Journal des débats 1993-juin-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

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

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

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

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

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

Both of these are worthwhile endeavours. The Y needs a Jobs Ontario Capital grant to enable it to better serve the 3,000 people from Grey and Bruce who regularly use the multifunctional building each week and who rely on the many programs, classes and service which it offers. Their policy of accessibility ensures that no one is turned away due to a lack of financial resources and it allows over 400 needy children and families to use the facilities at little or no charge.

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

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

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

DADS DAY

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

On June 19, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the Canadian Building and Constructions Trades Department and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council are all taking part in the Dollars Against Diabetes charity drive.

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

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

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

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

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

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

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

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

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

1340

WAGE PROTECTION

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

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

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

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

COPING IN TOUGH TIMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

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

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

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

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

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

SHOW BOAT

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

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

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

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

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

1350

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

[Interruption]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL CONTRACT

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

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

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

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

1400

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL CONTRACT

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

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

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

Now, how far offtrack are you? I liken what you have been doing, just in this social contract talks process, to a 20-storey building on fire. You closed all the first-floor exits and then you closed the second-floor exits and then the third-floor exits. Now you've closed right up to the 19th- and 20th-floor exits and you've left Ontarians, you've left workers, you've left families, you've left them with either the 19th-floor exit to jump off or the 20th-floor exit to jump off this burning building that you and the Liberals created and you put on fire. One, do nothing -- that's unacceptable; that's the 20th-floor option, in my view. The 19th floor, which is unacceptable, is this gutting and rolling back chaos of a piece of legislation you wish to bring forward.

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

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

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

1410

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1420

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

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

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1430

ASSISTED HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to ask the minister about some information her deputy gave to the standing committee on public accounts. I asked Mr Burns where families that receive shelter allowances live. His answer leaves 539,000 families unaccounted for. I also requested an update on non-profit housing subsidies. Your ministry doesn't even know how much non-profit housing costs. This is incredible, when you plan to build another 46,000 units. Even your figures for the number of units under subsidy are wrong. They don't include stock that was built prior to 1986. It's amazing. The public accounts committee had to wait 10 months for your deputy's answers and then they were riddled with errors or incomplete. Minister, just when will you be able to give us the full and correct answers to our questions?

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

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1440

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

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

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASTE DISPOSAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

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

1450

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

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

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

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

This question was asked in the federal House -- a question as to what is going on, essentially. It was asked of the Minister of the Environment, and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Mr Lee Clark, answered that question by saying, "I would like to assure the House that the government of Canada is ready to return to the negotiating table with the government of Ontario as soon as the latter is prepared to do so." In other words, Mr Minister, the ball is in your court. Would you tell this House, would you tell us, when you are going back to the table to renegotiate this agreement?

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

Mr Tilson: All of a sudden there's a problem. This Canada-Ontario agreement was negotiated by a Progressive Conservative government over 20 years ago and it was renegotiated year after year after year. It only was when your government came to power that the whole thing collapsed. Your government is doing absolutely nothing with this problem; absolutely nothing. It was criticized last year by the Provincial Auditor. MISA will require $6 billion to get the entire waste and sewage infrastructure back on course. The United States -- the various eight states -- collects data on the volume of toxic chemicals released into the Great Lakes and there's no similar plan in the province of Ontario, no process that's under way. When is your government going to take action on this serious problem?

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

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Mr Philip: Yes, there is.

1500

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VETERINARIAN TECHNOLOGY COURSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VISITOR

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

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

HEALTH CARE

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Health. The words "expenditure control" and the changes these words imply are on everyone's mind. A group in my riding are particularly concerned about government expenditure cuts on our doctors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

1510

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

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

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

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAMBLING

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

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

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

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

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

SPECIAL EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LANDFILL

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

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

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

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

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

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

GAMBLING

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

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

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

1520

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I have affixed my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr O'Neil: I have another petition --

[Interruption]

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Sergeant?

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

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

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

Bill 48, An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Laughren moves that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program and that it now be read the first time.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

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

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

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Gloucester.

1530

HUMANE SOCIETY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Humane Society of Ottawa-Carleton.

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

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

Bill 49, An Act respecting the Collective Bargaining of Employees of the Crown and other matters Relating to Collective Bargaining / Loi concernant la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne et d'autres questions relatives à la négociation collective.

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

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

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

Bill 50, An Act to implement the government's Expenditure Control Plan and, in that connection, to Amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act / Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le Plan de contrôle des dépenses du gouvernement et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé et la Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): This legislation enables the implementation of the Ministry of Health's expenditure control plan. It is entirely consistent with the expenditure control and reform agenda of the ministry. The guiding policy principles have been to preserve medicare by ensuring its affordability, accessibility and the quality of care and payment only for medically necessary services.

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

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

Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe / Loi concernant la restructuration du comté de Simcoe.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'm proud to introduce the County of Simcoe Act, an act that will streamline municipal government in that county and make it more cost-efficient and cost-effective. I'm introducing the legislation because it was what locally elected people have requested. County councillors and others have worked on the study and come to an agreement. They've also brought their request to the provincial government and their local MPPs to help it be implemented.

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

TOWNSHIP OF ATIKOKAN ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Township of Atikokan.

OPPOSITION DAY

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT / JEUNESSE EN CHÔMAGE

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

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion number 3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1540

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1550

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

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

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

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

[Applause]

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

I want to say that I will support this resolution that has been put forward today. I want to make a few comments on the specifics and some of the details. I want to indicate that my support is based upon raising and getting debate and awareness and allowing some discussion, which the government hasn't done, on a very, very important issue, that of our youth today, how discouraged they are, not just youth unemployment but the lack of opportunities and of hope that our young people feel today in the province of Ontario. I think this is something that, as we look at the impact of the recession, the impact of this restructuring that's going on, the impact of eight years of absolutely disastrous government policies in this province of Ontario, if it's affecting anybody perhaps more than others, it concerns me the most -- and it's been negative on most of us -- I really feel for our young people.

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

He came, and he really and truly -- and he's a friend of mine as well -- I'd never seen him, this man who has worked hard all his life, has a marvellous wife and family, children, two of whom have graduated from university -- I've never seen him so sad. I thought, and he did not, but I thought he was going to break down in my office. He certainly talked emotionally about his experiences with students in high school, his own family, the experiences they were relaying to him of their friends in university and those who had graduated and saw no hope for them in this province of Ontario.

I thought of this great province, this province of opportunity for so many people for so many years, not just for Ontarians. We were such a province of prosperity and opportunity we were able to share that with people not only from all across Canada, indeed that, but all around the world.

Many of you have heard me speak of that tourism slogan that we used to have: "Ontario, Yours to Discover." I was in the tourism business and to me it meant a lot more than just tourism. It was to discover the lifestyle, the education system, the environment, the clean air and clean water, the quality of life, but it means nothing if you don't have a job. It means nothing if you can't see yourself being able to contribute to and fit into this society and be able to earn money, pay your way and advance and get ahead, see where you could raise a family and have a life and an opportunity for their children, for your children to move ahead.

Young people are committing suicide in record numbers. In North Bay, the suicide rate among young people is three times the national average. We're dealing with a community that I believe is one of the finest communities in Canada. We are finding they've lost hope. They don't see a future for them. They look at this massive debt, by the way, and they understand what it means. It means that generations before them have spent their money, and now they're going to ask them to pay it back. They see it growing federally, they see it growing provincially and they see governments seemingly incapable of dealing with it. They understand what deficits mean.

At the same time, there are no jobs for them. They see their friends who are older who have graduated; they see siblings who are now looking beyond Ontario, many beyond Canada.

My friend Mr Brunette had indicated that he was there on behalf of the young people who had lost hope. Many are giving them advice now -- instead of facing a year of rejection, another 500 rejections of a job, perhaps to leave their families and go to other countries, to other lands, as so many did when Ontario was yours to discover and they came from Europe, South America, Asia, India, so many countries -- we're now saying to our young people, or they're feeling, that they've got to leave this country; to that extent.

I think it's a great tragedy that we have not been talking about this more in this Legislature. I think it's a great tragedy that the government hasn't, in these mad-dash, knee-jerk social contract talks, looked at the impacts of what it means to families and to people, and particularly what it means to young people.

I see the Minister of Housing here who defended 5% increases, "Get 'em through the wire, spend that year-end money and take everything, give it all out, Ontario Housing Corp, before the legislation comes in and we bring down the hammer and we tell them we're going to freeze wages," so they can now be frozen in 5% higher than anybody else -- the absolute hypocrisy of that kind of action. Young people see this. They see the future in Ontario diminishing. These kinds of actions I just don't understand. So we're supportive of the principle of advancing this issue forward, of talking about what we can do to restore hope for young people.

Dealing with the deficit, quite frankly, which the Premier, the Treasurer and the NDP are committed to do, is a step in the right direction, let me acknowledge that; something the Liberals have not faced up to, even though they're the ones who have frittered away most of the money and led us into this terrible situation. When I look at the number of programs they brought in -- almost a passion that they had to try and redistribute 100% of the money that came in, forgetting that you had to leave some money in the marketplace with families, with individuals, so they could benefit from any increased level of economic activity. They took that and said, "We can spend it smarter than you," and of course they couldn't, and we deteriorated.

1600

Again, the Liberals forgot as well you have to leave money in the hands of the private sector to reinvest in new technologies, in new skills training that the private sector can do in training its own workers. There are two ways to do it, you see: Leave them enough money before you tax it all away so that they can invest in the new machinery, the new technology, the new ideas and invest in training their employees; or you can tax all the money away from them and then the government provide it, and of course the government -- Progressive Conservative, Liberal, NDP -- rarely is able to target that money or that training as well as the private sector industry and businesses can themselves.

The Liberals were worse than most in that regard, yet they were committed to taxing it all, taking it all: "We can spend it smarter than anybody else." That's how we got into this mess, and more of the same won't get us out of this mess. The NDP tried for two years to give us more of the same. Now I again acknowledge they've recognized that the eight-year spending binge of coalition, NDP-Liberal, and then themselves had come to an end. It was time to pay the piper. We are supportive of that in recognizing the deficit as part of it.

Let's deal with the specifics of the resolution. My colleagues, I know, want to talk about some of them. The leader of the Liberal Party said, "We've costed all this out to the last penny, the last dollar," but she didn't tell us what it was. What's in here? She says it should be increased to $60 million. From what? She says, "Funding for the successful Futures program should be increased by 20%." That's costed. "Co-op education programs expanded." She didn't give us a dollar figure, by how much, how. They think this stuff comes out of the thin air; you can have all this and the spending. She said it was costed to the dollar and didn't tell us one dollar of what the costing was. That's typical liberalism.

