Journal des débats 1982-avril-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some very interesting news about a world-class sale. I take great pleasure today in being able to inform honourable members of another export breakthrough for Ontario industry.

Following talks initiated last year, when I was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, an Ontario company has made the first-ever sale of Ontario red wine to the famed wine region of Burgundy in France. Talk about taking coals to Newcastle -- not Newcastle, Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Donald Ziraldo, the president of Inniskillin Wines, near Niagara-on-the-Lake, has informed me that his firm has appointed an agent in the Burgundy region to handle an initial order of 650 cases -- that is about 15,000 bottles, I believe -- of 1980 Marechal Foch wine, with a further selection of wines to follow. The Inniskillin wine will be distributed throughout France by the famous French House of Chauvenet and to French restaurants by another associated company.

This achievement by Inniskillin is a measure of the success of Ontario wine growers' efforts over many years to produce wines that can compete with the best from Europe. Specifically it justifies the decision by many of them to convert to the hybrid vitis vinifera varieties of grapes. This constant search for quality is now literally bearing fruit in the form of export as well as domestic sales.

I am sure honourable members will join me and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) in expressing our congratulations to Inniskillin and to Niagara wine producers in general on this major sale of Ontario wines. I think it indicates that we have world-class wines. What we see started today is going to continue, with many of the wines ultimately being sold to foreign receivers, particularly to France.

RESIGNATION OF CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable members are very well aware, the Clerk of this House, Mr. Roderick Lewis, has for many years served as the chief election officer for Ontario, as well as having his responsibilities as Clerk of this House. I know we all admire the able manner in which he has executed the very demanding responsibilities of these two positions.

In recent years the tasks associated with the administration of elections, the supervision of electoral guidelines and the implementation of electoral reforms have become increasingly numerous and complex. I would like to inform the House that Mr. Lewis has reached the conclusion that the post of chief election officer requires an incumbent who can make a full-time commitment of both time and effort to the duties of that office. For these reasons, the Clerk has asked to be relieved of the added responsibility of being chief election officer.

I know all honourable members will want to join in recognizing the contribution made by Rod Lewis to the electoral process in Ontario. During his 36 years of involvement in this process -- 28 of them as chief election officer -- he has helped administer no fewer than 10 general elections and many more by-elections. On behalf of the people of Ontario, I believe it is fitting that we in this House this morning be among the first to extend to Mr. Lewis our sincere gratitude and appreciation for a job very well done.

APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, today I am also pleased to place before the House the name of Mr. Warren Bailie for consideration as the next chief election officer for Ontario.

Mr. Bailie was appointed assistant chief election officer in 1974, and he has assisted in the administration of three general elections. Well acquainted with the electoral process, he has served as both a provincial returning officer and as a federal returning officer for a combined total of 10 years. Mr. Bailie is therefore fully qualified to undertake the responsibilities which have been so ably administered by his distinguished predecessor.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to you and members of the House that Mr. Bailie and his family are here in the gallery today. He is the one wearing the white carnation.

Mr. Nixon: A nice neutral colour.

Hon. Mr. Wells: A very perceptive comment.

At this time, with the concurrence of the House, Mr. Speaker, while we are making this statement, I also wish to put a motion to the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Warren Robert Bailie as chief election officer for the province of Ontario, as provided in section 3 of the Election Act, RSO 1980, chapter 133, and that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by Mr. Speaker."

Motion agreed to.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have been asked to second the resolution for an address to the Lieutenant Governor which we trust will lead to the appointment of Mr. Bailie as our chief electoral officer.

Mr. Bailie has been the assistant to the previous chief electoral officer for a number of years. The fact that the elections have gone as smoothly as they have, as far as the organization is concerned, is testimony to his efficiency. I hope, however, that changing the headship in this office might have some salutary effect on the results. Perhaps we will have to work even harder than we have in the past in that connection.

After congratulating Mr. Bailie and welcoming him to this high responsibility, which is one of the very highest in the democratic system, I also want to express our regard for his predecessor, who is the present chief electoral officer until such time as His Honour acts on our request.

Having been elected seven times in the province myself, I can assure the House that on no occasion that I can recall has anything been observed but the very smooth flow of information from the office of the chief electoral officer.

Perhaps I might be permitted to say that Mr. Lewis's father was also the chief electoral officer for a number of years, going back to approximately 1936. The former member for Brant, my father, was elected 12 times and got an acclamation once during that period. The only election he recalled as being a difficult one was that of 1943, a date graven in the minds of my friends opposite.

It was an election held in wartime, when it was necessary for the chief electoral officer to gather the electoral votes of our men and women serving in all parts of the globe. It was also his responsibility, at least to some extent, to see that the votes were properly distributed into the constituencies across the province. In spite of the fact that this was done very carefully, the government changed hands.

I do not want the members to misunderstand my comments, because the traditions of the Lewises, father and son, in administering our elections are completely impeccable. Beyond that, they are efficient; so that those of us who are in the political arena can take for granted that the election procedures are going to be completely fair and public. It is an arrangement to which we can all point with pride in the past as, I trust, we shall in the future.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to join the government House leader (Mr. Wells) and the House leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Nixon) in paying tribute to Mr. Lewis for the dedicated way in which he has served this assembly and the people of Ontario for so many years.

When I was in your position, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of reminding members of the House of the long service Mr. Lewis has provided to us and the people of Ontario. He was made the assistant clerk of this House in December 1946 and served in that capacity up to December 1954, and became the Clerk in January 1955. He was assistant chief election officer from October 1951 to December 1954, and became the chief election officer in this province on January 1, 1955.

No matter how one wants to express it, it has to be something of a record for anyone to have been so dedicated to the service of the people of Ontario for such a long time. I want to join the government House leader and the House leader of the Liberal Party in paying tribute to the service given us by Mr. Lewis.

I also wish to welcome Mr. Warren Bailie to the position of chief election officer. As the former Speaker, I had an opportunity to view at first hand the kind of service Mr. Bailie has given all of us as assistant chief election officer.

Something not generally known by most members of this House, and by very few members of the public, is the fact that Mr. Bailie not only has served us well in the democratic process but also has been invited and has taken part as an observer of elections elsewhere, notably Zimbabwe, where he represented Canada to see that the elections there were held in a true democratic fashion.

With a good many jurisdictions in the world trying to set up constitutional democracies, Mr. Bailie has been invited by and has provided excellent service to those people who are coming off military juntas and setting up constitutional democracies for the first time. In that regard, Mr. Bailie has served us well, has represented us well and has contributed mightily to constitutional democracy throughout the free world. For that, we all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing our good wishes and our thanks to Mr. Lewis for his fine work for this Legislature and this province over many years.

Since it is a day for bouquets, may I also compliment the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) on his stunning breakthrough in selling wine to France. I congratulate him and trust it will be the occasion for a full-scale trade mission with a full complement of Tory ministers and sycophants to go over and drink the first glass of wine in Burgundy. I am told the first order for 650 cases is roughly what they spill over lunch there. However, I join in the minister's enthusiasm.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Industry and Trade a question about the White Farm Equipment takeover, which troubles the members on this side of the House very much.

The government said in the throne speech, or at least in the speech that was written for the Lieutenant Governor, that there would be an expansion of the buy-back program to help save plant closures of foreign subsidiaries. Given the ministry's commitment already of $5 million in loans and guarantees as well as a substantial federal commitment, why is the minister actively encouraging a sellout to foreign interests that puts in jeopardy the future of that company and those jobs in this province?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think this party probably looks upon some foreign ownership a little differently from the way at least some members of the Liberal Party do. We tend to look at performance rather than where the company was born or the nationality of the company. Performance while here is a very important thing.

We do not have this thing against foreign ownership. There are good values that come from foreign ownership, such as management expertise in many cases, technology transfer and certainly capital. This is one case where that situation seems to be the case.

10:20 a.m

If this could have been achieved with Canadian ownership, there would have been no one happier than ourselves to have that in Canadian ownership. But, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) yesterday, it was impossible for the Canadian side of this to fly. If we could have caused that to happen, we certainly would have, but it just was not going to happen. It is a very complicated deal.

We are satisfied the company is going to stay in Canada. We are satisfied it is going to meet its objectives. The member realizes it has to have 1,200 employees by 1984. It is committed to those objectives. We expect White Canada will continue as a fully functional operation but, more important, 750 or perhaps even as many as 900 employees now will have a chance to get back to work, rather than the company being plunged into bankruptcy, which was the alternative in this situation.

I do not think the member wants to see a bankruptcy here. We certainly did not want to see a bankruptcy. We have tried to rescue this for the past year or so. Fortunately, through the good offices of the federal government and those of our own ministry, we have been able to secure a resolution of the problem. We are satisfied this company is going to continue to function and, better still, upwards of 1,000 people are going to have jobs who would not otherwise have had those jobs.

Mr. Peterson: It is obvious that we on this side of the House also want to save the jobs, not just next week or next month but also three and five years from now, which the minister's position is putting very much in jeopardy in the view of a great number of people in this province.

Why did the minister proceed to make his announcement when he did, at a time when federal approval has not yet been demonstrated? It has not gone through the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and it has not had the approval of the federal department in this area.

The ministry has the resources; it put in $5 million. The federal government put in $10 million. Those resources could have been used to keep that ownership here in Canada. It is a world-class product. It is almost a proprietary product. It is a product that has potential for export all across this world. We are now running the risk of losing that technology that was built here in Canada, with Canadian brains and Canadian money.

All of that is being put at risk because the minister has not used the power he has to keep that ownership here in Canadian hands.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Quite the contrary. What we are doing is securing jobs for upwards of 1,000 people. The honourable gentleman seems to have the idea that this company is going to move south. I do not know what has given him that idea. That certainly has not been evident from their performance in the past year.

I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, if this company were ever to contemplate that, to take steps to abridge the responsibilities they have already undertaken, or at least the concessions they have been provided, they would end up having to pay an awfully big bundle of money. We are probably looking at upwards of $15 million immediately, plus a great deal of additional costs just to bring that all about. I do not think that is going to happen.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, will the minister table the guarantees for research and development in the future, the guarantees for capital investment in the years to come and the guarantees on jobs that have been agreed to by White?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think I can do that, Mr. Speaker. If it is possible, I will. The only thing that is holding me back is that we have certain legal obligations under the Foreign Investment Review Act that make it an offence for us to release certain information. But let me assure the honourable member that, to the extent we can within law, we will release whatever information he has been asking for this morning. I hope that is the case, and I would like to give him as much as possible.

Going back to the previous question of the Leader of the Opposition, I have to say the reason we released the information in the statement yesterday was simply that we wanted to keep our members informed. I met the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) very briefly on Wednesday and mentioned that I anticipated by Thursday we would have some kind of solution to the problem. I indicated to members of this House earlier in the week that I anticipated towards the end of this week, which it now is, that we would have a resolution for it. I am trying to keep members as informed as I possibly can.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the minister feels he has much of an armlock on the new American owner when, if the company is allowed to go downhill and it loses its resources, he can simply walk away with the axial-flow patent and the minister will not be able to take anything from him except his bow as he goes across the border.

Why did the minister not insist that the company accept the offer of $20 million in third-party credit put forward by the government of Canada, which would have allowed the company to continue without a change in ownership, and instead urge and, in fact, almost harass the Canadian owner to give up his 51 per cent share in the company, resulting in the takeover the minister announced yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the second question the member asked first as to why the $20-million loan offer was rejected. It was rejected by the Canadian partner. It had to be. The Canadian partner is the largest shareholder --

Mr. Nixon: You said it was 50-50 yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Just a moment. You know better than that.

