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

May 3, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

POLISH CONSTITUTION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

OHIP PREMIUMS

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

EXTRA BILLING

OHIP PREMIUMS

GOVERNMENT JET

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

COURT DELAYS

UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

POLISH CONSTITUTION

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House a constitution that was proclaimed 191 years ago today. May 3 is a very important date in the turbulent history of the Polish people. Throughout this history, religious and political concepts have been inextricably intertwined, which makes it singularly appropriate that May 3 is both a religious and political milestone.

More than three centuries ago in 1656, the King of Poland, Jan Kazimierz, issued a religious and political proclamation to the effect that the Holy Virgin Mary should henceforth be known as Queen of Poland and that May 3 should be recognized as the Feast of Our Lady, Queen of Poland.

In 1717, Pope Clement XI, sent to Poland a crown for the coronation of the miraculous picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Czestochowa, giving the papal blessing to the King's earlier proclamation. Since that time Czestochowa has been revered as the official spiritual capital of Poland, Jasna Gora as the throne, and the picture of Mary of Czestochowa as the blessed personification of the Queen of Poland.

May 3 is also the anniversary of the proclamation of the constitution which took place in 1791. In the 191 years since that date, Polish people in Poland and all over the world have been caught up in a struggle for survival, in a battle for a national identity which, in spite of enormous courage and dedication, seems never ending.

Any attempt to understand the tremendous importance of the 1791 proclamation must be made against the background of the events in Poland throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. This was a period of political, economic, cultural and even moral instability. The Polish homeland was caught up in numerous wars -- with Sweden, Russia and the Cossacks. While the power of the monarchy was weakened, almost destroyed, other powerful forces were evident and the country was in a state of chaos.

During the second half of the 18th century, the Polish people began to hope once again that stability might be achieved and that their country would move towards fulfilling its destiny, no longer threatened by the great powers, Russia, Prussia and Austria.

It was in this atmosphere of renewed hope and optimism that a deputation was appointed by the Seym, with instructions to prepare a new constitution. After four years of work, the King, the Senate and the Seym agreed on the basic principles of that new constitution, which was proclaimed on May 3, 1791.

Here in Canada we are concerned at this time about the ramifications of our own Constitution and its effects on the future of this country and its citizens. It is particularly appropriate that we examine, in this context, the changes that were incorporated in the 1791 constitution of Poland.

The new constitution removed from the nobility their dominant political and economic influence. No longer were they able to act in a tyrannical fashion. Townspeople or burghers were permitted to hold high office and to become land owners. Hitherto, the Senate had been the senior legislative power; this role now was undertaken by the Seym. All religious denominations were promised freedom of worship and tolerance for their religious beliefs.

Throughout Poland, the Polish people celebrated the new constitution, which they saw as a major step towards achieving democracy and gaining greater status in the family of nations.

World events have wounded this proud country, but still its people battle for independence and integrity in the spirit of the 1791 constitution, which continues to be a source of inspiration for the Polish people.

The latest developments in Poland, with the rise of Solidarity and the tremendous strength of its supporters in the face of frightening and overwhelming odds, are renewed evidence of the determination of the Polish people to rise above dreadful adversity.

Solidarity and its 10 million members are fighting for freedom, human rights and new reforms in spite of the tremendous weight of the Iron Curtain regime. Terrorism and hardship are the daily companions of the Polish people, yet their courage and determination is an inspiration to the whole world at this time.

Throughout their trials, their religious faith continues to sustain them, as does their fervent desire that they will eventually gain victory in the long struggle to make Poland truly the homeland of the Polish people, unfettered by outside pressures or foreign regimes.

Let Poland be Poland.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the member for Windsor-Walkerville in highlighting the symbolism of the anniversary of the Polish constitution and the May 3 celebrations, which I am sure were observed by Canadians of Polish origin in every riding in this province and throughout this country.

I will not go into the historic details, as the honourable member has presented a detailed account of the tragic circumstances surrounding that great event at the turn of the 18th century.

The symbolism is so obvious today because on May 3, 1981, prior to the tragedy of martial law in Poland, that event had been celebrated throughout Poland for the first time under a political regime that had given some relative freedom in allowing the Polish nation to demonstrate the historic linkage of a nation whose struggle for freedom and independence went through tragic periods of persecution, of genocide, of the annihilation not only of the people but of their struggle for cultural and national independence.

2:10 p.m.

On May 3 of the year when Solidarity was at its peak, in Warsaw such celebrations were allowed and occurred. It is my understanding that this year attempts were made in Poland to hold celebrations to commemorate this event. These celebrations unfortunately were not allowed by the regime because of the crackdown.

When a nation tries to highlight its self-respect, its self-dignity, its right to live as a free and independent people within the family of freedom-loving nations of the world, that expression is not related to any ideological or socioeconomic philosophies but basically stresses the historic survival of a nation and the tragedies it experienced at the turn of the 18th century through the invasion of Russia and of Prussia and the third partition of Poland that followed.

We see a striking repeat of the cycle of history today when the spark of hope was represented by the Solidarity movement in its association with the historic struggle of the people, but now even talking about the May 3 constitution constitutes an illegal act by raising the hope of that symbolism historically that occurred close to two centuries ago.

If it is a crime to talk about the historic struggle of a people for independence, then any semblance of independence the present regime may try through its propaganda to evoke and present to nations and states in the world is a total farce. It is a comedy which becomes more obvious when the constitutional celebrations cannot be allowed.

Despite an attempt to justify the present martial law and to give the pretence that it is the only option, that the Polish nation is still free to decide its decision-making process, that there has been no intervention from the Soviet Union, we see clearly and specifically that what happened in the partition of Poland close to two centuries ago is happening today -- a people has been partitioned.

It highlights more than ever before that the colonial czarist empire that destroyed the last vestiges of freedom of the Polish people two centuries ago has been replaced by another empire that is moving in the same direction to deprive the people of these freedoms.

So, on this side of the House, I join all members who share in the symbolism and the meaning of that particular celebration and I join the member for Windsor-Walkerville in the respect he has placed before the ideals represented by the struggle of the Polish nation and all the freedom-loving peoples of the world.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I just want to join very briefly so that it is understood that all members of the House celebrate and join in the symbolism of the day. The Polish people have for many centuries struggled for freedom and independence. They are known as fierce fighters for freedom and independence and it should not go without being said today that that expression finds itself most visibly through the trade union movement, and it is that movement that at the present time is being most ferociously repressed.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as someone who had all four grandparents emigrate from Poland in the early 1900s, it is a pleasure for me to rise on this particular day.

I am pleased to confirm to the House today that we have negotiated a settlement with the board of the Ontario Medical Association. Its chief negotiator advised me late Saturday afternoon that a proposal arrived at during negotiations earlier that day had been accepted by the board of directors.

The board will present it for final acceptance by its council on Friday. The board of the OMA has stopped all job actions and medical service in Ontario has now returned to its normal pattern. The settlement is for a five-year agreement comprising 10 staged increases between now and April 1987.

I believe, and my colleagues in the government share this belief, that it will provide Ontario physicians with fair compensation and is within the financial capacity of the taxpayers of Ontario. We have reached agreement on most of the increases involved. We have also set up a framework which will make it much easier for the OMA and the government to agree on economic adjustments in years four and five, and the renegotiation of year three if necessary.

The agreement was finally reached after a lengthy negotiating session on Friday and into early Saturday morning. It culminates more than five months of bargaining between representatives of the government and the Ontario Medical Association. I think it is important to remind this House that the burden of these negotiations has been carried almost daily over these five months by the four members of our negotiating committee and some of the senior staff of my ministry.

I know the House will join me today in a public expression of appreciation to Mr. Robert Butler, the chairman of the board of Phoenix Capital Corp. who has been a most skilled, persistent and committed chief negotiator, and his associates Peter Riggin, the vice-president of Noranda, Dr. Boyd Suttie, one of my assistant deputy ministers, and Rollie Scott, the executive director of staff relations for the Civil Service Commission.

I also want to take this moment to pause in my prepared remarks to pay equal tribute to the four negotiators on behalf of the OMA who were difficult, but also skilled and persistent negotiators. I want to pay my respects to them.

The advice which our advisers and our negotiators gave us, which Mr. Butler shared continually with me and my deputy minister, Graham Scott, encouraged us to press on past each apparent impasse and to maintain a tone and position which I believe allowed us to reach a negotiated settlement.

I want to stress this because physicians across Canada have become frustrated over the years. During their job action, many of them read all actions by this House and all public comments about these negotiations in an antagonistic mood. As a result, many of the Draconian actions which were advocated against physicians or any intemperate remarks by us could easily have poisoned not only these negotiations but the climate in which health care is delivered in Ontario for years to come.

This government remained confident that the integrity and professionalism of the physicians of Ontario would preclude them from actions which would place the safety of their patients in jeopardy. In spite of a few unfortunate incidents which the College of Physicians and Surgeons is pursuing, our faith is, I believe, justified.

This is not to say that we accept or even condone these strikes by doctors which have become new phenomena in medicare in Canada, because we do not believe they contribute in any positive way to a resolution of problems in the system which frustrate many physicians.

None the less, the mood of physicians is real and is important. Its underlying cause was the subject of much of my meeting with the board of the OMA last Wednesday. I believe our dialogue over our shared concerns about the health care system at that time and the government's unequivocal commitment to medicare was quite useful.

Because this agreement provides a sufficiently long period to address those concerns without the ongoing stress of negotiating compensation, I believe it will be seen as a watershed for health care in Ontario.

2:20 p.m.

I want to emphasize what I said a month ago: we regard medicare as one of the most precious possessions of the people of Ontario and we are determined to protect and, indeed, enhance it.

Under the agreement, we are enriching the

schedule of benefits by 11 per cent as we announced on April 1 and a further three per cent as planned on January 1, 1983.

We will increase our previous offer of eight per cent next April to 8.75 per cent and the three per cent as originally proposed for January 1, 1984, will stand.

In the third year of the agreement, we will provide an economic adjustment of seven per cent on April 1, 1984, unless the OMA asks to renegotiate this amount. A further three per cent will be applied automatically on January 1, 1985.

