Hansard Transcript 1986-Jan-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I do see a few ministers. I wonder whether the other members might like to stand down their questions. Are there any other members who would like to ask any questions?

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there are only five or six ministers in the House, and question period does begin at two o'clock. I know the government is learning the ropes, but that is not a hard thing to learn. I submit that the suggestion is a good one and that perhaps we should adjourn for five or 10 minutes so they can get here in their chauffeur-driven limousines from wherever they go at 12 o'clock. I do not know.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know you will want the views of the government expressed in this important matter. My colleagues and advisers tell me there are now close to 10 ministers present, and here is another one arriving even as I speak.

When one looks at the number of empty blue seats in the official opposition, one will understand that it must have something to do with the bright, sunny day that is perhaps keeping a lot of people over a lunch that is a little longer than it might have been.

You will be glad to know that I am gradually running down, Mr. Speaker, but as these seats rapidly fill up with cognoscenti, I suggest you ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) to do his best, or whatever else he has.

Mr. Speaker: A suggestion has been made that the Speaker consider recessing the House. However, I believe the standing orders allow the Speaker to recess only in a case of grave disorder. Everything seems to be so calm, cool and collected that the Leader of the Opposition may want to place his question now.

Mr. Grossman: I thank the Treasurer for ragging the puck as effectively as he did, but we on this side agree that he is running down.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister may be aware, although he may not be, that the best offer for insurance received by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board was $1 million worth of coverage, as opposed to its previous coverage of $10 million, and that, incredibly, the coverage it had to accept was $1 million worth of coverage, excluding coverage for sporting and other events voluntarily entered into by students.

In other words, because of the inactivity of this government, we have a circumstance where students were previously covered for any injuries incurred while playing sports at school and now in Metropolitan Toronto they are not.

I wonder whether the minister might have any advice today for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board about obtaining coverage for those students who are not covered or about providing protection for the ratepayers.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This is the sort of thing we are addressing with the committee I have put in place. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether I was aware of this situation, and I have to tell him I was not. However, as these problems are identified, we are addressing them. During the past two or three weeks we have had several instances where we have had problems, not necessarily in the school boards but in other jurisdictions and in other areas; we have addressed them and solved them.

It is a grave problem, and there are no easy answers. However, as these problems come up, each one is looked at on an individual basis; there is no magic formula that cuts across the total problem. As they are identified, we are looking at them, trying to facilitate the resolution and trying to solve them.

Mr. Grossman: With respect to the minister, at the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in August, his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) was present and spoke, I believe, to a resolution calling upon the government to address this problem.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations himself, in speaking to this problem in the Legislature on November 29, said: "I will assure the member that we are looking into the total problem with the insurance industry.... Before we do something, we have to identify the problems and see what alternatives there are. We are doing that."

It is now January, six months after this issue was raised with his colleague at the AMO, and he is here reporting that he has no answer for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board or for the young people who are playing in its playgrounds this afternoon without any insurance coverage whatsoever.

Will the minister outline for the House what specifically he is prepared to do for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and for others? Or will he admit that he has done, and is doing, nothing?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am prepared to give the Leader of the Opposition an undertaking that we will contact the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, find out exactly what its problem is and use all the facilities we have to resolve it.

Mr. Reville: It seems question period is helpful after all, because the minister is discovering a few things. Yesterday he thought municipalities were declining to accept insurance, when he should have known that in the case of the Metro group, it could get no underwriter to make a firm offer.

Is the minister going to wait until municipalities decide to withdraw services because of the risks to which they are exposed, or is he prepared to tell the House now what efficacious steps he is prepared to take to protect the municipalities and the citizens?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not know whether we are talking about two different boards. One was the school board; I think the honourable member is talking about Metropolitan Toronto as such. The board is coming in tomorrow, as a matter of fact, and we will discuss a reciprocal insurance program.

I cannot anticipate every single problem that is going to happen in every municipality or in every school board, but as they are identified, we are addressing them.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: The minister said yesterday: "At present, there is not a school board or municipality that is not covered. When we have that problem, we will address it." Quite clearly, we now have at least one school board that is not covered, and in fact many that are not. The minister was wrong yesterday.

If the minister is sending out the signal today that he will do nothing except respond when there is a major award given and then figure out what he is going to do to help out the school board or municipality, either he is going to have bankrupt municipalities or school boards or all the other school boards are going to be saying: "Cancel the insurance we have. Monty will come in with a cheque after the settlement." He cannot let it go that long.

Will he indicate to this House what he is prepared to do, not on a case-by-case basis after an accident, to remedy this problem? There are schoolchildren unprotected today.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: My information yesterday was that there were no schoolchildren who were unprotected. The school boards either had insurance or had made a decision to self-insure.

Mr. Grossman: They are not insured. That is not an insurance policy.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is insurance. I am saying to the honourable member that if there are problems out there that are brought to our attention, we will address them.

Mr. Grossman: The minister was told six months ago.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This was not told to us six months ago. We looked at the problem, and as of yesterday my information was that all school boards either had insurance or had made a decision to self-insure.

Mr. Grossman: He was told six months and he did nothing. Tomorrow he is calling them in to talk with them.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Skills Development. Yesterday he was suggesting that the Futures program has been, to use his words, "a marvellous success." There were 125,000 young people unemployed in Ontario in November. The Futures program, after three months, has placed 1,500 of the 125,000 unemployed young people in this province. Yet he has the nerve to come to this House and call it "an extremely successful program."

Can the minister share with this House his plans for the other 123,500 young people in this province whom he told during the election campaign he would have jobs for?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am honoured the Leader of the Opposition would direct one of his two questions to me. I regret a little that it was not one of the classic "either-or" questions, because those are a lot easier for a rookie like myself.

First of all, I point out that the figures the honourable member quotes are incorrect. Some 5,500 people have been involved in the Futures program in its first two months, not three months, of operation. We do have a number to go yet, and we anticipate we will reach our estimate of 56,000 young people before March 31, 1986.

One of the areas where we are deficient is our recording system. The figures we have in the ministry are not as up to date as I would like them to be, because new delivery agents and new mechanisms have been put in place in the community colleges and the reporting information is not getting to us as quickly as possible. Even the figure of 5,500 placements does not reflect an up-to-date situation.

Mr. Grossman: The minister may be honoured with more of our questions if he continues the way he has.

I want to tell him we got the figure of 1,500 from his officials. After question period and before he goes out into the hall, he may want to find out from his officials whether they were playing games when they told us there were 1,500 or whether they were playing with him when he asked for a figure he could use in question period today.

We would like to know whether it is 123,500 or 119,500 young people who have been ignored by him.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: In this election brochure his party put out, I see the following quote from his leader: "Half a million people, many of them young, are out of work. Others are uncertain about their future. David Peterson and the Ontario Liberals will guarantee young people a first job or training program of up to one year."

What he has done is to have a three-month program for 1,500 young people.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: What are his plans to honour this election commitment?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is getting a little closer to an "either-or" question, but it is not quite there yet.

Futures is a long-term program that we believe and feel confident will respond to that very grave problem. Its success will not be measured by two months of a new program that provides a one-year guarantee of employment, characterized not simply by work experience but also by work experience that provides on-the-job training. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to follow along; he will see that program being successful.

Mr. Grossman: We are getting more up-to-date information from the minister's officials than he is, although he may have it now. It appears there are 5,500 applicants, but only 1,500 jobs.

We have had some people calling the government's toll-free number, which I want to make available to the media and the public; it is 1-800-387-0777. We found it took two days to get anything but a busy signal. Sometimes one is put on hold for an extraordinary length of time, listening, I admit, to some rock music. That may explain why the minister had only 5,500 applicants out of 123,000 young people.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: With the enormous amount of money the ministry has been spending on advertising on posters and billboards, how many people does it have answering the phones?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to be able to answer that question now, but I cannot. I am sorry, but I do not know the precise number of people we have answering the phones. I will admit to the Leader of the Opposition that in the first month of operation we had some problems with the hotline.

When one is Leader of the Opposition, one's information is not quite as good. His figure of 5,500 applicants is wrong; it is just not the correct information.

I undertake here and now to provide him as soon as possible with the number of people we have answering the hotline.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about automobile insurance. I wonder whether the minister can clarify why he said in the Legislature yesterday that auto insurance premiums in Ontario "are a factor of the marketplace, and at this point we have no intention of interfering with that marketplace," but he was reported as saying a mere 50 minutes later in the scrum outside the Legislature, "If we find that insurance is just getting completely out of hand, where the consumer can't get affordable insurance, then we will have to look at alternatives." Is he going to bring in public auto insurance or not?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not planning to bring in public automobile insurance. Having said that, we are looking at the total problem involving the insurance industry. We are not turning down any alternative. This is strictly a hypothesis, but if we find that is an option, we will consider it. At this time, we are not considering it.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that the famous select committee on company law looked at auto insurance and at the insurance industry of this province for a long time and came out with a substantial report as long ago as 1977-78?

Is the minister aware that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself evidently indicated yesterday that the government is not interested in running an insurance scheme unless it is substantially cheaper than private operations?

Does the minister not agree that rates of $340 to $457 in cities on the Prairies, including the major metropolitan centre of Winnipeg, are substantially lower than the rates in seven Ontario cities, ranging from $501 to $804 in Windsor?

Mr. Speaker: Order; the minister.

Mr. Foulds: Does he not think they are substantially cheaper?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Does he not think it is about time he followed up on previous commitments and brought in public auto insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I want to repeat that we are looking into the total picture of the automotive industry in Ontario and we will be considering all options.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Could the minister clarify for us that among the options the government will look at is the option outlined by the Premier yesterday, of having a government-run, no-fault auto insurance scheme? Is that one of the options this government will now be looking into?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are all sorts of possibilities and we will be looking at them all.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister advise us how long he is going to delay by this "looking at them all" technique? How long is he going to delay the protection of the consumer in Ontario who already pays the highest premiums in Canada for auto insurance and is facing whopping increases of 15 per cent to 25 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We will be looking into it as soon as we can and we will come to a resolution as soon as we can.

Mr. Reville: Surprisingly enough, my question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware that skyrocketing liability insurance costs are creating crises for municipalities, school boards, hospitals, commercial vehicle operators, motorists and perhaps even the minister himself. He will also realize that the other side of liability insurance is disability for individuals from injury or other causes.

Given the minister's concern, which he has stated over and over in the House, about the global nature of the problems and how he wants to address them, and given the present irrational and inadequate system of disability income protection, will the minister tell the House whether the government is prepared to consider a universal system of sickness, accident and disability insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The whole area of insurance is going to be addressed in a global context. We will be looking at every aspect of it.

Mr. Reville: The minister is aware that the whole area has already been addressed by the Legislature's select committee on company law, and by distinguished legal experts Edward Belobaba of Osgoode Hall Law School and Paul Weiler of Harvard University Law School, among others. They have concluded that universal sickness, accident and disability insurance is desirable, affordable and workable. What is keeping the minister from committing himself and his government to establishing such a system now?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I repeat, we are looking at the overall problem of insurance and we will address it as soon as we can.

Mr. Runciman: In response to all the questions related to the insurance field today, the minister is saying he is going to look at everything. There was a committee appointed some months ago, prior to this government taking office, which was looking at the insurance industry. Why is the minister being so uncertain about when he may arrive at some conclusions with respect to the variety of concerns about this industry? Can he not set a deadline for his officials and say: "I want some answers. I want some solutions. I want some proposals"?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be taking any proposals to my cabinet colleagues and I expect to be making a major statement about the problem on Thursday. However, I cannot give the member a final date as to when we are going to resolve it.

Mr. Reville: The minister is expressing his concern with the efficacy of government and he is showing some apparent willingness to intervene to protect consumers from the vagaries of the insurance industry-

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would express a question?

Mr. Reville: I will express the question now because it is an excellent one. Members will want to hear it.

Will the minister act now on the recommendation of the select committee on company law; to wit: to establish an interministerial committee "to examine the problems and possible solutions to the introduction of a comprehensive disability income protection plan for the residents of Ontario"? It is recommendation 34.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be happy to take the member's question into consideration.

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) if he is within earshot of my voice.

Mr. Speaker: The minister is not here. You might want to address your question to someone else.

Ms. Fish: I will put my question to the Premier.

The Premier will be aware that about a year ago the federal government issued a working paper on water quality entitled Currents of Change. This paper requested provincial response, particularly concerning policies on water diversion.

Will the Premier confirm that his government's policy will continue the previous government's policy of allowing no water diversion from Ontario to other jurisdictions in the absence of the specific approval of the Ontario government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is interesting. I have been in discussion on that very issue with a number of the Great Lakes states' governors. I was on the phone with Governor Blanchard not very long ago.

We share the honourable member's personal view, and I gather the view of the previous government, on that matter. I have also discussed it with the former Premier, Mr. Davis, and it is the intention of this government to carry on with the same policy. In other words, we will not favour any diversion.

Like the member, I read with some concern suggestions of the great Grand Canal and other massive diversions down into the Midwest. I am very concerned when I read of some who would trade off our water as part of the free trade agreement. She will understand, of course, that we have stood very firm in defence of Ontario's interests and against diversions.

Ms. Fish: I am gratified indeed by the Premier's firm commitment in this regard.

In consideration of the water study currently under way in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area-where current predictions are that by 1991, if not earlier, existing water capacity will have expired and there may be a need to divert water from surrounding rural areas-will the Premier similarly give an undertaking that no waters will be pumped or diverted from the communities of Puslinch or North Dumfries in the absence of the specific approval by the local municipal councils of such pumping or diversions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar at all with the problem the member raises. I am willing to inform myself or to ask the minister to give her an answer on it. I am sorry, I do not know, and I would prefer not to make any firm commitment on anything in the absence of knowing the facts.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I understand the Premier is meeting with Simon Reisman this week. Is he prepared to tell Mr. Reisman in that meeting, or in any other discussions he may have with him, that the Grand Canal project and any other similar major water diversion project will be totally off the table in any trade discussions with the United States, now or at any time in the future?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not meeting with Mr. Reisman this week, to the best of my knowledge, although one never knows whom one will meet in my business, because I am so happy to meet with anyone, anywhere, any time. If he wants to come, I will be delighted to meet him. That being said, as far as I know, I have no plans to meet him.

With respect to the honourable member's question, I am sure Mr. Reisman knows my very strong views on this subject. I cannot imagine that Mr. Reisman would have the temerity even to raise that subject in any discussions with the United States. If he did, I can assure the member he would receive short shrift from this government.