Mr. Nixon: You announced it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Wait a minute. The Canadian partner has 50.1 per cent and the American partner has 49.9 per cent. The American partner has a minority share in essence.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is very simply a deviation from what the minister said in the House yesterday. He said it was 50-50. Now he is saying the Canadian partner has a majority interest. That is a very substantial change in position.

I want the minister to stand up and correct the record and admit he did not give us the full facts yesterday, or at least that he is changing them today. This very much changes the play in this situation.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is true to say that it is not precisely 50-50. In fact, it is 50.1 per cent.

Mr. Peterson: That is slightly different.

Mr. Nixon: If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be minister.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Listen, there are many times when one can refer rather loosely, as do the newspapers, as do many people in this House --

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Just hold it a second. Let us not get carried away with something that would excite the members opposite a little more than it would excite the average person.

Fifty per cent, a half share, was referred to rather loosely from time to time, sure. But the members opposite knew, we knew and everybody who has the capacity to see lightning and to hear thunder knew that the Canadian partner has 50.1 per cent and the American partner has 49.9 per cent. The members opposite know that. Everybody in this House knows that.

Now, let me go to the $20 million. The rejection of the proposed loan was made by the company. Therefore, the largest number of votes come from the Canadian shareholders.

Mr. Nixon: It was an American veto.

Hon. Mr. Walker: There is no possibility of a veto.

Mr. Peterson: I think you will find that is the case later.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I do not think the Leader of the Opposition will find that is the case.

Having said it was a rejection by a majority Canadian partner in essence who voted that way, I would go on further in reply to the question from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to say the reason we think this company will remain in Canada is that it is legally obligated, under its arrangements with the Foreign Investment Review Agency and with Canada and with Ontario, to maintain that employment in Ontario and, indeed, to reach 1,200 by 1983. These are commitments.

If it fails to meet those commitments or if it starts to do something in between, we can simply call our loan and the federal government can call its loan. We can call the guarantees for having breached the essence of the contract. That means immediately the company has to find $15 million --

Mr. Nixon: There might be nothing left of the contract, just an empty building when you get to it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, I do not think so. I think the honourable member would probably let us know early enough so we could call the $15-million loan. I do not think there would be any problem that way.

From a practical point of view, it is going to cost this company millions of dollars to even entertain the thought of moving to the United States. White Motor Corp. of the United States has no facilities in the United States to handle the capacity of this operation. It would have to establish a facility and train 1,000 people to be able to do it. It would take some considerable doing. That is not to mention the fact that the Canadian distributor network is very important.

Mr. Peterson: You are so naive.

Hon. Mr. Walker: To the extent that the member is making those accusations, I think he should be rather careful.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The minister is inadvertently misleading the House. I want to bring to your attention, sir, that yesterday he referred to the 50-50 split of ownership. In my view, this was a way of softening the blow of selling out what appeared not to be a controlling interest. But I also say to you, sir, that now he is using the other argument, that the split is 50.5 to 49.5, to indicate that it must have been the Canadian shareholder who cancelled the federal loan.

10:30 a.m.

He should be aware the American shareholder has a veto power and it was his veto that stopped the federal loan of $20 million. That threatened to throw the company into receivership unless the Canadian shareholder accepted his offer of a buyout.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, you may want to check the Hansard records of some of the discussions on this matter just to satisfy yourself that people have not been inadvertently misleading the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: If I may just comment on that, I think I heard the minister say very clearly that the figures he used today would correct the record of anything said previously.

Mr. Peterson: He should correct the record from the typed statement out of his ministry which I assume was prepared and checked by all of his staff. It is a very significant change in position, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of corporate law knows the difference between a 50 per cent and 50.5 per cent interest in a company and how that affects what goes on.

GAINS PAYMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. The minister is aware there is very wide support now from a number of bodies to increase the income supplement for elderly single people to at least 60 and possibly 70 per cent of the payment a couple gets.

She is aware the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, as well as the select committee on pensions' report, which came out yesterday under the chairmanship of one of her members, and the interministerial task force on ageing under her ministry all agree -- even the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) mentioned in this House that this was the proper way to deal with these kinds of problems. What is her feeling on the matter and what is she doing in order to increase the income for seniors up to at least 60 and possibly 70 per cent of the married level in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, of course we are all interested in seeing seniors receive adequate income. I think this government is showing a great deal of leadership in that area. I would certainly hope that the ongoing discussions within the various ministries that have this responsibility will bear fruit within the not too distant future.

Mr. Peterson: The reason I am asking is the minister is showing no leadership in this particular area. Almost every independent group has looked at this question and brought it to her attention, as have the other ministers. The Treasurer has dealt with it, as has the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe). What is her policy? We all recognize there is an emergency in this province as well as the rest of the country at this time. When is she going to act as the secretary in charge of this policy field?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is the member's opinion. I do not think it is one shared by everyone. We are showing great leadership in meeting the needs of the seniors in this province, and I think the majority of seniors appreciate that. Things just do not happen as quickly as some of us would perhaps like to see them happen. The direction we are going in is the appropriate one and there are a lot of other people within society who have similar needs.

The whole question of increasing the income of the seniors is one this government is very concerned about and it is doing a great deal of work in approaching the final solution. It is very difficult to put a date on when those things will be achieved, but certainly the final solution is to make sure everyone is treated with equity. This is what we are attempting to do. There are many needs in this society and we are attempting to meet those needs as quickly as possible.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not have my copy of the select committee report with me so I am trying to recall by memory. I think the figure from the most recent Statistics Canada data in November or December 1981 indicated there are in the order of 256,000 citizens of Ontario over the age of 65 who are below the poverty line. Is the minister sufficiently ashamed of that to persuade her colleagues to move on the suggestion that is put forward by the select committee to raise the Gains single rates, or does this continue to be a matter of putting it off and leaving a quarter of a million seniors in a state of poverty?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations are there, they are being considered and a decision will be made as quickly as possible.

Mr. Peterson: It is my opinion, it is the opinion of several of the minister's members who sat on the select committee, it is the opinion, as I said, of the interministerial task force, which is the secretariat that she is in charge of, and a lot of other independent as well as nonindependent people who agree with this position. They also agree it is at a crisis state today in this province.

In view of the fact that moving to 60 per cent of the single rate would cost about another $50 million, if the minister is looking for money to fund this, she is at present funding seniors' grants in the order of $300 million that have a bias towards the rich. We are asking for programs that have a bias towards the poor, those people who need it most. If the finite funds are part of the problem, we are suggesting there are ways to solve this problem. Why does she not feel that she has to move immediately in this particular area that everyone acknowledges is a crisis? The question is, when are Birch and Ashe going to be able to see the forest and not the trees?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think perhaps we will consider accepting the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and cancelling senior citizens' grants. Is he suggesting that everyone who owns a home is rich? That is exactly what he is saying.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister announced to us yesterday that investigators from his ministry went into the Wilco plant in London, Ontario, on February 24 and discovered a situation of considerable risk and hazard to the workers.

Is the minister aware that in the spring of 1981 there were two workers from Wilco on workmen's compensation suffering from lead poisoning? In the summer of 1981 there was one worker on a compensation claim suffering the effects of lead poisoning and in the fall of 1981 our information is that there were 16 workers on workmen's compensation suffering the effects of lead contamination at Wilco.

Why did it take unti1 February 24 for his occupational health investigator to come into that plant when approximately 19 workers had been on compensation during the previous year?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday there is a clear need for continued surveillance of this plant and I am determined to do that. I cannot speak for what has happened in the past. I do know what steps are being taken at the present time and I am satisfied with those steps.

In respect to the member's comments on the Workmen's Compensation Board at the resources development committee last night, at which he and I were both in attendance, I spoke to WCB officials about that very point and asked them for a complete report on their end of this particular problem.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure the minister's predecessor remembers, but does the minister remember the failure of the Workmen's Compensation Board to notify the occupational health branch of the risk that Mr. Clifton Grant had been exposed to as an employee of the Scarborough school board, when he was on a compensation claim for asbestos and the Workmen's Compensation Board failed, as it has failed at Wilco, to advise the occupational health and safety branch?

10:40 a.m.

Do members remember the promise of the Minister of Health in 1978 when it happened again that the Workmen's Compensation Board suppressed information about the risk that workers were subjected to in a plant that had failed to pass it on? He said, "I want to assure members that as a result of this incident I have directed that the entire communications system between the board and my ministry be reviewed in order to ensure there will be no recurrence of this unfortunate and frankly unacceptable course of events." That was November 14, 1978. Why did it happen again in 1981 and 1982?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of this Legislature in November 1978, so I am not aware of the circumstances the member is describing.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in his statement yesterday the minister indicated he would be giving this company unti1 April 16 to fulfil the regulations and would be monitoring the company. In view of the fact that even after the problem was disclosed, the president of the company, a Mr. Grant Wilson, was still blaming the high levels on poor personal hygiene and a whole series of other matters, why has the minister chosen to respond to this flagrant violation of his own regulations with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, rather than choosing to make an example of this company and to prosecute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I find that question just a little difficult in respect to my comments yesterday because if I could just quote, " ... if circumstances warrant it, including partial or total closure of the operation, and depending upon legal advice, prosecution if warranted." I am prepared to take stern measures if stern measures are warranted.

I am aware of Mr. Wilson's statement. I am not accepting his statement at face value; I am determined to find out for myself just exactly what the circumstances are.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the minister to consider the points we have been making and ask him if he does not recognize that for almost a year now we have been arguing that the lack of enforcement is the issue that may very well undermine what started out as a good piece of legislation, that is Bill 70, the safety and health legislation. This particular case of the lead poisoning, along with ITT Industries of Canada Ltd. and many others, is a perfect example of the lack of prosecution. Does the minister not recognize that what is being threatened here is the undermining of a very good piece of legislation in the province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I understand what the honourable member is saying, and I had a lengthy discussion yesterday with his colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) on that very point. I would like to think we are basically on the same wavelength in this respect, that we are determined to put teeth into that regulation.

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Since the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) announced his "get tough" policy on the doctors yesterday, I suppose most citizens wish the government would get so tough with them as to give them $114,000 average net take-home pay.

Since the cost of that is going to be about $220 million for the first year, give or take a number of million dollars, and since the Premier (Mr. Davis) has this fetish about increasing OHIP premiums, can the Treasurer assure us that he will not put the burden of paying for the doctors' salary enrichment on Ontario's health premium system, which is already the highest in Canada, and which because of the complete failure of the premium assistance part of the premium program is the most regressive and the most unfair to low-income people of all of the means of paying for medicare and medical services in the entire country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in the second part of that question dealing with the fairness of OHIP premiums there was a lot of editorial comment that I think is best discussed at a different time. I would say that OHIP premiums are roughly between one fifth and one quarter of the total cost of the health care system, so I do not think one can say they are a heavy penalty.

When we get $4 to $5 worth of health care for every $1 of premium, that is not exactly a bad system. I think most people in Ontario have found it relatively fair and acceptable and I think many organized workers have either all or most of it paid for by their corporations. That is a matter of record, not speculation on our part.

Whether any increase in hospital care, health care, doctors, or any other element of the system gets paid for through premium increases or through general tax levies, obviously is an essential part of my budget process and until I reveal that budget I cannot answer. The only thing I can say is that it has to be paid for by the citizens of Ontario. The federal government has already cut its share of those costs.

Mr. McClellan: We agree it has to be paid for by the taxpayers and we are trying to persuade the minister that it should be paid for by a fair system of taxation.