"A scholarship system that encourages business to contribute to the further education of youth." I like that. I think that's a good idea. It's the first good one they've had in eight years that I've seen them operate, in government and in opposition. I think it's a good one. But there's no costing, no dollar figure. They say, "We'll take the money out of -- we'll reallocate." I think you have some failed programs they want to reallocate from, but how much will be reallocated? Why don't they tell us that? They don't want to be accountable. They didn't in government; they don't in opposition.

"A pre-university program should be established to help young people improve their grades and gain increased access to universities." What does this mean, this "pre-university program"? Is that whereby you acknowledge the school system has failed our young people, and here's another new program? Why don't you reform the education system? Why don't you deal with the disastrous move, particularly started by the Liberals, towards mediocrity, "They're all the same," all those policies of social liberalism, leftism, whatever you call it, "All kids are the same."

Nonsense. They're not all the same. Some are brighter than others; some learn faster than others; some are good in math; some are good in literature; some are good in athletics; some have different skills; some, at certain points in time in their lives, learn faster than others; some are motivated at different times. You try to make them all the same and you're still carrying on those Liberal policies to try and do that. I don't understand.

Now they want a new program to correct this. Why don't you just correct the problem in the beginning, or is this a way to artificially get the grades up? Is the goal to get grades up or teach our young people the skills and the knowledge they need? What do these grades up mean? Our grades mean nothing in Ontario. Nobody knows today when you get 90% whether that's 90% relative to other schools, to other students, to other provinces, to other countries; 90% means nothing. So I think that one's one of the silly ideas they've advanced; again, no costing to it.

Let's deal with our education system. We tabled a paper, New Directions, Volume Two. I'm sorry I didn't bring it to hold up. I usually take every opportunity to publicize it, because it's a document of some 70 or 80 pages with concrete suggestions how we can make our education system more accountable and better and provide our youth with better skills, and measurable, so they would know what it meant.

"A database system providing youth with information about training."

Interjection.

Mr Harris: That's all right. The only thing I would say on the ones I agree with -- you were in government for five years, what did you do? You took all the money and you frittered it away; you spent it on yourselves and you forgot our young people; you forgot about building and training for the future and that's one of the reasons we're in this mess today as well.

I know there are many aspects that my colleagues wish to talk about, but I really and truly wanted to say I agree with this discussion today. We support bringing this topic to the forefront so we can talk about this problem that Mr Brunette had brought to my attention in North Bay, that I have found as I travel across this province.

I tell you this: If we do not deal in a forthright, direct and constructive way with what our young people are going to do; with the loss of hope and pride and opportunity that they for 42 years thought this province -- not everybody, but the majority -- provided the opportunity; and then eight years of gradually deteriorating, deteriorating, deteriorating to this point, now the highest-taxed, biggest government -- we've got all the records.

I was always intrigued with the record that we got. We're the best borrowers now in the world. We got this award in Europe that Ontario knows how to borrow money better than any other government or company in the world. No wonder. That's what we do best. We borrow money and then fritter it away.

I really and truly welcome the opportunity to advance ideas and constructive criticism as to how we can give our young people hope and I conclude with this: I want our young people to know -- those who are leaving Ontario today and they are many; those who are travelling the world, many of them learning other languages, and I applaud them for that; many who have just sort of said: "There's a two- or a three-year hiatus in our life. We're going to have to set back career opportunity. We can't afford to carry on in school." There are so many in this category.

I want to say to them that this stretch of Liberal socialism in this province is coming to an end. We are going to restore hope and opportunity and prosperity to this province. Our finest days, our best days, are ahead of us in this province. We have the policies, we have the team, we have the capability and the management skills and the leadership to bring this and more to this province of Ontario, and that's what we're fighting for.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): The wonderful thing about being elected as an MPP is you get to participate in some debates that sometimes get a little bit partisan, and that's exactly what an opposition day is.

As I read this resolution, as presented by the official opposition, it talks about the Ontario youth who are faced with this jobless crisis right now. The youth aren't alone; there are a lot of people out there who are unemployed right now. The fact of the matter is that government, the Liberal government of the day, could have gone on to the fall of 1992 before forcing an election on the province of Ontario, but it had no plans. They didn't have any plans to deal with the problem. They lacked any sort of policy initiatives that were going to be able to bring them through it. So what did they do? They called an election and the NDP came in. It had to develop some programs and some policies.

They don't mention for a fact that in the beginning of their term -- when they first started with their first mandate they didn't talk about the 16% of young people, young families, who were in the poverty levels. By the time they left office, they were up to over 33%. They don't mention that, of course, because they left people out. They didn't talk about a lot of the problems that people faced and they've got to deal with it.

As we came out of the last recession, that party over there -- the Liberal Party -- could have come up with a plan. What was their plan during the last recession? They didn't have one when they came out of it so they called a snap election to deal with it.

They say the NDP hasn't got plans, summer job programs, that we need to have something like that. I want to tell you right now that this government, for the year 1992-93, has increased its financial commitment to programs by $20 million, to a total of $180 million. I'm going to leave that for some of my colleagues to talk about a little bit more, because we all realize that there are problems and we've got to deal with them.

1610

We have to take a look at the long term. We can't just come up with a bunch of quick, ad hoc programs. What we've got to do is take a look at improving education and training for the long term as we go through economic renewal. We have to do that. It's something that we've got to do, and doing that, we've got to develop an effective long-term plan for education reform. Yes, we've got to do it.

We've got to start coordinating some things like skills development and bring in knowledge as is needed and bring the whole thing together and some reform that obviously they didn't feel they could do; otherwise they wouldn't have called that early election. We could have been sitting here listening to their programs maybe now, but they knew that they wouldn't have had a chance, so they called their snap election and didn't want to have to deal with the very difficult problems that we are dealing with.

If we take a look at what this government is doing on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, you know, when we came into office, there were over 44 different programs by a dozen ministries, all dealing with this issue.

Interjection: Patchwork.

Mr O'Connor: It was all patchwork. It was program after program put in but no real sense of order to the whole thing. This government, the NDP government, is working on that. They're going to fix that up and clean it up and get it going in spite of the delay tactics being forced on us by the opposition because they don't want to deal with it. They didn't have a plan to deal with it; we're going to deal with it.

They like to stand up here and say, "Well, the government's got to do this, the government's got to do that." Sometimes we just forget about the people in our communities back home that have programs that work, some programs for youth, some chances that we get for our youth to get experiences.

Right on the front page of the Sunderland Sun there's a little thing there about the 4-H programs. Even in rural Ontario, 4-H programs and the people involved in them are offering some good experience for people that doesn't cost government money, but the opposition would just as soon forget about that because those people, the youth in rural Ontario, don't matter. Well, I disagree with them.

If we take a look at other programs that are offered, we just spend money, spend money. I want to tell you about another one. "The Brock youth group gets a start on summer programs." It's not something that they're coming to the government and saying, "We want some money because we've got to do something." No, they're making use of existing arenas, facilities that are in there; they're going to make good use of them. For the youth, this discussion has led to an agreement that the youth group can use the community centre auditoriums when the township staff are onsite.

Here's an opportunity where we can take a look at programs that aren't going to cost a lot of money -- because I know the Liberals like to spend money. That's why we're in this situation now. We're dealing with that. As you know, we've introduced legislation to date, very difficult, trying to deal with those situations. But at the same time, they want to spend money.

Let's take a look at one of the examples that they used as a problem: the co-op programs. The cooperative programs should be expanded and encouraged to grow. I agree with that, but what they forget is that a fundamental part of the cooperative program is that you need employers to be able to get the youth involved. We're dealing with that. We've got the Jobs Ontario fund and we're dealing with that aspect of it. What we need to do is make sure that we can encourage that to grow. You don't just go out and say, "We want it to grow." You need to have employers as part of that program, and that's what we're doing. We're dealing with that.

If we just take a look, for example, the province has a program, this government has a program for school workplace apprenticeship programs. Last year we had 35 boards. This year we've got 95 boards, 95 boards across this province that recognize that if we get students started in apprenticeship programs earlier on, we can expand that.

They don't talk about that because that's a positive thing, and opposition days are to talk about how negative the government is. Well, there are a lot of good things, positive things that are happening that they forget. I guess that's why they're opposition. They've got a short memory; they forget that they had time to go on and try to fix things but they had no programs. But this government isn't doing that. We're being proactive and we're looking at things. We're improving on things.

It's pretty easy to sit back and criticize, but we're not hearing the programs. They're saying, "Spend some money on something," but they're not telling us how we should be spending it. It's pretty easy for them to sit back in opposition and just criticize, but where are they in trying to help? What we need to do is establish like the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. But they're not trying to help us on that. It's something that we need to do, because we've got a lot of partners out there that need to be brought in to make something like that work. It's a difficult process, and anything that's difficult, the opposition says: "Well, let's call an election. We don't have to deal with that."

There are a lot of programs that the government has moved forward on that the opposition had no intention of dealing with. That's why we're here now as government, and we're dealing with them. It seems the opposition has finally recognized that there are some problems in Ontario. You think back to when they first became the government in 1985. There were a lot of problems because we were coming out of a recession back then, but they didn't have any plans. If they had, we could have very easily used their plans and continued on, but they didn't have any plans to deal with it so we're coming up with our own plans, plans that are going to work, and that's an important thing we need to do.

They talk about a pre-university program. That's possible now, but they don't recognize it's possible now because they've got their own programs, their own ideas, their own plans that they didn't have the courage to introduce and work on, and I find it rather strange that they wouldn't try dealing with some of that.

Of course, why would they forget about the people of the community that have things going right now? It's important. Let's not forget about the people in our local communities, some good, hard-working people in our communities who have good alternatives that we should be looking at, being part of that. We can work with young people in our community. We can work with the volunteers that will help the young people in our community. The opposition don't want to do that. They just want to spend some more money. That's the alternative they've got, and I guess maybe that's why we're in the bind we're in, because they didn't have any recognition of some of the serious problems that we face.

I'm going to close with that. I'm disappointed that the opposition hasn't pointed out some real alternatives rather than to spend a bunch of money. It's rather disheartening, but I'll close with that and save some time for my colleagues to speak on this very important issue.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I am very happy that my leader has brought forward this motion, an extremely important motion about the crisis of our young people. It has reached a situation of crisis, where they are unemployed.

As I listened to the leader of the third party, who hasn't read the motion properly or even read our proposal properly, he talks about how we have not costed out our program properly. I should advise him at the outset that these things are costed out to every detail of the dollar.