2:30 p.m.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Premier. Now that we are into the fifth or sixth month since the report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment was made public, can the Premier give us a time frame by which we will know when this government is going to have an official response to the recommendations of that commission, keeping in mind that the new Deputy Minister of Northern Development and Mines indicated in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal in November that the government did not want to make knee-jerk responses to the report's recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member is aware, there are a great number of recommendations in that report that require implementation, scrutiny or rejection by the government. The government has taken that report seriously. There is an interministerial group chaired by my colleague the minister that is examining the proposals in detail.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the member will see a formal response to every one of those proposals, but he will be seeing them dealt with over a period of time. As I understand it, some already have been. That will be the approach this government will take.

I assure the member that we take it seriously. After all, we invested $10 million in that report and we do not like to squander money. Any value we can extract therefrom, we will attempt to do.

Mr. Wildman: In the December edition of Northern Ontario Business, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) indicated that there were some good things in the report, that the government was studying it, and that "all the ministries are looking at it."

Can the Premier give us some indication as to when this "looking at it" process will be completed and when or whether there will be an official response on the part of the government to the overall thrust of the report and to specific recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister was right, as usual, when he said there was some good in the report. We in this party like to find good wherever we can find it. We look across the hall and in the corridor and we find good. We are delighted to find it. It is not easy, but where we can find it, we acknowledge it and we will continue to do so.

With respect to the member's question, as I said, I do not think he will see a major formal report in response to all the recommendations. Rather, the ministers are dealing with the questions as they pertain to their ministries under the capable leadership of the minister, who is forcing the other ministers to deal with these issues.

He is a very strong and articulate spokesman for northern Ontario-I am sure the member would agree-and we hope to deal with all the suggestions that are easy to implement or that can be implemented in as short a space of time as possible. I wish I could give the member a specific date; I cannot, but I assure him we take it seriously and we are moving on it.

Mr. Bernier: I was most interested in the Premier's response about dealing with the specific recommendations and not having a blanket, overall response to the 129 recommendations of Mr. Fahlgren. I am sure the Premier is aware of what is happening in the Red Lake-Ear Falls area with the closing down of the Griffith mine. Some 250 jobs will be wiped out as of April 1 and the municipal taxes of the town of Ear Falls will be reduced by some 50 per cent; a devastating effect will take place in that area.

It is important that this government get on with those recommendations and comment on them, particularly as they relate to the forest resources in the 19,000 square miles of the area lying east of Red Lake, to free up those resources so that some forest activity can take place and provide the needed economic drive. When will we hear about the freeing up of that vast area of forest resources commented on by Mr. Fahlgren?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very much aware of the problem in Red Lake and the Griffith mine. The honourable member will recall that not long ago we were in exactly opposite positions. He was the minister trying to defend that closing and I was in the opposition trying to speak to the people of that area. I am sure he will recall the situation not long ago, as I do.

We do take the report seriously. I do not have a specific time frame. I appreciate the suggestion of the urgency in that matter and I will take the specifics of the matter the member raised in the House today to the minister. He is listening now and I am sure we can get back to the member as quickly as possible about that particular case.

HOLSTERED GUNS

Mr. Sterling: My question is for the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, last week two Brink's guards were gunned down during a robbery in Ottawa. One of them happens to be a constituent of mine. Ontario's policy is that guards' guns cannot be held or drawn unless there is a life-threatening situation, so these men's weapons were holstered when the robbers fired on them.

Will the Solicitor General give us his commitment to review this existing policy with a view to changing it to make our guards safe from being targets?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am prepared at any time to review any legislation enacted by the former government and still on the books, but I am not prepared to give anyone a commitment that review automatically means change. As I have said to the media, that is totally false, and to the honourable member, a review means to assure oneself that the legislation is in the best interest of the client group one serves.

In the matter referred to in Ottawa, we will gladly review the policy. We have already looked at it briefly since that occasion, but we will want to be sure we are providing the best security for the citizens of Ontario and the guards who work in those positions.

Mr. Sterling: The minister knows it is well known by the criminal element of Quebec that the policy in Ontario is more advantageous to them in coming across the Ottawa River and carrying out their robberies in our province rather than in their own. In Quebec, the security guards, the Brink's guards, can have their guns drawn when they are making a pickup of cash from grocery stores, as in this case.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sterling: The minister has argued in the press that this policy he is defending is safer for the customers of the bank. I want him to justify that to me today.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am not sure where the member gets his information about the criminal element in Quebec, that it is-

Mr. Breaugh: The minister does not know the member very well.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I shall not challenge his source of information. In our opinion on this matter-

Mr. Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The evidence comes from a coroner's inquest some six months ago.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Thanks very much for the clarification; it is nice to have the clarification.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister, with a reply. Does the minister wish to make any further comment?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I would be happy to make one but it appears there is no interest in listening to a reply.

Simply, the matter of guards and the drawing of guns has been reviewed on many occasions. The element of surprise is always with the criminal element. A guard carrying a gun when going into a grocery store or wherever to make a pickup is more of a hazard in our opinion than if he left the gun in his holster. People working as guards are always subject to danger and they know that when they take on that role. We feel that in our role of protecting the citizens and the guards, the current policy is reasonable. We are, however, definitely reviewing it.

HIGHWAY EXTENSION

Mr. Laughren: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning proposals by his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) to extend Highway 89 through the Keswick marsh south of Lake Simcoe.

Is the minister aware that to save approximately 13 minutes of driving time, his colleague is prepared to destroy one of the most important wetland areas in southern Ontario, and one, I might add, that the Ministry of Natural Resources has spent 44 years protecting? Would the minister assure us that he will not allow the Minister of Transportation and Communications to extend Highway 89 through the Keswick marsh?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member is aware we are having a study of the wetlands throughout Ontario that will be presented here in the very near future, so I do have a very responsible position relating to the wetlands. I am certain that if the Minister of Transportation and Communications is anticipating building a highway, it will be put to the proper environmental assessment. That is the process accepted here and on all sides. I have to accept the fact that the process will be adhered to and that the minister will do what is in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: I am glad the minister reveals he does not know what he is talking about because it makes my supplementary a little easier. Does the minister not understand that the Minister of Transportation and Communications has already had a ministry environmental assessment? The ministry investigated seven possible routes for the highway and all seven of them went right through the marsh.

Will the minister now say without any further delay, without going through a further environmental assessment, that he will require the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to investigate routes that do not go through the Keswick marsh, which by everyone's agreement is one of the most important wetland areas in the province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In response to the question, I am certain the honourable member understands that the minister has gone through the proper process and has done everything necessary to comply with the best interests of that particular area. If the member had any commitment to doing the right thing, he could have appeared at those hearings and put his position forward at that time. We had the necessary hearing in place. It was done, and the minister very properly is doing his job in the way he sees fit to do it.

Mr. Gregory: The minister has mentioned that the Minister of Transportation and Communications would normally have gone through the process of hearings on the Environmental Assessment Act. Can the minister assure me this has been done?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure the honourable member was here during the time that a former Minister of Transportation and Communications was charged because he did not do that very thing. I am absolutely certain, without even talking to the minister, that he has done the right thing, that he knows what he is doing and that he is running that ministry in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Timbrell: If he has not, he will be charged. is that right?

Mr. Gillies: Somebody cut the minister down; he is choking.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been dealt with.

JOB SECURITY

Mr. Bennett: Some weeks ago I asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I would place it to him again today. I indicated to him at that time that Petro-Canada was changing or transferring some 250 head office jobs from this province and this community to Calgary. I made it very clear to the minister that we were rather disgusted with the action that was being taken. I asked the minister what process he had gone through to secure the information as to why these jobs were being transferred to Calgary. The information came from the minister that he would inquire and investigate the situation and report back to this House. It is now some four or five weeks later and we still have not heard.

Would the minister like to report to the House today his findings from the investigations with the executive of Petro-Canada?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes. We have been looking at that along with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). It is hoped that as many jobs as possible can be retained here in the city and in Ontario. Some of them will be lost through attrition and some of them will be forced to move out west.

Mr. Bennett: I am listening, and trying to take from the minister's answer whether he did or did not speak to the executive of the company and whether, when he says there will be some replacement of jobs, he is referring to Petro-Canada or referring just to somebody else who is going to come in and replace these jobs. The minister's answer did not come to the point of whether he spoke with the executive of Petro-Canada, reviewed why these jobs were going to the west and whether there was a reason for not retaining them here in eastern Canada.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have said to the honourable member, we are interested in keeping as many jobs as we possibly can in Ontario. It was the same during the previous government's time; it lost jobs when Shell made many moves out west. Those things happen from time to time. We hate to lose any jobs out of the province.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday I asked him a question at the end of question period about the signs out there that the safety net for the poor in this province is in severe trouble and needs to have a major public review.

At the beginning of question period, I sent him an open letter, with a copy to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), suggesting that a task force of some kind, or a select committee, be established by February this year to report before the end of the coming year.

Will he please give me his response to my suggestions and tell me whether I will hear from him shortly about whether he and his colleagues think this is an appropriate thing to do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, let me congratulate the honourable member for moving with such haste. He brought this question to my attention yesterday. I appreciate it; it was a thoughtful question. Today he sent me a letter saying, "I apologize for the delay, but here are a few ideas." I would like to congratulate the member.

Interestingly enough, I was discussing this morning with a person whose name I cannot share with the member at the moment, though it is someone who is highly respected in this province-

Mr. Yakabuski: Kruger.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Him, too.

This person is highly respected in this province and is concerned greatly about this issue. I was talking to him about the possibility of looking at some kind of approach to trying to get a better handle on it, trying to put some definition on what kind of inquiry or approach we could take to the whole matter. I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with my cabinet colleagues or with the minister, as I will be doing in the not too distant future. However, I am not in a position to respond to the member's specific request today.

I will continue to discuss it, as I said. I have certainly not dismissed it from my mind. It is an important issue; it is a big question. The cabinet will have to decide whether it can be approached and substantial results gleaned in this way. It is not as if we have any difference of opinion with respect to the seriousness or the reality of the problem; it is a question only of approach. Perhaps the member will give me the liberty of discussing it with my colleagues.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I appreciate that. Will the Premier take very seriously the element of my proposal that calls for the involvement of the poor themselves in part of this process; that this not be a bureaucratic decision-making process between the municipalities, for instance, and the province, but rather that it ensure participation by the poor? Will he therefore please take very seriously into consideration the idea that grants should be made to organizations of the clients of social assistance in this province so they can participate in this process in an active way and have their say about what is the reality of being poor in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will take all the suggestions of the member very seriously, as I always do.

Mr. Cousens: May I take it then that the Premier will include the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) in his deliberations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That again is a useful suggestion. I must say that if the member for Scarborough West had a shave he would not look the way he looks today, he would not even look as though he qualified.

However, I always take his views under consideration and I will take the honourable member's new-found concerns into consideration as well. If he has anyone else over there who cares about these issues, then I will be delighted to have his ideas as well.

Mr. Runciman: It is interesting to know that anyone with a beard apparently looks like a candidate for social services.

2:50 p.m.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I want to give the minister a break and not ask him a question about insurance. Perhaps he can be more forthcoming.

As I indicated yesterday in the House, seven members of the Ontario Film Review Board were denied reappointment in a very unceremonious manner on or about New Year's Eve. Will the minister be good enough to explain to the House today why they were not reappointed and why the failure to reappoint them was handled in such a shabby manner?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I said yesterday that the member was misinformed and I will say it again. Of the seven people he referred to in his news release, three vice-chairmen had their terms extended from August 31 to December 31; three appointments expired on August 31 and one on November 9. These are normal, regular appointments. The decision to reappoint people is made by the cabinet. That is all there was to it.

Mr. Gillies: Bring in the Grits. Everybody gets a red tie.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Everybody gets a chance now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are just wasting the members' time.

Mr. Runciman: I do not really believe the minister expects anyone to swallow that line. For his information, members are appointed to the board for one-year terms. They are usually and traditionally renewed at least twice and due notice is given for termination. These members learned of their fate at the last minute. One, Mr. Guy Upjohn, reported to work yesterday only to be sent home. If that is not shabby, I do not know what is.

Will the minister confirm today that the intent of this purge of well-qualified and experienced board members is a blatant move to install individuals yearning for a spot at the trough of Liberal patronage? Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. Maybe you do not want to hear the answer, but I do.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In the case of Mr. Upjohn, his term of office expired November 9; strange that he just found out on January 6 that his term had expired. With respect to the three vice-chairmen, we have not addressed that as yet and there is nothing that says they will not be reappointed. We are not saying they will be, but there is nothing to say they will not be. This is the normal course.

To suggest that appointments are automatically renewed is silly. Every time an appointment is made, the person is given due consideration and is looked at as far as his qualifications are concerned. A great deal of investigation goes on. That is how an appointment is made, so that everybody in the province can have a chance to participate.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier concerning the landfill site known as Salford in Oxford county, with which he is very familiar. Before last May, the Premier called the decision of the previous government to allow that landfill to proceed a travesty of the system. After taking office, he promised to review it. On October 31, in response to questions from me, he promised an announcement shortly and said he would be back to me as soon as he could. In view of the personal concern he has expressed about this problem and the fact he himself made it an issue last spring, why has there been no announcement or decision?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will be aware that it is not an easy issue. She is quite right her recollection of history is absolutely correct. I disagreed with the way the former government handled the issue. However, she is aware that with that issue, as with many others, things have gone wrong. A lot of work has been done. I think more than $1 million, perhaps almost $2 million, has been expended-I could be wrong in my facts-on site preparation. There have been some new engineering studies and that kind of thing.

If we were at the same position we were two years ago, obviously I would have made the decision that I said publicly I would make; but now we have the embarrassing situation where things have transpired that make it infinitely more complicated than it was then. That being said, after our last discussion, I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to review the situation and it is in his hands at the moment.

Mrs. Grier: Would the Premier not agree that there are three options facing him and his government on this situation? He can stop development of the site and call for a new hearing; he can confirm the previous government's decision, which overruled the consolidated hearings board; or by inaction and failure to make a decision, he can de facto allow an unsuitable landfill site to continue to be used. Will the Premier tell us which of those options he favours?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to thank the honourable member for her multiple-choice question. They are becoming very fashionable in this House. We chose the route of looking at the situation, given the new engineering and the new realities of how much has been expended on that issue. As I said, the honourable minister is reviewing the matter and I expect a decision very shortly. Now that the member has reminded me again today, I will bring it to his attention. I am sure he will be very forthcoming in his deliberations.

