Hansard Transcript 1986-Jan-13 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today that I have referred to the Ontario Law Reform Commission for its consideration and report, to be completed by next July 1, several issues relating to political activity by crown employees.

The terms of reference of the commission's inquiry are as follows:

1. What restrictions on activities of crown employees are required to ensure their independence and impartiality and to satisfy the public of their independence and impartiality;

2. Whether and to what extent the existing law and practices governing crown employees restrict their activities beyond the extent necessary to ensure the existence and appearance of independence and impartiality;

3. Whether and to what extent changes to existing law and practices governing activities by crown employees are necessary or desirable, having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the laws and practices of other comparable jurisdictions;

4. Whether and to what extent changes should be made in the oath of secrecy or in the law relating to that oath in conjunction with any changes recommended; and

5. Whether and to what extent the common law in relation to an employee's duty of loyalty and confidentiality bears on the issues.

I have asked the commission in preparing its report to bear in mind that different considerations may apply to different groups of crown employees, such as civil servants and public servants, and to different classifications and job descriptions.

The government has been considering action in this area. In the course of our preliminary consideration of the issues involved, it became apparent to us that there are many difficult and complex issues of law and public policy that need to be addressed. The government is of the view that a review by an independent body, the Ontario Law Reform Commission, will provide the right degree of impartial and detached consideration of these difficult issues combined with thoroughgoing research and deliberation.

I am mindful of the urgency of proceeding with these issues. That is why I have directed the commission that it must report by next July 1. This will give the government the opportunity to consider the commission's recommendations, prepare the necessary legislation during the summer and present a bill to the Legislature in the session next fall.

While some of us might like to proceed more quickly, I believe that to do so would not do justice to the extremely important issues involved here. The government undertakes to deal promptly with the issue of political activity by crown employees as soon as the law reform commission's report is received.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the honourable members know, one of my first acts as Minister of Agriculture and Food was to establish a short-term program of emergency assistance to compensate farmers for the financial battering many had received earlier in this decade. We called this the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, or OFFIRR in short. There was a $50-million fund to ease some of the financial stress under which our farm families had been labouring in recent times.

OFFIRR has been enthusiastically endorsed by Ontario producers. We have received about 6,000 applications for assistance and have thus far paid out more than $12.5 million. In the past few weeks, applications have been flooding into my ministry's farm assistance programs branch at a rate of 100 to 200 a day, yet I have heard from many Ontario farm families that are concerned about missing out on this program. They are worried about putting together year-end cash flow figures, among the other documentation that goes with the application, in time to meet the deadline of this coming Wednesday, January 15.

Because of this high degree of interest and concern, I have decided to extend the deadline for applications for this program by two months. The new deadline will be March 15. I would not like to see anyone who rightfully qualifies for this program, and who could benefit from this assistance, miss the boat because of a simple matter of scheduling.

This extension will allow many more Ontario farm families with 10 to 17 per cent equity in their farms to take part. OFFIRR can mean as much as $14,000 per farm family through a reduction of interest rates by up to seven percentage points to as low as eight per cent. This reduction applies to as much as $200,000 of long-term farm debt.

January 15 was originally scheduled as the end of another ministry policy. As part of our farmers-in-transition program, I announced a temporary deferral of action against those in financial trouble under three provincial programs. This was to go along with a national moratorium on foreclosures initiated by the federal Farm Credit Corp. Ottawa had announced this moratorium pending the results of a thorough review of the mandate of the Farm Credit Corp.

As this situation is unlikely to be resolved immediately, and certainly not in the next 48 hours, I am also extending Ontario's deferral of action until March 15, 1986. While this deferral is in effect, collection calls will not be made and legal action will not be taken on arrears of Ontario Junior Farmer's Establishment Loan Corp. mortgages and lease-with-option-to-purchase agreements under the farm enlargement program.

In addition, provincial requirements for action on guarantees under option C of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program will remain temporarily lifted.

I feel these extensions are responsive to the needs of the people concerned and are in keeping with our long-term desire for a healthier agriculture and food industry in Ontario.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the members may recall, last November during the Ministry of Revenue's estimates I said I hoped to be able to announce certain improvements in the services offered by the Province of Ontario Savings Office to its clients, the citizens of Ontario.