For the fourth and fifth years of the agreement, we will negotiate economic adjustments on April 1 against some agreed standards of economic activitity and will provide four per cent increases on January 1, 1986, and 1987.

The agreement provides a framework for negotiating the undetermined amounts for the fourth and fifth years and should facilitate a settlement. It also contains an option to cancel the final two years of the agreement if the OMA concludes that the negotiating procedure is not working satisfactorily.

As the members can see, the twice-yearly adjustments were developed within the framework proposed by Professor Paul Weiler in his recommendation for a one-year agreement. As such, it contains an economic adjustment each year, as well as an annual amount to allow physicians to recover some of the losses which Professor Weiler found they accepted through agreements in the 1970s.

To recap, the adjustments are: on April 1, 1982, and the following January 1, 11 per cent and three per cent; April 1, 1983, and January 1, 1984, 8.75 per cent and three per cent; on April 1, 1984, a seven per cent floor to be negotiated at the option of the OMA, followed by three per cent on January 1, 1985. The amount on January 1, 1985, is to be negotiated followed by a four per cent adjustment on January 1, 1986. On April 1, 1986, an amount to be negotiated, and on January 1, 1987, a further four per cent.

We have agreed that the seven per cent scheduled for April 1, 1984, may be renegotiated at the request of the OMA. They may also cancel the final two years if, as I indicated earlier, they believe the process is not satisfactory.

As the members will see, we enriched our three-year offer from 34 per cent additive to a minimum of 35.75 per cent, which we will compound. As well, we have provided four per cent instead of three per cent in the fourth and fifth years to deal with the problems which Professor Weiler found were caused by the rate of increase in physicians' income in the past decade.

In conclusion, I want to repeat my view that this agreement addresses the concerns of physicians for a fair remuneration and provides us with time to deal with the many other pressing demands within the health care system.

I intend to use these years to respond to the issues and suggestions from physicians, their patients, other health care providers and the public to improve our capacity to deliver what we all regard as one of the finest health care systems in the world.

We all acknowledge that these annual negotiations produce trauma which the system does not need. I believe this longer-term agreement will be seen as a watershed for medicare.

We are satisfied that the agreement is fair and it is affordable. It reflects our government's determination to arrive at a settlement we could all accept. I believe we have done this.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seem to be missing the last page of the statement. I do not have the price tag. I am sure it was an inadvertent oversight on the part of the minister that he neglected to provide us with the cost of the settlement.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues may I say we are very happy that this unfortunate matter has drawn to a close and we will now see our facilities put back into full use across the province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Will the Premier instruct the Treasurer to call upon resources currently available to finance this new agreement, and not increase personal income tax or Ontario health insurance plan premiums in order to pay for this, particularly at this time of recession?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Treasurer is aware of the present economic situation. I am not in a position to tell the House what the Treasurer will provide us with a week from this Thursday. The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to comment, as I am sure he will in a very constructive and supportive way, on that Thursday evening when we know what the Treasurer has determined.

Mr. Peterson: According to the ministry's own figures the original final offer of April 1 was to cost $650 million, and the final final offer's total cost for three years was $742 million. So there is a difference of some $86 million between the first final offer and the final final offer.

Would the Premier not agree that he can find the resources within his budget of some $20 billion without bringing in a tax increase at this time to pay for that increase?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are one or two points that the Treasurer might make. Like all of us he is reluctant to have tax increases at any time. However, with regard to the hypothetical question of premiums it is fair to state that I believe our support to the health system was increased by somewhere around 19 per cent to 20 per cent in this past fiscal year. That is just a rough guess and the honourable member may care to verify that.

The premium share of the cost is probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 18 or 19 per cent. The Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) can correct me if I am wrong but I think I am fairly close. I think the people of this province understand that if we are going to have the finest health care delivery system anywhere in the world, which is what we do have, and I say that very modestly --

Mr. Bradley: You are the only one who says it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would ask the honourable member to show me any place in North America where the quality is better and where it costs the average taxpayer less money. You cannot find one because there is not one. You know that, and it bothers and disturbs you.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier give us assurance that the burden of paying for what I assume to be a $1-billion settlement will not be imposed on the backs of OHIP premium payers?

I ask this in the light of the answer to the written question tabled in the House by the Treasurer on April 22, in which he admits that only 55 per cent of families eligible for premium assistance in Ontario are actually receiving premium assistance. Surely the Premier can give us a commitment not to use this regressive form of taxation to pad what is so obviously an inadequate cushion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have debated the question of whether medicare should be financed through premiums or in some other fashion. I know the New Democratic Party would finance it by imposing a much higher personal income tax or corporation tax, forgetting that for many people the premium is paid for by their employers.

Under the system in this province, those who cannot afford to pay the premiums do not pay them. At the risk of upsetting the member again, and just in case he did not hear me before, I repeat that premium payments account for roughly 19 per cent of the total cost of the finest health care system anywhere in North America.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, after consulting with the Minister of Health and with the Treasurer when he returns, could the Premier undertake to table a statement in the Legislature about the expected costs on a year-by-year basis; at least for the first three years, since the final two are still so far in the future.

2:30 p.m.

Would it also be possible to give the kinds of figures we could use in consulting with doctors and others about average pay? The doctors do not accept the figures that have been used by the minister and his negotiating group for some considerable time. The doctors I talk to are not prepared to see this agreement as giving them $100,000, even though they consider themselves to be in the average income scale.

With that information available, does the Premier not feel that it would be possible for him to consult with the Treasurer, along with his other colleagues, and assure the people of Ontario that we are not going to have to raise the premiums paid through the Ontario health insurance plan? The Premier will surely remember that when he attempted to do that one other time, it was clearly the will of the people that he not do it. Surely he would not consider doing that again under these circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, over the years I have found that, whatever tax increase there might be, if one were to ask the average person he would say, "I am not enthusiastic." That is one of the realities we in government have to face. I also know that over the years --

Mr. Nixon: But you had no new taxes in election year, so what is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member will recall that we have increased premiums in other years. We have discussed it. I am not sure what the Treasurer is going to do. As I said to the gentleman who asked the question, it still represents less than 20 per cent of the cost of the system.

The premiums are paid for in some cases by people who can afford to pay them. Those who cannot are not required to pay them. Of course, many premiums are paid as part of collective agreements.

If the honourable member would like the specifics, the Minister of Health could tell him within two or three percentage points the amounts required in the first three years of the agreement. The House leader of the Liberal Party is quite accurate. It is not possible to give a projection for years four and five because the upper line of those two years is a matter for negotiation with the procedures and general terms laid down.

In my discussions with some doctors over the past couple of weeks there has been some disagreement as to averages, in their perception at least. I think we should be reminded that Professor Weiler, when he did his factfinding report this year, used much of the material, used roughly the same data that was available to the medical profession a year ago. The recommendation was -- and the minister can correct me if I am wrong -- somewhere around 14 per cent, which we accepted and they accepted.

There can be some differential in the minds of some doctors because one is talking of averages. For instance, the average in Kirkland Lake, perhaps even in St. George, might be somewhat less than that in the city of Brampton or in Metropolitan Toronto. But we are dealing with averages. One can always debate or disagree on these, but I sense that when the Ontario Medical Association executive committee came to its conclusions on Saturday there must have been some fairly close agreement as to the basis upon which the percentages were calculated.

If, when it becomes his turn, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would like to ask the minister a question as to the specifics for years one, two and three, I think he will find the Minister of Health is in a position to give him those approximate figures.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier with respect to the Spadina expressway matter, which is very important today because of certain commitments the minister made on behalf of the Premier. Will the Premier tell us when the issue of expropriation of the Spadina lands will come before cabinet? When does he intend to move? When will he actually take possession of those lands to honour the long string of promises he and his minister have made?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted that the honourable member has raised this as his second question today. I really had been prepared for two or three others. I will not comment as to the priorities that I would have established if I had been in his position.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No question, the leader of the Liberal Party is on to the most significant issue in Ontario at this moment, there is no doubt about that. I have to tell the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr.Nixon) that the residents of St. George could not care less one way or the other. I would also have to say it is not the highest priority for the residents of Brampton, but I know it is in London Centre, so I will endeavour to answer that question.

I must also say how delighted I am to find the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario apparently in support of what has been the government's position for the past number of years because I can tell him, his caucus was quite divided on this subject not too many years ago -- I can recall it very vividly; which is consistent with his inconsistencies.

Mr. Bradley: Is this the promise? Keep the promise.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) we promised a courthouse in his municipality; we are building it, and I noticed he was front and centre when the sod was turned, beaming to everybody there, congratulating himself upon this great structure --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable Premier will answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- just like he does on every initiative taken in St. Catharines.

The Acting Speaker: Please answer the question.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He did not promise it, we did.

I am just reading a part of a letter from the chairman of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), which I assume is in reply to the letter from the Minister of Transportation and Communications relative to the Spadina. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister of T and C but I will read the letter and I will give an opinion:

"I have no difficulty in suggesting an agreement based on your November 1975 letter" -- that is the letter that talks about the exchange etc. -- "but, plainly, it is going to take some small further period of time" -- small, I have that underlined -- "to achieve.

"I would suggest to you that we continue discussions and that you continue construction of the Black Creek southwards" -- I guess that is part of Highway 400 -- "and that both of us work towards completion of an agreement at the time the road is completed."

I can only say that I am encouraged by this letter from the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto who indicates that, from his perspective, there will be no problem in completing the agreement but that it will require some small -- I emphasize small -- additional amount of time.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier has had more positions on this than the Argos have had coaches. But let me point out to him his last position, as stated by the minister on March 4, that if for any reason the agreement to turn the Spadina lands over to the province is not executed by May 1, 1982, the ministry would immediately initiate expropriation procedures to acquire the Spadina lands. That was a clear and definite position.

My question to the Premier is a simple one: When is he going to introduce that legislation to honour the promise that he has made?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member provokes me by referring to my favourite football team. I do acknowledge they have had a variety of coaches over a number of years, but I would also say to the member for London Centre that while they may have had a number of coaches they have not had a lot of success, and in terms of electoral success his party reminds me of the success of the Toronto Argonauts, which is zip.

