Hansard Transcripts 1982-May-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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?

What kind of accessibility does that give to the people of Ontario? In particular, with the number of opted-out anaesthetists, would the minister not agree that no person in this province is safe from extra billing if he or she faces major surgery?

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.

On 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.

On 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.

On 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.

On 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 been through this same kind of argument about who is an insider and who is not many times over many years. In different contexts, the problem has finally been resolved, that insiders should not be trading with the corporation for their own benefit. We managed to get that far. To have at this latter day this provision introduced into our legislation as it has been and then to say, somehow or other, we cannot define the people who are to be excluded from the calculation is beyond me.

Assuming that the government carries out its intention, I will certainly look forward to that amendment being introduced not later than the end of the year, I hope.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I have just a quick comment to the concern raised by the member for Riverdale: I would not have made the commitment to you to have subsection 115(3) further examined if I did not fully intend to do so.

We have run into some stumbling blocks. We were drawing to your attention in the statement that we do not intend to sit back on that but rather to pursue the matter by asking the business law section of the Canadian Bar Association to study it and, we hope, recommend within the year an amendment that is acceptable to you. If that could come sooner, we would most definitely attempt to introduce it at the time we will be tabling the amendments from the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Ontario Securities Commission. I did not make that commitment to you lightly. We shall be proceeding with that as best we can.

Section 115 agreed to.

Sections 116 to 130, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 131:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we had a useful discussion in committee about this section of the bill. I know everyone in committee will be upset that I appear to have misplaced my papers on this matter, but I think I can recall the gist of the argument without going into it at great length.

First, I was pleased that section 131 was restructured and brought up to date and modernized in its concepts. Basically, it provides that the directors of the corporation are liable to the employees of the corporation up to an amount not exceeding six months' wages that may become payable for services performed during the period when such a person is a director of the company and for vacation pay and so on. The provision then states that if the director pays the employee, the director is subrogated to the position of the employee and is entitled to whatever preference the employee may have.

I recognize the legitimacy of the position taken as a result of the discussion, that it is likely not appropriate in the Business Corporations Act to specify what the security or the priority may be of an employer for his wages in the context in which it was placed before us.

I do want to make two points as clearly as I can. I am indebted to Mr. Levin, who appeared before the committee, for drawing this to my attention. I want to make certain that the government understands that the limitation of $2,000, which appears in the Employment Standards Act at present with respect to the maximum amount of the preference an employee may have with respect to his wages, is out of date in relation to something called a six-month period. I do not know how long the $2,000 figure has stood in the Employment Standards Act, but it obviously has to be changed.

Second, there is no question whatsoever that we in this assembly cannot encroach upon whatever priorities are established under the Bankruptcy Act. Again, that is quite clear, and it is clear both in the way in which the Employment Standards Act is phrased and in the way in which there is a reference in section 131 to the Bankruptcy Act, which is under federal jurisdiction.

I do want to try to urge that whether it is in the Employment Standards Act, about which I have a very serious question, or whether it should be in the Business Corporations Act, is not a question related to the amount, whether it is six months or $2,000 or whatever that figure is. There should be a figure in the Employment Standards Act and it should be amended, as I have said.

The question is whether an employee should have a better security than simply a preferred claim under the Bankruptcy Act, or, if a company is not under that Bankruptcy Act, the kind of preferred claim referred to in the present Employment Standards Act. Is the employee entitled to have not only a preferred claim but also a secured claim, recognizing that under the Bankruptcy Act that question ultimately will be decided in a bankruptcy by the bankruptcy preferences subject to being secured?

I simply draw to the attention of the government that when they wanted to secure their own taxes -- and this was in existence until some years ago -- they specifically provided that in so far as a corporation was concerned, all taxes, etc., are debts due to Her Majesty and, subject to the Bankruptcy Act of Canada, are a first lien in charge upon the property in Ontario of the corporation, etc.

Beyond the question of straight preference, they recognized the legitimacy of the Bankruptcy Act and gave employees not only a preference in ranking but also a claim with respect to security. I cannot understand why we cannot extend to employees what the government of Ontario demanded for itself with respect to taxes.

I would appreciate it if, during the course of the time that the parliamentary assistant is considering the other question on which he may bring in an amendment, he would do two things at the same time.

1. The $2,000 figure in the Employment Standards Act should be changed. I recognize that does not fall under this ministry but under the Ministry of Labour, but I specifically ask the parliamentary assistant to draw that anomaly to the attention of the Minister of Labour, because it should no longer be simply $2,000.

2. Whether it is in the Employment Standards Act, which may be the most appropriate place, or it may be the ministry's corporate advisers will advise the ministry that it should be in the Business Corporations Act, we should look at the kind of security we had for corporation taxes due to Her Majesty and consider whether in this day and age, having regard to what is happening to so many employees, they should be not only entitled to rank after secured creditors in a particular order but also entitled by law to a first security of significant priority over and above the amounts owing to banks and others, so that the employees who work for the company will have the benefit of security as well as preference.

4:50 p.m.