It gives me great pleasure to tell the members that the first of these improvements begins today with the introduction of POSO's first daily interest savings-chequing account. It will come as no surprise to the members to learn that we are calling this the Trillium account, which will in part remind depositors that the government of Ontario fully guarantees every dollar of each deposit.

In addition to this security, the Trillium account will pay daily interest on every dollar in an account. There is no minimum balance required before interest starts accumulating. For deposits under $5,000 -- this is for the benefit of my colleagues -- the rate is currently six per cent, which compares favourably with those offered by other major financial institutions. This rate will increase to seven and a half per cent when the balance in the account is $5,000 or more.

As well, there will be no service charge for cheque processing when there is a minimum monthly balance of $1,000 and there will be no charge for deposits or cash withdrawals made over the counter.

2:10 p.m.

The Trillium account is the first major change since 1923 in the services offered by POSO and is thus a significant milestone in its 65-year history. I want to point out to the honourable members that my father was a strong supporter of POSO then, when he was Provincial Secretary of Ontario.

I have been provided with a ledger account for sheet number 1 of the Province of Ontario Savings Office, which is the account of Harry Corwin Nixon, showing a deposit of $100 on March 1, 1922. To be fair, I should add that the whole amount was withdrawn in June 1922, which may have been an indication of more prescience than I enjoy. However, he was a strong supporter, as I am now, of its chief aim

Mr. Rae: Why did he take the money out then?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If he had left it on deposit, perhaps I could pay some of my bills and those of the honourable member.

Its chief aim was to make low-cost loans to Ontario farmers. This provision was rescinded in 1923 by the government of the day, which followed the United Farmers of Ontario -- a Conservative government, I should add -- and it was never restored.

Since then, however, and for more than six decades, POSO has offered Ontario citizens a place to put their savings which is a little different from the average bank or trust company. As those who are fortunate enough to bank with POSO can attest, it is a place where personalized service comes first and foremost. Our staff know their depositors, and this makes for a tremendous client loyalty. In many branches we have accounts that have been current for more than 40 years, and we are dealing with the third generation in a family.

Let me assure the members that under the present government, POSO will continue not only to exist but to flourish as well. We believe we have a responsibility to offer our citizens a place to put their savings which is guaranteed absolutely by the government. I remind the members that there is a POSO office in the Macdonald Block and I encourage them to drop in, as I did, and open a Trillium account at their earliest convenience.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DRUG SUBSTITUTE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. There is currently in the Drug Benefit Formulary a drug known as apoibuprofen, which is treated as a substitute for a drug called Motrin, a brand-name drug.

I trust the minister is aware that this drug is treated as therapeutically interchangeable by the ministry. It is a very popular drug, which is used by seniors and others in controlling the acute pain of arthritis. Some time ago, a report was produced by the producers of Motrin indicating the generic drug is not interchangeable. The ministry's own Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee agreed early last year it was not interchangeable.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The previous government instructed the ministry officials to remove the drug from the formulary. The minister has not seen to it that this has happened.

Can he tell us why the current government has overruled the earlier government's decision to withdraw this generic drug from the market and why it is continuing to permit thousands of seniors every day to take a pill that is not therapeutically interchangeable?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As the honourable gentleman knows, the formulary in effect on January 1, 1985, continues to be in effect and cannot be changed as a result of litigation. There would have been a July 1 formulary in place had there not been difficulties with respect to quotations of prices on other items that had been submitted.

Two court cases were started, one to enjoin us from printing a formulary if we accepted certain submissions, and the other to enjoin us if we printed the book and did print those submissions. We were unable to do that. We hope to deal with the new formulary and the new needs as soon as we are able to get our legislation in place and, as a result of that, put in place regulations that will allow us to make changes in the formulary.

Mr. Grossman: With respect to the minister, the ministry always has had and continues to have the legal right to put out addenda to the formulary and to put out corrections at any time. It has not been enjoined from doing that at all by the court action.

Therefore, in view of the minister's first response, can he indicate why, since the court actions do not limit in any way whatsoever his right to correct the formulary, he is permitting thousands of senior citizens to take daily a drug that is not therapeutically interchangeable? He is not stopped from correcting the book. Why is he allowing it to happen?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That interpretation is obviously one the honourable member holds. I can go further with my legal counsel and provide the House with an update of our interpretation of the injunction that is now in effect. I will provide the House with a fuller, more complete answer with respect to this whole question at a later date.

