract one business, will not attract one job, will not create any wealth in this province. The only thing this minister could do that would attract any business or wealth is resign.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Referring to standing order 1(b), I'd like to point out to the Speaker, as he is aware, that a constituent of mine by the name of Renee Goldfinger is in the Speaker's gallery today observing the precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition.

Renee is aware that question period is the opportunity for members of the opposition to hold the government accountable. Yesterday the Speaker ruled that he could not require members of the cabinet to be here to answer questions. I'd like to ask, Mr Speaker, what do you suggest I say to Renee and the other members of Ontario about the fact that 50% of the cabinet is not here today? In fact, there's only one member on the front bench to answer questions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Oriole, first of all, I think she has welcomed this young person to our midst, and that's certainly appropriate. She may also want to say to the young person that indeed a similar point was raised yesterday and that I undertook to take a look at it and report back later. Of course that's what will occur.

It is now time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question's for the Solicitor General. This government's conflicting signals about Sunday shopping continue on and on. We know the government caucus discussed this issue at some length today. I would just ask the Solicitor General whether the caucus reached a conclusion to support the changes that have already been promised to the retailers and when we can expect the announcement.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): To the Leader of the Opposition, I very much appreciate this question. Hardly a day goes by that I wouldn't feel rather left out if this question didn't come across the floor. I can simply only --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): At least she didn't have to read that statement.

Hon Mr Pilkey: No, that's right.

The law is the law. It's well known what the amendments were. I believe the members opposite well know the situation. I can add to the commentary I gave yesterday that there was some discussion in caucus today with respect to the issue. Any discussions the government is having are ongoing. That is simply where it rests.

Mrs McLeod: I can assure the Solicitor General that we'll keep asking the questions as long as the government keeps refusing to make a decision.

Yesterday after question period the Solicitor General said, "If there are alterations, I would hope that the government would come to them in the near future." I don't think it's helpful for this kind of speculation to go on endlessly, yet the speculation goes on and on. The retailers are obviously promised some changes in the Sunday shopping legislation, then the Solicitor General says in the House that there are no changes planned, and then outside the House he says we should have alterations in the near future.

When will the Solicitor General and this government make a decision and let all of us know what they intend to do, and will it be before this weekend?

Hon Mr Pilkey: No, the government has always encouraged open and public debate on this particular issue. That was evidenced by the discussions and public hearings that were held throughout Ontario and in fact in the public meetings that were held right in this Legislature preceding the amendments being brought to this House. The amendments have been passed. The law enforcement agencies have their direction. We very much appreciate and support the fact that retailers chose not to break the law and to continue to be good corporate citizens.

In terms of expanding on my comment about the government monitoring this shift in public opinion, we continue to do so. There is ongoing discussion on this issue, as there is with all others. At any given time that there is an alteration to be made from what has been adopted, we'll so advise you, Mr Speaker, and the House.

Mrs McLeod: This is not an open debate. Yes, the government made a decision. It brought in legislation, but it's obviously still discussing it. It's clear that the decision isn't final even in their own minds. This is simply a silly shell game that this government is playing with the public of Ontario.

The retailers across the province indicated last week that in defiance of the law they would be opening their stores on Sunday. In response, somebody in the government quietly said to those retailers: "Hold off. We're going to bring in changes to our legislation. We've got the wrong law. We can't enforce it anyway. We'll change it." Now the Solicitor General says, "No, we're not changing it at all." So once again the retailers are indicating that they are going to move to open their stores this Sunday if the government doesn't announce its plan.

When will this government stop playing games? When will it stop whispering to people in corners, make a decision and get on with it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government did in fact get on with it, and the process the government has adopted is working, quite frankly, notwithstanding the claims by opposition members just a few months ago that the Ontario Municipal Board process wouldn't work, that it would be cumbersome, that it would all be dragged down and that there would be an endless time. None of that has occurred. The appeals have been heard, decisions have been rendered and in fact the law is being complied with and is working.

That is not to say, though, that the government is oblivious to public opinion. There are discussions going on with respect to it, but I don't think anyone should speculate there will necessarily be changes. But to be fair, we have to admit to the fact that there are ongoing discussions. They will continue until such time as the government has determined that there will be any alteration.

Mrs McLeod: There's clearly no point in pursuing that any further this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question?

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'll ask a question of the Treasurer. In his budget the Treasurer said that job gains are expected to resume in the spring, but instead of growing, as our Treasury critic indicated yesterday, Ontario lost 17,000 jobs in April. If you add those to the 49,000 jobs that were lost in March, we see our jobless rate going up to 10.6% from the seven-year high we hit the month before. The losses are just continuing. Marks and Spencer today announced that it would be closing 10 of its stores in Ontario.

I wonder how the Treasurer can speak about economic recovery even as his credit rating is once again lowered because of lack of confidence in his financial accounting. How can the Treasurer predict an economic recovery when the job losses just continue from day to day?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): There were a number of allegations in the leader of the official opposition's question, including reference to the downgrading. I assume that she wants me to respond to that aspect as well. What happened is that one of the Canadian bond rating agencies lowered its rating to the level of the other three bond rating agencies, AA, which means that we are now one level lower than British Columbia, at the same level as Alberta and above every other province in the country. So I think you should put into perspective just what our bond rating is.

On the question of jobs and the unemployment rate --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

1420

Hon Mr Laughren: I am surprised that the opposition would ask a very serious question and then try to shout me down when I try to give an answer, but I'll try to soldier on. The fact is that when the budget was brought down on --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try to answer what I think is a serious question dealing with a very serious matter, namely, the level of unemployment in the province and the job losses that were announced fairly recently. That is of enormous concern to the government, and I'm sure it is to all members in this House. But I think to imply that, because the budget was brought down on April 30 and here we are less than two weeks later, there's some kind of link between the unemployment rate and the budget is really a fanciful conclusion that the leader of the official opposition has drawn.

Mrs McLeod: I'm a little bit taken aback by the Treasurer's response. This is this government's second budget. This government's been in office for 18 months. This recession's been going on from the time they took office. How can they suggest that we shouldn't be looking for immediate responses to a desperate economic situation and to the people's need for jobs?

I'm afraid that sometimes the statistics about unemployment rates and debt and job losses are just so great that we can be almost numbed by the numbers. But the reality is that people are frightened. They're worried about their futures. People who have jobs are worried about whether they're going to have their jobs tomorrow. Many others are desperate to find jobs. When people are desperate, they respond in desperate ways. We saw some of that last week.

I would ask the Treasurer to tell us what new jobs will be in place this month and what immediate signals of economic recovery we might expect to see to assure people that this steady loss of jobs is ending. When will the unemployment rates go down instead of up?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition built into her question once again some comments that I feel I must respond to. I think that in fact she's depreciating the value of her question by some of her preamble, but because I have to respond, it was the leader of the official opposition who implied there was a link between this last budget. It wasn't I who made that link; it was the leader of the official opposition.

Second, I would remind the leader of the official opposition that we have a recession here in this province that's not unique to the province of Ontario. It's North American; it's not simply in Ontario. Obviously any government that's in office at the time has to be concerned about the level of unemployment, particularly when it goes up. But we did, in this budget, create and support 90,000 jobs. We did that very specifically through three capital funds and the base capital budgets in all the various ministries. That is a commitment to job creation in this province. I can tell the leader of the official opposition that never in the history of this province has there been the commitment to capital spending that this government brought forward in this budget this year.

Mrs McLeod: You simply can't ignore reality. People in this province are losing jobs on a day-to-day basis. They're losing jobs because of this government's policies, because of its mismanagement and its misdirection.

Let me turn specifically to the university and college students who are out of school as of today looking for jobs. Yesterday the Treasurer told us about the job programs that exist for students, but what we hear is that those jobs are not yet in place for the students who are hunting for something right now.

I do not want the Treasurer to list the number of summer job opportunities that his government plans to create. I don't want to hear about the plans to develop the jobs. I don't want to hear about the coordinator who has been appointed. I want the Treasurer to give us the assurance that the same number of jobs will exist for students as existed for students last year under the job creation programs of this government. I want to know that the funding for those jobs, for the programs the Treasurer indicated yesterday would be in place, is actually in place now and that the hiring for those programs is taking place right now.

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition and the Liberal Party of Ontario seem to think that when the private sector lays off 260,000 people in this province over the period of a year and a half or two years the Ontario government can pick up the entire slack of 260,000 jobs. Second, the leader of the official opposition seems to think, as she stands in her place day after day, that we can lower the deficit, reduce taxes and spend a lot more money on job creation. Get into the real world, Ms McLeod.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, at 7:15 pm last night I heard you come out of the policy and priorities meeting here at the Legislature and tell the media that the Education Relations Commission had found a ruling of jeopardy to the some 15,000 students in the Carleton Board of Education. You then indicated that you were going to dither further. You were going to bring the parties together once again to try to work out an agreement. Would you share with this House the exact ruling of the Education Relations Commission?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The advisement I received from the commission was that in its view the students' year was in jeopardy and that therefore the government should contemplate legislation to bring the teachers back to work.

Mr Sterling: It was my understanding from the news conference, in which you gave more information than you have in your answer, that they also recommended that you dither further with regard to the settlement of the issues between the two parties. Is it your intention, Mr Minister, to table a bill this afternoon so that, in fairness to members of the opposition, who have considered this issue and are quite willing to cooperate with the government to see quick passage of the bill, they will have the opportunity to look at it and see if in fact you are dealing with the issues, including the final settlement of the dispute between the board and the teachers in the Carleton board area?

Hon Mr Silipo: No, I will not be tabling a bill in the Legislature this afternoon. I indicated yesterday, as the member well knows, and I can indicate today, as he's reiterated today, that we've asked Mr Vic Pathe to go in and speak with the parties in an attempt to see if a settlement is possible. We've asked him to report to us by noon tomorrow, and I've indicated we will be prepared to proceed with legislation tomorrow afternoon if there isn't a resolution to the dispute. I don't consider that dithering; I consider that carrying out our responsibilities in a responsible fashion and encouraging to the last possible possibility the resolution of the dispute between the parties, which I think every member of this House would agree, and the parties themselves have indicated to me, would obviously be the most preferable solution.

1430

Mr Sterling: There's a process in this Legislature, as you know, and the process permits one member of this Legislature, one out of the 130 members of this Legislature, to delay the passage of that bill at least one day. While our party is solidly behind any move which would get the teachers back to school, you, Mr Minister, have promised the public in Ottawa-Carleton and the Carleton board area that the kids are going to be back in school on Thursday, whereas one member of this Legislature can stop that bill dead in its tracks tomorrow afternoon.

We would like that bill passed tomorrow afternoon so the kids can be back in school on Thursday morning. Is it not the only responsible thing for you to do today, to table that bill so at least the members of these two caucuses will have the opportunity to review what you're planning within that piece of legislation so we can cooperate tomorrow afternoon and make certain the children and young men and women get back to school on Thursday morning as you have promised the Ottawa-Carleton area?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me just say to the member first of all that I didn't write the rules of the House, but I understand what he's saying, and let me assure him there will be every possible cooperation from this side of the House if we get to the eventuality tomorrow afternoon of having to introduce legislation. I'm quite sure that through the House leaders there can also be the appropriate discussions in terms of making sure the opposition is aware of the contents of the legislation, which is being drafted as we speak.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. In the absence of leadership from your Premier, in the absence of leadership from you as Deputy Premier, in the absence of leadership from the Solicitor General, in the absence of leadership from your cabinet --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: -- in the absence of all of that leadership and with the dithering and the speculation on Sunday shopping, a suggestion came forward that you or your cabinet or the Premier's office may be considering a novel idea for your party: a free vote.

Mr Deputy Premier, given that for my caucus virtually every vote in this Legislature is a free vote --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Given that since I have become leader I cannot think of a vote by my caucus that has not been a free vote -- I don't believe there is one. In some confidence motions we certainly hope none of our caucus members actually supports the direction of the government, but there certainly has not been a whipped vote since I've become leader. Given that, we welcome the opportunity. Mr Deputy Premier, if in fact you're planning a free vote, could you tell us if that is the case, and if so, can we expect to move expeditiously with a free vote on the issue of Sunday shopping so our businesses can get back to doing business and our workers can get to work?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I understand the leader of the third party's yearning for leadership. I appreciate that.

I would say he has referred to something terribly speculative, namely, whether there would be a free vote on a bill that is not before us. There's no such bill, so I'm not too sure I can provide the leader of the third party any comfort when it is so highly speculative and hypothetical.

Mr Harris: Can the Deputy Premier tell this Legislature if any official of the Premier's office made a deal with any retailer in this province and held out some hope and expectation that there would be a response from this government on the issue of Sunday shopping?

Hon Mr Laughren: While I am not employed in the Premier's office, to my knowledge no such promise, deal or arrangement was ever made.

Mr Harris: I wonder if the Deputy Premier, in the absence of any assurances for retailers and workers or for students who are desperately looking for work, facing an increase in their tuition fees of three or four times the rate of inflation, thanks to you in your capacity as Treasurer, and given the uncertainty with businesses -- at one point a Solicitor General suggesting that the police may be too busy to prosecute the Sunday shopping law that was on the books -- given all that uncertainty out there, I wonder if the Deputy Premier can tell us one of two things: Does he or his caucus or his cabinet plan to bring forward a definitive statement, one way or the other, on Sunday shopping? If not, I wonder if the Treasurer could tell us if the concept of a free vote is foreign to him and his party.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I don't believe the remarks attributed to the Solicitor General in fact are correct. I don't believe --

Mr Harris: I heard him on the radio. I think it was his voice.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not denying the fact that you possibly heard voices. I'm just saying I don't believe it was the Solicitor General.

It really would be inappropriate to speculate on a bill that's not even in draft form. I don't even know there's going to be a bill. The law is in place now, and I, along with the Solicitor General and everybody else in the government, expect the law to be obeyed.

1440

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, one day you say you will and one day you say you might. Yesterday our party was asked if we would consider standing down our opposition day if you decided to bring in legislation regarding the situation in Carleton. We very cooperatively agreed, but that offer was not taken, Mr Minister. You continue, as you did last week, yesterday, the week before last, to say that you are looking at options, that you are exploring every single available option, that you are going to present these options to the cabinet.

I want to ask the minister this: He has held out the possibility of legislation, something he says he would have to resort to. He has promised legislation. I want to know from the minister when he thinks, really thinks, the students in Carleton will return to their classes.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I thought I had been quite clear over the last few hours, since yesterday, in terms of the statements I made and what I reiterated earlier in answer to a question. I certainly appreciate the discussions that have taken place between the House leaders with respect to this afternoon. That I think was a situation of the House leader doing his job with respect to the other House leaders and what might happen.