The predecessor to George Hutchinson had the greatest line of all, "Joining the Liberal Party to work for the Liberal Party is like joining the Argonauts." Does the member recall that phrase? I thought it was excellent. I felt badly about it, but it was true.

Our position on this really has been quite consistent. I want to make that abundantly clear. The minister, in order to bring this matter to a conclusion, wrote that letter to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, I assume, some few days ago saying that if nothing happened he was prepared to recommend to cabinet this additional step. I cannot give the exact date of the letter although I think if I look for it I might find it.

2:40 p.m.

The chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, in his usual constructive, conciliatory way, has communicated back that he has no problems with this other than it will take -- and I emphasize -- a small amount of time. I can assure the leader of the Liberal Party that no one has been more committed to this policy than I have, including his party and the members of his caucus. We will assure that the commitments given will be fulfilled.

I would only point out to the leader of the Liberal Party that if he checks the Allen expressway, as it is called, if he comes down it to the Eglinton --

Mr. Nixon: Roadway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Roadway -- he will find that south of Eglinton there is no indication of any construction activity; no bulldozers, no surveyors, no nothing.

Mr. Martel: Do you get paid by the word, Bill?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Martel: It's obvious.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Premier on this issue is very clear. It has been clear for 10 years. The position of the minister, in support of the Premier's position, was reiterated on March 4, by saying that if there was no settlement as of May 1, they were going to move to expropriation.

My question to the Premier is this: Why, when that deadline of May 1 came, was the position of the government changed by the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Communications saying he was willing to accept the representations of Mr. Godfrey? Everybody knows Mr. Godfrey's position is not the Premier's. He is not in favour of a strip that will make certain that the Spadina expressway is not built.

What further is negotiable? What is negotiable between now and the fall that cannot be finalized in accordance with the letter of the minister of January 4, to move to expropriation if there is no resolution by negotiation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that on some occasions, at least, the member for York South does recognize that our position on this issue has been constant and consistent.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, no; it is in the process of shifting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it is not in the process of doing anything of the kind. I would say to the member for York South that no one has ever left the impression that the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto may not have quite the same perspective on this issue. That has never been a matter of debate. Everybody has understood that. I respect his point of view. He obviously respects mine because nothing has been built.

I am sure the member for York South, who is a conciliator on some occasions, would understand that as we approached the May 1 deadline, when the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto said, "Listen, I think we can get this resolved without going through the necessity of expropriation," we, being the kind of people we are, wanting reason and light to prevail without going through this if it is not necessary; surely the member, as one who has dealt with negotiations for a good part of his life, would support the position of the government in endeavouring to bring this to a negotiated settlement. That has been his philosophy, not compulsory arbitration which expropriation would represent.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate time to congratulate the Premier on his humanitarian award over the weekend because he will never again win a transportation medal, let me assure him of that, with that kind of performance.

The Premier is aware that Mr. Godfrey would like Metro to build roads of some type or other in the Spadina corridor. He is aware that he would like to prevent the city from getting the three-foot strip across that corridor.

Do we have the Premier's assurance that those things will not be done? Do we have his assurance that we will not be building roads in that corridor and he will give that three-foot strip to the city? Do we have his assurance of that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not think we should remind the Liberal Party that they wanted the road built.

Mr. Nixon: You were going to build a road and now you're not.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, let the Premier respond, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would remind the leader of the Liberal Party that his former leader was in touch with potential candidates in that corridor, hemming and hawing that if one is a candidate, we might build it. I would not remind him of any of those things because he will not face that for another three years. Chances are he will not have any better luck.

I can assure the honourable member that we do not intend to see any construction relative to roads south of Eglinton. I give him that assurance. I have given it many times. I will be prepared to give it many more times, if he asks me. I am just delighted to get up here and reconfirm it time and time again.

I appreciate the member's reference to the award over the weekend and I agree with him, I will not receive another Transportation Man of the Year Award because they can give it to each recipient only once.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Minister of Health.

Now that he has come to an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, does he not think the members of the OMA should abide by that agreement and, therefore, will he now tell us when he plans to end extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, just on the off-chance that the member was not present last week for the answer, though he did ask the questions, may I reaffirm this government's commitment and belief in extra billing. Let us make clear we understand that. We believe extra billing is part of what keeps this health care system in Ontario working well. We believe it is not being abused. We believe that as long as the OMA continues to live up to its agreement to provide services at opted-in rates to every citizen of this province, we will not have a problem.

As I indicated last week, we monitor that on a continuing basis. At the present time we do not intend -- nor in the foreseeable future, just so the member does not take that as a limiting factor -- to end opting out in this province. We think it works very well.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister then tell us what the purpose of the agreement is, and can he tell us how much the patients of Ontario have to pay for this extra component, this third component of payment for their health care in addition to premiums and taxes?

How can the minister sit here in this House and assure us that the people of Ontario have universal access to the health care system when two out of three anaesthetists across the province are opted out, when one out of five general surgeons are opted out, when two out of five orthopaedic surgeons are opted out and when two out of five gynaecologists are opted out?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, let me say that while the net effect -- I am sure the member has missed this -- of the settlement we made is that the patients of opted-out physicians will have to pay less out of their pockets to obtain --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you want to let me finish? If the member has those calculations from his Health critic he should not have asked me for them. But in fact his calculations are wrong.

In point of fact, this will decrease the gap between the Ontario health insurance plan

schedule of benefits and the OMA fee schedule.

The net effect is that the patient who goes to an opted-out physician and is extra billed will pay, in terms of the relationship between the two fees, relatively less than had this arrangement not been entered into. In percentage terms the gap is, in fact, closing.

Second, just so that the figures the member tosses around are put in some perspective, while 14.6 per cent of all physicians in Ontario are opted out, only six per cent of the services provided are extra billed. That indicates a couple of things. First, many physicians who are opted out are not extra billing, they are opting out on principle.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member is having a hard day because he was hoping there would not be a settlement and I understand that. Just take it easy.

Second, it also means that a lot of physicians -- and I know he will again find this hard to believe from his standpoint but not from ours -- look at the situation on a one-on-one basis. That is, a lot of opted-out physicians, when they know their patient cannot afford to pay the extra amount they bill, in fact do not extra bill even though they have the right to.

That is absolutely true and the figures are proof of it. Six per cent of OHIP claims are extra billed while 14.6 per cent of all the physicians are opted out.

On the last point raised about the opting-out levels in certain areas, regarding the agreement between the OMA and the government I can say to the member that the statement he has made is not accurate, it just is not accurate. The OMA has assured us that all citizens of this province are safe from extra billing if they cannot afford it.

2:50 p.m.

I believe that as a result of the way these negotiations have been handled, in spite of some extreme pressure and extreme statements from the opposite side of the House, we have been left in a position where, through that difficult experience the OMA retains some respect for this government and will live up to its agreements.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Minister; I know it was a long question and it is an extra-long answer.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he can clear up the differential between the OHIP fee

schedule agreement signed on the weekend and the OMA fee

schedule passed by their council in February. It is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected and would be pleased to be shown to be wrong, that there remains a differential of 30.2 per cent between the fee

schedule the minister settled for on the weekend in the first year and the OMA's fee schedule.

In view of the fact that we estimate that in 1980-81 extra billing from opted-out doctors cost the patients who were being extra billed something on the order of $41 million because of the differential, the question asked by the deputy leader still stands: What will the cost of extra billing be in Ontario in the coming year, 1982-83, as a result of the minister's billion-dollar settlement, which permits doctors to continue to extra bill their patients?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let us just get this silliness about a billion-dollar settlement out of the way. If we had made a 10-year or 20-year deal then the member could call it a multibillion-dollar settlement. The question is, what is the yearly impact of the settlement? And if the member has been paying attention during the last couple of years he will remember that last year the physicians got 14.75 per cent, this year they will be getting 14 per cent and next year they will be getting 11 per cent. That trend is in accordance with what is happening with incomes at this time in Canada.

The member wanted to get out this nonsense about a billion-dollar settlement because he wants to take it to its extreme in year five.

If he wants to talk about it on a yearly basis, which is the only way one can measure it against previous settlements -- so he does not get into this situation where he can blithely walk around the province saying things like we on the government side golf with the doctors, as the opposition party member from the diplomatic corps likes to say, or that we have made billion-dollar settlements; so he can have it accurate, because I know he will want to be accurate the member can tell the people throughout this province that we have entered into an agreement with the OMA which calls for an increase in a $1.3 billion budget for OHIP of $218 million this year --

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Martel: When are you going to answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member want the information or not? He does not want the information, does he? Mr. Speaker, if they want the information --

The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the answer lies somewhere in your response.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, your faith is touching, I may say.

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, with some hesitation I return to the Minister of Health with a new question. I quote from the Toronto Sun of this morning:

"Health Minister Larry Grossman said he doesn't believe OHIP rates will go up as a result of the fee pact the Ontario Medical Association accepted Saturday. 'The agreement with the doctors cost us only a few million dollars more than we had budgeted for last year,' Grossman said yesterday. 'It's not enough to cause a rise in OHIP premiums.'"

Can the minister give us a categorical assurance that there will not be an increase in OHIP premiums this year? Has he consulted with the Premier (Mr. Davis) about that, or has he consulted with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) about that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, to put that in context --

Mr. Martel: Oh, oh. That'll take 10 minutes.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the honourable member did not want me to put his billion-dollar settlement in context; so I am sure he would not really want me to put this in context either.

The question posed to me by the reporter was, will this extra settlement have an impact on the problems the Treasurer faces in terms of his budget this year?

Mr. Foulds: The reporter actually used the word "impact"?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why not wait until I have finished?

The cost of the difference between our April 1 offer, as implemented, and the final position is $2 million. I went to great pains to point out to the journalist that I was not talking about the 14 per cent increase over the year, which obviously costs the province $218 million.

To make it absolutely clear, the reference in both the question posed to me and the answer was that the difference, i.e. the impact of the settlement versus what was implemented on April 1, was $2 million on a $20-billion budget. Therefore, I said the impact of the increase between April 1 and whenever the settlement was ultimately agreed, was $2 million and I expected that in itself would not likely have an impact on premiums. Which was not to say the $218 million did not present a problem for the Treasurer as he looks at a variety of tax mechanisms, of which OHIP premiums are just one and happen to cover only one quarter of my own ministry's budget.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister telling us that in his conversations with the Treasurer and the Premier it has already been decided and that there has been a budgeted increase in OHIP fees for the coming year because of the impending settlement?