I admit the concepts are a little bit confusing, but I think I am finally clear in my own mind what the problem is. First, I am satisfied with section 131 as it now stands in so far as it is an updated, revised version of the previous section in the Business Corporations Act.

Second, the archaic figure of $2,000 in the Employment Standards Act must be changed.

Third, and this is the point on which I have had difficulty expressing myself, I believe the ministry has so far rejected the idea that wages of employees up to six months should be given not only the preference to which they are entitled under the Employment Standards Act but also the protection of the kind of first lien and charge upon the property of the corporation, similar to the kind of priority the ministry ascribes to itself with respect to debts owing to Her Majesty under the Corporations Tax Act.

It is an important clause at all times, but it is very important in times such as these when any number of employees are losing out as, for example, when Canadian Admiral went into receivership and, I believe, ultimately into bankruptcy, and my guess is that the benefit we tried to give them was not afforded to them.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the member for Riverdale is looking for a commitment that I am pleased to respond to. During the time when we are trying to prepare the further amendments that are expected in the fall, we will examine the Employment Standards Act and hold other discussions to see whether that figure should be upgraded and improved upon within the Employment Standards Act. We shall look at it even more thoroughly in the light of the comments made, and I am quite prepared to give him that commitment.

Mr. Renwick: I have just one final comment on that. I overlooked that I have section 14 of the Employment Standards Act here, so I can be clear on what I am trying to say.

Section 14 of the Employment Standards Act reads, "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act and except upon a distribution made by a trustee under the Bankruptcy Act (Canada), wages shall have priority to the claims or rights and be paid in priority to the claims or rights, including the claims or rights of the crown, of all preferred, ordinary or general creditors of the employer to the extent of $2,000 for each employee."

That is clear with respect to the ranking of persons. However, it does not accord to the employee any security on the property. In comparison to that, I would appreciate it if someone could look at some point at section 94(1) of what was then in the Corporations Tax Act. I am going to give the old citation for it -- I think it was RSO 1960, chapter 73, section 91(1) -- which no longer exists in the present Corporations Tax Act. The crown had this statement: "All taxes, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts payable under this act are debts due to Her Majesty and, subject to the Bankruptcy Act of Canada, are a first lien and charge upon the property in Ontario of the corporation."

So, in this analogous situation, it is a first lien and charge on the property of the corporation, as well as there being an entitlement to whatever preferential rights there might otherwise be with respect to debts due to the crown. I think a comparison of the two sections will illustrate the kind of additional protection to which I trust the government would consider employees of business corporations in this province are entitled. I am also prepared to agree that if the appropriate statute is the Employment Standards Act, so be it, as long as we get the object of our wish.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the central point made by the member for Riverdale, the raising of the liability of the directors. If the $2,000 limit is raised, the words "jointly and severally" perhaps should be reconsidered. The way it is now, those words mean that each director, individually, is liable for the total. He can go against others for reimbursement contributions and take assignment of judgements, but usually that is an empty bag.

With the limits being raised, there should be some change in the phrase "jointly and severally" so that the liability can be spread over all directors, instead of picking out the most pecunious of the directors. If the ministry decides to make the change suggested, it should also make the change I have recommended so as not to put too heavy a burden on directors. Otherwise, people would be reluctant to become directors of corporations.

Section 131 agreed to.

On section 132:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my only reason for commenting on section 132 is the extensive correspondence I have had with the ministry in connection with a past case. I hope future similar cases will be addressed by the new subsection 132(9). In the case to which I refer, the chief executive officer of a company departed from the service of the company over the failure to make full and complete disclosure of interest but, for reasons best known to the company involved, was allowed to keep the profit that had been made as a result thereof.

Whether or not the new subsection 132(9) will meet the problem, one never knows; it may catch some cases. However, I believe the weasel word in the section is the term "material" in the phrase "material contract or transaction." The ministry people will be aware of the instance to which I am referring. I do not know whether the contract in which that chief executive officer did not disclose his interest, and thereby made a hidden profit at the expense of the company for which he was the chief executive officer, was a material contract and would have been caught by the term "material contract or transaction."

As I said, the term "material" is a weasel word in securities law. It is a vexed word, but corporate lawyers love to have it because it lets them off the hook on many occasions. I have a funny feeling that somehow or other in the case that was of concern to me, the chief executive officer probably could have kept the profit, because somebody would have said, "Oh, well, it is not a material contract or transaction" in relation to the overall business of that large corporation.

While the contract from which he derived the private benefit without disclosing his interest may not have been material in relation to the whole of the operations, it was sufficiently material that he made a profit, did not disclose it and kept the money.

5 p.m.

But I raised that. I have never been successful in persuading the ministry under any circumstances to drop the word "material" at any time or any place in this act, but that does not mean I will not continue over the years to be very worried about situations where it is inappropriate to use that limiting word.

The Deputy Chairman: The parliamentary assistant has no comment. Is there any further discussion on section 132?

Section 132 agreed to. Section 133 agreed to.

On section 134:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will refrain from making my comment on section 134. I have made it so many times and so often that even I am almost prepared at this juncture not to make it.

Section 134 agreed to.