We clearly have decided as of last night to make one last effort to see if the strike can be resolved through mediation with somebody of the experience of Mr Vic Pathe talking to the parties. I've indicated very clearly that we'll be prepared to proceed with legislation tomorrow afternoon. That's why we set the time line of noon tomorrow for Mr Pathe to report back to us, and that's our intent. We will be ready to proceed with legislation tomorrow afternoon if it's necessary.

Mrs O'Neill: The minister really didn't answer my very simple question: When? He wouldn't even give any projection, but I'll go on to another supplementary and maybe he will find that easier to answer.

The students are asking, the parents are asking, the community is asking and I'm asking how long we have to wait before the secondary students in Carleton are given their right to their education. They are now in an untenable situation. Their education has been judged to be in jeopardy. You have used those very words yourself; you stated they were presented to you last night. They are in danger of losing their year, Mr Minister. You know that and I know that. You've stated your interests. I hope they are your concerns. You said, "My primary interest very clearly is the students." You said, "No matter how this issue is resolved, the year for the students will be protected."

You have addressed the issue of the school year. Will you make the extension of the school year a condition of settlement? Will you make the extension of the school day, as you have mentioned on two occasions, a condition of settlement? Will those two remedies that you have suggested be part of the legislation? Mr Minister, we have to know how you are thinking. The people in Carleton, in the community, must know. You talk a lot of rhetoric. Please help us.

Hon Mr Silipo: First of all, to go back to the earlier point in terms of the concerns around the students and when they might be back in the classroom, quite clearly, if we are dealing with legislation tomorrow afternoon and if that legislation can be passed, then there's nothing to prevent the students from being back in school on Thursday morning. I don't know how much clearer we can be about that.

In terms of the school year, I've also made it very clear that I will do whatever is necessary, even if that means extending school days from now till the end of the year, to make sure students don't lose the year. That doesn't have to be tied, as I am sure the member well knows, as a condition to the settlement, because as Minister of Education I have the right to approve a restructured calendar from the school board or not to approve something I don't believe is appropriate. In fact, that is what is happening now. We are looking at that. There are discussions that will take place with the school board. We will do whatever has to to be done to make sure the school year is protected.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Treasurer. In last month's budget, you deferred approximately $500 million in government contributions to pension funds for government employees and teachers, I believe. Following the budget and in the ensuing days, I was a little bit surprised, given that a minimum deferral of about three months on $500 million would cost the pension funds perhaps $10 million to $12 million in interest, that we had not heard any reaction from the teachers' associations, because that pension money is their money, and that we hadn't heard any reaction from the government employees.

Could you tell this House if you made a deal with the employees and the teachers, on whose behalf these funds are paid by the government, to offset the loss of perhaps some $10 million to $12 million in interest?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Yes, that is indeed the case. As the money will not be forwarded on January 1, as we will rather, as part of a package of astute cash management for the province, delay the allocation of that money from January 1 to April 1, I think it's only fair that the interest will be paid on it. Otherwise I think it really would be inappropriate and arbitrary on the part of the government.

Mr Harris: I would ask you, Treasurer: Other than fudging the books, so to speak, if the cost is going to be there anyway; other than trying to create an illusionary figure, perhaps for the bond-rating agencies or the public of this province, if the cost is going to be there anyway, could you tell us what advantage there is to the province in deferring this payment? If in fact you've cut a deal with the employees to make up the difference, then could you tell this House exactly how much that deal you made is going to cost the taxpayers of this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be too homespun in my response to the leader of the third party, but I'll try to put it in the context of an ordinary family. If a family is having cash management difficulties in any given year and needs to buy a new car, then I don't think there is anything unusual about fixing up the car for three months and waiting till then to buy the new car.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: It really is simply a case of astute cash management. I think the leader of the third party misses --

Mr Harris: How much money? What's the cost?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): Let him answer.

Mr Harris: I'm waiting for the answer. You didn't answer. What was the cost?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I really would very much like to respond to the very serious question. The leader of the third party should understand that if we had paid out that money on January 1 rather than on April 1, in view of the size of our deficit we would have been paying money on that in borrowed funds anyway, only it would have been borrowed from somebody else. There's nothing mysterious about it. It is a question of to whom we pay the interest on that borrowed money. It is simply a case of deciding to pay that money on April 1 rather than January 1. That is money we will not be spending this fiscal year. It's as plain and simple as that.

1450

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Minister, you can recall that last fall our government made the very tough but pragmatic decision not to proceed with public auto insurance. We based that decision on a number of reasons. Part of the reason was that the reform package we felt we could introduce would provide lower premiums while expanding benefits for innocent accident victims.

Minister, I'm receiving some questions from the people of Brantford. I'd appreciate it if you could advise this House as well as the driving public or the people of Brantford as to when the auto insurance reforms that were discussed and presented will be fully implemented by our government.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): I thank the member for Brantford for the question, although I'm not in a position to predict precisely when we'll be in a position to implement the reforms. The member knows that the package was introduced in December. We're still hoping to do second reading this spring, to see that package out for public hearings in a committee over the course of the summer and hopefully to have third reading some time during the fall and implementation to follow very quickly on third reading.

Mr Ward: I'm sure the opposition will give its full cooperation because I'm sure it wants these benefits for the driving public as well. Until that happens, I'm receiving some calls -- not many, but some -- from my constituents who have experienced an increase in their auto insurance premiums or have not received any rebate whatsoever. Can the minister give any advice to this House as to what action he may or may not be able to take to resolve their concerns?

Hon Mr Charlton: The question the member raises can be answered in one of basically three different ways. The reference he made to rebates, there's only one company that I'm aware of that has taken the rebate approach. I believe that was State Farm. Other companies have taken the approach of applying to the pension commission for reductions in the rates they will charge in their next round of billing. Better than 50% of the industry has in fact applied for rate reductions that average about 5%, and people will start to see those rate reductions in their next set of billings.

The third comment is simply that individuals who have received an increase may or may not have received it as a result of an increase in overall rates that are charged by a company. It may also, in individual cases, have something to do with their own policies, their own driver performance and perhaps accidents or violations that they've had.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to follow up on the response of the Minister of Education to the last question that was asked. Mr Minister, both yesterday in the House in response to a question I asked about the concern for students and the jeopardy of their school year and in response to the question the member for Ottawa-Rideau has just asked, the minister seems to have made some assurances that the students' year will not be jeopardized and that he will in some way find means of extending the school year or extending the school day in order to ensure that the students are not in jeopardy.

I've not had long enough to go over my somewhat late memory of the Education Act, but I'm not aware of any permission or any authority given to the minister under the act to provide any of those kinds of assurances. I would ask the minister on what legal basis he feels he could act in the way he has described acting in the House today.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Certainly. I've been proceeding on the basis of advice I've received from my legal officials in the ministry. On that basis, it's my understanding that in a situation where's there been a strike or other kind of work stoppage it's the responsibility of the school board to submit to the minister for approval a restructured school year to deal with the rest of the school year and to show within that how it proposes to make up for the time that's been lost.

It's because the minister, in my understanding, has the right to approve or disapprove of that proposal that therein lies the power the minister has to indicate very clearly the kinds of things I would expect to see happening in order to ensure that the school year is protected.

Mrs McLeod: That does constitute a clarification and also is in direct contrast to the answers -- and I will check Hansard -- which I believe I heard earlier this afternoon, and it would seem to me to be in direct contrast to the answer I was given in response to my question yesterday.

Quite clearly the minister has just now said that he cannot provide the reassurances around the extension of the school year, the extension of the school day or the assurance that a school year is not in jeopardy for students. He can act to approve recommended changes from a school board. If my memory of the Education Act is correct -- and it may well be faulty; it's been some years since I was actively involved with it -- only the principal of a school can actually recommend promotion of individual students.

I raise the issue and we've come back to the question because in our questions on this issue we have wanted to keep the concerns of the students front and foremost. We have asked the minister what action he will take in a situation that is becoming increasingly more urgent, and yes, every 24-hour period counts.

We understand the minister has now received advice from the Education Relations Commission that the students are indeed in jeopardy. We've asked the minister why he is not responding with an even greater sense of urgency. We cleared the legislative table through agreement with the House leaders so the legislation could come in today. This minister should not be giving false assurances. He should be acting in a way that is totally within his authority. I would ask him why he has not brought in that legislation today.

Hon Mr Silipo: The Leader of the Opposition started off dealing with the school year and then went on talking about the legislation. Let me just say, first of all, that having heard the concerns expressed across the floor today I will obviously check one more time to be sure that the advice I've been given and I've been functioning on is appropriate. If there's any doubt whatsoever in that, then I will do whatever is necessary in terms of the legislation even, if that's required, to make sure we carry forward and carry through with the commitment I've made to ensure the school year for the students is not jeopardized. I don't think there's any disagreement between this side of the House and that side of the House on that issue.

Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that it's an issue I will certainly pursue one more time in making sure, as I say, that the advice I've been given so far and that I've been functioning under is correct. If there's any doubt about that, we'll deal with it. There's no question about it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): No doubt the board's going to act in the best interests of the students, that's for sure.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a simple question for the Treasurer. I wonder if the Treasurer can tell the difference between -- Mr Treasurer, your attention -- a can of beer, a can of pop and a can of juice.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): How about a can of worms?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Yes, I am one of the last living experts on the differences among those three cans.

Mr Cousens: Well, the answer goes to the Liberals. I heard Steve Mahoney say, "It's a can of worms." That is the difference, because one of these cans has been singled out and taxed for the sake of the environment.

The way I see it, your budget was quick to single out beer cans, but if beer cans can pose a hazard to the environment, then other cans are equally hazardous and should be subject to the same tax. After all, over 80% of beer cans are recycled now so there's no need to stress recycling initiatives.

Increasing the environmental tax on beer cans to 10 cents will give the government $55 million for environmental initiatives. However, there's a lot of concern that this tax will be like the Liberal tire tax: a sham with collected taxes not being used for the intended purpose. The tax might well be a form of deficit fund-raising or it may be a type of environmental protectionism from invading American beer.

Could you, Mr Treasurer, tell us why you increased the tax on a product that is already subject to the 3Rs and what environmental initiatives will be generated by the $55 million?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question that the environmental levy is being done to encourage people to switch from cans to refillable bottles. I should be happy to pass on to the Ministry of the Environment as well the concern the member has and the fact that I think I heard him say he would support a 10-cent environmental levy on all pop cans as well as beer cans. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think that was implied in the member's questions and I'll be happy to pass that on to the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for the whole question of an environmental levy on pop cans.

1500

RENT REGULATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Housing. The minister will recall that when Bill 4 was originally introduced in this House the intent of the bill was for the first time to provide some real protection to tenants against extremely large increases in rent.

The minister will also recall that at the time the bill was introduced the opposition claimed, rather loudly and long, that the bill would never, ever withstand a court challenge.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat.

The member for Kitchener.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Housing. The minister will know that when Bill 4 was originally introduced -- just in case the members of the opposition forget what that is, it is the first progressive piece of legislation that afforded real protection to tenants here in this province that many on the other side of the House now are claiming some responsibility for -- the opposition claimed at the time that it would never withstand a court challenge.

Last week a rather important decision, referred to as the Moretta case, was made that in fact did uphold the law. Could the minister comment on it, particularly on how it's going to relate now to tenants and landlords in Ontario?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Many members will be aware that a judgement was made last week in the Court of Appeal and it affected the phased-in rent increases that had been claimed on the basis of financial loss, which Bill 4 had voided. That was upheld in the court and the court said that Bill 4 was crystal clear in its intent.

Mr Ferguson: Just so that I'm clear and everybody else is clear, particularly as it relates to the tenants who are going to be affected in Waterloo as well as the tenants in St Catharines, this in effect will mean they're going to have a positive outcome on this matter.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. The tenants at 300 Regina Street North in Waterloo and at 383 and 385 Vine Street in St Catharines, whose landlord was Mr Moretta, will be eligible for rent rebates. I've asked that the rent offices in those two locations provide tenants --

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- with all the information they will need to get access to those rebates to which they're legally entitled.

The Speaker: New question.

COLLEGE ENROLMENTS

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Minister, students and the unemployed are getting hit from all sides, including from your government. Summer jobs are extremely hard to get, and for the few lucky ones who do get summer jobs, you have cut their OSAP payments. If people can't find a job and they want to upgrade their skills, they're getting stuck on lengthy waiting lists for admission to colleges.

At Loyalist College, for example, as my colleague the member for Quinte pointed out to me last week, applications are up by 25% over last year. Of course we're all familiar with the story in the Toronto Star today.

Minister, what is your message to the students and to the unemployed who are on long admission waiting lists for the colleges? Are you telling them to forget about getting into colleges? Are you telling them to forget about finding a job? Or do you have any message of hope?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): In response to the doomsayer opposite, let me at least observe that in contrast to some of his previous comments about access being inhibited by increasing fee levels, the fact that we have a 26% increase in enrolments going into colleges suggests that the fees have had no impact whatsoever on access. In fact, it might have been an encouragement, one could even argue from that evidence.

I want to say to the member opposite that he knows very well that the college funding formula and the university funding formula are enrolment-driven, that the institutions get money for every student who goes into those institutions. We added a 2% increase and a transitional fund on top of that to help them cope with additional pressures that are coming. There are laid-off employee programs that we have in place for some regions, and so on.

We're trying our best in a very difficult situation to meet the needs of people who themselves have great problems and therefore are going to the colleges and universities to help them with their futures.

Mr Daigeler: Minister, I find it extremely hard to follow your twisted logic. Certainly what the colleges are telling us, and I'm sure they've told you, is that they cannot accommodate this increase in students we're seeing because of the recession and because of your low transfer increases to the colleges. I can understand and I can accept that the province is experiencing a difficult fiscal situation, but what I cannot accept, Minister, and what I cannot accept from the Treasurer, is that you have increased the Ministry of Labour's budget, for example, by $100 million but you've cut OSAP by $10 million. Mr Minister, what I cannot accept is that you've doubled the budget for Management Board of Cabinet and you're cutting the increases to the colleges and the universities. That's the problem.

Where are your priorities, Mr Minister? Why did your government double the budget for Management Board? Why did it give $100 million more to the Ministry of Labour but does not find the money to provide for the education students need to find jobs?