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

Mr. Leluk: My question is to the first Minister of Citizenship and Culture; there are not too many ministries that have two ministers, so I have to designate between the two. Will the minister tell this House how much money over and above the current available funds have been requested by nongovernmental organizations under the multicultural service program grants in the fiscal year 1985-86?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I will take that question under advisement and get back to the honourable member at the earliest opportunity, so that I will not be accused of being inaccurate. I thank him for the question.

Mr. Leluk: If I could ask the auxiliary minister, possibly he would have an answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Leluk: I would like to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I presume you want some additional information.

Mr. Leluk: Yes. As the minister is no doubt aware, funding requests for multiculturalism and citizenship base program grants exceed the existing budget. Under the Progressive Conservative government, the 1984-85 base grants increased by 22 per cent from 1983-84 and the 1985-86 base grants increased by 72 per cent over 1984-85. Given these facts, will the minister assure this House that these base program grants will be increased under the Liberal government in order to alleviate any reduction in individual grants being awarded to nongovernmental organizations?

Hon. Ms. Munro: To the best of my knowledge, the grants awarded in 1985-86 have not seen any decrease; they have been increased.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am sorry, I do not know where these other questions are coming from. Have I answered your question?

3 p.m.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I raised the concerns of the shoreline residents in Essex county with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) as to the inadequacies of the shoreline property assistance program. Those concerns were supported by the Essex Region Conservation Authority on behalf of the shoreline municipalities. I have now been informed that the responsibility for the funding is in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Will the minister assure this House that the program will be extended beyond March 1986?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: We are currently looking at the extension of the program until March 31, 1986. If there are any possibilities, we will extend it beyond that date.

Mr. Hayes: When can the municipalities expect to hear answers to their questions that were raised with ministry officials at the meeting prior to Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: My staff is still looking at it. I am discussing it with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. An answer will be provided before the termination of the present deadline.

Ms. Fish: Now that the Minister of the Environment has been back in his seat for some time, I wonder whether he could give me a reply to my question on Puslinch and North Dumfries.

Mr. Speaker: That will be a new question.

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

Ms. Fish: In view of the Premier's commitment earlier in question period, is the Minister of the Environment prepared to afford the same commitment that no diversion or pumping of water will occur from any one municipal jurisdiction in this province to any other municipal jurisdiction without the express approval of the donor community? I am thinking particularly of no pumping or diversion from the communities of Puslinch or North Dumfries without the specific approval of those communities.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member knows, this government wants to engage in consultation with those who will be directly affected by this policy. I can assure the member there will be full consultation with them so that the best possible policy can be brought forward. That policy, as the Premier indicated in an earlier answer, is one that is not appropriate to diversion.

I assure the member that I will consult not only with the municipalities but also with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), because he always reflects the viewpoints of the people of the constituency, which he represents very well.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I once again remind the House that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and that this matter will be debated tonight at 10:30.

PETITION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 258 constituents in Sault Ste. Marie asking that the government of Ontario take steps to preserve public education in the province.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions presented the committee's 11th report on agencies, boards and commissions and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: This is the 11th agency review that has been conducted by the committee and it is a very interesting part of our work as a committee. In this review, we have covered the James Bay Education Centre, Old Fort William advisory committee, Minaki Lodge Resort Ltd., Minaki Development Co. Ltd., the Ontario Stock Yards board, the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp. board of directors, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Economic Council, the Toronto Stock Exchange board of directors, the board of management of the Guild Inn and the Canadian National Exhibition Association.

Briefly, we were of a collective opinion that we had tried to do too much and that we would have liked to have seen some of these reviewed in a somewhat different way, but I do look forward to the opportunity of debating the recommendations that are in here.

One of the things the committee did in the course of looking at these agencies was to travel throughout northern Ontario. It is a practice I commend to many members who do not have the opportunity to travel the north quite as often as others. It opens one's eyes to go to a place like the James Bay Education Centre, for example, a facility much needed in a northern community but virtually unfunded, and then to travel across the north to a place like Minaki Lodge where, as best we could determine, the government of Ontario has spent upwards of $50 million for a luxury resort that is unsaleable or virtually so.

When we have our formal debate on this report, other members of the committee and myself will wish to make some extensive comments about what we saw in the north and the other agencies we reviewed.

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

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the following substitutions be made: on the select committee on economic affairs, Mr. Barlow for Mr. McCague, Mr. Andrewes for Mr. Taylor; on the select committee on energy, Mr. Jackson for Mr. McLean; on the select committee on the environment, Mr. Baetz for Mr. Brandt on the select committee on health, Mr. Pope for Mr. Pierce; on the standing committee on the administration of justice, Mr. Villeneuve for Mr. McFadden;

On the standing committee on general government, Mr. Guindon for Mr. Villeneuve; on the standing committee on members' services, Mr. Gregory for Mr. Mitchell; on the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, Mr. Turner for Mrs. Marland;

On the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr. Sheppard for Mr. Turner, Mrs. Marland for Mr. Yakabuski; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Taylor for Mr. Barlow, Mr. Pierce for Mr. Rowe; and on the standing committee on social development, Miss Stephenson for Mr. Guindon.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 54, An Act to Authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specified Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs.

Mr. Leluk: I would like to carry on from where I left off last evening with my remarks on Bill 54. I want to point out to the minister that subsection 4(1) brings about a significant change from the current agreement in that it opts in every pharmacy in Ontario. I mentioned that last evening. There is no option for opting out.

What this means is that if this bill becomes law, direct billing to the patient will be prohibited and will constitute an illegal act. This will force the patient, for example, to accept substitute drugs at the lowest cost even though he may be willing to pay the difference in the costs of the two drugs. There are some patients who may opt for a brand-name medication because they have been getting that drug in the past. Their physicians may have more confidence in that medication because they have more faith in the innovative or brand-name drugs than in some drugs from generic houses. There are those who say this is unconstitutional and against human rights.

3:10 p.m.

Subsection 5(2) of the bill would allow the minister unilaterally to set different fees for different pharmacies as well as possibly different fees for the same pharmacy. This has some potential for possible abuse and could create bureaucratic chaos. When we consider there are 1,900 pharmacies in Ontario, there could be numerous dispensing fees throughout this province that the Ministry of Health would have to keep track of.

Section 11 would enable the minister to set fees unilaterally, again eliminating meaningful negotiations on the fees between the professional body representing pharmacy, the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, and the Ministry of Health. There is a feeling on the part of pharmacists that this section should be eliminated if the ministry intends to bargain in good faith for dispensing fees as well as for drug prices.

There are those who view this legislation as discriminating against the profession of pharmacy. The Ontario Pharmacists' Association has objected strenuously to the government arbitrarily establishing maximum dispensing fees without negotiation with members of the profession. It has stated that in the event of an impasse or deadlock in negotiations, the fairest approach would be to refer the fee schedule to binding arbitration, something I am sure members of the New Democratic Party would support.

Bill 54 nowhere mentions the Ontario Pharmacists' Association with respect to the negotiating of fees. The discrimination comes in when we look at Bill 94, which deals with extra billing; it specifically mentions the Ontario Medical Association in the negotiating of fees. I ask the minister why the pharmacists in this province are being treated differently from the medical profession. That smacks of discrimination.

I further understand that members of the medical profession were invited by the minister to participate in drafting the legislation with respect to extra billing and subsequently refused that invitation. As one physician said to me, "Why should we attend our own execution when the only decision we would be making would be whether the government uses AC or DC current to carry out that execution?"

The pharmacists in this province were not accorded the same courtesy. They were not asked by the Ministry of Health to participate in the drafting of Bill 54. Even though they have been on record for years as expressing a desire to be involved in the process of negotiating fees, they were not invited to do so. To me, that is the worst form of discrimination.

The bill is discriminatory in other ways as well. I have tried to contain my remarks specifically to this bill, but I know later today we will probably be dealing with Bill 55, which has not been introduced for second reading at this point. Bill 55 also discriminates against pharmacists in that it requires them to post dispensing fees. No other profession in this province that I am aware of is required to post professional fees. I do know, and my good friend the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), who is a lawyer, will know, that at one time the legal profession requested of the government of the day to be able to post their fees and the request was not granted.

Since the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has arbitrarily decided to set a maximum dispensing fee for pharmacists, is he going to request his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), for example, to establish a maximum professional fee for lawyers in this province? For their services, many lawyers charge fees ranging from $50 an hour to $75, $100 and $150 an hour, and possibly even beyond that. Is he going to ask his colleagues in government to set maximum fees for architects, engineers or other professionals? If this legislation is enacted in its present form, it will have a drastic effect. It will drastically change the course of the provision of pharmaceutical services in this province. Unfortunately, the direction of the proposed legislation is based purely on the supply of the lowest-cost drug available. There is no concern by the minister for how this will affect service to the general public. If pharmacists are not going to receive fair remuneration for their services, we know the services to the public will be cut back. This will take place because they will have to take more time to explain the new legislation.

There are the interchangeable drugs in Bill 55. The pharmacists are going to have to talk to each and every consumer who comes in with a prescription and tell them they carry generic equivalent drugs. The decision as to what is best for him is going to be left with the consumer, and not with the pharmacist, who is a professionally trained individual with the knowledge and background to make these decisions. The decision will not be left with the physician, who is also a professionally trained person; it is going to be left to the consumer.

3:20 p.m.

The pharmacists' time is going to be taken up trying to explain all these things to the people who come into the pharmacies. They will not have time to consult with patients on drug use or to monitor drug use, particularly with people who are elderly, who may be taking four or five different medications and who are not in a position to monitor their own drug use. From time to time, they tend to forget what and how much they are taking, whether they have adequate supplies at home or whether they need refills of their prescriptions.

Pharmacists may be required to cut back on delivery service. They have fairly sizeable overheads; they employ fairly large staffs in most stores. These services may be cut back. I have talked to pharmacists in many small, independent pharmacies who have said to me, "If this legislation goes through, many of us may have to close our doors."

There are many marginal stores in this province, stores whose incomes are somewhat less than those of others, and it is not unusual to see pharmacies close their doors. As I said last evening, I was an inspector with the Ontario College of Pharmacists between 1961 and 1969 and it was not unusual to see as many as 150 stores close their doors in one year. I witnessed that. I know that recently this has not been the case. It may be that 20 or so are forced to close up for whatever reason in one year. However, that is a very real possibility.

This would mean that in remote areas of the province people would have to travel longer distances in order to get their prescription drugs. If they had been frequenting a pharmacy located some 30 miles away and it had to close its doors, they might find they would have to travel an extra 50 miles or so in order to get that service. That is a likelihood with this present legislation.

I would like to refer for a moment to the penalty section in Bill 54. It says that if convicted for contraventions of the bill, "any director, officer, employee or agent of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation" would be subject to a $10,000 fine upon conviction. The maximum penalty to be imposed upon a corporation is recommended in the legislation as $50,000.

I personally feel these penalties are excessive and totally unrealistic on the basis of the income of the average pharmacy owner, and particularly those who are employees. We have some 5,800 pharmacist-employees in this province whose average salary ranges in the neighbourhood of $38,000 to 39,000 per annum. When one looks at a possible $10,000 fine, this is not only excessive, it is also totally unrealistic in view of the magnitude of the offence.

I happen to be a pharmacist, a nonpractising one, one who chose politics as a career. In my years with the college of pharmacists, which numbered close to nine, I travelled this province. I have been in every nook and cranny in every pharmacy. Pharmacists are law-abiding citizens. We are not dealing here with criminal elements, and I cannot understand why the minister would propose such excessive penalties in this bill.

I want to say further that if spread pricing of drugs provided the need for this present legislation before the House, the issue of spread pricing could have been addressed by amending existing legislation and there was no need to introduce two bills.

Why was it necessary to introduce Bill 55? We know the present legislation addresses issues that go far beyond the issue of spread pricing. We know there is an intervention now into the cash marketplace with Bill 55 and this is going to have a drastic effect on the innovative drug manufacturers or brand-name drug manufacturers, as we call them, whose drug costs go far beyond the raw drug materials and the manufacturing costs of the drug in question. They have been totally cut out of the Ontario drug benefit program because they cannot compete on the basis of drug costs or prices with the generic drug houses.

The brand-name manufacturers are involved as innovative manufacturers in researching new drugs. Considerable moneys are spent on research and development and on initiating new drug applications, clinical trials for those drugs, the marketing of those drugs, the hiring of staff, promotion through conducting seminars and the like. Therefore, they just cannot compete on price alone. On the other hand, the generic houses do not involve themselves in these areas; they are basically the copiers of drugs that have already been placed on the market by the innovative drug manufacturers. This creates a difficulty when the innovative drug manufacturers cannot compete on price and therefore, as I say, are excluded from participating in the Ontario drug benefit program.

I want to go back to another area of concern I have in dealing with the penalty sections. The proposed legislation prohibits the operator of a pharmacy from refusing "to supply a listed drug for an eligible person in order to avoid the operation of a provision of this act." A person contravening this section is guilty of an offence, as I mentioned, and on conviction liable to these excessive penalties. I believe it is important to emphasize-

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My colleague's comments are most illuminating and it might be appropriate if there were a quorum present to hear them.

Mr. Leluk: They are not interested in hearing what we have to say. That is open government on that side.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

3:34 p.m.

Mr. Leluk: I am glad to see that the Minister of Health has rejoined us to hear what we have to say. Had he seen fit to consult and discuss this with the members of the pharmacy profession before the legislation was introduced, we would not be going through all this at the moment.

To get back to my remarks, I was saying it must be emphasized that there are situations where pharmacists may, for whatever reason, through their own professional discretion choose not to fill a prescription.

One of those reasons might be, as I mentioned yesterday, that there are forgeries. There are people who try to obtain drugs they need to substantiate their habits through forged prescriptions. This is not an uncommon practice, particularly for narcotic drugs.

Mr. Grande: The member is repeating himself.

Mr. Leluk: We are getting into something else that I did not mention.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the members in the Progressive Conservative Party along the back row please take their conversations elsewhere.

Mr. Leluk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are prescriptions in which the drugs that are being prescribed are contra-indicated for patients who may be on other medications.

I did mention that there is a practice called double-doctoring. The headline of a Toronto Star article in November 1985 read, "1,500 Charges Laid as Police Tackle Pill-Buying Racket."

The article states: "Fifteen hundred charges of double-doctoring have been laid against some 225 people for allegedly obtaining prescription drugs illegally in Metro. People who double-doctor get narcotic prescriptions from more than one physician within a 30-day period without informing the physicians of the other prescriptions."

Pharmacists receive prescriptions of this nature. As members can see, with 1,500 charges laid and 225 people involved, this is a common practice, and pharmacists are trained to look out for these types of practices. What we are doing in this legislation is taking away the pharmacist's professional discretion not to fill a prescription and not be a party to some criminal offence. That is what this legislation says.