Mr. Rae: Surely the minister can give us an answer to this very basic question: Is it the view of the Ministry of Health that the drug mentioned by the leader of the Conservative Party is interchangeable with Motrin or not? This is one question that is purely factual and can be answered.

If it is the view of the ministry that it is not interchangeable, is the minister really saying he is powerless to change any drug that is on the list until such time as litigation has been completed? We could be looking at a paralysis of the system for another six months or even a year.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The question is not one of paralysis which would I think continue after the legislation that is before us was passed. As the honourable member knows, we are now in the process of setting up a system whereby the Ontario drug benefit plan can be much better managed by the province.

On the issue of whether the item raised by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) is interchangeable, there are considerable amounts of legal activity even with respect to that drug. He would know, as would his colleagues who are former Health ministers, that several actions of litigation have questioned whether a particular drug is interchangeable. As I understand it, the issue of the interchangeability of the drug has not yet been resolved, and it continues to be put forward, particularly by its producer, as being completely interchangeable.

Mr. Grossman: I want to disagree with the minister in asking the final supplementary. First, his own drug quality committee has said it is not interchangeable. Second -- and the minister may not be aware of this, but he should be -- the federal government, through the health protection branch, has confirmed that the drug is not equivalent. Third, no action that has been brought with regard to this drug stops him from following the advice of his own committee or of the federal government.

Why has the minister not put out an addendum to the drug formulary to tell the thousands of seniors who are taking these pills every day that both his own ministry and the federal government have found they are not interchangeable? I remind the minister that when it came to an allegation with regard to wine, his government moved in 24 hours. When it comes to thousands of drugs for seniors, he does nothing for at least a year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to disagree with the honourable gentleman when he makes his analysis of this problem with respect to the wine and the fact that we have done nothing. If one wants to take it to the situation where he feels it should have been done on 24 hours' notice, he should have done it.

Mr. Grossman: We did.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, the member's party did not do it. He should be very careful about how he indicates his actions, because he always overestimates the impact of some decisions that were not completely taken on his part.

Let me tell the member that I will come back to this House and provide a more complete statement with respect to the controversy surrounding apo-ibuprofen as it reflects not only some of the indications the honourable gentleman has made but also with respect to some of the concerns that have been raised by both the producer of that product and the originator of the product Motrin, which was the original product.

Mr. Grossman: It will be thousands of pills later before the minister reports to this House. It if was wine, it would be off the shelves in an hour.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Wrong again.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: That is the record. The member should tell the seniors in Niagara Falls that it is okay.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In answering an earlier question from the Leader of the Opposition, I left the impression that I did not feel we could withdraw the drug ibuprofen from the Drug Benefit Formulary on a unilateral basis. In fact, I was mistaken. Having contacted my ministry officials, I wish to make it very clear that we could move to take ibuprofen from the formulary. Equally as mistaken was the opposition leader, inasmuch as the federal authorities have given a licence to the generic manufacturer to produce ibuprofen. They have given a certificate of interchangeability to the manufacturer of that drug so it is now licensed by the feds as an interchangeable product. The Leader of the Opposition was mistaken.

In addition to that, the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee is awaiting information from the federal authorities so that we are looking after this request --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully. The member was within his rights in getting up to give a personal explanation of what he had said. He has done that, so we will go on with the next question.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. He was in his place earlier. Is he speaking with John Kruger?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Ask me.

Mr. Grossman: Okay, I will ask the Premier the question. I had the opportunity on Saturday to meet with members of the United Auto Workers local in Kingston to listen to what they had to say about their concerns over their jobs at the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

I talked to one worker who was in the process of moving his family from London but now has stopped that move because he feels his continued employment at UTDC is in jeopardy. He now sees his wife and children one weekend a month. This whole situation of human suffering has been caused by the uncertainties due to the government's decision to sell UTDC.

Can the Premier tell that worker and the hundreds of others I met with on Saturday at UTDC the exact state of the government's determination to sell UTDC out from under them and take away their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assume my colleague opposite told the worker, whose plight he mentioned in this House, that the insecurity with respect to the jobs is because his former government cancelled the intermediate capacity transit system. It was his government that did it and caused the job rationalization.