Hon Mr Allen: There are some patterns of logic that do indeed defy logic. I would just observe that the member does not seem to understand, with respect to OSAP, what happened there. He may recall that last year, although we had a budget for OSAP, we had a movement from 127,000 to 155,000 applicants and therefore spent $53 million more on OSAP last year than we did the year before, and ever before. The application level for OSAP at this point in time is roughly 190,000 people and we'll support all those students.

GRADUATED LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Mills, give us your question.

Mr Turnbull: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, as you'll be aware, I have before the standing committee on resources development a 123 motion to consider the implementation of graduated licences. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has spent several million dollars on developing a paper on this issue, and undoubtedly we have to stop the needless loss of lives. There was an accident in Burlington last year which cost five teenagers their lives, and again last weekend there was a tragic accident. My question is, how quickly can you move, if you're going to move on this issue? It's of vital importance.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The critic opposite is right on. I know he shares in the sorrow of all members of this House when from time to time it comes to the loss of life on Ontario highways. As you are well aware, the record vis-à-vis fatalities, calamities, is not a perfect record -- far from it -- but it is one of constant improvement. The member opposite is right that young people, specifically people between the ages of 16 and 24, are indeed overrepresented.

We have the responsibility for transportation, not to make it impossible for people to enjoy the privilege and the right to drive on the roads of Ontario. But we also have an obligation to make sure they earn their stripes. We're looking at all options. We're cognizant of what you're asking for and we are in the process of consultation. There has to be a beginning, a middle and an end. Stay tuned. It might come to your neighbourhood very soon.

Mr Turnbull: The Minister of Transportation, as usual, gave us an eloquent presentation. Nobody's got an idea as to what he said.

My question was, when will you bring forward legislation? My caucus is very supportive of this measure and we've had discussions with your people. We want an answer. We don't want needless loss of lives. Minister, a caution: We know that a lot of legislation is brought forward that is aimed at an urban setting. There are unique questions to be considered with respect to rural residents. My question is, will you consider the unique aspects of rural residents? Hopefully we can get a clearer answer than on the first question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With respect, if the member opposite does not understand, I cannot and shall not take full responsibility for that kind of reaction, and yet he's right on again. He comes by way of supplementary and tell us about this vast and magnificent land, the diversity in the province of Ontario. This is what makes the issue interesting and challenging. It is a complex issue indeed. We find it challenging. We're moving. We're appreciative of the contribution from the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Ontario Provincial Police. I know Mr Runciman would join me and other members in this House in thanking our police force, which is certainly putting the welfare of others ahead of its own. They protect and serve indeed. Consultation is alive and well, our work is continuing and we will be able to address the specifics raised by the member opposite in relatively short order.

1510

GREEN INDUSTRY STRATEGY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The community of Sault Ste Marie has been going through a very comprehensive strategic planning exercise over the last year and a half as we look at renewing our economy. Certainly our government has shown great leadership in the restructuring of Algoma Steel. We were heartened by the recent budget delivered by the Treasurer.

Today my question is for the Minister of Energy, because there was reference in the recent speech from the throne to an Ontario green industry strategy. I'm wondering, Mr Minister, if you might explain to me and the residents of Ontario the benefits that will accrue from that for them, and in particular for my city, as we look at taking advantage of new industry that will develop because of this initiative.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): The green industry strategy the member refers to in his question is a strategy that the government is designing to attempt to ensure that many of the things we've imposed on our industrial sector over the course of the last 20 years in fact start to have a capability of production here in the province of Ontario. The green industry strategy is designed to spur industry to move towards production of products and services in this province that will fulfil some of the goals governments have set, both this one and past governments, around energy and water conservation and around environmental sustainability.

Mr Martin: I'm rather interested in some further development of that thought, particularly in light of how important these kinds of initiatives will be to the people who live and work in northern Ontario, and in particular in Sault Ste Marie. At the moment I'm chairing a task force looking at the whole issue of recycling and waste management and how new initiatives that are coming on by the day now will impact our ability as a resource extraction sector to continue to contribute to the economy of the province in significant and meaningful ways. There will be negative impacts; there will be positive impacts. I was wondering if you might be more specific as to how this will apply to the north and, again, in particular how it might apply to the community of Sault Ste Marie and our ability to produce steel, and to communities like Thunder Bay to produce paper and so many of the other resource-based industries that are up there.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member's question is an important one. He mentioned two specific industries in the north which are of particular interest but don't exclusively relate to the north. He mentioned paper and he mentioned steel at Algoma. The kind of approach we're taking is to try to ensure that as we try to clean up the processes, for example, in the steel industry or the paper industry, we do that in consultation with those very industries and with those that produce the parts and products that make those industries run, so we can ensure that as the technology becomes available to do environmental clean-up, and make those industries more efficient at the same time, as many of those products as possible are produced right here at home.

ENVIRONMENTAL YOUTH CORPS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is to the Treasurer. It follows very nicely, I think, on the question for the Minister of Energy as it relates to environmental issues, particularly in light of the recent statement by you, Mr Treasurer, that the primary concern of your budget is job creation. I couple that now as well with the concerns we have with respect to youth employment.

I look at the Ministry of the Environment and I see that the government has flat-lined payments through the Ministry of the Environment for the Environmental Youth Corps, a program, Treasurer, that I remind you gives opportunity to young people to earn while they learn in terms of environmental issues and to contribute in a very positive way to this province, right across the province. East, west, north, south, the greater Toronto area: Every region of the province benefits in terms of the Environmental Youth Corps.

Last year there were 3,400 young people employed. At that time the unemployment rate for youth was about 10.6%. This year we're close to doubling the unemployment rate, as noted by Statscan, with respect to youth. It's probably much higher, Treasurer, and yet we're cutting back on those kinds of programs, the result being that we have some 2,900, a significant cutback in the number of students employed through the Environmental Youth Corps program.

Treasurer, would you please reconsider your budgeting priorities? My colleague has raised the idea with respect to cutting back funding for students in terms of loans and grants. Here we have a program that gives tangible experience and benefits young people, yet your government is cutting it. Would you reconsider that and revisit your budgeting priorities, Mr Treasurer, so that young people get the job experience and the opportunities they deserve so they can then go on in further education and learn while they do it?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): First of all, I endorse completely the member's understanding and articulation of the value of spending on environmental programs, so I have no quarrel with him in that regard whatsoever.

When we were drafting the budget there were a large number of groups, parts of the province, sectors, that we wanted to do a lot more for. There's no question about that whatsoever. When I look at the unemployment rate in eastern Ontario, northern Ontario -- all over the province, but there are pockets where the problem is more severe than in others -- we wanted to do more as well.

I can tell the member that the likelihood of more money going into these programs at this point is slim indeed, because I'm sure that, as he sits there playing a pivotal role in his caucus, he has heard his leader talk about the evils of the size of the Ontario budget as it is.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Your priorities are all wrong.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't expect the member opposite to agree with all our priorities. I assume he wouldn't agree with those of the member for Oriole either.

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

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd like your guidance with respect to standing order 21(a). It has to do with a response given to me by the Minister of Labour. That response was of May 4. It has nothing to do with the response itself except that the last sentence by the minister in his response to me indicated that I, as the member, should get my information correct. So I bring this matter to your attention.

I originally asked a question April 28, a Tuesday, which dealt with the withdrawal of funding from a lung cancer early detection and treatment program. The minister at that point had committed to respond at a later time. That was May 4. In his response he alluded to the fact that there was a --

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): You can't correct another member's record.

Mr Offer: I see that the House leader is saying you can't correct someone else's record. If the House leader had paid attention, it has to do with a statement made by the Minister of Labour to me personally that I should get my information correct.

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Offer: My point of privilege is that he had indicated that there was a funding agreement between Algoma Steel and Denison Mines. The Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety has commented that that is not correct, as was indicated by the Minister of Labour, but that my information was correct. I bring this matter to your attention as a point of privilege because in the minister's response he alluded to my information and me being incorrect. It is the Minister of Labour. I would like him to correct the record.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member has not lost any privilege. What you have, obviously, is a difference of opinion between yourself and the minister. Of course, in part that's what we provide 60 minutes each day for.

1520

PETITIONS

REVENUE FROM GAMING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition as well.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition from several constituents from New Hamburg, Baden, Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton.

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

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

"Whereas our civil law, as it currently stands, defines sexual molestation as assault; and

"Whereas all assault is subject to a four-year statute of limitations;

"We believe no limitation period should apply in cases of interfamilial and/or incestuous sexual molestation, as it takes an indeterminate number of years for a victim to come to know the impact of the molestation;

"Therefore, we petition the Ontario Legislature to introduce legislation that would guarantee victims of interfamilial and incestuous sexual molestation the right to bring civil action against their perpetrators without time limitations."

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

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

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC (previously grade 13) history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief systems and better appreciate an opposing view. These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks, approved in circular 14, dealing with the question of origins."

TEACHERS' RETIREMENT

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 69 people respectfully requesting the government of Ontario to lower the retirement factor for teachers from 90 to 85, and the retirement age to age 60, in order to open up job opportunities for teachers with less seniority and provide savings to school boards. I have signed my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

1527

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 56

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 31

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eves, Harris, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ramsay, Sorbara, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

OPPOSITION DAY

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion 3:

Whereas the economy of Ontario is not now providing our citizens, particularly our young people, with a sense of future security or job opportunity; and

Whereas our current institutions and programs are not now providing relief for our people from the sense of frustration and hopelessness in which they find themselves; and

Whereas this frustration and hopelessness have been manifest in the form of incidents of violence in the city of Toronto, which incidents are of great concern to all Ontarians;

Therefore, this Parliament urges cooperation and understanding from all members in order to undertake constructive change designed to address the underlying causes of these incidents.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer): This is bizarre.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The Treasurer has just called across the floor that this is a bizarre motion, and I would agree that this motion is somewhat unusual in the way in which we have attempted to express our concerns, our very real concerns, in this motion; the way in which we have, in fact, in an opposition day motion called for a cooperative effort of all members of this House to address issues which are of serious concern to all citizens of this province.

We have chosen this as a focus for an opposition day resolution so that we could provide an opportunity in this House for all of us, for all concerned members of this House, to be able to explore an understanding of the events that happened in Toronto last week so we would all know how best to respond to them.

We chose last week not to raise this issue in question period because of the inevitable confrontation of a question period session. We chose instead to express our concerns and to call a meeting of the leaders of the three parties in order, again, to take a constructive, non-partisan approach to dealing with these issues. In leading off this debate, my goal is to set a tone for what I hope will be a constructive and a thoughtful discussion of issues which are of great urgency and certainly of considerable magnitude.

All of us were concerned about the vandalism that occurred in Toronto last week. We were concerned about the tensions that gave rise to the outburst of violence, and we continue to be concerned about the tensions that continue as a result of fear that violence will occur again. All of us should have been concerned about the frustration and the anger that led the black community to demonstrate in a way which seemed subsequently to trigger a riot, but we should not make the mistake of confusing these issues, even as we try to understand how they are in some ways related. The black community demonstration was not the same as the riot in the streets, but the rioting and the tension in the streets may well have had at least some of their roots in common with the frustrations of the black community.

We will not advance our understanding of these issues or our ability to respond in an effective way if we try to simplify what has happened. Many people have reacted to the rioting with anger and with fear. There is no question that safety and security are a concern for us all, and there is no question that violence and vandalism cannot be tolerated.

There is no room in this discussion today for police-bashing. The police have a difficult job to do, and we value and depend on their efforts. But those of us who are not black, who are not part of any visible minority group, cannot and must not let our own fear, our own concern for safety, stop us from understanding that there is still systemic discrimination in our justice system, that it is no less real because it may be less blatant, and that even while efforts have been made to respond to this concern, there is still a long way to go.

We must somehow find the capacity to walk that mile in another's moccasins, to understand how the fear experienced by blacks, or in my part of the province by Indians, is fear of the very people who for the rest of us are seen as protectors. It is difficult for those of us who have not experienced that fear to grasp what it must be like. It seems to me that it's the kind of fear that turns the normal and the expected upside down. It's the kind of fear that makes faith in the justice system impossible.

All of us need to have faith in our justice system, to be free of fear. So we must do whatever needs to be done to eliminate the fears, to restore the faith that our system of justice does indeed work; that it works to ensure the safety of us all, certainly, but that it works too in a way which is truly protective of the rights of every citizen in a fair and impartial way.

We've commended the government on its action in appointing Stephen Lewis to look at what is needed to respond to the problems of systemic discrimination in our institutions, including our justice system. I appreciate the fact that after we had asked for meetings of all three parties, Mr Lewis has moved quickly to work with me and with our caucus. We will cooperate fully in helping to understand the issues and the most effective responses.

We acknowledge the added frustration of people in the community that governments -- I would say all governments -- seem to respond to the immediacy of a crisis, and that too often the efforts needed for real progress are not sustained. That really should be a primary focus for Mr Lewis's attention: what happens in between the crises. But we must not fail to respond, or hesitate in recommitting to make that needed effort.

I will not speak to the details of the issues that need to be pursued in the interest of fair access to the justice system. The government has been identifying some of these in recent days, and my colleagues and others will speak to them as well. But I do want to take a moment to touch on the other set of issues, issues that are related in some way to the issue of access to justice but a long way from being synonymous with it.

These are issues that must also be the focus of our concern, because in a large measure the tensions of last week are a direct result of the tensions that inevitably build in our society as we fail to come to grips with the reality of unemployment, of economic insecurity, of inadequate or ghettoized housing and of still far less than equal access to educational opportunity.

1540

We take some pride in our country that our social program network is stronger than that of the United States. Our belief in equality of opportunity is pervasive and profound, but the challenges of maintaining and extending the programs we believe in have never been greater. We are still a long way from achieving the goals of truly equal opportunity.

There's no question that our ability to respond to the challenges of creating the kind of society we all want will rest on our ability to support a strong economy. But we must not, under the pressures of our most immediate economic difficulties, lose what we have gained. It will take tremendous insight and cooperative effort not only to hold on, but to make some real progress, and yet somehow that must be achieved. We must find ways of making progress on employment equity, access to education, child welfare and family poverty.

A starting point, because it is so urgent, must be an immediate examination of the need for some employment for youth. We have repeatedly called on the government to address this issue. We trust the appointment of a new parliamentary assistant to coordinate youth employment programs is not just window dressing, not just a reason for delay, because the issue must be an immediate priority and it must receive immediate action.