I do not know who advised the Minister of Health when this legislation was put together, but I say again that it is ill-conceived legislation, it is not well-thought-out legislation. I hope that when this legislation goes to committee the minister will take stock of some of the remarks that have been made here in this House, not only by members on this side but also by members of the profession, who no doubt have written to him, and by others, including consumers who may have expressed their concerns to him.

3:40 p.m.

I want to go back for a minute to the openness of this government in its methods of consulting and discussing. I would ask the minister what he was doing in the months of July, August, September and October. He did not introduce his legislation in this House until November 7, knowing full well that he was going to have to come up with a new drug formulary which was supposed to be ready by January 1 of this year.

He talks about having spoken to the pharmacists, the drug manufacturers, the drug wholesalers, the consumers and the dentists. Yet when I speak to these various groups, organizations or professional associations, they say there was no consultation and no discussion.

I mentioned yesterday that a member of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada presented me with a flow chart, a timetable, of how the minister and his staff consulted. A letter from the minister, dated November 6, was received by the PMAC asking it to consult on the new legislation and, lo and behold, the very next day, November 7, Bills 54 and 55 were introduced for first reading in this House.

The PMAC met with ministry officials to exchange documents that same day, focusing on the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, Bill 54. It was not aware that Bill 55 was going to be introduced or was introduced. On November 13, the PMAC called a general meeting to discuss the impact of this legislation on its association and on some 43 brand-name drug manufacturers in this province.

There was a Conservative convention on November 14, which ended on November 17. Thursday, November 21, was originally planned for second reading of the legislation. A letter, dated November 27, from the Ministry of Health was received by the drug manufacturers asking for unprecedented competitive sales information.

On December 3, the ministry called a liaison meeting with the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, etc., and on December 5, we had second reading. That was the timetable the members of the PMAC received.

Can the minister tell us where was the consultation with the drug manufacturers during that time? Again, there was none. The letter sent from the Ministry of Health, dated November 27, was headed, "Urgently Needed Pricing Information for the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, January 1986."

This was further to a letter, dated November 7, 1985, that was sent to all drug manufacturers by the Minister of Health. Included with that letter was an information package concerning two new pieces of legislation, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, 1985, and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, 1985, which were introduced in the Legislature on November 7, as I mentioned.

This letter states: "You are also informed that the government of Ontario plans to have the legislation in place by January 1986. In order to compile listings of drug products under the new acts and a price listing for Ontario's drug benefit, and in order to have this in place by January 1986, the ministry requires the urgent cooperation of your company. Pricing information for the ODB formulary plus sales data on average selling prices for all drug products listed or proposed for listings are required.

"Listing as a benefit in the formulary is contingent upon the manufacturer providing the required sales data. The ministry reserves the right to delist drug products or to establish alternative reimbursement amounts for drug products considered to be essential therapeutic benefits."

"These forms must be completed and returned before 4:30 p.m., Monday, December 9, 1985."

The drug manufacturers felt this was a threatening letter, that if the information was not provided, their products would be delisted from the formulary. Is this the form of openness and the method by which the Minister of Health proceeds to have discussion and consultation with the members of the drug distribution system in Ontario? Is it by sending out threatening letters requesting information and saying if they do not provide it by such and such a date, there is a possibility their products will be delisted and the ministry will decide whose products are listed? That does not sound to me like consultation and discussion.

It is my personal feeling that the minister procrastinated, doing nothing for a four-month period between July and October, and then brought forward his legislation in haste on November 7, hoping to railroad the legislation through the House before the Christmas recess. However that was not the case. This legislation is much too important to be railroaded through the House without going to a committee for a full and open discussion by all parties concerned.

It took this party on this side of the House to make that commitment to the pharmacists of the province. It certainly was not the Ministry of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Wrong again.

Mr. Gillies: And to the people of the province.

Mr. Leluk: That is right, to the people of this province.

Mr. Gillies: We had to stand up for the people yet again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Leluk: Someone has to stand up for the people, because that government is not doing its job.

Mr. Mancini: How can the member say that with a straight face?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Gillies: You cannot ramrod everything through.

Mr. Leluk: That is right. The minister has stated that his legislation would lower drug costs for the government and for the consumers of Ontario. The Ontario Pharmacists' Association is of the view that this is not so. The proposed legislation will more than likely lead to higher drug prices in Ontario, maybe not initially but within a 12- to 18-month period. Pharmacists know that is going to be the case.

Mr. Callahan: How?

Mr. Leluk: They have had battlefield experience. They know.

The government talks about actual acquisition costs.

Mr. Callahan: I am listening. Explain it.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Leluk: We will explain it.

Mr. Davis: He could not understand it anyhow.

Mr. Leluk: That is right. The member is too busy calling pharmacists peanut vendors. He is not interested in what they do as a professional group anyway.

The Acting Speaker: Order. This is not a question period. Address your remarks to the chair.

Mr. Leluk: No, it is not. It is an education period, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to educate the government.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is stretching it.

Mr. Leluk: Stretching?

Hon. Mr. Elston: He is running short on a few facts. He had better go back and check.

Mr. Leluk: I think we have the facts. I want to read into the record a letter I received from a pharmacist in London, Ontario, who spent a number of years on the council of the Ontario College of Pharmacists. This gentleman was also a pharmacist in one of the largest hospitals in Canada. He expressed serious concerns about both bills. I have already discussed many of them, so I am not going to repeat them.

However, he did have a footnote. This is a copy of the letter he sent to the minister.

"It is interesting, with all due respect to you, the new Health minister who has no previous medical or pharmacy education, that after a few short months in power you are now an expert on patient health care in this province. I certainly wish I were as proficient in law as you are in pharmacy matters.

"When you, Mr. Elston, attain the age of 65, and it may be necessary to take medication with no choice of quality of that medication, you may have to take the same kind of generic garbage that you are forcing down the throats of the senior citizens now. Should this eventuality occur, it will serve you right if you do not respond to treatment.

"During my years of employment, I was engaged in the area of retail pharmacy and latterly as a director of pharmacy in one of the largest hospitals in Canada. I am aware what generic drugs will or will not do for patients.

"There were very few generic drugs in the hospitals where I worked. Both the pharmaceutical and the therapeutic committees in that hospital would not put them in the formulary.

"When I voted in the last provincial election, I must have been demented because I voted for a change for the better, not for a socialistic state. I will, however, examine my priorities before voting in another election, for it seems that politicians only have time for their own ego trips and not for the concerns of the public and their welfare."

There is a remark here for the New Democratic Party that I will mention.

"The NDP is a party who are supposed to be for the working man and his welfare, but I cannot understand why they are supporting this type of legislation, which is oppressive and discriminatory against freedom of choice and patients' desire for better health care in this province."

An hon. member: Shame. Shame.

Mr. Gillies: Beating up the old people.

Mr. Breaugh: What can I say? I stand accused and I would like to defend myself.

Mr. Leluk: You have been tried and found guilty. You stand convicted.

I have another letter here from a pharmacist in Kingston, in the eastern part of the province. "We urge you to vote against the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act presently before the House of Parliament. These bills are socialistic to an extreme not before seen in the province of Ontario. They strip away the professional rights of pharmacists and remove the powers of the Ontario College of Pharmacists to regulate the profession.

"The bills are the result of unilateral action by the Liberal government without any input from the profession of pharmacy.

"This is especially evident in some of the clauses which make the act unworkable in its present form."

Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would not want this member to think I am playing favourites as between him and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), but I refer you to rule 19(d)(4) of the standing orders on which the Speaker ruled against the member for Cochrane South unnecessarily reading from verbatim reports or any other document. I suggest this is out of order.

The Acting Speaker: I recall vividly that I did bring the member for Cochrane South to order on that point, but he was reading at great length. The member is not doing that in this case. He talks, reads his letter and then talks again. Please continue.

Mr. Leluk: I am delighted the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) can read-

Mr. Gillies: He may read, but he cannot understand.

Mr. Leluk: -but he does not understand much of what he reads.

Some of this information contained in these letters is very pertinent to the bill before the House.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: With regard to the comments made by the member, he has no proof I cannot read.

Mr. Leluk: No comment.

Mr. Gillies: There may be no proof, but there is a lot of evidence.

Mr. Leluk: Yes.

This pharmacist is expressing a concern that many pharmacists throughout this province have been expressing with regard to Bills 54 and 55 before the House. He says the net result will be higher costs to the retail pharmacists and a loss of professional image because of the posting of fees and the emphasis on the price this will create.

I said earlier that the whole thrust of the legislation is on the lowest drug cost. The minister was out of the House when I said there was little concern expressed for the protection of the consumer and the quality of service the consumer would receive if this legislation were enacted. The concern is one of drug costs, and that is very wrong.

We have seen what has happened in Britain with socialized medicine. What has happened is that the person who pays the price in the end is the consumer, but he does not receive the service.

The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), a medical doctor, mentioned in this House that it is an assembly-line operation where people line up to see a physician. There may be 75 patients that physician has to see in one day. They walk in, stick out their tongues and say, "Ah." He hands them a prescription and says, "Come back in 30 days."

That is the kind of service one gets with socialized medicine. In the long run, the consumers as patients will pay the price because they will not get the quality of service.

Mr. Mancini: Does the member want to abolish the Ontario health insurance plan?

Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) knows that what the member is saying is true.

Mr. Leluk: Yes. The member was in England recently. I know he was ill.

This is a legitimate concern. The minister has not expressed any of these concerns for consumer protection.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not right.

Mr. Leluk: It is true.

4 p.m.

In Bill 55, for example, the consumer who has no professional training is going to be making the professional judgement on the medication he accepts from the pharmacist-not the physician, who has the professional training, and not the pharmacist, who has been trained.

The onus is going to be on the consumer to decide what medication he is going to take. Naturally, he is going to opt for the lowest-cost drug. That is natural. If it is cheaper, it has got to be better because it does not cost as much. However, that is not necessarily the case. What might be cheaper may not be as good in quality as brand-name medication or some other medication.

What protection is that consumer going to have under Bill 55? No protection. The pharmacist and the physician are going to be exempt from any lawsuits if anything goes wrong, if the patient should suffer an illness, end up in the hospital or pass away, unfortunately, because of the medication. It is the consumer who is not protected under the legislation. What consideration did the minister and his staff give to consumer protection, and why is the cost of the drug the only thing that seems to concern this minister?

There is another area of concern, and that is the one-month supply. The minister will recall that it was his deputy minister who in 1974, I believe-I am not sure of the exact date-brought in this business of the 30-day supply of drugs as a cost-saving device to the government. This legislation is going to open that up even further and pharmacists are going to dispense three-month or four-month supplies-whatever the prescription calls for. They are going to have to fill the total quantity of medication or drug that is asked for.

As someone who has been involved with the college as an inspector and who has travelled this province and seen cases of drug abuse and the potential for drug abuse, I have to tell members it is not unusual to see people who have accumulated fruit jars full of drugs that have potentially addictive properties. Drugs tend to be shared by people with neighbours and friends when they have large quantities. Someone comes along and says, "I have an ache here or there," describing a symptom that resembles something the patient has, and the next thing you know, there is a sharing of medication.

There are accumulations of large quantities of drugs, which are going to be very costly to this government. When we look at the fact that Ontario has an ageing population and that elderly people may be taking as many as four, five or six different medications-and those drugs are free, because the government pays for them-it is not uncommon to see large quantities of drugs accumulated by patients. The potential for abuse is great.

It would be much cheaper to pay the pharmacist an additional dispensing fee to fill a second or third prescription than to go about it in the manner the minister has put forward in Bill 55.

I would like to refer to another letter, one that was received from a retail pharmacist in Petawawa, who expresses concern about the remuneration system. He says:

"There is a finely tuned balance of restrictions and latitudes which has been adjusted over the years to provide fair compensation to the pharmacist, fair value to the taxpayer and consumer and enough leeway to enable the pharmacist to be competitive."

That is what our system is based on: competitiveness in the free marketplace.

"The new legislation proposes to keep the old restrictions, throw out the compensating devices and permit the minister to set prescription fees without any negotiation. With this kind of power, the minister could for political gain regulate pharmacists right out of any compensation at all."

That is why I posed the question last night. Bill 54 does not mention the word "pharmacist" anywhere. It talks about the operator of a pharmacy like the operator of a garage or something of that nature. Does this mean in effect that the Ministry of Health is looking down the road to opening a central depot for drug distribution in this province and doing away with the profession of pharmacy altogether? Maybe they could get a couple of mechanics from some garage to go in and do the dispensing for them.

There is a total disregard for the professional training and knowledge of people who spent four years at a university and a year of internship and who over the years have been providing a very valuable service to the people of this province.

Mr. Breaugh: I cannot stand listening to my friend's speech, but the pause is even worse.

Mr. Leluk: I am sorry. It is the pause that refreshes.

Anyway, this pharmacist says: "In fact, the ministry seems to have acted in bad faith on this issue and has adopted a Hitleristic stance"-my gosh-"possibly in revenge over the shenanigans of some generic drug companies, a matter over which the community pharmacists have no control."

I guess the pharmacist is referring to the lawsuit brought against the Ministry of Health by one generic drug house. What he is saying is that the 7,000 pharmacists in this province are going to pay the price because of the shenanigans of one generic drug company.

In closing my remarks on this bill-

[Applause]

Mr. Leluk: I will be back for Bill 55. The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) is applauding. He is not throwing peanuts; he is just applauding.

Much of the confrontation that currently exists between the government and the members of the pharmaceutical profession could have been avoided very readily had the minister gone about introducing this legislation in the House in a proper manner. Had he chosen, prior to bringing it forward, to consult and discuss the legislation with members of the pharmacy profession, the drug manufacturers' association, the drug wholesalers and the consumers, this kind of confrontation could have been avoided.

4:10 p.m.

I have said before and I will say again that the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, which is the professional body for pharmacists in this province, is on record as having stated time and time again its willingness to sit down and take part in negotiations. If the negotiations break down, they have suggested the matter should go to arbitration. I know my friends here to the left would support that.

Mr. Breaugh: The member has no friends over here.

Mr. Leluk: Oh. Pardon me.

I repeat: Why was it necessary to go about it in the manner in which it was done? Legislation was brought forward that had been put together in haste and was ill conceived and ill thought out. It is doomed to failure if it passes this House in its current form. There is just no way this legislation will work.

The legislation will not protect the consumers, as I am sure it was intended to do. They will be paying higher drug prices in the longer term. There will be no protection for them as far as services and what have you are concerned. I have gone through those things before and I do not want to be repetitive.