I assume the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was as honourable then, as he indicated on various other occasions; that he stood up and told him the facts surrounding the job rationalization that is currently going on at UTDC. I assume he did that because he would not want to leave any mistaken impression about what his government did and what we are trying to do to salvage the situation. I am sure he would not want that.

Let me go on. I will answer the question the Leader of the Opposition wanted to ask. We are, as I said before, discussing a potential sale with, at this point, three potentially interested parties, as well as groups of employees.

One employee came and had some discussions. He was not exactly an employee but someone who was associated with UTDC from the Kingston end of the operation. There were some representatives from the Thunder Bay end of the operation who had some concerns about jobs and were potentially interested in putting forward a bid. All those groups are being talked to.

Nothing has been signed at this moment, as the member is very well aware. I am sure he is aware and I am sure he told the employees that he talked to that if there is a sale, and that is by no means predetermined, then it would be done to protect jobs and not let this rationalization caused by the member's former government to continue until it was rationalized down to nothing.

Mr. Grossman: I was fair enough to tell them that the Premier was prepared to guarantee half of their jobs, as indicated in the letter he sent to the prospective purchasers. I shall also say they indicated to me there is a long list of companies in the area that are concerned about layoffs, not because of the project the Premier is talking about, not because of the 100 jobs that were affected by the GO advanced light rail transit situation, but because of the potential sale of UTDC.

If the Premier disagrees with that analysis, perhaps he might find some time to go not only to Vancouver and open the project there but also to visit with the UAW in Kingston. He may want to share with them his opinion as to why 79 firms in the Kingston area alone are facing layoffs, nine from the Belleville area and three from Napanee, all because of the fear over the potential sale of UTDC.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: Would the Premier be prepared to indicate to us, and table in this House, any and all studies done with regard to the potential impact of the sale of UTDC and the implications of guaranteeing only one of every two jobs currently in place at UTDC? What studies does he have?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend opposite continues to make wild and extravagant statements about this, and other things as well, that border on the irresponsible. He should read back in Hansard and ask himself whether he really wanted to say those things.

I have told him in a very forthright way what we know and what we are looking at in this situation. He tells me that 79 firms are going to close down or lay off people because we are contemplating a sale that is designed to enhance employment and to allow UTDC to grow. He and I know the assertions he has made in this House are rubbish.

Mr. Rae: The Premier will surely recognize that the length of time he and the government have allowed speculation to carry on has contributed to people's sense of insecurity and has affected the marketability of certain products. The Premier knows that is the way it works. That is the consequence of the government having let this thing hang out for so long with such a degree of fuzziness.

Specifically, is the Premier aware of a telegram, of which I have received a copy, that I understand has been sent by Mr. White, the president of the auto workers in Canada, on behalf of locals in Thunder Bay and Kingston asking for a meeting prior to any government decision with respect to a sale? Can the Premier give us a guarantee that the real travesty that has occurred with respect to de Havilland will not be allowed to recur with respect to UTDC and that everybody will be kept fully informed before and not after any decision is made with respect to UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member can see the inherent contradiction in his question. On the one hand he criticizes me for discussing these matters and the government's intentions in public; and on the other hand he says we should discuss everything and he wants to be fully informed of what is going on all the time, presumably he wants the deal negotiated in public. He cannot have it both ways.

One of the realities is that we are living with public scrutiny. We recognize that and we have been very forthcoming with the people of this province with respect to our views on privatization. In addition, we have taken the view of former Minister of Transportation and Communications James Snow; I believe he was trying to privatize it. The previous government was making moves along those lines. I have talked with the board and the management and there is a general consensus that is the way to go at this point to allow UTDC to grow and continue to create employment, with research and technology jobs here in Ontario. We are following that up.

When the member asks me a question in this House, as he has every right to do, I am prepared to tell him the status of and where we are in those discussions. As I have said, it appears that there are three serious bidders at the moment. Although that has not been formalized or signed, there have been some discussions with all of them. If a group of employees comes along that is interested and has a proposal that is better in the areas of securing jobs and research and development, is better with respect to the cash offer to the taxpayers of this province, and is going to help that company grow, we will be interested. That is the stage at which we are at the moment.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is standing in this House in the calm and deliberate way he has been schooled to do. Meanwhile, on Saturday afternoon there were workers who took the day to come to a meeting because they are frightened and scared about their futures. They have not seen their families in a long time. In some cases, they have bought homes depending on the future of UTDC and now see their life investment dwindling away.