We will continue to urge the government to undertake a fundamental re-evaluation of the policies and directions that are choking the possibility of our economic recovery, because somehow the cycle of economic disaster, a cycle that puts more and more pressure on our social systems while there is less and less revenue to support our programs, must be turned around. A short-term immediate response to the most urgent priorities is needed, but in the longer term only a sound economy is going to make significant progress possible. We cannot see these as separate issues. We must not, as we approach the day's debate, refuse to understand the depth and the breadth of the issues we're called upon to discuss.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for her opening remarks. We will now proceed in the normal rotation. There will not be questions and/or comments, because the time has been allocated to each party in equal measure.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I am pleased to be able to prefer a few comments on the resolution as put forward by the Liberal Party. I want to commend the leader of the Liberal Party and the party for providing a forum and an opportunity for discussion, a vehicle perhaps for those of us in opposition to put forward solutions to the problems and indeed to encourage the government and point the way for the government to begin working more diligently on solutions.

I will leave many of the specifics for my caucus colleagues, who I know are very enthusiastic about providing, in a positive way, solutions to the government as opposed to, of course, our better-advertised forum of criticizing the government, even though there's so much to criticize and even though it is heading off in wrong directions in so many ways. As much as there is a plethora of subjects, question periods are such that it's very difficult for us, with 200 or 300 possible disastrous directions, to zero in on which ones we'll focus on. Even though that is indeed one of the very legitimate roles for us in opposition, we welcome this opportunity to provide some more positive solutions and suggestions to the government.

I want to say as well, being a tad critical of the Liberal Party, I suppose, that the solutions it has offered, if you read the last part of the resolution -- the preamble states the problem, which we agree with: "Therefore, this Parliament urges cooperation and understanding" -- boy, there's heading off the fence and striking off in a bold direction and providing direction for the party in power -- "from all members in order to undertake constructive change designed to address the underlying causes of these incidents."

What is the constructive change? Does the Liberal Party have one idea? Does the new Liberal leader have one idea, one concept, one thing in the way of a constructive change? This is what is so depressing, so disconcerting to us in the Conservative caucus and the party.

This is a typical wishy-washy motion from a wishy-washy party that has no demonstrated values, no demonstrated principles, no stands, no solutions and therefore, quite frankly, in many ways is wasting the time of this House. The opposition day motion is an opportunity for the opposition to come forward and say: "Look, there are some things here you could be doing. Here's what we suggest you do, and we will help you with that."

In that sense, I want to say how very disappointed I am as an opposition party member. I want to state very clearly and unequivocally that our party, as an opposition party, takes its responsibility to provide alternatives much more seriously than that. There is a time for pointing fingers and suggesting the government is not moving in the right direction -- yes, that is part of our role as opposition -- but opposition motions are times when we are to bring forward those constructive changes. What are they? This motion should have done that, but in typical Liberal fashion it tries to be all things to all people.

I noticed the Liberal leadership -- I think it was Eugene Whelan -- talking about what policies he thought would evolve. He said: "We'll read the polls. We are like a bird. We can kind of drift over with the left wing, then we can drift over with the right wing." How true he was. That's exactly the way the Liberal Party was federally and provincially, and nothing's changed.

It's a disappointment -- in fact, it's embarrassing -- as an opposition politician to suggest that that's the only role of opposition in the 1990s in the Legislature of Ontario. So they're still trying to be all things to all people.

By the way, I was really intrigued with the Liberal opposition to the labour legislation. The leader said, "This isn't the right time for the changes you're proposing." What nonsense. No time is the right time when you're moving in the wrong direction, when you're bringing in the wrong things. In fact, if we were concerned about the balance of power in this whole thing -- and I don't think that's the debate. I think it's disgraceful we're arguing about who has the most power -- unions or management. That's 20 years old. The debate should be about how we're going to get both sides to check their powers at the door when they come together in providing solutions to the problems that face us. If the argument is still about who has the most power, then I tell you, we're 20 years behind in labour relations towards providing the solutions that Ontarians are going to need in those relationships. But the leader of the Liberal Party and my friend and colleague from Thunder Bay had said, "Not at this time." In fact, if changes were necessary, this is the right time. I would sooner deal with it now, in the middle of a recession, than at some other time.

As an opposition party, we believe it's part of why the public is so frustrated and fed up with politicians today, with this process that all we do is criticize and we have no solutions. So I say to the Liberal Party, and I want to say it very strongly and very clearly, that I plan today to give options and solutions to the government, but I also want to say I'm a little embarrassed and I think you do politicians a disservice by bringing forth a motion like this, trying to be all things to all people -- typical empty Liberal rhetoric, no constructive solutions to fix the problems. Once again the Liberal Party is years, if not decades, behind my caucus colleagues and our party in providing new directions and providing solutions to many of the problems that face us.

I want to deal with the resolution and I want to give you some solutions, some alternatives. My colleagues will, throughout the rest of the day, do likewise.

1550

The motion says, "Whereas the economy of Ontario is not now providing our citizens, particularly our young people, with a sense of future security or job opportunity." We agree with the "whereas." We think we should have gone on in the resolution and said that we can control government spending. We could then reduce taxes so the private sector can compete, invest and create jobs and help provide our young people with that sense of future security, hope and opportunity. That's one solution.

New directions on labour law reform to restore consumer and investor confidence and create more jobs: I met with a business person yesterday who in conjunction with 20 others wanted to meet with me on the labour legislation proposals. He said, "I'm here representing my boss who was in Japan." This guy says to me: "I know the Premier of the province is in Japan. Let me assure you, he's checked out the itinerary and he does not want to be seen anywhere in Japan with the Premier of the province of Ontario." Isn't that an embarrassing situation?

He felt being seen with Bob Rae would hurt his chances of doing business with the Japanese. What a disgraceful situation, that we have sunk that low here in Ontario. We have sunk to that. With labour law reform, if the Liberals didn't want to sit on the fence -- where, I tell you, it can get very sore from time to time -- they could have come forward and said: "Drop this nonsense on the labour law reform. Bring business and labour together as to how they can work together to provide more jobs, job security in our province."

Sunday shopping: They could have set a new focus on government resources for physical and human infrastructure, the hard services where this year you have basically flat-lined the amount of money going into infrastructure, even though you've increased spending 5% in our human infrastructure.

Education: here we have a 25% increase. We are told of Ontarians wanting to upgrade themselves into community colleges and you're giving them a 1% increase in funding. There is 300% for some of your other priorities. I just saw $62,000 today for art grants to unions so they can do plays and posters on how great unions have been. Give me a break. People need jobs, they need the skills and the upgrading required for the jobs of the future. We in our caucus have put forward these solutions.

The Liberal resolution says, "Whereas our current institutions and programs are not now providing relief for our people from the sense of frustration and hopelessness in which they find themselves." We agree. What are their solutions? They don't have any. We have suggested in our document New Directions that you reform welfare, that you listen carefully to what was being told to us by Thomson in the Social Assistance Review Committee report and by the experts of the field and that you implement those, reform welfare, link social benefits directly to jobs, training, education, apprenticeship, perhaps even relocation if it's necessary for that training in those jobs; that you target public sector resources on housing, health care, day care and transportation; that you encourage more private sector solutions; and that you reform the Workers' Compensation Board and other entitlement programs that are causing great problems on both sides of the issue -- workers, employees, those who have been hurt and of course employers -- with a $10-billion quickly going to a $12-billion unfunded liability.

That is one of the main reasons, along with labour law reform and taxation, why investors and entrepreneurs are concerned about opening up shop here. We've got the highest payroll taxes for WCB in the country and it looks like we're going to have the highest into the future to take care of this deficit.

The resolution says, "Whereas this frustration and hopelessness have been manifest in the form of incidents of violence in the city of Toronto, which incidents are of great concern to all Ontarians." We agree. We suggest a more consistent and long-term public policy agenda beyond the narrow fixes, the narrow issues and the special interests. Let's get long term. Let's quit reacting to the short term.

Our young people want jobs; they want hope; they want to be able to get up in the morning and feel there is an opportunity in this province of Ontario for them, that the good life they came to this country to achieve and that was held out as hope for their parents when they came here is available to them -- not handed to them, but available to them.

They do not feel that way today. But the Liberal Party offers no solutions, no direction, no policy. All they want to do is criticize and not bring forward what it is that we should be doing.

My caucus and I released a document, New Directions, to the public of this province, and copies are available if you would like to call me, Mike Harris, at Queen's Park. In it we talk about more consistent long-term public policy agendas; we talk about protecting and upholding victims' rights in a draft bill that we have presented; we talk about putting more resources, including the proceeds from crime, back into the neighbourhood and into community safety.

The resolution says, "Therefore, this Parliament urges cooperation and understanding from all members in order to undertake constructive change designed to address the underlying causes of these incidents." Cooperation and understanding? I have not found one single member out of 130, of all three parties and one who so far has chosen to sit by himself, who has been elected to this Legislature and has not wanted to be cooperative, has not wanted to understand and has not wanted to undertake constructive change. We all want that. We may disagree philosophically or, from time to time, on how you should do it, but we all want that. So the Liberal Party is urging that on us. I say you should resign your seat if you're not here to provide cooperative and constructive solutions to problems. I have not found anybody. Why are we wasting time with a resolution urging us to do something that is the very reason we run to represent constituencies across this province?

So, Mr Speaker, I suggest to you and to members of the Legislature that I have put forward 10 or 12 solutions to the problem. There are many more in the document we have put forward, New Directions. We're prepared to undertake solutions with you.

We're prepared to look at creative ways of setting up non-partisan committees, which I haven't seen in my 11 years here. I have offered this to the Premier, where we would set up committees to study the problems before the government has made up its mind, so that the majority of the government members don't just go around the province defending their ministers or their Premier, right or wrong, as they did in Sunday shopping -- and now you're all having second thoughts. That is what I expect from a party in opposition.

Are we going to support this Liberal resolution? Of course we'll vote for it; we agree with all the things that are there. We hope and pray that there is not a single member here who does not wish to undertake constructive change designed to address the underlying causes of these incidents and bring understanding to them. But let's have the solutions. Let's go forward. Get off the fence. Where do you stand?

That's the role, we believe, of the opposition parties of the 1990s, and that's the role that I and my caucus are fulfilling. I challenge the government to pick up on some of the solutions we are offering. You must face this: What you guys are doing, as the Liberals did, and the mess you inherited is not working. So have the courage to look at alternative solutions that we are proposing.

The Acting Speaker: Further participation, any opposition members? The honourable member for High Park-Swansea.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): It's indeed with pleasure that I stand up on the government side on this matter that has been brought forward by the official opposition.

I am pleased about the spirit of cooperation and understanding. We all have had our dreams about why we wanted to come to this place and to be members of the Legislature, and that certainly is one: to work together in cooperation, in the spirit of understanding, to resolve the problems that we face in our society. I don't think any of us would disagree with that. In fact, I was quite heartened to hear the leader of the official opposition talk about making sure we have that spirit of cooperation, making sure we have that understanding and that we continue to work together to find the solutions.

I understand the frustration that seemed to be exhibited by the leader of the third party when he talked about having solutions and wanting to express those solutions and perhaps finding this motion a bit vague. However, I would like to build on the spirit of cooperation and understanding and to work towards that consensus to see how we can address the issues.

The solutions are many. There are many solutions to a problem, because a problem is complex; it's very diverse. What we saw happen last week is not a surprise to members of this House. What we saw last week was a continuation of frustration by many groups of people in feeling excluded from being part of the society we all live in and cherish.

1600

In the spirit of cooperation and trying to work towards that understanding, I've initiated meetings, first of all last week, with the four governments in Metropolitan Toronto. I met with Gerry Weiner, the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship for the federal government. We met with Mayor Rowlands of the city of Toronto and with the Metro chair, Alan Tonks.

In that spirit of cooperation and in that spirit of understanding in trying to work towards solutions and trying to work towards a better understanding of the complex diversity and problems we all face in Toronto, we came up with the idea that we must sit down and form a committee. A committee is meeting very quickly and will come up with some cooperative measures, some cooperative ideas by May 30: a very short time frame, because we felt we had to address these problems quickly and expediently and that there was no time to waste.

Also in the spirit of cooperation and understanding in trying to work together, I have had meetings with my critics. I had a meeting just yesterday with a member from the third party, Mr Cousens, where we had a very interesting dialogue. We spent an hour together talking about the problems, the complexities, the unusual situation we all face as members and how we can work towards finding those solutions and work towards ending the conflict that there seems to appear to be as we sit here every day in question period, as we find it on the streets in our society and in the minds of many people as they are wrestling with the problems of the day.

I enjoyed that conversation because it was a good dialogue. Mr Cousens came up with some very interesting ideas that I think we can work together to implement. I know that when we met he had the intention of coming to work in a cooperative manner. I respect that. I think when we look at these issues we're talking about today, they should not be political. It should be the intention that we all want to work together in that spirit of cooperation, that spirit of understanding in trying to wrestle with the complexity of a changing society that all of us are wrestling with in our minds, trying to understand and trying to accomplish.

I've had conversations with the member from the official opposition, Mr Curling. He and I have had many meetings. We will try to sit down in that spirit of cooperation and dialogue in the next couple of days to have that same type of cooperation. I hope the three of us can sit down to discuss these issues and try to work together, because it's very important. We all feel it's very important to all of us in all three parties. I welcome that opportunity.

When we met last week in what we would term an intergovernmental committee framework, I was very heartened to see that the federal government as well wanted to work with the provincial government, wanted to work with the Metro level of government, wanted to work with the city government, again understanding that these issues are complex and diverse, and that we all have to put our minds to trying to find the solutions.

I was also very pleased to hear that the leader of the official opposition talked about the appointment of Mr Stephen Lewis and felt that this was a good start and a good way to work towards finding those solutions. I am also pleased to hear that she was pleased about the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, Zanana Akande, working on short-term solutions. I understand it when she says we must not just look at short-term solutions, but we also have to look for long-term solutions.

In the short time since I was elected, which is one year and perhaps seven months, I've had the opportunity to travel across Ontario. In that travelling across Ontario I've learned that we have a very special resource in this province. That special resource, yes, maybe could be the trees and the mines and the water of Ontario we all have pictured, but the most special resource we have is our people who live in all parts of our society, who live in all regions of our province, who live in the urban centres, who live in the rural centres, who farm, who might live in the northern communities as well. There are the first nations that obviously have been in this country with a government, with a culture, with traditions for many thousands of years, who have produced in this country and given us a heritage and a culture that we are trying to share, and many other people who came from many different places to join in a land, in a province, in a country where they could enjoy freedom, where they could enjoy an equality and where they could enjoy an equity.

I think those are things we cherish very much. My own people, having come from Poland, settled in this province in 1859 in the Renfrew county area. They were fleeing from oppression. They were fleeing to make sure they could raise their families in a democratic society. They wanted to make sure their children were living in a country where they could be part of that society, whether it was economic, whether it was culture, whether it was part of the education system, where they would be part of that community.