Can the minister explain why the premium assistance program, and I am referring to full and partial premium assistance, still remains unavailable to the majority of low-income people in Ontario who are eligible for it? Can he explain how he can possibly contemplate raising OHIP premiums when the premium assistance program, which is designed to make premiums less burdensome on poor people, is in such an obvious shambles with something like five per cent of the eligible partial assistance premium recipients receiving it and about a third of full premium assistance recipients actually receiving it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have gone through this kind of debate in estimates a number of times. Certainly, all of us were concerned about the apparent lack of coverage or application for premium assistance by people eligible to receive it. The statistics we had four or five years ago very much indicated the kind of picture the member is describing today.

I would like to get some statistics from my ministry; the Ministry of Health just gave me some here. I understand that two things have happened: first, we appear to have a much higher percentage of eligible people now receiving the benefit and second, our ability to determine that number has obviously not been too accurate in the past. We overestimated it in so far as we could tell, so some of the statistics were probably worse than actual facts in the economy would indicate.

Perhaps while the member is thinking of his next supplementary, I will scan the note I have here.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, the statistical review the Legislature undertook some years ago would indicate above and beyond all else that the government of Ontario had no bloody idea at all about who was getting what within the system. To talk about relativity in these situations today is absolutely ridiculous.

Will the Treasurer undertake to provide to this assembly at the earliest possible time, certainly well in advance of his budget expected some three or four weeks hence, the most up-to-date data he has on exactly how many people are eligible for full and partial premium assistance in this province and what the most recent rates of uptake are?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get whatever statistics I can for the member. I have some from the Ministry of Health that say about five per cent of the total population is either temporarily, fully or partially assisted at the present time and about 14 per cent is receiving the free OHIP coverage that comes for all those who are over 65.

10:50 a.m.

I want to say one more thing. The member and I are practising politicians. As we return to our rural ridings on weekends, or more frequently for those with city ridings, we run into just about every kind of problem our constituents encounter. The member perhaps has not been at it as long as I have, but if he goes back through the history, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) could, he would recall that in the early 1970s OHIP problems probably covered a large percentage of the kinds of things people heard about. We were changing the system --

Mr. Nixon: We called it a Machiavellian scheme.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, a Machiavellian scheme foisted on us by federal Liberals. A number one bureaucratic or enrolment problem facing the members of the day was the OHIP problem. I suggest to the member that in my riding we get few calls from people wondering about their eligibility for this and I do not hear of it from other ridings either.

Mr. McClellan: Following directly on the question of my colleague the member for Renfrew North, does the Treasurer recall that in 1978 when the select committee was studying this question, the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs provided statistics on the number of people eligible for full premium assistance, which was 487,000, and the number of citizens eligible for partial premium assistance, which was 160,000?

Can he explain why the answer to Order Paper question 248 in the last session was as follows, "The government does not have the means of accurately determining the number of eligible residents"? How could he determine the number in 1978 for the select committee and then tell the House in 1981 that he cannot determine the number of eligible residents, unless he is so embarrassed by the general failure of the premium assistance program in those two categories that he refuses to provide the information to this assembly?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. The member must have his supplementaries written because we really talked about that in supplementary number one. I dealt with those very issues. I said the statistics we gave a few years back showed a situation worse than we believe it was. Getting that kind of statistic is not easy.

I want to get down to the essential nub of it all. Is anyone in this province refused health care who needs it and who, through any statistical error, did not cover himself? The answer is categorically "no."

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to ask this question on April 1, April Fool's Day, because I thought it was appropriate given what the Treasurer was doing to the people of Ontario by his contribution to higher inflation.

Given that the price of gasoline upon which he bases the new adjustment to the ad valorem tax is higher than current prices of gasoline at the pump, and given that this method of calculation is going to result in a windfall profit on a windfall profit he is already getting to the Ontario Treasury of between $3.4 million to $6.7 million, will he admit he has inflated the price of gasoline at the pump unnecessarily, is overcharging the Ontario consumer and is adding to Ontario's inflation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will redirect that to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who administers that program.

Mr. Riddell: Whose bright idea was it to bring it in?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mine.

Mr. Riddell: Why don't you answer it?

Mr. Bradley: You run for the leadership and you will get all the blame.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody will have an opportunity to ask questions at the appropriate time.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the method we use to calculate the median price has been consistent since the ad valorem system went into effect in Ontario last year, which makes it consistent with virtually every other province in Canada.

Early in the month, at the end of the quarter involved, we actually survey a great number of service stations' retail prices. The particular geographical area surveyed is roughly as far north as Barrie, down into the Niagara Peninsula, Kitchener and Oshawa. I think everyone will agree this is the area where the competitive market system is definitely in effect, and very adequately shows a level of pricing that is probably the lowest in the province. We take the median price from that and that is the price we should be determining for the ad valorem rate.

That was done early in March, as it has been done in each of the preceding quarters. From that we come up with the adjustments in this particular quarter. As I indicated earlier in the week, there were some changes. They were not significant -- three tenths of a cent on regular; two tenths of a cent on regular unleaded; three tenths of a cent on premium unleaded -- and there is no doubt that when the next quarter comes we will go through the same process all over again.

The system is fair, the system is reasonable and, if anything, it gives the advantage of the very highly competitive market in which we establish a base price.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is interesting that the Treasurer wishes to live off the avails but slough off the responsibility to the Minister of Revenue.

It was the Treasurer who brought in this iniquitous tax. I would like to redirect my supplementary back to the Treasurer, if I may, and ask him whether he does not believe this kind of tax that he was so upset with Ottawa and Alberta about, is taking money out of the consumers' pockets in terms of gasoline and increasing the rate of inflation? Does he not feel this kind of a setup is even more inflationary than his original proposal, when he is getting a windfall tax of almost $5 million more than he otherwise would? He is not only taking that money directly out of the consumers' pockets but he is increasing the rate of inflation in Ontario by doing so.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Revenue, who says the way in which the ad valorem tax has been administered is the hallmark of fairness and consistency. If he would talk to the members for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) and Kenora (Mr. Bernier), they can prove to him there is a disparity of 25 to 35 cents per gallon in the price of number two gas between southern Ontario and northern Ontario. Will the minister consider removing the ad valorem tax on the users of gasoline north of the French River?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member realizes this is tax policy within the purview of the Treasurer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, in so indicating, I am not trying to pass the question to my colleague at all. I have no problem with it whatever. I tried to indicate to the House a short time ago -- obviously I failed -- we are not taking the higher prices in the north into account in the ad valorem median price. If we did, the median price we would arrive at would be higher. The examples used by the member are not indicative of the whole north --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, they are.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: They are not; probably only in sparsely populated areas of the north.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is answering a supplementary which was asked by the member for Lake Nipigon. Please continue.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been in northern Ontario on a few occasions and have taken the opportunity to note that in most of the metropolitan areas, such as Sudbury and Thunder Bay -- not the remote areas, I acknowledge that -- they are very competitive with southern Ontario.

11 a.m.

I appreciate and accept the position that in some of the more remote areas they have a rather captive audience and probably their pricing policy is away from the norm, but I must emphasize that we in this government are more than fair in arriving at a formula that sets this median price. We do not include in the listing the higher-priced outlets in the north. The base price established for regular gasoline in this quarter was 33 cents per litre. To that we added the ad valorem tax of 6.6 cents to arrive at the price.

If a base price in the north might be 45 cents a litre, for example --

Mr. Stokes: It is 48 cents.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Okay; 48 cents a litre would mean it would be about 41 or 42 cents net. We do not take that into consideration. If we did, the median price would have been higher and the ad valorem rate would have been higher. I suggest we are already giving the advantage of the lower median price to these higher outlets in the north.

If there is anybody to get after, the member should be contacting the federal government and the oil companies, expressing on behalf of his constituents disapproval of the pricing policy that seems to be gouging his constituents, and I agree with him.

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister not concerned about the role of some security firms in labour activities in Ontario, such as the recent example of an agent provocateur infiltrating a picket line at Automotive Hardware? Is the minister prepared to undertake an independent investigation into these kinds of activities?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is correct; I am concerned. I am aware of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections and answer the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think members will know that remedies are available under both the Labour Relations Act and the Criminal Code.

The Labour Relations Act prohibits an employer from interfering directly or indirectly with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation employed by a trade union. I would think a deliberate attempt to infiltrate or disrupt trade union activities would be included in the type of conduct prohibited by the act.

Under the Criminal Code, it is a criminal conspiracy for two or more persons to act in concert with the intention of contravening federal or provincial legislation. Over the past couple of years there have been several cases where prosecutions have been brought under the Criminal Code against employers involved in activities relating to trade union organization or collective bargaining negotiations.

In a very recent appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the court increased the fine against an employer found to have been guilty of a conspiracy of this sort in the context of a labour dispute. The fine imposed by the court initially was $25,000, I believe, and then it was increased to $100,000. That indicates the very serious view the judiciary takes in matters of this sort.

I would therefore conclude that there are some very substantial deterrents to this type of activity in the existing law.

Mr. Mackenzie: I did not hear the minister say he was prepared to conduct an investigation as such. Is the minister aware of the kind of services being offered by one such firm in Ontario, Securicor? I will quote two examples of the services they are offering to their clients in a letter that went to one firm in Hamilton recently.

"Whether we deploy one man as a security guard or 100 men to avert a volatile labour situation, our degree of commitment is the same." That is only part of the service being offered.

Probably more to the point, in industrial injury investigations dealing with the Workmen's Compensation Board, the company's brochure outlines the following:

"Objective: To determine if employees are fraudulently receiving workmen's compensation or sick benefits.

"Method: One investigator attends at the subject's address and takes up a position of surveillance. The investigator photographs the subject, with emphasis on the subject's injuries or restrictive movements. If there is a lack of movement or activity on the part of the subject, then the investigator can enter the subject's residence and verify the necessary information in that manner."

Those are just two of many services offered by this firm.

Does this kind of situation not concern the minister, and is he prepared to look into this matter in detail?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am afraid to use the same word my colleague just used. Yes, certainly it does concern me. If the honourable member will send me copies of the letters he has, I will be happy to look into the matter.

AUTOMOTIVE HARDWARE DISPUTE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister may be aware of the strike at Automotive Hardware Ltd. in my constituency. This strike is now in its seventh month and involves 425 employees.

The stumbling block between the two parties involves a conflict over administrative clauses in the new contract which has led to a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board this afternoon. This could jeopardize the success of those current negotiations.

Can the minister inform the House whether there is any proper and useful action his ministry could take that would resolve this conflict between these promising negotiations and the labour board meeting this afternoon, which could be divisive? Can the minister give us a complete update as to the current situation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I cannot ask the Ontario Labour Relations Board to postpone a hearing. I understand that either party can ask for that and, if I am not mistaken, earlier this week the union involved did ask for the postponement of a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 31, at I p.m., and permission was granted in that case.

It is true there was another meeting scheduled for 9:30 this morning. However, if I could go back just a bit, this old dispute has been very discouraging and has dragged on much too long. There have been complications such as those related to the question asked a few minutes ago by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). Through the efforts of Mr. Illing, the director of conciliation and mediation for the Ministry of Labour, the parties came back to the negotiating table this week and since then have been negotiating almost around the clock.

I have been in touch with Mr. Illing on almost a daily basis, and I received a report earlier this week that said, "On Tuesday, March 30, considerable progress was made for the first time." Then a later report indicated that on Wednesday things fell apart a bit, and that was the reason the request was made to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to postpone the hearing.

As of 9:45 this morning, when I was talking to Mr. Illing again, he stated that they had met until two o'clock this morning. He felt "some progress was made," but at the time of the adjournment it was his judgement that a settlement could not be reached before the commencement of the proceedings before the labour relations board, scheduled for 9:30 this morning.