If the Premier thinks some of the allegations we have made here, while factual, are in his view irresponsible, I tell him there is a bunch of frightened and scared people in Kingston, and not he, the local member or anyone from his office or UTDC has found his way to address those frightened and scared workers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Does he today give a complete and full undertaking, without being cute about the words, that all the information shared with Bombardier, which the Premier trusted it to keep confidential, will be shared with solicitors for the workers at UTDC, at VentureTrans, on a confidential basis to allow them to make an offer?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I forgot to answer a question earlier and I would like to do so. I have not received a telegram from Bob White. As far as I know, the staff is not aware of one. However, I will phone him this afternoon after question period, see if he has something in mind, and I should be very happy to meet with him and his representatives immediately.

To answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition, Bombardier has not received any confidential information and neither has anyone else at this point. As he knows, the process goes like this: there is a prequalification process in which serious buyers are separated from ones who are not. Then a deposit of some type or other will be put up and those serious people will be invited to look at the confidential information, which is engineering and that type of thing, confirming that what is held out to exist does exist.

Indeed, if the member's group of employees from either Kingston or Thunder Bay are serious and want to make a bid, they will be able to operate on exactly the same terms and conditions as Bombardier. We want the process to be open and fair. As I said earlier, there are at least two other companies in addition to Bombardier which are potentially very seriously interested. If there are more, they will be welcomed into it.

Mr. Grossman: If the Premier has not given them any confidential information, why does he not give it to us? If it is not confidential, why does he not give it to us?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is because the member would not understand it.

Mr. Epp: The member had it for 42 years.

Mr. Rae: Forty-two years of arrogance does not justify another six months of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question with respect to private pensions. Is he aware that at the same time as his administration is refusing to consider the possibility of the indexation of private pensions for ordinary contributors, in 1984-85 his ministry approved the payout of $176 million to 70 currently active plans, to employers, which was money paid into the plans on a noncontributory basis on behalf of employees? Is he aware of those payouts and does he approve of them?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The payouts were made, and it does not make any difference whether I approve of them. However, I can tell the member the whole area of pensions is under review. We have the Pension Commission of Ontario doing it. We are working in conjunction with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). We are looking at that.

Mr. Rae: While the minister is looking at that, the ordinary person is being ripped off in spades and the minister is sitting there doing nothing about it. That is what is happening with respect to pension plans. How does the minister feel about the fact his government is refusing to index pensions at the same time as it is forking out $176 million to employers who have made those contributions on behalf of employees? Does the minister think money paid into a plan by an employer on behalf of an employee belongs to that employee or not?

Mr. Kwinter: Yes, I think it belongs to that employee and I am saying we are reviewing it.

Mr. Rae: If the minister thinks it belongs to them, why is he allowing the employers to take it out of their pockets legally? It is legalized theft and the minister is sitting there doing nothing about it. How can the minister sit there and justify refusing to allow indexation at the same time as he is allowing a ripoff of those surpluses which belong to the workers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I repeat that at present we are reviewing that situation and if it has some merit and justification, we shall adjust it.

Mr. Andrewes: That is a lesson in Economics 100.

Mr. Rae: The members of the Conservative Party sat there and did nothing about it for a generation so they have no right to speak on it at all. My God, they sat still and did nothing about it. We raised these matters with Dr. Elgie years ago and they did nothing about it.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question with respect to the insurance companies for which he has been such an avid advocate the last while. In his statement the other day he said, in addition to the excessive price competition that produced the so-called rate-cutting wars of the early 1980s, that I think most of us missed but nevertheless I am sure were of interest to those involved, the second cause of the crisis affecting the industry is what he described as low interest rates that have reduced insurance industry investment revenues.

Is the minister aware that in 1982, according to the latest Statistics Canada figures -- and these are third-quarter figures I am comparing -- total investment income was $279.5 million, in 1983 it was $292.8 million, in 1984 it was $325.3 million and in 1985 it was $343.8 million? I ask the minister, is $343.8 million more than $279.5 million or not?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member of the third party is using broad, overall insurance figures to justify his argument. He should be aware that of the approximately 150 insurance companies that are in business, only 20 are in the liability field and they are the ones having the major problems.