My own family came here in the 1930s, in a very difficult time, in the worst Depression that we have ever faced in this country. They came under great difficulties; again, because my father wanted to make sure that if he had children they would be able to live in a country where they could express themselves, practise their religious and political beliefs -- that was always very important in my family -- and also be able to participate in anything they wanted to do.

Unfortunately, although we do have the best province and the best country in the world -- and I don't think anybody would deny that because a lot of people still want to come here -- we are facing an exclusion of some members of our community, of some people of the community who feel they are not able to share in the society that we all want, that is equal and fair. They feel excluded and they feel frustrated.

It's not just the people from the black community who feel that; it's also people in our first nations, who we've seen express it very carefully as we work into the constitutional dialogue. There are also people from the disabled community. It's women, and it's also people who have not been able to proceed in their careers.

As I sat and listened to the leader of the official opposition, and as well the leader of the third party, talking about cooperation and seeing how we can have an understanding to grapple with these very serious concerns and frustrations that people feel, I was thinking of the many initiatives that we are trying to bring in in this House. Of course, one that is, I think, very important is employment equity, which we hope to have very shortly at first reading, which will make sure that people who want to be employed, who want to be participants in our economic life in Ontario have an equal opportunity to follow the careers of their choice and can undertake to be part of a workplace that will not discriminate, will not put them at risk of facing harassment, and will truly treat them as equal individuals, treating their abilities and their capabilities as prime and important.

It's very important, I think, when we look at what we hope to achieve in the next few short months about the equity and justice agenda, that we take hold of the fact that the frustration we saw very vividly last week is there, and that we must try to find an understanding why people feel that frustration. The short-term objectives that my colleague Zanana Akande will be undertaking in terms of employment for our young people to help them over the summer months are very, very important, but yes, we do have to think of the long-term objectives, and certainly employment equity will, we hope, bring about the long-term objectives of ending discrimination, ending racism, and making sure that equity and fairness are observed.

There are definitely problems in all the systems we have, in all the institutions we have in Ontario. Some of those systemic barriers are there because unfortunately they're placed there by racism and discrimination. However, some of those systemic barriers are there because of an attitude, because that's the way we've always done things. Well, that's not good enough any more, and some of the objectives that have been introduced in the House in the last couple of months hope to address those systemic barriers.

I was very pleased when my colleague the Attorney General spoke last week, last Thursday I believe it was, about changing the system of appointing juries, how we look to make sure that there is really equal representation of all our population, that we really do have an equal system and a fair system. I think those are things that are extremely important. There is implementing anti-racism training to make sure all our law initiatives and law programs can make sure they understand the diversity of this province, because we do have a very diverse province, one where we should be celebrating our diversity.

I was also very pleased when I heard the initiatives mentioned in the budget speech, and the throne speech as well. We talk about job initiatives and long-term strategy for training to make sure all our society has the opportunity for retraining in this climate that is changing very rapidly, a very diverse climate, a very different climate in the global marketplace, where we're seeing changes with technological advances every day, things that we have to address in those retraining methods, making sure that people who have not had the opportunity of training can enter into the workforce with a new career and be able to participate.

1610

I'm also very pleased that last year we introduced a very important strategy, which we call the Ontario anti-racism strategy. We put in some new resources. We have a new assistant deputy minister. We also have a very interesting community representation on an advisory working group and we've come up with some very interesting strategies and programs. These are very important initiatives, initiatives that we really have to work on in cooperation with and with understanding from all members of the House as we work towards those problems that we saw last week, and as we work towards addressing all of those issues.

I'm also very pleased the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board has been put in place, because OTAB will address some of those long-term solutions that are very, very important and that will make a difference to all our citizens of this province.

As I started, in my speech, to talk about the diversity and complexities we see in our society and as we address the motion from the Leader of the Opposition, I am encouraged, although this is vague -- yes, we can understand that it's vague -- but if a member of government can hold another party accountable, I will hold them accountable to that spirit of cooperation, that spirit of understanding, because in these difficult times we must all of us take responsibility. It's not just the government side that must take the responsibility for the problems of the day; it's all three parties, all members of the Legislature. I will watch with interest the other two parties as we work to make sure that we work in a spirit of cooperation and understanding.

I look forward to those hours of dialogue and conversation so that we can break down the tradition in this House of confrontation instead of cooperation. I hope this motion speaks of that cooperation and understanding and that we can see the confrontational attitude that often pervades this House broken down instead into a spirit where we all share the responsibility where we all come up with the solutions and where we all take ownership of the problems and work towards a good society, the society we all want it to be, which is equal, fair and equitable, where all members of our society feel they have a place in our Ontario, feel that not only do they have a place in our Ontario but that they're important people in our Ontario and that we cherish and strive to keep them here, and that we celebrate our diversity and make sure that we establish a good working relationship together.

I have had pleasure in being able to just give a few little thoughts and I know the dialogue the rest of the day -- and I'm not saying a debate, but a dialogue -- will be of great interest to me. I'm looking forward to that and I entertain that cooperation and that understanding.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further participation on Ms McLeod's opposition day motion.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): It's been opposition day for me ever since May 1985 when we lost power. I've been in opposition for so long that you come into the Legislature and there's been so little to support that you end up having to oppose everything.

Notwithstanding that, I'm going to support the position that's been presented by the Liberals today. Certainly, if it's done in the spirit of a genuine proposal being brought forward for cooperation among all members of the House, I see that as a positive step. If it's in fact a sincere effort to develop a strategy for young people and people of all ages who are hurting, who have lost the sense of hope and the sense of future, then I support it for that reason. If it's something that can begin a new process in this Legislature of non-partisan participation on important issues, where all of us can sit and work together to address and concern ourselves with the issues that face the province, then I support it.

Yesterday I was privileged to attend a luncheon meeting with members of Eastern European democracies. Isn't that something? I mean, a year ago who would have thought that Estonia and Latvia, Ukraine, Russia and others would be coming here to learn how we do it? Yet one of the things that came through in that presentation was when I talked to one of the Russian members of Parliament. He said, "You know, we've been able to solve the problem of the fleet on the Black Sea a thousand kilometres away from Moscow, because we're able to talk to the Ukrainians one on one and develop strategies that can mean something." But then his face fell, because he knew he'd soon be going back to face the same rivalries that existed before they took this junket to see how we operate.

There is an important sense that has to be cultivated and developed in this House, and we're so far from it. As to the committee structure, the way it's developed, it seems we're constantly working at odds with each other instead of developing a consensus on how we can improve this province. I find in particular that a change has taken place within the Liberal caucus since it lost power. They come forward today with a motion that is as close to godliness as you'll ever get from the Liberals, but back when they were in power, I'll tell you, they had a chance to do a lot of things right and they failed. They brought in some 33 taxes in five years, a record number of taxes, and hiked us up to the point where we're now one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in North America thanks to the Liberals.

There they are now pontificating about how bad it is. They voted against a tax bill of the New Democrats today, but go back and remember how the Liberals developed their own tax policy, which has caused property taxes to increase, education taxes to increase, and just about every other level that reports through to the province as having problems. Tax policies have so much to do with what's going to go on within everything else in our society. The Liberal tax policies stank then, and they don't have any now. That's the point the leader of our party was making.

With regard to their education priorities, they had a chance to come out and say, "What are we going to do to help our young people face the future?" The people who were out in the street last Monday night here in Toronto were educated during the Liberal time, and some of the time was during the Tory time, and a very short part of it during the New Democrats. I'll tell you, we've failed our young people. They are coming out of school and they're illiterate; many of them are, anyway. Many of them are brilliant and doing well, but others have not begun to develop their skills and their resources the way they're capable of.

We as legislators have not been honest with ourselves or our constituents to say, "What are we going to do about the education system?" We have not seriously sat down in a non-partisan way and said, "This is what we can do with education to get it going." We're paying top dollar of any jurisdiction in the world here in Ontario. Are we getting top quality? Fortunately for many of us, our own young people are coming along fine, but we're not succeeding with all of them.

The disenchantment and the hurt and the failure rate and the groups that are just dropping out of society and becoming rebels to the rest of society -- I say we have a responsibility to them. It's not just the Education minister and his crew who can't solve a strike problem that's going on in Carleton, but it should be all of us developing joint strategies together. Our democratic system stinks right now because of the partisan splitting up of problems. If we could come together and say --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Say some more things about the Liberals. Go ahead.

Mr Cousens: I will, York Centre. The Liberals certainly are part of the problem, and there are Tories who are a problem, and these guys are; we all are. But if you're going to come forward with a motion that says, "We are going to do something about the future, with optimism," come on, let's change the structure of this place so we start working together.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): We are working together.

1620

Mr Cousens: We're not working together at all. I try to work with you. It's difficult, but I will try again and again because I believe we are missing the real opportunity of serving our community and the province.

There's a motion coming forward in private members' hour a few days from now from the member for Victoria-Haliburton that is going to have something to do with independent members in the House, to give them more of a role. I see that as positive. In the meantime, I tell you, Mr Speaker, as we look at the actions that were taken by the Liberals when they got their limos, they wound up the windows and drove around in their big cars in the same way the previous government did to them and in the same way these people are now. Once you've become a minister -- that TV program, Yes, Minister -- you start saying "Yes, Mr Leader," "No, Mr Leader," that whole process.

We've got a chance now to begin asking, "Is there something the matter with the system?" instead of saying, "We'll criticize it just because we're the opposition." If there's something worthy of note then let's find a way of working ahead of time so that the committee structure, as it's working in the States, will give people a chance to really work through the issues instead of having a whip come along and say, "You're going to vote this way."

Bill 143 proved that. The government just rammed through one of the stinkiest pieces of legislation I've ever seen in the garbage act for Metropolitan Toronto, Bill 143. The fact was, there was no chance during the whole public debate -- the four weeks we went through and the one week in committee of the whole -- that the New Democrats were going to think for themselves. They were locked into their positions because of where their whip wanted them to go.

One of the key points we have to face up to right now has to do with young people. In fact, if there's anything in this motion that can lead to hope and possibilities -- the group hurting most from unemployment right now is those between 16 and 25. They represent 18.7% of the unemployed group here in Canada. What we've got to begin to do is make sure there are programs for them that work, that give them hope, give them experience, give them a chance to go somewhere.

Last year, the New Democratic government reduced the budget for summer employment for young people. I'm referring to the estimates for 1991-92. They reduced the budget from the previous year from $10.5 million to $8.3 million. That meant the New Democrats provided some 800 fewer jobs last summer for them. This year what they've done instead is say, "For summer jobs this year, we'll keep the budget the same as it was last year," so it's at $8.3 million or $8.5 million, in that range; it's flat-lined, anyway. We will have more students working, so we will increase the number to 4,000, but instead of working 14 to 16 weeks, the average number of weeks students will be working this year under the New Democratic government is nine weeks. There are more young people who want to go to university or do something else, but there's not enough time there to generate the cash they're going to need for what they want to do afterwards, not enough time to gain any experience in something.

Another example where this government singlehandedly hit the environment and hit jobs was when it said no to the planting of trees in northern Ontario. They reduced it to such an extent that a large number of young people who would formerly go up north in the summer -- they'd come back just eaten up by mosquitoes and blackflies and bugs, but muscular and having done something and made a good dollar by doing so. Many of those jobs are eliminated this year because of them.

Many of the jobs that existed previously in Ontario hospitals have disappeared this year. This government has a chance now to react quickly and effectively to provide opportunities for young people today. We see one of the backbenchers of the government having several weeks to investigate further and work on this. It doesn't take a lot of brains to know there are programs that have been previously instituted that can be reviewed, dusted off and reconfigured to face today's opportunities. Over time, we can together develop long-term strategies.

We're talking about a province that needs fresh thinking, fresh directions. I believe we could do it far better if we were working together on it. If that's the spirit the Liberals have behind their opposition today, which is really saying, "Let's stop opposing everything; let's try to develop something," I'm in favour of that. It would be a breakthrough for the Ontario Legislature if we suddenly said, "We are colleagues trying to make it a better place to live, a better place for everybody," instead of having everybody running off in different directions trying to score political marks.

I'm prepared to bury the hatchet. I'm prepared to do what I can to see that this day will come. It's a lot easier to say when you're in third party status and you don't have any power and you'd like to be close to where the action is, but that's what is needed, because so many of the people who are being represented by opposition members really feel disenfranchised. Let's start giving people hope by changing the system in here so we start working together more effectively.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I stand in the House this afternoon to speak in support of cooperation among the three parties towards addressing the underlying causes of the incidents that occurred last week. It's an interesting way to word the motion.

I suppose there are those who would state that the underlying cause of those "incidents," as they're described, is the lack of work. I suppose there are those who would minimize it and bring it all to be focused in an economic problem and say that if those people had jobs, if they had hope of work, if they were able to feel that the courses, the training, the support and education were there for them so that they could take their places in the work world, all that would be responded to and all would be solved. There may be those who believe that. I am not among that group.

I do believe, however, that a response to these people in terms of jobs, in terms of having a healthy economy, is certainly a necessary thing within Ontario and certainly would be a hopeful thing for these people. Many of those who were in the streets last week, though they were involved in different activities -- one group in a peaceful demonstration, another group in a riot -- many of those people in fact do feel a sense of hopelessness.

I would like to point out to the Speaker that in fact that hopelessness is not just focused in the absence of a job. That hopelessness is frequently focused in the position they hold within society; that hopelessness is focused in the fact that many of those people find themselves at the bottom of the hierarchy of society, and being there, that they are imposed upon. Being there means they are less free to take their place and have access to all the services and all the enjoyment and all the benefits of others in society. Being there means that their status, their very right to be on the street and walk freely, is questioned and that sometimes, by virtue of who they are and where they are, they are imposed upon even by those who are there to protect them, even by those whose salaries their parents have supported through taxes and who are there to protect them.

Being at the bottom of that ladder sometimes means our other institutions don't serve them appropriately. In fact, it may mean they are assumed to be of lesser ability and lesser capability and so are directed towards some other course of study that will not lead them to an appropriate job or to an appropriate level of learning so that they can be independent.

Being there sometimes means that in very ordinary institutions that are meant to serve, to help us perhaps even in illness, the treatment they receive there is sometimes quite imposing and quite different from what others receive.

It is a strange phenomenon. It is one I had hoped, as a child, that I wouldn't be standing here discussing in 1992, in this or in any other place, but it is a truth which I must bring to this House today and that I must talk about in order for us to really focus on the underlying causes of the incidents.