I am so sorry that the member for Durham-York is leaving, because he was blabbering around a bit and had more noise in his remarks than any facts or strategies at all. I hope he'll read some of the Hansard when he gets the opportunity, to find out the constructive way in which we're going to approach this huge unemployment crisis situation that we are in.

There are about 1.5 million youth in Ontario at present, and over the past three years youth unemployment rates have steadily increased. Today in Ontario, unemployment rates have escalated to an astounding 20.4%, and if you work that out in numbers, that's about 190,000 youth who are presently seeing unemployment. In some communities the situation is much worse, with unemployment rates climbing as high as 26.3%.

As the economy continues to contract and downsizing remains an important objective for the public sector, as you know, in this social contract negotiation and proposed legislation, and also with the downsizing of the private sector corporations, such developments have effectively reduced the number of entry-level, career-track positions.

Also, with economic restructuring and downsizing, the number of summer jobs has been drastically reduced, if not eliminated. I've listened to the member for Durham-York. He talks about one program where he may have seen some youth being employed, and then using that to equate it around Ontario, ignoring the statistics that show that far fewer young people are employed now than ever before.

1620

Unemployed youth are no longer mostly students seeking temporary employment, or high school dropouts. Unemployed youth are those who have done what we have all asked them to do, what we've all dictated to them to do, "Go out and get an education, and then when you come back, go and get a degree, go and get a diploma."

Some of them are coming back and saying, "I am ready," and what they face is a government that doesn't have the understanding of the crisis they are in. They have taken away money in some programs, and they have not increased programs that have been successful, like the Futures program.

I raised in the House earlier that there is only a 7% increase in the Futures program, not even keeping abreast. That 7% is over the time that this government has been in power. It has not increased the Futures program. This is a program that showed extreme success during the time the Liberal Party was in power.

I don't want to get into a discussion where we're going to blame each other, as I heard from the third party leader and the government people, and talk about: "It was the Liberals' fault at that time. That's what caused it." What we must focus on is the dilemma, the crisis we find ourselves in today, with our young people out of jobs.

I was at a seminar, a panel discussion just last week at St Christopher House, and I heard young people and people who are concerned about our young people and where they're going express, in all forms, what a crisis we're in. Some of those individuals are so concerned that they presented themselves in the gallery today and would like to hear what the government has put forward as its program and what the third party has put forward as its program.

These are serious people. They are serious in their concern about the youth employment situation in the community. They put forward a series of recommendations after we sat down and talked, and I'd like to read that for the record. They put a total of 17 recommendations of the direction they think the government should go in, in assisting especially those young people who need to be addressed in regard to employment.

What we sat down and talked about, and the theme of that evening when I spoke about it in question period today, was "Beyond Summer Employment: Long-Term Strategy for Youth Employment." They put forward a series of recommendations.

They talked about funding: "That funding to provincial youth employment and training programs be increased to respond to the high level of youth unemployment in Ontario."

They talked about the Futures program. They said, "That Futures program placements, which are currently 12 weeks in duration, be increased to one year in length to allow for an adequate training period for youth."

They also talked about a proposed one-year Futures program after graduated subsidies to employers, in which the cost-sharing of the placement evolves from a complete government subsidy to full employer responsibility.

Number four, which they put forward so well: "That Provincial youth employment and training programs address the needs of severely disadvantaged youth," because these are the people who are most vulnerable in our society.

Of course, those who have diplomas and degrees may be able to get up later on because they have the resources, if and when the economy bounces back; not under this government, of course, because the way things are going we don't think that will happen. But hopefully they will start seeing the light and I hope they get the economy going again: "That pre-employment programs be funded within provincial youth employment initiatives to address," as we've often heard, "the barriers experienced by severely disadvantaged youth seeking employment."

They talked about representation: "That youth be represented on the governing body of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board as well as the local board level."

It is surprising how this government defends its position, speaks about youth with such passion, but does not want to listen to the youth themselves who could be placed on that Ontario Training and Adjustment Board to hear at first hand.

I remember when they were in opposition that they would come into the House and parade all the young people and all the disadvantaged people in the gallery and point to us as government people and say: "These are the people who are disadvantaged. We are listening." As soon as they got into power, I think their ears were clogged and they stopped listening and said, "We will be the surrogate and speak on behalf of all young people who are suffering."

They're saying they have something to say to you, not a lot of babble that we hear today, and they have resolutions: "That youth and youth employment workers should be consulted" -- they ask for that -- "by the provincial government in determining youth employment and training strategies and programming."

They go on and on about their recommendations, about voluntarism and continuum of services. They talk about community economic development for youth. They talk about work and school options and the co-ops that we speak about expanding. They talk about employment barriers faced by newcomers, young people, and how the Canadian experience line is always given to them. They talk about government coordination, that many of these programs are poorly coordinated, and of course when I was the Minister of Skills Development, I observed that there was a need for that government coordination. They also talk in their recommendations about business and labour participation.

They are crying out, these young people, for help. They're asking seriously, why has this government abandoned them?

Mr Speaker, I want to have some quotation here and see if you could recognize these very eloquent and very well said words:

"The quality of education you are fighting for will only come when governments are prepared to recognize education as the crucial investment in the future that it is. Governments which fail to invest in education, as has been the case so clearly in this province in the past decade, are not simply shortchanging a generation of students; they're literally shortchanging the country. As information and knowledge become more and more crucial to a collective future, a failure to invest undercuts the very basis of economic growth and economic prosperity."

Such fine words, so profound, so right on: said by Bob Rae. What happened to him today? What happened to the commitment and the conviction that he showed in 1984?

I know what happened. Absolute power has corrupted his mind to a point that he does not listen to the young people.

I know my colleagues want to speak on this issue. I am extremely concerned about the direction we're going in, and so are those other colleagues who want to express their views. I'm saying to this government, do something for the youth of our country. They are the people where our investment lies for our future.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm pleased to participate in this debate, as I know all members are. Some of us were young once as well and knew just how difficult it was then to just go out and look for a job, even if they were there. Now it's doubly difficult because for young people, when they get up the energy and the conviction it takes to go out and start looking for that job, the likelihood of finding one is less than it should be.

I think there are a lot of ingredients to the problems we're dealing with, and I guess part of my concern is that this whole debate is a little late. We're talking about June 14, and if ever this was going to be something the House should have been debating, it should have been in last October for this year. It takes about nine months to get the programs going and working. It takes a long period of time for jobs to be prepared and ready for young people to move into them.

Here we are at the very last minute. You've got the summer heat outside and for young people high school will be finished in a couple of weeks, if it isn't already, and there are university students. Many of my own young people in my riding still haven't found a job. It's not good to be suddenly dealing with it last minute-ish, but that indeed is probably where the Liberals are coming from with their motion. They suddenly realized there's a problem out there so they brought forward this motion.

1630

I will support the motion. I think the issue is well worth the time to discuss even now. If only we could lead to a better solution in the future; that come this time next year, there won't be a need for this discussion or debate and we will have done everything a little bit better to assist those young people who are in search of a job.

You have to realize that if you're going to apply for the Ranger program, you get your application in by September. They serve those who get their application in first, not those that come in during December or January. It's not by how much better you are; it's just that you fit the age criteria and you have your application in on time and in ahead of someone else.

We didn't even get information about the Jobs Ontario program until less than a month ago. In terms of these programs which are traditionally serving the needs of young people who can't find a job elsewhere, within the private sector, the provincial government didn't come out with its programs until the April-May time frame.

Let's get things in order of importance and start earlier, so that these programs can be approved and ready to roll early on so that young people have a chance to react in time to do something for themselves. I get so frustrated. We had the Experience program, and we still have it going and it's partially funded by Jobs Ontario, but you don't hear about it until after the budget comes out.

Let the government work according to the time frame in which young people have to work. They have to find the jobs early on. Make those programs available early on in the year, so that while they're at university, before they get into exams, before it's a last-minute rush, the programs are defined, they're delineated and they're available. But not so, and the frustration that permeates all across the province is that whatever programs the province does have, because they come out at the last minute, there isn't enough information on them, it takes too long to get all the career counsellors and the employment centres up to speed on what's available, young people are missing an opportunity.

I have to feel that a number of the parts of the Liberal motion before us are really dealing with the symptoms. The problem out there is that yes, there's unemployment; yes, there is a youth problem; yes, we have a need for more jobs; yes, we need to have more funding from the province to help finance these jobs; and yes, we need to have more information. But do you know something? The real way to find jobs is to get a healthy, strong economy again. Get it so that employers are going to want to hire young people once more to be part of a thriving, growing corporation.

Government can do its thing by providing funding and assistance programs and having programs within the park system or the different highways opportunities, but provide an environment for business to want to invest in its company by hiring young people. If you have an environment where business is starting to grow again, they're going to say, "Yes, I will take a young person on to help me out," and it might grown into a more full-time job for someone else or a continuing job for that young person.

But because of Bill 40, this government has done more to shake business down and cause it to lose its confidence in the future of Ontario. Because of the budget, we've hit the tax wall in this province, and businesses that might have had some money to spend on another job for another person will not have that money because they're going to be paying more money in taxes in 1993-94, so again, fewer jobs. People forget that this very budget that the New Democrats have brought in, a $2-billion tax increase, will mean the loss of 50,000 jobs in the province of Ontario. For every $40,000 of more taxes, there's another job gone. The dippers are dipping into our pockets and our lifestyles because of the lifestyle they're trying to create, which isn't a lifestyle that balances out the needs of all the people of the province.

The motion before us today, as right as it might be, is still dealing with the symptoms. Deal with the fundamental need for a strong economy so that we're able to build and create jobs for the long term in the province of Ontario.

Where do we go? One of the things I've done in the last 10 years since I've been a member -- I've been that longer; time does go by. I have a job seminar, a summer employment seminar, and I run it with our local cable station, Classicomm systems in Richmond Hill, which serves the southern part of York region. We have a panel of experts who come in and go over the different ingredients of what it takes to find a job, and it's applicable to high school students, university students, to adults, to anyone who's in the process of looking for a job. This little booklet we've done and this program we carry each year cover: self-assessment and preparation; identifying potential employers; how to convince an employer to hire you, in other words, how to go through the whole process of having an interview; and the preparation of your résumé.

If anyone wants copies of this little booklet, they can obtain them -- I'll send them to them -- by calling my office, 475-0021. The government will pay the stamp and the government paid for the printing costs, and it's there to help young people in my riding. I've given out thousands of these -- they're in every school in my riding -- to help young people find a summer job; that's something I've been able to do just as an MPP. In some of my seminars, I've had every young person who came offered a summer job. I've tracked it: Almost all those young people who started early found a summer job. When you wait till the last minute, then it becomes quite a different problem.

