Journal des débats 1982-avril-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

In last Thursday afternoon's debate, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) stated: "When the Oshawa plant layoffs finally take effect, when that second shift ultimately takes effect, there will be some 5,000 people who will be eliminated from jobs. This is very disturbing, although I have to say that while the figures have reached these proportions, they are substantially below the 11,700 people we had laid off in the automobile industry in July 1980."

Research from the United Auto Workers union over the weekend indicates that the minister's facts were a little out of whack. I want to read into the record the statement that the United Auto Workers union figures show that as of mid-January there were 18,000 workers from the auto assembly and auto parts sector on indefinite layoff. Once General Motors layoffs take place in Oshawa the total will be close to 20,000. The above figures do not include 9,000 workers who have disappeared from official statistics because they have lost recall rights and are no longer classed as laid off.

I know the minister would not want to mislead the House. Perhaps he just forgot about those people.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CONTINUING EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is as Minister of Education that I rise at this point.

The general legislative grants regulation for 1982 was sent to all school boards today. The regulation will enable school boards to finalize their budgets for 1982. The regulation includes changes to the funding of continuing education which will be in effect from September 1982 and will achieve compatibility in continuing education funding for the universities, colleges and school boards. I intend to release a draft policy statement on continuing education shortly, which will outline the role of the ministries of Education and Colleges and Universities in the field of continuing education. In February of 1981, we released a paper entitled Continuing Education: The Third System, and between February and September adult educators, administrators, trustees and other interested individuals and groups responded to the paper through briefs and letters.

The draft policy statement which will be released will reflect the views expressed in the responses to that paper as well as consultation with other ministries of government involved in continuing education and the priorities within the limits of the financial resources available for education.

Through the general legislative grants regulation for 1982, the Ministry of Education will continue to fund the heritage languages program, driver education programs, credit courses and adult basic education programs. The latter group includes education in adult basic literacy and numeracy, citizenship and language instruction for landed immigrants, and English as a second language for adults. I believe there is a need to strengthen and extend programs in the area of adult basic education and that school boards have the major responsibility in ensuring these needs are met.

In addition, a per pupil amount will be made available to school boards to assist in the provision of programs not mentioned above, to reflect the cost of cultural and recreational programs developed co-operatively with community groups such as folk arts councils and to help offset the cost to school boards of making their school facilities available to community groups. The per pupil amount for 1982 for the September to December period will be $2 elementary and $6 secondary and will be multiplied by all the resident-internal day pupils of the board.

There will be no direct provincial funding from the Ministry of Education for general interest activities effective September 1982. It is anticipated that other community groups will provide these cultural and recreational programs, or that school boards will provide the programs on a cost recovery basis or bear the cost locally through the local mill rate.

Continuing education makes a significant contribution to Ontario's social and economic development. Educational institutions, community groups, employers, trade unions and government agencies provide a wide range of programs and services. Within the Ontario government, in addition to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, a number of ministries are involved with the provision of continuing education.

The Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation both have a particular role in the provision of recreational and cultural learning opportunities. Through full consultation and co-ordination on the part of all the ministries concerned, we will ensure that Ontario remains a rich learning environment containing many opportunities for lifetime learning.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BILD PROGRAM

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chairman of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development (Mr. F. S. Miller), perhaps I will direct a question to the vice-chairman, if I may.

Is the vice-chairman aware that in the recent pre-budget submission to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Ontario Chamber of Commerce said it was "somewhat skeptical about the need for some of the BILD projects that have been initiated." Given that the chamber of commerce is the largest and most representative business association in the province, and given the fact it is casting aspersions on his program, especially when we are experiencing extreme economic difficulties in this province, is the vice-chairman prepared to admit that his program is perhaps a failure in terms of attracting business support?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: Is the vice-chairman aware that the Ontario Economic Council says the BILD program needs "rationalization on economic efficiency grounds"? I am sure the vice-chairman is aware that means they do not feel the province is getting what it is paying for. Given this, what steps is he going to take to make this program more acceptable to some of these organizations, so they will at least understand what he is doing, and to justify this expenditure of taxpayers' money?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If the honourable member followed the BILD program and the different projects, I am sure he would see it has been a complete success.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, speaking of successful programs, how would the minister categorize the election promise in the BILD program about moving the stockyards, on which he subsequently had a study and decided to wash out? Is that the nature of the kind of success he has achieved?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member has read the BILD program, if he read the Premier's (Mr. Davis) speech, he would see it was a study on the possibility of moving the stockyards. We completed the study, and I am sure the member is well aware of what the study suggested.

Mr. Peterson: Let me try again, if I may. The minister is aware that the chairman of Leigh Instruments Ltd. of Ottawa said the financial commitment of $750 million over five years for BILD is only nine tenths of one per cent of the provincial budget, and this commitment to industrial restructuring is "not of heroic proportions." The minister realizes that he earns more revenue from lottery proceeds than he spends on BILD in one year. Does he believe this money, this appropriation, is seriously going to go towards restructuring the economy of this province?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he would look at the BILD projects, if he would go out in the communities and see the good they have done, he would not question them. He would be really happy.

Mr. Peterson: That is in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, I have learned never to ask the minister another question about the BILD program. I am sorry I did in the first place.

Mr. Nixon: I was impressed that he knew he was vice-chairman.

Mr. Peterson: I actually thought we were going to catch him up on that.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of the Environment? When we asked him on March 18 about the Ontario Hydro-General Public Utilities electrical energy export contract he said: "... we will be giving full and thorough consideration to all environmental aspects of the project and will impose whatever measures may be indicated in order to ensure . . . that if the project is approved any export of power pursuant to such a contract would be a clean export and would not have any significant impact on the Ontario environment."

I would like to ask the minister if the GPU contract is approved by the National Energy Board and the federal cabinet without conditions, would he state unequivocally what conditions he will impose on Ontario Hydro to minimize the effects of acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would do that at the appropriate time. I think it is premature at this stage.

Mr. Peterson: Why is it premature at this stage that the minister would be involved, particularly since he has conveniently decided to opt himself and his ministry out of all discussions on that question? Would he now commit himself to a public hearing, at least, so it will not be decided in private, or in camera, between him and his cronies?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Me and my cronies? I am not sure how inclusive that term is. Maybe I should ask the member to define it.

The reason I view the question as premature, or at least any answer that I might give at this point to be premature, is because the very matter is something which is under close examination at present. To ask me to state unequivocally, or whatever the wording of the member's question was, as to what any conditions might be, would be premature until that examination is complete.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are a fairly substantial number of citizens' groups in this province that are concerned about that particular proposal, and all of those groups have been writing to him, myself and others expressing the concern they have about their inability to have effective input into the NEB hearings, is the minister prepared to ensure that those groups end up with some forum where their environmental concerns can be publicly aired?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can think of some groups who might be expressing the concern that was reflected in the member's question, although I find it rather difficult to accept that some of the groups saying that really mean it when they made no effort, or chose not to participate in the NEB hearings. I think it has been alleged by them that it was some means of protest. If one is going to protest by not participating in any hearing, that is not something I can correct.

Mr. Peterson: Obviously a major part of the environmental process -- even enshrined in the government's own legislation -- is to have an open hearing so all groups can participate in the decision. Why will the minister not at least commit himself to an open public hearing of this? Who mugged him in the corridors of power before he was able to make his decision?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have not heretofore been, and I do not expect hereafter to be, mugged in the corridors of power.

An hon. member: It happens a lot of times and you do not know it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Is that right?

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Early this morning, my leader released some documents pertaining to Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd. I believe the Solicitor General has been supplied with a copy of that documentation. It raises profound questions about invasion of privacy and individual civil liberties. It also raises serious questions about the legality of some of Securicor's practices.

Is the Solicitor General prepared to order a public inquiry, with full power of subpoena, into the activities of this company?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Provincial Police has had an ongoing investigation as to some activities of Securicor. That investigation is not yet complete. When it has been completed, if there are any situations that prove charges or licence suspensions should be made, then they will take place.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister not believe that some of the practices followed by Securicor -- such as undercover probes where an investigator poses as a regular client employee, or entering into an employee's residence to verify necessary information, or reporting daily on an undercover basis on plant morale and union activities -- actually necessitate an inquiry which would compel witnesses to come and documents to be presented? Does the minister not agree that we simply cannot tolerate a company conducting itself in this manner?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Some of the wording and content in the literature put out by Securicor does offend me. I feel it offends some of our civil rights. Should that prove so, the licensing aspect of that operation will be considered for suspension. If there is evidence the activities of Securicor do offend and transgress some of the criminal laws in the province, I am sure the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the crown attorneys will be submitting charges to proceed against that corporation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks after the OPP investigation was known to the Steelworkers, the union itself still had not been contacted by the police. The Solicitor General must be aware the OPP investigation into Automotive Hardware Ltd. is just a narrow individual investigation into one specific case. Why is the minister not prepared to investigate, by way of public inquiry, the activities of this company in many other labour disputes and to determine the legitimacy of its activities?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a public inquiry is warranted at this time. I have, however, asked the Ontario Provincial Police to extend its investigation. I feel the strikes Securicor has been involved with have been ones of a more contentious nature with a little more lively activity on the picket line than is warranted. I have asked the OPP to direct the investigation along that line.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister will recall that last Monday I raised the question of Wilco Canada Inc. and the failure of the ministry to prosecute. On Tuesday, I raised the question of Rothsay Concentrates Co. Ltd. and again -- to my knowledge at least -- the minister has not laid charges.

2:20 p.m.

Today I want to ask the minister another question about a failure to prosecute a company. In this instance the minister is fully aware of the details of the Inco IPC plant in Sudbury, where on December 9, 1981, four employees were threatened with the loss of their jobs because they invoked section 23 of the act.

When the minister knows full well that section 24 of the act has been violated and the workers have been intimidated, why is he not prepared to prosecute that company?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under advisement and study at this time.

Mr. Martel: I am glad it is under advisement. The minister will recall that he stated in a letter to me, dated March 18, "It is the conclusion of the mining health and safety branch that the company did threaten the four workers with disciplinary action on December 9, 1981, for what the company felt was a refusal to do assigned work."

Having conducted the investigation and determined that workers' rights have been violated, why is the minister trying to leave it up to the workers to lay the charge rather than the minister responsible bringing down the power of that act against Inco?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not trying to leave it up to the workers. The very concerns that were raised in the letter from the member for Sudbury East caused me to continue the investigation after I had responded to his letter.

Mr. Martel: I find the minister's answer strange, in view of the fact he states in his letter to me, "Each complainant will be instructed that he may, under subsection 24(2) of our Act, pursue this matter further if he wishes to do so." That is the minister's letter saying it is up to the employees. Is the minister going to prosecute or not?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I can only repeat what I said before. The nature of the letter from the member for Sudbury East caused me to have second thoughts on the whole matter and that is the reason I have been looking into it further.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has the answer to a question asked previously.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Sudbury East asked a series of questions concerning an accident which occurred at Rothsay Concentrates Ltd. I have looked into this matter and I want to briefly set out a list of events in this ministry's involvement to date.

On January 19, 1982, an employee was injured while cleaning out a machine in a feather pit area. The ministry was notified of this accident and also advised that the joint health and safety committee at the plant had identified the cause of the accident. On the basis of this information, the ministry official involved concluded that an examination of the work area could await the routine inspection which had been scheduled for the following week.

I personally believe the prudent course would have been for the accident to be investigated immediately and I have so advised my officials. In any event, the inspection took place January 26 in the presence of members of the joint health and safety committee. Particular attention was paid to the area in which the accident happened. The inspector reviewed the equipment's lockout procedure with the committee. I am informed there was agreement that the machine could continue to operate.

However, around midnight on January 27, the ministry inspector was informed of a refusal to work at the plant and he proceeded immediately to the site. The refusal related to a certain employee's belief that the feather pit machine was unsafe. Following an assessment of the situation, the inspector ordered the machine out of service.

In his remarks the other day the member referred to 72 orders being issued against the company. Last Friday, April 2, the ministry conducted a follow-up inspection, which was actually a second and third follow-up inspection. I understand that all but one order issued January 26, 1982, have been complied with. The one outstanding order will be complied with by April 14.

Mr. Martel: Can I ask the minister if he could verify if the inspector, the production manager and plant manager threatened the employee refusing to work on the second occasion with an illegal work stoppage; whether the company sent false information regarding the claim that it had fixed up all these items at the beginning of March; and, finally, whether the director of operations, Mr. Malta, threatened the union president with dismissal if another work stoppage occurred?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not aware of those points.

AIRPORT TAXI SERVICE

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have the task of conveying the greetings of the Toronto taxi drivers to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is surely aware that there has just been a demonstration outside this Legislature.

When will the minister act to remove the injustice to which Toronto taxi drivers are subjected? They cannot pick up any passengers in Mississauga, or for that matter any other part of the municipality outside Toronto, or at the airport.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, some time ago we had discussions with the cab owners' associations of Metro Toronto and Mississauga. Over the last period of time, we have been reviewing with a number of outside groups ways in which we might resolve the difficulty or the impasse that appears to exist between those two organizations in relation to the cab facilities being operated at the Toronto International Airport.

The member for Parkdale is fully aware of the fact that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been reviewing this situation. Indeed, we had a brief some months ago from Mississauga, and we have asked for further clarification from that community in relation to the brief.

Secondly, we have set up a series of meetings; these meetings will include people from the international airport authority to try to get their views on ways in which they might assist in the difficulties. We will be meeting the authorities in the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission and their political people. We will be meeting members from Mississauga council and the licensing people there. We have clearly indicated to the cab operators and owners that we will meet with them in due course. They have all been made aware of the actual scheduling of these meetings. We hope we will find some degree of flexibility with all these parties that might bring some solution to the problem.

Mr. Ruprecht: The president of the association is in the gallery and heard the minister. I have a letter in which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) made a promise to the taxi association, and that promise is very clear; namely, to write legislation this spring to overcome these injustices. The question is simple: how long will the taxi drivers' association have to wait simply to get some justice from this government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said very clearly in a letter to the cab operators and to the municipal politicians, both in Metro and Mississauga, that the ministry will work to try to find some solution to the problem. As soon as we have concluded the meetings, we will hope to find a positive answer. I do not intend to be brought into the debate today other than to say that when the meetings are concluded, I hope we will find some answer to the situation. I am not trying to prejudge them at this point.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem; it has been dragging on for several years. Why is it that some cab company with one cab hundreds of miles from here can have an operating authority out of that airport, while cabs that are legitimately operating in the Mississauga-Peel-Toronto area have trouble getting that kind of authority?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Etobicoke will recall very clearly that this issue started about 1978 in trying to resolve a problem of the federal authority. Let us keep it very clear; we are on federal --

An hon. member: We knew you would get around to that sooner or later.

Mr. Bradley: Blame the feds.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the airport happens to be on federally owned land and is directed by a federal authority. The honourable member will recall that back about 1978, through an offer of help from the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), the Ontario Highway Transport Board tried to resolve the problem. The board issued 300 licences on a first-come, first-served basis; they were not allocated by municipality or percentage of rides and soon -- which might have been a mistake. The fact is, that is the way it was dealt with back in 1978 by the Ontario Highway Transport Board, and I guess it has caused some degree of confusion or complication since then. We would like to find an answer.

2:30 p.m.

These grand displays are not going to resolve the problem. We have established the dates for these meetings and we have said very clearly that we would like to find some solution. I am not offering any encouragement at this time, one way or the other, other than to say that I do seek the support of the federal agency, which will have a part to play in this program or whatever solution we find to it. Indeed, we will have to find some degree of support from Metro and Mississauga as well as the private owners to find a workable solution.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Snow: A point of order.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Or a point of privilege, whatever; I want to clarify one matter. I do not usually disagree with my friend and colleague the minister, but neither the Minister of Transportation and Communications nor the Ontario Highway Transport Board issued the 300-odd licences. The 300-odd licences were issued by the federal Department of Transport.