Mr. Illing has asked the parties to resume bargaining this morning at 10 o'clock and has requested them to instruct their solicitors to inform the board's vice-chairman. In other words, the meeting with the labour relations board could well be postponed again so that the negotiations can continue today and over the weekend and, hopefully, some resolution can be reached. There have been encouraging signs, then discouraging signs at the moment; some progress, though, has been made.

Mr. Kolyn: Have the monetary aspects of the new contract been settled yet?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: To the best of my knowledge, no.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As he travels across this province getting himself known in the farm community, has he sensed the tremendous concerns that farmers have in not knowing what to produce, with the bottom having fallen out of the market on some of the major cash crops, very unpredictable markets for other cash crops and red meats, and the high interest rates compounding the already high input costs?

In view of the desperate need by farmers for low-interest loans to operate their businesses with spring planting being only a few weeks away, and in view of the very serious concerns that have been expressed by Ontario farmers with the farm adjustment assistance program -- such concerns as the recalling of the application forms, the reissuing of new forms, the long delays that there seem to be before the forms ever get to Toronto -- will he not amend this program to simplify the process and to make deferred interest and new lines of credit eligible for interest assistance?

Does it make any sense to deny a farmer this subsidy after having determined that indeed he is in financial difficulty?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that is a fairly lengthy and involved question, and I apologize in advance if my answer proves to be lengthy.

First of all, in the six and a half weeks or so that I have been in the portfolio and in the travelling I have done, certainly I have found concerns about the uncertainties --

Mr. Conway: The agriculture representatives are your boys, I hear.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member would like to ask me a question about that, I wish he would. I have certain things I would like to read into the record to answer that.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Conway: They are your delegates.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If you had any guts, you would ask the question; but you don't, so you won't.

Mr. Conway: Just don't make Paul Martin's mistake.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Which one? Certainly there is concern about certain commodity prices, although as the member will know, there have been glimmers of hope more recently with respect to the prices of red meats in the past two or three weeks and some indications that there may be some longer-term improvement there.

11:10

I have found, quite frankly, with the groups whom I have met as recently as Monday and Tuesday of this week, that they are quite pleased the government has made the kind of changes it did with respect to the farm adjustment assistance program.

The member is suggesting in his question that the processing time is inordinately long. I have to tell him that the time from application to receipt in Toronto, once it has begun, with the ones we have seen to date, is averaging about two weeks once they actually apply.

To be sure, there are a number of farmers who picked up the forms some time ago and had not applied until the last few weeks because they did not have their 1981 results yet, based on which they could then indicate what their 1982 plan is and which of the three options they wished to apply for.

I was very pleased with a meeting I had in Ottawa on Monday with the Minister of Agriculture of Canada -- very pleased in this respect --

Mr. Nixon: He is a fine fellow.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I must say I was impressed. I will say that publicly; I was impressed. It was our first meeting.

I was somewhat encouraged by the comments he had to offer with respect to his plans for the Farm Credit Corp. As of that date, he had not had final reading of his legislation. By good fortune, the very next day he did get final reading in the Commons and the bill was sent immediately to the Senate with the hope that by the end of the week it could be through the Senate and sent to Government House for the Governor General's signature.

I took away from that meeting a reaffirmation of the federal government's intention that it, along with the banks, will be the prime mover in the area of long-term credit. I indicated to Mr. Whelan that this being the case, it was our intention that our programs in this province, whether the farm adjustment assistance program for 1982 or the beginning farmer assistance program we are working on now, would be complementary to anything the federal government is going to do rather than trying to compete with it in those various fields.

I am pleased to tell the member that the takeup on the farm adjustment assistance program is picking up considerably. The case meetings being held around the province now are dealing with about 100 cases a week. We have received close to 200 applications now in the ministry, of which, as of yesterday, slightly more than 100 have been approved. It seems to me the program is beginning to take hold.

Mr. Riddell: I wonder whether the minister would consider making the two parts of the program I brought to his attention, the deferred interest and the new lines of credit, available for the interest assistance as well.

I also want to ask, inasmuch as he is satisfied with the length of time it is taking to process the forms, whether he can tell me why the farmers are being told by the bank that there will be a four- to eight-week delay after they apply for the program before their applications are actually sent to Toronto for approval.

In other words, the local case committee approves a loan application, which for some reason has to go to the regional bank, where it sits around for a period of time, then it comes back to the local case committee and finally goes to Toronto for approval.

Why in the world do these loan applications have to go to the regional bank if the local case committee has already done the work and has given its blessing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To the best of my knowledge, once it has cleared the local case committee, there is no reason for that. As the member knows, there are about 800 branches of the chartered banks along with the branches of the three credit unions -- now four, since I signed an order in council yesterday for the Sydenham credit union to join the program; the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) will be interested in that -- along with whatever trust companies may choose to go into the program. All these branches, the managers and the loan managers are involved.

I can only repeat to the member what I believe my staff has told him before, and I have certainly indicated it to individual farmers: If they hear of this kind of thing, they should let us know, and we will make darned certain within hours that the manager knows where he is going wrong. We want to encourage all farmers who have any doubts or concerns at all to approach us through the agricultural representatives so we can make sure the program is working as effectively as we intend it to.

FUNDING FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education in regard to the decision she has made to eliminate the grants for continuing education on credit courses as of September 1982.

Now that the minister has admitted she is going to withdraw provincial funding from all noncredit continuing education programs in the province, will she tell the House whether it is her intention to destroy the English-as-a-second-language program by not financing it and forcing students to pay $6 an hour or more for classes?

If she has no such destructive intention, will she give us a specific assurance that the province will continue to provide a major share of the funding for English-as-a-second-language programs?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the honourable member gets his information, but if he had read Hansard he would have noted that I did not make any such statement, nor have I made any such statement in public.

I said we were considering the funding of continuing education as is necessary as a result of the study of that whole area carried out by the ministry with the help of a great many other people over the past two years.

It is not my intention at all to reduce the kind of support we have given for very specific programs that have been of assistance in learning a second language. The member will learn in due course what the policy is relating to funding of continuing education.

11:20 a.m.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Bradley exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' business to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in calling the 28th order, I might indicate to the House it has been agreed that the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General will not be proceeded with in committee today. If any time remains after committee of supply handles the supplementary estimates of the ministries of Transportation and Communications and Colleges and Universities, we will resume the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion in reply to the speech from the throne.

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (CONTINUED)

On vote 2604, provincial roads program:

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, I have no particular comments on the supplementary estimates beyond just a general criticism about the lack of information on the nature of the spending.

As critics, I think we are entitled to much more information than what we receive. If we are expected to intelligently discuss, debate and question these estimates, I feel that in the future the ministry must provide us with far more information than we received for these supplementary estimates.

I hope the minister will take that to heart, because I simply find the current background information totally inadequate.

Beyond that, I have no particular comments.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few questions on the capital and construction area as well as one question on maintenance. They relate to specific problems in my constituency.

I wonder whether the minister can tell us if he intends to extend Highway 138, which now links Highway 401 to Highway 417 from Cornwall and proceeds to the area of St. Isidore de Prescott. For many years, there has been discussion that the highway would eventually link up to Highway 17 at or near the town of Rockland, thus providing a link between Rockland and the United States border.

Some subsidies were granted by the ministry to improve the existing county road north of Highway 138 through that area, but it is still unclear to many of us whether that will become a provincial highway one day. Local residents call that road Highway 138 right now, although it is not Highway 138 once one proceeds north of Highway 417. Perhaps local residents call it that already in the hope that one day it will become a provincial highway.

Perhaps the minister can explain to us whether he intends to make that into a full-fledged provincial highway as a long-range plan and, if so, how far will it go up to Highway 17.

The other matter I want to talk about -- I am not sure whether it is maintenance or capital and construction -- is the signs on Highway 17.

The minister may recall that I have sent him letters in the past with the criticism that a sign on the Queensway in Ottawa had been removed. That sign used to say Highway 17 was an alternative route from Ottawa to Montreal. It has now been removed, because it apparently created some sort of visual obstruction.

The residents of Prescott-Russell are quite concerned by this. We feel we have lost quite a bit of the flow of traffic which contributed to the local economy. It was subsequent to pressure from the local people that the sign was installed. The minister may recall that one sign was installed westbound just as one leaves Quebec and enters Ontario. That sign has remained. However, going eastbound from Ottawa, the sign has been removed and we are concerned about that.

Finally, I would like to know about the maintenance of Highway 17, especially the winter maintenance. From Orleans to Ottawa that highway is quite well maintained, but from Orleans to Rockland the road is often slippery and is not nearly as well maintained as it is in the Orleans area.

The corporation of the town of Rockland sent a resolution to the minister -- I guess it was prior to the last election -- complaining of the maintenance of that road. I wonder whether he intends to revise the level at which winter maintenance is done on that section.

Although those concerns were raised by Rockland prior to last winter, there was no noticeable change in the level of maintenance last winter according to the residents of that area. Perhaps the minister could inform us as to his plans in those areas.

Finally, perhaps the minister could also tell us about the status of Highway 416, that famous road the people of Ottawa are hoping will some day link Highway 401 to the nation's capital so we will not have the road we have now.

I am sure the minister knows that if one drives into Ottawa from Highway 401, it is a most difficult manoeuvre to attempt. Of course, I know he would fly there more often than he would drive, but I urge him to try it once. If he does not get lost on the way somewhere between Highway 401 and Ottawa, he has a very good sense of direction. It is difficult even to manoeuvre to get off Highway 401 at exit 114 or 116 in Prescott, where one leaves Highway 401 and enters Highway 16. The signs are poor there.

I know in the past the ministry changed one of the signs to indicate that the exit for Ottawa was not the next one, but the one thereafter type of thing, which is very confusing. There is a sign that says: "Welcome to Prescott. Use the second exit to go to Ottawa." This is a very confusing situation. A lot of people pass right through and end up changing highways at Morrisburg and taking Highway 31 to Ottawa, which is a lot longer. There is a weak link there between Highway 401 and Ottawa.

Perhaps the minister will entertain immediately having an overhead sign, such as we have in certain urban centres, indicating where the exit is for Ottawa. It would be much easier for the people to think of that as being the exit for the nation's capital.

Somehow one just does not picture a little sign on the side of the road as the exit where one gets off the highway to go into the capital of the country. One would expect something a little more visual than that. Perhaps the ministry could entertain something of that order. Even more fundamental than that, I would like to know about the general forecast for making Highway 16 into what all of us hope it will be, which is Highway 416.

11:30 a.m.

I know the minister is now in the process of expropriating some land just north of Kemptville. There is a three- or four-mile stretch there which I think they are going to start this year. After that stretch is done, perhaps the minister could tell us what he expects the next phase of the development of that highway will be.

Those are some of my questions, if the minister would like to respond.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the extension of Highway 138, I would have to say there are no plans at this time for any extension of that highway as a provincial highway.

With regard to the sign on old Highway 17, it is rather hazy at the moment but I recall discussions, conversations and correspondence with regard to this sign. As the member stated, the sign was removed because it was a hazard to visibility in that area. Highways 17 and 417 have been in place long enough now that everyone should know which is which. They both go to Ottawa and Montreal. I doubt there is a need for guidance signs, but we will take a look to see if there is any way of improving that situation.

I am concerned about the member's reference to the level of maintenance on a particular section of Highway 17. I do not know why there would be a different level of maintenance on this mile of highway than the next mile of highway. If the member would like to give me more details, I will look into it. The standards for a highway such as that are the same for the length of the highway and one five-mile section does not have one standard while another five-mile section has another. There are situations where the two patrols meet, where the snowploughs turn around and so forth and there could be some difference in timing where the patrols meet. If the member will give me more details, we will have it looked into.