Sections 135 to 152, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 153:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this was probably one of the most interesting proposals made by the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility when they appeared before the committee. I am going to comment a little bit because my comments also touch on section 157.

Section 153 talks about what the directors must lay before the shareholders at the meeting of the shareholders for approval, and section 157 deals with the audit committee, whose job is to review the financial statements of the corporation, report to the board of the corporation and so on and be available for questions at the meeting of the shareholders.

The introduction of the audit committee concept was a beneficial change in our law. It gave the specific responsibility and protection to the board of directors that the audit committee as well as the auditor, who draws up the financial statements, would have the responsibility to report to the board before the board reported at the annual meeting.

It was interesting that the task force put before us the proposal that there should be a committee on social responsibility. They detailed at some length in their submission to the standing committee on administration of justice some of the matters that it would be appropriate for such a social responsibility committee to deal with. They itemized them at some length in their brief to us; the kinds of matters had to do with the code of ethics under which the company was operating.

I suppose all one can do is thank this task force for having brought the matter before us and say to the government that perhaps once again Ontario could be in the forefront of the kind of change that should properly be made in business corporate law by introducing the concept not only of an audit committee but also of a social responsibility committee of the board.

So that there is no misunderstanding that somehow or other this is a wishy-washy concept, the task force brought to our attention at the time of the meeting some examples of the objectives and codes of conduct already in use in corporations of significance in this country. They provided us at the meeting with Social Responsibility and Corporate Conduct: A Policy Statement of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; they provided us with Alcan, Its Purposes, Objectives and Policies.

At a later date they provided us with similar principles of action from Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd.; from Inco -- my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will be interested in this -- Corporate Purposes, Principles and Strategies of International Nickel Company; and from Imperial Oil, which I think is the most fulsome statement, Corporate Ethics, A Statement of Role and Principles.

It is very interesting that large corporations are finally in the process of beginning to recognize they have public responsibilities to the communities within which they operate, because of the wide-ranging nature of the social impact they have as corporations, and with respect to the degree of the extent of their responsibilities as to standards of conduct. People will say, "You know, you can't legislate morals," but, in fact, we legislate little else than standards of conduct.

The fact that companies of this size have seen fit, not just as a matter of public relations -- I know some people are sceptical about the motivations behind these kinds of statements but I have some sense that an immense amount of work and attention and time went into the preparation of some of these statements, with respect to their expectations from their corporations and to their expectations of performance by their employees, not in terms of work production but in respect of standards of conduct in their relations to the public.

It is the same with their boards of directors and others. It would not be inadvisable for the government of Ontario to consider saying that there should be a social responsibility committee of the board of directors, whose responsibility it would be to report to the board of directors prior to the annual meeting of the shareholders as to whether the corporations had in the past year lived up to the standards they had established for themselves, and in what respects they had failed to live up to those particular standards.

I know it is always difficult with the Conservative government in Ontario to get it to move until its business friends tell it, "Now is the time." But I am saying to the ministry and to the government, and through the parliamentary assistant to the minister, that the time has come when, modelled on the audit committee, there should be a social responsibility committee. I think this assembly and everyone in it, and certainly the members of this committee, should be indebted to the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility for putting the concept clearly before a committee.

I know there are members of the assembly who get bored with statutes such as the Business Corporations Act. I join with them on occasion in being equally bored with all the technicalities and so on that are involved. But on questions such as this, very formidable questions of whether we still have the capacity in Ontario to provide the leadership that was provided some years ago in the field of corporate law -- and I am specifically addressing the minister's advisers under the gallery -- I do not want to hear that, until the Canada Corporations Act has it inscribed in it, we shall not consider it. We are not tracking that act all the time. We have an independent initiative and responsibility.

It seems to me that the corporate statement by Imperial Oil, with all the scepticism that one may bring to bear in thinking about it -- I am not going to use Inco as an example, because my friend from Sudbury East might have an apoplectic fit here if I did -- but Imperial Oil has stated "what we believe in; what employees can rely on; some specific things all employees need to know." It also deals with "what others mean to us." It uses rather glowing language; "What To Do in Uncertain Situations." Appendix 1: "Conflict of Interest and Other Related matters"; appendix 2: "Compliance with Combines Law." There are other such fairly detailed statements, putting the responsibility directly on the corporation and its board of directors to ensure that they are carried out.

We got nowhere in the committee on that concept. I simply want to express my personal appreciation to the task force for having raised the matter and to lend my small voice perhaps to furthering the cause of that kind of a committee.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I previously had acknowledged the input of the committee and during the committee's deliberations I had committed to the member for Riverdale that I would ensure the minister was aware of the brief they had presented and, more particularly, those areas such as the social conscience committee or whatever we wish to call it.

I should point out, and I think the member has made the point extremely well, that companies are doing it without us having to legislate it. This is a Business Corporations Act. Not being a lawyer, I could not attempt to spar with him, but what we should be putting into an act like this are those items necessary to ensure the safe and proper operation of the company.

There is nothing to prevent such committees being formed in other companies. Many do. I suggest that is perhaps the best way for it to be handled.

Section 153 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that there is no other discussion before section 157.