Can the minister indicate whether, in his discussions with the Treasurer and the Premier, there was any discussion about what else could be done with the $700 million -- give or take a million here or there, as the Minister of Health says -- in other social and economic fields? For example, does the minister realize that the settlement arrived at with the OMA could raise 500,000 people in this province, such as seniors, those receiving the general welfare allowance and the Family Benefits Act benefits, above the poverty line? Has that been taken into account in the government's decision about the budget?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member's question was, would I tell him about the conversations that I had with the Treasurer and the Premier? I give a short and succinct answer: Absolutely not.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when the minister made his original final offer, was he at that point counting on an increase in OHIP premiums to pay for that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not count on any particular tax, be it liquor tax, retail sales tax, corporation tax or personal income tax, to pay for that. I am obliged to negotiate with the medical profession a fair and reasonable settlement in spite of many of the pressures brought by the OMA and the opposition.

I must say that the Treasurer ultimately has the responsibility of raising enough money to fund the various activities in which the government is engaged, be they through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, where there was a 12 per cent increase, through the Ministry of Health, which has had a very substantial increase as well, or its various other activities.

I do not count on any particular tax in terms of the negotiations when I enter into the negotiations. I do count on the support of my colleagues and my Premier and my Treasurer, all of whom were fully supportive at all times of the positions the government took and of the final position the government arrived at.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister says this settlement is not going to have an impact on the budget, which is going to be coming down in a week. If that is the case, why did the Treasurer indicate in Chatham on Thursday that because of the settlement that was coming down with the doctors, he was going to have a great deal less flexibility in his budget on May 13 to create jobs and the other things this province needs?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to say it one more time before you complain about me repeating myself. The difference between the April 1 offer, as implemented, and the May 1 negotiated agreement is $2 million. I presume the Treasurer, in dealing with pressures on the budget, was speaking of what he knew to be a general and predictable increase in the $1.3-billion budget of OHIP and the $6-billion budget of my ministry. Just so the member understands it clearly, I will repeat it: If he subtracts $216 million from $218 million, I promise him he will get $2 million.

GOVERNMENT JET

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier the question everybody in the province is asking: Where is the jet at present? Is he hiding it somewhere in the great state of Texas?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The question is, "where?" You already asked the question.

Mr. Bradley: Yes. Where is the Premier hiding it? Is he hiding it in the great state of Texas until --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for St. Catharines has asked the question, "where?"

Mr. Bradley: But the Premier may want me to elaborate.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think he does, and I am sure the Premier will not elaborate on his response.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the member that it is exactly where it was two weeks ago, when it was debated here.

Mr. Bradley: I know you will allow me to elaborate a little bit in my supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm that the jet is now in the great state of Texas and that perhaps it is being hidden there until July or August so that he can slip it into Ontario without too much notice? Or is it perhaps the case that its luxurious appointments are of such a nature that it will take until the summer to complete them?

Is the Premier prepared to set an example for people in all political jurisdictions by admitting he was wrong and selling the jet?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I understand it, part of the jet is being fitted for medical use --

Mr. Peterson: Are you not feeling well?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the leader of the Liberal Party, I never feel well when I get off the ground in whatever type of aircraft.

Mr. Sweeney: The Premier is blushing over the statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I had a very good line which I am not going to use.

Mr. Sweeney: You are showing up in Technicolor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I saw the member for Kitchener-Wilmot in living colour not too many weeks ago. I shall not comment on that performance. But the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) says the member could have used an ambulance.

To the member who asked the question, I say that when it comes I will notify him so it will not "slip in" unnoticed. He will be the first to know when it is going to arrive.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, is there any truth to the rumour that the Premier has some concerns for jobs in his own riding and in Downsview, and that he will be selling the jet and buying a much superior plane manufactured here in Ontario, at Downsview, which will be much more practical for his and our purposes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member meant by "our purposes," because if his ultimate purpose is to be in a position where as a matter of public necessity he can use an aircraft of that kind, he is going to have to wait two or three lifetimes before that happens.

If he is referring to the fact that the Dash aircraft is built in Downsview, we know that and this government has indicated its support by buying the first new Dash off the line. I also point out to the member, and this may come as a shock to him, that a good percentage of the components in the other aircraft are manufactured in Ontario.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

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

The minister is aware of Friday's decision by a US district court judge to approve the agreement between Hooker Chemicals and the US government to allow 80,000 tons of toxic chemicals to remain in the Hyde Park dump. It is an unacceptable and somewhat frightening agreement, in that it endangers the future of Lake Ontario's water supply for four million Ontarians.

In the past, the minister has expressed his concerns about the proposed settlement and has offered the assistance of his ministry to groups that opposed the settlement. Will he now admit that an aggressive and well-documented intervention by his ministry would have lent some weight and some credibility to the opponents who intervened in those hearings and perhaps would have had a significant bearing on the outcome of that decision?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the honourable member to conclude that our efforts ceased with the decision that was handed down by the judge in the US court. As I indicated to the member and to this House, we have established a team that is fully devoting its time to the work relating to the Niagara River. That includes a recently added hydrogeologist, who I understand has now been instructed to devote his efforts to looking at a number of sites in the United States, including the Hyde Park site, in considerable detail.

There will be communication very shortly with both the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States and the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York state about our willingness to be involved.

In fact, a request that we be involved on an ongoing basis was made not only because we can provide them with some of the information we now have but did not have earlier -- for example, the more recent work that has been completed on the dioxin fish, which would lead us to conclude that there are still some persistent sources in the Niagara River -- but also because we offered to give them the information we will be producing from a hydrogeological point of view, relating specifically in this instance to Hyde Park and others.

The matter is certainly not closed. Our work with those agencies will be ongoing.

Mr. Charlton: The minister's special team in Niagara is certainly welcome, but that team is not going to prevent the seepage from the dump sites on the American side getting into the Niagara River and, eventually, into Lake Ontario. But perhaps direct involvement on the part of his ministry in future hearings of that sort will have a direct influence on seeing that a cleanup occurs.

Especially since Frank Neruda of Hooker Chemicals now is touting this decision as the standard for future decisions around agreements of this type, will the minister assure this House that in future his ministry will be directly involved in any hearings that take place around any dump sites that are dangerous to the future of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think I have already assured this House in a statement going back as far as December 1981, in the previous session of this Parliament, that our precise intention was to participate whenever it appeared to be necessary. There is not much point in participating if, in a given situation where a permit is under review, there is no effective role we can play because what is being proposed and what appears to be the likely result is going to be precisely what we are requesting in any event. However, we are assessing every permit that is coming up for review or renewal on the American side; that was one of the principal reasons for the establishment of the Niagara River team.

I do not know what more, in terms of effectiveness, the member would ask of us. We do not have direct jurisdiction in American territory. If the member would like to dash across the river and stick his finger in the dike, then he should go ahead.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that Ministry of the Environment data, which he released last week or the week before, showed that dioxin concentrations in fish in Lake Ontario are much higher than was the case in previous data and that dioxin is migrating through the gorge towards the river.

3:10 p.m.

We feel last Friday's decision by Judge Curtin of Buffalo ruling in favour of the proposed Hyde Park settlement is fraught with danger and full of holes. Given that the Ministry of Environment did not have party status at the hearings and cannot now appeal or challenge the judge's decision, will he have his ministry and himself -- the minister in charge of what might be potentially a lawsuit against Hooker Chemicals -- consider such a lawsuit for the danger to the human environment and common-law riparian rights or nuisance?

As an alternative, will the minister encourage and assist the federal government in a suit against the United States government for violations of the 1909 water treaty, which it has been violating from the day that treaty was put into effect?

The minister is just closing the barn door after the horse has gone. When is he going to get ahead of this thing and take the initiative? Will he not join with the federal minister and see what he can do to those Americans for poisoning that river?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I fear to suggest that the honourable member is simply so slow that he has not yet caught the rapid rate of movement that is taking place on this issue as far as my ministry is concerned, since he talks about trying to close the door after the horse is out of the barn or whatever the expression is.

I will be communicating with Commissioner Flacke with respect to a request I am making that there be drilling of deep wells near this site to test Anderson's theory with respect to the hydrogeology in that area --

Mr. Kerrio: Wasn't that my suggestion to you? Why don't you admit it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- with respect to the theory that has been put forward that there may be some leakage through fissures in the shale.

Mr. Kerrio: You finally decided; that's interesting.

Mr. Stokes: You could use the jet to patrol the boundary line.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Calm down. The fact of the matter is that I am not --

Mr. Kerrio: That was my suggestion, and you're afraid to admit it.

Mr. Nixon: Why don't you go and stick your finger in it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going to go to a new question.

COURT DELAYS

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General concerning the administration of justice in the provincial courts in the city of Windsor.

Since the beginning of the year, the Attorney General has been aware that the number of provincial court judges hearing criminal cases has been reduced by one half to a number of two. This has placed a terrible burden on the already overloaded shoulders of the remaining judges and is straining the system to a point where it is discredited in the eyes of the public.

On March 8, the Attorney General promised the Chief of Police in the city of Windsor that "judicial assistance would be available in the very near future." Is the Attorney General prepared today to make a commitment to the people of the city of Windsor actually spelling out what that assistance will be and when it will come?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the chief judge of the provincial courts, criminal division, that additional judges have been sitting in Windsor, over and above, of course, the people who sit there more or less on a permanent basis. My information about the backlog is not quite consistent with the honourable member's, but I will check on that.

I can say to the member that, notwithstanding the fact that the chief judge has been rotating additional judges into the Windsor area, we expect to make an additional appointment in that area in the relatively near future.