It is not good legislation, and I hope the minister and his senior staff are going to take a good, long, hard look at what they have put before the House, come to their senses and make the amendments that are required for good legislation.

Mr. Breaugh: I have one little question before I begin this afternoon. Exactly who over there is carrying this bill through the House at this moment?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Breaugh: There we are. Okay. It is helpful if there is somebody with whom we can identify.

We do support this bill and its companion bill, and it is worth spending a little time this afternoon to say why.

First, concerning the bills themselves, although I read in my newspaper and in letters from pharmacists around Ontario that these are very evil things, it strikes me that they are not. In fact, it strikes me that this is an issue the previous government knew about for some time and had wrestled with in various forms. It seems to me, as someone who used to be a Health critic of that government, that it simply said: "There is too much pain involved in this for the government. We know there is a little ripping off going on in the system, but it is not worth bothering with. Just pay these people all the money they want and leave it alone."

The previous government did not want to stir up the pharmacists. That has some credibility, given that the pharmacists have been very busy stirring things up themselves. The previous government seemed to have adopted the attitude that if things were wrong in this program-and it knew there were-it would simply rather not deal with them, and so it left them alone.

I recall that about a decade ago, when I was the Health critic, we raised instances where pharmacists were obviously charging too much and where there were problems. We appreciated that in the industry the problem was not necessarily the pharmacists; the problem was often the drug companies themselves and the way they sold their products through the pharmacies.

There were problems in the area, and even pharmacists to whom I have talked in my own constituency start by saying that. They knew things were wrong; they knew there were problems that ought to have been corrected. The fact that the previous government chose not to do so made them a little happy, I suppose, in the sense that they got a little extra money. However, everybody who worked with the previous program knew there were flaws in it that should nave been corrected. They just never were.

Maybe it is an unusual idea for a government to look at a program such as this one, which has some flaws in it, and actually decide to try to correct them. Maybe this government should be criticized for being a little courageous.

There is an aura of strangeness around this too because the antagonists here, the government of Ontario and the pharmacists themselves, start by agreeing that the system is flawed and that they ought to correct it. Both sides agree on that. From that point on they seem to tale completely divergent points of view about how it can be corrected and how nasty the other side is. Then they come back together and say, "If we have full public hearings on this, we will be able to work it out."

Something is screwy. If everybody agrees there are flaws in the system, and that is what I hear, and everybody agrees there ought to be full public hearings to work it out, why are we not doing that? Why is there this long delay? Why are these bills not sent to a committee? Why do we not bend over backwards to get them there quickly? I believe it costs us about $1 million a month or so while we dilly-dally around and place advertisements in newspapers and delay the bill. Why do they not just go there and let everybody get together? If heads need to be knocked, let them be knocked. It seems to be a straightforward process.

Let me make a comment or two about the minister. As long as I have known him, which is since he has been a member, he has never shown any signs to me of being as evil as the current ads in the newspapers portray him. I have always found the Minister of Health to be a very conscientious, hardworking person-a little too serious for my taste, but to each his own. It seems to me the minister got bushwhacked by his staff. I believe there was a commonly and reasonably well understood problem here and the minister probably said, "Give me something I can do that is my own initiative and is not part of the accord-some wrong that should be righted."

I know several of the minister's senior staff people, and I would accuse them of being on occasion a little on the arrogant side, of being a little hardnosed, of being not quite as consultative as I would like them to be and of not always being as open, warm and loving as senior bureaucrats ought to be. They are a little tough around the edges, and I believe what they did was to use that toughness on the pharmacists. I believe we are being treated to a lot of hurt feelings.

I got a letter from a pharmacist in Sturgeon Falls last week. Essentially, the gist of his argument is that fascism is just around the corner, that every facet of his life will be controlled and regulated by government, that his total income will be regulated by government, that everything he says and does will be influenced in some way by government. I was feeling sorry for him until I realized that is what my life is all about too. My total income is controlled by the Legislature. Everything I do at work is controlled by the Legislature. It is not that bad. I have had a lot of talks with pharmacists over the phone, in person and in correspondence, and I think something is badly out of kilter.

I read the major ads they have been putting in the newspapers. There is not a whole lot of truth in those ads. I appreciate they are in a disagreement with the government, but I do not for a moment believe that a sensitive pharmacist is not going to take the time to explain the differences in these drugs to a client. The people I deal with in pharmacies in Oshawa are going to do that.

I appreciate that they have not done a lot of that with me over the years. I believe the longest consultation period I have had with a pharmacist was, "Will that be cash or Chargex?" That is about the end of the consultation. I have not experienced a lot of explanations about these drugs. They take a bunch of pills out of a big bottle, put them into a little plastic bottle, tape on a message from my doctor, hand it to me and I pay the bill. End of consultation.

I know that it is different from the experience of other people. I know they explain to senior citizens, who use drugs more than I do, what the pills are all about and when one should take them. They offer more consultation. However, as a member of the paying public, I have never had a lot of explanation from a pharmacist. Perhaps it is because I do not need it; it is pretty straightforward stuff.

One thing that bothers me a little is that the Ontario Pharmacists' Association had the time, money and effort to go out and hire an ad agency in Toronto to run this campaign. I want to say for the record that I believe they did themselves a disservice when they did that. As one member of the House, I have a lot of empathy for my local pharmacists. I would take the time and effort to listen to them about their problems. I would be more than happy to go to committee and defend them if I thought somebody was doing something wrong to them.

4:20 p.m.

If this was a big campaign to get me to oppose this bill, it failed miserably. I want to tell the members why it failed, because I think it is important. I happened to go to pick up a prescription for my wife at my local pharmacy. Attached to the little bag of medicine was a little memo from my pharmacist, from a pile of about 200 or 300 memos that were there. In essence, it said, "Vote against Bill 54 and Bill 55 because they are bad." It did not tell me why they were bad. It did not tell me what the bills were all about. It did not even give me a clue as to what the argument was about. It simply said, "The government of Ontario is evil and doing dirty things to your local pharmacist. Boo, hiss."

That is not much in the way of information. I read their newspaper ads. I have to say there is a lot of hyperbole in the newspaper ads. That is being polite about it. I could give a more accurate description but you would not let me get away with it in here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to go through the ad because I think it is worth mentioning. It says, "Another Dose of Government Intervention." That is true; it is. But when the government intervention consisted of a cheque the pharmacist did not complain. The cheques have been rolling out to them in fairly large numbers for a long time and I did not hear one word that they objected to receiving government cheques. They liked that part.

The hard truth is, if one is going to get paid for services by the government of Ontario, the government has-dare I say it-the right to have a little bit of say on what one gets paid. I do not think that is unreasonable.

The second little headline here is, "As of January 1, your personal pharmaceutical records are no longer a secret." Aside from being untrue, it is unfortunate to put it in those terms. I do not believe either one of these bills does that. I do not for one minute believe there will be gross publication of pharmaceutical records anywhere in Ontario, and it is unfortunate that someone would be paid to run an advertising campaign that puts out wrong images, wrong facts and wrong information. If the pharmacists' association wanted to run a public relations campaign which said, "We are being treated unfairly in these negotiations by the government of Ontario," I would say: "You are probably right. Some of you probably are. Let us try to get that unfairness out of the system."

But to put out a public advertisement that purports to say that as of January 1 all of your personal pharmaceutical records will be public knowledge, is not right. That is wrong. It bothers me that someone actually paid an advertising company to put out that wrong message.

The ad says, "The government creates a future where pharmacists can no longer give you advice and personal service." I suppose that is an opinion. Again, I think it is a wrong opinion. The pharmacists I know, no matter what government program is running, will provide advice, care and consultation to people who need it. I know these people. They are not hard, cruel people. Many of them think of themselves as business and professional people combined and that is the way they see their role in life, but they are not uncaring. If a person comes into their store to get a prescription filled or needs some assistance, I believe they will provide them with that assistance no matter what government program is running.

The sad thing is that in my community, like many other communities in Ontario, the little corner drug store is fast disappearing and being replaced very rapidly with huge supermarket drug stores-cum-grocery stores-cum-clothing stores. Huge warehouse operations are the trend and the corner drug store is having a little difficulty competing in that marketplace. Most of mine are doing quite nicely, frankly, because of the government-sponsored health care program that provides seniors with drugs. I believe that program is worth preserving. My dad is 87. He does not use this program very much, but when he does, he needs it. He needs a little bit of help and the government program delivers that.

I believe this ought to now go to committee where that public hearing process can occur. I would hope, frankly, that when the pharmacists' association comes to Queen's Park during the course of those hearings it does not use the public relations firm which designed this ad campaign. I would counsel them, although they probably do not want it and do not need it, to come honestly and squarely before the committee and tell it what their problems are as pharmacists, not as real estate people designing some wonderful ad campaign against the government. That is patently ridiculous. It has absolutely no credibility with me. If pharmacists have a problem, let them tell us what it is and help us to work out a solution.

I believe that could have been done long ago. I wish this had been done four or five years ago when we first became aware that there was a problem of some magnitude. That would have been a better service. I believe this is the kind of problem which did not get better by being ignored; it got worse. We now have an opportunity to correct those problems and to provide the pharmacists with their day in court, so to speak, their chance to appear before a committee of the Legislature and resolve the differences.

First and foremost, the differences can be resolved. The pharmacists will get their day before the committee and their chance to put their arguments fairly and squarely to the members of the Legislature. It is a minority government so there will be the opportunity for the fairest solution to be the final solution. It will not necessarily be what the government is proposing, it will not necessarily be what one political party wants, but one which is fair and just and is seen to be so by all three parties. They will never get a better opportunity for a kind of open court, so to speak, or a chance to state their case and have the resolution put forward.

To get there, these bills have to pass second reading. I hope we are not going to be treated to a long, disjointed dialogue on them. It will not hurt my feelings a whole lot if that happens so long as we get a chance to provide a solution to this problem.

On that basis, the bills are worthy of support in principle. First of all, all one has to do to support them is to recognize there is a problem. At one time or another all three parties in this Legislature have admitted publicly that there are problems with the drug plan. We know that. We know the previous Conservative government said so publicly. It said there were some difficulties. We know that the new government says, "Yes, there are not only difficulties, but we have to move to correct them." We certainly do.

Let us spruce up the bills. Let us get them through second reading debate and let us get them out to committee.

In closing, I would make a little plea. I believe there are many pharmacists who have a legitimate complaint about the bills. That is not to say every one of them does. That is not to say that evil things are about to happen to them. In all of this there has been some unfairness. There has been some unfairness since the inception of the program, not the least of which is the unfairness to citizens of Ontario who have not been eligible for the drug plan at all. There is an unfairness in that, not the least of which is the fact that there is some unfairness even to those citizens who are and have been eligible under the plan.

They have lived with the unfairness for quite some time now. If we are not perfect, and there is always a chance the bill may not be perfect when it goes to committee, or we are unable to resolve all of the pharmacists' problems, they will simply have to rely on the fact that no matter how the drug plan is set up or administered, at least they are reasonably sure they are going to get paid. They may have to live with some level of unfairness in that.

When we go to committee, I would imagine we will all be very concerned to see there is absolutely no unfairness. If we fail to achieve that, then I suppose the next best bet is to get something that is at least workable and on balance is okay by everybody. That would be the challenge of the committee when it gets the bills. I would hope it gets a chance to deal with this matter sooner rather than later.

Mr. Callahan: At the outset, I would like to correct something, perhaps a lesson in what is known as short one-liners.

When I made the comment about peanuts and razors, I was referring to the large chain stores where they carry everything from razors right on down the line. I never meant to cast aspersions on the small pharmacist. I have a number of them in my riding and I know many of them on a personal basis. It was not an indication of anything uncomplimentary to them.

I think it is a bit sad, though, in a way, that --

Mr. Gillies: Cut-rate; you will not get it back.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Callahan: That sounds like Mr. Gillies.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brantford.

Mr. Callahan: That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to approach it from a different aspect. As I understand the situation, it arose because manufacturers listed with the government in a formulary, the prices purportedly at which the drugs were being sold to the pharmacy. That price was significantly higher, I suppose, than the acquisition price.

4:30 p.m.

As a result of that, it put in danger a very significant fact that this entire legislation is trying to approach. This legislation deals with people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to pay or who need assistance in paying for their drugs. An essential commodity of any civilized society is a decent health care system for senior citizens and for those people who cannot afford it.

What was happening as a result of the history of this entire situation was that we were putting in jeopardy the very safety net that we as caring Ontarians and caring Canadians attempt to put in place to provide for people who are less fortunate than we are. Every time games are played with the safety net, the taxpayer out there-and I think quite justifiably-wonders when governments allow that to happen, "Why should I continue to pay for that service for those people when it is being abused?"

That is the very fact this Minister of Health had the guts to address. As I understand it, over the years of the Tory dynasty there were six Ministers of Health who over a period of 11 years knew there was a problem and did nothing to address it. As I understand it, and I may be mistaken, it was not until the Auditor General in 1984 brought it to the attention of that party as a public matter.

I suggest, as has been said by other speakers, the major concern here is to look after the people in our society who are unable to look after themselves. We are fortunate people in being able to obtain our health care system on our own. Every time we play around with that and do not deal with it directly, I suggest we as legislators are not fulfilling our sworn responsibility to make certain that those safety nets are kept in place.

We have seen it with the unemployment insurance situation and we have seen it with other pieces of social legislation. Every time we tinker with it or we do not do anything about it-and I suggest that is what was happening over those years-we put it in jeopardy.

The Ontario drug benefit plan is paid for by all of the taxpayers of this province. As a result, I suggest the minister has a sworn duty to make certain that those tax dollars are being maximized, at the same time providing relief and care for those people who need it. That was not done, so the minister has brought this legislation before us.

I get a kick out of the ads being run by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. They say: "`Proposed drug pricing legislation is not in the public interest,' an advertising campaign launched by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association says." We have the president of the Consumers' Association of Canada quoted in the Globe and Mail of October 12, 1985, as follows:

"That practice developed because government officials accepted the inflated prices cited to them by drug manufacturers and published the prices in the province's formulary, the handbook of drug prices for the drug benefit plan which also sets the basis for retail prices. With inflated listings, manufacturers compete with each other to woo pharmacists to stock their product by maximizing the spread, the difference between the inflated price and the actual selling price to pharmacies.

"The Gordon commission report submitted to the province in August 1984 said the prescription drug delivery system in Ontario has been used to the benefit of all except the consumer and taxpayer. As a result, consumers have been paying millions of dollars too much each year for drugs."