Sections 154 to 156, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 157:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the comments that I have just completed on the question of a social responsibility committee covered not only section 153 but also section 157 because I was analogizing to the audit committee, which is provided under section 157, as being an appropriate way in which a social responsibility committee of a board could be established. I have no further comments on the bill, other than to say I am now grateful that the debate on this bill is concluded.

Section 157 agreed to.

Sections 158 to 183, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 184:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mitchell moves that subsection 184(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"If a corporation resolves to amend its articles in a manner referred to in subsection 169(1), a holder of shares of any class or series entitled to vote on the amendment under section 167 or 169 may dissent, except in respect of an amendment referred to in,

"(a) 169(1)(a), (b) or (e) where the articles provide that the holders of shares of such class or series are not entitled to dissent or,

"(b) subsection 169(5) or (6)."

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, this proposed clause 184(2)(b) is a consequential amendment that was overlooked when subsections 169(5) and (6) were proposed as amendments when the bill was before the administration of justice committee.

Section 184, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 185 to 270, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 271:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mitchell moves that paragraph 271(23) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"23. prescribing the manner in which the directors of corporations may determine that restricted shares are owned contrary to restrictions under subsection 45(1)."

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the only comment I wish to make is that the amendment striking out subsection 42(3) of the bill renders paragraph 271(23) meaningless, so it is struck out. The new paragraph 23 is required by the amendment of subsection 45(1).

Motion agreed to.

Section 271, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 272 to 279, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 6, as amended, reported.

On motion by Mr. Mitchell, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved second reading of Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I will have copies of the statement delivered to members in one moment.

At second reading of the bill to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade I would like to take a few moments to outline the new ministry's role, touch upon the clients and citizens we serve and indicate how we intend to assist the private sector. In today's economic environment the most important concerns of any ministry involved in economic or industrial development must be the competitiveness of existing industries and the creation of jobs for the future.

Having said that, however, I must say that I do not see government's role as one of job creator; that function has been and should continue to be the role of a healthy and confident private sector. What government can do is develop policies and strategies that encourage private enterprise to invest with the fullest confidence in its province and its country. That investment, in turn, will stimulate employment.

The new Ministry of Industry and Trade will support the growth of productive and stable employment by assisting the private sector in three main areas: expanding trade, encouraging investment opportunities and strengthening the competitiveness of Ontario's industrial base.

First of all, the expansion of trade. The new ministry will help businesses to sell to promising markets both domestically and internationally. A great deal can be done to expand the domestic market for goods and services, and we will support this expansion by an enhanced domestic marketing program. Initiatives to help firms sell within Canada will include identifying major sectors with high import-replacement opportunities, working with the private sector in an expanded consumer buy-Canadian program and assisting large Canadian firms to find domestic suppliers.

5:20 p.m.

Canadian-made goods have a place on the international market and this market must be tackled more aggressively. We will help provide an environment in which this thrust can be made and exports expanded.

To help Ontario capture more international trade and investment, a new trade division will be created within my ministry. Working in tandem with the Ontario International Corp., this division will provide leadership for Ontario in the fiercely competitive international marketplace. Given such competition, we must step up our international efforts merely to maintain our present position.

However, we intend to go beyond that level, focusing on those areas with the greatest potential for growth. We will therefore be increasing the number of trade missions and our participation in trade fairs abroad both to introduce traditional, nonexporting Ontario companies to world markets and to ensure we continue to build on existing opportunities in foreign trade.

Second, encouraging investment opportunities: The new ministry will be encouraging investment opportunities both by existing Ontario businesses and by foreign investors. Ontario firms will be encouraged to invest in new machinery and equipment so we have the most modern and productive plants necessary to compete with a world that already recognizes the importance of keeping abreast of technological innovation and is acting accordingly.

One major way we will help will be in helping Ontario firms apply new processes and technologies through the establishment of technology centres throughout the province. These centres will help industry to develop products that preserve and expand a place for Ontario on the cutting edge of the world market.

The centres will be involved in the fields of biotechnology, microelectronics, robotics, computer-assisted design, computer-assisted manufacturing, food processing, auto parts and resource machinery development. To enhance further our economy's ability to participate aggressively in technological change, the Ministry of Industry and Trade also will be responsible for the new Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp.

The IDEA Corp., with private and public sector representatives, will identify the needs of Ontario industry and serve as a broker among private, public and university research interests. It will help ensure that technological innovation remains a major part of economic development in the province and that it will be converted into profitable business ventures.

This government feels that another way to encourage investment in Ontario is to show we also welcome investment from outside Canada. If foreign companies can prove responsibility and performance, if they can provide us with significant benefits in such things as new jobs, research and development, technological processes and demonstrate their willingness and commitment to contract with local suppliers, then we feel that Ontarians should have the chance to share in the experience, knowledge and rewards such companies can and do bring. With an expanded international program, my ministry will identify key investment markets around the world and convince them of the benefits of investment in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: The ministry of sellouts, that is what you are.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: In its mandate to strengthen the province's industrial base, the new ministry will work with Ontario industry to strengthen its already competitive position.