Mr. Newman: If, as the Attorney General stated in an

article in the Toronto Star on February 8, 1982, that the backlog of the courts "makes the criminal justice seem less of a deterrent; it is demoralizing to police and to the community," why has he not acted with greater urgency in the Windsor situation when it was first brought to his attention in January 1982? By the way, there are at least 150 criminal cases outstanding at present.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I really do not have anything to add to what I have already said. This is a matter that is reviewed with the chief judge on a regular basis. As I have said, he has allocated additional judicial resources there by rotating judges from other parts of the province into the Windsor area.

It is a matter we are continuing to look at. We do have problems with respect to backlogs from time to time; there is no question about that. In so far as the administration of justice in the Windsor area is concerned, I would say it is functioning effectively in the interests of the citizens of that great community.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Health. I have a copy of the final report from the Ministry of Health, which is dated April 23, 1982, and which I have just secured; it is entitled The Results of the Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation Home Testing Program of the Ministry of Health of Ontario.

It gives the results of tests and surveys on 4,920 urea formaldehyde foam insulated homes and shows that 8.2 per cent of those homes had formaldehyde gas tests above 0.1 and that no less than 35 per cent had readings above 0.05, which was formerly the ministry's safe limit. It also shows in the survey that 2,762 persons in 28 per cent of the homes had health problems owing to UFFI.

In view of this and documentation by Bruce Small and others that people once sensitized can have violent reactions to even small amounts of urea formaldehyde gas, what measures is the minister going to take to ensure the health of this broad

section of the population of this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, to save the House time, I say to the honourable member that, no matter how many times he asks that question, this will remain a problem for the federal government.

Mr. Swart: To paraphrase that: The minister has no concern about the health conditions of the people of this province.

Does the minister not realize that in his interim report of November 13, 1981, to the review board, he said, "The board of review should continue the ban on UFFI as there is no information available to date to adequately address the serious questions as to the danger to health from the material"?

Does he not realize that under the Public Health Act he has responsibility for the health of the people in those premises? Is he prepared to leave this question unanswered? If so, will he appear at the UFFI rally this Saturday in front of this Legislature at 1 p.m. and explain his inaction and indifference to this very real problem?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not want to use words that are too strong, but I have difficulty restraining myself. In fairness to my predecessor, it was this government that was in those homes, making those tests and bringing pressure to bear on the federal government before the member discovered the problem, before the federal government discovered the problem and before anyone discovered this problem.

The only reason the federal government is now taking any interest in this matter is as a result of the efforts of this government and my predecessor, now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). Let us make that absolutely clear.

We have discharged our responsibilities. There was intense pressure on the federal government from us. I do not know whether the federal New Democratic Party caucus in Ottawa with its then composition was bringing pressure to bear where it properly lies. The member may find that out in his caucus tomorrow morning. Whether or not it was bringing pressure to bear, the responsibility lies in Ottawa.

They have not met their responsibilities. We are pressuring them to meet their responsibilities. But let us make it clear, we on this side of the House in this province not only have met our responsibilities but also have been meeting them from day one.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Health will agree the conclusions and the facts indicated in his report show that there is a problem in this area. What reaction and commitment has he received from the federal government upon presentation of that report?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it was inadequate; and I am sure the leader of the third party will get on the phone this afternoon and call his former colleagues in Ottawa to ensure that a proper question is brought in the House of Commons tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m. I will be watching; I will get a copy of Hansard and make sure his outrage is such that it is transmitted through the NDP leader's former colleagues tomorrow afternoon in the House of Commons.

I am sure the invitation to attend on the front steps of Queen's Park here next Saturday afternoon will be extended by the federal NDP caucus to the federal minister responsible, because I know how much the NDP cares about this issue.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services on his recent announcement about building three mini-institutions for disturbed youth in southeastern Ontario.

Does the minister recall my question of May 7, 1981, when I asked him why he had cancelled the building of three similar mini-institutions in my riding? At that time he said, and I quote, "Surely he is not suggesting that I start placing young offenders in mini-institutions just for the sake of having to build institutions." Can the minister explain why these institutions he did not need are now being built somewhere else?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not building any institutions. I have the press release here in my hand. Can the member not read?

Mr. Boudria: I am reading the press release here. Maybe it does not announce the physical construction of structures, but it does say three new areas of services in eastern Ontario will be constructed. None of them are in the same place as the previous ones, they are going to be located in different ridings. I want to know from the minister whether he has just moved those institutions from Prescott-Russell, where the incumbent member was rejected, to build them somewhere else, or whether he is not going to be building them, as he said previously.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously the member is very confused and troubled. Let me tell him what those new services are. There never were any institutions going to be built in Russell and Prescott. We closed the Alfred institution. I ask him to show me where any contract was ever signed to build any institution here.

Mr. Boudria: You had options on the land.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I had no options -- not this minister. Let me tell the member what I have done. I am going to read the whole release into the record, and that will wipe the little smile off the member's perky little face.

The new services are as follows: "An eight-bed, semi-secure observation and detention home will be established in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. This service, designed to provide short-term accommodation to youths in crisis, will be operated" -- not by the government -- "by the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton beginning May 1, 1982, at 2887 Riverside Drive."

Does the member know where that is? I ask him to pay attention now: "This site is presently being used by the Youth Services Bureau as a children's institution and will be modified to meet the new program requirements at a cost of approximately $50,000. The annual operating budget for this program will be approximately $250,000."

The Deputy Speaker: You are not going to read the whole thing?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In fairness, the member has accused me of building three institutions; I am not. He has this piece of paper in front of him that he cannot read or comprehend. I do not want to have to come back here day after day and try to straighten this out. If you want to cut it short, Mr. Speaker, I am not building institutions. A private agency has moved from one place to build an observation and detention home. The existing building will be renovated, as this release says. If the member is talking about the francophone group home, is that an institution he does not want me to build, the francophone mental health centre?

Mr. Boudria: Yes, I do.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh yes, he does.

To sum it all up, I am not building any institutions. I have never built any institutions. Of all the ministers to build a correctional institution, he has the wrong one.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Barlow, on behalf of Mr. Eves, from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's first report for 1982.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Stokes, first reading of Bill 97,

An Act to ensure the Regeneration and Reforestation of Forests in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, this is an extensive bill having six parts.

1. It makes it the duty of the Minister of Natural Resources to ensure that Ontario forest lands be managed on a sustained yield basis.

2. It requires the Minister of Natural Resources to prepare and make public a forest resources management program for the entire province.

3. It makes a complete inventory of present forest timber and requires the minister to describe the location and extent of forest land in Ontario that has "been denuded and not been restocked or is producing below its potential."

4. It requires the minister to analyse and forecast international demand for forest resources and forest products.

5. It requires the minister to indicate the relationship between forests grown in Ontario and manufactured forest products produced in Ontario.

6. It requires the minister to outline the five-year plan for restocking forest lands, increasing productivity of forest lands and improving forest resources, and the cost of such a program to Ontario.

It would carry out the famous promise of the Premier (Mr. Davis) to plant two for one, without being silviculturally unsound as that promise was.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answer to question 91 and the interim answers to questions 85, 86, 87, 96, 111 and 113 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might inform the House that there has been a slight change in the order of business for today from that printed on the Order Paper. We are going to proceed first with the third reading of Bill 41, then committee of the whole House on Bill 6 and second reading of Bill 38.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Baetz moved third reading of Bill 41,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the motion carried? Carried.

Mr. Stokes: No, Mr. Speaker. Put the motion so we have something to deal with.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister has moved third reading of Bill 41. Is the motion carried? Carried.

Mr. Stokes: No, it does not carry. It is a motion people can legitimately speak to.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for sending me the information that was made available to him after second reading of the bill in this House, outlining a study that was done of the advertising expenditures of this ministry and suggesting that he may not be getting dollar value for the money spent in promotion and advertising. It highlighted what had gone on in a lot of other jurisdictions that might be appropriate in the promotional schemes the minister spoke of on second reading and in response to a lot of comments members had made.

It is appropriate that this ministry pay heed to the recommendations contained in that report, which I thought was an excellent one. It is time that a complete and total review is made of that aspect of the tourist industry, because in reality it now will become a lead ministry.

As a natural corollary and follow-up to that, it is absolutely essential in this ministry's new responsibility for the promotion of and obtaining maximum benefit from this new ministry that the minister and his staff realize if he is ever going to make a success in setting up the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, he first of all must have the ability to co-ordinate all the tourist aspects as an industry, as an independent entity within the overall economy of the province; he must also have the ability to get the ear and the complete and total co-operation of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and all the policy fields that have a responsibility to devise policy directions that will have a beneficial effect on the tourist industry in Ontario.

I am sure the minister is busy, as I am, in reading all the things that come across his desk from the northern Ontario tourist operators, the anglers' and hunters' groups, the commercial fishing groups and the parks and recreation groups in the province. This minister, more than any other, has the responsibility to give a new sense of direction, to tourism primarily but also to recreation, sports and fitness, and a new focus that probably it never had before.

I am encouraged by the information this minister has made available to me in such a short time since the formation of this new ministry. But it is absolutely essential that he does a complete and total review of what has gone on before. Perhaps for the first time in terms of the tourist industry in the province he, more than any other minister of the crown, has not only the responsibility but also the opportunity to co-ordinate and play a lead role in impressing the importance of his responsibilities upon his colleagues, and there may be as many as 10 of them whose policies and activities have a very direct impact upon what happens in this new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

He is going to be faced with a good deal of adversity in persuading his cabinet colleagues they should give top priority to a lot of the programs for which he is responsible within his ministry. But out of that adversity, in particularly tough economic times, he has the opportunity to make a real imprint upon the tourist industry that is so important to most areas in Ontario.

I hope the minister will take advantage of those opportunities that present themselves to him to make the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation as meaningful and as significant as it can be for all citizens in this province.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say for the record that I have noted the remarks by the member for Lake Nipigon, and certainly concur in the challenge he has presented to me and to the ministry.

Motion agreed to.

Assistant Clerk: The third order, committee of the whole House --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The House leader is doing his very best to accommodate the situation so that we can go forward with the work, but the order for the day is second reading of Bill 38. I understand we are going to be doing Bill 6, and I do not mind that, but where did it come from all of a sudden?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as we do with all these matters, we try to work together to keep the business of the House running smoothly and in an orderly way. It is my understanding that the offices of the three House leaders, working this morning, arrived at some arrangement.