When my leader, Mr Harris, was speaking a moment ago and didn't have his book with him, I happened to reach for mine: Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. This is a volume that our caucus has put out which goes into a number of the things that we would do to help create opportunity for young people.

My timing is such that I'm not sure just how long I have, with other members participating, but there are sections in here that will elaborate on how we support technology programs, how we want to get more science and math programs going, our whole emphasis on cooperative education, which we support.

We have a number of sections, as well, on colleges and universities, how to get more young people in university. We have a section here on student assistance, to help them get there. This government has really flopped on providing assistance to university students; there's a section on how to get private sector involvement.

Again, if someone wants a copy of that, they can certainly call us.

It's an important subject. I'm there to work for our young people. Let's see if we can come up with some concrete suggestions today that will lead to solutions for next year at least.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's a pleasure to be able to stand today and speak on such an important subject. Our government recognized the need for stronger efforts to help a greater number of young people achieve success in education and to make effective transitions from school to the workplace and to further their training.

This morning I had the opportunity to speak to some young people in Guelph. We were talking about the opportunities that existed in the future for many young people, and instead of their talk being negative, instead of ranting as the opposition is ranting about nothing being there for them, they said, "No, there are opportunities for us, opportunities if we wish to be creative."

Some of the creative things they were looking at were how we can work in our environment, how we can protect our environment, be entrepreneurs, by creating products and creating services that not only protect our environment but also move along and help young people into the workforce.

School boards have been forming agencies and partnerships with business through the SWAP program. As a trustee with the Wellington county public school board many years ago, we started SWAP, and we started by looking at how we can create a partnership, not only with business but also with labour and also with the education system. As we started to develop the program -- and I have to admit that the late George King, who was a dear friend of mine, had a lot to do with this, lent a big hand in this -- we started to go out to industry and ask them: What can we do? How can we help you and how can you help us? I think that's something we have to look at, the partnerships that have to be created --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On this very important issue of youth unemployment, I think the government should be providing a quorum. There doesn't appear to be one present.

1640

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for Guelph.

Mr Fletcher: Before I was rudely interrupted -- when we started our program and we decided that we had to create some partnerships with the business community and the labour community, we asked them how we could help each other, and they said: "Well, what we're lacking right now is actual training, training of people to take the place of people who are going to be retiring. How can we adjust to the technological changes that are going on?" So we introduced this SWAP program. We were one of the first school boards in Wellington county to introduce this program, and I'm very proud of that fact.

Youth employment and unemployment affects a wide range of clients with a diversity of needs. These people are coming from high school; they're coming from university. I remember that when I was going to high school it was easy to have a job, and when I entered university I had all kinds of jobs; I was back and forth. But that market has dried up now. I think what we have to look at is not so much how we create jobs for youth but how we help the business community create jobs for youth, and there are many ways that this government is working in that direction.

Unfortunately, what we've heard from the opposition side is, "You're not doing enough." No government has ever done enough for unemployment as far as youth is concerned. Even during the times when I was going to school, there were a lot of young people who couldn't find a job. It isn't something that's new. It isn't something that's just happened overnight. It's something that has grown. It's grown and it's grown, and we have to put an end to the growing fact that youth are being neglected in our society. What this government has tried to do, what this government has attempted, is to create the partnerships, the partnerships that are going to not only help employers but help the employees, and the employees are going to be the youth of our country.

This province has probably one of the largest untapped resources in our youth that we've ever experienced, and unfortunately, we've allowed the problem to exacerbate over years. Now, to listen to the opposition say, "You haven't done anything; you haven't done a thing about it," it throws it back in my face because they didn't do anything either.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's a little hypocritical, I think.

Mr Fletcher: I think the member is correct. It is a little bit hypocritical to be saying that we are the problem. No, I think it takes all sides to be working together, all sides to be creative, and also to start creating those partnerships, those partnerships that have to be there so that our youth can have those jobs.

This government has chosen to respond comprehensively to the complexity of the issue rather than just rely on short-term initiatives. We have taken the long-term steps that we are going to be needing so that youth unemployment is no longer one of the biggest problems in our province. We're responding with our economic renewal agenda, which includes creating jobs and training and employment opportunities for all workers. The Jobs Ontario Training fund target which my colleague was mentioning before: We target 18% of these positions for youth. This is something that this government takes seriously. It isn't something that we have just put to the side burner.

There are those around who say that youth unemployment increased dramatically September 6, 1990. Well, that isn't a true fact. The true fact of the matter is that youth unemployment has been with us for many, many years. For every economic downturn, it is the youth and usually women who suffer most in our society.

The economic downturn that we're in right now, there is an end; there will be an end. Whether it will be as dynamic as the previous upturns or not waits to be seen, but the one thing that this government takes pride in is the fact that we have not forgotten our youth and that the Liberals and the Conservatives are not the protectors of our youth, that it takes all parties to work together.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : C'est avec plaisir que j'ai l'opportunité aujourd'hui de répondre aux questions posées par l'opposition officielle de la province de l'Ontario faisant affaire avec les chances de trouver de l'emploi pour nos jeunes cet été et autres étés qui vont venir.

On comprend très bien qu'en Ontario, comme dans d'autres juridictions autour dans le pays du Canada, on se retrouve dans une situation où il y a beaucoup de jeunes, et non seulement des jeunes mais des adultes qui se trouvent sans emploi, et ils se trouvent sans emploi pour beaucoup de raisons, comme vous le savez.

Premièrement, on se trouve dans le milieu d'une récession, une récession qui est mondiale, on dirait, en caractère. On sait que dans d'autres juridictions, comme aux États-Unis, comme en Europe, comme au Canada, on se trouve dans une situation où notre économie a été réduite d'une manière très significative faisant affaire avec le nombre d'opportunités pour emploi. Ça fait partie de notre problème, et je sais que les députés des deux partis de l'opposition reconnaissent ce problème-là.

L'autre affaire dans cette question-là, c'est qu'on se trouve aussi dans une économie aujourd'hui, en 1993, à cause de la mécanisation de nos industries, où on a besoin de moins en moins de travailleurs et de travailleuses pour faire et construire les mêmes produits qu'on a achetés il y a 10 ans, 20 ans, etc.

Pour en donner des exemples, comme les députés le savent, dans l'industrie des mines dans le nord, où je me trouve, pour produire 3000 tonnes de matériau par journée, comme de l'or etc, on va dire qu'on aurait besoin d'environ 800 employés pour être capable d'opérer une mine de cette grandeur-là. Maintenant, avec la technologie d'aujourd'hui, c'est totalement changé ; tu peux opérer avec environ 200 à 300 emplois.

On sait que, quand il commence à avoir des réductions dans l'emploi pour toutes sortes et n'importe quelles sortes de raisons, les effets, ce n'est pas seulement sur les travailleurs et les travailleuses à plein temps, mais aussi de quoi qu'il arrive à nos élèves durant l'été.

Par exemple, dans les mines, et je vais parler des alentours de Timmins, c'était naturel, c'était automatique : chaque été, nos élèves de l'université, du collège et même du secondaire ont eu une chance d'aller retrouver des emplois d'été dans des mines comme Pamour, la Dome, la Kidd Creek, Falconbridge, comme on l'appelle aujourd'hui ; dans nos moulins à papier à Iroquois Falls ; dans les scieries de Mallette, de Machesney, et toutes ces industries-là.

Mais aujourd'hui, ces industries ont de moins en moins de monde, et elles ont trouvé comment être capable de faire leur production avec de moins et moins de personnes, ce qui veut dire qu'elles ont eu besoin de moins en moins d'élèves durant les étés. C'est là qu'on se trouve aujourd'hui.

Je veux signaler qu'on s'y trouve, on est comme ça, pas parce qu'un gouvernement libéral ou un gouvernement NPD ou un gouvernement provincial ou fédéral est responsable de la cause. Mais on se trouve tous, comme gouvernements, à essayer de trouver des solutions à un problème auquel il est très difficile de trouver une solution, parce que le gros problème qu'on a, c'est qu'il y a moins de jobs. Quand tu as une économie qui a besoin de moins de jobs, ça veut dire que tu as plus de monde qui est mis à pied et qui n'a pas d'emploi. C'est doublement difficile pour les élèves parce que, quoi qu'il arrive, ces entreprises-là engagent de moins en moins d'élèves.

Alors, la responsabilité, elle est à qui ? Je pense que tous les députés de cette Assemblée, gouvernement et opposition, reconnaissent que la responsabilité de créer des emplois, c'est au secteur privé. Je pense qu'on le sait. Est-ce que ça veut dire que le gouvernement provincial ou fédéral n'a pas une responsabilité ? Non. On a tous des responsabilités. Je pense que les gouvernements ont une responsabilité, premièrement, de démontrer qu'ils sont sérieux en mettant en place les mécanismes nécessaires pour une économie forte. Mais je pense qu'on a aussi besoin de signaler que les responsabilités d'emplois se trouvent dans le secteur privé. Mais quoi faire quand un secteur privé est touché, comme on le trouve aujourd'hui en 1993 ? Est-ce que le gouvernement provincial, le gouvernement fédéral ont assez d'argent dans leurs coffres pour trouver une solution pratique, une solution qui n'est pas trop cher pour tous leurs citoyens ?

1650

Je pense que les députés de l'opposition, comme les députés du gouvernement et je dirais le public, reconnaissent que le gouvernement n'a pas assez d'argent pour donner un emploi à chacun et chacune des étudiants et étudiantes dans la province de l'Ontario durant l'été. C'est une question d'être capable de faire quoi avec l'argent que tu as ? C'est ça notre problème auquel on fait face aujourd'hui.

Avec ça, le gouvernement reconnaît qu'il a une responsabilité. Ce qu'on a dit comme gouvernement c'est que nous, on va prendre notre responsabilité. Dans le temps où il y avait une économie qui était forte, il y avait moins de demandes aux gouvernements pour des programmes d'emploi d'été pour les élèves, et les gouvernements n'étaient pas aussi pressés d'être capables de donner ces programmes-là parce que l'industrie privée était assez forte et elle pouvait combler ces postes durant l'été.

Mais aujourd'hui, on ne se trouve pas dans cette situation. On se trouve dans une situation où le secteur privé a moins et moins d'emploi.

Moi je sais, par exemple, à Iroquois Falls, que le moulin à papier Abitibi engageait d'habitude une cinquantaine d'élèves chaque été ; ce nombre est pas mal réduit cette année. Ça veut dire que le gouvernement a besoin de rentrer et reprendre la place, un peu, du secteur privé pour être capable de trouver de l'emploi pour nos élèves pour qu'ils puissent ramasser une couple de dollars durant l'été pour payer pour leur éducation postsecondaire.