Mr. Cassidy: Is that what foreign investment has already done?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Allow the minister to read his statement.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Dozens of firms in the province have found time and again that with the right support Ontario has the ability to compete internationally in price, quality and innovation. One simply has to look at the microelectronic field for an example of what we can do.

We can do more. The right policies will help firms do more. The emphasis of such policies will be on assisting small business development, replacing imports, encouraging world-scale manufacturing facilities, encouraging emerging sectors and accelerating new technological introduction and transfer.

We have more than 240,000 small businesses in Ontario which provide about 40 per cent of our employment. It is obvious any policy designed to support job creation must recognize the immense value of the small business community and look for ways to encourage its growth. For this reason, we have been encouraging large companies to make sure they purchase a high proportion of goods and services from Canadian enterprises.

This government already has an excellent reputation for developing programs to reduce imports, programs such as the health care replacement program, that have led to inter- provincial co-operation and more jobs for Canadians.

Recently we announced our support for the new federal-provincial institutional purchasing program, and we intend to work with the private sector to maximize Ontario's opportunity from this latest initiative.

In our work strengthening the province's industrial base, we will emphasize, as I have said, world-class facilities, world-competitive products and services, as well as worldwide distribution. The success of our thrust in this area will depend to a great extent on our keeping up to date with the new technologies, products and processes.

I have outlined the three main priorities for the new Ministry of Industry and Trade. These priorities will govern all activities of the ministry, including those of the Ontario development corporations, which in the real sense are the financial arm of the thrusts I have outlined.

Over the next year, as we review all our programs, the new ministry will solicit the ideas of the business community, the financial community, the labour community, research and educational institutions, other governments and related associations as to how we can best serve the interests of Ontarians and Canadians.

In our efforts to obtain the opinions, concerns and ideas of all groups who could influence employment development and economic growth, we will expand what has been our traditional client base, with its major focus on secondary manufacturing, and pursue the potential of other client groups, such as primary manufacturers, service industries and other industrial sectors.

We have every confidence that, together, business and government can provide opportunities for people in this province and for future generations -- opportunities that will surface when people are working and have a sense of fulfilment, a real feeling that they have had the chance to contribute to a brighter future.

This bill to create the new Ministry of Industry and Trade belongs with those other key Ontario government initiatives, such as the creation of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, which will help spur economic development and growth in the future.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, there is not much new in there. As a matter of fact, one of the things that caught my attention when I compared this bill setting up the new ministry with the section of the statute that defines the former ministry -- chapter 282, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism -- was the fact that there was not very much difference. There have not been very many changes when you go through this bill chapter by chapter and section by section. Of course, we will get to that at a later date.

The former Ministry of Industry and Tourism Act was passed, for the most part anyway, in 1972. That is 10 years ago. What it seems to suggest to us is that this government has not learned very much in 10 years. As a matter of fact, that is not surprising, because what we have to recognize is that neither this government nor this minister is the right body to carry out what needs to be done in Ontario right now.

During the 1950s and the 1960s, Ontario had a booming economy, an economy where the best thing the government could do was to keep its hands off, to stay away, to stand back if you will, and allow it to operate. Of course, the same thing was happening in most places in the world. The Tories -- this government -- have proved that they are very effective at doing that. I will give credit for that, credit where it belongs and where it is deserved.

But then we hit the 1970s, and now we are in the 1980s. Quite frankly, neither this government nor this minister in my judgement is the right government or the right minister for what we needed in the 1970s or what we are going to need in the 1980s.

Let me make it very clear I am not in any way being personal when I say this minister is not the right person. This minister has done quite an admirable job in some of his former ministries; he has shown a talent for organization and administration and a sense of what is needed. My fellow critics did not always agree with everything he did.

I want to make that very clear. It is not, in my judgement, any lack of ability on the part of this minister or indeed on the part of his government, but simply a way of looking at the industrial development of this province, which, in my judgement, is the wrong way. This minister has made it very clear and he emphasizes it again in his speech that there are two things to which he is addicted. There are two things to which this government has been addicted for almost 40 years.

5:30 p.m.

The first one is, "Stay out, hands off." I have already indicated there was a time when that was appropriate. This is no longer that time. This minister has made it very clear in two or three public speeches since he assumed office that he still feels that way. That is okay if that is his personal commitment, his political commitment, his ideological commitment. That is fine. I think it is proper that he say where he stands. I give him credit for in no way equivocating about that stand. But that is not what we need now.

We do not need a laissez-faire government. We do not need a laissez-faire minister. We do not need a government or a minister who says, "We are going to stand back and let private industry do it." It is patently clear that either through a lack of will, a lack of ability, or economic situations in which it simply cannot operate, private industry cannot and is not doing the job that needs to be done.

Again, let me make a point clear. I do not believe it is the job of government to run business or to run industry; I agree with the minister on that. I agree with his government's position on that. But where we draw a line is the degree to which we assist, the degree to which we involve ourselves, the degree to which we participate; not in taking over, but in jumping in with both feet and becoming clearly and actively involved; participants, in other words. I get the strong sense, and will continue to have that strong sense until I see evidence to the contrary, that this minister and this government are not prepared to go that far. Consequently, we are going to continue to have problems in this province.