Our involvement as a ministry was that we met and we worked with the federal Minister of Transport at that time in dealing with this problem. It was agreed that the services of the Ontario Highway Transport Board would be made available to hold hearings into application for licences. The licences would then be issued by the federal Department of Transport as airport operating licences to operate taxis to pick up passengers at the airport as well as dealing with the limousines that pick up passengers at the airport. But it was the federal Department of Transport which issued the licences; the Ontario Highway Transport Board held the hearings and issued certificates for more cars than the federal Department of Transport licensed. They made the decision as to who got the cars.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing doesn't know what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that was for clarification purposes to correct a statement the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had made. Rather than enter into a debate, I will recognize the member for Windsor-Riverside.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

The Premier must be aware that over the weekend the press has reported that 120 workers were laid off at Fahramet Ltd. in Orillia; that Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie is intending to temporarily shut down its steelworks, affecting about 4,000 workers over and above the 1,500 who have already been laid off; and that 155 jobs at Sunflight have disappeared, as have 150 jobs at SCM in Scarborough, 98 jobs at Biltmore in Guelph, 34 jobs at Gates in Brantford, 21 jobs at GSW in Fergus, 90 jobs at Inco, 250 more jobs at General Motors and 70 at T. G. Gale Ltd. in Oshawa. That is in one weekend.

What is this government going to do to start creating jobs in this province and, specifically, is this government prepared to introduce a community adjustment fund to assist communities like Brantford that have been hard hit by layoffs to get direct payments to workers who are on layoff as well as to restructure the local economies to create jobs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather long question that would normally involve a lengthy answer, but I will suggest to the honourable member that the Treasurer has answered a similar question prior to this, as have I. The Treasurer indicated that he is contemplating, within his budget, certain things.

I also wish to seize the occasion to remind the member of the many positive things this government has done with respect to the economic situation. I will not go through the list of the companies that the member referred to, but I think several of them referred once again to the auto sector -- not all of them but several.

Mr. Cooke: Very few.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, several. The member uses the word "several" depending on just how it fits the circumstances. For him, several is more than one --

Mr. Peterson: You don't do that, do you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, never. I say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), unlike himself, never.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He interjected something about fund-raising at the Liberal district meeting over the weekend, and I think that is what he was referring to. I made note of those remarks. It reminded me of just how contradictory they are to some things he said a week ago.

As they relate to the auto sector, we have had an occasion to discuss those issues. We had some discussions with Algoma; their situation relates partly to the international marketplace and partly to the uncertain conditions in western Canada, as the potential of one or two of the megaprojects is still up in the air, as well as the economic situation that generally prevails in North America, western Europe and many other situations.

It is fair to say that more than almost any other jurisdiction I can enumerate -- and if there are some doing a better job with respect to economic activity, I will be delighted to have suggestions -- with great respect, I think this government not only recognizes the economic difficulty but also, in those areas where we can achieve something, we have or are in the process of doing so.

Mr. Cooke: I might point out to the Premier that this province imports $3.3 billion worth of industrial machinery, $1.5 billion worth of office machinery and $1.3 billion worth of communications equipment, among many other imports. Why does this government not get serious about import replacement? These imports would represent 50,000 jobs in Ontario.

There are ways of creating jobs in Ontario. Why does the Premier not show leadership through an industrial strategy, rather than using a political strategy called the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, and create jobs for the people of Ontario in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the honourable member has been, but I challenge him to show me a jurisdiction in North America that has taken more leadership or initiative in terms of import replacement than this province, in terms of government procurement policy, in terms of advertising campaigns, in terms of forums --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly; health care products, the minister reminds me. I could go through the litany. The member will also find that in the current state of the economy the figures he has read as they relate to the latter part of 1981 and 1982 just will not hold up.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Premier can indicate what the province is doing for those workers in industries like the automotive industry who are not likely to be able to go back to their former jobs because the technology in that industry will have to change if Ontario and Canada are going to be competitive.

What is Ontario doing for those workers in terms of innovative retraining programs for the new technology that will be required, for which jobs very likely will be available in the next year or two?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would think the honourable member, more than most, would understand the answer to that question.

First, perhaps I am more optimistic than he is as to the numbers of people who are or were in the auto industry returning to the auto industry. There is no question that there will be some structural changes. No one argues that; no one disagrees with it. At the same time, when that industry regains its normal health, it will require a substantial number of employees. We all look forward to the day when the economy alters, when interest rates in the United States decline and when market conditions improve as they ultimately will.

As it relates to people who, because of technological change, are going to have some difficulty adjusting, whether in the auto sector or in any other sector, it is fair to state that the high-technology centres, the programs conducted by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, and particularly our community college system, and some but not all of the initiatives of the government of Canada, will put us in the forefront with respect to manpower training.

I do not know what the member means by the term "innovative." I am not nearly as expert in the educational field as he purports to be, but I do not think it is a question of innovation per se; it is a question of getting the people who can relate to the particular programs in the colleges or wherever, encouraging them to participate in these programs and getting some better definition from the industrial community as to what its manpower requirements are going to be six months, a year, two years down the road. One of the difficulties of any education system, as the member well knows in his academic expertise, is to acquire the knowledge that gives the educational community some definitive information as to exactly the kinds of people or the skills that will be required two or three years down the road.

2:40 p.m.

DIOXIN IN FISH

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Dioxin is in the same megapoison category as botulism and shellfish toxin and, with up to 2,130 pounds in dump sites used in 1960 by Hooker Chemicals, there is enough within leaching range of Lake Ontario and the Niagara River to wipe out nearly all of the population in the world.

The minister is no doubt aware that the dioxin data now released by him since last July have indicated an increasing trend in the water of the Niagara River. Given the seriousness of this trend and the known existence of dioxin in the Hyde Park dump, can he explain why his ministry has merely monitored dioxin data and trends in fish in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario, while citizens' groups such as Pollution Probe, Operation Clean and the Canadian Environmental Law Association have had to defend the environmental rights of Ontarians by participating in court hearings and questioning the remedial cleanup program of the world's largest dioxin dump? Where has the minister been while they were fighting his battle?

Mr. Haggerty: Las Vegas.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is one place I have never been, I can assure the member.

Mr. Speaker, without being able on the spot to confirm all of the preamble to the honourable member's question, for the purpose of answering the question I will at least accept it on the face of it in terms of the specific figures.

Yes, we have detected in this specific series of tests an increase in the level of dioxin in certain fish. I think it is also important to bear in mind that this is not necessarily viewed by the scientists as meaning a temporal increase, in other words, a longer-term increase over and above prior existing levels. In fact, there is still evidence that would indicate the level of dioxin in fish in the lake is probably considerably lower than it was a few years ago.

That does not change the import of the member's question, but I think it is important to bear in mind that the results of these tests are not inconsistent with a longer-term trend towards decline.

As to the suggestion that we have been inactive, I think it is important that the member give some credit for the role we have taken; perhaps not the specific role he would recommend but nevertheless an active role in communication with our American colleagues on this subject, not only during my tenure but also during the tenure of my predecessors.

We have also assisted financially the efforts of Ontario environmental parties that are interested and have taken an active role; more active in an interventionist sense on one specific occasion than we have.

It is also important that he bear in mind that, since late fall, we have embarked on a considerably more aggressive policy with regard to the Niagara River, which policy manifests itself in the establishment of a special group of scientists and technically expert individuals and the retaining of lawyers in the United States to represent our ministry in interventions on the American side in relation to permits that will be coming up for review in the relatively near future.

We have filed an intervention on the matter of the Niagara Falls, New York, waste water treatment plant, which is a major source of contamination on the American side. Through that intervention, we have requested a hearing. There may be others who have requested a hearing in this instance, I do not know, but to the best of my knowledge we were the first and may still be the only ones.

That is a course of action that I have indicated we will continue to pursue. We view the whole matter of the contamination of that river, or in some cases the potential contamination from the dump sites on the American side, as a very serious matter and we are pursuing it aggressively.

Mr. Speaker: May I have the co-operation of all the members in limiting their private conversations, please?

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware of the fact that Mr. Al Johnston, one of his dioxin experts, has told us that it is fine to do monitoring and look at trends but that we must make sure all actions are taken to remove the dioxin input?

Does the minister not agree that Mr. Johnston's stated concern about removing dioxin input completely contradicts his ministry's lack of action in the past? Why has the minister not taken Mr. Johnston's advice? What specific action will he be taking to ensure that the dioxin sources on the US side do not continue to leach towards the river?

Given the fact that the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself, through support for the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, is talking about containing and purifying the water for the Third World, I wonder whether the Premier and the deputy minister who is concerning himself with the Niagara River are going to put some pressure on the minister to get moving to protect the waterways of Ontario for all the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: There were three supplementaries there; you may answer one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will try to ignore the latter part. I thought the member was going to ask me if I thought the Premier was going to put pressure on me to clean up the Third World as well.

I think a fair construction of Mr. Johnston's remarks would be that he is speaking in support of the present policy of the ministry. If the member had taken the trouble to listen to my statement in the House on Thursday or even subsequently to read it over or have his researcher take a look at it, he would see that, among other things, I announced we would be retaining a hydrogeologist for the express purpose of addressing the specific hydrogeological characteristics of those sites we are aware of in the United States; to examine those in detail, along with the other technical staff who are associated with the Niagara River work group; to prepare proposals; and to prepare for interventions on any of the dump sites that may be a source of leaching into the Niagara River.

Although our indications are that the Hyde Park site is perhaps the most persistent source, there is a likelihood on the basis of our evidence that there may be at least a couple of other sources farther down the river.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, some of the delay in remedial action is due to litigation in the US courts. Will the minister confirm that this is so and explain the degree to which this impacts on remedial measures?

In the minister's discussions and correspondence with the American agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, New York state and so on, will he urge them to set aside any litigation, get on with the job of cleanup, presumably without prejudice in our legal terminology at least, and settle any court actions afterwards? Certainly the urgency is to get on with the job of cleanup.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the particularities of the American system are such that it does lend itself to considerable delays. The fact that almost any decision in the United States is subject to review and appeal in the courts has on occasion resulted in extended periods of review during which there has been relatively little action.

I am not sure that any suggestion from me or anyone else that the litigation be set aside would be very fruitful, because it is inherently a part of the American concept that almost any decision by government should be subject to review in the courts to ensure that the rights of any individual are not being abrogated. I can assure the member that we will not leave any stone unturned in our efforts to press the American jurisdictions involved to proceed forthwith.

2:50 p.m.

I think it is encouraging that the state of New York has now indicated on a number of occasions a growing concern and a willingness to proceed as quickly as possible. There are some indications that additional funds will be allocated, and Governor Carey has indicated a tightening up of standards which would make New York state standards even tighter than those of the Environmental Protection Agency. If he is prepared to follow through with that, it would mean a very significant step forward in the best interests of the people of New York and Ontario.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER LAYOFFS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour, although I suspect it could very well be directed at many of the Tory ministers.

Is the minister aware that within the last half hour the International Harvester company in Hamilton has announced to the union that as of May 31 more than 1,200 of the remaining less than 1,400 workers will be laid off until at least late in October? Does the minister have some answers for these workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that is very sad news indeed. This is the first indication I have had of it.

Mr. Mackenzie: If that is the first indication the minister has had of it, where is the Tory cabinet when it comes to what is happening to our industry in Ontario? Given the babbling we heard about our record at job creation from the Premier just a few moments ago, can the minister give us something specific to offer these workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: To clarify the record: This is the first indication I have had of the circumstances that happened this afternoon; it is not the first indication I have had of the difficulties being experienced not only by this plant but also by many other plants across this province.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. The minister will now be aware of the program of the government of Quebec to subsidize industry in that province by paying pay up to $3,500 per worker for as many as 15,000 unemployed youths. Given the urgent need for job creation in Ontario, particularly for youth, does the minister in conjunction with his cabinet colleagues have any plans for a similar program here in Ontario through his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech which was read to this House on March 9 indicated in excess of 30 job creation programs; many of them were related to youth. That stands as this government's intention in a general way for the future. When the budget ultimately comes down in due course, it will delineate specific programs.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister may be aware of the fact that the specific target of this program is the problem of "no experience, no job" for young people. Does the minister, again in conjunction with his cabinet colleagues and through his ministry, have any specific programs to deal with this problem, which is being experienced by many jurisdictions in this country and, I presume, in other countries? A sister province is dealing with it in a very particular way. Does this minister have any programs similar to this?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The honourable member well knows that thousands of Ontario youth have had the benefit of this kind of experience as provided through the government programs that are already established. I think to be suggesting that the invention of the wheel is about to occur is the wrong thing for the member to be doing.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that unemployment among youth in this province has increased over the past year, from 13.1 per cent to 15.5 per cent? What is he doing to provide permanent employment for the youth coming out of schools, community colleges and universities in this province -- permanent jobs, not just Experience jobs in the summer? Are we not facing a situation where a generation of kids will not have jobs? What is he going to do about the social problems we will face if that occurs?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member well realizes that youth employment counselling centres are already in place all across this province. That is one way we are helping. The other way is through the various programs this government has had relative to it.

It is recognized that there is a higher degree of unemployment amongst our young people. That is natural; it is to be assumed that it is going to happen. It is regrettable in times like this, and all of us are very concerned, but we have programs in place that have attempted to alleviate, and indeed have significantly alleviated, the problem across the province. It would have been worse without them.

The counselling centres will provide immense value. In addition, there are a number of programs, as I indicated to the previous questioner, which have been indicated in the throne speech but which have yet to be articulated. They will be announced in due course, the normal way being in the budget that will come down.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) with a new question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of privilege.

GRANT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege which I believe interferes with the rights of many of the members on the opposition side.

I wish to bring a matter to your attention or to ask for some comments concerning it from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It has to do with several news releases that have been released by the minister pertaining to the neighbourhood improvement program.

It has come to our attention that many of these news releases have been released by the minister on behalf of his own members on that side. If I might give an example, "Howard Sheppard, MPP Northumberland, announces a $250,000 grant under ONIP" --

Interjections.

Mr. O'Neil: In that case I will cut this list short. But all of the Conservative members --

Some hon. members: Read them all.

Mr. O'Neil: Do the members want me to do them all? For the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), there is a small one, and a few others underneath that.

Interjections.

Mr. O'Neil: I notice, however, that the minister does it himself when he is announcing the grants for the opposition ridings. The member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) is very capable of making his own announcement, but the minister announces a $200,000 grant. In the riding of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), there is a $200,000 grant, plus another $200,000 grant in the case of the riding of the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins).

All of these grants are announced by the minister himself and I wonder why. I think it is an abuse of the minister's privileges that he should be announcing those grants in the opposition ridings but that when it comes to his own members' ridings he allows them to make their own announcements. I would like to have that corrected and to have a comment from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the opposition members, I would not want to embarrass them by asking them to carry the responsibility for a government program which quite often they do not agree with.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Apparently there have been some questions raised in the New Democratic Party. We heard a point of privilege from the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), which obviously evoked the need for a reply from the minister. Otherwise, he had no point of privilege.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear you say that was a point of privilege, which is a matter you might debate a bit.

Mr. Speaker: No, it really was not.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a new point of privilege?

Mr. O'Neil: No, it is not; it is the same point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of privilege.