Avec ça en vue, le gouvernement provincial, par exemple, a mis en place de l'argent qui a été dirigé directement pour trouver de l'emploi pour les jeunes à travers différents programmes. On va dire, il y a environ deux ans, je pense, le chiffre, au total, versé par le gouvernement provincial vers ces initiatives était d'environ, je touche un peu «rough», 20 millions de dollars à 24 millions de dollars. On trouve aujourd'hui que le gouvernement provincial, seulement sur ce programme, le youth initiatives, comme on l'appelle, a versé environ 56 millions de dollars.

J'essaie de signaler que le gouvernement provincial a dit : «Écoute. On reconnaît qu'il y a un problème dans l'économie et nous on va faire ce qui est responsable envers les dollars qu'on a dans nos coffres provinciaux, et on va essayer de mettre l'argent en place pour nos étudiants d'être mieux capables de trouver de l'emploi.» On a doublé les fonds nécessaires pour les élèves pour être capables de trouver un emploi d'été.

En même temps que ça, on a aussi fait d'autres affaires. On a dit : «Écoute. La question de l'emploi, ce n'est pas seulement d'avoir un programme chaque été qui donne de l'argent à un employeur pour être capable d'aider une personne dans le secteur privé d'engager un élève.» On a dit, «Il y a d'autres mécanismes», par exemple, le programme Coopérative Jeunesse.

On sait que dans nos commissions scolaires partout dans la province de l'Ontario, les programmes Coop sont très importants pas seulement parce que ça donne de l'expérience directement à nos jeunes concernant l'emploi, mais aussi ça ouvre une porte à un emploi pour l'été et ça ouvre aussi une porte pour un emploi à temps plein.

Moi, je le sais à mon bureau, j'ai engagé une étudiante Coop l'année passée. À ce temps-ci, c'est un emploi à temps partiel, mais avec le temps, si les affaires changent, je pourrais l'engager à temps plein. Pourquoi ? Parce que j'ai reconnu, à travers le programme Coop, que cette personne-là, qui était une élève dans le temps, a des capacités et des acquis qui sont très bons et qui complètent mon bureau et complètent mon «staff».

Ce que cela m'a aussi donné moi, comme employer : je suis venu à la connaître. C'est bien plus difficile de dire non à quelqu'un que tu connais. Ce que j'essaie de dire c'est, par exemple, si cette même personne-là était venue à mon bureau, on va dire l'année passée, cherchant un emploi, possiblement que j'aurais dit non. Mais à travers le programme Coop, j'en suis venu à reconnaître ses capacités et finalement j'ai dit, «Écoute, c'est une personne qui fait du bon sang. C'est quelqu'un qui sait comment faire l'ouvrage et elle a comblé un poste.

Alors, je pense que nos solutions, ce n'est pas seulement de mettre de l'argent dans les programmes, mais aussi de regarder vers des programmes qui donnent des chances à nos jeunes pour être capables d'ouvrir des portes. Dans la province de l'Ontario, le programme Coop présentement, on avait additionné l'année passée 60 000 élèves dans ces programmes-là, ce qui est assez important. Je pense qu'on va le reconnaître.

L'autre affaire qu'on a dit c'est que c'est aussi important de regarder d'autres alternatives. On ne peut pas seulement prendre les dollars, comme j'ai dit dans un programme de «youth employment» et dire : «Tiens, de l'argent. Va engager quelqu'un.» Ça c'est beau mais c'est un peu court terme.

On a dit, «Écoute, y a-t-il des affaires qu'on pourrait faire sur des programmes d'apprentissage ?» Ce sont des chances qu'on peut prendre, et comme gouvernement on a dit, «Oui, ça c'est un autre aspect d'emploi qu'on peut regarder pour nos plus jeunes, pour être capables de les aider à trouver un emploi qui est un peu plus à temps plein mais qui ouvre des portes, parce que ces jeunes-là sortent.» Ce qu'on a fait c'est, on a additionné les fonds nécessaires à ce programme-là à environ 14 millions de dollars par année.

Alors, ce que j'essaie d'indiquer c'est, quoi qu'il arrive, c'est que le gouvernement de l'Ontario, le gouvernement NPD a reconnu qu'on a un problème. Le problème à travers la récession c'est qu'il y a moins d'emplois, mais le gouvernement a répondu en mettant en place les programmes nécessaires pour être capables d'aider.

Mais je veux souligner ce que j'ai dit au commencement : La responsabilité de créer des emplois se trouve dans le secteur privé. Avec un secteur privé qui est fort, on aura plus une opportunité d'employer des jeunes par l'entremise de nos entreprises. Mais on ne se trouve pas là aujourd'hui. On se trouve dans une situation qui est un peu difficile et à laquelle le gouvernement a besoin de répondre. Puis j'essaie d'indiquer que le gouvernement NPD de l'Ontario commence à prendre des avances assez importantes sur cette question-là.

L'autre affaire, comme vous le savez, c'est qu'il y a un programme, Boulot Ontario, que vous connaissez bien, un programme qui est critiqué par l'opposition officielle, le Parti libéral, et son leader, M^me McLeod, mais un programme qui est très important et qui a vraiment de bonnes histoires de succès.

Moi, je connais dans ma communauté beaucoup de personnes qui sont venus à mon bureau au comté et qui ont dit, «Écoute, ça fait longtemps que je n'ai pas d'emploi et j'essaie de trouver une chance de rentrer quelque part me trouver un job, me donner une chance de sortir de l'assurance-chômage et de commencer à être productif dans mon économie de Timmins, d'Iroquois Falls, de Matheson.» Et, avec le programme Boulot Ontario, qui est mené par le collège Northern à Timmins, ils ont eu une chance de se placer dans les entreprises à l'entour de mon comté de Cochrane-Sud, de se trouver des jobs à plein temps.

Ça aussi est important, parce ce que ça revient encore : ce n'est pas seulement une question de donner de l'argent à quelqu'un, mais de donner des opportunités et de créer une situation où les employeurs se trouvent un peu plus à l'aise à engager quelqu'un à cause de l'aide financière, oui, du gouvernement mais aussi, je pense, un signalement que le gouvernement est sérieux d'être capable de travailler avec eux autres.

Mais ce qui est intéressant avec Boulot Ontario, c'est que 18 % de tous les placements de Boulot Ontario sont divisés directement parmi les élèves du secondaire et du postsecondaire. Je pense que c'est important, parce que ça signale que le gouvernement reconnaît qu'on a une responsabilité, comme gouvernement provincial, de mettre en place les programmes nécessaires pour trouver les emplois pour nos jeunes durant l'été.

Mais savez-vous quoi ? Écoutez. Je pense qu'on peut tous, dans cette chambre ici -- Conservateur, Libéral et NPD -- reconnaître que, si l'argent n'était pas une question, on n'en ferait plus. Si l'argent n'était pas une question, on dépenserait des milliards de dollars -- pas des centaines de millions, mais des milliards. Mais, comme tout, tu peux faire seulement ce que tu as en place, avec les fonds que tu as dans ta caisse. Le gouvernement libéral précédent a su cela. Ils l'ont su, faisant affaire avec leurs cinq ans comme gouvernement. Je vois M. Beer de l'autre bord, quelqu'un pour qui j'ai beaucoup de respect. Lui, il a eu beaucoup à faire avec ces initiatives ici. Il connaît très bien le dossier et reconnaît qu'on ne peut faire que si on a l'argent en place -- en fin de journée, on se trouve encore dans la province de l'Ontario avec un déficit d'environ dix milliards de dollars, et ça, c'est après que le gouvernement s'en aille et retranche quatre milliards de dollars de dépenses directement des programmes, un autre deux milliards de dollars à travers le contrat social et deux milliards nouveaux en revenus. On se trouve encore avec un déficit de 9,2 milliards de dollars pour la fin de l'année. Je pense qu'il y a une limite jusqu'où un gouvernement peut aller.

Je pense que l'une des affaires qu'on pourrait faire comme membre de cette assemblée -- tous les membres, mais spécialement les membres conservateurs dans l'autre coin -- c'est qu'on pourrait parler au gouvernement fédéral et dire, «Aidez-nous un peu.» On reconnaît qu'il n'est pas capable de tout faire, mais peut-être, si on commence à travailler ensemble, on aura plus de chances à trouver une solution à ces problèmes. Si le fédéral voulait travailler directement avec la province et travailler ensemble pour trouver des économies, on pourrait prendre de l'argent et le mettre directement dans le programmes dont on a besoin.

Mais je pense que ce qui est même plus important, c'est qu'on a besoin de commencer non à prendre de l'argent et directement qu'on le mette dans les programmes ; je pense qu'on a besoin de commencer à trouver des solutions à long terme faisant affaire avec les problèmes de notre économie.

Présentement, on s'en va pour négocier l'accord de libre-échange nord-americain avec les États-Unis et le Mexique. Je pense que tout ce programme-là ne vise pas bien les opportunités de nos jeunes qui vont sortir de nos institutions postsecondaires pendant des années à venir. Je pense qu'on doit adopter des politiques économiques qui font du bon sens pour l'Ontario et qui font du bon sens pour tout le Canada. Quand on arrête de jouer de la politique et qu'on commence à travailler, comme on a été élus à faire, comme tout membre de cette assemblée, y inclus le fédéral, c'est de trouver des solutions à long terme.

Ce gouvernement est préparé à travailler avec les citoyens de la province d'Ontario et d'autres niveaux de gouvernements à trouver ces solutions à long terme -- on a déjà indiqué dans beaucoup de secteurs, par exemple, dans mon coin, le gouvernement NPD a été très responsable en ce qui concerne les besoins de l'industrie des mines dans le nord de l'Ontario -- et à répondre aux questions fondamentales pour cette industrie-là, pour les mettre dans une situation à trouver d'autres mines et créer des emplois pour les personnes de nos communautés et en même temps qui créeraient des emplois pour les élèves qui sortent de nos écoles.

1700

Avec ça, j'aimerais céder la place au prochain. C'est la rotation, mais j'aimerais seulement répéter le message, et le message est très simple. Ce dont on a besoin, premièrement, c'est d'une économie qui est forte. On n'a pas une économie qui est forte pour beaucoup de raisons, des raisons qui sont des responsabilités ici dans la province de l'Ontario. Mais beaucoup de raisons, je dirais à 80 %, n'ont rien à faire avec nous, les Libéraux ou les Conservateurs, mais concernent ce qui arrive avec l'économie en général.

Est-ce qu'on a besoin de développer des programmes et mettre l'argent dedans pour être capables d'aider à trouver de l'emploi pour les jeunes ? Oui. Mais la responsabilité est la responsabilité du secteur privé. Nous autres, on peut jouer un rôle, mais on a besoin de mettre en place ce qui est nécessaire pour le secteur privé aussi.