The second area in which I strongly draw the line between myself and the minister is in the degree of foreign investment in Ontario. In my judgement, the 60 per cent of the industry of Ontario that is in the form of branch plants is an albatross around our necks. Once again, there was a time when we needed that kind of participation, that kind of involvement, but that time is long past.

Over the last two decades, at least the decades of the 1960s and the 1970s, the industrial strategy of Ontario should have been to support, to encourage, to provide initiatives for Canadian-owned and Canadian-managed businesses to flourish and to grow and gradually to replace and, yes, displace, the foreign branch plant economy of this province. I need not tell anyone in this House that simply was not done, and it is not being done now. That is the tragedy of the economy of this province, and we have paid a terrible price for it.

One would think we would have learned. Yet in the last couple of years we have seen this minister's predecessor and the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province travelling around the world, travelling to Japan, West Germany, Texas, travelling where they will. For what purpose? To invite even more branch plants to locate in Ontario -- the one thing we do not need.

Kitchener would be a lot better off if it were not so subjected to the branch plant economy that affects this province. That is why, in Kitchener, the federal government had to step in with its industry and labour adjustment program and bail out the economy of that city, or at least help to bail it out, because this province was not doing the job.

That is what is the matter with my city. That is why I am justifiably angry when I speak of what this government has done, is doing and needs to do. It has not been the provincial government that has helped my city; it has been the federal government that has helped my city when it really needed it.

I indicated there were those two strong differences of opinion and we want to reinforce these as we go along. The disheartening thing is that this is a pretty good piece of legislation. It does give the minister and the government all the power they need. It is almost unlimited power. I am sure the minister is even aware of that himself. Maybe it is because there is so much power that he is cautious with its use. I would like to have the minister comment on that at a later time when he has the opportunity to do so. I could understand that because it is all there.

When we look at the objectives of this minister, when we look at the powers this legislation gives the minister and the government, I cannot see a single thing that needs to be done in this province that could not be done under this legislation. The minister has powers to promote investment and trade, to encourage new technologies, to provide financial assistance, to disseminate information, to provide direct services, to advocate the interests of the business sector, and on and on it goes.

Section 8 of the bill deals with what could be called a provincial Department of Regional Economic Expansion to identify certain sections of this province that need special attention. Clause 3(e) of the bill has as an objective the adaptation of industry to current needs and new technologies. It is all there. This legislation would enable this minister and this government to do what needs to be done and what must be done.

I want to concur with a couple of things. First, the minister made a strong point in previous statements, in his previous definition of this ministry and again this afternoon, that his first emphasis, his first priority, his first responsibility is job creation. I agree with that. That is what is needed in this province right now, above and beyond everything else. There can be little doubt that, in this province at least, strengthening and reaffirming the industrial base is where those jobs are going to be created. In that matter, the minister and I certainly have a point of agreement.

Second, I think the time is long past to have this kind of ministry, a ministry of both industry and trade, because it is equally clear that Ontario has not spent the time, the effort or the energy on the trade policies and assistance to the trade policies of the industrial base and of the businesses of this province.

We know we are a trading nation. We know that Ontario, being the industrial heartland of Canada, more so than any other part of the country, must either live or die on its ability to trade in the international market. I was pleased when the minister emphasized in his statement the need for us to get in with full force and full participation in the competitive international market.

I hope that one of the thoughts behind the Premier and the government setting up this particular model means there is going to be greater liaison and co-ordination between the provincial and federal governments in the fields of both industry and trade. It seems to me that the two ministries, federally and provincially, are roughly parallel and that their needs, aspirations, objectives and goals would be roughly parallel.

It is a fact, or has been a fact in the past, that the industrial strength of Ontario has an impact on the entire country. It is now the fact that Ontario has lost its industrial clout, if you will, and has lost the strength of its industrial base that is contributing to some of the problems in the entire country.

5:40 p.m.

I can remember the attitude of the rest of the country towards Ontario after the recent meeting of first ministers in Ottawa on the economy of this country. The Globe and Mail, I believe, reported shortly after the meeting that it was obvious Ontario no longer had the clout it once had; that it was obvious that the rest of the country, which used to look forward to the economic leadership of the province of Ontario, was not looking there any longer; that it did not perceive Ontario to have the economic and industrial answers the country as a whole needed, and it was looking to other parts of the country for them.

Like most members in this House I am a Canadian first. Most of us agree that we want a strong country. But we also agree that we in Ontario, and particularly we as Ontario legislators, have to contribute to the strength of the country; and when the economic strength of Ontario is not recognized by the rest of the country then it is a clear sign that we are not doing our job.

As a matter of fact, I remember that in this particular article the Premier himself, when questioned by a reporter, sadly lamented that Ontario did not command the respect it once had commanded, that it was not listened to in the way it once was, that its ideas about the economic restructuring of the country were not given the attention they once were.