With regard to Highway 16, to become Highway 416, there are two contracts to be awarded on that job this year that will extend it from the end of the present newly constructed highway up to where it crosses back over old Highway 16. I think it is county road 8 if I remember correctly. I believe those two grading contracts will be awarded later this year and they will be followed up by a paving contract.

As far as we know, that is where we are going with that highway at this moment. We are waiting for a study and considerations that are being given by the region of Ottawa-Carleton, by my ministry people, the city of Ottawa, and the townships or towns as to what route that highway will follow from that particular point into Ottawa. There are several options being looked at. When we had the meetings a few years ago. I made a commitment that we would extend the highway that far as a two-lane, controlled access highway but we had to have some agreement from all the local municipalities in the region before it could go any further. We put several options before them and that is being studied at this time.

I have no idea when a decision will be made and until that decision is made we cannot even begin to think about planning or building the highway. The thought was that when the highway is completed to the Queensway, if it is, and once we have the route completed as a two-lane route, then we will give consideration on an ongoing basis to expanding it to four lanes divided, which is our normal practice on other highways.

Mr. Boudria: I need just a little more information. I am somewhat disturbed by your comments on Highway 138. Perhaps the minister would like to check with his caucus research bureau, or whatever it is called, that produces an item known as the Queen's Park Newsletter. My predecessor sent a letter not long before the last provincial election explaining in great detail how Highway 138 was going to become a provincial highway from Highway 417 to Highway 17. That was quite clear in the newsletter he sent. One must assume as a government member that was not just a pet project of his own but must have been one of his government.

I will attempt to find a copy of that. I am sure the minister would have a much easier time getting access to that document than I would. Those types of things circulated by government members must reflect government policy, or at least one would assume so. The population of my area certainly believes that highway will some day become a provincial one, if for no other reason than the fact that the then government member had it as one of his policies, and one must assume it is the government policy.

Perhaps the minister could undertake to look for that document, as I will, and we could some day compare notes on that issue. I am disturbed to hear you say there is no plan at all to make that into a provincial highway. I can only assume there never was a plan to make it into a provincial highway. If that is, in fact, what you are saying, that means the newsletter circulated by my predecessor had some information in it that was perhaps not as correct as it could have been, to put it mildly. I find it in very poor taste, to say the least, if that is the case.

Mr. Riddell: But he was defeated.

Mr. Boudria: Of course, he was defeated and we all know that. What I am trying to get at is, if you are saying you have changed your policy I can accept that, but if we are hearing that it never was government policy to make that road into a provincial highway, then obviously the policies of my predecessor were not those of the government. Either intentionally or unintentionally, the information given to the constituents of Prescott-Russell seems to have been incorrect.

In so far as that section of highway under winter maintenance between the areas of Rockland and Orleans is concerned, I will send a letter explaining it in detail. There is a definite different level. It relates to the position of the salt dome on the highway. The maintenance vehicles seem always to go in one direction to the city of Ottawa, probably because there is more traffic there and it is assumed it needs a different level of maintenance. If you say it is not ministerial policy to have different levels along that road, then I will send the minister a letter and I will also try and attach a copy of the resolution that had been sent to him previously by the town of Rockland.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). Excuse me, I did not know the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) wished to speak. The minister first, and then I will move to the NDP.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no knowledge of what might have gone out in any constituency newsletter of the honourable member, his predecessor or any other honourable member. I will not be committed to any statement he or any member on that side of the House or this side of the House puts in a newsletter.

Mr. Conway: That was not Larry Grossman's position yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is not government policy as far as I am concerned.

I said to the honourable member that we have no plans, certainly at the present time, to extend that highway. I have worked very closely with the municipalities, with the townships of Russell, Osgoode and Cumberland -- I believe they were the three, if I remember rightly -- with development road assistance. We are working on a three-year plan to extend a development road that connects north and south right in that same general area. Regardless of what you may have understood, right at this moment we do not have any project on our program for the extension of Highway 138.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not know the member for Beaches-Woodbine would be standing up. I saw all these people to my immediate left. The member for Beaches-Woodbine and then the member for Erie.

11:40 a.m.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, thank you for my turn in the order of speaking. I have just one question of the minister. I would like to inquire about the $3.5 million for additional design costs, which is in the supplementary estimates. Was some of that money needed in order that the ministry might start to take environmental concerns into account, particularly after the minister's conviction for ignoring the Environmental Assessment Act last fall? Is his ministry now considering environmental concerns in its design of roads and highways?

I understand there are important considerations for the preservation of trees, and how wide a swath should be cut and what effects the wide-cutting has on the adjacent forests and the seeding of trees in the adjacent forests. Are those concerns now being considered at the design stage instead of at the court stage?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I find that somewhat of an interesting question. Certainly, environmental assessment is part of the design. In fact, the environmental assessment is carried out before the detailed design is started. If the member knew the process of the Environmental Assessment Act she would understand that.

The ministry has an environmental office and was considering environmental concerns on our highway construction many years before the Environmental Assessment Act was ever thought of. We certainly were considering these concerns long before there was an act and a proclamation that required us to do a complete environmental assessment as we know it today.

There is a two-phase environmental assessment program. The first phase is the planning phase or establishing the route where the road will be built, if it is a new alignment. The second phase, after the first is approved, is the approval of the environmental assessment of the detailed design of the project. Then, of course, there are many class assessments for widening, repaving and more minor work where a class assessment is submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. When that is approved we can carry out all work of that type under that same assessment as long as we abide by the conditions of that approval.

Ms. Bryden: Is the ministry seeking exemptions from the Environmental Assessment Act for any of its major highway programs, as has been the case in the past, or is it now going along with having all its major projects come under environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have no applications that I know of at this time. We have not made any applications for an exemption for a highway project that we are carrying out for several months. We have a number of assessments that we have submitted. We have a long list of assessments on projects that are either being prepared, or at the ministry now. Some have been approved. We just got the approval on the Highway 403 contract at Brantford two or three months ago. That contract was just awarded last week. I cannot tell the member that we will never apply for another exemption because there may very well be another project come up with some urgency where we might have to apply, but we are not applying at this time. Our projects are going under the act.

Ms. Bryden: I am glad to hear the minister is not planning to apply for exemptions. I hope he will not proceed on highways without the approval of the environmental assessment board in future either.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the minister regarding my riding, Erie, where he has taken into consideration the preservation of trees along Highway 3. I think the Ministry of Transportation and Communication has an excellent program in reforestation, that is, the planting of new trees and so on, though I wish the trees were planted back on private property so that the roadway could be maintained in a proper manner. Planting the trees a little too close to the roadways has caused difficulties in mowing and keeping down the weeds along the roadsides.

Particularly in Wainfleet township, the minister was very considerate and understanding when the question of MTC environmental practices came to the attention of property owners along the road. I think he did an excellent job there.

My main concern is the capital and construction programs on Highway 406; that is the new connecting link with overpasses and such on the Queen Elizabeth Way west of the old Welland Canal. I think it is progressing very well. I wonder if the minister had given consideration to the additional land required to put in the connecting links and overpasses and if some consideration would be given to provision for motor vehicle parking.

I think eventually the GO system will go into the Niagara region. Gray Coach provides a good service there now. But more people are going to be using public transit in getting back and forth between Hamilton and Toronto and places like that. There should be some areas set aside for vehicle parking. Perhaps this is the time we should be taking a look at it. The buses can pull along there without too much of a delay instead of going downtown in St. Catharines to pick up persons who want to travel that way.

The other area around Highway 406 -- it seems to be done in stages in the Niagara region, for some unknown reason -- is that it is not moving as fast as we would like to see. There is a question about the crossing of the old Welland Canal at Welland -- I guess it is called the Woodlawn Bridge. I understand the city of Welland has requested that the government exempt it from environmental hearings. One of the reasons is that the region has done some environmental studies in this area. But sometimes the delay in having these hearings can be rather costly to the taxpayers in the region and throughout Ontario. These hearings may take months and months and years. By the time one calls a contract, the price has doubled. This should be taken into consideration.

There are those who may complain about the environmental issues, and facts that may cause some problems, but if anybody drives a car, regardless of where it is, he is causing environmental problems. People who complain seem to forget that as long as they come by car to complain at a hearing, they are driving a vehicle that is causing many of the serious environmental problems across the province.

I am concerned about the bridge. It has been a long time on the drawing board. One of the main concerns is that eventually it is going to be hooked up to the southern peninsula, that is, the city of Port Colborne, which has a pretty heavy industrial base. The sooner we can get this Woodlawn Bridge built the better. It may be a tripartite agreement and funded by the region, by MTC and the federal government. I think there is an urgent need to complete this connecting link to the Queen Elizabeth Way so that people in the trucking and in the manufacturing sector have another direct route to move their goods to Toronto and beyond.

As much as I travel the Queen Elizabeth Way, I am beginning to find it is one of the most dangerous stretches of superhighways in Ontario. I think there will be more of an effort in that area to encourage motorists -- people who are travelling to Toronto for employment, or from Toronto to other places such as Oakville -- to use the public transit system.

I still see day by day only one person per car. If one comes in at 7:30 in the morning, 8 o'clock, or 8:30, traffic is backed up right to Oakville.

11:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, if the member would try coming in at 6:30 every morning when I come in, he would have no problem.

Mr. Haggerty: But that is time and a half for the minister. I do not have a Big Blue Machine to pick me up. When one is being driven, half the work load is taken off. I know it is becoming a serious problem and I am sure the minister must use Highway 5 at times because of the heavy traffic on the Queen Elizabeth Way. That takes him right to his back door.

I suggest it is getting to be quite a congested highway and there will have to be major improvements in that area, or major improvement in the public transit system so these people could use that, or there should be other methods to generate more revenue if those persons want to drive a single vehicle because it is causing problems there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We could raise the ad valorem tax.

Mr. Haggerty: No. I think there are problems now that the $5 fee was raised on wrecked automobiles or junkers or whatever you may call them. I think there are many wreckers, recycling industries, the small businessmen in this area, who are not too happy with that proposed $5 fee for the transfer of a car going to the junkyard or the scrapyard. There is a little bit of flak on that.

Mr. Cunningham: They will not be coming to your dinner.

Mr. Haggerty: No, I guess not, but I suppose that is the way he is going to get that extra revenue. He is going to lower our automobile licence to $45 or --

The Deputy Chairman: I would ask the member to state a question on the subject.

Mr. Haggerty: It relates to construction. This is where the ministry generates its revenue to build all this road work. I suggest there are problems there and hopefully they will do something to speed up that Woodlawn Road bridge crossing at Welland to connect Highway 406 to the southern part of the peninsula. It is needed and long overdue.

The Deputy Chairman: I have difficulty in trying to keep everyone on topic. I hope this long question does pertain to the estimates. Otherwise, I would say it is not necessary to answer it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would say the first part of the question related in some way to design and part of the supplementary estimate is for design. Part of it is for property acquisition, and I am sure there is property acquisition involved in Highway 406. I understand the member's interest in getting Highway 406 completed. I have a similar interest but I also have to consider getting it completed in a way that can be used. There is no use jumping back and forward from one end to the other, spending money and putting it in places where no one can drive vehicles.

We are proceeding in a rational way. Because of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development funding made available to me last year, for this year and for the next three years, we have been able to accelerate the construction. I believe we have four contracts under way right at this moment on Highway 406 in St. Catharines. I cannot give total dollar value right off the top of my head, but one of them is a $12-million bridge. I believe the other $7-million or $8-million contract was awarded last fall, so there is a lot of money being spent on the four contracts under way now. This fiscal year there will be approximately another four contracts awarded on Highway 406. No one can say that we are not putting emphasis on the completion of Highway 406.