Le point c'est que le gouvernement NPD, dans les dernières deux années, a doublé l'argent nécessaire pour ces programmes-là en réponse à ce qui c'est passé dans notre économie pour être capable de mieux donner les programmes à nos jeunes pour trouver des emplois.

L'autre, le dernier point, c'est que c'est important de ne pas seulement regarder à mettre l'argent dans les programmes mais de développer des programmes comme les programmes coopératifs, comme les apprentissages, comme boulot Ontario qui peuvent mieux aider, dans certaines occasions, les chances pour nos jeunes à trouver de l'emploi durant l'été. Avec ça, j'aimerais céder la place.

Le Vice-Président (M. Noble Villeneuve) : Je veux remercier le député de Cochrane-Sud pour sa participation au débat d'opposition aujourd'hui.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'm very pleased to participate in this debate because it's about probably one of the most important commodities or assets that we have in this province, in this country: our young people, particularly at the vulnerable ages between 15 and 24. We're coming into a time when the terminology "long, hot summer" will probably be very appropriate.

It's odd that it took a riot to get the government opposite to act. When the riot took place, they acted very promptly and tried to put out a fire that had been smouldering for quite some time. I suggest there's a fire smouldering out there still. Young people are finding, and I'm sure each of us in our constituencies when we have to look young persons in the face, and the young persons have done what they have to do in terms of education, coming out for the summer, looking for employment, looking for a way to make their way in life -- there isn't any and it's really sad.

I think this is an issue that is of such importance that it should really rise above partisanship. In fact, the government of the day, if it wanted to do something really worthwhile, would look at this issue in terms of perhaps even a royal commission. It doesn't do any good to tell your deputy ministers and your civil service staff, "Cut 10% out of the budget," and not make sure that when they're cutting that 10% out, they're not cutting out the future of this province. I suggest they may very well be doing that, because by cutting out 10% here or 10% there, they're reducing the opportunities for youth, for young people between 15 and 24, to be able to fund their continuing education.

We tell young people, "Go and work." We tell them, "If you work and you put in the effort, the rewards will be there." Well, I have to say that the rewards are no longer there. There are young people who are totally despairing.

The only thing that's really saved them over the last little while is the fact that they have been able to continue their education. There was some work during the summer. We've seen this government cut the guts right out of all the programs, such as the Ranger program which was reduced by about 50%, environmental programs reduced by 50%, very unwise cuts. You're cutting at the very heart and soul of this province. You're cutting at the future of this province. You're telling people on the one hand, "Do these things; go get an education; work hard," and on the other side of the coin, you're dropping them right on their face.

I suggest this issue is so important that what we perceive we're saving now, we're going to pay for in the long run down the line. We'll pay for it in all sorts of government services and additional costs. It's really a time bomb that's ticking, and I think it's time that all the members of this Legislature, on a non-partisan basis, looked at this issue and tried to determine, how are we going to achieve those results with our youth? How are we going to give them the opportunities?

I suggest a few. I know that Mr Clinton in the United States had suggested this, but I'd actually considered it well before. Canadians are great volunteers, particularly young people. They're extremely good volunteers. They care about doing charity work, they care about doing good works. It's a good thing for them to do, as well. We have universities and community colleges. The universities tend to be very overburdened, but the community colleges in some areas have many spaces. Why can we not allow these people to get credits for these good works that they do in their communities and thereby be able to continue their education? Rather than having dollars to pay for it, they're doing it by credits. That's one area, I think, of interest.

The other thing, too, is that many of these people who are coming out of community colleges and out of universities have a real difficulty because their curriculum vitae or their résumé starts out with, "During the summer, I cut grass," or, "I did this or that." They're usually menial tasks they have taken on in order to secure the funds to be able to educate themselves. An employer who looks at that really has some difficulty in terms of judging whether that person should be employed by him in a particular role. I think we have to encourage the private sector to join hands with government in terms of investigating this problem, in terms of solving this problem. It's not something that's going to be solved simply in the public sector. It has to be a combined effort.

This government, for some reason, has difficulty in terms of joining forces with the private sector. They seem to think they're the enemy. In fact, they are going to have to help us solve this problem or our youth of tomorrow are going to be people who are going to be so frustrated they'll either move out of the province or go on to something else and leave their education and their training behind.

We've spent an awful lot of money in terms of capital, in terms of teaching staff and so on in order to encourage young people to take advanced education, and we're going to lose all that unless we're prepared to recognize that this is a very necessary process.

I have a few minutes left. My other colleagues want to speak.

The question of co-op education: I would like to see a mix-and-match routine between community colleges and universities. We find in community colleges that some of the courses have to be cancelled because they can't get sufficient participants in those courses, yet at the university level you find many courses where the rooms are so full that they have to have other rooms set aside with television in order to allow these people to get a proper instructional hour or two of the particular program.

We could encourage young people perhaps to take a little bit longer in terms of their total education, be that a community college education or a university education or an apprentice program, which is clearly what we need. We need to help those people and train them for those jobs if they don't intend to go to community college or to university.

Going back to the university mix and match with community colleges, we could take some of the burden off the university by giving a person an opportunity to take a year of community college, perhaps then a year of university, and then go back to the community college. In the meantime, what you're doing is that you're moving these young people around, you're giving them some practical experience as well as academic experience. That is very important, because if they're to go out and get a job in society, it will not be enough that they know Plato wrote whatever or Socrates died by drinking hemlock. All of those things are very good in terms of creating the individual, but they are certainly not the things that are necessarily going to get you a job.

In order to give my other colleagues the opportunity to speak, I'm going to just say one or two other things and then pass it on to my colleagues.

The money that we save in terms of the difficult financial situation we have in this province is admirable, but don't save it on the backs of young people, because what you're doing is very shortsighted. It's a situation where you save a few dollars here and there -- and other areas may be important, may be beneficial -- but in the long run, the money you're eking out of those university and community college and training programs for young people in terms of establishing jobs or assisting them in working is something very shortsighted, and we will pay for it in spades down the line.

I urge the government members to support this resolution. It's a good resolution. It provides some very positive aspects of how we may deal with this issue. I think it merits the support of all the members of this Legislature to deal with people who we should all be concerned about: young people. Let's give them the start. Let's not depress them or make them despair. Let's not let them give up. Let's keep their faith going. Let's try to make them vibrant and optimistic. I suggest that's not happening in the present scenario, because cuts are just being made without any anticipation of what those cuts will mean in the future.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking on this very important issue, and I'll save some time for one of my other colleagues.

1710

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It's a pleasure to participate in the opposition day motion today, and I indicate that I would certainly agree with the fact that Ontario's young people are facing, this summer in particular, a job crisis.

The unemployment rate, as indicated here, for those young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years, is currently at 20.4%, and that is certainly an increase over very high rates that we have seen in the last two years. We have presently approximately 200,000 young people who are out of work in this province. I think this indicates that there is indeed a chronic and deep-rooted economic problem, and this government unfortunately has no strategic plan whatsoever to help our young people deal with the unemployment crisis. It has been dealing with this situation in a very, very ad hoc manner and it certainly has not dealt effectively at all with the obstacles our young people are facing. It's very unfortunate, because I would say this is probably the summer of greatest despair for young people in this province.

I was speaking to some of our young people last week. Several of them were students who were about to embark on college and university educations. Others were students who already were enrolled in universities and colleges. Their comments to me indicated their discouragement; in fact, some of them were feeling very depressed. They had been diligently searching for a job since Christmas and they had been unable, in most instances, to find even a part-time job, a job for one day a week.

They indicated to me that if they were not able to find some part-time employment between now and September when the school year resumed, there was the possibility that they would not have the necessary funds to pay for tuition and for their living expenses. Unfortunately, this government seems to be totally unconcerned that young people are not going to be able to access the educational and training opportunities that will provide them with well-paying jobs in the future and allow them to lead productive lives.

A good example of this is the example we have in the region of Waterloo, where we have a very successful program. It is a youth employment, education and training project, and it is operating in downtown Kitchener.

Prior to January 1992, this project and this program was providing services in separate locations and, as you can imagine, this provided some difficulties for clients. However, our community was very innovative, and it's quite unique: The Waterloo County Board of Education, the Waterloo Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Conestoga College and Lutherwood all came together and decided to provide a coordinated, one-stop-shopping concept for unemployed young people between the ages of 16 and 24.

This project offers job information resource services, employment counselling, self-directed high school programs, the Futures program, a housing registry and an independent living skills program. Indeed, I want you to know that this program has become a model for cooperative and integrated delivery of services throughout the province. That is what is so ironic: Even though other jurisdictions within this province have visited this unique and innovative project in downtown Kitchener and have decided to model their own operations on this present model, and even though they're going to get some funding, this government has rejected and decided to not continue to provide the necessary funding.

Since 1992, over 2,000 young people have benefited from this program. I'm going to give you some examples of the types of individuals who have benefited and how they have benefited. It's interesting, because the integration and the rationalization of the services in this unique partnership is the very direction the government has been encouraging service providers to provide, and yet the government is not going to continue to provide the funding. It appears that they're going to abandon the young people who have been helped. As I indicated, 2,000 young people in my community have been the beneficiaries of this project, and the government is not going to provide the necessary funding which will allow the project to continue in its present form.

I want to just read to you from an article that was in the May 4, 1993, edition of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It's entitled "Education Centre in Jeopardy as Government Grants Dry Up." It refers here to a gentleman called Ray Dupuis. He was 21, long unemployed, and he had only two grade 9 credits. He happened to be walking in downtown Kitchener one day, and all of a sudden he saw the sign "Education and Training Information Centre." He decided that maybe he would go inside, because he realized that he didn't have a high school education, and he realized that if he was going to have any chance at all, he would have to do something about his present state. He walked into the building, and he says: "My life changed. The next thing I know, I'm talking to a counsellor, being assessed and enrolled in high school courses."

I can tell you that there have been hundreds of other people who have literally walked in off the street and found under one roof the guidance, the support and the practical help that they've needed, but now that's all in jeopardy because there is an absence of ongoing, stable funding from the province.

This Mr Dupuis that I spoke about is now 22. He brims with optimism and a sense of achievement. He's now talking, believe it or not, enthusiastically of an eventual college education and a career in broadcasting. He is among the individuals who, for reasons ranging from attitude to chaotic personal lives, just didn't fit into a regular high school setting; kids whose unsuccessful foray into the ever-tightening job market convinced them that a productive future rested squarely on their level of education and marketable skills.

He goes on to say, "If I hadn't found this education and training centre, I'd probably be looking at welfare for a lot of years."