That flies in the face of the very fancy and articulate advertising that has been going on in an attempt to scare people in this situation. The pharmacists have almost led one to believe that this bill is not going to committee and that they are not going to have an opportunity to have their say. They have actually placed people in the position where they are frightened. They feel that their pharmacies are being ill done by.

I suggest that every time a speech is made over there to enhance that position, all it does is stir up Ontarians. It does not give them the full facts. It does not tell them we are trying to address a problem that is going to be to their benefit, that is going to protect them, protect that safety net that is in place and make certain it is not lost as a result of the taxpayers who pay for this getting fed up with it and saying: "The government did nothing about it for 11 years. They let the system rip us off. We as taxpayers are paying the bill." I suggest that is a very dangerous situation in any social legislation which is required for the benefit of those who are not quite as lucky as we are.

I fail to understand how the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) can actually stand up and quote, I presume, from an Ontario Pharmacists' Association document that says, "A pricing system based on the actual acquisition cost is more likely to increase drug costs because there will no longer be any market incentive for manufacturers to offer or pharmacists to seek the most competitive and advantageous prices."

I ask them to explain that. If the explanation is that if they were left doing what they were doing, listing the prices on the formulary at an inflated price, they had this opportunity to fiddle around with pharmacies of various sizes, particularly the larger pharmacies, to get a volume discount and offer a lower price to enhance it, I do not understand how this is going to increase the price. I truly want to know whether the member for York West can explain that to me. It makes absolutely no sense to me. It has no factual basis and if someone can explain it, I would dearly love to hear the explanation. That is something that is put out to the members of the public and it frightens them, particularly the cash-paying customers.

Clearly, that is not in the best interest of the people of Ontario. I am a firm believer in a parliamentary system wherein we each have an opportunity to have a say. Surely to heaven when the say is being made by the opposition it is one that recognizes the benefits from this. Having lived with it for 11 years, the official opposition had to recognize there was a problem that had to be solved.

When I listened to the speeches from the members of the official opposition, they were totally negative. They attacked the minister as though he was some evil person. They should praise the minister for having the courage to do what six previous Ministers of Health of the former government did not have the guts to do. They left the taxpayer hanging out to dry for 11 years, letting him pay more than he should have through this program and putting that system in jeopardy for the senior citizens and the people who are unable to pay for benefits.

That is what they have done. They have let down the people who voted for them in the last election as well as the people who voted for them in elections over the past 11 years. They have allowed an interest group-and I am not suggesting the small pharmacists, who are small businessmen attempting to operate with a reasonable profit to make a reasonable living. They have allowed taxpayers' dollars to pay for these programs when they were not warranted.

Perhaps when this piece of legislation goes to committee there will be some suggestions made by people coming forward and putting accurate facts before the committee. In addition, there will be an opportunity for the public to attend and actually understand, perhaps for the first time because of the ad campaigns that have gone on, the true facts behind the program and the fact that it is being done for their best interest.

Along with members opposite, I look forward to the matter being referred to committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Sheppard: As are some of the other speakers, I am anxious to see this go to committee. I want to say a few words on behalf of the Pine Ridge Pharmacists Association in the great riding of Northumberland. A couple of the pharmacists who are very concerned about this bill live in the Quinte riding.

Mr. Andrewes: They do not have a spokesman. Their spokesman is silent.

Mr. Sheppard: He is very quiet down there at times and he had a week's rest. I understand he went to Florida or someplace.

The government says it wants openness; to open the doors and windows. By trying to get this bill passed before we recessed for Christmas, it was keeping the doors closed. The sooner this bill gets to committee, the better. I have received hundreds of letters from the pharmacists' places of business in the past three or four weeks.

4:40 p.m.

I have been inundated with correspondence from pharmacists in my riding expressing their objections to the proposed bills as presented in the House on Thursday, November 7, 1985, namely, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act.

To begin with, under the new regulations the pharmacist must dispense the entire quantity of the drug prescribed at one time. Serious problems could arise from this practice because currently, when someone wants a refill, the pharmacist checks it against older and more recent prescriptions for incompatibility. He checks the patient's condition-for example, whether a woman patient is pregnant-and checks other potential dangers.

Let us say a doctor prescribes a drug for six months but needs to see the patient after one month's use in order to check reaction. After consultation, the doctor and the patient agree that this drug is not suitable. The patient is left with five month's worth of drugs that he cannot use but has paid for. What if a woman patient is prescribed a drug for six months but becomes pregnant after three months? She may not see her doctor for another two months, and perhaps various dangers may exist by then.

Dispensing the entire quantity of a prescription for a drug such as Valium could have serious implications and could even cause death to a depressed person or a drug abuser, to mention only two possibilities. With dispensing as proposed, there is less protection against overuse, abuse, misuse or the misunderstanding of directions. There could be less availability of advice on subsequent refills. In delivering drugs to participants in the Ontario drug benefit plan, the pharmacist already provides endless free services. There should be reasonable remuneration for these services.

There will be much more waste as a result of dispensing entire prescriptions, not to mention self-diagnosis and the sharing of drugs, as well as greater street usage in sales. Waste will occur owing to allergies and required changes in medication or doses.

With this system in use, there will be greater discontent in general. The pharmacist will have less time to spend with the patient. Pharmacists will face shortages in drug stock, and poorer monitoring of doses will occur. For the physician to maintain control for the patient's benefit, he will have to write prescriptions for shorter periods of time with no refills. This, in turn, will force the patient to return to see the doctor more frequently, which will cause further problems. The patient will most likely have to wait in the physician's office longer, and the physician will actually have less time for the truly ill. Having to go to the doctor's office more frequently will, in turn, affect the Ontario health insurance plan, as the doctor's visits will have to be paid for.

Most pharmacists object to the required posting of fees. It is not required for other professions, such as doctors and lawyers. The free enterprise system is done away with for pharmacists only. As well, a higher fee does not necessarily mean a higher prescription cost. For example, if a pharmacist charges a $5 fee and if the actual acquired cost of the drug is $10 per 100, the total is $15. If the pharmacist down the street charges $6 in dispensing fees but the cost of the drug is $8 per 100, the total is $14. Thus, the fee is higher but the total cost is less.

Currently, most pharmacists maintain an adequate inventory with minimal shortages and have a steady usage of most items. With the new legislation, dispense as written would result in sporadic usage and drug shortages.

With respect to stating both the drug cost and the fee on the prescription label, this could be very confusing for the patient. As well, if two members of the same family are on the same drug and if one is covered under the ODB plan and the other is not, they would have two labels, each showing different drug costs for the same drug and possibly two different fees.

Therefore, I urge the Minister of Health to refer this matter to a committee of the Legislature for further study and for full public discussion before these bills are passed because the Pine Ridge Pharmacists Association in the great riding of Northumberland wants to make a presentation.

Mr. Pierce: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this issue. The government has tried to lump Bills 54 and 55 together. The Minister of Health has said these two pieces of legislation deal with the same issue. I have to disagree with that. Bill 54 looks at what drugs are supplied to the Ontario drug benefit program. Bill 55 governs the dispensing of drugs in the cash-payment market. These are essential to two different programs and they require two separate bills. Superficially, they seem similar, but they are not. The fact this government is trying to link the two together reflects on its kind of management style. This is a subject I want to leave until later.

I want to talk about what this legislation does to the pharmacists in Ontario. The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party pioneered the drug benefit program. It was set up to ensure that the elderly and needy would be able to get drugs if they needed them. This program has worked, but as with any program, problems have arisen. The method for establishing the price of drugs made available under the program has created some problems.

When we were in government, we felt it was only proper to commission a report on the situation to analyse the system and recommend improvements. This report, the Gordon report, provided the basis for negotiations with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association on changes to the drug benefit program. These negotiations were well under way in June 1985 when the government changed hands. What has happened since?

The new Liberal government has refused to negotiate. It has turned its back on the pharmacists of Ontario and the pharmaceutical manufacturers. It has drawn up Bill 54 in a vacuum. With the arrogance that Ontarians have grown to associate with the Liberal Party, it has gone off on its own course without any consideration of what effect its actions will have on the community. That may appear to be a joke to some people-

Mr. Wildman: Considering how arrogant the member's government was.

Mr. Pierce: I am talking about the government of today.

I make reference to the letters from local pharmacists and a letter from a little pharmacy in Fort Frances, Gagnes Pharmacy, addressed to the Minister of Health. It says:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"The pharmacists of Ontario are frustrated. As integral members of the health professional team, our very future is being threatened by you and your government. The Gordon commission almost brought about a somewhat reasonable settlement for us, but with the fall of the Miller government, everything was dissolved.

"Your government, Mr. Elston, does not seem to grasp the entire concept of how we make our living. The ground rules for establishing our professional fee have been tossed out the window. Also, the fee is only a part of the way a prescription has traditionally been priced. The drug acquisition price, return on investment, discounts for quantity and early payment are all related to provide a fair return on investment and professional services.

"It is extremely difficult to get pharmacists to come to northern Ontario, and if your government proceeds as you have indicated, not only will it force us out of business, it will ensure that we will never be able to encourage pharmacists up here or anywhere else in Ontario for that matter. What do you suppose will happen to all the small communities in Ontario if this happens?

"Section 155 is absolutely ludicrous and must be amended. Once again, the Gordon commission had a reasonable recommendation, and that is that the pharmacists be allowed to charge their usual and customary fee for both generically written prescriptions and voluntary product selected drugs. We, the pharmacists, business people and professionals, feel cheated. Please negotiate with our association and the manufacturers and come up with a fair solution."

4:50 p.m.

That is what we are talking about here today. Give the pharmacists an opportunity. Give the people an opportunity to negotiate the bill and make sure it will provide the best service for the people of Ontario.

Everyone admits there are problems with the Ontario drug benefit plan, but under this government only Liberals are allowed to come up with solutions. Our party has asked that Bill 54 be sent to a standing committee for review. We feel it is important enough for all Ontarians concerned to have a chance to voice their opinions.

What is the hurry? Why is the government rushing this legislation through? Does it not want to give the people of Ontario a chance to study the bill? The Liberals have two years to govern, thanks to the third party. They should take their time and draft the legislation well, rather than rush the issue through. Often in politics, it is just as important for people to see the government doing the right thing as to be told it is doing the right thing.

By rushing through these two significant bills, this government is sending a strange message to the people of Ontario. That message is that this government is not one of open doors and windows. The message this government is sending out is that only it thinks itself fit to draft legislation. Interested citizens need not apply. The house of Peterson is going to run this province, and the public can take its opinions elsewhere.

Mr. Mancini: That is a bunch of nonsense.

Mr. Pierce: It may appear to be a bunch of nonsense to the member on the other side of the House, but it certainly does not appear so to the druggists who are out there providing a service to the people of the province, as well as providing small business.

Mr. Callahan: Did it take all those years to prepare the legislation?

Mr. Pierce: The member can talk about all the years that have gone by. I hear members on the other side of the House talking about all the things that did not happen for 42 years. They now have an opportunity to show some proper direction in the province, and it appears they are prepared to go down the same road.

I have some real concerns with Bill 54 and the way it treats the pharmacists of this province. Some of them have been in contact with me. I made reference to a letter from Gangnes Pharmacy, a small drug store in a small community in northern Ontario, which makes reference to posting the fees. Why should only pharmacists post their markup? Why do we not insist that gas stations post their markup? Why do we not insist on knowing what the markup is on a can of beans in the grocery store? Why do we not know what it costs to have the clerk proceed with the can of beans to the checkout counter? Why does this apply only to the pharmacist?

I know there is a lot of support on this side of the House, to my far left, for the posting of all fees. I am afraid that is not going to happen in this day and age.

I have listened to the concerns of the druggists in my riding. With this legislation, I know I will not have to listen to the pharmacists in my area again because they will not be there. A number of these pharmacies are in communities of fewer than 1,000 or 2,000 people. They require the type of fee structure that is currently in place and the markup on their drugs to survive.

I agree Bill 54 represents a challenge to the communities. The quality of health care they enjoy in the Rainy River district is in jeopardy. Pharmacists have taken a close look at Bill 54. They believe the cost model used in the proposed regulations does not provide the pharmacist with an adequate profit margin or with funds to cover the investment and carry the inventory.

The druggist in northern Ontario is required to buy drugs through western and eastern chains. To have access to those drugs, he uses long-distance telephone calls and a number of other modes. The cost of getting those drugs to the pharmacist is much higher than in other parts of the province. If an individual patient requires a drug that comes from Winnipeg, the cost is automatically $12.50 to freight those 50 pills in from Manitoba. That cost now will have no way of getting back to the consumer.

Let me remind the government the Rainy River district, an area with small and moderately sized towns, does not benefit from the large chain drug stores. Our people rely on many small, independent operators who face costs in running their businesses in the north that do not appear to have been considered when the minister drafted the Bill 54 regulations.

In larger centres the independent pharmacists already face stiff competition from the large chains. The added expense that Bill 54 presents will not encourage these independent businessmen to keep their operations open. I predict that should Bill 54 become law, we will see many of these operations shut down or be turned into corner stores in anticipation of the sale of wine and beer.

Mr. Breaugh: Why did it take so long to work that into your speech?

Mr. Pierce: It takes a little while, but it is coming. It goes along with the peanuts my friend on the other side of the House mentioned. If we are going to sell peanuts, we might as well have wine and beer in the drug stores also.

Mr. Andrewes: For seniors only.

Mr. Pierce: For seniors only; that is right. All joking aside, to my mind, Bill 54 is based on a false premise, that the sale of drugs is simply a dollar-and-cents affair. It is not. One just has to ask one's pharmacist. They have been in the business and they know. The sale of drugs is more than just dollars and cents. A pharmacist can make therapeutic judgements, but Bill 54 allows no place for this judgement by the pharmacist or, for that matter, by the doctor.

Let us look at Bill 55. There are problems with it as well. Unless the prescription clearly states what drug is to be provided, the bill proposes that the pharmacist be required to tell the patient that a cheaper drug is available and to leave the choice to the patient.

Most people do not know the difference in the value of drugs from one to another. Most people do not know that generic drugs, the cheaper products, can cause problems. For example, most people do not know that most adverse drug reactions occur with generic products.

Not all sick people go to the pharmacy. This is especially true with the elderly. They often send a relative, children or even a taxicab driver to pick up their medication. Most senior citizens identify their pills by colour. They know they have a red pill, an orange pill and a blue pill and how many to take at any given time.

To prescribe all these as generic drugs gives them all the same colour. We will see the results. Those who deal with the elderly on a frequent basis know they often refer to their drugs not by name but by colour. BILL 55 will force them to be able to identify different drugs only through their names. They will have to remember their names and remember what to ask for when they go to the pharmacy or ask someone to go in their place.