It was felt that Bill 38 would not be proceeding today because of the illness of one of the major participants in the debate, and therefore they scheduled some other business, including the continuation of Bill 6 which, as the House will recall, was going on when we adjourned at 1 p.m. on Friday.

It now turns out it will be possible to proceed with Bill 38 anyway, even though one of the major participants is not able to be here today. However it was felt we would leave Bill 6 on the agenda for the day, as that had been rescheduled in. I hope that explains why Bill 6 is now there, even though it is not on the printed business for Monday.

House in committee of the whole.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 6,

An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act.

section 45:

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the House, may I again relocate myself in the front row in case I need some assistance?

The Deputy Chairman: Agreed. When the parliamentary assistant is seated, the member can carry on.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite certain how we should proceed in this matter, because we are dealing with

section 45 and the other related sections of the bill.

3:40 p.m.

My quandary relates to the procedures in the House. We had the situation where Bill 6 was introduced into the assembly after having gone through a certain number of exposure drafts. We debated the bill on second reading in the House during the last part of the last session.

It was then referred out to the standing committee on administration of justice and in committee, for the first time, very substantial amendments were introduced by the parliamentary assistant, related ostensibly to making certain that business corporations incorporated under our act would qualify for the incentives and other benefits, other conditions imposed upon those who could participate in the national energy program.

My quandary is simply that there is nothing in the record of this House or in the record of the committee in its final form which will ever disclose what happened to this bill on the way to this forum. The proceedings of the standing committee on the administration of justice, dealing clause by clause with Bill 6, are only in the form of the draft of the proceedings and are never printed. So in the actual official documents of this House there is no record at all as to the fundamental difference that was introduced into the bill by the proposed amendments related to the national energy program.

I suppose it would not be of such great significance, but of course they are not only related to the national energy program they introduced, fundamental changes which will be part of the corporate law of the province, not necessarily related to the national energy program. They may well be the method by which the Business Corporations Act of this province will provide for a degree of Canadianization in various areas of the economy or a degree of benefit or assistance for such corporations as may meet the qualifications which are required.

I think we have a procedural problem. I would be very upset and concerned if the printed formal proceedings of this assembly did not bear some comment or explanation or discussion about these fundamental changes. The fundamental changes are in sections 5, 42, 45 and subsequently in sections 167 and 169. There are also some other consequential changes in the bill related to this question.

I like to be able to see the person I am debating in the assembly. I don't know what the government House leader and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the member from wherever he's from are discussing, but maybe they could have the discussion outside.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Order. Your wish is our command.

Mr. Renwick: I am certainly grateful. I am sure the parliamentary assistant is equally grateful to be able to conduct some form of meaningful debate in the assembly rather than have it as a gossip chamber at tea time.

Without repeating what I said, we are introducing into this bill -- and it was introduced only in committee, not at the time when the bill was introduced, not at the time when there was second reading of the bill but only in committee -- fundamental changes in the corporate law of the province.

The reason for it, the cause for the introduction of those amendments when we were in standing committee in January of this year, was the introduction at the federal level of the national energy program. That is very clear. Of course, the amendments that were introduced bear no reference to the national energy program; what they do bear reference to is very generalized principles with respect to the extent and degree of Canadian ownership that may be required in order to permit a business corporation to comply with certain programs or privileges under the law of the federal government, under the law of this province, under the law of any other jurisdiction in Canada.

As I say, anyone in years to come who wanted to know whether or not this assembly ever had anything to say about them would not, except for this debate today in committee, know where to go to find out what it was all about. I think that is a fair statement. The only reference was when the parliamentary assistant introduced the amendments in the standing committee.

I therefore think, and I need the indulgence of the committee, not so much the consent of the House or even the indulgence of the committee but a recognition by this committee that it is essential -- I know my friend the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) and my friend the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) will forgive me if I am being testy on a Monday afternoon, but could they perhaps conduct their discussions somewhere else than right here in the chamber?

I think it is essential to put on the record the statement made by the representative retained to give this government technical advice on the nature of the amendments that were proposed. That man was Mr. Coombs of the firm of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt. He appeared to me at the committee to be appearing in two roles: as a representative of the Canadian Bar Association but also on a retainer from the government to advise on the technical amendments that are required. He stated as best he could to a committee that had no prior knowledge of the proposed amendments what the intention of those amendments was.

Because I think he stated it as succinctly as anybody could, I would like to have on the record and explain to those members of the committee who are in the House this afternoon what these proposed amendments are about. Therefore, I am going to quote from the statement made by Mr. Coombs; and he will forgive me, I know, for not knowing his first name or whether he is dignified by being one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law. But he is a partner in the firm of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt.

He made this statement before the committee:

"I am not here to explain the national energy program to you. I am not sure that I could in any event. I am here more as a corporate technician than a petroleum technician. I can suggest to you some areas of the national energy program that are relevant to these amendments, explaining to you exactly how a lot of those principles I may mention will operate.

"It is going to be difficult because since the last public disclosure of the legislation the federal government will introduce in connection with the program, there has been a tremendous amount of drafting and alteration going on in Ottawa, to which I am not privy. If you ask me to explain to you how the Canadian ownership rules operate, I probably cannot do that for you explicitly.

"Going into this general overview, however, I am sure you are all aware the federal government has established a program by which it intends, among other things, to encourage the Canadianization of resource companies, petroleum and natural gas companies. A principal element of that program will be a system of grants and incentive payments which will be made available to corporations, depending upon the nature of their activities, and primarily depending upon whether they meet certain standards of Canadianization of their share- holding.

"The thrust of that concept of Canadianization is to reach the beneficial ownership of the shares. Very often the shares of the resource companies with which they are concerned will be held by other corporations, holding corporations, and the true ownership may be masked.

3:50 p.m.

"The intent of what are called the Canadian ownership rate rules is to provide a measure of the true beneficial Canadian ownership of those companies, and to gear the grants and incentive payments to that ownership.

"So a corporation that can demonstrate, say, only 40 per cent Canadian ownership rate will not obtain as much in federal government funding as will a corporation that can demonstrate an 80 per cent or 100 per cent Canadian ownership rate.

"The thrust of these amendments is to provide the technical capital structure in the corporate governing statute to assist corporations to demonstrate that they have sufficient Canadian ownership rate to qualify for grants that they may need.

"Because of the way the grants will be managed this is not a one-time assessment. I believe there will be some attempt made annually at assessment of each corporation's entitlement to retain its grant status. So the corporation will have to be able to ensure that not only on the initial issue of its shares or a class of its shares they are held by people who satisfy the relevant Canadian ownership rate requirements, but also at future times it will have to be able to satisfy the administrative agencies that it is still entitled to receive those grants. This means there has to be some control over what happens to the shares after their initial issue.

"We looked at that in terms of providing mechanisms for policing share ownership in respect of certain kinds of shares. There was no intention, however, to interfere any more than necessary in the freedom of shareholders of public offering companies to transfer their shares in an after-issue market. The object was to prevent shareholders from dealing with their shares so as to destroy or damage the corporation's grant status.

"This was viewed by the various people who were involved in the drafting as being not so much a mechanism for interfering with the holder's freedom to transfer his share, or interfering with the rights of some subsequent shareholder, but as a means of protecting the Canadian shareholders who stay in the company so that they do not lose the benefits of these grants which, in a financial sense, will be very significant to the health of many energy corporations.

"The technique that was chosen federally for doing this was to expand the concept of what is called the constrained share. In

section 168 of the

Canada Business Corporations Act as it now stands the concept of the constrained share corporation has been established. It principally relates to corporations who need now, under present rules, to retain their status as Canadian owned in some way.

"It seemed to the drafters of the new legislation that this was an ideal sort of concept to bring in because there are already corporations governed by the

Canada Business Corporations Act whose share ownership is, to a degree, policed through the mechanism of a constrained share.

"A constraint under

section 168 originally would have restricted the issue or transfer of shares to persons other than a permitted group or groups of shareholders. What is being proposed is that not just issue and transfer will be controlled, but for national energy program purposes ownership will also be controlled.

"So the constrained share concept has been expanded to look not just at the technical question as to who is on the shareholders' list, but who really owns the share. In this sense, constrained shares are really just a subclass of the restricted share which one would often find, for example, in a private company.

"I am sure you are all familiar with corporations where a particular family wants to retain control of it, and the board of directors will be able to decide whether a transfer of shares to some particular person will be permitted or not. You should keep in mind that the constrained share, especially under the federal act, was a concept designed for public offering companies. In fact, it is the only kind of restriction at the moment that a public offering company can impose on the issue or transfer of its shares.

"For example, it would be possible under the law as it now stands to restrict ownership of shares to resident Canadians, or to provide that an individual shareholder could own only up to a certain percentage of shares of the corporation, and so on.

"Authority for the creation of constrained shares, or in the context of the language you will find in the bill before you" --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the honourable member does not feel he is taxing us just a bit when he reads so extensively from whatever it is he is holding in his hand, particularly since this has been reviewed extensively in committee and we are dealing with some additional amendments, and the bill is not on the Order Paper for debate this afternoon. Is there not some possibility we could move forward with this business a bit?

Mr. Di Santo: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman: On the contrary, I think it is not only acceptable but quite enlightening to us that the member for Riverdale should talk at length in explaining a bill that is so complex --

Mr. Nixon: But you are not listening.

Mr. Di Santo: I think it is extremely useful for all the members. I would ask you to check if we have a quorum because it is very important that the members listen to the member for Riverdale.

The Acting Chairman: We do not have a quorum.

The Acting Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

4 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I want to bring to your attention that standing order 19(d)(4) indicates the speaker should be brought to order if, in the opinion of the chair, he is reading unnecessarily from any document.

I bring to your attention that when we moved to this particular order, since it is not on the Order Paper, there was some thought that perhaps the business might be concluded without undue delay, but we have been listening to the honourable member read from whatever it is he holds in his hand for the last 25 minutes.

I do not believe the minister is being enlightened as the staff sitting under the gallery does not seem to be taking notes. The honourable member was getting rather short-tempered with his own colleagues who deigned to have a small conversation during his reading. My point is why should we continue listening to this baloney when our rules do not permit it?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order: The opposition House leader may not want to listen to what he refers to as "baloney." He is always free to leave.