I can tell you that many students have been helped by the services that are provided under this single roof. This single roof, this one-stop shopping, has eliminated the traditional barriers that young people face. It has eliminated the confusion and not knowing where to look for a place. It's an excellent idea, and every day the staff of this facility are seeing the benefits. This partnership has certainly been very, very important, because students have been able to walk in off the street, dropouts, kids living on the street, and they've been able to access this facility, and this facility, which is providing educational and training opportunities for young people, is not being given the funding it so richly deserves.

I would say, in concluding. that this government does not have a strategic plan to help young people deal with the unemployment crisis in this province at the present time. There is no educational strategy, there is no training strategy, and I can assure you that without training and without education, our young people are not going to be able to access the jobs they need.

1720

I would encourage this government to take a good look at what it is that it can do in the future, and I would recommend that it implement some of the recommendations that have been suggested in this motion in order to help our young people get back on track.

Many of the recommendations that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, by the way, can be found in our New Directions document, volume 2, and I would encourage the government to take a look at that New Directions, volume 2 education and training document.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I hope there are young people listening today, because, believe me, the young people sitting listening today, looking at a resolution coming from the leader of the Liberal Party, must be filled with cynicism of an extraordinary degree.

I have here a press release from the leader of the official opposition. The leader of the Liberal Party claims that the government should be taking immediate action to help 150,000 young people who are unemployed, and she goes on to say that, were we to use her proposals and implement her proposals, all these people would get jobs, education and training that they need, and get this, Mr Speaker: "Our plan is based on a reallocation of existing resources and can be implemented without spending one new dollar of taxpayers' money."

The cynicism these young people feel must be of an extraordinary degree. The leader of the official opposition of Ontario is saying, "We're not going to spend another cent, and we're going to get you all jobs."

The young people out there are not silly, because we have a good educational system. We have an educational system --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the young people may be listening, but I think it's important to have 20 members listening as well.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Cambridge can resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Farnan: As I was so quietly pointing out before we had that short pause, the Liberal leader is suggesting -- and you know, young people must look at this with a jaundiced eye. They look at this and they say, "The Liberal leader is going to create 150,000 new jobs and not spend a penny." Well, the member for Renfrew North, I believe -- Mr Conway -- sat beside his leader today very quietly pondering her words, and on occasions he raised his eyes to heaven, because he's been around for a long time and he knows that you don't create 150,000 new jobs with not a single new dollar.

I have had a very short career here in this House, but it is very clear to me in the short time that I've been here that there are philosophical positions, there are policies and directions that the public expect from a political party, and I believe, for example in the area of social contract, the government is giving very clear directions. On occasions, the Conservatives, the third party, indeed presents alternatives, and I admire them for that. But goodness gracious me, I have to question, I have to look at the official opposition of this House and wonder about the kind of representation it's giving to the people of Ontario. What is their position? Their position is no new taxes and increased programs. It just doesn't fit.

They are in a time warp. For five years they were at the helm. They had their moment in the sun. They had their opportunity, their hand at the helm. They could have done something, but all they did was spend, spend, spend.

Indeed, we had a situation during those years of an expanding economy. Year after year more dollars went into the coffers of the provincial government. What did they do? There was no thought for the youth of Ontario. But now they're in official opposition, having squandered the resources of this province, they want to give advice.

I tell you, the young people of Ontario are not prepared to take advice from people who have squandered their resources for five years, who have done nothing for them and who then turn around and say, "We will create 150,000 jobs and not spend a single dollar." That is an insult, an absolute insult to the youth of Ontario.

This government recognizes the critical employment situation that youth are facing and has responded accordingly.

I want to address some of the measures put forward by the Liberal Party. I'm sure they sat around in their caucus and said, "Let's get a motion because we've got to have an opposition day." They hit on the idea of youth unemployment -- a good motion. Then they had to have a think tank. They gathered round and said, "What can we do to criticize the government?" Let's look at some of the things they've said and see how critical and insightful was this caucus meeting of the Liberal Party. The great minds of the Liberal Party come together and this is what they come up with.

They suggest that $60 million be directed to summer employment for youth. In fact, we have committed $56 million specifically to summer employment initiatives. This is about the same as last year and represents an increase of $20 million from the funding level of two years ago. An increase of $20 million on $56 million represents a tremendous increase in initiative on the part of this government to youth.

What does the Liberal Party have to say? "Well, you could have done a tiny bit more." Let me say to the Liberal Party, you had your chance and you blew it. We're dealing with the issue.

What else did they have to say? They said Futures is a good program. Isn't that fantastic? They sat around and they discovered that Futures is a good program. We are pleased to agree with them. We too have recognized its effectiveness. For that reason, we have increased funding by $3.5 million to a total of $103 million, to maintain the same level of year-round client services last year.

1730

This Liberal think tank is really on a roll now. Let's have a look at what else they discovered. Over the last year cooperative education in our schools has expanded to over 60,000 students annually. In addition, the government has committed an additional $13.6 million to revitalize the apprenticeship program. This includes increased funding for the secondary workplace apprenticeship, which strengthens the transition process from secondary schools to the workplace. We agree with the Liberal Party, we agree with the suggestion that youth be provided with information about training, education and job opportunity. Can you imagine that Liberal caucus? They say, "Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a place where you get information?"

I've got news for the youth who are listening. The Ontario youth and training hotline does precisely what the Liberals are asking. The toll-free hotline is widely promoted. It's accessible to all youth across the province. It responded to a total of 80,000 inquiries last year. This was some Liberal think tank for the youth of Ontario. Our government's commitment goes clearly beyond what the leader of the Liberal Party proposed today.

We believe in a big picture, and the highest priority of our government is employment and youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is just one aspect that our policies of economic development are targeted towards. Let me say to the two Liberals who are here sitting listening to this debate on their opposition motion, an opposition motion in which they are so enthused that they took this day to bring forward the youth of Ontario as the central theme.

Two Liberal members are listening to this debate, and I'm telling them, the youth of Ontario want one thing. They want a healthy economy, and that's why we have to look at the broad picture and say what we are doing. The youth of Ontario are intelligent and insightful and they can say: "Don't play games with us. Don't try and tell us that you are going to move the cups around and tell us where the pea is."

They want to see substantive programs. They want to see real programs. They want to see economic restraint. They want to see economic accountability. They want to see economic responsibility. After five years of Liberal government, that is something they never saw.

Now, with a mature social democratic government that is prepared to face the deficit, that is prepared to face the economic challenges, the youth of today can say: "Yes, there is an opportunity for us. Yes, we have a government that continues to apply its dollars to support youth programs, but a government that is also taking care of the larger picture of our economic prosperity for the future, that is investing in training, that is investing in retraining, that is investing in education, that is investing in youth, that is investing in the future of this province."

In short, if I could make a comparison, that old Liberal regime had a philosophy. It was a simple philosophy, and by God they lived up to it. It was very simple. It was this: Live now and pay later. By God, we are paying for the sins of that administration.

We are determined to put away and put an end to that type of administration and type of government that said, "We can do and spend and spend and spend." But the reality is that the world doesn't work like that. A healthy economy demands a strong financial base, and this government, this administration, says, "We know what the challenge is." We will face that challenge, not on behalf of the youth of this province but on behalf of all the people of this province including the youth of this province.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to pick up on a point that the member from Cambridge left off on. Frankly, just to get into that for a moment, it's rather difficult, no matter where you sit in this House, to listen to anybody from the socialist party talk about other governments and their spending habits. I won't come to the defence of the Liberals. I think they spent unwisely and maybe too much money in those five years. But if the record shows that all the Liberals were doing was going, "Spend, spend, spend," let the record show that the opposition party, the NDP, was saying simply, "Not enough, not enough, not enough."

I swear in the last six months they've all been visited by three ghosts at night and those three ghosts have come in --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): You swear every day.

Mr Stockwell: That was a painfully bad joke.

Those three ghosts would come in and start discussing with them fiscal responsibility. Let us not get into a fiscal responsibility argument with the socialists. It's more like a pillow fight than a fiscal responsibility argument.

I'm not one of those in this Legislature --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the hackles rising once again. It's a big fish fry tonight, so I'll try and work my way through. There must a lot of fish if they're going to pass the legislation they announced today, because this group here passing legislation which reopens job contracts and rolls back wages -- it's going to take a lot of perch and smelt to make these people happy, let me just say that.

Let me talk about job-creating programs that governments start. I fundamentally do not believe that a government has ever created one job in its life. I don't believe that. If a government suggests that they've created a job, to me it's just simply another form of taxes. Let's be clear about that off the top: Governments do not create jobs. The only meaningful jobs that are created from a vital economic point of view are jobs that are created in the private sector.

If you take that basic premise, then you will build from that premise and you say to yourselves, "We have a tremendous problem in youth unemployment." That is really not a terribly shocking statement, because we've got a tremendous problem with all unemployment. Whether they're youths, whether they're seniors, whether they're middle-aged, whether they're men, whether they're women, it matters not. We have a very --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): How about the future of the Tories? They said they would create jobs --

Mr Stockwell: I don't mind being heckled, but when they cross the floor to heckle in front of you, it does become a little difficult. Thank you very much. This place has certainly reached a new low level when the member for Huron thinks that he can now cross the floor and heckle from right in front of me.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): He actually shut you up.

Mr Stockwell: Get that on the record, because I'd hate to see the member from Lambton sit for five years and not have her get on the record.

To move on, I don't necessarily believe that we're going to resolve the problem with students or young people with a wave of a magic wand. If the problem with youth unemployment is going to be dealt with, you'll find, I say to the government, that employment troubles are dealt with throughout every sector, across every generation, through every gender.

To make the suggestion that you can move this amount of money this way or that way and resolve the issue of the problem facing youth is absolutely arcane. It's insane, it's absurd. It won't happen. You could throw hundreds of millions of dollars at this problem, but the bottom line is, the private sector is not hiring. They're laying off. So how do we rebuild this province? How do we create jobs for the youth and for everybody else?

It's very obvious. We have to have an economy that's growing, that's to some degree booming and creating meaningful employment for not just youths but for everybody, and that is not accomplished with a socialist, left-wing government which introduces things like Bill 40, $2 billion in new taxes, builds $25-billion worth of new debt in two years and a Premier who suggests social contracts should be negotiated over nine months so he can try and save money within three. These don't build realistic, hopeful opportunities for people in the province of Ontario.

You could quote me chapter and verse and rhyme off every program that you invest money in, and what does that tell you? We still have 20% of our youth unemployed and you're spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Doesn't that make sense to you, that these programs, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how bent, no matter how much they want to succeed, simply don't work?