An interpretation of Bill 55 and its accompanying regulations seems to indicate that a pharmacist can no longer take prescriptions over the phone. Therefore, while we are proposing to save all kinds of money on the distribution of drugs, we now will require the patient to visit his local doctor to acquire the necessary prescription. We save money by dispensing the drugs and then we increase the cost to the Ontario health insurance plan by insisting that the patient go to the doctor to get his prescription. This will also cause an unnecessary inconvenience to the chronically or seriously ill.

Given these facts, I wonder whom Bill 55 will really benefit and I wonder why the bill is being pushed ahead in such a hurry.

Let me look at another aspect of Bill 55. The bill requires pharmacists to post their dispensing fees. Pharmacists have explained to me that the requirement of this legislation ignores the manner in which most pharmacists arrive at their fees. This should be not surprising. Since the legislation was drafted without consulting the pharmacists, it is no surprise that it does not reflect the reality of their business.

5 p.m.

Independent drug stores will not be able to sell drugs as cheaply as the chain stores. The independent pharmacists fear they will be driven out of business. I share their fear. A number of employees from small drug stores have approached me with the fear that they also will be out looking for work because of this legislation. Fortunately, this not being question period, those questions do not have to be answered at this point in time.

Mr. Wildman: Is the member going to vote against the bill on second reading?

Mr. Pierce: It is not a question of whether we are voting for or against the bill. The question is whether the bill actually goes before the committee for further study and input. That is what it is all about: to give the people the opportunity to go to the committee as well.

There is nothing in this legislation to prevent a large chain from becoming a neighbourhood monopoly by setting dispensing fees as a loss leader to torpedo the independent competition. Then there is the matter of posting fees. Again, I do not think that this is a good idea. Why must a pharmacist post his or her fees? Should a doctor post fees? Should a store clerk post his fees? Should a taxi driver post his fees?

Mr. Wildman: He does. The tariff is listed.

Mr. Pierce: No, he does not. I do not know what a taxi driver is making. I do not know what it costs to buy his gas. I do not know what it costs to operate his car. I do not know how much profit markup the taxi operator has. Yet we are insisting that the pharmacist post his fee to confuse the senior citizens.

Mr. Wildman: That is just the beginning.

Mr. Pierce: That is right. It is just the beginning, and I guess that is what the accord is all about.

Mr. Warner: There is a bigger and better world out there.

Mr. Pierce: I guess there is.

Pharmacists are an independent, self-regulating profession, not unlike doctors, lawyers and other groups of professional people.

Mr. Wildman: Let us get them to post their fees.

Mr. Pierce: Why do we not just nationalize everything and we can all go home? Why do we not just nationalize the world and we can all go home at the same time?

Those professions have contact with the government and join with the province in providing services to the community.

Interjection.

Mr. Pierce: The member should remember that once we nationalize everything, some of us will be out of work.

Mr. Wildman: Probably the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Pierce: That is not likely.

There is much one can say in opposition to Bills 54 and 55, but it all boils down to this: Under this legislation, it is the government and not the doctors or the pharmacists who make the decisions, and both bills are based on false premises.

The government has chosen to ignore the advice of the pharmacists and the drug manufacturers and in fact did not even offer to consult. They say these bills are necessary in their present form to provide cheaper drugs to those who need them, but that is simply not so. No one in this Legislature would be against providing cheaper drugs to the needy wherever and whenever practicable.

Bills 54 and 55 are flawed. This government should have the courage to take these bills to a committee where the public could make comment. It should have the courage to comment publicly on the details of what it proposes to do. This government should have the honesty and integrity to admit that it does not know everything and to make changes working with the public, with the pharmacists and with the community at large. The whole style of approach that this government has taken on this issue leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, and I will visit my local druggist for mouthwash.

I am concerned. The availability of drugs is a serious question. The future of the pharmaceutical profession is a serious question, but the way Bills 54 and 55 have been drafted and introduced, and the way the government has dealt with this entire question, leaves me wondering about its motives. Do they want effective, positive legislation or happy headlines in the morning newspapers? We need honest leadership on these questions and not the efforts of a cheap publicity seeker.

Mr. Lane: I will be very brief today for two reasons. One is that we have other speakers, and the second is that I have a heck of a cold and my voice is not going to last very long.

Mr. Wildman: Go see a pharmacist.

Mr. Lane: I cannot, until I get this matter settled.

I want to say at the outset that I have a very high personal regard for the Minister of Health. He has made a big contribution in his years here, and I am disappointed that he is treating Bills 54 and 55 in the way he seems to be doing. Members can see I have a large pile of letters here; I shall restrict myself to quoting just a few comments from letters and telegrams I have received from people working and living in the great riding of Algoma-Manitoulin.

The minister has a letter from this gentleman; so I will not read it. I will just refer to a couple of sections of it, as he sent me a copy. It is from Frank Reynolds, BA, CLU, living in Little Current.

"As founding chairman of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council and as a past member of that council, I have some knowledge and interest in health care. Further, as a financial planner working in both life and health fields, I am very concerned that your government is providing a smokescreen covering up the real issues confronting the province: drug costs.

"The current battle between generic and brand-name prescription drugs is pushing costs to record highs. In 1985, with inflation running at four per cent, drug plan costs have risen 15 per cent, with the cost of drugs accounting for 14 per cent of this cost. The prescription drug price for 1986 appears to offer no relief from the high jumps in 1985.

"Chasing the pharmacists with regressive legislation will not lower drug costs. It will add another coating of bureaucracy to already spiralling costs. It seems to me the abusers of the system should be tracked down. Keep costs in line that way. My experience has been that strict claim control keeps the system functional, rather than meaningless sporadic controls."

I have another letter here, from a pharmacist who wrote to the minister; he also wrote a little memo to me, in which he says:

"As a pharmacist, I am very opposed to the many regulations in the proposed Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act. I urge you to do everything you can to delay the passage of these acts until adequate discussion has taken place with the representatives of the pharmacies."

All these people are asking for is a chance to have fair and open dialogue. We keep hearing that these bills will go to committee, but we do not want to think they are just going to go into committee and come back out again. We want to think there are going to be advertised hearings and that people will be able to have real input into the bills.

I have a telegram from a pharmacist in Elliot Lake, and he blames me for the problems, I guess. He says:

"I am angered and frustrated at your proposed unilateral decimation of the pharmacy process as we have known it. Your apparent unwillingness to discuss the entire picture with the OPA in private or in public in order to resolve all the issues goes entirely against the grain of any ruling party in this country, now or in the past. I urge you to reassess and stop this legislation until all the facts have been aired entirely in full view of the public whom you claim to be protecting. This proposed legislation affects more people than you may realize."

That is from Doug MacLeod of Shoppers Drug Mart in Elliot Lake.

I have another telegram, from Janeway Pharmacy Ltd. in Massey:

"Urgently request you vote against Elston's pharmacy bills this week." They were thinking they were going to be voted on before Christmas. "Not asking your support for pharmacy but fair clause-by-clause examination in committee. Community pharmacy cannot survive in northern Ontario under these bills."

The people running pharmacies in my riding are not saying they do not recognize there is a problem that has to be corrected. All they are saying is there has not been any dialogue. They want to have a chance to have dialogue, and they do not want the bills passed until that happens.

I have two more telegrams here from pharmacists; one works in the pharmacy in Massey, and the other girl works in Elliot Lake. They both say their jobs are at stake and we have to have these bills corrected.

5:10 p.m.

I would like to refer to a situation that happened several years ago in the small town where I live and that could happen there again if these bills are not dealt with properly. It was about 1970 in the town of Gore Bay on Manitoulin Island. The pharmacist who had been working in the only pharmacy in town had been there since the Second World War. He was getting tired and wanted out. He was thinking about getting rid of his store. It was the only pharmacy we had in that town.

I was the mayor of the town at the time. I did not want to have a town with no pharmacy, because there are 800 people living in the town and another 3,000 living in the farming community it serves. I tried to help find a buyer for the store who would give the pharmacist some time to himself, so he could have a lock-and-leave pharmacy where he could be there three or four hours a day. The lady could run the front part of the store and see the people were served.

We were able to find somebody to buy the store, and that setup worked quite well for about a year. He was able to semi-retire and still serve the public. Unfortunately, he got ill and died very suddenly, and it was not possible to find a pharmacist who was prepared to come to a small town in northern Ontario.

The lady who had purchased the store was no longer able to operate it as a pharmacy because she had no licence; so she turned it into a ladies' wear store. For five years, however, she allowed people to bring prescriptions in. She would put them together in an envelope and send them 40 miles to Little Current, have them filled and sent back to her, and the people would come in and pick up the prescriptions. Without any profit and at quite a bit of an expense, she provided some service to the public for five years.

We were then lucky enough to get a young lady to come in and open up a pharmacy in Gore Bay on Manitoulin Island. She has no help. She is the only licensed person in the store; so she works six days a week. On two or three occasions this summer, she took a couple of hours off to attend some function and had to close the store. On every occasion, I got a phone call asking, "Why in the heck do we not have an open pharmacy in Gore Bay?"

I talked to this young lady recently and she says she is getting tired of working six days a week and if the government is going to make her life more miserable, she is going to just work when she feels like it and the public will not get proper service. She may even dispose of the store and work someplace else where the population is more dense, where she can get a salary, have a 40-hour work week and not have all the worries she has today. If that happens, the people in the west end of Manitoulin Island will again be faced with the problem of having no pharmacy closer than 40 miles, and in some cases 70 miles from the extreme west end of the island.

It seems passing strange to me that this government has indicated it has a very special interest in senior citizens, with a minister to take care of their needs, and the party on my left would like the public to believe it is especially interested in senior citizens and disabled persons, and yet those are the very people who are going to be hurt.

If that pharmacy in Gore Bay is closed, the very people my friends across the way and on my left would like to think they are protecting are the people who are going to be hurt. We have many senior citizens on Manitoulin Island. We have no heavy industry. The young people go away to work, the older people stay and retire there, and people come there to retire.

We have a very heavy population of senior citizens on Manitoulin Island. Many of them do not have cars. Many of them can no longer drive cars. We will have a situation where they will have to hire a taxi or car to travel 40 miles one way-80 miles return-to get a free prescription filled. They will have to spend $35 or $40 and probably wait a day or so because it is not always possible to get transportation at any given time in a small area such as that.

The very people we should be trying to protect, and who most members of this House think the government is trying to protect, are going to be the people who will be hurt.

All my people want, and all I want, is for these bills to go to committee to have a fair, open hearing where people know they are going to be heard. They want to see that the advertisement is placed well in advance and that the public is made fully aware they can come in. We hope the committee can amend these bills so they can correct the problems.

I admit that there are problems and that the drug system is costing us too much, but we have to make sure we are not going to shut out people who have a contribution to make to these bills.

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, the major concern I have on behalf of the people in Mississauga South, both the patients who unfortunately require medication and the pharmacists we are fortunate to have as dedicated professionals, is the whole approach of the Liberal government in dealing with this entire subject. I am rising to speak today to ensure the message gets across to the government that there is a necessity for full, open and unlimited public hearings on this bill.

At the outset, I would like to refer to a letter written by the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) to someone in his riding. It is an undated letter, so I cannot identify it any further than that, but it is a letter the member for Kitchener has written to someone in his constituency, I assume. The name of the person has been eliminated from the letter; however, the remaining part of the address is Kitchener, Ontario.

In the third paragraph of this letter, the member for Kitchener says: "First of all, let me indicate to you that the proposed legislation is not something that we are in any way attempting to railroad or push through without as fair a hearing as the public of Ontario wishes."

In reading this letter, I would feel very assured and confident if I knew that the member for Kitchener wished, on behalf of his constituents in Kitchener, that they were going to be totally regarded by the members of his cabinet.

If I could be completely comfortable that both these bills, and particularly the bill we are speaking to this afternoon, were going to be referred to a committee for full, unlimited, unfettered and open hearings, I would not take up any further time of the House today. However, since we-

Mr. Sheppard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not think we have a quorum of 20 in the House. Nobody is listening to this great speaker at present.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

5:23 p.m.

Mrs. Marland: Now that a quorum is present, it gives me pleasure to continue.

I was quoting from a letter by the Liberal member for Kitchener and I had referred to the fact that in this letter he was assuring a constituent of his, I presume, because the address is in Kitchener, although the name of the person to whom the letter is addressed has been obliterated. As I mentioned, the letter is undated, so I do not know when the member wrote to his constituent.

I should read it correctly: "First of all, let me indicate to you that the proposed legislation is not something that we are in any way attempting to railroad or push through without as thorough a hearing as the public of Ontario wishes."

It is very important to recognize that here is a member of the Liberal government who is recognizing-and I think this is the important fact-that the public of Ontario does wish to have a thorough and public hearing on this bill. I am grateful that the member for Kitchener is speaking in that vein because that is entirely the direction in which the public in Mississauga South would like to see this bill go.

I mentioned that the patients in Mississauga South who unfortunately require medication because of their health conditions are concerned about the implications of this bill. It goes without saying that the pharmacists in Mississauga South are equally concerned. Perhaps the pharmacists are more concerned than the patients at this point, because as professionals they recognize the long-term implications of this type of legislation.

They work every day with the responsibility of dispensing medication to patients referred to them by the medical profession. They know every day what their involvement in health care is in this province. Every time they fill a prescription, they recognize the tremendous responsibility they have to the patient who is going to use the medication. Because the pharmacists are honourable professionals, they do not treat lightly their tremendous responsibility in dealing with medication. Neither do they treat lightly their tremendous responsibility in trying to respond to any proposed changes in legislation in Ontario that might affect their responsibility in filling the prescriptions prescribed by the medical profession.

It is very interesting that the current Liberal government of this province seems to be committed to bringing forward somewhat regressive legislation in a number of areas pertaining to the health field and the health care of the people who reside in our great province.

Mr. Wildman: Any other examples of regressive legislation?

Mr. Marland: Yes. I suggest that when we get to it, there will be areas of health care accessibility legislation that will be regarded as being most regressive to the wellbeing of the health of the people of Ontario.

I would like to tell the members about a resident of my constituency who does not have an axe to grind from a commercial aspect of running a pharmacy. He is not in that business. He is not in the profit-and-loss scene of the operation of a retail pharmacy. David M. Shaw has a bachelor of science degree in pharmacy and lives at 1580 Crestview Avenue, Mississauga.

5:30 p.m.

In a letter to the Minister of Health on October 24, 1985, he says:

"At present I am a licensed pharmacist and the director of a pharmacy at a community hospital. While I am not directly affected by the pricing structure of prescriptions at the retail level, I do have some concerns about the issues being debated in the Toronto daily newspapers.