Mr. O'Neil: I wonder whether I can ask the Speaker where it does lie. In other words, who would look into something like this, where a minister and the government are abusing --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE

FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Swan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Has the minister examined the evidence on which the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of urea formaldehyde foam in the United States? Also, has he studied Bruce Small's report on Chemical Susceptibility and Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation, which was commissioned by the National Research Council; or the report by Dr. Albert Nantel, head of the toxicology department of Laval University, who said that UFFI gas is a trigger agent for many other illnesses? If so, he will be aware of the mounting evidence of the serious and prolonged nature of the UFFI health problems, particularly the sensitizing of individuals to chemical allergies.

3 p.m.

In view of this additional rather alarming evidence, what steps does he propose to take to discharge the responsibility he has under the Public Health Act to ensure that the condition of any premises is not injurious to health?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I wonder if I could interrupt.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is it about northwestern Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the concurrence of the House to revert to statements by the ministry?

Agreed.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

VICTORY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this not only refers to northwestern Ontario, but it refers to a sport in which I have participated marginally for a number of years. I have to say how encouraging it is, knowing my propensity for supporting teams that do not always succeed, whose names will not be mentioned, to be able to welcome into your gallery, Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen from Thunder Bay who yesterday, not too many hours ago, won the world curling championship. I would like to introduce them by name, then I have one or two observations to make. We have the skip of the rink, Mr. Al Hackner, with Mr. Lang, Mr. Nicol and Mr. Kennedy.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should point out that this same rink won the Canadian curling championships in Brandon, Manitoba, not too many weeks ago. I am surprised the skip of the rink is here this afternoon looking so healthy because, as I understood the television reports yesterday, he was going for a late evening swim in some icy lake somewhere not too far distant from his hotel.

Incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) might borrow some of his lines. He had a great line about the lead and the second. He suggested to them they did not have to concentrate or worry too much because their contributions to their victory would not be recorded on national television, because they would be taking place during a commercial break. I do not know whether that was true or not, Mr. Hackner, but that is what I heard you say.

I was watching on Saturday as well, Mr. Speaker, and I was getting a little nervous because the satellite transmission was interrupted on several occasions but, none the less, we did get most of that one as well. I want to congratulate all the rink, Mr. Speaker, but particularly the skip. Having led -- that is the first one, for those who do not curl -- for some years, it was encouraging to me to find a skip who, on the last stone, could throw the lead weight in order to win the championship. I congratulate you, Mr. Skip, because the skips I used to curl with could never throw the draw weight as well as I could as their lead. I am only teasing but it is partly true.

I know I speak for the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who I believe is at home in his constituency, awaiting your arrival with open arms at the international airport in Thunder Bay. I know he will be there to welcome the team, and I know he would wish me to express his congratulations on this occasion.

Curling is one of the great sports of this province, and of this country. It is one that involves not only a great skill, but a lot of friendship and relationship. One cannot go to a bonspiel without understanding the kind of relationships that develop. We were very fortunate in the rink we had representing this country. It is a great pleasure not only to welcome them here but to congratulate them and to wish them well next year and the year after. They all look so young. I am sure they will be there for many years to come.

[Applause]

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise but I now feel obliged to. These gentlemen who are visiting us today have spent most of their time practising their curling, not trying to understand political speeches. They probably have no idea of what the Premier just said. I would like to translate for the Premier, if I may, and just say on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House that we are very proud of you. You have brought great credit to yourselves, to our province and to our country, and we congratulate you.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming home the rink that captured the Silver Broom and brought it back to Canada. It is further proof the most important resources we have in northern Ontario are our human resources.

I wish Al Hackner and his rink well when they are curling with Miss Jones later on in eastern Canada. I want to remind honourable members of this House that two of the four members of this rink, namely, Al Hackner and Bruce Kennedy, are railroaders. Al is a railroader and Bruce is an engineer with Canadian National Railways. Only a railroader could have drawn to the button on the final stone to bring the Silver Broom back to Canada. On behalf of this party, we are very proud of you, not only as good ambassadors from Canada but excellent ambassadors from northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously, this is one of the very few moments when all members of the House agree. I would like to extend my personal congratulations as well.

We will add six minutes to question period. The clock was stopped? We will not add anything then. We will hear the question from the member for Welland-Thorold once more.

Mr. Swan: Mr. Speaker, that second interruption was a very appropriate one. I extend my congratulations as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONCLUDED)

UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question to the Minister of Health somewhat more briefly. Has he looked at the evidence on which the United States banned the urea formaldehyde foam insulation? Has he looked at Bruce Small's report on Chemical Susceptibility and Urea Formaldehyde Insulation which was commissioned by the National Research Council?

Has he looked at the report by Dr. Albert Nantel of Laval University, who is head of the toxicology department there, who says UFFI gas is a triggering agent for many other illnesses? If so, he will be aware of the mounting evidence of the seriousness of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, particularly in the sensitizing of individuals to chemical allergies. In view of this rather alarming additional evidence -- and it is new -- in the last couple of months, what steps does he propose to take to discharge his responsibilities? Would he, under the Public Health Act, ensure the conditions of premises are not injurious to health?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, our responsibilities have been fully discharged. I will express the member's concerns to those who are now responsible, that is, the federal government.

Mr. Swart: May I remind the minister of two things. First, there is some evidence under a basic document of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Under the heading of "Risk of Chronic Injury" there is this comment:

"The risk assessment estimates that up to 150 people may develop cancer among a population of 1.75 million persons exposed to formaldehyde in residences that have been insulated with UF foam insulation from 1975 to 1980.

"The risk assessment also estimates that up to 23 people could develop cancer from installations of the product in the next year."

Bruce Small's report states, "Their exposure may have given them unsuspected allergic-like reactions to the new insulation and may also cause violent reactions if they are exposed to even small amounts of formaldehyde gas in the future." Mr. Small went on to say, "The magnitude of the problem is completely unknown."

How can the minister explain his attitude of doing nothing in view of the responsibility he has under the Public Health Act for the premises in this province? Is he prepared to take at least the minimum measures that Quebec has taken to fund those people who have to move because of their severe health problems?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In spite of the fact the member believes he has mounting evidence, that does not change the clear fact that the federal government is totally and fully responsible for this matter.

Mr. Swart: You are responsible for health.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When the member gets a chance to chat with his leader after question period, I am sure his leader will indicate that when he was in federal caucus his party raised this matter with the federal government. I am sure at that time he and his colleagues were making the point that it was a federal responsibility. For once, I happen to agree with the point I am sure he and his colleagues were making in the federal NDP caucus, that the federal government ought to be owning up to their responsibilities and looking after this matter.

Because of the hard work and pressure brought to bear by my predecessor, the member will know the federal government did finally accept some responsibility in this area. They did acknowledge their responsibility and at that time we decided that it would be foolish for us to duplicate their efforts in the area. Therefore, they took over all of the testing procedures and full responsibility as was their proper responsibility in this country. That is where the problem lies.

I am sure the member will relay through his leader or some of his federal colleagues the message that they ought to be carrying his great concern to the national government of this country in the House of Commons.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, during the past year the Ministry of Health conducted investigations and surveys of health profiles of thousands of homes in Ontario. Have the results of those individual surveys now been turned over to the federal government and, if so, what commitment or what use will that government make of them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can say that all of the information was turned over to the federal government. I can only hope that they meet their clear obligation to all of the people in every province of this nation, live up to their responsibilities and take the proper action. I am sure the proper pressure will be brought to bear on them by both the Conservative opposition, until it forms the government in Ottawa, and the NDP opposition as well.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to the mismanagement of forest resources in the province.

Can the minister tell us how many acres of forest land in Ontario have been both cut over and burned off but have not received any regeneration to date?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well the details giving that information were provided in last year's estimates and discussed then, and were also filed with the Legislature last October.

Mr. J. A. Reed: If I may refresh the honourable minister's memory, since 1971 the total unregenerated cutover forest is 1.3 million acres and it is growing at the rate of 160,000 acres per year. The forest areas taken out of production by fire during the same period was over 5.9 million acres.

Since the forest management agreements signed with the major pulp and paper companies cover less than 26 per cent of the total crown timber land under licence, what is the government doing to regenerate the backlog of untreated acres? Whatever happened to the government's promise, as stated in the infamous Brampton charter in 1977, to regenerate every acre harvested?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I can sympathize with the honourable member; unfortunately, he has not been critic for this ministry for too long. If he had been, he would have recalled the discussions that took place last fall when we indicated that the area not available for regeneration --

Mr. Breaugh: You've been minister too long.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Instead of yelling, why don't you listen for a change? It would be good for you.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Pope: We indicated that 40 per cent of the land not available for regeneration relates to access. That is precisely the reason we have our resource road policy and that is not in the FMA area.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

COST OF SERVICES IN BLIND RIVER

Mr. Wildman: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing rule 81(d). On March 19, I tabled a question for the Order Paper, question 16, to the Ministry of the Environment. According to the rule, it should have been answered, at least with an interim answer, within two weeks. That would have meant last Friday. As I understand it, no answer has been supplied by the minister and no answer has been tabled. I would like you to look into it, Mr. Speaker, to find out whether the minister will comply with the rule.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure both you and the honourable member that prior to last Friday I signed and submitted that question. I shall have to check to see what happened to it from that point until now. It should have been here by now.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Nixon: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, since our business has been interrupted: You may recall on Thursday, the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) undertook, on a point of privilege, to introduce some honoured guests in your gallery. Before she had completed her introduction, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) drew your attention, on a point of order, to the fact that the rules do not accommodate that, particularly using the procedure she chose.

Now today, when the Premier got up and asked for unanimous consent, of course, there was no problem. But I would simply read to you, sir, the recommendation from the Camp commission that was accepted by the Legislature in 1975, as follows, "No announcements of visitors in the galleries in the Legislature will be made with the exception of heads of state, their representatives or distinguished parliamentary guests, as Mr. Speaker may decide, and such introductions should be made by Mr. Speaker." That is the rule we adopted.

As we know, custom permits members on all sides to break the rule, probably even without unanimous consent, unless they choose such an awkward procedure as was used last week by the member for St. David. She got up to make an address to the House, or some sort of a post-ministerial statement, and when she was drawn to order, she, with her usual good grace, fired off a letter to everyone concerned, including yourself, sir, making what I consider to be unacceptable comments about other members of the House. Since the matter was raised as a point of order on Thursday, and it was not disposed of, and we have had another example today where, by unanimous consent, we did have introductions, I wonder if you would clear it up once and for all so that the member for St. David will not continue to act in such an unacceptable way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Dealing with the last part first, the member for St. David would like to reply briefly.

Mrs. Scrivener: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: As you know, I obtained permission to introduce the men from Spar Aerospace Ltd. to members of this Legislature last Thursday. I wished to place on the record the extent and nature of their great achievement with the Canadarm in the recent tests of the space shuttle Columbia, a world class event of which Canadians are proud.

However, the unfortunate chain of events that occurred at that time meant that the men from Spar left here feeling quite bewildered. In face of that, Mr. Speaker, I felt I had no alternative but to send my personal apologies to Mr. Larry Clarke, the chief executive officer of Spar.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The honourable member has said that she, in fact, did have permission. I would hope that from whom she received permission could be clarified. I would think you are the only one, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope you would comment on that.

I have a copy of the honourable member's letter and I will read one paragraph:

"I am sure you realize that Canadians are proud of Spar's achievement, and that the shameful behaviour of the members of the Liberal and NDP parties yesterday does not reflect the esteem with which you are held by the rest of the nation."

Mr. Speaker, a lot of comments come to mind: cheap shot, chintzy, tasteless and a few others which I will not go into. My point of order was based on the rules that we follow around here. The member rose with the justification that some of the people who work at Spar live in her riding. I suggest to you, sir, that it was really up to yourself or the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) to make any such announcement.

I was very proud to watch on television to see what Canadian technology does. I said that when I interrupted the member and it is unfortunate that she has chosen to cheapen that contribution in this Legislature in this way.

Mr. Martel: I have not read the member's letter but that is the sort of response I would anticipate she would make. She thinks she can violate every rule of the House and then dump scorn on those people who say there is a set of rules around here which we live by. I suggest, as I did Thursday, that what she did was set a precedent which Mr. Speaker would have difficulty knocking down, if we were to test it on this side of the House, and that is for a back-bencher to get up and make a statement. That is reserved for the government to do.

When I rose on Thursday, I pointed out and Mr. Speaker accepted, that an introduction is one thing but a major statement is something different. In her usual fashion, the member chose to ignore what had been suggested she might do. The rest of us can take the low road and she will take the high road. If we do not like it, she can write nasty little letters.

She has written: "my deep regrets for this very rude, unpleasant occurrence." If someone created that unpleasant occurrence, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that it was the member who violated the rules that led to that. If the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) wanted to make that statement, or the minister responsible, that is one thing, but you cannot make new rules as you go along to suit yourself.

With respect to the introduction of guests, Mr. Speaker, I think we tried to sort that out a couple of years ago. You will recall we all used to stand in our places, welcome our schools and welcome --

Mr. Nixon: You kept welcoming the Communist Party.

Mr. Martel: I know the odd person who had to go out and welcome them in certain events that go on and not from this party. I will not even name the group, but the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk knows of what I speak. Does the member want me to say it?

Mr. Nixon: I know what you are talking about.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, we have a rule with respect to introduction. On special occasions, I would say the whole House agrees to that sort of introduction but if we go back to the old thing of introducing everyone who comes in we are going to spend half an hour of very valuable time introducing everybody from the janitor to the kids, to the school bus driver, right down the line and we will never get it over with.

I would hope that the rules would apply for the member.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Just so there will not be any doubt in anybody's mind as to what happened today, we not only had unanimous consent, but we did indeed revert to statements by the ministry, and it was under statements that the Premier made his statement.

Mr. Martel: Maybe you can get her to withdraw that letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: What about that letter? Nothing happens?

Mr. Speaker: I did not give anybody any permission to write a letter.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did you give her permission --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just a minute, we will deal with that.

Just to retrace the events of last Thursday, when the request was made I suggested it would be more properly made by the Minister of Industry and Trade. I was subsequently advised the Minister of Industry and Trade was in transit. He arrived late in the House as the honourable members may remember. Because of the national pride attached to the feat of the equipment which was made by Spar Aerospace Ltd., I gave the member permission to recognize and introduce the people from Spar Aerospace.

I made it very clear that if there were any objections, it would be ruled out of order. I did not see any of the introduction prior to it being made, nor did I have any idea of what the honourable member was going to say. I do want to emphasize it is a feat we can all take pride in, and indeed we should, as Canadians and Ontarians. That was the point, with all respect.

However, it did not turn out quite the way I had envisioned it. It was objected to; it was ruled out of order. In case there is any doubt in anybody's mind, we will adhere to the recommendations which were accepted by all members of this Legislature. I want the honourable members to know that on Friday, following the event of last week, I had to deny another member, on the other side of the House, the opportunity of introducing his guests.

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to go back to this point because of the letter written by the member. The member has said, "that the shameful behaviour of the members of the Liberal and NDP parties yesterday does not reflect the esteem" -- she then goes on to say, "Please convey to all of those at Spar associated with the Canadarm my deepest regrets for this very rude and unpleasant occurrence."

We did not do anything but follow the rules of the House. For the member to write a letter --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: But you were rude. Admit the truth.

Mr. Martel: I do not know what was rude or disrespectful or shameful in what we were doing. For that member to be allowed to write that kind of garbage, a total distortion of fact, is unacceptable in this Legislature. I do not think the honourable member should be allowed to impute motives to every member on this side of the House. There is a rule that says one cannot impute motives in this Legislature. That is what she was doing, and she should be forced to withdraw or apologize.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. This raises a very interesting point but, in actual fact, I do not have control over what members say in letters.