Mr. Nixon: We also have a rule that one should not read extensively from documents.

Mr. McClellan: If the member wishes to end the debate, there is a measure in the standing orders which calls for the closure of debate if he wants to pull that stunt. Otherwise, members have the right to speak on matters that are before this assembly. This is a very important and complex bill. Finally, with respect to reading unnecessarily from a document, that would make it impossible for members of the governing party ever to speak in this assembly.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to continue with my remarks. I say with great kindness to my friend, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, the reason is not for my own edification. I listened to this in the standing committee. This should be a statement made by the government because it happens to be introducing into the Business Corporations Act of this province the most radical departure that has occurred in business corporate law in this province in at least the last 10 or 15 years and no one would gainsay that. This provides for a company to expropriate shares.

Mr. Nixon: You are the only person who thinks so.

Mr. Renwick: I know my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is as interested in the proceedings of this House as I am. If we do not have this statement on the record of the House -- it is not my statement but a statement of technical advisers of the government -- there would be nothing on the record of this House ever to show that this House gave any consideration of any kind to a fundamental change in the business corporate law of the province. I am quite content not to read it in.

Mr. Nixon: So am I -- that you not.

Mr. Renwick: I tend sometimes to think that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has a real concern about the proceedings of the assembly, not just when they happen to suit his convenience. It does not happen to suit my convenience to read this into the record of the House, but it is an essential part of this House understanding what is taking place.

Mr. Nixon: That is a rather condescending judgement on your part.

Mr. Renwick: It is. If I may complete my point of order, I am only condescending in response to a condescending intervention by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk who does not understand and does not care about this because it is not of interest to him.

Mr. Nixon: It is totally irrelevant.

The Acting Chairman: Order. This is turning into a debate. I draw to the attention of the member for Riverdale that there is an

interpretation

section in the standing orders,

section 19(d)(4), which deals with the reading of documents. I ask him, as a senior member of the House, to exercise prudence and discretion in reading documents beyond this point.

Mr. Renwick: I would much rather go on than argue. The point is quite simple. Had the government understood what it was doing, they themselves would have introduced this statement into the House. The key word in the rule of order which you have referred to is the word "unnecessarily." If you, sir, want to rule that what I am doing is unnecessary, please do so. I am in your hands.

My view is that the government is introducing, and this House is required to consider, a fundamental change in principle in the business corporations law of the province. If somebody wants to consider the debate unnecessary, that is fine.

The Acting Chairman: I am simply asking the member for Riverdale, who is senior to me as a member of this House, to use whatever good judgement and prudence the situation may dictate from his standpoint, in light of the standing order which restricts reading unnecessarily. We have an amendment to

section 45 on the floor of committee and I ask that debate continue on that section.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

"Authority for the creation of constrained shares, or in the language you will find in the bill before you, restricted shares, primarily stems from amendments that will be proposed to

section 5 of the bill and by amendments to sections 167 and 169;

section 5 because it is the provision that relates to what has to be in the articles of the corporation when it is created; sections 167 and 169 because they relate to what kind of amendments to the capital structure of an existing corporation that can be made.

"Where national-energy-program-type restrictions are contemplated to be introduced by the creation of a new class of restricted shares or by fundamental change to the capital structure of the corporation, it is proposed that there will not be any right in the existing shareholders to separate class or series votes and hence there will not be any dissent or appraisal rights for them, provided, that is, that the new class of shares is otherwise equal to the existing class of shares. Where, however, an outstanding class of shares of a corporation is to be restricted for NEP purposes, the existing shareholders will have class or series voting rights and will have dissent and appraisal rights.

"There is no suggestion in the legislation that it will be possible for a corporation to override the interests of the body of existing shareholders without their consent, impose these restrictions and thereby put a large number of foreign or partially foreign shareholders offside. Votes are contemplated for that purpose.

It is not inconceivable, however, that a corporation with an existing class of shares now outstanding could not achieve some degree of Canadianization by simply creating a new class of shares, issuing those to the public on the basis that only Canadians or people with acceptable Canadian ownership rates can acquire them, thereby achieving not a full Canadian ownership rate to satisfy whatever grant requirements we are looking at, but in effect to ameliorate what may be in its existing Canadian ownership rate status.

"Apart from the questions of the capital structure of the corporation, the more profound changes to the act, and indeed to the whole concept of shareholders' rights, will be found in two areas. One is the way in which the restrictions which are going to be imposed on shares of this nature will be enforced in the aftermarket, the policing power. That will be found, when you get to it, in the proposed new

section 45." This is the

section under consideration by this committee.

"Section 45(

a) is a quite radical departure from any existing corporate law that I know of. It proposes, in effect, that where shares are transferred to an ineligible holder, the corporation, when it finds that out, will be able to sell off that holder's shares without his consent. Many people have viewed this as being a species of expropriation and you may well wish to look at it that way philosophically. You must keep in mind, however, that the shareholder will have acquired these shares or the shares will have become restricted through the consent mechanisms at corporate meetings with the full knowledge and understanding that he is buying a share that is subject to this kind of limitation.

4:10 p.m.

"Indeed, you can expect, for example, that the shares of Canadian energy corporations will suffer some diminution in value, I suppose, in the sense that the market for the constrained or restricted shares of those corporations will become limited because the buyers of those shares will only be people with acceptable Canadian ownership rates. I am not an economist, I cannot tell you what the significance of that is in dollar terms, but you are going to be restricting the market for shares of that nature.

"The second change which I think is profound in this area is perhaps a little more esoteric. That is, it is proposed that corporations will be given the power to buy in their own shares. This is a consensual thing, they will be able to go to the marketplace, buy in their own shares -- what I would call free shares, nonrestricted shares -- hold them for up to two years without cancelling them, just as if they were the owners of them.

They would not be able to vote in respect of them or anything of that nature, but they would be able to hold the shares without cancelling them or restoring them to the status of authorized but unissued shares. Within that two-year period, they would be able to resell those shares to the public.

"That might sound a little futile, but what is really contemplated there is that while it is holding the shares, the corporation will convert them from their free status into a restricted share. When it does its subsequent issue or resale of those shares, it will sell them to people with acceptable COR.

By that method, for example, a corporation whose shares were trading, say, on the American Stock Exchange and in Toronto, would be able to go into the American Stock Exchange and buy up shares at whatever the going market price was, would be able to hold those shares, convert them into restricted shares, do a subsequent issue of those shares into Canadian hands, combined perhaps with an issue of another class of shares, also restricted to the Canadian public.

"It will give you a multiplying effect to the Canadianization of the company, because you will be taking shares principally out of the hands of foreign holders and putting them into the hands of Canadian holders.

"I cannot speak, of course, for the federal government on that, but it is viewed federally, I believe, as being an assistance to corporations rapidly to Canadianize. That is going to be important for a number of reasons, one of which, of course, is that the faster a corporation can catch up with other corporations which have high levels of grant, get the same grants and use that money to go out and explore for new energy, that will mean that those corporations will maintain their competitive status, they will increase the availability of energy and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to read that at some length. It was with great concern that I ventured upon the reading of that statement but I felt it was essential that the record of this House show what the government is doing in introducing these amendments.

I want to very briefly summarize. The amendments we are introducing are profound changes with respect to the nature that can be ascribed to business corporations incorporated under our law. They are ostensibly for the purpose of allowing our corporations -- that is, business corporations incorporated in Ontario -- to qualify for grants, incentives and benefits under the national energy program.

That energy program has not yet been passed but the fundamental question which I think has to be addressed by this assembly is that it is not just related to the national energy program. It means that in fact there is now a method by which this government, any provincial government and the federal government, for any purpose, may provide incentives for strictly Canadian-owned, or a degree of Canadian ownership companies, in contradistinction to the benefits or the grants or the incentives available to companies that do not have that degree of Canadian ownership.

It is interesting that many years ago we talked in this House about providing some method for the Canadianization of companies so that a degree of Canadian control would be a necessary condition of eligibility for certain purposes. Now we are generalizing that concept into the Business Corporations Act of Ontario. I think it is important we understand that correlative to that, as Mr. Coombs stated before the committee, there is, in fact, a degree of expropriation.

If you happen to be one of the holders who is not a Canadian holder of shares in such a company at the time when the company is losing, has lost or is about to lose the degree of Canadian ownership that is required, then you can have your share taken from you. It was not so very long ago that the government of this province simply would have refused to consider any such concept.

It is very interesting that in the process of time, a Tory government is introducing amendments that will provide for a stated degree of Canadian control to be established in a company through corporate mechanisms, if a company is to be eligible for certain grants and assistance. We in this party do not have any serious objection to it, and I do not think I need to go on at any greater length.

I reiterate that I read the dreary passage, which was equally dreary for me, having heard it read to me in committee, and having read it again to try to understand it, into the record of the House, because without that the matter would not be on the record.

I do believe on balance the amendments are necessary for the province to pass. I do believe on balance they are in accord with the atmosphere of the time when a degree or extent of Canadian ownership is an important element in the economic development of the country. The degree of Canadian ownership would lead me to believe it would be wise for all the business corporations across the country to have standard provisions with respect to eligibility for such purposes.

So it is not in any sense that I object to these amendments, but rather in the sense that I hope those members of the assembly who are in committee this afternoon and others in the future realize the extent and degree of the profound change that is being made in a very generalized way in the business corporate law of this province.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to acknowledge that the member for Riverdale has raised many good points, and I intend to reply to each one of them in writing. I should point out, however, that it is not unusual --

Mr. Nixon: That would be wise. Hire somebody to do that.

Mr. Mitchell: Just very briefly, it is not unusual to introduce amendments when a bill is before the committee. In this case the amendments are worded in substantially the same terms as amendments to the

Canada Business Corporations Act. These were released to the ministry by the federal director of the corporations branch. Mr. Coombs participated as a member of the bar committee assisting ministry officials.

At the beginning of this debate I acknowledged that we had several delegations as well who assisted us and whose input was gratefully received. I would just like to make the further comment that it was my understanding that, on page 7 of our opening statement, we had attempted to encapsulate basically the points the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) put on the record this afternoon. Subsection 42(3) effectively now bars, if I may say as a wind-up comment, what was previously permitted.