We have to restore that balance; we have to expect that other parts of the country are going to grow economically. Sure they will, and we should be glad that other parts of the country are growing economically, but we do not want them to grow while we slide down. I am not saying they are growing at our expense; that is not what I am trying to suggest. But we are not growing at the rate we should be; we are not even maintaining what we should be maintaining.

Therefore, on the one hand I agree with the minister that jobs have to be our priority; I agree with the minister that trade has to be a priority. But we have to recognize that neither one of those is going to come to anything if, in this province, we do not have an industrial base, if we do not have an industrial strategy and if we do not have the participation of the government of this province in the industrial and economic life and health of this province to a much greater degree than I expect it is going to be or, certainly, than history shows us it has been recently.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain defects in the way the present government operates and, I can only assume until it is changed, in the way the present minister is going to operate with respect to assisting industry and business in this province. I have brought a couple of these matters to the minister's attention already.

In my judgement and in the judgement of the businessmen and businesswomen I have spoken to, the Ontario Development Corp. simply is not doing its job. It takes too long to make its decisions. I brought a particular case to the minister's attention. I could say parenthetically that I am still waiting for his answer. What is it now, six weeks or seven weeks? I am not sure. And that is typical, because that is exactly how the development corporation works: You wait and wait and wait and wait; and many businessmen I have had the chance to talk to since I took over as the critic for this ministry have told me they have experienced the same thing.

This is true, by the way, for many of the minister's assistance programs. His ministry has a great little book that lists all of these wonderful programs, all these support mechanisms, all these incentives, all these initiatives to help businessmen in this province. Yet when I talk to businessmen, those who have tried to involve themselves say, "Never again." Because of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the waiting, the limitations, the mandates, they say, "Forget it." Those who have not tried have heard those kinds of horror stories and are not even going to try.

While we are dealing with the composition of his ministry, I suggest that the first thing he should do is to take a long, hard look at the mechanisms he has in place to help business and industry in this province. While he may concentrate on the success stories, the businesses that seem to have worked through the system, there is a large number of them that have not been able to do so and are not even going to try. The very fact that those mechanisms are in place certainly would indicate that the government and, I hope, this minister have a genuine intent to help these businesses. But the mechanisms must be examined, because they are not working.

One of the things I think we could use, and businessmen with whom I have spoken have said it is worth taking a good look at, is a small business development bond for Ontario along the lines of that used in some of the American states and municipalities. Such bonds are issued at a low rate of return, but the return is tax deductible. That would provide a real incentive to business to make some of the kinds of decisions that are facing them right now.

Everyone here is fully aware of the disastrous effects the federal government's high interest rate policy is having on business in this province. I do not like it any more than the minister does. I have said so, and I have gone to Ottawa and said so. But I do not know how we would deal with the after-effects if the government were to act unilaterally to bring the interest rates down.

I have been told by the experts about what would happen to the value of our dollar, compared with that of the United States, and about the large amounts of money that would flee the country. Maybe these things would happen and maybe they would not; I do not know. That is not our jurisdiction, but there is another jurisdiction that can deal with that. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Premier are going to have to deal with that other jurisdiction.

The question remains, what can we do here, right now? Surely we can bring in something like the small business development bond that I have mentioned to ameliorate the impact of high interest rates on businessmen in Ontario. The degree to which we are going to be able to do that is a financial decision that this government is going to have to make. It cannot continue to say, month after month and day after day, "There is nothing we can do about it."

This government has a $20-billion budget. It has all of the resources of this province at its disposal. There are some things it can do and some things it must do. I simply repeat, have a look at a small business development bond and see whether it would work for businessmen in Ontario. Look to see whether there are drawbacks, but look for the advantages as well. I have been told by a number of businessmen that the bonds certainly would be an improvement over the programs already in place.

I want to return to the question of job creation. I realize that this minister, by himself, is not going to be able to solve that problem. He is going to have to work very closely with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), who is responsible for a lot of the manpower training in this province, with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and obviously with business and industry.

If all three of those ministries do not work closely together, this problem will not be resolved. Just as we have relied upon branch plants as our industrial base for far too long, so have we relied upon importing the skilled help that our industry needs. Once again, just as we are facing the catastrophic effects of our reliance on branch plants, we are also facing the catastrophic effects of our reliance on imported skilled labour.

5:50 p.m.

As we look back, this is not something that had to be. I remember sitting in this House, back about 1976, when the Honourable Harry Parrott was Minister of Colleges and Universities. He had just previously asked his officials to go back through the records of the ministry to check the various initiatives the government had made with respect to skills training. He got up that night and said there was a recurring theme that deeply troubled him. He quoted a series of dates and a series of reports: 1963, 1968, 1971, 1974. The significance of each of these dates was that it was a time when the government of Ontario, the same one as the present government, had initiated a commission or a study on the whole question of job skills training and, after each one, little or nothing was done.

Interjections.

Mr. Sweeney: Those are not my words. They are in Hansard for 1976. Check them yourself or have one of your officials check them.

What the minister clearly said, although he did not say it quite as clearly as I am saying it right now, was that the problem was known, the solution to the problem was known and yet nothing, or very little, was done about it. Consequently, when he said it in 1976, and when I am saying it now in 1982, it did not have to be, and it does not have to be. It is not like standing here today and looking back 10, 15 or 20 years in hindsight and saying, "If we had only known." We did know --

Mr. Haggerty: Hydro has known about the shortage of skilled trades for years.