Mr. Martel: But you know she does not have the right to impute motives to members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: In this House. Order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS

PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 42, An Act respecting the Rights of Non-Unionized Workers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide a low-cost mechanism whereby a non-unionized worker may obtain a review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the worker is discharged or otherwise disciplined for cause and the contract of employment is silent on matters of discipline.

3:30 p.m.

At present, a non-unionized worker who is dismissed or otherwise disciplined for cause may have no right of action against his employer, notwithstanding the fact that the discipline, having regard to all the circumstances, is unduly harsh.

The bill provides a two-stage process for reviewing complaints involving harsh discipline. Initially, a labour relations officer would be appointed to effect a settlement which could be reduced to writing and which would have to be complied with according to its terms.

If no settlement is reached, or where a settlement is not likely, the Ontario Labour Relations Board would inquire into the matter. If the board is satisfied the complaint is justified, it will have the power to make an order substituting such penalty as is just and reasonable in the circumstances.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 43, An Act to relieve Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council can order a 60-day suspension of a strike or lockout and order a return to work where the strike or lockout constitutes an immediate and serious danger to life, health or safety, or seriously disrupts the economy of the province in any area of the province.

The bill provides that the Minister of Labour must appoint a conciliation officer where an order suspending a strike or lockout has been made and may subsequently appoint a conciliation board where the efforts of the conciliation officer to effect a collective agreement are unsuccessful.

If conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, the strike or lockout may be resumed without a further strike vote. An order made under the bill would be enforceable as an order of the Supreme Court.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES,

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES

AND UNIVERSITIES (CONCLUDED)

On vote 2802, college and adult education support program:

The Deputy Chairman: The minister clearly outlined the areas in which moneys are required, so I would ask that members try to limit the debate to subjects that pertain to these estimates.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be allowed a short time to make some comments in terms of community colleges, as our friend from the Liberal Party did on Friday.

First, I want to say to the minister that the $5.5 million she is putting into the supplementary estimates is, as far as I am concerned, just a drop in the bucket to do the job that needs to be done.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is in addition to $109 million.

Mr. Grande: I realize that and perhaps we will begin to ask the questions in terms of that $5.5 million. What is the federal government's contribution to that $5.5 million?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Your logic escapes me.

Mr. Grande: That is beside the point. The fact is that the $5.5 million is totally inadequate to meet the needs of Ontario in terms of skills training. I realize it is on top of the $109 million, as you put it. However, even that sum is totally and completely inadequate to meet the skill training needs of this province.

I want to say to the minister that a little while back, some time in January, I found out that Sheridan College in Mississauga began a program for which the responsibility is shared between the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and federal manpower. I was asking some questions in terms of whether that money was up-front money, or whether the college has to be able to put that money up front in order to set up the programs and then get the money from the ministry.

As you may be aware, I have been taking a little fact-finding tour of community colleges. I went to visit Northern College, Algonquin College, some of the Metro colleges and I will be going to Fanshawe and St. Clair shortly.

One of the things that is becoming exceedingly clear is that the rate by which these colleges will involve themselves in so-called high-tech courses is dependent on how fast the colleges will be able to get rid of some of the courses they offer now. In other words, in order to move in the direction of high tech, the colleges have to get rid of programs and courses, and as the minister knows, have to fire and get rid of teachers, extend the school year and in short decrease the level of the quality of the education we have been delivering in this province in the last little while.

The minister is saying, "What?" As soon as she hears about the quality of education, somehow she wants to feel that the quality of education in Ontario is safeguarded. Let me tell you some things about the quality of education and then I will let you decide whether it is being safeguarded in community colleges.

When I went to Humber College, I found the students in some of the classes there have to share draughting boards to do their work. Not only that, but they have to sit on the floor to do their draughting work. If that does not say the quality of education is suffering, I will let the minister explain it when she stands up.

3:40 p.m.

I was also told at Humber College that if all the students enrolled at Humber were to come to the school on any given day there would be no place to put them. In other words, they count very much on 10 per cent or eight per cent absenteeism, whatever percentage it is.

You are trying to tell me the quality of education is not suffering. Students last year were enrolled in classes of 25 to 30 students. This coming September they will be in classes of 40 to 50 students because classes have to be doubled as a result of the shortage of provincial funding. Tell me whether the quality of education is suffering.

Then there is the outdated equipment we have right now in most of our colleges. For example, at Centennial College I found out from the students they have a computer that works all right, but the language the computer uses is 10 years out of date. Industry no longer uses the language in the computer and yet that is what these students at Centennial College have.

I hope the minister is listening, because I would like her to contradict whether the quality of education is still maintained in this province.

At the Northern College campus at Kirkland Lake students do not have enough computer terminals to do their homework and their assignments. The students have been told they can be at the computer terminals for 15 minutes and that is it. Students are waiting in line to use the terminals.

Last year, the students decided this would not do and decided to have a collection among themselves to raise $5,000 to buy two more computer terminals. The minister should tell me whether the quality of education is not suffering in our community colleges.

To continue with the Northern College campus at Kirkland Lake, the students had to petition the administration of the campus to have their library open after school hours instead of the library closing just when school hours were over. Tell me if that does not mean the quality of education is suffering. When a student is in class, he or she definitely cannot go to the library. There is absolutely no way the student can go and take out books or do any kind of research when the library is closed after school hours. Is the quality of education suffering?

Another question that is definitely a symptom of the lack of provincial funding for our community colleges is the fact that the community colleges, especially in Metropolitan Toronto and Sudbury, have found it necessary to extend the school year. You know as well as I do the student contact hours per week have been reduced. In some colleges, to make up the number of student contact hours in the long run over the year, they have to extend the school year by two weeks or two and a half weeks.

In doing that, the community colleges might be able to get away with it because the teachers' contract allows for that kind of thing to take place, but at the same time you must remember you are taking away from each and every student approximately $1,000 to $1,500 a year as a result of not being able to work those two weeks. You must remember --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that what the students are making, $800 a week?

Mr. Grande: Let's say for two or two and a half weeks, $1,000 or thereabouts. The students at Humber College have made a little study and they have decided that all the students collectively will be losing approximately, in terms of income, between $4 million and $5 million as a result of the lengthening of the school year. Not only that, since the students get out two and a half weeks later, they will not be able to compete for jobs with the university students.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, they will.

Mr. Grande: At least that is what the students are talking about. All I am attempting to do is to tell the minister there are very serious problems in our community colleges and that political placebo of hers of a 12.2 per cent increase is certainly not going to --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It's more than they expected.

Mr. Grande: It is more than they expected, I will grant her that. They expected an 8.5 per cent increase and they got 12.2 per cent and, as the minister so proudly says, another one per cent for growth related, etc.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was you who suggested they were going to get 8.5 per cent.

Mr. Grande: It was not me. That is what the presidents were saying. As a matter of fact, the college presidents were saying, "We do not understand why in previous years we found out in December, so we were able to plan for the coming year, but this year we had no inkling whatsoever until the month of February." What kind of planning process could those people get involved in?

Of course, the minister realized that this particular year she had her problems in terms of coming to grips with a lot of studies and she had to decide on some kind of a direction. I suggest the 12.2 per cent increase has nothing to do with her, but it has something to do with the federal government, because the federal government said, "Unless you give more than a 12 per cent increase to post-secondary education there will be some difficulties."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's sheer hogwash.

Mr. Grande: Anyway, whatever her motivation was for that percentage increase, all I am saying is that the college presidents were expecting about an 8.5 per cent increase. As a result of that planning, taking that factor into account, they fired teachers and closed down programs, they lengthened the school year and did a host of other things that there is no time for me to outline -- we will certainly get involved with them in the full estimates of the ministry -- and thereby destroyed or allowed a further deterioration of the quality of education in our community colleges.

Let me ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities, why we have a study -- I guess it was leaked -- called the final report on college growth, and yet the ministry does not see fit to release that report?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not the final report.

Mr. Grande: The minister does realize, because obviously it was given to her by the Ontario Council of Regents, that 50,000 students were not accepted in 1980-81 and that report says, "It is interesting to note that if only one in five of these unaccepted applicants is qualified as a qualified applicant to a program with good career possibilities, the college post-secondary operation would have to be 20 to 25 per cent larger to accommodate them."

In other words, I would gather that once you take away the applications of people applying to two or three different colleges and different programs from that 50,000, you come down to about 15,000 or 20,000 qualified secondary school graduates in this province who wanted to go to the community college system and were not allowed in because there is no place for them. Then we wonder why the youth unemployment rate is increasing and why, as the question was asked in question period today, we now have 15.2 per cent youth unemployment when a year ago we had 13.1 per cent unemployment. It is incredible.

3:50 p.m.

There were 139,000 unemployed as of February 1981, and as of February 1982 there are 163,000, or 15.5 per cent. Then we find out that 20,000 of them were not accepted in our community colleges.

It correlates very well. Where are those 20,000 students who were not allowed, or could not go to community colleges? Did you ever figure it out? Did you ever follow these students? Are they unemployed? I would guarantee you that if not 80 per cent, then at least somewhere between 70 and 80 per cent of those students would be unemployed right now. Your ministry and your government become expert in creating unemployment and not in creating employment in this province.

The fact is that these students do not have the skills which you say, and everyone agrees, they need in order to get a job and to get suitable employment. What you are doing is retaining them, maintaining them and keeping them out of the community colleges because of your underfunding, because of the fact that there are no places at the community colleges.

I want to suggest that if you are, as a government on that side, really seriously concerned about skills training, concerned about youth unemployment, concerned about making sure the economy of this province begins to pick up, you will bring in programs. The studies of your ministry have told you that the problem within the next decade in Ontario is not going to be capital, it is going to be skilled labour that is going to maintain or hold down the economic growth of the province. However, you are doing very little in terms of skills training in this province.

You talk a lot. You say you are concerned, and you bring in some programs which will make less than an ounce of difference. However, you have not seriously tackled the problem of skills training in Ontario.

I want to say to you that in order to do that, in order to seriously tackle the problem of skills training, you have to stop catering to the private sector in this province. You have to do that. You cannot go on indefinitely saying how frustrated you are as a minister that the private sector is not coming through, not fulfilling its obligations to skills training. You join hands with the federal Minister of Labour in saying that unless the private sector begins to do the skills training in a serious way, you are going to have to legislate that. So stop the threatening and do it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have already said that.

Mr. Grande: What have you said?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have already said that. You want us to say it; we have already said it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He has made this speech 20 times before and he is going to make it again today.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No matter what I say.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor and may continue.

Mr. Grande: If the member for Rainy River wants to involve himself in the debate he can feel very welcome. In fact, I encourage him.

The Deputy Chairman: He will have his opportunity. You have yours now.

Mr. Grande: We read in the local press, in the Toronto Star, articles like the one about students in the metal machining program of Seneca College who were supposedly guaranteed jobs when they graduated, and they were graduating and then getting really frustrated because employers were turning them down saying, "We don't need you."

When the ministry spends $1.2 million to build a centre and $700,000 in machinery, and then the private sector says to these newly skilled people, "Sorry, we don't need you now because of the economic downturn, then I would say to the minister you are spending the public money to subsidize the private sector. The private sector says, "Now we need them; tomorrow we don't," and the public sector has spent the money.

The minister should tell the private sector, "You must provide the skills training programs, and we will legislate that you have them." The middle and low-income families in this province should not be subsidizing the private sector for the skilled people they need. The private sector has had enough concessions in this province.

Just for the member for Rainy River -- I am sure he is interested as a Liberal-Labour candidate in this province -- for his benefit and perhaps for the benefit of the minister, although the minister probably does not require any of my wisdom whatsoever, when the budget was broken down in 1960-61, the private sector was paying $1.79 for every dollar of personal income tax raised in this province. Those were the rates back in 1960-61. In 1980-81, the rates were, for every dollar of personal income tax raised by your government, the corporate sector paid only 25 cents.

If the rates had remained the same between 1960-61 and 1980-81, your government would have raised $11 billion from the corporate sector. That would have been enough money to buy Suncor. That would have been enough money to have had a proper skills training program, and there would certainly have been money left to spare.

Instead, the government decided to leave that money in the corporate sector, and then the corporate sector screams because the government has not provided skills training programs. It is nice to have it both ways. The government has allowed them to have it both ways.

The time has come for skills training programs to be legislated. Then the province can begin the process of industrial growth as opposed to the process we have been in for the last three to four years; that of de-industrialization and industrial decay. I hope the minister will take this seriously, maybe not my remarks but certainly the remarks of some of the reports the federal government has been introducing lately, and will move in those directions.

Mr. Chairman: Is the minister going to respond?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will respond at the end.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise to speak about the underfunding of community colleges --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what this vote is about.

Mr. McGuigan: Is that the ruling, Mr. Chairman, that this --

Mr. Chairman: I believe when we were working on this on Friday, we were trying to orientate the college and adult education support programs.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No sir, it is adult apprenticeship training through the Canada Manpower industrial training program.

4 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Do you want to make a good short point on that?

Mr. McGuigan: Yes, it will be short. I am speaking about St. Clair College campus in Chatham, where the craft course has been dropped. Those in the first year of the course will be allowed to go next year, but that will be the end of the course. If it is not restarted within two years, I understand that is the end of it.

The reason given by the president of the college, Mr. McCausland, is that it does not meet the objectives of the college. One of the points in favour of having craft courses is the fact that the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), pointed out that tourism was going to be the number one industry in Ontario in the not-too-distant future.

Having been a tourist in England and Scotland last summer, I noticed there was a very large trade in craft items to cater to those tourists. Craft stores certainly were well patronized and a great deal of money was being brought in by local people through the sale of their crafts.

Mr. Chairman: We are working this in, are we, coming full circle?

Mr. McGuigan: Yes. The point of it is, in the economic sense the employment of people and selling of these crafts is a renewable resource. We are not relying on the sale of our resources. We have a renewable resource that can be carried on from year to year, is noninflationary and does give a positive aspect to our economy.

My complaint is that this design course at St. Clair College should be given further consideration and should take in some of the elements I have mentioned. I have other things but, since you have been good enough to let me put this in on this part of the vote, I will let it go at that.

Certainly the people involved are very disappointed, and I feel they have a legitimate complaint.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to direct some questions to the minister relating to manpower training, particularly at Niagara College.

I believe it was a year or so ago during consideration of the estimates that I discussed the supply of educational equipment to the occupational training areas of Niagara College. At that time the minister did come forward with additional funding to provide some technical machinery such as milling machines, lathes and a few other things related to manpower training.

I understand there may still be some difficulties within Niagara College. Supply of equipment is not coming into the occupational training area of the college because of lack of funding from the ministry. I notice an additional $5.5 million is going to be spent to support technology in colleges, and I suppose that would include machinists.

I was wondering whether, through the manpower training program in colleges, the minister got into the computer setup of industrial machines such as lathes, milling machines, drill presses and so on so that we have up-to-date machinery available for training in the area of skilled trades?

I am a little alarmed about one federal report that says we are going to need another 65,000 skilled tradesmen in the province. It indicates the minister has not been listening to the projection of occupational training data that have been available through the federal minister of manpower and perhaps even the so-called Ontario Manpower Commission. It has been around for about 10 years. I am thinking of the chap who used to be the member for Hamilton; was it Mr. McNie? He was head of that, was he not? He was given that portfolio, I believe.

Mr. Nixon: McNie.

Mr. Haggerty: The Honourable John McNie, yes; that is right. He was given that area of manpower training to bring forward all the forecasting of numbers of persons who would be needed in our great industrial complex in Ontario. What has taken place today is that you have failed in this particular area. You have not come forward with a massive training program for the skilled trades in Ontario and we have had to go offshore.