"It has become apparent to me on reviewing the issues that either the Ministry of Health is not dialoguing and acting in good faith with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association regarding dispensing fees, cost of drugs, etc., or, being new to the business of running a government, has not taken the time to find out the facts, review the history and have a good understanding of the situation.

"Either way, if what I have read this far is an example of how the ministry plans to work with Ontario's health care professionals, then far more people than the community pharmacists have a problem on their hands with this new government. I strongly urge the ministry to start negotiating with OPA on all issues and stop misleading the public about the Ontario drug benefit plan.

"The pharmacist is a first-line provider of health care information, especially about drugs. It does not come for free. It is a vital service to the public and should receive the ministry's support and understanding."

That is the end of Mr. Shaw's letter. It is very interesting that Mr. Shaw identifies the concern about our health care professionals in Ontario as being greater than just that about the pharmacists who are dispensing the prescriptions to the people who are sick and need them.

I have met with the pharmacists in my riding and I have had, as I know many members of the Legislature have had, a very large number of telephone calls and letters of concern. They are now simply at the point of asking, "Can we please come and talk to the Legislature about our concerns?"

They feel that the discussion would help to inform those of us who are not pharmacists. I do not know how many members of this Legislature are pharmacists or have degrees relating to the responsibility of pharmaceutical dispensing, but I would suggest very humbly that the majority of the members of this Legislature are not familiar with either the responsibility or the implications of dispensing medication.

Sue Czaja from Pascoe's Pharmacy, Bill Maxted from Maxted's Pharmacy, Gus Salameh from Super X Drugs, Aldo Anzil from Courtesy Drug Mart Ltd., Carl Horowitz from Carl's Pharmacy, Richard Diniz of Hooper's Pharmacy, Walter Sommerfeldt from Glen Erin Pharmacy Ltd., Ron Purdy from the Village Pharmacy, Bob Smart from the Village Pharmacy, Harry Sokoloski from Boots Drug Store and Fred Towers from Keene Guardian Pharmacy are individuals who have very grave concerns that we would make any decision without full public input in an unlimited mode.

To have this bill referred to committee would be very progressive in dealing with the subject matter, but it would be very regressive if it were referred to committee with any limitations. In the light of the fact that we have a government today that proclaims itself to be very open and that wants to have a completely accessible medium for the public on all subjects, it would be contrary to its wishes if it referred this to committee with any limitations.

There is no sudden emergency to rush this legislation through, particularly when it deals with the health care of the people of this province. I would suggest to all of us that it goes without saying that absolutely nothing matters more to us than our health.

If we, as members of this Legislature, are going to make decisions that have an impact on our health in the future, then we have a responsibility to every resident in the province to be sure those decisions are made after complete and unlimited research into every aspect of the subject. That can be done only by having a committee which is as open as the standing committee on social development has been on the subject of separate school funding.

That has been an excellent example of the three parties in this House saying to the public of Ontario: "You are welcome to come and give us your opinions because we value them. Yes, we represent you, but we are not so inflated in our opinion of ourselves that we are all-knowledgeable and all-expert on all subjects."

We felt we were not experts enough on the subject of education and separate school funding that we saw fit to welcome the professionals and the consumers of education, for example, the parents of students within school systems along with the teaching professionals, to give us their views. Since we are not, in the majority, professionals in the pharmaceutical industry or pharmacists dispensing medication, I assume we would welcome them with equally open arms to tell us what the realities of this legislation are and what adverse consequences there are, if any.

I would also like to give an example of something that happens every day in every small pharmacy in this province. It is an example of a patient going to a large chain, which I happen to know the name of but I will not read it into the record. The patient is, sadly, a child, and it was the parent who was going to pick up the medication. When the parent handed in the prescription, the pharmacist in this large chain said: "I am sorry, I cannot fill that prescription. We do not carry it."

The parent said, "I did not know there were prescriptions a large drug chain such as this would not carry." The parent had chosen to go to the large chain because he thought there was a possibility the small store might not have it. The parent knew it was a very expensive drug to carry. It was also not a common drug regularly dispensed on a frequent basis.

The pharmacist in the large drug chain said: "The reason we are not carrying it is simply because it is too expensive. I recommend you take your prescription to a medical-type pharmacy." The parent of the child then took the prescription to one of the pharmacists I mentioned earlier in my address.

5:40 p.m.

The drug, a product manufactured by Eli Lilly Canada Inc. in Markham, is called Cesamet. It is a derivative of cannabis, colloquially known as grass. It is a drug used only in the treatment of cancer. Members can understand now. Here is a parent going to a small pharmacy trying to obtain medication for the child who is dying of cancer. The pharmacist is very sympathetic to the patient's parent standing in front of him. It is true he does not carry the drug specified because the drug is about $4.31 a tablet. The prescription is for 120 tablets. The pharmacist finds that at the moment the Drug Trading Co. does not even carry this drug either because of security problems.

The pharmacist has a choice. Because he is the professional that he is and because he exemplifies the professionals we have in the pharmacy profession in Ontario, this particular gentleman gets in his car and drives to Markham to Eli Lilly Canada Inc. where he purchases the prescription of 120 tablets for this child who is dying of cancer. He drives from Mississauga to Markham, and we can easily estimate that probably takes at least an hour each way. When he gets back to Mississauga, he himself delivers that prescription to the child at the parents' home. He does that because he is the caring professional with whom we are all familiar.

Let me give the other side of this picture which exists today. He has 14 days to pay the Lilly company for that prescription. Because the patient is on the drug benefit plan, he gets a $5-dispensing fee. Because he is not allowed to buy directly from the pharmaceutical company, the Lilly company advises him he has to pay the upfront Drug Trading charge, which is a further $18. So the pharmacist has to pay $18 to the Drug Trading Co., because he is not able to buy direct from the manufacturer. He has 14 days to pay Lilly for the prescription, but because of the category of drug, he has to wait 80 to 90 days to be paid by the government for his prescription.

How interesting that in one prescription, in one pharmacy, in one day there is that kind of financial outlay for the pharmacist. If he has the money to pay within 14 days, he would be better to put it in the bank than be paid up to three months later for that prescription.

I understand there are many drugs that pharmacists are forced to purchase through the Drug Trading Co. because that is their only access to those drugs. As soon as they have to purchase them from the Drug Trading Co., obviously the markup has to be there over the manufacturer's price. When we talk about what the pharmacist gets for dispensing medication, it becomes a very meagre scenario, because the government will pay only the wholesale price plus the dispensing fee under the drug benefit plan.

That is a brief example of one case. I know there are 1,000 stories. We have already heard some examples and are about to hear more. It points to the fact that before we make any decisions on this subject, and before we decide that a self-regulating body such as the Ontario College of Pharmacists is not capable as a body of professionals of continuing to be responsible in this area of health care for the people of Ontario, we should at least benefit from its input and from input from the public itself, not necessarily from anybody related to the pharmacy industry or the pharmacy professionals.

I ask with great concern that when this bill goes to committee, it be for the consideration of full and open input from as many people as feel that is necessary, to make sure that we have a full and complete understanding before any decision is made in this Legislature.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Ontario in a most critical and important area of their future wellbeing, namely, their health.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to express some deep and grave concerns of the people I represent, the people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. As the members know, the riding I represent is very much a rural riding. In Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry over the years, a number of senior citizens' residences have been built in communities such as Finch, Alexandria, Chesterville, Winchester, Morrisburg, Williamsburg, etc. These senior citizens have moved to these residences with the understanding that there would be available in not too distant towns, if not in the town in which they live, pharmacies that would be able to dispense to them their needed medication and requirements.

My largest town is Alexandria with a population of slightly more than 3,000 people. My major concern is that when one speaks of a town, pharmacies are not on every street corner. At last count, and I could be out by one, there were eight pharmacies in the riding I represent. Of these eight pharmacies, a number are possibly owned by the same owner, who has expanded into neighbouring towns to provide a service that is not only required and needed, but is also literally begged for by the senior residents.

If Bills 54 and 55 are enacted as currently written, I am told we could face a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of pharmacies in my riding. If this should occur, a number of seniors will be in difficulty, in that they will have to hire taxis or get relatives, etc. , to obtain their required medication.

I think this is bad legislation. I will read into the record a number of items of correspondence that have been provided, not only by pharmacists but also by people who are concerned and who see this as an encroachment on a professional, self-regulating group of people who have been servicing the communities in which they reside.

5:50 p.m.

First, I have a letter from a pharmacist in Vankleek Hill. I notice that the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier), who represents the town of Vankleek Hill, is not in the House at present. However, this is from one of his constituents. I happen to know this person individually and personally. The letter reads as follows:

"The last time we met, Noble, things were brighter for both of us: The Progressive Conservative government was in power and pharmacists were treated fairly."

What this particular pharmacist means is that the former government was administering by consultation. We are now going back to a situation where it is government by confrontation. I believe we have had a number of experiences in the last month that would very clearly outline the fact that we are going back to the era of Parliament Hill prior to September 1984, where it was very much confrontation instead of consultation.

I continue quoting from this pharmacist in the riding of Prescott-Russell.

"I am taking the opportunity to write to you concerning the present crisis between pharmacists and the Minister of Health. I am urgently requesting your help and co-operation in this matter.

"The minister has blamed the rising cost of the health care system on pharmacists. How could this be? We only represent a fraction, and a small fraction at that, of the health care system in terms of cost. He has made us look like thieves in the press. He has not negotiated with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and recently has proposed in the Legislature, as of November 7, 1985, two new bills working directly against pharmacies and pharmacists, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act.

"Mr. Elston sent us a draft copy of these two acts, along with his statement to the Legislature on that date. He is doing a good job at making it sound reasonable and fair, but believe me, it is anything but that. It is degrading to the profession and disastrous financially to pharmacies, particularly to those in small rural Ontario towns.

"From a business point of view, he is attacking the concept of free enterprise. This is extreme socialism," and please listen closely to the final two or three words of this sentence, "and, put in a different light, called communism."

Mr. Sterling: I had not thought it had gone that far yet.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is how far it has gone in the town of Vankleek Hill.

"The minister wants to do this by imposing many regulations such as opting in on every pharmacy in Ontario. To bill an eligible patient for any reason would be illegal. There are many instances where a surcharge is in line. For example, for an ODB patient requesting a brand-name drug which is more expensive, normally the difference would be charged to the patient. Many patients refuse the generic or what is considered the cheap drug and they do want what is commonly referred to as the `real stuff.'

"No pharmacist shall refuse to supply a listed drug for an eligible person. There are many possible reasons, including professional and economic, for refusing a prescription. The cost of drugs used in pricing the prescription must equal the actual acquisition cost. No room for markup. Profit is a very dirty word according to this government.

"Drug cost $50, fee $5, prescription selling price $55. This in our opinion is unreasonable as there are more and more very expensive drugs. The above cost price for a one-month supply is common.

"The quantity of drugs dispense as written, large quantity plus one fee with no room for markup, further ridiculizes the pricing system as planned in this legislation.

"Required to post our fee in the window; a prescription counter: No other profession"-and I have to take this man's word-"is required by law to post its fees in its place of practice. Besides, what is the point of posting the fee when the acquisition cost may vary from pharmacy to pharmacy, making the fee as shown irrelevant to the total prescription price?

"To familiarize you with prescription pricing, the selling price is comprised of a cost plus fee, the fee being stable, or approximately $5 per prescription, and the cost has been in the past either the actual acquisition cost of certain drugs or acquisition costs plus spread or markup, depending if it is an expensive drug or if the manufacturer undercut the ODB price list or if they happen to have a special on.

"The fee posting could be a stimulus for price wars, which could be initiated by certain chains such as K Mart, Loblaws, etc., with large purchasing ability, which are not relying on the dispensary for survival and have no professional conscience, as opposed to the independent and franchise operations, which are owned and operated by pharmacists and their families. This prostituting of pharmacists would be degrading and detrimental to the profession, making it another reason for not advertising prescription fees in the context the minister is legislating.

"Each pharmacy must state on a receipt or on the label, both for ODB and paying customers, the cost of both the drug and the dispensing fee. For ODB patients, it is ridiculous to put the price on a bottle, and for paying customers, it will encourage shopping around, stripping us of a certain professional image. Similar reason as above in fee posting.

"The minister may appoint inspectors for examining any records relevant to determine the accuracy of any information submitted. This provides unreasonable authority to an inspector to verify any records of the pharmacy at his discretion and becomes effectively public knowledge. This is unethical, according to their professional code of ethics.

"Upon receiving a prescription for a paying customer, we must inform the person of his right of an interchangeable product. This is not only ridiculous but unfair to brand-name companies who do the research for new drugs. Generic companies do no research of this type, and it is this attitude which causes the withdrawal of major companies from Canada, along with their new drugs, which they may be in the process of finalizing.

"If this is permitted to continue, new drugs in the future will appear in other countries and will not likely be available on the Canadian market due to the lack of support for research by these companies. For the present, the lack of revenue to these companies have caused many new drugs to be extremely expensive. By the way, these expensive drugs further ridiculize the proposed pricing system by the minister.

"The pharmacists shall dispense the entire quantity prescribed at one time: It was the ministry that introduced the one-month supply concept in 1974, and the fee agreed to by the OPA and the ministry at that time was lower than it otherwise would have been. The economic impact to pharmacy by the elimination of the one-month supply concept is drastic, unless there is a compensating fee adjustment. It must be remembered that this one-month supply reduces drug abuse, drug wastage and permits a more frequent contact between patients and pharmacists for counselling. So, overall, it is not a waste of money to the ministry. This one-month supply was a cornerstone of the drug benefit act when established in 1974.

"I have managed to present to you several regulations that Mr. Elston proposed in his Bills 54 and 55, which I oppose most certainly. I believe they are unfair, and not only unfair but degrading to the profession.

"The two proposed bills contain many more unreasonable regulations not mentioned in this letter."

Mr. Speaker: The member may find it an appropriate time to make a break in his remarks.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have no intention of collapsing, but I find it an appropriate time to pause.

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary to adjourn the debate because we will continue. However, I listened very carefully to the member's comments at the beginning. He said he was going to read from many documents. I suggest that is somewhat out of order. He might want to follow the excellent example of the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) and briefly summarize those. He might want to do that over the dinner hour.

The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.

January 7, 1986

RECESS OF HOUSE

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

FUTURES PROGRAM

INSURANCE RATES

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

HOLSTERED GUNS

HIGHWAY EXTENSION

JOB SECURITY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

LANDFILL SITE

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)