1630

I know there are those who would say, "We're tired of hearing the wailing, and we're tired of hearing people talk about these impositions." In fact, there were those who sent to my constituency office some letters that said to me when I spoke out against some of the situations, "If you don't like it here in Canada, you should go back to where you came from." That in itself supports a common generalization that many who share my complexion tone are in fact not born here. Here I was born, not far from this House, in this city; here I have grown to endure and to speak out against some of the very things that are the underlying causes of these incidents.

So I stand in this House today to support the motion but also to speak once again about some of the things this government is trying to do in order to address the issue in 1992. I have to emphasize to you, Mr Speaker, something you already know, something we all already know: We are not the first government of Ontario; we certainly won't be the last. There have been many before us, and yet it is now that we are beginning, again, to try to address some of the issues which in fact speak to the underlying causes of the incidents that happened last week.

Certainly some of those initiatives are in education. It has been glaringly obvious that many of those who populate this province fail to see themselves reflected in the curriculum, in the content and in the processes in our schools. Many of those whose parents and grandparents were born here fail to see themselves recognized within the school systems where they must go from an early age, from the age of five. It has not been a new piece of information, but it is one that recently has been emphasized: Some of what is taught in schools is in fact degrading and untrue. I do not ask that you re-create history; I only ask that it be represented in its truth and in its entirety, recognizing all of what all people have contributed to its development and to the development of Ontario.

That is just one institution, because so it goes when you go through the school system and when you go through the universities. There are many, many times when we speak about the fact that though many of us have graduated from the universities, few of us are there as educators; so few, in fact, that many of the universities have finally identified this as perhaps a problem they must address. The same is true for first nations, and the same is true for many others.

So we talk about the underlying causes of these incidents -- and yes, of course this government is looking at and is involved in restructuring the program, is involved in making the doors wider so that every child who attends school in Ontario, every child we welcomed here from every place, everyone who was born here, all feel a sense of belonging, feel a sense of recognition and therefore feel a sense of responsibility and dedication to provide and contribute to this great country, and all who attend with those people also recognize that their contributions must be expected and accepted in the same spirit as everyone else's. It is time.

This government is also involved in looking at our employment services -- very much so. We're looking at employment equity. Oh, yes, we have heard the opposition speak about, "This is not the time; business does not like it," yet we have information where many businesses have said that in fact opening your doors to all who come to be served, making sure your applications are there for everyone, making sure you hire the very best candidate and widening the opportunity for all to apply ensures that you do get the very best candidate. It makes good business sense.

There are those -- there are industries, there are companies, in fact -- that have done it voluntarily and they have benefited early from the advantages of having been the leaders in this. But there are always some who are rather reluctant to change, rather slow to take on the benefits of such advantage and must be urged, must be encouraged. But then, is it not the due, is it not the responsibility of a government to ensure that all of its people have a right to enjoy the benefits of work and to enjoy the benefits in a way that does not oppose them because of who they are and where they come from or their race or their social status or any other of those categories?

We are looking at underlying causes. We are then looking at institutions. We are then looking at how this government and those before it do business. I would say to you, Mr Speaker -- in fact, I would say to all who are in the House -- that we encourage cooperation. We expect it. It was one of the things I expected when I came new to this House a year and a half ago, and it would be the kind of thing I would see as being most beneficial. If we can effect change through cooperation and understanding of the parties in this House, it will assure me that as we go on in government we go nowhere but up, nowhere but improving, and that maybe my child won't have to stand in this or some other House and argue for equity or be a part of the peaceful demonstrations of last week, or someone else, whose frustrations drive him to be a part of the riot, won't have to do that 20 years from now. Yes, I stand in support of this motion.

The Acting Speaker: Further participation in the opposition day motion?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too, of course, support the motion put forward by my leader, Mrs McLeod, following such well-spoken, eloquent delivery by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. I've always respected her and known very much of her involvement in the community; also of her concern and deep emotion towards this topic.

I also would like to commend my leader for the things she said following the motion, and also the other members from the third party.

This motion comes very close to home because it speaks about people. It speaks about the things we have always talked about in here, in some other lines of beautiful words such as, "Our most important resource in this province or this country is our people." Yet we have to continue to develop institutions, organizations and laws to protect people who have been exploited and alienated, and who feel very disempowered by this system we sometimes call democracy: involvement and participation.

1640

Although some members feel the Liberal Party has put, as you would say, a wishy-washy motion, the idea is not in the words that are sitting here. It goes beyond that. It goes beyond how we feel about that. Where are we going to take this motion? How are we going to involve ourselves, given the opportunity of 130 members to participate and put forward ideas and tell about our feelings? As I have always said, the opportunity of this parliamentary process and the representation of this province brings to us, the 130 members here, a feeling for every corner of this province. It reflects also the same feeling for Canada, a vast and beautiful country.

But people are hurting in many ways, hurting in the sense of being excluded. The word "excluded" itself is a rather tame word for the fact that people are not allowed to work, to support their family, to send their children to school in order to move up in society. There is the sense of not feeling adequate about themselves and of being unable to participate and contribute to their country, because of some belief or beliefs in many of the other population who feel that because they are women, because they are black, or because they are native Canadians, aboriginal people, who are excluded from the process -- it goes on. Tolerance: They say, "Let us be tolerant"; with those who have been suppressed, that tolerance itself will explode.

The wonderful thing about it is that the people who are being so oppressed, expressed on Monday, May 11, when they decided to demonstrate their feelings: "We have been excluded from the process. We feel and we know that the justice system has failed us." Specifically, some expressed that they feel the association of the police and themselves is not in good harmony, and that in the administration of justice and policing they have been picked upon. They've been picked and put to pieces in a way that justice has not been administered properly to them.

The police force is subject many times to the failure of our society. People who have been robbed, denied a job, expressed themselves in certain ways that law and order has to be maintained in our society. It is not the way to break windows or to kill. Anything considered not a part of society in the keeping law and order here is illegal. Of course the police must administer the law. Many times the police officers are faced with many of the failures of society. Of course some of the police officers, who feel in themselves that they have acquired this power, administer the law in a way that is unjust. We know we have those, but we have some wonderful law officers here.

Before I touch on institutional failures, I want to touch on leadership, because there is a lot of debate in our society about who are leaders are. Who are these self-appointed leaders? I think that if I can do any justice to that explanation, I will try at this moment.

There are many leaders in our society. I know that you, Mr Speaker, have had what you call mentors, or those whom you have looked upon who have expressed issues that you can associate with. And you, Mr Speaker, have found yourself in situations where you've believed so strongly that you have demonstrated yourself and have actually decided to go to jail under that premise, because you believed so strongly in that. If people feel that strongly, feel that the system is wrong and that they're not being heard, sometimes people do express themselves in that way, and I have no judgement about you or anyone else who demonstrates in that way.

There are leaders in the women's movement who feel they've been excluded in many ways and been discriminated against. They have taken action. They are leaders. They are not elected, but have associated themselves with issues that emotionally they carry beyond normal citizens, and that's okay.

As to the members' names that we have always called and asked about self-appointed leaders, those leaders did not appoint themselves. They spoke to certain issues that many people in the community feel the same way about and feel very happy, very glad there's someone there who can speak on their behalf and articulate it in that way. They have had that opportunity to express themselves and have said, "Yes, I have been confronted with these problems and I'm glad you're speaking for me."

You've often heard the phrase, Mr Speaker, that the revolution eats its children. In the cause and the fight that they would come forward with, many of them end up sometimes being poverty-stricken, locked out and excluded from society, and those for whom they fought at times would not recognize or acknowledge them. I am glad for those people who come forward with those issues.

Today we are debating an issue because of many people we would call self-styled leaders, and there are others. There are others who decide that within an area, they will run and be elected and then bring those concerns and issues and emotions to an arena, Parliament, where we will say, "Yes, this is happening." I fall in that category, being elected by the people to speak about how they feel.

Many times when I bring issues to this floor, they are issues that I may not believe in, but I know those people out there are expressing pain, and sometimes they say it's an injustice and I have to do that as an elected leader.

We must listen, as elected leaders, to the other leaders of the community, and to those who cannot speak, those who are incapable, who don't have the kind of talent, you would say, to speak out. But when they say that they would follow and demonstrate in that manner, as we saw on May 11, we must listen. If we don't, the consequences are severe.

Who suffers most from all this? Our young people. Our young people today are suffering because of lack of vision and opportunity. They feel, "Why should I go on even to university?" They are wondering, and this is not a partisan shot: "Should I go on through school? It's very expensive. Can my parents, who are trying to put me through university, afford it? They're losing their jobs because of this economy." In the meantime, they're taxed to a point where they are unable to contribute adequately for the kind of education they should get. They look around and sometimes they are saying, "I'm going to give up." And the parents at home are saying to the individuals, those young people, "Go on, because education is important." Alas, they see their parent or their parents losing jobs. They're seeing their parent or parents, who have been discriminated against in the workplace, being denied.

1650

Of course, we talk about the fact that we must open doors for them to come in. Many times doors are open, but they're never allowed to go upstairs. Many visible minority people who have access to jobs are still suffering on the low strata -- no promotion. Even when we see employment equity coming in, I say to this government, when you let people in, make sure they can move up into the structure to earn more money. Some of those who are just about making it are now seeing that the recession has hurt them and extra taxes have hurt them. They would like to know what will become of them, and their young people are saying, "Where do I go?"

The young people are also saying that they've been excluded. "These senior citizens are making decisions for us. When do you include us in this?" I urge this government and all of us here to include the young citizens of this province in any decisions we make.

In summary, I know that time does not permit me to discuss and talk about many of the issues here, but I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that the institutions have failed young people and have very much failed the visible minority people. The Ontario Human Rights Commission backlog -- I spoke about that, the three-year backlog. If one finds oneself with any discriminatory practice that's been administered to one, to take it forth to the Human Rights Commission takes three years before the case is heard. Justice delayed, and all the lawyers sitting here would understand that's justice denied. Who can wait three years, when someone discriminates against you in the workplace, to find out if your case is right or wrong? We need some teeth in all this. As was said, you can pollute the lake and go to jail; you can pollute, disrupt and destroy a human life through discrimination and you get a rap on your hand, an employment equity program and a fine.

Employment agencies here have openly shown discrimination and they're rapped on their hands and move on and destroy other people's lives. It's very close to home, because the community I associate with very often tells me the intimate stories and the destructive stories of their lives. Collectively, of course, we can do something about that; I think we have an opportunity here.

We have a beautiful province. Many times we compare it with the United States and say, "At least we are better." If things are terrible in your home and your son and daughter come home and say they're allowed to do these things because next door it's worse, you clean up what is home. You're more interested in home. If it's beautiful, maintain it to be beautiful. So let us not destroy this. There are lots of improvements.

People are hurting. The young people are hurting. If I make one appeal this summer, right now, tomorrow, if all of us would support such a bill in giving the young people a job so they can go back to school, open that vision -- let them be proud, their parents be proud and their country be proud. We know we want this place to be a great place, and it can be if we take those blinders off. Racism is alive and well, but we can wipe it out as much as possible. It would not come right out, but I'm sure we can make this a better place if we all cooperate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I come at this debate with no special insight. I believe some of the previous speakers certainly have an angle offered to this House that maybe we can't necessarily all appreciate.

I come at this just as a member who has really been raised in Metropolitan Toronto and who, over the past number of years, has seen a slow erosion of the safety and neighbourliness of this city. It's very difficult for me to express in real terms exactly when this happened, how it happened or where it happened.

I was reading the newspaper today and noticed the list of commissions or committees that were formed in previous years by previous governments when this kind of issue came forward. I think there were four, and the last one might well have been the Westcott commission, that came forward with recommendations.

What seems to run through my mind through that process is that it seems it's words and just words, a never-ending stream of words that the public hears and that we in this House continue to enunciate. It doesn't seem to me that we've accomplished much in the number of years that this discussion or debate has taken place.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who were just appointed by the Premier: Mr Lewis and the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. I'm certain that they are full of good intentions, but I think, in all honesty, that this problem is far greater than a 30-day report that Mr Lewis could hand in. It certainly is far more complicated than a couple of months of job-searching for unemployed students.

In my short lifetime of living in Metropolitan Toronto it seems to me that what's happened is that slowly but surely the streets aren't safe any more, the drug problem in the Metro area is rampant and the unrest is immeasurable. I'm not certain that forming another committee to say a whole bunch of new words and produce a new report is going to go any length to resolve what I see to be a complicated issue.

I think what we have here is more than words, more than another commission and more than another nice speech. Every party is capable of giving nice speeches. We all know the words "cooperation" and "we have to work together" and "we have to create committees and round tables," and all the words are used but the problem is never solved.

We have a huge problem in our system. Our system doesn't work and hasn't worked for a long time. It's just taken a long time for this to happen, to catch up.

We have a system that's in place today -- and I can blame all levels of government and all politicians -- where in a lot of instances there's no incentive to work any more, there's no incentive to get a job and there's no incentive to further your education. The hopelessness they speak of is hopelessness because we've created it.

I don't know how the system can be rectified in such a brief period of time, but clearly the two real issues that everyone speaks about are jobs and potentially the drug problem within our streets.

1700

What we'll do today is go around and line up who speaks next, and we'll arrange to make sure that the next speaker is going to say the right things and that each party is going to use the right words, and then everyone can go to sleep tonight and feel better because we've all said the right thing and we've placated the right communities. But we haven't resolved the issue.

The issue is far greater than who speaks next and whether I've used the right words and whether I've appointed the right person to a 30-day task force to resolve this problem or the right member of this House who's going to create some summer employment. That's hopeless. That's just not it. That's not even close to being it.

The problem we have in this country, in this province, in this city, is that we're producing an entire generation that really doesn't believe there's any hope. It doesn't need hope because it doesn't need to work. It doesn't need to work because we allow this to take place. We've created a social service net that has created the problem I think England was in two decades ago: no incentive to achieve.

Anyone who doesn't believe this should walk the streets of the city of Toronto at night like a cop would have to walk the streets. Walk in the neighbourhoods where, if you speak with the people who live on that street, they will say categorically, whether the drug dealer is white or black: "I'd just as soon you shot them all. I'd just as soon you cleared them out." We don't even own our own neighbourhoods any more. We haven't owned our own neighbourhoods for five or six years. There are areas in my city where, when a call comes in for the police, the police send two cars: one car of two police officers to go upstairs and answer the call, and the second car of two police officers to watch the first car for fear there'll be a bomb put in it.