It is a good thing we have Ontario Hydro, which has a fair training program for the skilled trades in Ontario. Even they have gone offshore to bring in additional personnel to keep the nuclear plants, their hydraulic plants and other types of electrical output going in the province. We have gone offshore in a number of cases. I have known persons who have been employed by Hydro who have come down here continuously for the past three or four years, although not so much in the last year and a half. They had a little bus that took them directly to Douglas Point. It surely does indicate that the Ministry of Education has failed in this area.

I know the federal government has provided funds over the years for manpower training. I do not know what you have done with the millions of dollars that were there. I have raised this question with you on a number of occasions.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have trained people with them.

Mr. Haggerty: I think it was around $240 million for a three-year period, and that was about three years ago. I do not know what they have come forward with now, but I suppose they have perhaps lost some interest in providing those funds if you have not come through with a program that will provide --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have done better than any other province.

Mr. Haggerty: Oh, yes, it looks like it. Yes, we have gone offshore too, more than any other province, to bring in skilled workers. You cannot have it both ways.

But the point I am trying to drive home to the minister is that you have failed in this area.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, we have not.

Mr. Haggerty: In my very first speech in the Legislature back in 1967, the year I was elected, I was trying to drive home then to the minister responsible for manpower training in Ontario that we were lacking a good, sound apprenticeship program, and we are still lacking that today. You are not coming through.

Mr. Ruston: The only good apprenticeship you've got here today is your politics. You always get re-elected, but you never look after the work force.

Mr. Haggerty: Never. That is one of the --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is absolute balderdash. Please speak the truth.

Mr. Ruston: That is not. It is exactly right on.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He accused me the other day of maligning him. Speak the truth.

Mr. Haggerty: Balderdash, eh?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, can't you do something about this?

Mr. Chairman: I am quite enjoying this. I might learn something.

Mr. Haggerty: But surely the minister is well aware that there is a requirement for additional tradesmen in the province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Of course.

Mr. Haggerty: Of course. But what have you actually done? I mean, you have done something, but not enough to create enough of those positions here for Ontario.

Right now, what I am suggesting to the minister is that she should go to some of these colleges. I believe one of the members who spoke previously mentioned that there is lack of proper equipment. There is insufficient equipment in these colleges to train persons in the area of technology and research. Check it out with Niagara College. In fact, the president of Niagara College came to me after I had raised the matter with you about a year and a half ago, and she was a little bit uptight about it. She said, "I got proper hell from the minister for giving you that information."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: She did not.

Mr. Haggerty: I am telling you what she told me. I was at the opening --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: How?

Mr. Haggerty: How?, by letter.

Mr. Nixon: Intimidation. I can attest to the fact that you are intimidating.

Mr. Haggerty: And this is what she said.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You try intimidating Jacqueline Robarts and see how far you get.

Mr. Haggerty: This is what she said at the opening of the program she has going now with the industry and the colleges in trying to improve the apprenticeship in the area.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Where do you think the initiative for that came from? It came from the ministry.

Mr. Haggerty: All I said to her was, "You got results by bringing it to the opposition members, didn't you? You have all this new machinery." That was the first time they had any machinery in a long time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It had nothing to do with you -- nothing.

Mr. Haggerty: Welland Vale Centre is the one I am talking about. It is part of Niagara College. I am telling you this is what she told me.

I was just talking to a chap who is one of the board members -- he is an adviser in the technical area -- and he said they do not have enough equipment to handle the number of students coming into the program.

4:10 p.m.

The minister should be getting out to these colleges and taking along some opposition members. Maybe we can both learn something about the lack of proper teaching equipment. If we are going to expand our technology and skilled trades in Ontario, I suggest the proposed $5.5 million does not go far enough.

Some of the programs they have there relate to what we are talking about: providing funds to educate students in the colleges. What we should do is get an invitation from the president, go through the school and see what they do require. I am sure they require additional equipment.

One of the programs they have is for dental technicians. I know students have applied for it, taken the prequalifications to enrol in the program and then, when the course is open, they find there are no vacancies for them; they have to wait another year to enrol, without any guarantee that they will be accepted that year.

I suppose we are looking at an area that we may be looking forward --

Mr. Chairman: Not too far in that area. Let us try to get back a little bit to support programs for adult education.

Mr. Haggerty: We are right on there with it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Come on.

Mr. Haggerty: Certainly we are. We are talking about spending public funds in this area for support of colleges and universities.

Mr. Chairman: Well, adult programs.

Mr. Haggerty: Can the minister tell us what she is spending the $5.5 million on? Can she give us an outline of what the money is going to be spent on? What equipment are we buying? Which schools is it being spent on?

Mr. Chairman: Is the minister making a note of that?

Mr. Haggerty: I will end up with that, as long as the minister can give me those answers.

Mr. Chairman: I will make sure she hears it, since I cut the member off. Try it again, or is the member finished?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry. I did not hear --

Mr. Chairman: I know that.

Mr. Haggerty: The chairman is trying to speed things up, and I said I will sum it up by asking the minister: where is this $5.5 million going to be spent? On what colleges and what equipment is she buying?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I answered that.

Mr. Chairman: Well, the minister has another chance. Any further discussions?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments on this topic, especially from the experience I have had. Let me tell the minister that, in the years I have been in this House, I have yet to find the government serious about apprenticeship programs to develop the required skilled tradesmen.

The minister may shake her head, but I am speaking from the experience I have had both as a legislator and as one trying to problem solve for individuals who attempted to get apprenticeship programs.

It was long before her day when International Tools Limited in the Windsor area was originally owned and operated by a man called Peter Hedgewick. When it became incorporated, there were other individuals taken in. Hedgewick learned his toolmaking skill through an apprenticeship program; so when he got into industry, he thought the least he could do was to train skilled tradesmen.

He was extremely successful at that except, as soon as these young and middle-aged individuals he had taught became proficient, they left his employ and worked for someone else. He did not even get the benefit of operating a program gratis that should have been operated by the provincial government at that time.

I just want to read into the record a letter I had written to the Minister of Education, to the Minister of Labour and another minister some years ago.

I said: "I am told there is quite a bit of concern being expressed by the skilled trades in my area over advancing technology in the auto manufacturing industry. Within three to five years, they feel that technological advances will be revolutionary and will adversely affect the skilled trades and technicians. They see changes coming about now.

"Industry, I am told, is not training or preparing its employees for this future. Is your department undertaking any studies in this field so that there may be a smooth and progressive transition of workers from today's skills into the new skills that will be required in the foreseeable future? Is your department encouraging both industry and union, individually or cooperatively, or with your leadership, to undertake training, retraining and upgrading skill programs to lessen, minimize or eliminate any adverse affects of revolutionary technological advances in the auto industry?

"I trust I will receive a reply as to the position of your department in this regard."

I did get a reply from an individual at that time. However, this letter was written in 1969. The Minister of Education then in charge of the program was the present Premier (Mr. Davis), and yet we have a greater shortage of skills in our society today than we ever had. And you tell me you have kept up to date in the program? By no means.

Your ministry in the years gone by has been asleep at the switch. It has had programs, yes. I will not deny that it had them, but they never attempted at any time to meet the needs. Fortunately for Ontario, we were able to steal skills. We stole them from Europe. We brought in all the people we needed at that time, and they were glad to come here and lend their skills to build a greater province and a greater Canada. But neither you nor the Ministry of Education can take credit for it. It was the department of immigration that brought them in. They saw a rosier future in Ontario and in Canada than they did in their own countries, essentially the European countries, including England, Scotland and Ireland.

I can recall from practical experience, having been a school teacher at one time, students wanting to go into some of these skills, but they were limited in the schools. Not only were they limited, but also they could not get the equipment they needed in the schools. They got equipment, but they were using equipment -- I should not say it was scrap, but it was not the type of equipment that should have been used. I know the equipment is costly, but how are you going to teach some of these skills if you do not have the tools with which to teach them?

Look back in the community now. It took two years to get the skills training centre open. There was a little power struggle going on between two groups, the Ministry of Education and --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: One year.

Mr. Newman: Maybe one year to you but, as far as I am concerned, it took a longer time than that. I am trying to be constructive in my comments here, because it hurts me when I go back into the community and find a whole group of individuals wanting to take the tool and die course, and we are only going to take 60 of them. We allow 80 to write the tests and we come along and take 60 or 65.

We need these types of skills in the community. We are not going to put people back to work unless some of these skills are developed in our young people. I should not use the term "young people," but I should say individuals wishing to upgrade, retrain or develop a new skill.

There are always more individuals wishing to take the program than is possible with the funds allocated. If you were serious about the program, you would try to teach all these skills as quickly as you could, because we are going to be short of the skills down the road.

4:20 p.m.

Economic conditions are not rosy. They are not the way we would like to see them, but down the road they are going to improve. We have had rough times in the past. We always come out of the rough times and get into better times; we will have them again. We are going to have, as we have now, acute shortages of certain skills and it is the responsibility of the ministry to see the facilities and the manpower are available to teach those skills.

You have cut back at the community colleges. Why would you cut back at a college that is developing skills that are going to make for a new and better tomorrow? When you see the number of staff who have been let go at St. Clair College --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not in the skills area.

Mr. Newman: You say you have not cut back?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not in the skills area.

Mr. Newman: Skills are not necessarily all mechanical or the type of skill --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's what you have been telling me.

Mr. Newman: I will agree with you to a certain point, but let me tell you that the Ministry of Education in my years of sitting here has been a failure in meeting the challenges of tomorrow.

You have talked about the past, but you really have not met the challenge. Industry at one time trained the skills; but why should they train them? International Tools, with Peter Hedgewick there, trained hundreds of tool and die makers. He found out all he was doing was training them for someone else when that was really Education's responsibility.

I do not want to go on any longer, but I plead with the minister to get those skills of tomorrow in the schools of today so we can at least see a rosier tomorrow. I think that is her responsibility.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion? Does the minister have anything to add to her interjections?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, you must admit some of those statements were somewhat provocative.

The final speaker suggested that I concentrated on the past. He was making a speech I made six years ago which has led to a great deal of modification and, I think, innovation and improvement in the role we play in the development of skills in Ontario. This was made at a conference we organized five or six years ago which outlined the paradox we had in terms of the requirement for skills and the numbers of young people who were not involved in that kind of training.

There are times when I think the members opposite would like us to become a totalitarian state in which we could direct all of the students whose skills we saw as appropriate into certain kinds of training programs. But we still live in a democracy where choices are made by young people. We try to make those choices available to them on a broad base.

Last Friday, a question was raised by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) regarding one of his constituents who had been laid off at McDonnell Douglas. This gentleman has a credit of approximately 5,700 hours towards the completion of his industrial millwright apprenticeship. He is scheduled to attend the in-school training portion of his program, beginning April 26. The space of time between his layoff and the beginning of that program made him, I guess, a less than totally desirable applicant for some of the places he might have applied to. He has also expressed a desire to attend the advanced in-school session at the earliest opportunity. We are going to attempt to help him to do that in August 1982.

The government and most employers recognize the skill that Mr. Hilliard has achieved by work experience and school attendance, but the government can only recommend that such credit be accepted by prospective employers. Most of the employers in the province do accept that. There are one or two that do not and, unfortunately, Mr. Hilliard's problem is with one of those employers.

At any rate, the counsellor is helping him. Any apprentice who has that kind of problem would be well advised to talk immediately to his apprenticeship counsellor, who can provide a great deal of assistance,

On that same day, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) raised a question regarding the woodworkers' program in Pembroke which is proposed to be suspended by the board of governors of Algonquin College. The course is a very good course, but it requires a minimum of 30 students to make it a viable operation. In all the years of delivering the program, the course has never been able to recruit more than 25 students, and usually 20.

The attrition rate is extremely high because of the training, which is very much safety-oriented. The attitude of many individuals entering the course is such that they pose a danger to fellow students and instructors. If after extensive counselling the individual's attitude has not changed, he is asked to leave the course. The attrition rate within that course is significantly higher than within most courses.

The construction industry downturn at present is resulting in significant layoffs, and the employment prospects for current students are very poor.

The college has looked at all matters related to this course and has suggested that it probably could be better provided by the industry itself. The community industrial training council of Renfrew county is working with a couple of companies in the hope that they will be able to introduce a course for graduates of the and has suggested that it probably could be better provided by the industry itself. The community industrial training council of Renfrew county is working with a couple of companies in the hope that they will be able to introduce a course for graduates of the programs at Confederation and Northern and of other similar programs. This would provide the basic training of the course, and the more highly skilled portion of the course could be provided by the industry. They are working with industry right now to do that.

Mr. Conway: I appreciate that very much, but did anybody tell you how it is they could be in any danger?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, because of the safety implications of the kinds of things they do. I don't know exactly. I will find out the details of that. They simply said there were major safety implications for the hands-on portion of the course and the students had to be extremely safety-oriented.

The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) talked entirely about college funding. This supplementary estimate, I reminded him, is specifically related to adult training supplied within the colleges and the academic portion of apprenticeship training, also supplied within the colleges.

I will give you details of what this $5.5 million is for. In the adult training area, there is a net reduction of 267 man-days owing to less academic upgrading being supported by the federal government. That is one of the reasons we have moved in the direction of more specific support of adult basic literacy as a means of upgrading many people for further development of their job skills.

There has been a very real reduction in federal support for English-as-a-second-language instruction in that academic upgrading portion and in the heavy equipment training area. Additional funding, however, is required because there have been rate changes, additional rental requirements and compensation to the colleges for the increased costs of administering Canada Manpower industrial training programs.

In the apprenticeship area, the increase is required specifically for an increase in the 34,000 additional man-days required because of the increased number of apprentices. The additional man-days are certainly a result of increased demand for part-time, in-school training under the employer-sponsored training initiative.

The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) have been critical of the fact that there were insufficient numbers of apprenticeship places, in spite of the fact that we have been diligently working at increasing the total number of traditional apprenticeship programs, attempting to decrease the time requirement for a significant number of those, attempting to move to a competence base rather than a time base for apprenticeship and attempting to persuade larger numbers of employers to become involved in that kind of activity, although we have increased the number of employers who are involved in providing the on-the-job training portion of apprenticeship.

I gather the difficulty that our old friend Mr. Hedgewick demonstrated so clearly in 1969 is not very much of a problem now and it will not raise its ugly head again.

4:30 p.m.

In addition, we have been pushing very diligently and effectively in the area of cooperative education, both at the secondary level and at the community college level. The university level is a little more difficult to persuade, but at the college level this is happening with increasing frequency. There are many more professional advisory committees involved.

There is a very significant increase in activity related to retraining and upgrading through our training in business and industry program, which is not a part of this but is entirely provincial money, which has within the past eight months provided almost 13,000 more training places with almost 300 employers in this province. That is specifically related, I would tell the member for Erie, to the skills upgrading for those in industry who require upgrading because their jobs may become redundant or because there is to be technological change which would leave them out in the cold.

Mr. Haggerty: For the last 10 years you have done nothing.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I'm sorry, I have not been around here for 10 years so I have a little difficulty with that.

Mr. Haggerty: I have.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You haven't achieved a great deal then.

In the area of numerical control, many of the colleges have moved to the introduction of machinery with numerical control for training. If it is not present in some of the colleges that you have visited, there was a specific funding mechanism introduced last year to help the colleges to upgrade their facilities. That funding mechanism was through the distribution of the normal funding to colleges, but in addition to that, $8 million was made available to the colleges specifically for the improvement of facilities for high-technology training areas. The colleges have indeed utilized that entire $8 million. This year the increase -- I would remind the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), who always has difficulty with figures -- was 12.2 per cent plus an additional one per cent which is to be distributed on the basis of the increased enrolment within the college system.

We most definitely have been looking at what the colleges require and what we require as a province in order to make progress in this era in which change is likely to be our only constant.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I want to engage the minister in some dialogue for a little while.