The member referred to Woodlawn Road. I know the city of Welland would like to have had that built yesterday. We have met, we have made the commitment, we are doing the plans, we are doing the environmental assessment and we have time to do the environmental assessment and submit it. Although they have sent me a resolution asking me to request an exemption, I am not about to do that at this time because I do not have any money to start it tomorrow when the money is committed to other jobs.

The member made a suggestion about parking lots for automobiles at the intersections. We are doing this. In our program last year we built eight or nine commuter parking lots at various locations. We will be building more in our program in 1982 which we can discuss when we get into our new estimates, which I hope to be doing very soon, as soon as they are tabled.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I will try to stay on topic. Very briefly, I would like to know what kind of progress is being made on Highway 402 and when does the minister anticipate that project will be completed?

Second, has the minister or his ministry ever considered a policy of signing townships on major provincial highways in the same fashion that counties are signed? If this would be too onerous or too expensive, would he consider a temporary sign for this year for the township of Biddulph in Middlesex county? My reason for requesting this -- not only myself but some of the municipal officials have asked if it would be possible -- is that this year we are having a great event there. I certainly want to welcome the minister to this event.

An hon. member: Jack is retiring.

Hon. Mr. Snow: What is it, a Liberal picnic?

Mr. Riddell: No, it is not. Something on the same scale maybe. The International Plowing Match is being held in Middlesex county, the township of Biddulph. Some of the municipal officials wondered if it would be possible to sign Biddulph township on the major provincial routes leading into that township with the same kind of sign that would be used to sign a county on the provincial highways.

I wonder if the minister would give that consideration. Some parts of rural Ontario are not particularly blessed with large, urban centres and yet the people living there are tremendously proud of the townships in which they live. They feel they are somewhat discriminated against when they drive along and they see a nice big sign denoting a city with a population of so much and yet for the townships -- and by far the largest part of the population lives out in the rural areas in the townships -- there is no denoting of any kind as to what part of the province people are driving through.

If the minister could not sign townships, could he at least consider putting nice, large, temporary signs denoting Biddulph township on the major routes leading into that township, for that great event, the 1982 International Plowing Match?

Mr. Nixon: Is that not where the Black Donnellys come from?

Mr. Riddell: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I will take a look at that. We do not sign the townships on the highways because so many of the highways run through so many townships in sequence, I do not think people would really keep track of them. There would be a great proliferation of additional signs on our highways which I really do not think would be that meaningful. I am very proud of our former township of Esquesing, as well. It has disappeared off the map now, but it was a very fine township; still is.

With regard to Highway 402, we have one more contract to award on that job, I believe. The last grading contract is almost completed. There is a little bit of work to do this spring. One paving contract has already been awarded this winter and there is one more paving contract to be called. I think it is going to be called very early this spring, as soon as we have a little better timing on when this bit of grading will be finished. Unless something drastic happens, we hope everything will be finished and the highway will be open this fall, probably in November or something like that.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two issues with the minister and ask him to reply to those issues I do raise. In the first instance, the minister's legislation is going to prevent individuals from parking along the side of the expressways.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the Highway Traffic Act has nothing to do with these estimates.

Mr. Newman: I am not saying they do include it. The minister has not even waited a minute to find out what I am going to tell him. Maybe I have a bit of intelligence and I could give the minister a good idea. Does he not want it? Or is he going to be --

The Deputy Chairman: As long as your question pertains to the estimates, we would certainly like to hear it.

Mr. Newman: Other members have stood in their places in this House and rambled and rambled. The minister never mentioned to them that the issues they were raising had nothing to do with it. I am talking about Highway 401 and the fact that the ministry is going to prevent parking along the side of the highway.

12 noon

The suggestion I want to make to the minister is: If the distance between two service centres is more than nature will allow for a person to control himself, then perhaps there is going to be a need for comfort stations where the distances between centres are fairly substantial. That is one of the suggestions. I do not care whether the minister does it or not, but I think it is something that should be given consideration.

The next question I want to raise with the minister is the timing of the E.C. Row expressway. He is aware of the extent of the construction, and the length already open. It is four lanes for some distance within the municipality, and it is really appreciated. It has been a real asset and a help for the east-west movement of traffic.

If it is possible, we would like the minister to extend that especially in the westerly direction where he eventually intends to complete its construction up to Highway 18. I would like to know if the minister is proceeding with the purchase of property, and what timetable he has for completing the westerly direction into Highway 18? Can we expect it to be done within a reasonable period of time?

The third issue I would like to mention is that since the city of Windsor is one of the main points of entrance into Canada, it would be nice for those coming out of the tunnel and entering Canada for the first time to be faced with a nice sign from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications welcoming them to Ontario. May I have the minister's reply?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, I must say I do not go to Windsor that often to observe the sign. If there is not a welcome-Ontario sign at the entrance coming in to Windsor -- as far as I know there is a tourist information centre there --

Mr. Newman: No, there is a Kentucky fried chicken sign.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In any case, Kentucky fried chicken is not bad if one is in the chicken business. I would have to speak to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) who is responsible for that type of signing and who would work with my ministry. We will probably put the sign up for them or arrange for the structures. As I say, I have not come through that tunnel for about 25 or 30 years so if there is not a sign there I agree with the member there should be. But I am not the right one to be asking for it.

The E.C. Row -- I am somewhat confused at the question there because that highway is under construction. The contract was awarded last fall. The only thing I have in my book is $30,000 in 1982 or 1983 for landscaping which is carried out the year after the highway is constructed. The contract was announced by the local members down there; maybe it does not hit the member's particular riding. Certainly, we were notified and press releases were sent out. The member must have somehow missed it.

Mr. Newman: It was completed in my riding but it stops at Huron Church Road.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It stops at Huron Church Road and the contract is awarded from Huron Church Road to Highway 18, on a stage basis for two lanes only.

Mr. Newman: The minister has not purchased the property yet.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If we have not purchased the property there is something wrong. We do not award contracts until the property is purchased. What is he trying to tell me? The contract is awarded.

Mr. Newman: I have been dealing with an individual through a lawyer who is still dickering with the minister's department as to the price of the property. The minister's officials are snowing him.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect, if that is the way you want to act, then be irresponsible. The job is awarded. Contracts are not awarded until property clearance is received and the property clearance could mean the property is under expropriation. Under expropriation, we would have paid the man or woman what we offered him or her if he or she would accept the cheque.

It might be God only knows how long before they get the thing into court, into the Land Compensation Board to settle it. Until it goes to the Land Compensation Board, we continue negotiations. We do not move in and start building highways on people's property without settling it and I do not like you making the inference that we do.

Mr. Newman: What is your target date?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The contract is awarded. It is not that big a contract. I forget, but it is about $5 million or $6 million. It is about a year's work. It will likely be finished this fall. I do not have the exact completion dates on every project with me today as I would have during my normal estimates.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to which the minister may be able to give us a response. Somewhere in that dark hinterland of Halton, Mississauga and Peel, there is a road which I understand is known roughly as the I ames Snow Memorial Parkway. It is sort of an epitaph in concrete which has been put into place --

The Deputy Chairman: I trust the honourable member is doing as do all the other honourable members and is tying the question into the supplementary estimates.

Mr. Cassidy: That is correct. The supplementary estimates are on construction, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister, what was the process through which the decision was taken to name that particular parkway and what was the involvement of his ministry and the minister himself in initiating, approving or being consulted on that decision?

The Deputy Chairman: I am concerned whether this does tie into the supplementary estimates but if the minister wants to respond --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will be glad to respond to that cheap shot. I have to tell the honourable member there was absolutely no involvement by my ministry and no involvement by myself in the naming of that new local road which intersects Highway 401. There were meetings with the town of Milton and with the region of Halton regarding the bypass and a decision was made that there would be a new interchange built at that location.

After those meetings, two or three weeks went by. I was somewhat surprised, very surprised to get a resolution from the town of Milton and a letter from the mayor stating that the Milton council had unanimously moved and passed a resolution asking that this local road -- it is not a provincial road -- be named the I ames Snow Parkway.

I replied and said that, as this would probably be a regional road or partially a regional road at some time, before I could give consideration to that I would have to know the feelings of the region of Halton. The Milton council and the mayor put forward a similar resolution at the regional level which passed unanimously.

After that took place, I agreed to have my name on that roadway, not so much my name but the Snow name because that roadway goes through the farm I was born on. It is the farm my father farmed during the Depression. It touches a farm owned by my uncle at the present time which was owned by my grandparents back in the late 1800s, and in two other locations the road touches other farm property I lived on as a boy.

The reason the name was picked was because of the involvement of the Snow family, of my father, my uncles and my grandparents, in this little area, the Scotch block. If the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) were here, he could confirm the actual location. That was the reason for the naming of that road.

Mr. Cassidy: What was the provincial contribution to the cost of the parkway? Which share was --

The Deputy Chairman: I am going to rule that question out of order on the basis that it does not have to do with the supplementary estimates.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity to review the policy of --

The Deputy Chairman: It is not. There are other opportunities to review the policy and we are reviewing the supplementary estimates.

12:10 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: That is correct. I do not know whether some portion of the cost was paid in the supplementary estimates or not. That is why I am asking.

The Deputy Chairman: The member must realize that road is completed. These estimates are for other projects, so I will not accept the question.

Mr. Cassidy: As you wish, Mr. Chairman. You can defend the minister; that is okay.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not accept that statement. I am saying the debate today deals with the supplementary estimates. I am not trying to show any favouritism nor give any priority to anything else. I am trying to keep the debate on topic. If any member wants to raise any question on supplementary estimates I, as the deputy chairman of this committee, will give that member the opportunity. If the questions are not on topic, I will try to rule them out of order and put him in a position where it is going to be understood.

If my position as deputy chairman is questioned, there are methods for the House to challenge that. It can be by that member with three or four other members joining him on it. We can take it back to the Speaker and have him rule on it outside of the committee.

Mr. Di Santo: I have a point of order. I think the government House leader admitted that since there are no explanatory notes attached to the supplementary estimates, there should be some flexibility on the part of the chairman. The same kind of incident happened last week when he interrupted me while a minister volunteered to answer the question. So if the minister is willing to answer the question raised by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I do not see why the chairman should prevent him from doing so.

The Deputy Chairman: I will take what the member has said under advisement.

Vote 2604 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

On vote 2802, college and adult education support program; item 2, provincial support for colleges of applied arts and technology:

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to be debated are additional grants for adult and apprenticeship training.

Under the Canada Manpower training program, institutional training is divided, as the members know, into two groups: adult training and apprenticeship training. Adult training students are referred to the colleges by the local Canada Employment and Immigration Commission offices and they attend full-time programs which vary in length from two weeks to 52 weeks. The students receive training in occupational skills and/or academic upgrading.

In the apprenticeship portion, students are referred to the colleges by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. They spend 90 per cent of their training time working on the job and they are paid for that by their employers. The remaining 10 per cent is in-school training which is required by the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act in the province.

We recover the cost of adult and apprenticeship training from the federal government. Each year, when we develop the estimates, it is not clear what the federal intentions related to this program will be. It is customary, therefore, to use the approximate level of actual spending for the previous year.

This year the estimate was $109.6 million and the supplementary estimate of $5.525 million is required to reflect the increased costs of providing training and the shift in federal priorities.