Mr. Nixon: Do you mean to say, Mr. Chairman, that is the only response we get to an hour's speech by the person some people consider to be the prominent corporate expert here, who has indicated that this amendment is the most important turning point in business law in his lengthy history in the Legislature? He indicated this would allow the expropriation without a hearing of shares held by individuals, even though the thing he read from Mr. Coombs indicated it might appear to be a form of expropriation to some people.

Is the member simply going to say that he thanks him for raising those good points and will reply in writing, and expects us to support it? Really, what is going on here, what kind of a weirdo game is this?

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, there have been so many points raised by the member. I could go back to --

Mr. Nixon: No one raised anything.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, the member for Riverdale began on Friday. I have been attempting to get the answers to all of those questions resolved, but as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk pointed out, it was a lengthy thing. It was agreed that we would attempt to move as speedily as possible with this and, if it is acceptable to the member, I intend to answer the questions in detail.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps I could make a comment. I just want to reiterate that if I had not read that statement, the record of this House would never have shown the importance and significance of it. I crave the indulgence of the House and I apologize. If members found it boring, I found it equally boring if not more so. But it was done in the absence of the government coming up front and making a specific statement about the importance of the change which was reflected.

I recognize that this chamber is not an adequate place to discuss the intricate technical nature of the problems we are attempting to discuss and I am quite happy to let it go where I have left it. I certainly do not want the parliamentary assistant to waste his time writing to me about it.

I think the record of the House will now show that the change has been made; people can make their own judgement as to whether it is wise or not. It is sufficient to say that in the standing committee, under the chairmanship of the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), we had some opportunity to discuss it. My problem was simply that there would have been no opportunity to do so in the House if I had not taken the opportunity to read Mr. Coombs' statement to you.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment to subsection 45(1)?

Motion agreed to.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 46 to 98, inclusive, agreed to.

section 99:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the House to this

section principally because one of the most interesting and thoughtful presentations made to the committee was that of the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility. That organization came before the committee on January 6 and made a number of points.

The first point I want to make is that

section 99 is the

section which will permit a shareholder to make a proposal to the management of the company, and the management of the company will, subject to certain specific limitations, then be required to submit, in the information which it provides to its shareholders, an explanation of that proposal, and then put it before the annual meeting or the meeting of the shareholders at which it is to be considered. It is a very significant step forward, from the point of view of protecting not only the rights of minority shareholders but those of individual shareholders, to get a proposal with respect to their company before their fellow shareholders at an appropriate meeting.

No one objects to that. It is a positive and progressive step. The strange thing is, the government was niggling when it did it because, when it comes to making a proposal with respect to the name of a person who may be a director of the corporation, it requires that be supported by five per cent of the shares of the company. In a simple company with common shares that means you have to hold five per cent before you can make a proposal that so-and-so, who may be eminently qualified, can be put before the shareholders.

Let me be very clear about this. This has nothing to do with being right at the meeting and standing and nominating a shareholder as a director of the corporation. Of course, you can do that; it has been a known rule for a long, long time, and it is fundamental to the proposition. The problem with this is that you cannot notify your fellow shareholders through the information circular of the company that you intend to do this unless you can get a number of shareholders to join with you and hold five per cent of the shares.

It strikes me that this is a ridiculous limitation to place on what is otherwise a very beneficial provision. I do not see why it should be necessary at this point to hang on to that rule, which would refuse a shareholder the right simply to write to the management and say: "I intend to propose so-and-so as a director of the company.

Please include the background information about this person in your mailing to your shareholders so that, when we come to the meeting and I stand in my place and nominate this person, other people in the room will know who it is." I think we need a little bit of debate in this assembly this afternoon on that restriction, which is imposed in what I have said and which others will say is a very beneficial section.

The second point the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility raised on this issue was that, if the board of directors is going to refuse to send the proposal out to the shareholders, it should be obliged to go before some particular body and justify why it is going to refuse to send it out; and that is a shift in the burden of it, rather than leaving the burden on the person who makes the proposal to say that perhaps the proposal will not be sent out and putting the onus on him to take some expensive step to deal with it.

The task force made a very useful suggestion that the Ontario Securities Commission may very well be adequately staffed, and that it is the appropriate body before which a company which is determined not to send out a proposal within the limited exceptions provided under

section 99 should have to go with notice to the proposing shareholder, so that a hearing could be held to justify or not justify the decision of management not to send out the proposal.

I think those were the principal points raised by the task force. They certainly commended themselves to some members of the committee. Indeed, I think all members of the committee felt that there was some merit in them; but, of course, we were faced with closure by the government advisers, who seemed to be less than open to this consideration and rejected both of the proposals.

I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant would speak to those suggestions.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I remember the church task force and I recognize that they addressed many concerns. In fact, they had one I recall very vividly that the member for Riverdale has not touched on.

However, under

section 99(4) a proposal can be made on the floor at a meeting. The five per cent rule follows the Canadian Bar Association recommendation. The existing Ontario Business Corporations Act requires five per cent, and the

Canada Business Corporations Act requires five per cent. I think what we are showing here is that the proposers really are in earnest, that they are not making a flighty sort of proposal, and I seem to recall that this was the argument put forward at the time.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Those are not rational responses to a reasonable request. I want to restate it. The parliamentary assistant can comment if he wants to.

If a shareholder can stand in his place at an annual meeting and say, "I nominate so-and-so to be a director of this company," I wonder why it is that shareholder should not be able to write to the management of the company in advance and say: "I intend at the meeting to nominate so-and-so as a director of the company.

Will you please send out to your shareholders this brief synopsis of his background of eligibility so that my fellow shareholders, when they come to the meeting, will know something about the background of this person and be informed about him, so that when I stand in my place and nominate him, others in the room will understand something of that person and be informed about it."

It is a question of being informed. In no way is it something that is going to be abused. The argument that the

Canada Business Corporations Act does not include it is of no assistance to me. I have never thought that act was the front-runner in corporate law reform in this country. It never has been. I do not know why it would be taken to be so now. The fact that the existing act contains it means that if it is etched in stone once it can never be changed. I think it is a reasonable proposition.

The second point I made was a very reasonable one; that is, if management is not going to send out a proposal, it should be required to go before the Ontario Securities Commission and say why it is proposing not to send it out and let some independent third body with knowledge of matters in the business world decide whether that is a bona fide and fair reason for failure to send out the proposal and whether it falls within one of the limited exceptions contained in the bill.

Mr. Mitchell: I have nothing further to say on the subject. I thought we had clearly identified the rationale for the five per cent being in there when we were before the standing committee on administration of justice, as I have identified again in the last few moments.

Section 99 agreed to.

Sections 100 to 111, inclusive, agreed to.

section 112:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my question with respect to

section 112 is with regard to the content of the information circular which management must send out to every shareholder when it is engaged in soliciting proxies. The content of that information circular has been a matter of ongoing debate for many years since the idea first found favour. It was decided that shareholders were entitled to have some information about the company which, at least in corporate theory, they own.

The problem now is the extent, degree and adequacy of the information that is furnished to shareholders. The task force made some compelling arguments about the extent and degree of information that should be provided about the background and qualifications of the persons who are proposed by management to be elected as directors and for whom it is soliciting proxies for a favourable vote at the meeting.

I am not going to go into the details of the points made by the task force. The submission is available to those who wish to concern themselves about it. I know the government is not going to make any changes in it. It never will. Unless the business community tells it to make it, it will not make any changes in the act.

However, I do want to say to the minister that one of the matters that requires careful concern and review is the whole question of the content of the information circular, particularly in the light of the kinds of information the task force recommended would be of assistance in making certain that shareholders were aware of the qualities, aptitudes and abilities of the persons who were standing for the purpose of running for directorships and therefore being the ones charged with the management of their business and affairs.

I am not going to pursue it any longer at this point.

Section 112 agreed to.

Sections 113 and 114 agreed to.

section 115:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman,

section 115 has a subsection that was a matter of significant debate in committee. It was discussed one way or another.

I think it is fair to say, although I cannot speak for all my colleagues on the committee, that subsection 115(3) is inadequate. I think everybody will agree it is totally inadequate where it states: "At least one third of the directors of an offering corporation shall not be officers or employees of the corporation or any of its affiliates."

The task force and others put before the committee the proposition that insiders to the corporation, other than those who are officers or employees of the corporation, should not be included when one is calculating the one third of the persons who are supposed to be so-called public directors, or outside directors or noninsider directors.

The intention was not to exclude from membership on the board of directors, but to exclude in the computation of one third of the members of the board those who were in a confidential relationship to the company or who were, if anything, more knowledgeable about the inside part of the corporation than anybody else and less outsiders than other people.

We were talking about professional advisers of one kind or another, whether they are lawyers, investment advisers or specific advisers of all kinds. What we were faced with was that, with all the wit and wisdom of the government lawyers and of the Canadian Bar Association, they could not agree as to who should be excluded from the calculation other than those who are named already, namely, officers or employees.

When the parliamentary assistant took it upon himself to make a statement last Friday at the time we came back into committee of the whole House, he dealt with this question and stated that in the next year or so the ministry was going to consult with the bar association with a view to bringing in an amendment. I want to emphasize to him that I do not want the ministry to be barracked by the business community so that somehow or other the problem is insoluble.

We had all sorts of fringe examples given to us as to whether so-and-so would be excluded. Because he had been retained as an agent for some lawyer somewhere to buy a piece of property, would he be excluded? If he gave only some minimal advice to the company, would that exclude him?

If I can use it in legislative terms, the evil to be addressed and the benefit to be derived from the provision which says that one third of the directors shall be outside directors, is a far greater benefit to be achieved and an evil to be avoided by making certain that the persons who are included in the calculation of the one third are not persons who stand in a confidential relationship with that corporation.

It should be obvious that it is possible, without saying in every case that this, this and this are the only persons who are excluded, to be able to say, "If the nature of your knowledge about this company is such or of this degree, then you are not eligible to be included in that calculation." I emphasize again, that is what it is all about.

4:40 p.m.

We have