I want to remind the minister of a problem we had with regard to this $6-million computer that you have processing the applications and the registration for employees who want to get into the retraining programs under the auspices of a variety of industries throughout Ontario. Don't look so surprised, Madam Minister, it will come to you. I brought a problem to your attention that American Can of Canada Ltd. was having with regard to the apprenticeship retraining programs.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is an apprenticeship program.

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not training.

Mr. Stokes: All right. If somebody is working as a labourer and wants to upgrade himself within the industry, he enrols with his employer and gets into an apprenticeship course or retraining course.

Anyway, when we phoned your ministry we found out those applications had been in the process for eight or nine months and the computer was incapable of getting the information out the other end in the way it was designed to do. As I recall, American Can had 15 or 16 apprentices in the course. They had completed all of the work-oriented portion of the course. They were into the third year and still they had not been able to get registered so that they could do whatever theory was involved to complete this three-year apprenticeship retraining.

You assured me you were coming to grips with the problems you were having with the computer and you had assured the employer that you had a handle on whatever the difficulties were.

I am still getting letters from the employer, in this case, American Can of Canada Ltd., located in Marathon, saying it has not had the problem solved to its satisfaction. I have written to Lloyd Axworthy at the federal level because I felt the federal government had some responsibility too since they were federal funds. That is one of the problems, the inability of this reorganization, or going to a computerized system, to solve something as simple, to my mind, as the registration of these people enrolled in these programs.

The second thing I want to bring to the minister's attention is a letter from a young person in my riding who went to community college, in this instance, Confederation College in Thunder Bay. I am sorry I do not have the letter with me now, it is downstairs in my office.

He was advised by his counsellor in high school to get into a training program that would fit him for the world of work outside. In this case it was as a millwright in one of the paper mills in northern Ontario.

He had completed the classroom section of this course and the college said, "Now go out and find an employer." He tried Kimberly-Clark of Canada Ltd. I am sure he tried American Can, and I am sure he tried Domtar and probably Abitibi and Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay. He had started on it.

I heard you say in answer to a question previously asked by one of my colleagues that you were now trying to get employers to accept their responsibility in the overall process by hiring these people so that they could complete the course. We have an investment in these young people. I just wish I had the letter with me so I could -- it was almost pleading, saying, "I was advised this was the way to go." Starting with the guidance counsellor in the high school, he got all the encouragement and support he needed from Confederation College, but he needs a work experience.

Why not follow through with this in a logical and a sane and a rational way when we have an investment in these young people? They are doing what they were supposed to do; they are doing what they were advised to do, and they get to the last long mile only to find out that the system has broken down somewhere. I suggest to the minister and to her counterpart in Ottawa, Lloyd Axworthy, we make an investment, we give encouragement to young people to get involved in these very worthwhile programs, then all of a sudden the system breaks down. When they get to the final point where they say, "All right, all we need now is the work experience," they find it is not available to them.

Why would your ministry or Mr. Axworthy from Canada Manpower not go to these employers and say, "All right, we have so many people enrolled in these various programs." I do not much care whether it is as a millwright or a barber or a hairdresser or any of the variety of programs that are available under this program. Why is there not a co-ordinated effort to match up the students? They make quite an investment in time, in effort, in dedication -- as well as a lot of time being spent by people within your ministry and by people in Ottawa, along with the financial resources to make it possible -- only to find out that the whole system breaks down.

4:40 p.m.

Why is there this lack of co-ordination? We should see the whole program through to fruition so we are actually retraining people. Notwithstanding the world economic recession that has had an effect right through the economy -- and, of course, the pulp and paper industry has not been immune to those forces -- we are going to need people like the young fellow I spoke of earlier.

As a matter of fact, we are importing people with a high degree of technical skills. The people we need to keep our industries going are being imported from elsewhere in good times but, because of what we hope will be a short economic recession throughout the economy, it is perhaps a little more difficult now to place these people in the appropriate work environment.

I think we are wasting money. We are building up a lot of false hopes in these young people when they do everything expected of them only to find out that the system breaks down.

That is tough for young people to take. What can you do in concert with your federal counterpart to make it possible, with the assistance of the appropriate industry, to see these people can complete the apprenticeship courses and become qualified to accept the jobs we have in industries such as the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The situation related by the member for Lake Nipigon, regarding the individual who was unable to find an appropriate on-the-job training program following the academic portion of his training, is one that has been of concern to all of us for some time.

A major degree of activity has been pursued in attempting to change the attitudes of Canadian employers, which would appear to have been a major impediment in that portion of the training for quite some time. In most instances, the Canadian attitude was it was not necessary to do training, not recognizing that one of the greatest investments a company can make is in the training of the people that company will require to maintain its activity through the years.

We have always asserted that the basic promise of an apprenticeship is that it is a contract between an employer and a person to have a skill developed within that individual of such a nature as to be best learned on the job, but that there was an academic portion of that.

There has been some modification of that program through certain activities which have been carried out in the critical skills area. The idea for the critical skills training program came from here and then was initiated by the federal government. It is certainly directing young people into areas of training which provide some of the academic or school portion first, before they actually become involved in on-the-job training.

We have also been talking with the federal government about ways in which we can encourage employers, particularly during downturns of the economy, to take on these young people who have skills that are going to be critical to the future of a company or the future of our economy.

At any rate, we are moving in the direction of attempting to co-ordinate more effectively the courses that have been developed and the necessary on-the-job places which are necessary. At most of the colleges, the teachers --

Mr. Grande: You don't really realize the crisis.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) would be quiet for five minutes, it would help.

At most colleges, the professional advisory committee, the teachers and the counsellors are actively involved in attempting to put those who graduate from the programs together with the companies that have the on-the-job training capacity for those young people.

The difficulty at the moment is the companies are saying they do not have enough money to do it because their profits are so far down and the investment is beyond their reach. We have been attempting to persuade the federal government that it might be useful to consider --

Mr. Grande: Or lay them off.

Mr. Stokes: Be quiet.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I thank the member for Lake Nipigon.

We are trying to persuade the federal government it would perhaps be useful to consider the redirection of some funds, which may or may not come from the Unemployment Insurance Commission or from some other source, to the support of on-the-job training for those young people. We have not succeeded totally in that as yet, but that conversation is going on.

This is a matter of concern to us because we are very much aware of the needs in a number of critical skills areas. We have this problem in my own riding as a result of the course developed by Seneca College at industry's request. Most of those young people have been moved into on-the-job training places because the college, the industrial training council and the professional advisory committee got together and started working on the problem. That is what has to happen, along with the activities of the counsellors within the apprenticeship branch.

The member for Lake Nipigon suggested the registration and tracking of 40,000 apprentices and 135 journeymen in 400 apprenticeship programs was not necessarily a complex kind of activity. It is, and it is causing some problems in terms of the total reorganization of the apprenticeship branch into that computer-based activity. That will ensure any individual involved in that kind of skills training being able to know what his requirements are at any time. It will keep a record of where he is and at what level he is training. That will be recorded for the apprentice and for those who are concerned about better apprentice training.

I am afraid the problem at American Can was probably our fault because we did not succeed in solving all the problems of the 15 or so apprentices the member relayed to us. These are being done manually at the present time and they will be done very rapidly. We are attempting to do that until the computer program is sorted out. That will be done; I promise that. In the not too distant future it will be completed and we will have full computerized tracking of every apprentice in this province with a log and the information which he needs, which his employer needs or which the education system needs in support of his or her activity.

Mr. Chairman, I apparently said 135 journeymen; it should have been 135,000.

Mr. Grande: The minister mentioned the problem of Seneca College in her own riding and in my remarks I talked about Seneca and the concerns of the students in the precision metal machining program. The problem, it appeared, was that the employers did not maintain their commitments to hire these students once they had been trained. Could the minister tell us why the ministry does not have any agreement whatsoever with the employers to hire these students, given the fact the $1.2 million to set up the centre and the $700,000 in equipment for use in the centre have been paid totally by the public purse?

Does the minister not think there should be at least some kind of an agreement between the ministry and the employers who say they require these skilled people? Does it sound reasonable or not?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the initiative which leads to the development of the centres comes from the community industrial training councils. These are made up of representatives of the municipality, the educational institutions, the employers, the trade unions in the area; educators at all levels. The initiative is based on the information developed by surveys which are carried out in the area, and by the coming together of all of those who have the capacity to analyse those surveys and to establish the ground rules for necessary programs.

This is done entirely on the basis of a gentlemen's agreement. It may be foreign to the honourable member, but it is an operation which has been ongoing within North American and European society for some time. It does not require the kinds of legalized commitments you are talking about. It has been extremely successful in other areas and there was a very grave economic downturn which persuaded some of the employers involved that they did not need all of those graduates at the time they graduated.

4:50 p.m.

As I said, we are attempting to resolve that problem and I think we can probably do it without tying everyone up in 45 miles of legal verbiage or in imposing legislated solutions upon a matter which I think probably can be resolved voluntarily and co-operatively, as long as the attitudes can be dramatically changed within other parts of the community.

The employers involved in this program not only involve themselves in the development of the surveys, in carrying out the surveys, in analysing the information, they also involve themselves in the development of the programs and the planning of the centre and in some of the fitting of the centre. They have made significant contributions to the development of that centre and I do not think we should overlook that. They will continue to do so because they will take the graduates of that centre into on-the-job training programs.

Mr. Grande: So you are saying, "No agreement." Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise some concerns with the minister about Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology since this vote is on the provincial support for the colleges and since Algonquin now has the information from the ministry with respect to the grants coming through in the coming year.

Mr. Chairman: I bring to the member's attention the fact that we have been trying to limit the discussion to the adult education support program.

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but I think you will agree, the vote is for support to community colleges and that is technically what we are talking about. That means the matters I wish to raise can be raised. In the past we have not been in the practice of discussing items on the estimates on the basis of the subvotes. Perhaps you will agree with me about that.

Mr. Chairman: No. I am not going to agree with you at all.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but that has been the practice in this House for a long time. On the vote we are unable --

Mr. Chairman: I want to bring to your attention that during supplementary estimates for all the ministries we have been following the practice that where the minister has indicated specific aspects of what the supplementary estimate has been about, we have been limiting our discussions to that. If it is a general estimate, I know it is wide ranging.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I could suggest that I be able to raise the matter I wish to raise now and that the matter then be taken to the committee on procedural affairs.

Mr. Chairman: I agree.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case I will raise my questions briefly and perhaps you could have the matter raised with the committee on procedural affairs.

Mr. Chairman: There was some discussion between the House leaders previously that under the supplementary estimates, quite often there was no indication as to exactly what they were for. Therefore, I have been following the procedure of allowing the ministers to have opening discussion so they could indicate to all members of the House what the supplementary estimate was about and then there would seem to be an understanding. So we have been ruling from the chair that we would follow on the basis of limiting the discussion to that particular area of supplementary estimates.

Mr. Cassidy: With respect, Mr. Chairman, it is not the ministers who decide what the members of this House want to discuss, at least that has not been the tradition we have had in the province. God knows, that tradition has been under threat from time to time.

Mr. Chairman: Let us not go into a long discussion in terms of what is taking place. You indicated that you had some short remarks.

Mr. Cassidy: I would just point out to the minister that Algonquin, as the largest college in the province, has been the one to suffer most because of the fact that the funding for community colleges has made special allowances for small colleges. That has left Algonquin, as a college serving a very important region of the province and the largest one, traditionally at the short end.

Specifically, this year the college anticipated a 12 per cent increase in its expenditures. The overall grant for community colleges was an increase of about 11 per cent. In Algonquin's case that was equivalent to about an eight per cent increase. Since enrolment in the college is going up by an estimated three per cent for full-time enrolment and eight per cent in part-time enrolment, or perhaps about four per cent overall, what that means is that Algonquin is being asked to accommodate a four per cent increase in its enrolment with an eight per cent increase in grant.

The amount per student is about four per cent and this includes the students getting the apprenticeship programs which are provided through Algonquin. In real terms, that is a seven or eight per cent drop.

I just want the minister to respond to this: How on earth does she expect a community college like Algonquin to continue to provide any kind of service when it had to cut 118 positions last year, will have to cut 46 faculty positions this year, and will continue to have to cut back again and again and try to get by with a very real reduction in resources? That is my first question.

My second question is to ask the minister if she is aware that, in order to accommodate these pressures, it is now anticipated that Algonquin will extend its number of weeks for each course in such a way that the standard will now be 18 weeks per term rather than the 17 or 16 weeks that prevailed before.

Consequently, it is no longer possible for Algonquin to offer three full terms in the course of the year, but only to offer two and students will probably not emerge from their courses until the end of May, losing one of the four months they would have had to earn some money to keep them in community college. This is a response to funding cutbacks from the ministry, but it cuts their earning power by one quarter over the course of the summer and very substantially cuts the ability of the community college to offer a full program or anything approaching a full program over the course of the summer. If it wants to use the facilities adequately, in other words, it can only do so during two semesters in the year, where previously it might have been able to do so in three.

I have made my points briefly, Mr. Chairman. I suspect these matters may come up again in future, but I would be interested in the response of the ministry to those two specific and very urgent questions.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to thank the honourable member for limiting his remarks.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The matters about which the honourable member spoke in his first point, the funding to the colleges, do not, in fact, affect the apprenticeship and adult training programs in the colleges. These are either federal purchases of seats or they are programs provided through the college in an apprenticeship program and funded through federal grants.

The amount of money given to the colleges generally was not 11 per cent. It was 12.2 per cent with an additional one per cent to recognize enrolment increases. Specific changes were made to the funding mechanism last year to recognize the college needs to develop high technology programs, specifically in areas such as Algonquin serves, in order to assist the college in moving from courses that had little or low employment opportunities for graduates into areas that were obviously in the high technology or technological areas where the possibility of employment was high. Those moves have been made specifically on behalf of the colleges and at a significant level of increase this year, far beyond many other areas for which government is responsible.

Mr. Cassidy: In the first place, the minister has not answered my specific question, which is in regard to the fact that, after all the extra allowances, Algonquin, the largest college in the province, comes through for the coming year with an eight per cent increase in resources and four per cent increase in enrolment. In real terms, that means it is suffering about a seven per cent drop in the resources it can devote per student. I would like to know whether she thinks that is adequate to maintain a high quality program.

My second point would be to take up what the minister said and ask her: In view of the fact that the ministry is allegedly increasing its provision for high tech courses, why was Algonquin denied funding for the programs it undertook in good faith and with the assurances of ministry officials to the tune of $600,000 beginning last September, which had the effect of providing training for some 300 students? It then found no money was available and in the end only got $68,000. In view of your commitment as just enunciated, are you prepared to reverse that decision or will you leave Algonquin holding the bag when it acted in good faith with the encouragement it thought it was getting from the ministry?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, because the rules apply to all the colleges within the system. There is not one rule for Algonquin and one rule for the rest of the college system. I would have to verify the figures the honourable member used before I comment on them.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if this matter has been raised. If it has, maybe the minister can tell me and I can check in Hansard for the answer. It is with respect to the courses being offered. There are a couple of community colleges that want to extend the year this coming spring, which would be detrimental to students. Would you be prepared to intervene to prevent that? I say to the minister in good faith that students who are desperately scratching and looking for summer jobs, are going to be excluded from the market for two or three weeks beyond --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, they are not.

Mr. Martel: Well, other students are going to be out ahead of them. They are not getting out at the same time.

5 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The applications go out long before that time.

Mr. Martel: Sure, but I suggest to you that many employers will hire those who are there first and are looking for the job. It is crazy. My understanding is all of them decided to go against it and then about 16 of them backed off and now we are left with six playing that little game out there on their own. The Lord knows it is difficult enough in northern Ontario to find a job in the summer without having students fall behind the eight ball by getting out two or three weeks after everyone else.