Mr. Conway: May I initially congratulate the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities. I have sat through most of the supplementary estimates, and although her statement was not perhaps the longest, it was by far the most helpful in speaking specifically to the vote at hand. I think she is to be congratulated for that.

The Deputy Chairman: It is my job to --

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I know only too well the diligence and vigour with which you apply yourself to the important role you have and I sometimes chide you for what I think are your shortcomings.

I feel I am very much in the presence of a Solomon and I will try to confine my remarks today to the subject at hand. But I am going to ask your indulgence, since this is the first opportunity I have had, in a formal parliamentary sense, to say to my friend the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), with whom I have had a very -- it is hard to describe the relationship --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Ambivalent.

Mr. Conway: -- I have had with the Minister of Education in this chamber. We seem, the minister and I, to bring out the very best in each other. I am sure that was part of my leader's observation when some days ago he asked me to assume these responsibilities as spokesman for higher education for the official opposition. I just want to say to the honourable minister that I look forward to a creative, constructive, kinetic dialogue in the days and months ahead.

Mr. Grande: You want to use your muscle, in other words.

Mr. Conway: I know the member for Oakwood will have much more to say about these matters in his remarks in the weeks ahead.

I do honestly look forward to the new responsibilities. I have taken less interest in these matters in previous years because I always felt there existed, in my mind at least, a certain conflict of interest. Being a student turned politician I did not feel I could easily or effectively speak to the public interest.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Would you classify yourself as an apprentice now?

Mr. Conway: Perhaps. I will leave the classification of myself and my contribution to more learned and more objective members of this House and elsewhere.

I am interested in pursuing the debate. Today the minister has brought us here to grant an additional appropriation of $5.525 million for the reasons she just stated. I wanted to quickly touch upon the matter by saying that just the night before last, I joined with her colleague, the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), and our federal member in Pembroke to participate in a forum sponsored by Algonquin College on the Pembroke campus. Its purpose was to discuss the role of the applied arts and technology colleges as far as these programs are concerned.

I thought we had a good discussion about the matter. I know the group would be delighted to have these supplementary appropriations drawn to their attention. I will see that it is done. I am sure the member for Renfrew South will communicate to my friend the minister that I said some rather nice things about her and the great and fierce battles she has fought, and in some ways won, in securing the 12.2 per cent funding increase for the fiscal year 1982-83. I am sure my friend, the member for Renfrew South, will be quick to report the very balanced, moderate and positive view I took on these matters.

I want to take this opportunity to communicate to the minister the view of the faculty and staff and community leaders in the Ottawa Valley about the fact that by all accounts on the principal calculation, provincial government funds have been slowed down in so far as the rates have increased over the past number of years. In the Ottawa Valley-Pembroke campus we have lost a very popular part of our forestry program, one that has a direct, immediate linkage into the manpower requirements of my home county and my home community. It concerns us a great deal that apparently as a result of years of Ontario provincial government underfunding, among other things, they have found themselves in a very difficult position. I define underfunding in this respect to be a significant slowdown in the rate of transfer to community colleges, transfers that were significantly less than the rate of inflation.

The result of that is the loss of a very important and positive woodsworker program that in our area has had a very important and positive link with the economy to which that program was designed in many ways to relate.

I would ask the minister to take my expression of concern on behalf of the woodsworker program, and the community college faculty and students at the Pembroke campus seriously. I would invite her to review that situation and to communicate to me privately or publicly, at a convenient time, what can be done to save that program, and what advice she can offer to the students who appeared at that faculty forum the other night to express community concern and frustration about the loss of part of a very important forestry program in a part of this province where forestry education has been very popular, and considered very effective.

12:20 p.m.

The board of directors at Algonquin College has let it be known that the woodsworker program will be suspended at the Pembroke campus effective at the end of this term, or for the fall 1982 term.

I want to say as well that this supplementary appropriation provides an opportunity for me to raise something with the minister that my colleague and friend from Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), raised the other day. I was thinking about this matter this morning as I was listening to the late leader of the New Democratic Party, the former member for Scarborough West --

Mr. Philip: The former leader.

Mr. Conway: The former leader; I accept entirely the advice and injunction of the member for Etobicoke. Mr. Stephen Lewis was being quoted at length on the morning radio about his views on post-secondary education. His thoughts reminded me of the review that was recently published by the Ontario Manpower Commission. I would be interested at another time -- because I realize that we have a limited amount of time today -- to share with members here today the incredibly worrisome direction indicated by that report. I am the first one to admit that manpower planning, particularly manpower projection, is a very imperfect science.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not a science.

Mr. Conway: I will accept that qualification. The other night the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) very aptly pointed to the nursing situation. I could not think of a better example because three or four years ago we were led to believe that we were going to have years of oversupply. Now, of course, we know that in some ways that is not at all the case.

I am assuming the current Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities, formerly the Minister of Labour, would believe the people of the Ontario Manpower Commission know what they are about. In my experience with the OMC, the previous chairperson, Mr. Pollock, was particularly positive. I had a feeling that he had a good grasp of what he was about, and had good people around him giving him advice. I read the manpower commission report and want to at least believe that they are probably, if not totally, accurate or tending in an accurate direction. This is not the only evidence we have before us because I can remember Professor Ted Harvey at the University of Toronto, four or five years ago when I was in his presence, talking about what we were looking at down the road in the 1980s, and we've had other studies as well.

But to be told by the OMC in the past couple of months that there is going to be an estimated shortfall of between 38,000 and 48,000 highly skilled workers by 1986, and an estimated shortfall of between 20,000 and 47,000 of the so-called lower skilled workers at a time when we are, by their projections, going to have an oversupply of between 150,000 and 180,000 white-collar service sector graduates, worries me a great deal. These would be people whose training would lead them into the so-called white-collar service sector employment areas. Certainly, that is the experience I am already encountering in my part of the province.

There are people coming out of schools of applied arts and technology, who have been trained for a host of those kinds of positions, and they find they are not going to be employed in any way.

I did not bring my files with me, but I will supply the minister with a couple of recent cases that have been brought to my attention. If she disputes the Ontario Manpower Commission's data, then that is her prerogative. I hope she is right and I am wrong, but the clear indication of the manpower commission's report is that there is going to be a very worrisome shortfall of the high and so-called "low skilled" manpower group.

At the same time, we are going to have a surfeit of between 150,000 and 180,000 people whose educational training will have qualified them for the so-called white-collar service sector area. There are not going to be jobs for them.

I reiterate that if the minister considers those data to be completely off base, then I am, like a number of other members, quite anxious and willing to hear what she has to say about that. There is very much a body of opinion which would support what the manpower commission is telling us.

I had the opportunity about two weeks ago of having a working lunch in Ottawa with a broad group of the high-tech industry in that part of the province. They were quick to point out their experience would very much confirm what the manpower commission report would indicate and conclude. They would be the first to say if they were here: "Yes, the Ontario government has done a number of things to help us along. But we have a lot more pressing and immediate requirements that we simply must get on with if we are as a province and as a country going to be able to capture a place in the world of this very advancing high technology."

It is my view that the social attitudes and social prejudice that were very pervasive when I was making that decision about future educational directions in the late sixties has changed a lot. There is no question, if one is to be honest with the world of the 1960s, that prejudice was everywhere in our secondary school system as I remember it.

If you wanted to pursue a career in the skilled trades, in the blue-collar industries of our area at least, there was something wrong with you. When I think about that now -- management has its share of responsibility to shoulder in this respect. In our own local industries, for example, the local lumber sector, there is this business of a 69-year-old millwright retiring. That might be one of the younger ones. A mission going off to New Brunswick in the hope of finding a 58-year-old replacement for that retiree is not uncommon.

The question I have to ask of our high schools and our community colleges is: Why has there not been a much more aggressive program at that educational level to draw together the industrial, business and labour leadership with the educational community? Accepting that there is a very important responsibility for vocational training -- not one that I see is entirely exclusive for the post-secondary system at all, but certainly there is that part of a mandate that I see as being very significant -- I wonder why there has not been a more vigorous linkage between those sectors and the 15- or 16- or 17-year-old Ontarian who is sitting in school thinking about a career. I think we have all done a poor job in that regard.

12:30 p.m.

One of the areas in this connection bothers me a great deal. It has to do with Ontario's commitment to nuclear power, a commitment that has been widely talked of by a number of leaders in this government. It is a commitment I happen to share and support, but that commitment was made over 20 years ago.

I well understand how it would have been necessary in the late 1950s to go offshore to get the highly skilled and the less skilled manpower to meet that requirement. That is an understandable concept and reality.

What I find much less understandable is why 20 years later we are still doing that. The minister might argue we are not doing it to the degree we did 10 or 20 years ago, but she knows and I know we are still doing it.

I have to ask myself, why is that? Are the high school kids in Huron, Brant, Oakwood and Willowdale being given every opportunity to understand what excellent opportunities exist in that area of high technology in this province? My suspicion is that we are not doing as much as we could or should be doing. It is true we are improving, but we are coming from a pretty lamentable base.

It is those kinds of questions that I hope this assembly, this government and this minister will apply themselves to more purposefully than has heretofore been the case.

I want to reiterate a point I made with respect to the public forum the other night in Pembroke. If this province is not able to have at the applied level of colleges and technical institutes within this sector a more reactive vocational training capacity than we have shown ourselves able to produce in years past, we are going to pay a high price.

It was not so long ago that the Ontario Economic Council said in a report to the government that it was its estimate that manufacturing by 1990 was going to account for 20 per cent -- not 30 per cent -- of the permanent jobs in the province. What that is going to mean, by my calculations, is that there will be 100,000 fewer jobs in Ontario by 1990 than we have previously enjoyed in that sector. By all accounts, the future is in the area of software and in related areas. We have to be able to adjust our vocational training capacity to meet those exciting new challenges.

In the town of Renfrew, we have a relatively new Westinghouse plant. It is probably a year and a half to two years old. It has a world product mandate, an exciting opportunity for the people of the province and of that region to participate in something very different from that which has normally been their opportunity and experience.

I was absolutely astonished to go through that plant and see the level of sophistication that is required to perform just about any function there. In discussion with the management and the labour leadership, I inquired as to our capacity to meet those requirements here and now. It is a very limited capacity.

Mitel Corp. has located in that same town with 700 jobs in that area of microelectronics. I know the pressures on the colleges and other educational facilities to meet those 700 positions opening probably within the next eight to 12 months are going to be very significant.

We have a local industrial training council, which has been working with a more reactive apprenticeship program, an excellent idea in my view and a good, strong step in the right direction, for which the government and the minister deserve some credit. I am quite prepared to grant that credit, but in so many cases these are isolated, tentative steps and I have the distinct impression that underneath the minister we have a panoply of planners whose commitment is very much to the realities of the 1960s and the 1970s. The minister nods her head vigorously in the negative.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am shaking it, not nodding it.

Mr. Conway: She is not nodding her head, but shaking it vigorously in the negative. I hope she is right, because those of us who are products of the educational system that the Premier (Mr. Davis) built find it very difficult to imagine how that mandarinate could ever organize itself to shake off the prejudice of that period and come back to a more realistic understanding of the world and of the economy in which we find ourselves.

In later days we will talk, the minister and I, about some of that past prejudice and how I think it has materially disadvantaged our opportunities --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why should we talk about prejudice? Why should we not talk about what we can do?

Mr. Conway: Indeed, we can and we will. But I am just sharing with the minister a suspicion that there are an awful lot of the planning people who are still tied into that old attitude.

I look forward to seeing not only examples of additional appropriation to this kind of program but, and I want to put the minister on notice that I hope that in her generous way she will be preparing a response to the Ontario Manpower Commission report, because I have the suspicion she does not believe too much of what it has reported. Again, it is only a suspicion, but I think I can imagine how she would dispute what is being recommended.