Not more than a couple of weeks ago I was talking to a neighbour of mine. His son, who's some 14 years old, was standing on the corner of what I thought was a moderate neighbourhood with no crime, and there was a gun pulled on him. Fourteen years old.

I believe we have a system problem. The system comes from no jobs, drug problems that are just absolutely unbelievable, which I don't think any member really appreciates, and a system that has made it acceptable and financially viable not to work. If you don't think that is one of the most crushing and difficult systems to manage, you're wrong.

Fifteen years ago when some of us were still in high school, these problems were not there. These problems have long since passed us by as legislators. I don't think we understand, nor do we appreciate, what life is like as a teenager in Metropolitan Toronto today. I don't think we understand or appreciate what life is like in neighbourhoods in Metropolitan Toronto today. I think we all want to say the right words, we all want to placate those who live in those neighbourhoods, and we don't want to offend anyone who happens to brush with the law.

But I look at our ex-Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander. On the weekend, Lincoln Alexander said that there are people in our communities claiming to speak for groups who don't speak for them. We've got, in my opinion, premiers meeting associations and groups that I don't think carry weight in the community. The only weight they carry is their own voice. We've got a legislation that's unprepared to examine the real dilemma in our neighbourhoods. We've got a police association that isn't allowed to collect crime statistics based on race for fear of that being racially motivated or using those for improper use.

If anyone's been to school, they understand that problem-solving 101 is: Identify the problem, understand what the problem is. We don't even want to identify the problem any more for fear it isn't politically correct. We don't want to deal with the problem, we don't want to deal with the issue, and then we spit these people out the back door of our manufacturing plant of society. They go on to the streets uneducated, with a drug problem second to none in this country, with no incentive to work.

We say to the police, "Solve our problems; deal with this, do something about that," and the police throw their arms up in hopeless despair, afraid that if they don't take enough action the neighbourhoods get mad at them for drug dealing in broad daylight or under street lamps at night, and if they do take any action and the obvious happens, terrible things happen with what takes place. They're chastised for being too trigger-happy, in essence.

We have leaders in the community calling them "cowboys." I can't believe it. There may be some bad police out there -- I don't have any doubt about it -- but I don't think you could call the rank-and-file cop walking the beat a cowboy and all the connotation that brings with it.

What will happen is this -- mark my words. We will have this debate today on this motion with the right words, the right phrasing, the politically correct terms, and we'll strike a committee made up of Stephen Lewis. We'll bring in a report in 30 days with the right words, the right phrasing, and they'll file it with the four other reports that have been written, and nothing will happen. Nothing will change. The streets are going to be unsafe. The drug dealers are going to be doing deals and the hopelessness will prevail. We'll have cries for a better social welfare system that takes away the incentive to work and we'll be perpetually circling our way down.

If you don't buy into this theory, walk out in the neighbourhoods -- I'll give you a list of a dozen -- and talk to the residents in those neighbourhoods. Ask them, "How do we resolve this problem?" They're saying today a very dangerous thing; a scary fact is coming out of these neighbourhoods. They're saying: "I don't care any more how you solve the problem. I want my neighbourhood back. Get rid of them, and I don't care how." That's what they're saying.

We'll sit here again and we won't be listening. We won't be resolving the problems. We won't be creating jobs. We won't be dealing with the issues that affect the constituents in Etobicoke and Metropolitan Toronto in general. We'll sit here and have another debate from another member using the same words, producing the same report and watching the same things happen.

This is not an NDP problem. This is not a Liberal problem. This is not a Conservative problem. This is our problem.

Whether you like it or not, in the towns and cities in Ontario, look at Toronto. That's your future in 20 years. Look at Toronto. It just happens to be bigger and it's grown faster. That's your future whether you like it or not, and how we deal with this problem will affect what the future Windsors, Londons and Ottawas look like, because it's the same system, the same legislators and the same words.

I challenge any member in this House to walk these streets and come to a different conclusion than the one I'm offering. I challenge them to speak to the -- I operated a store on Lakeshore in Etobicoke in what I considered to be a very good neighbourhood. It was a working-class neighbourhood. I represented it municipally. At night, once the sun went down, in the back alley drug deals took place every night: 14-year-old, 15-year-old, 13-year-old drug dealers. Not one word here and not one thing Mr Lewis will say will change it. They will do those deals again tonight and it will be dangerous. They won't want to work because they don't need to work, because we've taken the incentive away from working. Even if they wanted to work they couldn't get a job anyway. Even if they graduated they couldn't get a job.

Our system is broken. We're going the way of the American cities, whether we like it or not. Last Monday was a perfect indication of which way we are heading, so for me to stand here and disagree with what the Liberals have written would be unreasonable. Of course we agree with what the Liberals have written. Everyone agrees with what the Liberals have written. To say that I disagree with Mr Lewis being appointed -- of course you agree with Mr Lewis being appointed. But you ask me, or you ask your constituents, or you ask the drug dealer, or you ask the kid who needs a job or you ask anybody who needs a job, "Do you think this'll make a difference in your life?" "Not one whit of difference."

1710

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It gets us talking.

Mr Stockwell: The argument is that it gets us talking. We've had four reports previous to this one to get us talking. As I said before, it gets us talking and it just means more words. Until we can accept the fact that this system is broken -- our system is so badly broken I don't know if it's repairable any more. Our system is broken and our cities are under attack. Every city in Metropolitan Toronto is under attack. There's not a city in Metropolitan Toronto you can turn to and point to a neighbourhood that's safe today. I don't care if it's York, I don't care if it's Scarborough, I don't care if it's North York, East York, Etobicoke or the city of Toronto; you can't point to one. I work in Mississauga too. There are areas in Mississauga as well. It's spreading.

Solutions: The solutions aren't going to be 30-day solutions and they're not going to be a nine-week job for a student this summer. That's not the solution. The solution, I believe, unquestionably, is to create a province where gainful employment is around if you want to work and a social service system that helps and deals with those people who truly need to be helped that doesn't make it -- in my opinion it makes it acceptable; it takes away the incentive to work.

At least we need to hire more police. We've got to introduce tough drug laws. We as a province have to say that our city, Metropolitan Toronto, is worth saving. Make no mistake about it, this is the kind of war we're into. We've got to accept the fact that our system is broken. I know that's going to be very difficult across the floor, because across the floor they've railed in opposition against the capitalist system. I believe it works and I believe creating the net we've created is taking away from the productivity people can have within that system.

Last -- and again, it's not partisan but they are in power -- they have the capacity to make decisions to change people's lives. I know full well these debates have taken place at municipal councils around Metropolitan Toronto for a decade. I know they've taken place at the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for another decade. I see them now taking place in Ontario probably for the last decade. But to simply hide our heads in the sand and pass wordy motions like this, as if it's going to be some kind of defence, some kind of hope, I think is really fooling not only ourselves but the general public.

I ask that the parties get together and decide how best to fight this, but the first thing we are going to have to accept, in all parties, is the fact that our system is broken and that it's been broken for years. It's not working and we're not producing the kinds of citizens, from the young people, we want to produce.

I look forward to the comments made by other members in the House. I think we, as legislators, have to be very careful not to fall into the same trap we've fallen into for the past two decades; that is, simply produce another report, put it on another shelf, let dust collect on it and when the next horrible incident arises, form another committee to do exactly the same thing.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I've been sitting here listening to all the members of the House talking about social injustice and inequality. I think it's important for all of us to recognize that the problems we face are experiential, because we talk about the people who are feeling excluded, talking about our first nations people, people of colour, our youth, disabled people, even our senior citizens, francophones, people from various multicultural backgrounds who have all had this experience of being discriminated against and oppressed, perhaps linguistically, through their jobs, and not having the opportunity to participate fully in society. It is of concern.

Now the task is for us as a government to take up this challenge, to wrestle with social inequality and injustice to a result where we have a level of equality for all members of our society and all members of our province. Our government has made a commitment to employment equity which will include, of course, our first nations people, people of visible minorities, women and persons with disabilities to allow people to contribute to the working of this province. Of course the Advocacy Act, Bill 74, which includes people who are severely disabled, will enable them to speak out, will empower them to participate in the decision-making process so they can be fully autonomous, independent citizens.

If we take a look at the discrimination which has historically been foisted upon many members of our society, it's true a lot of the attitudes have come from the educational system through the curriculum, where culture and history have not always been reflective of what has actually happened. We want to see the truth of the history of our province included, where all people in society see themselves reflected in the curriculum and in the educational system. It's important to empower and to support a system which is inclusive, not exclusive.

We want to talk about our government's commitment to the founding of human rights reform in this province, where we take a look at the struggles faced on access to the justice system by many members of society. We want those who have historically had inaccessibility experiences to become more accessible for the jury system and other kinds of systems.

Of course OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, makes a commitment to include more people in terms of retraining and allowing people to go back to work, to develop their full potential and skills and to be included from a variety of groups. That includes not only volunteers but also those who have the experience and who may have historically been discriminated against in one way, to get a real chance at participating in a real job and then moving there way up in society.

We took a look at access to education in terms of youth employment programs, where we allow people to have experience and apprenticeship programs to get that first real job experience and allow people to improve their self-esteem and their own feelings of self-worth and to build on that so they can have a better, positive society where all people can come and work together. But of course it's a struggle then to remove those social imbalances which keep people from their goals. We need to remove the barriers that are there in society, whether that happens to be in terms of race or economics or education.

We need to provide better educational opportunities for all people in order that they can participate and share in the very rich traditional cultures which are our province. That only comes from respecting each other and allowing the institutions to reflect the society they represent.

I'm very proud that our government has made a commitment to the justice system in terms of jury selection. That will then reflect the community in the justice system and in those who sit on juries, whether they come from visible minorities or are persons with disabilities or whatever the target group, to show that the jury then reflects the wider society and that this is an action our government has taken.

1720

It's also important to make sure that we keep our commitment to child care reform, where working women and single parents can have access to jobs by allowing single parents then to have training and job opportunities by having a place for their children to stay while they move ahead in those areas. Having a real job and being able to participate in society goes a long way to that person being able to contribute fully to society.

Many senior citizens have experienced discrimination. Of course, we are now in the consultation process on long-term care and hearing from those various senior citizens' groups as to what kinds of services would best meet their needs, whether it be with family, care givers, loved ones or friends, to see them come from institutions back into the community.

Our government has a commitment to making sure we fight to improve the social justice system and issues. Recently we were very proud to be informed that the member for St Andrew-St Patrick has been appointed as parliamentary assistant to the Premier, along with Mr Stephen Lewis, Canada's former ambassador, to review the system and meet with the various members of society to take a look at curriculum and jobs for youth. This is very important, so that, again, reflects those people to have a contribution so incidents we saw in the past won't recur.

Also, our government has made a strong commitment to providing the Ontario anti-racism strategy funding so people and groups can then get out there to fight the racism that's endemic in our society. We are supporting native peoples, visible minorities and various other groups that have a stake in this in order to change the educational system and in order to change attitudes that are out there so we can have role models for children in the community to look up to and they will then see themselves reflected in the role models and in wider society and then develop their skills as individuals to participate fully in society, thus having achievement and cooperation. I agree with this.

In summary, I want to ask that all members of this House respect the spirit of cooperation. Let's work together and contribute and work fully to give our full effort to improving the goal, of course, of social justice. I would call on all members to please cooperate to the best of our abilities to resolve inequality in our society. I'm very proud of our government's commitment to what we have done so far in terms of action. Again, I ask the opposition members, both the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, to work with us to this end to achieve equality.

We've heard from the people, we've heard from you, we've heard from various people that the benefits that have to come can only come through contribution of people working together so that we can have freedom, peace and justice on the streets.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Every once in a while an issue arises in this place that clearly grabs one by the soul and makes one question why one is in this place and what we can do to actually improve the life of the constituents whom we serve in our ridings, as well as other citizens outside our ridings.

It surprises me, actually, that the violence that took place on Yonge Street last week took that long to occur, when you look at the kinds of situations that people in this province face -- not just persons of colour but all sorts of citizens in their day-to-day lives, in trying to make their way through life and trying to make something of a success of themselves and simply trying to exist.

In today's Toronto Star there is a column by Michele Landsberg. She talks about the kids running up Yonge Street. She says: "First of all, the kids who raced up Yonge Street smashing windows were not 'demonstrators' or 'protesters.' From everything I could see and read, they were white and black and completely non-political -- except in so far as looting consumer goods is an apt expression of rage at growing up poor in a consumer economy."

I think these are the questions we have to ask ourselves as legislators: What kind of vision do we have to share with the province? How do we see this province being at the end of our terms of office? What can we do to make this life better for people?

In terms of the appointment of Stephen Lewis to the special inquiry and of Zanana Akande as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, I think it's a good first start. I think we need to take a look at the issues not only with respect to race in this province; we also need to take a look at how the judicial system treats women.

I submit that there is not a single female in this House or in this province who has not at some point faced either sexual harassment or physical abuse by her spouse or within the family situation. These people have not been dealt with fairly in the judicial system, whether it's by the police and the fact that their spouses have not been charged when they come into the courts and the charges are dropped, or whether a sentence is meted out where the woman has spent longer in intensive care than the spouse has spent in jail.

These are the kinds of dichotomies that we have to address, and with the appointment of Mr Lewis and Ms Akande, I'm hopeful that these issues will not only be annotated for the attention of parliamentarians in this place but also that we'll begin to move on those issues.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): It is indeed a privilege to speak to a topic that I think is an extremely difficult one. I am very proud that my leader has chosen to put forward a motion that you could consider somewhat non-partisan, because I think it does justice to the seriousness of the problem. Frankly, I'm not here to suggest any easy solutions either by this government or by a government that is in our favour, or in fact by the Tories.

I think the things we saw last week point to a variety of concerns that require long-term attention. I can tell you that the apartment where I live here in Toronto during the week is very close to where the riot actually took place. Even though my wife told me not to go out, I did go out because I wanted to get a sense of what was driving the people to do what they did.

To be frank, what struck me most of all was the youth of the group, most of them obviously under 20 years, and second, the maleness of the group. The previous speaker already made reference to an article in today's Toronto Star by Michele Landsberg. Frankly, I'm not a particular fan of Ms Landsberg, but I think she did point out an important dimension that perhaps we've overlooked so far.

I'm a member of that sex, and I was, a while ago, a young male myself, but there seems to be something in young males when they're coming out of puberty that drives them to prove themselves through, unfortunately, violent or very aggressive behaviour. We see the same kind of occurrence in the accident statistics. Often we read in the newspaper of some very unfortunate accidents where young male students are speeding off and endangering the lives of other people. I thought some of that element was present on Monday.