I would ask the minister to intervene and simply say, "No, we are not prepared to accept it." In the case of Sudbury, Mr. Koski will not be there next year to suffer the consequences of his actions, which will see the thing prolonged. That might be fine for him, he is gone; but other people in that community college are going to have to live with that decision and he will not have to be there to face the music.

Certainly, the students are opposed to it; the faculty in most instances is opposed to it. I do not think a few Pooh-Bahs at the top should be able to come in with that type of policy which is going to be detrimental to so many students and I would ask the minister to intervene.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding that the decision has been taken in consultation with deans within the colleges and those who are responsible for the development of programs, and I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to intervene.

Mr. Martel: What on earth is the purpose of this little decision? My understanding was that they were uptight about some funding they thought they were not going to get. For example, I do not think Sudbury has a funding problem, as some have. I give Mr. Koski credit for having run a pretty tight ship up there but to simply say now, "Three more weeks next year" is crazy.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not three; I think it is two.

Mr. Martel: Two or three. I understand it is three. I realize the minister's reluctance to interfere in what are supposed to be autonomous groups, but surely when 16 others backed off and maybe saw the error of their ways, those six remaining should be talked to in a very tough fashion saying, "Look, it is really going to be putting students at a disadvantage in those six community colleges."

At the same time, there is no consistency in the academic year for the people who are teaching. Surely we are not going to have people going off in any direction which suits their own fancy. There should be some consistency.

The minister is coming out with a report on the academic year for elementary schools. I was looking through it the other day. She is making certain recommendations as to whether it should be 194 days and so on. If she is prepared to do it there, surely she has the same right and the same responsibility to say in another sector that there should be consistency in the length of day. She is making certain recommendations as to whether it should be 194 days and so on. If she is prepared to do it there, surely she has the same right and the same responsibility to say in another sector that there should be consistency in the length of the academic year.

I do not mean that elementary schools should have the same length of time as universities, I am saying within that particular sphere.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would be delighted to suggest that the community colleges and the universities should have the same academic year as the elementary and secondary schools, that there should be 195 teaching days, for example, and that the year should run from September 1 to the end of June.

In all of those situations, you are not going to accept that and neither is the faculty. I would remind the member that we are dealing with adults, not only adults who are teaching, but adults who are students as well within that system. It is a slightly different situation from that of the elementary and secondary schools. I do not believe it calls for the same kind of process or mechanism of dealing with it.

I really would suggest very strongly to the member that most of the students within the college system make application for their summer jobs and have their summer jobs in hand long before the term ends. They are not in direct competition with university students in many instances. I would remind the member as well that the skills training programs within the colleges run continuously all year long and we are not interrupting the provision of skills training programs by the extension of courses for two weeks.

Mr. Martel: The minister is playing around. She has 16 community colleges operating on one schedule and six that have decided to go their own route on another schedule:

I do not agree with the minister that everyone has a job when school ends -- whenever it should end for them. I suggest many of them will be desperately scrambling for any type of job this year. To have that sort of policy where six of the community colleges go their own route and the other 16 close sooner is really for the birds. There should be some consistency within that sphere of the academic year.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At the university level there is a variation of between four and six weeks in the length of the academic year for students. There is some variation now in the length of courses at the community college level as well. I am not at all sure we should suggest there should be uniformity in the length of all courses within the college system or among the colleges within the system.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, at the university level there are definitely differences because certain professional programs last a lot longer than the bulk of the arts and science programs, but I would contend the arts and science programs do not have that kind of difference. I would like to give the minister the specifics about the proposals for Algonquin College so she can see how ludicrous the results are going to be.

With the 18-week semester, students who have come in after Labour Day would continue until Christmas, then classes would resume for one week on January 3, examinations would be held January 10 to 14, and the winter break would go on until January 21 with classes resuming for the winter semester and with registration at the end of January. In other words, the period from mid-December until the end of January is impossibly chopped up because of this decision to add a couple of weeks to the semester.

The classes would cease on May 20, examinations would take place until May 23 or May 27 and the student seeking a job, whether he applied in advance or not, would not be able to actually be present to begin that job until about June 1, which would clearly mean he would be in a much weaker position competitively than somebody who could be available May 1, as had been the situation with the 16-week term.

The colleges are considering this because it is a means of shaving a few dollars off their part-time staff budget and that is the only reason. I would like to ask the minister whether she considers the saving of a few dollars in the instructional budget sufficient reason to put people through all this turmoil. There are thousands of students. Some students will be forced out of the community colleges completely because they cannot get enough money to afford to continue. Does that really make sense? I would like to ask specifically, will you intervene with those six colleges and insist they stick with the present pattern, which is a lot more logical and ensures the student can get a fair break in terms of getting summer work?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think I have provided all the rationale which is necessary. I do not believe all the students are going to be totally disadvantaged. The length of employment depends upon the job the student gets. The student who is vigilant about seeking a job is obviously going to get it no matter when he or she is available for it. It would not be appropriate for me to intervene.

Mr. Grande: I raised the point in terms of Humber College and my colleague raised it in terms of Algonquin. Sudbury and all the Metro Toronto area is on this extended school year basis. Since the minister seems to say it is fine as far as she is concerned for the colleges to extend the school year, is she contemplating phenomenal increases in the Ontario student assistance program for students who will not have that kind of earning power?

If the statistics for Humber College are correct, the students will lose approximately $5 million to $6 million in income as a result of the extended school year. Will you make increases in OSAP so the students will not suffer in terms of returning to school with enough money for their tuition fees and living expenses?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If depriving the number of full-time students at Humber of two weeks' employment would account for $5 million, then on a quick estimate I would suggest the students employed at that level would probably not need much in the way of assistance from the Ontario student assistance program. If that is the level of remuneration they can achieve through their summer employment programs, then obviously they are going to be able to meet most of their requirements through that summer employment.

5:10 p.m.

Vote 2802 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This concludes the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. We will proceed to the next item.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

On vote 1402, administrative services program:

The Deputy Chairman: Inasmuch as the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is sick, we have an acting Attorney General, the Solicitor General. Will he commence the presentation?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this vote 1402 in the supplementary estimates, item 1, the funds are in the sum of $3 million which have been approved by Management Board. However, they are before this chamber for approval.

Primarily they are in regard to legal aid; the ministry has requested the funding for the purpose of paying off legal aid accounts. It would mainly be a reduction of the outstanding certificate accounts. For those knowledgeable in this area, when individuals receive the services of a lawyer under the legal aid plan, the lawyer fills in a certificate account for payment for those services.

There had been a delay of about 12 weeks for payment after the solicitor submitted the account to legal aid. There was a request to reduce that and to reduce the outstanding certificate account, which was approximately $17,166. On April 1, 1981, that was reduced to about $8,400, approximately a six-week delay for the end of the fiscal year for 1981-82.

The average cost of those accounts for individual legal aid certificates was between $475 to $485. Management Board approved the sum of $3 million on March 9, 1982. It is to be provided through supplementary estimates on the understanding that additional funds will be used entirely for the reduction of the outstanding certificate accounts.

To make a comparison, there is about a five-week delay in paying the Ontario health insurance plan's outstanding accounts. So primarily these funds are to be used exclusively to reduce the legal aid accounts and to pay them more quickly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, as the acting Attorney General has mentioned, we find this additional payment of funds in the main office vote. Of course, under this ministry that is in effect a transfer payment as a contribution to the legal aid fund.

The reasons which the minister has suggested are quite clear. Not only do we have a reduction in the payment for outstanding certifications but a shortening of the delay with respect to the payment of funds to the legal profession.

Certainly there is a requirement here to increase the cash flow because of the increased efficiency of payment. I think the settlement system over the previous years has been somewhat slower than I am sure those people involved in the system prefer. As a result, to remove it now from the 12-week pattern to a six or seven-week pattern, is going to be well received by the profession.

The second aspect of this appears to be a certain underestimation in the number of certificates that would have been issued during the year. The opportunity to pay down those certificates is an important aspect of why we are voting this additional $3 million.

It is apparent, now that we have an opportunity to consider the legal aid circumstances in this vote before us, we have concerns as to the plan itself, which was first set up in 1967, and with the budget constraints that could seriously threaten its very existence.

In an article in the Toronto Star on February 8, the Attorney General no less said: "I worry about the future of legal aid. I constantly have to battle in cabinet for more resources. Criminal legal aid is not a popular concept within the public."

The Attorney General then went on to discuss further the increase in legal aid fees of 20 per cent in 1979, which was the first increase in six years. He also discussed the total amount of money that was available and made the following comment: "Under legal aid, people now have access to lawyers but it is difficult for people who are not well connected to know which lawyer to go to. My concern is that they get competent counsel."

We are all involved in that kind of concern, those of us in the House who happen to be lawyers and those who are involved in responsibility for the various aspects of criticism of the Justice field in both opposition parties.

The Attorney General is concerned about the lack of available funds. I certainly share that concern, as do a number of others who have watched the number of legal aid cases rise. We have watched the budget rise from $43 million in 1980-81 to $55 million in 1981-82. That is a large amount of funds to place --

Mr. Stokes: It is called Parkinson's Law. If you have more lawyers, you have to find something for them to do.

Mr. Breithaupt: I do not suggest the member for Lake Nipigon is entirely correct. Part of the requirement to provide these funds is not the number of lawyers involved. Indeed, if more lawyers were involved we might have the burden of this program shared more equitably throughout the legal profession. I suggest to you the problem is that, as a result of the difficulties in which our economy finds itself, there are many greater pressures being placed on the system because it is in more demand as our society goes through serious economic burdens.

This noon before the House sat, I had the pleasure of meeting with five people from the legal aid system. I might just explain to you who they were and their concerns with respect to legal aid within this province.

First, there was Mr. Ted Strange, who is on the board of the Jane-Finch clinic and is the chairman of the Ontario Association of Legal Aid Clinics. With him was Sue Campbell of the Parkdale Community Legal Services clinic, who is secretary of that association, as well as Frederica Rotter who is a board member of the Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, Jackie Rankin who is on the board of Scarborough Community Legal Services, and Leslie Robinson who is on the board of Mississauga Community Legal Services.

These five people have been involved with legal aid and its provision over the years. In speaking with them, it was interesting to see how they viewed the problems that the clinics are going to be facing across this province.

Certainly in the past, the legal aid committee has supported the clinic funding committee. Where there have not been enough funds, legal aid went really short on the certificates that were being paid for so that the clinics got the money they needed to carry on their particular duties.

We know that the legal aid system is required, and indeed has a statutory duty, to pay for the certificates that have been issued. But that duty is not there to fund the clinics as such and as a result over the last several years, it has been acknowledged that the work of legal aid clinics would be supported and the funds would be found to make sure the people who most need these services will continue to receive them.

5:20 p.m.

The concern these five persons have in this area is that the restraints which are expected within our society may break this pattern. Certainly the community clinics are now being swamped with all sorts of increases in problems. There is much more unemployment. We well know that as more and more landlords go through the rent review system, the occasion for support and advice to persons who are going through economic problems and are in rented accommodation becomes even greater than it was, Indeed, the 36 clinics referred to in the annual report of the legal aid plan are becoming more and better known, therefore generating the opportunity for people who need assistance to come to those clinics.

It is not likely we are going to see an increase in staff within the legal aid system and it is certainly not likely that we are going to see a large increase in dollars provided for the operation of the clinics. But remember that in these problems we all face because of economic difficulties in our society, the areas which we hope to maintain are the ones which are going to be under the greatest pressure, and the pressure really grows when the economy becomes worse. The pressures are clearly there in the legal aid clinics now.

I hope the acting Attorney General will, through the budgetary procedures available and involved in the creation of the new budget, which we expect by the end of the month, ensure that funds for the clinics will be maintained and for the persons in our society who need this advice and assistance. Certainly the pressures of the economy fall upon this portion of our system. This is one of the portions which I hope we will be able to maintain.

I well know that every member in this House would like to maintain all of the services now provided in this province. Many of these programs were brought into effect when our economy was somewhat stronger and when funds were readily available so that almost any bright idea brought forward or any area of concern could be readily funded.

We are now going through a change within our society. We talk about the post-industrial age or a variety of other themes and we recognize that not all projects we would wish to see may be fundable. I do suggest in this circumstance that the legal aid clinics are worthy of our continuing concern. Every one of us has individuals coming to our constituency offices or contacting us in some way for which the legal aid system can provide benefits. In northern Ontario, and certainly in parts of western Ontario, there are areas where clinics have not been developed and where they would be of great benefit to people living there. I suggest to you that we may not see many new clinics, but I hope the clinics we have are going to be encouraged and will continue.

The first concern I bring before the minister with respect to this vote is the concern expressed by these persons who spoke with me today in order to ensure that funding for the legal aid clinics will be maintained.

A second concern they have is one with respect to the summer student problem. I suggest to you that while it may be a little peripheral to connect it exactly into this vote, the burden of these cases is going to fall upon the clinics which are being funded through votes like this unless the summer student concern is resolved.

The acting Attorney General will know there are both university clinics and student legal aid societies at the law schools which do maintain, on a voluntary basis, some opportunity for the handling of certificates and dealing with legal aid matters. Both these groups do certain work as volunteers during the school year. In the past there have been summer jobs created for students to handle that caseload that goes on really throughout the whole year, but particularly during this time when volunteers would not be available because the universities would not be in session.

It is my understanding that over the past years the youth secretariat has funded, through student summer jobs, payments of $120 to $130 per week and the Attorney General's ministry has made up an additional $30 or so, which has allowed for a weekly wage available for students employed in handling these programs.

I now understand that the youth secretariat is not providing funds for student summer jobs in this area. Therefore, if there is to be a continuing program of jobs, it will have to be funded entirely by the Attorney General. Of course, if funds are not provided, then the community clinics are going to get the burden of handling these certificates or dealing with some of these problems while the universities or the student legal aid groups are not available to handle them. If the funds are not provided through the Attorney General, and since apparently they are not to be provided through the youth secretariat, we are going to have a greater burden on the community clinics. That is a concern the members of these clinics have.

Those are two areas I hope the acting Attorney General will be able to give some consideration to as he looks at the budgetary procedures that are going to provide funds for the ongoing programs, which we all believe are worthwhile. The first is to ensure that the clinics do continue, of course. The second is perhaps to deal with this summer program, which I think would be of interest and which I hope the acting Attorney General will take a look at and perhaps report back on later as to whether there are going to be funds, as we hope, to allow those programs to continue.

There is one other area I would like to speak to with respect to this supplementary estimate, and that is to remind the acting Attorney General of discussions we had during the recent estimates of the Attorney General's ministry. Those estimates dealt with, at one point, a paper that had been proposed by the Canadian Bar Association under the heading A Legal Aid Study, dated April 15, 1981, which was a report of the joint subcommittee of civil litigation and family law section of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association, a report that was made to the legal aid committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

When I raised this report and attempted to have some discussion of it in the estimates of the Attorney General, the Attorney General had not seen this report. As a result, I favoured him with a copy of it and I hope there has been some comment or some consideration, even though at this point the legal aid committee of the law society may not have dealt with it fully or reported on it to the Attorney General. But I hope the acting Attorney General will have an opportunity to look at the various recommendations contained in this report, recommendations that deal with the changes that are suggested in the operation of the legal aid program within the province.

There are 28 recommendations. I will, of course, not take the time of the House to review them as they have been submitted, but I hope some consideration is going on now. Perhaps the acting Attorney General can report to us, or perhaps to me privately later, what progress we may see in dealing with this area.