1740

They don't work because the only people that hire is the government and the government gives grants to the private sector, and the private sector uses that grant money up, and when the grant money's gone, they do away with the job. Who is that helping? They think that in the short term it's helping those people who are looking for work, but it's not because they only have a short-term job cycle and --

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Just leave them all on welfare.

Mr Stockwell: If you want to suggest leaving them on welfare, that may be your alternative, but it's not mine.

You create more taxes for the private sector to pay that go to you. That takes money out of their coffers that they could create jobs with. But it's a natural phenomenon with any labour, left-wing, socialist government. They fundamentally believe that government can provide all things to all people at no cost. They believe it. Every labour, socialist, union-inspired government has believed that government can jump in and resolve economic crises in any jurisdiction by spending money, and every single one of those labour, union, socialist governments have been complete, absolute, miserable failures.

How do we address the problem of youth unemployment? I can address the problem of youth unemployment as well --

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Balance the budget. What about Brian Mulroney?

Mr Stockwell: And they come back. There's the common refrain from across the benches. Whenever you talk about anything, they shout "Brian Mulroney." They're deep thinkers; they shout out "Brian Mulroney." You talk about unemployment, they shout out "Brian Mulroney." You talk about the price of eggs, they shout out "Brian Mulroney." And the world recession is Brian Mulroney's fault. They have no responsibility for any of this, and there's another problem.

The problem lies in government and particularly this government. Why is it your problem? Because you just hiked taxes by $2 billion. Why is it your problem? Because you just introduced Bill 40 to make us less competitive. Why is it your problem? Because the private sector isn't hiring youth or anyone else because they're not making any money.

The only way to solve the unemployment crisis is to have a healthy, thriving private sector that has profit, and that's the only way you solve any unemployment crisis. That's not a shocking, newsworthy event, Mr Speaker, but do you want to know something? It's shocking and newsworthy to this sorry lot across the floor, because this crowd continues to stand up, and this is where the mistake is made: They talk with pride of $100 million spent here and $50 million spent there. In a turnaround economy, that is almost a badge of shame, because for every dollar that you spend, for every dollar that you take out of the economy, you waste in bureaucratic red tape, in bureaucratic middle management, in bureaucratic waste, and how much of that dollar actually gets back to the people we're serving? Precious little; precious less than the dollar that you tax for.

In the end, there's nobody in this room who can solve the unemployment crisis for youth. Any of the youth who are watching today, don't waste your breath. It's all rhetoric. The only solution for youth and to the unemployed today is a vital, aspiring, booming economy where private sectors make profit, where private sectors hire people, where private sectors meet payrolls and where private sectors pay reasonable and fair taxes so they can aspire to hire more people and create greater provinces. That's Economics 101. Get in the game. You're wasting people's time, effort and money.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It's a pleasure to close the special debate today with respect to youth employment. I want to say at the outset that we view this as -- and I believe most of the members in this House believe this is -- a critical issue. In terms of what a number of members have said today, I think we all see that there are creative ideas which all of us have in this place and that there are things that we can do, and together with the private sector, together with communities, that we can really begin to solve these problems.

I know that for my leader, in introducing this motion today, this is an issue that she has been concerned about and has spoken about for some time. Indeed, all during the leadership that our party had two years ago, she spoke clearly about the needs of young people and the things we were going to have to do to ensure there would be employment. That meant changes in the way we work with the private sector and changes in our training programs. But we have to remember what has become a truism or a cliché, that our future lies with our young people and that we've got to make sure there are going to be jobs for them when they finish their education. That's where this came from.

More specifically, and to the member from Cambridge who seemed to want to ridicule what was in this motion, I would tell him, and tell him very clearly, that the ideas that are in this motion came specifically from young people, from those in the business sector who work with young people, from a whole series of communities we visited where we sat down and said, "What are some practical, doable things that we can do?" In putting this forward we were not saying, nor do we say, that this motion in and of itself will resolve all the problems facing young people with respect to employment.

Read the motion: "This House resolves that urgent action is required and that the following initiatives be included in an action plan to help our young people get the education, training and jobs they deserve...."

This would be part, it can be part, of a much broader objective of fingering the specific problem that young people face today in finding employment and getting the training they need for employment. That's something we can do together.

I have often thought that we waste a lot of work that we could do in committees, where members have ideas and where one of the most profitable things is when we tackle an issue where there is no one single solution, but where we need to go out to communities and talk with people in those communities and with ourselves to come up with ideas. Surely, youth employment is one of those.

If there is something that has been missing from this government, it has been specifically this question of leadership and vision. I don't for a moment doubt that all individuals in this House want to see the unemployment rate among young people down much lower, far below what it is today; frankly, far below what it was when we were the government or when the Conservatives were the government. But how do we do that? How do we go out and bring about the kind of cooperation that we want from the business sector and from communities to bring those programs to fruition? We've heard from a number of members here this very day about community programs that involve business, that involve the educational sector, that involve government -- programs that work.

We haven't done a very good job at letting our different communities know about what works and how we can go out and try to replicate some of those different programs.

When we went out in February and March of this year, one of the things in particular that we did was to meet with those who work in the youth employment centres. We went into a number of communities. I myself was in London, Toronto, Ottawa and Kingston. Other colleagues went to other communities. We asked the people there, for the most part young people themselves who counsel students, in many cases dropouts, those who need education and training, "What are the kinds of things you would want to do?" One of the messages they brought back loud and clear was: "Don't go out and invent brand-new programs. Don't go out and re-invent the wheel. Build on the things that work."

When the member from Cambridge ridicules that one would say, "Futures works; let's make it work better," we're simply recognizing that there are a variety of programs, some of which we may have brought in, which the Conservatives may have brought in, which this government might bring in, which work and which we can build on. Let's do that. Let's not put the money into the administration costs of trying to create new programs that are going to take for ever to get in place and begin to meet the needs of the young people who are out there.

The youth employment centres said to us: "We could do much more through the Futures program. We've got the jobs there, we've got the businesses that are prepared to work with us, but that's where we need the help." That's why we put that in these recommendations.

1750

Summer employment for youth: I doubt that any of us in this House who have young people in our families who are of high school or university age are not experiencing this year the most difficult time for summer jobs. Clearly, it is here, in my view and in our view, that government has a responsibility to lead and to say that these are important, that if we have to cut back on programs in other sectors, these summer programs are important because they allow young people to continue their education. They allow them to make the money they require to continue their university education or to go on in high school, because in many cases, with the kind of economy we have, the money that young people make, both during the school year and during the summer, is helping their family. They need that; they need it as part of family income.

Cooperative education programs at all levels: Why is that there? It's there because it works. It's there because it's something about which I think all members in this House said, "This is an excellent initiative; let's do it." Everyone in the community, whether you're talking with high school counsellors, whether you're talking with young people who've been in the program -- I myself in my own constituency office have had a co-op student. Others have made reference to that. It's a program that works. It's providing real and meaningful skills to young people.

"A scholarship system that encourages businesses to contribute to the further education of youth should be established." Again, not a new idea; it exists elsewhere. There are many places in the United States where this is a very effective program, where businesses honour young people who work with them by giving them a scholarship, putting money towards a scholarship for university, for community college. We can look at that. We've talked to businesses that have said they would be interested in getting involved in a program like that.

"A pre-university program should be established to help young people...." Again, we are not reinventing the wheel. That program exists at the University of Toronto, and I met with a number of young students who are in that program and others who wanted to go into it. Several of them were young people who had been abused physically and sexually who'd been on the street for many years, had been fortunate enough to find someone who could counsel them who got them into an alternative education program, where they were going to get their high school and were now going on to that program at the University of Toronto. I remember one young man saying to me: "We need more programs like this. We're going to find people like myself who slip between the cracks. This is going to give me an opportunity to get the post-secondary education I want." I think this is terrific, and we're simply saying, let's look at how we can do this in other universities, in other community colleges. The University of Toronto does it all by itself, with no government funds.

Finally, a database system providing youth with information about training and education: Again we have a number of programs that are out there, but if you talk to businesses, they'll tell you we need something much more substantial. We talked to a number of businesses that said, "Look, our problem at times is finding the young people out there who need the kinds of jobs we can provide."

These recommendations are what we call doable, practical. They don't stand by themselves. They are to go with other programs that are already in place that we can come up with through our collective wisdom.

Je veux dire aussi à mon collègue de Cochrane qui a parlé du besoin du secteur privé de créer des emplois. C'est sûr que le secteur privé a une obligation de créer des emplois, mais il faut aussi une ambiance à l'intérieur de laquelle on peut créer des emplois, et le gouvernement, à mon sens, a besoin de fournir du leadership.

C'est ça qui est si important, parce ce que ce qu'on voit dans ce gouvernement, depuis les élections, c'est qu'on parle beaucoup de ce problème de la jeunesse, mais en effet, il n'y a pas de plan stratégique. Il n'y a pas une approche où on dit : «C'est un problème primordial. C'est un problème clé. Nous devons faire quelque chose.»

The fundamental problem, the issue we bring forward with this motion today, is, as has been said by a number of speakers, that there is no strategic plan for youth employment. There is no one minister who in effect is speaking out on that issue and who is providing that kind of direction and leadership, who is bringing together the private sector, government and communities to say, "We know we're in a recession, we know it is difficult, but we can find, in those communities, solutions to those problems."

In the plan which my leader put forward, which would cost $180 million, we have said those dollars can be found by changing priorities, by finding those dollars from other programs, whether it is in stopping the nonsense of buying out the private day care operators because that's not necessary right now, or putting aside the whole Interim Waste Authority program, but take the dollars that are not serving any useful purpose and let us put it into youth employment.

I implore the members opposite on the government benches to join with us, to join with the Conservatives in supporting this motion. Why not consider the possibility of getting a committee of this Legislature to plan for next year -- because we know we're into the problems of this summer right away -- where we would go out and collectively as a Legislature say: "We're going to get the best ideas we can find out there. We're going to come back with an all-party report to this House which is going to ensure that we spend our funds wisely, working with the private sector, working with communities to ensure that our young people have jobs and that they are going to get the kind of training they need for the jobs of the future."

That's what this resolution and this motion speaks to. Again, I urge all members to put aside partisanship and to support this motion. Let's really say: "Youth employment is a critical problem. We are going to make sure we find the jobs for our young people." I urge everyone to support this motion.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs McLeod has moved opposition day motion number 3.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1757 to 1802.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mrs McLeod's motion will rise one at a time to indicate their intentions.

Ayes

Beer, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Curling, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, Jackson, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch (Grey), O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and indicate their intentions.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens,

Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 36 and the nays 61, I declare the motion lost.

It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1807.

14 juin 1993