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

April 5, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CONTINUING EDUCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

BILD PROGRAM

HYDRO EXPORTS

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

AIRPORT TAXI SERVICE

UNEMPLOYMENT

DIOXIN IN FISH

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER LAYOFFS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

GRANT ANNOUNCEMENTS

UREA FORMALDEHYDE

FOAM INSULATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

VICTORY

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONCLUDED)

UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

COST OF SERVICES IN BLIND RIVER

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS

PROTECTION ACT

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES,

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES

AND UNIVERSITIES (CONCLUDED)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record, if I may.

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.

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.

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.

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 in