How do we deal with that? Frankly, it's not something that is new to this generation. It's not new to Toronto; it's not new to North America. It's something there that -- young males have some problem. I guess they need some guidance to adjust to a new lifestyle when they move from youth to full adulthood.

That's a concern that's very dear to my heart, and I think that's an area all groups in Ontario society can do something about. Frankly, I'm not inclined to say government should be the first to act, even though obviously it has a role, and as critic for Colleges and Universities I will be addressing this a little bit later. But before I make a request of government and of the system of government, I want to say there's a role for the many voluntary organizations out there, recreation groups especially.

1730

I come from the riding of Nepean, and I am very proud and privileged because 25 years ago people in Nepean, politicians and others, recognized the significance and importance of recreational services and of the volunteer sector to give meaning and guidance to young people. An enormous number of young people, youth, are involved in sports activities of all kinds. The municipality, with the support of the province, has invested heavily in that kind of infrastructure.

When I come down here to Toronto -- perhaps I haven't seen it; I may be mistaken -- I get the sense that there is very little in terms of recreational infrastructure that draws in today's youth. If there's any focus in our reaction to what we saw last week, it should be on that: Build on the voluntary sector, on recreation groups, on sports groups, on cultural activities, and give them the opportunity to bring in the young people, and in that way give them meaning and give them something to do.

Mr Speaker, perhaps you will permit me, you above all, because in your previous incarnation you were a man of the cloth and I have some background in that as well. I think there's a role for the churches, and we should not overlook that as politicians. There is a challenge out there for the churches as to how they are dealing with youth and what they are doing to provide meaning and guidance and direction for our new generation.

That's what disturbed me most, that here we have a new generation showing wilful destruction. I think that's the most disturbing. While I was bothered by the racial aspect, I don't think that was really the most dramatic moment; in my opinion, it was the youth aspect. Afterwards on television and in the media when people were asked, "Why did you do this?" they said, "It was fun." Wilful destruction was fun. That is a terrible message, because what is the next step?

We're losing one taboo after another. I studied some sociology, and the importance and significance of taboos in social systems is extremely strong. The protection of property and of life, the security of property and the security of life, are taboo, and if you break that, you're moving on to the next taboo. Where's the limit? That is also what disturbed me greatly, that indication that it was fun to destroy. We have spoken often in this House about the significance of violence and family violence and sexual violence. I think all of that comes back into the same kind of situation and must be looked at in the same kind of context.

I want to leave some time for my colleague, but I want to mention that there is obviously one area where there is a role for government, and that is to make the educational opportunities available to all classes of society and to all backgrounds.

Again, what we're seeing at present disturbs me greatly. We're seeing tremendous waiting lists for people -- as I said today in question period -- to get into community colleges and universities. We're making it more difficult to receive OSAP, Ontario student assistance. All of that may not have an immediate impact on the groups we saw rioting last week, but in the long term I think it is a very dangerous trend and precedent we're setting.

At the legislative standing committee on social development we're studying OSAP and reviewing how the changes the government has put in place are affecting especially the underprivileged. Last night a representative of the anti-poverty coalition came to us and spoke about the tremendous negative impact of making it more difficult to get education, the negative impact on underprivileged people and especially those from minorities such as racial and income minorities.

I'm very concerned that in that area the government is unfortunately not moving in the right direction. I should say again that it is a very broad problem and a very broad concern out there and I wanted to put on the record a few of my impressions and thoughts on a very difficult issue. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for having given me the opportunity to speak.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I am pleased to join in the debate today. I want to focus my comments on the issue that was touched upon in here about youth employment, or should I say youth unemployment, and opportunities for youth.

A week ago Saturday I had one of the more disturbing visits I've had with one of my best friends just home from university; he has just completed his degree in physics. His fiancée was there as well; she has just completed teachers' college. His younger brother was there, who's just completed a degree in psychology. His girlfriend has just completed her nursing program at a community college.

What was disturbing about it was the fact that all four of them, while completing post-secondary educational opportunities, do not have full-time jobs and for that matter do not have summer jobs lined up yet. In the meantime they may, but I found that very distressing and an eye-opening experience -- let me say that at the very least -- to know that these people have been unable to find permanent employment and unable to find summer jobs, because some of them may go back for more educational opportunities. I thought to myself that if the people with those educational opportunities are having difficulty, what about the untrained and unskilled people?

I think all governments have had trouble in dealing with the issues of youth, what it takes to be a youth or the challenges young people face today in terms of the mixed messages society constantly gives them, whether through TV or different media, from our adults in society, from those people in positions of power: "Don't do this," but people go and do that type of thing.

No government has really been able to get a good handle on that. I believe when the third party was in government it appointed former hockey player Ken Dryden to carry out a report; I think he was even made youth commissioner. I think they had at that time the former member for Brantford, who was supposed to be responsible for youth areas.

If I look back in terms of going through university and having been involved in student council, certainly keeping the former government accountable in these areas, I see that many of the opportunities have been cut due to budget restraints over the years. I'm going to say I don't blame just the previous government, because I think all governments are to blame.

I think a serious mistake was made at the time by the federal government in cancelling the Katimavik program, which gave some opportunity for some people who maybe had come out of high school, or were in first or second year at university but were unsure about where they were going with their future, to get involved in some type of experience, some type of opportunity in another part of this country. I believe cancelling that was a serious mistake.

1740

I think it would have been nice if the federal government in this, the 125th year of Confederation, could have come up with a similar type of program, because it was very beneficial. I know some of the specific summer student employment programs were cut back during the previous government over the years. I remember writing a letter to the former Minister of Skills Development and the member for Scarborough North about some of those cutbacks and being concerned about that.

There's no doubt that even under this government, with the budget restraints that are going on, ministries looking to meet their financial restraint requirements have looked at many of the programs where students would be employed. I'm not going to single out any specific ministry, but a lot of them have. I suspect some of the budget restraints on the tree-planting program will have an impact upon youth.

I try to bring all that together. With the recession and with what is going on there's no doubt there's a great deal of frustration out there among many youth. We tell them, "You can have all the opportunities." I know in certain sectors of society, in certain groups, there is even less opportunity. I don't know really what happened to it, but we used to -- I think of my older brother in this case who came out of high school, learned a trade, became an electrician and is now running his own company as an electrician back in my riding.

I don't know what happened, but it seems the apprenticeship programs, trades programs and journeyman programs, or journeyperson programs, have declined over the last 10 or 15 years and there haven't been as many opportunities for people to learn skilled trades. I don't know how that evolved, or maybe I should say devolved, into not providing as many opportunities. I certainly hope that once the OTAB system is in place it will mean we get back to those trades.

I've had people come into my office to talk about not being able to get into teachers' colleges. I know now that only one out of 10 people applying to teachers' colleges is getting in. That concerns me. People focus on getting into the teaching profession. So what are we doing? Are we not directing people in the right area? Business tells us we don't have the skilled professionals in different trades, particularly when you look at those that require maths, sciences and applied sciences. What are we doing? We need to look at that and why we aren't directing people into those areas. Can we provide more opportunities in those areas so that we can achieve our goals?

One of the other comments I want to make is that the Treasurer in his budget has indicated a significant allotment of funds for job creation, some of it long-term, some of it short-term, a lot for construction. He has talked about strategic use of those dollars and those funds. It's certainly my hope that both Treasury and Economics and those other ministries that will be responsible, particularly the Ministry of Housing for getting non-profit housing out there, can get these projects going and under way in the summer, so that at least we can create some employment in the construction field for our youth in all communities. That's not going to create long-term opportunities for them, but given the impact of the recession, I think it's important that we're able to get that.

I certainly hope the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, through the appointment of Dale Martin as a mediator, will be able to get projects going, so that we can at least create some short-term opportunities for the summer while we put into place the things such as employment equity and OTAB that will hopefully make a real difference over the long term.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the honourable member for York Centre.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's an honour to conclude this opposition day debate on the motion presented by my leader and to speak to the issues that are before this Parliament. I have listened carefully to the speeches of most of the members who have spoken on this issue. I think perhaps it is appropriate to go back a few days and remind ourselves in this Parliament why we're here and why we're having this debate.

It was just about two weeks ago that, beyond all imagination, a jury in Los Angeles, California, acquitted four police officers in what was clearly, to everyone in North America, a brutal beating. That triggered a city. Los Angeles was on fire and all of us felt that pain here.

Ontario remained, for a few days at least, somewhat smug, in the way in which we have done for the past 200 years, and then part of the black community in Ontario decided it must speak out about this because the same things that were happening there, in some respects were happening here. They organized a demonstration and they sat down and they said, "We want to be heard."

Emerging out of that demonstration, and in some respects unrelated, as some people have suggested, our children took to the street. Our children smashed windows and grabbed things out of stores and had one hell of a time -- our children. I resent the fact that some people in this House have referred to them as "those people" and others have referred to them as "hooligans." They're our kids and they were on the street, and I think the very most appropriate remark was made by Jean Chrétien, the federal leader of the Liberal Party, when he said, "This is a wake-up call." Unfortunately, in this debate I don't think we've quite got to the topic yet.

We are not a racist state -- Nazi Germany was a racist state; South Africa has been and still is a racist state -- but we need to simply acknowledge and come to grips with and set aside our smugness and say to ourselves that in Ontario racism is part of the fabric, still, that we have as a people. Yes, we have policies of multiculturalism, and yes, we have programs and we have the Human Rights Commission, and Lord knows, one day the government will introduce employment equity, maybe. But race still divides us; race still separates us. Race puts us in different categories. Race too often is the determining factor between success and failure. Race labels us, and for a few minutes in this Parliament, let's say, "Yes, that's a reality, and we've got to come to grips with it."

Most of us are old enough to realize and remember that 25 or 30 years ago North American kids stood up and said, "We're not going to take it any more." Most of us remember Watts, most of us remember the killing of students at Kent State and most of us remember Selma, Alabama. Most of us remember Haight-Ashbury and Woodstock, and most of us remember our kids on Fourth Avenue in Vancouver and in Yorkdale here in Toronto.

Once again, our kids are standing up. They are our children. These hooligans, if you want to call them that, are our kids, and what we should be talking about in this debate is the fact that notwithstanding all the rhetoric from this government and other governments, we are allowing an underclass to develop in our society. Sometimes that underclass is determined by economic factors, sometimes that underclass is determined by colour of skin, and sometimes it's determined by a whole host of things. Too often, it's determined by age.

My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt tries to remind this government almost every day of the week that 25% of our kids don't have work, but it's not just a matter of jobs any more. I'm sorry; if the government says it's going to answer it with a new jobs program, well, forget it, pack it away. Too many kids are saying: "You can take that job and shove it, because I don't want to have anything to do with your schools, and I don't want to have anything to do with your universities, and I don't want to have anything to do with your jobs. I don't feel part of what you believe in, down in your Parliament and on your Bay Street and on your University Avenue."

1750

We have a problem and we are not acknowledging that problem. These are our kids. These are our children, whether their faces be black, whether their faces be white, whether their faces be of whatever colour. That's not to say that all Ontario children are at risk, but we see more and more of this underclass which says: "Forget it. Your institutions don't interest me." At least during this debate we have an opportunity for a while to say that our institutions have lost their relevance to our children.

Our kids aren't going to change all that much, so it's our responsibility to start changing some of those institutions. Again, go back 25 years ago and look at some of the responses that came forward at that time. John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps. He gave literally, now after 25 years, millions of young people an opportunity to participate in a real way to change society. Even in Canada, Lester Pearson created the Company of Young Canadians, la Compagnie des jeunes canadiens. It was a vehicle, it was a brand-new vehicle. Kids ran it. Kids had an opportunity to work in communities in ways that were unheard of before that.

I'm sorry to say it, because I don't think this has to be an entirely political debate, but there is grave disappointment in what we've gotten thus far from this brand-new labour, socially minded, activist government. Before the campaign they said: "There's going to be no tuition for university students. It's too important." The tuitions go up. Before the election they said, "We're going to open up our workplaces." Bob Rae already had an employment equity bill, and what do we have? We have discussion, dialogue, obfuscation and every excuse under the sun to do absolutely nothing. The great crime of this government is not what it has done but what it has not done.

Our kids are sending a crystal-clear message. Go down and talk to the people who for so many years now have felt they do not have a role to play and that they don't have a stake in Ontario's society. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the black guy who comes here and has been walking the streets for four years and still can't get a job. It's all very polite. Ontario is the most polite society I've ever seen. It's extremely polite: "Thank you very much for the application. We'll be calling you."

Put yourself in the shoes of the immigrant who's come from Pakistan, Afghanistan or from that whole part of south Asia. They come to my constituency office. These are my constituents and they say: "Mr Sorbara, it's so hard out there. It's so difficult. I get refusal after refusal."

If we can use this debate to further this agenda, then it's been a good idea. We've got to make some room here. We've got to create some new space. We've got to build new buildings, new structures. They are going to look a little bit different, but we've got to get on with that. If we go down this course where it's all the Treasurer's Job Ontario this and Job Ontario that, it ain't going to work, I tell the Treasurer. There's got to be some more fundamental change. We've got to start thinking through these problems in a different way. We've got to start taking different approaches.

This is not Los Angeles, I agree. I think in Ontario we do a little better. Maybe that's simply my Ontario smugness; I'm not sure. I say to you that this wake-up call ought to alert all of us that we need to start thinking in different ways.

My kids are out there, your kids are out there, our kids are out there. Twenty-five per cent of our young people simply can't find work. More than that, there's a whole community out there that says, "Listen, there's nothing left for me here," so there are guns, there are needles in the arm, there's cocaine in the nose and there's crack in the lungs.

Let's start coming to grips with that. Let's stop saying that we can have a consultation process here and some development of a new program there. Let's us get into the street, let's us get down there, let's us start listening, let's us start talking to the kids, let's us start talking to those people who simply find it too terribly difficult to tolerate this dollar-driven society we so often champion in this House.

I think we have an opportunity here. As to those who were there committing crimes, let's admit that and let's punish appropriately. I'm not saying we simply abandon notions of law and order -- heaven forbid -- but there's a message there. The Tories were talking about the crimes. I think we need to be talking about the so-called criminals, what's going on there, why this is happening and what we have to learn from this. After all, there's no place we can turn. Once you get to this House, in this building, there's no place else to turn. No use turning to another level of government or asking the city to do more. It lies in our lap. Our children have sent us a message. I hope we've heard that message.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs McLeod has moved opposition day motion 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: It now being near 6 of the clock, I do now leave the chair until 1:30 tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1757.