If it is the case that the minister does not believe that by 1986 we will be short 14,000 engineers and skilled technicians for the microelectronics sector on which so much of the hope of this province is being placed by, among others, the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, who now is the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), then I want her to tell me before too much longer how and why those figures are inadequate or incomplete. There are an awful lot of people out there who are wondering about that very situation and the capacity to meet that need.

For example, the other day it was raised to me by people in the community colleges and, in fact, one person in the university community, that by all accounts our co-operative program at the University of Waterloo is among the most popular and successful from the point of view of students and industry. I want to know why is it that we have but one of those programs? She nods her head.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At a university.

Mr. Conway: That is it exactly: at the university level, given the fact that we have this worrisome projection about engineering capacity and given the fact that not too many colleges offer a full engineering program, outside of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, which I believe is the only other institution beyond universities to do so.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I don't know what you mean by a full engineering program if we are talking engineering technology. There are many colleges in Ontario --

Mr. Conway: No. I am talking about the kind of engineering program that one would find, for example, at a university such as Waterloo. I may be wrong on this; I am quite new to this debate, and I am happy to be guided by the minister, who has never shied away from her infallibility in the past. You know, we Catholics taking these papal instructions like to know that the Pope is not alone in his claim.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have always demonstrated you share the Pope's position.

Mr. Conway: I have always enjoyed the minister's enthusiastic support of the principle of that doctrine of infallibility as it applies to her own ministerial performance; but that is not fair, Mr. Chairman.

I just have to wonder, for example, why our system has been so slow in developing those kinds of programs. Those are the kinds of questions that I look forward to debating with the Minister of Colleges and Universities in the days, weeks and, dare I say, years that lie ahead.

12:40 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to respond before we go on to the next speaker in rotation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will respond briefly, Mr. Chairman. It has been delightful to hear the maiden speech of the new critic for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), addressing items that have very little to do, or at the very most have a tangential relationship, with the item under discussion in these supplementary estimates.

Mr. McClellan: What is under discussion is what we discuss.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall be pleased to debate any number of these things, whatever he wishes to discuss, in the future. Certainly I would like to hear about any specific program which he feels requires review, because I shall ask the college for the rationale for their decision. That decision is made on the basis of criteria which have been established by the entire college system for relevance, popularity, the usefulness of the course and the kind of employability which the graduates have.

I remind the member that the rate of employment for college graduates is second only to that for university graduates in this province and that it is very much higher than it is for almost any other group. For those whose technology training is appropriate, and obviously the vast majority are within that group, they are employed with relative ease in a very short time after graduation from their programs. We make a very concerted effort to ensure that there is relevance between the programs offered and what is required in the community.

I was delighted to hear the member provide at least grudging congratulation for the whole concept of community industrial training councils, which I think are one of the major forces in bringing together educational institutions, work places, students and those who are involved in attempting to train them in the most appropriate way. We now have 61 of them, if I am not mistaken, in the province.

Mr. Chairman: He might have been a little off the topic, but he gets an A for keeping members attuned to the supplementary estimates.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I am only going to take a couple of minutes, and then I believe the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has more extensive remarks to make.

I want to share a few comments that are directly related to the vote but more specifically relate to Humber College, which is in my riding. I hope the minister will be able to answer some of the concerns in a specific way.

One of the major concerns I have is that we have approximately 1,300 more applications this year at Humber College than we had last year at this time. In fact, last year the total number of application was 17,600 for approximately 4,700 spaces. At this point there are 1,300 more applicants than there were at this time last year. There are only 5,000 spaces this year; so there are only 300 more spaces than last year, roughly speaking.

What I am trying to say is that there are still growing demands on our college. At this time of high unemployment, as President Wragg has said on so many occasions and before committees at which the minister was present, the community colleges are one of the greatest investments in providing people with an opportunity so they do not become unemployed and suffer some of the hardships so many people are suffering in the present recession.

Part of the problem also relates not just to the staffing and the amount of funds we have for the general operations for the present facilities but also to the space requirements at Humber. In fact, the president will be meeting the Council of Regents on April 21 to deal with that problem. I notice the amount available for capital expenditures was very small last year; I believe the figure was about $12 million out of total assets of the community colleges of about $1 billion.

In the case of Humber College, we are particularly disadvantaged in terms of space as compared with a good many other colleges. In fact, if we look at the number of square feet, Humber and Seneca, which are the two colleges serving my area and the Mississauga area, are extremely disadvantaged. I believe Seneca works out at 95 square feet per student enrolled, and Humber is 97 square feet per student enrolled. I believe they are the two lowest in the system.

What I am saying is that the west end and Mississauga colleges are not --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Seneca is in my riding, and that is not west Toronto.

Mr. McClellan: What have you got against west Toronto?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Nothing. But the college is in my riding.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry, but the aircraft industry, the whole Malton complex of skilled trades associated with the aircraft industry, which is equipped from those trades, is serviced by Seneca College, and therefore it is really the west end and the suburban end of Metro that are disadvantaged.

If we compare Seneca and Humber with Cambrian, we find that Cambrian has 200 square feet per student enrolled. Confederation has 215. And you do not just have to compare with the northern colleges; if you go into Niagara, you are talking about 130 square feet, and even George Brown is at least at 119.

We recently had a problem with one of the programs, and space was part of the motivation for phasing out the theatre arts program; and I recognize that some settlement has now been reached.

One of the interesting things we are trying to do, and it presents a whole series of questions that I think the minister should be looking into, is that President Wragg of Humber College will be meeting, I believe on Monday, with the Etobicoke Board of Education to see whether some space, or some co-ordination of space, can be loosened up there.

Now that may be a very positive thing, but surely what we need is to look at the cost. The moment you start using space off the central campus, your administrative costs increase. I really think there should be some studies by the ministry to look into the additional costs, how much they are, and whether that kind of use of space in some of the public high schools that are closing down is, in fact, a financial saving to the colleges. If it is not, what is the ministry going to do to supplement or to assist the community colleges with the additional costs incurred by using off-campus space in high schools and other places?

The other thing is, when we look at the high school system and at the boards of education, quite rightfully -- and I can understand their point of view -- they want to charge the going rate for their space, and this creates pressures on the community colleges. The argument the school boards would make would be, of course, if they did not charge a reasonable rate for the use of that space, then they would have to pass the additional costs on to the ratepayers.

Has the ministry looked into the cost benefits, if any, of the use of space in other buildings, such as high schools that are closing down or that do not have an adequate number of students?

Those are a few of the questions I hope the minister might care to address.

Mr. Chairman: What are we going to do? There are about 11 minutes left. Are you going to address those comments?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All at once?

Mr. Chairman: You are going to wait, in other words.

12:50 a.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I just want to join in this debate in the committee of supply very briefly to make a couple of comments about matters that were left standing when I left my previous critic role. They have been standing for some time. I have not seen any movement on them, and I just hope the minister might give us some indication in her reply.

I suppose the most important one is the Fisher report. The minister will remember the Fisher committee report came down many years ago.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The Fisher report has to do with universities. This vote is not under that.

Mr. Wrye: We are doing Colleges and Universities, are we not?

Mr. Chairman: I know, but the problem is that under the supplementary estimates --

Mr. Wrye: Let me talk about it in its broadest general scope. The minister has on her desk a series of reports to which she has said in the fullness of time she will give an overall response. I hope the minister will indicate in her reply that she will be responding in short order to the whole list of reports, not the least of which is the report I am not allowed to refer to.

With that, I will bow to the minister.

Mr. Chairman: Very well manipulated, I must say.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to tell the member that it will be in the fullness of time.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to the minister before my colleague speaks. The minister quite rightly mentioned Seneca College as being in her area, but it does serve our area of the city, particularly in the aircraft industry. I understand a lot of its trades are taught at Seneca.

I am getting increasingly large numbers of people complaining to me about the tremendous number of layoffs in all the various aircraft-related industries. In the apprenticeship programs, I understand we now have somewhere in the vicinity of 70 per cent dropouts. Is that correct as historically being in that figure? Is it not that high?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not know precisely.

Mr. Philip: A young man called me today, and what he had to say related directly to some of the problems I have been hearing from some of the corporation people who have been calling and telling me about the problems they are having in their industry.

He was in an apprenticeship program in one of the aircraft-related trades and was laid off. He has spent three years out of a four- or five-year apprenticeship program, and now his question is: Where is he going from here? He called one of the other companies and they told him they might be able to offer him a job. They are not quite sure yet, but he would have to start his apprenticeship program all over again and he would have a three-year delay.

Is there no standardization whereby somebody can carry that trade from one to the other? Is the minister getting reports like that from companies? What percentage of the people who are dropping out are related to layoffs in the industry and the present high unemployment situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot give any precise information about percentages, because I think that would be extremely difficult to determine.

In situations in the past in which individuals within a specific apprenticeship program were laid off, making contact with their apprenticeship counsellor is a useful route to finding an appropriate alternative training program or placement to continue the same apprenticeship program.

There is no question in my mind that the suggestion that they would have to start all over again from square one is an inaccurate statement unless that individual was going to change the kind of skills training he was involved in.

Our commitment within the ministry to the whole concept of skills training is reflected very clearly in the restructuring of the ministry. It has produced a specific division that brings together all skills training development, that which is under the apprenticeship program and employer-sponsored training, that which is related to the linkage program and the function of the community industrial training councils. College activities related to skills training development are now all within one area of the ministry so they can be co-ordinated.

That is now a division within the ministry which is of equal importance to Colleges and Universities and Education. I think that is a very important concept to understand.

We shall pursue that activity, because in the past there has been too much fragmentation of skills development. This has led to the concepts which the member was suggesting were out there. We are looking at skills development as a continuum. Indeed, not all people need to reach the journeyman level to be adequately or appropriately employed if that is their choice.

We would like to see ways in which the doors were open for those individuals who have not reached that level to achieve it if they stopped at one point and then decided they would like to go on. That is the basis of all our discussions and all our activities related to skills development.

In the area of the space problem which the member was raising, we have vigorously encouraged the colleges of applied arts and technology to utilize whatever available, appropriate space there might be within the community and specifically looking at the elementary-secondary system, where appropriate space may be available relatively easily.

This is on the basis that there is a real demographic drop coming in terms of the college system, probably more so than related to the university system, although I do not believe it will be quite as dramatic as was originally detailed for us. It is possible that in some areas of the province, although maybe not in Metropolitan Toronto where the catchment area provides the vast majority of the students, there will be some significant decline in enrolment.

In addition, we have been looking carefully at the entire college system, attempting to determine whether it is appropriate that each college should attempt to provide the skills training courses for which there may be a small number of applicants or students within an area when it might be more appropriately provided in another college for a larger group of students, and whether that might not be a more sensible and economic use of the funds that are made available for that kind of training.

We are continuing that examination at this point. The Council of Regents is also looking at it. When President Wragg goes to the Council of Regents, I am sure he will be having discussions about the utilization of appropriate space.

In addition to the increase for the colleges this year, which is significant, we have recognized yet another increase for this year which the member neglected to mention. It is an additional one per cent in recognition of the increased enrolment at the college level which will provide some flexibility for some of the colleges where enrolment demand has been significantly higher than on average.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Fish): Members of the committee, in consideration of the hour, I think it would be appropriate to adjourn the debate at this time.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate to the House that since the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in committee of supply were not completed today, we will begin with those estimates on Monday in committee of supply and then move on to the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. If any time still remains, I guess we will proceed with the throne speech debate.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

2 avril 1982