Mr. Sweeney: -- as my colleague the member for Erie points out. Remember that time? The minister was in the House. I think it was in 1977 that an announcement was made that Ontario Hydro was going to import 75 skilled technicians from England. I think I was the one who asked the question in the House of the then Minister of Energy: "Why are you importing these people? What are they for?" The answer was, "To run the nuclear generation plants." I said, "With all of the unemployed people we have in this province, why are we not training them ourselves?" He said, "We don't have time."

My God, 15 years previously, the policy decision was made to go into the nuclear generation business in Ontario. Ten years before, the first operating plant was put on stream. What did the Minister of Energy, Ontario Hydro and this government think was going to happen to those plants -- that they were going to run themselves? Were the nuclear technicians who were going to manage those plants just going to appear out of the air? It really does not take very much foresight to realize that when the plants become operational, there will be a need for skilled technicians to operate them. Once again, that was not hindsight; that was something that was known, but it was not acted on.

I mention that example, and I thank my colleague the member for Erie for bringing it to my attention, to show the sort of thing that has happened and why it cannot happen again.

May I say as an aside that, right now, I understand there is a conflict between the Minister of Employment and Immigration in Ottawa and the Minister of Colleges and Universities in Ontario about some new skills training problems. It is my understanding, and I hope the minister will rise and speak to it when the opportunity presents itself to her, that the blockage to some advances, some changes, rests right here in Ontario, because of differences in political points of view: who is going to get credit, who is going to do this or who is going to do that. If that is the case, I ask the minister, if she wants to speak to this, to please do so at the appropriate time.

The point is that this cannot be allowed to happen. Frankly, I do not care who gets the credit. It is not important to me, and I do not think it is important to the 8.5 million people of this province. I do not think it is important to the 160,000 or 170,000 young people in this province between the ages of 15 and 24 who are out of work. I do not think it is important to the other 200,000 out-of-work people in this province over the age of 25. All they want is jobs. They want the opportunity to be trained for the jobs that are going to be needed in this province.

We know right now -- the automotive industry is telling us and the United Auto Workers are telling us -- that many of the people who have been laid off from those automotive plants are not going to go back to those jobs, because those jobs will not be there.

Picking up the theme that the minister himself read just a few minutes ago, if we are going to be competitive on the world market or, my God, even if we are going to be competitive in the domestic market, we are going to have to change the structure of that industry. The minister or his predecessor has already set up the technology centre in Peterborough to do the research in some of the advanced design and the whole question of robotics, if I have got the right place and the right technology centre. It is a clear indication that the minister and his government know that is one of the waves of the future. We know when we look at Japan particularly and some of the European jurisdictions that if we are going to compete with them, we have to compete with them on their level.

What are we doing about training people for that? Who is going to design these machines? Who is going to build them? Who is going to maintain them? Who is going to program them when they are in operation? Where are those people coming from? The minister himself spoke in his report about the CAD/CAM centre in Cambridge, immediately south of my riding, the centre for computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing.

Mr. Boudria: The next Liberal riding.

Mr. Sweeney: That's a Tory riding.

Mr. Boudria: Until the next election.

Mr. Sweeney: Until the next election; that's right. It is a one-stop stand over there.

Anyway, at Conestoga College, which is in my riding, the number of openings for job training is severely limited. I have had many phone calls and letters from young men and young women wanting to get into that program. There is another one in Mohawk College in Hamilton, if I am not mistaken, and it is the same thing there: they cannot get in.

I spoke a few minutes ago about co-ordination and co-operation among this ministry, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Labour. This is a classic example of where it is going to have to be done. Otherwise, all the wonderful possibilities, the potential in this legislation, will not be achieved.

If we are going to have computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing, we are going to have to have bright young people who are trained to design, trained to operate, trained to maintain and trained to program these machines. I have this awful, sinking, heart-rending feeling that we are going to face the same problem we faced with the nuclear generating plants. That is one of the reasons I brought that point up, not that it has anything directly to do with this minister.

We want to be sure that we have enough people to manage it when it comes on stream. I can hear the byplay between this minister and the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I hope I am wrong. I honestly hope my prediction is wrong. I do not want that to happen. I do not want it to happen, because I am having difficulty right now -- as the minister knows, I am heading up a task force, going around this province -- talking to young people who are out of work. I want to tell the minister it is a heart-rending experience to talk to these young people and to try to answer their questions when they say: "We want to work. We don't want to be on welfare. We don't want to collect unemployment insurance. We want to work. We want to have some pride. We want to have some dignity."

Then they look at these kinds of experiences. They look at the announcement that we in Ontario are bringing in these thousands of skilled people from other jurisdictions. We have to respond to them.

I guess the appropriate response is that I move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Sweeney, the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before moving the adjournment of the House, I just want to indicate that we are going to continue with Bill 38 tomorrow afternoon and evening.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

May 3, 1982