There are serious conclusions raised in the statements made by this joint subcommittee. They are concerned about the greater bureaucracy that may be developing to have somewhat inflexible administration in the operation of the plan. They are concerned with the fee structure, which has not been changed since 1979, and that too is something I hope we will have the opportunity of discussing further at the time of estimates. They are also concerned with the fact that a not very high percentage of lawyers, members of the law society, are active and involved in the program, which would otherwise be more readily available to the people of our province.

I think the recommendations are worthy of comment, and I did want to take the opportunity today of suggesting that we are looking forward to hearing from the Attorney General at the time of estimates, if not before, as to what progress there may have been with the discussions of these various points with the law society, if those discussions were initiated once the legal aid committee reported to the law society on that study.

5:30 p.m.

As I said at the outset, we are interested in the paying down of the outstanding legal aid certificates and in the shortening of time resulting from the additional funds we see here before us. I do not know whether those moneys are going to continue so that the budget next year is increased from its present $55 million at least to provide sufficient funds to allow for substantial increases in the legal aid program.

I leave the thought with the acting Attorney General that the pressures on the persons in our society who are having the gravest difficulty will not be met by cutting back on programs such as legal aid. These are the kinds of programs that must be strengthened so that those who need assistance will be able to receive it readily.

We have a variety of other concerns as we look at the budgetary pressures within our society, but this is one area I commend to the acting Attorney General, to the ministry and indeed to all members of the Legislature as one that is worthy of our continuing support because of the work that is being done and because of the knowledge we all have as individuals within our own constituencies as to the numbers of people who are clearly being helped by this program.

The Deputy Chairman: Before the acting Attorney General responds, I have to do something. It is the first time I have ever done it since I have been the Deputy Chairman. I should have done it more often. It is to compliment the speaker, not necessarily on the content but for at least keeping to the subject at hand. I am most grateful that happened.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You may compliment him on the content as well.

The Deputy Chairman: It is not for me to draw that conclusion but I do appreciate it, when we are dealing with estimates on a certain subject where the minister has said one thing, if you tie your responses to it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was purely coincidental.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope this will not make a precedent which other members of the House will find impossible to follow.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, in response to the position put by the critic for the Liberal Party, I shall also try to restrict my comments to his comments, which will ease the program. I welcome his comments.

I preface my remarks by saying that I am the acting Attorney General. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is ill and cannot perform these services for the House at this time as I am sure he would want to.

Commenting on what has been said by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), I note that the only report that is available right now is the 1981 annual report of the Law Society of Upper Canada which reports on legal aid.

I bring to his attention that for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981, the total cost of the legal aid plan was $46.5 million. Ontario contributed approximately $37 million during the year, an increase of $7.3 million or 24.6 per cent over 1979-80. That is a substantial increase in legal aid and bears evidence of the support this government gives to the legal aid program as it is carried out in Ontario.

As to his comment on the funding for clinics, the people he met today also met representatives of the Attorney General's ministry and were assured that consideration would be given to the summer student program within the legal aid clinics in existence at present and that the Attorney General would consider continued funding for this forthcoming summer period.

I wish to draw to his attention that the clinics' budget for the 1980-81 period was some $4.6 million and, for 1981-82, is going to be $5.4 million, an increase of about 18 per cent. So there is still ongoing support of the legal aid clinics in this province.

There is also the program to extend those clinics to other areas besides the places where they originated in the metropolitan areas. My own constituency -- as well as many other areas around the province, including the northern areas -- has put in a legal aid clinic which is thriving.

The member for Kitchener mentioned that some of the lawyers were not participating in the legal aid council. There was a concern that competent counsel were not available. Under the legal aid program, there is a referral system, where a person can indicate some specialities under the legal aid system, as well as a mentor program.

The mentor program is primarily for the criminal certificates where senior leading counsel have made themselves available to provide background and information to younger lawyers so they can conduct their cases with the degree of competence this plan would like them to have and as their clients would like them to have.

The mentor program is an ongoing and newly instituted one and I hope that, along with the other recommendations that have been made to the legal aid plan, the system will be improved. I am sure the Attorney General himself, who has had an ongoing and very definite interest in the legal aid plan, will continue that in the future. Some of the recommendations made in the legal aid study will be put into practice as have previous ones made by other committees and task forces that have studied the legal aid program.

There will be sufficient funding in the legal aid program. This part of the vote is to keep the delay in payment period down to the six- to seven-week period. It is hoped that funding will be available so the delay can be in character with the government practice of keeping the minimum amount of time between service and payment down to between five- and seven-week periods. Those who are providing services for the government indirectly and who are being paid by the government will receive their payments as quickly as possible.

Those are my comments to the honourable member on his material.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I was fascinated by the number of times the minister used the term "primarily for legal aid" in his opening remarks about the supplementary estimate vote. I lost count after the sixth time. Is there some element included in this $3 million other than the legal aid plan, and if so, what is it?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I heard myself use that word and I knew somebody would pick up on its primary use being "primarily." I should not have used that. It is primarily and exclusively -- I put "exclusively" in one of my comments -- for the reduction of legal aid certificates and the payment of legal aid certificates.

Mr. Renwick: I am glad you cleared that up. I was concerned that there might be some other tag-in amount that might be used for some other purpose. In order not to destroy the good feeling of the chairman, I will not digress from legal aid to suggest what my concern was.

I will speak briefly, because my colleague has already spoken about the legal aid clinics and so has the acting Attorney General. I want to say that it was on July 6, 1981, that the Attorney General responded to my continuing urgings from the latter part of March to let me know what final amount had been determined for the legal aid clinics; that is, the $5.4 million the acting Attorney General has spoken about.

I think the estimate that is before us and the comment I have just made indicate one of the serious flaws about the legal aid program; it is behind in the proper availability of funds at the time they are required.

It is my understanding that this $3 million was included in the original application last year for inclusion in the 1981-82 estimates. For reasons I do not know, it was decided that they would not provide the funds at that time which were designed to alleviate the problem about the catch-up in the payment of solicitors' fees on certificates.

For reasons presumably known only to Management Board of Cabinet, the decision was made: "No. We will wait, but you can come back at a later time."

5:40 p.m.

What you are doing here is coming back at a later time to solve a problem that existed well over a year ago. To me, that is a fundamental concern. What I would really like to get from the acting Attorney General on the first point I want to make is that the amount of money available to the clinics this year will not be left to be finally determined, notified to the clinic funding committee and through the clinic funding committee to each of the now 40-plus community legal aid clinics some time much later on. They need to know now exactly what their financial position is for the current fiscal year; that is, for the year ending next March.

I want also to emphasize that when you read the report which the acting Attorney General referred to, you get a sense of disquiet about the legal aid plan. I say that because the number of dollars we voted last year for the legal aid plan was identical with the number of dollars voted the year before. Of course, the reason was that there was a substantial adjustment in tariff that was picked up in 1980-81, but in 1981-82 we voted the same amount of money.

In a sense there is a little bit of short-changing going on within the traditional legal aid system; that is, the part of the system based upon the issuance of certificates to individuals in the province to meet their legal requirements when they cannot meet the eligibility requirements of ability to pay.

When I look at a number of factors in that report and see the decrease in the number of contacts with the plan, the decrease in the number of applications made to the plan and the decrease in the number of certificates granted under the plan, I get a concern that somehow or other the restraint program is going through to the system in such a way that people who have very real legal problems are saying: "I cannot get a certificate. There is no point in going and making contact with the Ontario legal aid area office in the area where I live because I know that if I do go, I will be told, 'No, it is not available,' or that I will be hassled to the point where if I press along and make an application, there will be some question whether down the road I will get the certificate to which I am entitled"

I believe, and my sense tells me, that a number of those people have therefore done the alternative of going to the community clinics. The result has been an increase in the burden of work on the community clinics, of which there are now not enough in the province. I make the point simply again to indicate my serious disquiet about what is happening in the legal aid plan overall as the kind of plan we want to have in the province.

A third area that leads me to disquiet is the immense increase in the obligations and responsibilities of duty counsel in the provincial court's criminal jurisdiction and the provincial court's family jurisdiction. Those statistics indicate that there is a mounting requirement.

A fourth area that is of great concern to me is that I doubt if we are getting the contribution to the Ontario legal aid plan from the federal government that we should be getting with respect to the criminal cases which are dealt with through the legal aid plan and for which there should be a significant and substantial federal contribution.

I may say that many of the disquiets are not matters that come to one out of the blue; they come simply from reading the report, from reading comments by Mr. Chadwick, the chairman of the Ontario legal aid committee, by reading comments that my colleague has referred to of the subcommittee of the Canadian Bar Association and the Ontario branch, dealing with their concerns about the legal aid plan.

But it does seem to me that we are stymied in a sense about new initiatives under the plan. I am wondering -- this is one of the things I would like the acting Attorney General to comment on -- what is being done about the Burnaby project, what sort of study is being made and whether there is now not a place in Ontario, at least in some areas, for the concept of a public defender under the legal aid plan.

I may say that Mr. Chadwick spoke at some length recently about the Burnaby project and what would come out of that so far as Ontario is concerned: the kind of study that would be made; the kind of evaluation that would take place to determine, in the vexed field of the pros and cons of that concept, whether a public defender aspect to the Ontario legal aid plan should not now be brought about.

I do want to ask a further specific question of the acting Attorney General. I would like to understand, if my understanding is correct, that for the first time -- I should not say for the first time; the Attorney General has always appointed two of the five members of the clinic funding committee -- he has recently appointed two senior members of the ministry to be his appointees on the clinic funding committee.

I noticed in the press that Douglas Ewart, the director of the ministry's policy development division, and Glenn Carter, the general manager of the Ministry of the Attorney General, have been appointed presumably to take the places of the less high-profile representatives of the minister on the committee; I believe, in place of Michael Fitzpatrick and in place of Noel Ogilvie, although I may not be correct about that.

I would like to know why it is that the clinic funding committee is now going to have these high-profile, important members of the Ministry of the Attorney General on the clinic funding committee, what that means and what it bodes for the clinic funding committee, because it must create a sense of disquiet in the minds of the clinics across the province. There may well be an explanation for it, but I have not seen an adequate explanation of any kind for those appointments.

The other area that is of immense concern -- and again the recommendations are set out in the back of the document to which my colleague referred -- is the report of the subcommittee of the Ontario section of the bar on the question of the eligibility criteria. I suppose if I had to sort out where my priorities lay in urging the government to look again at the question, it is the question of the criteria for eligibility for assistance under the plan.

Briefly, the sequence has been this: The Ministry of Community and Social Services determined the criteria with great secrecy; they determined criteria which had very little exposure until they were suddenly announced on July 1, 1980. The criteria that were announced at that time caused shock waves through the legal aid system with respect to the eligibility of people for services. The changes that were made were very significant, and the legal aid committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada appointed a committee -- the Ellis committee -- to review those criteria. The criteria are set out in the document to which my colleague referred, and there is a section of the annual report for 1981 dealing with those criteria.

There are very serious concerns within the profession about the criteria. I draw the minister's attention to page 20, which goes on at some length to talk about what has taken place, particularly the role of the committee under the chairmanship of Professor Ellis, and subsequently make their own comments and then draw the conclusion that the subcommittee is currently reviewing the guidelines in anticipation of meetings of the task force that will be held in the coming fiscal year. I have not been able to find anything that indicates who are the members of the task force, let alone whether they have already reported or whether they will be reporting.

5:50 p.m.

It is significant that the Ellis committee made what were, for a legal aid committee, some drastic criticisms of the criteria that had been established by the Ministry of Community and Social Services for eligibility into the plan. One need only read the 14 or 15 recommendations of that committee to realize that in their own quiet way they were not pulling any of their punches on what had happened.

I want specifically to itemize one particular factor in their concerns which I share totally and which most lawyers who were in any way related to the clinic system found not only had an impact on the clinic system but also was basically outside the concepts of the original legal aid plan.

The concern was that a person could apply for legal aid and the Ministry of Community and Social Services criteria required those persons with whom the applicant had an association to contribute to legal aid as a condition of getting the certificates. That led to immense difficulties.

I do believe the obligation to contribute by someone else because of a relationship with an applicant for a legal aid certificate for adequate legal representation has no place in the criminal law field. I put it even more starkly than the Ellis committee, but that is only one element of the very serious criticisms that were registered against the Ministry of Community and Social Services criteria.

I know this is not the occasion to have a full, wide-ranging debate about the whole Ontario legal aid plan. What I did want to say, and I think my colleague also wanted to say it, was that there are sufficient concerns and disquiet about the overall plan, and pressures on that plan, and conflicting views of what should take place, without repeating the various headings under which I have made these criticisms of the ministry's role in the plan. When we come to the Ontario legal aid vote in the next estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General, I think we are going to have to spend time having a very close look at the problems within that plan.

It may very well be that Mr. Justice Osler had the misfortune in 1974 or 1975, when his report came out, to hit a time when it was difficult to get recommendations passed. It may very well be that there is going to have to be a very close look at the question of the value of the plan, the way it is functioning; the question of the public defender; the question of the eligibility criteria; the question of the whole of the framework that militates against people approaching the plan, rather than having a plan designed to meet people's real needs; and the concern we have as to whether the geographic net of the 40-odd legal clinics across the province is anywhere near adequate to meet the demands of people across the province for the kind of services provided by clinic-funding committees.

My final comment in the give and take of this particular supplementary estimate is that the time has long since passed when we can say to the legal profession that somehow or other this is not a matter of right but a matter of charity and continue to require the deduction of 25 per cent from each bill rendered. We cannot have it both ways. In the traditional way in which the transition took place from the old system into the Ontario legal aid plan, perhaps that made a little sense, but for the period the plan has been in force, which is now some 15 years, we should stop the system by which every account rendered is subject to a 25 per cent deduction.

We should say to the legal profession that the legal aid plan creates rights for people, if they meet proper, appropriate and adequate criteria, for services from the legal profession to be given to them and rendered on the same basis as rendered to anybody else. There should be no element of charity, no element of second-class work involved in the question of a reduced fee of 25 per cent on some residual notion that there is a charitable content under the legal aid plan.

I know there are many other lawyers who would like to argue the whole question of the adequacy of the tariff. I am not competent to argue the adequacy of the tariff, and I do not want to argue its overall adequacy. A number of the points made by the bar in its brief merit and deserve attention, but I am not holding any brief for those points.

The one I think we have to deal with is to create this as a legal plan under which people have rights. We have to get away from this latter-day residual business of some kind of a contribution by the legal profession as a charitable donation to the work of the legal aid plan. It is an important factor because it is always quoted in the report. Lawyers will say they make their contribution. It is only a limited number of lawyers who make the contribution, depending on whether they provide services under the plan. Many lawyers do not accept legal aid certificates

If we want to make certain that, to the greatest extent possible, the legal profession has an obligation from the most recent graduate to the most senior member of the bar to participate in the legal aid plan, then at least as a first step we have to get rid of that element of charity and say what we tried to say at the beginning. It is a matter of right. It is a matter not of discretion but of right. That requires one to look closely at the eligibility criteria, because they are the criteria that determine the right.

I do not want to go on at any more length, but I did want to say that the opportunity of this supplementary estimate has given me a chance to express some of the extreme disquiet I have when one looks on an overall perspective. Without criticizing the funds that have been available in the past, when we look at the goals and objectives of the plan to evaluate the plan and to determine what should be done about it, there are sufficient elements of disquiet both in the profession and in the report.

The strange bureaucratic world of the Ontario legal aid plan involves the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Law Society of Upper Canada through its legal aid committee, innumerable subcommittees and, on top of that, amongst other committees, the special committee on clinic funding.

The whole of that overall plan must now be looked at again in a fresh perspective, not from the viewpoint of restraint but from the viewpoint of whether the plan is meeting, in the best possible way, the legal needs of those persons in our society who are not in a position to put the money up front at the very beginning of matters of legal concern to them.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

5 avril 1982