Mr. Rae: These figures I am giving the minister are from property and casualty insurers. Is he telling us that $343.8 million is less than or more than $279.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have already answered that it was more. I am saying that the people who are in the property and liability insurance business cover the whole spectrum of the insurance field. There is no problem at present with insuring one's home, articles or things of that kind. The problem is in liability insurance. That is the area that is a problem.

Mr. Grossman: When the minister is expressing concern about overall figures, does he not agree that one of the problems here is that the insurance companies may be overreacting to a couple of large settlements and projecting from those one or two large settlements the implications right across the board? Has he taken the opportunity to sit down with the insurance companies and ask them to moderate their increase because they may be overreacting to those two or three individual cases?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I met with the representatives of the Insurance Bureau of Canada this morning and we discussed exactly that problem. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) should know that when we are talking about these large awards, they represent fewer than one per cent of the awards. The big problem is that under the Family Law Reform Act and some of these other things, the basic awards are increasing dramatically. Those things are happening and they are creating some problems.

I have asked the task force and the insurance industry to take a look at what they are doing. They are going to examine it to see if that is the problem.

Mr. Swart: In view of the fact that there has been a substantial increase in interest income for the insurance companies and a substantial increase in net income -- their third-quarter net income this year is $137 million, up 30 per cent from the same period in the previous year and up 22 per cent from the previous quarter -- if the minister's intent is to go ahead with the silly task force that is only going to provide information he ought to already know, why does he not impose a freeze on the rates until that task force reports?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Under the existing legislation, the only control we have over insurance rates is on the Facility Association. Before we can impose any kind of freeze we have to bring in some legislation, and we are going to look at the task force recommendations and act on them.

2:40 p.m.

ROOMERS AND BOARDERS

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. The minister will be aware that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) undertook on December 11, 1985, at a meeting of the Rumours Group, which is a group of roomers and boarders in Toronto, to fight for the inclusion of roomers and lodgers under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Can the minister tell this House what steps he has taken in response to that commitment by the Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member will be aware that we expressed a concern about the protection of roomers and boarders in that respect. I am setting up a task force immediately to look into the problems that roomers and boarders face. It is not easy to bring in legislation unless we understand fully the implications of the problems they face.

Mr. O'Connor: The minister will understand that there are buildings in downtown Toronto containing apartments subject to the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, side-by-side with those containing rooms lodging roomers and lodgers that are not subject to the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act. These roomers can be thrown out on a moment's notice, without the usual notice, and their rents can be increased by more than the four per cent permitted for apartments.

The Attorney General gave a commitment that he would include those people under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Has the minister acted on that commitment? When does he intend to do so?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, we are concerned about roomers and boarders. We would love to have included them in our policy. We realize how serious the problem is and that it is not an easy one.

The task force will be looking at all the implications of that. I am not in a position to give an answer concerning the legal implications the member is asking about. If he wants to ask the Attorney General, he may do so.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure one of the reasons the minister was reluctant to include roomers and boarders under the tenant protection legislation was he was afraid of the historic opposition the Conservative Party has had to it. However, now this opposition has been lifted and the Conservatives are on side, and it is obvious all three parties agree that roomers and boarders are entitled to the same kind of tenant protection as any other tenants, may I ask the minister simply to prepare amendments that can be brought forward and passed ever so quickly -- unanimously, in fact?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can give the honourable member the assurance we will prepare legislation to include roomers and boarders. I take a view different from that of my honourable friend. I will include the members over there. They are very learned and very informed about what not to do, and I will ask them to give me that information.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have another question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In preface, I will say that after last week even he must have come to realize that the insurance problems I started to raise with him last August 26 and that he has ignored since then were very real.

Today I want to ask him about this horrendous problem as it pertains to the trucking industry. He will meet very soon with the Ontario Trucking Association, and it will ask for a loan guarantee either to purchase the United Canada Insurance Co. or to set up its own nonprofit co-operative scheme. Will the minister give, and I use these words advisedly, a favourable response to that request?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have told members in the past that the United Canada Insurance Co. is under negotiation. I had expected to meet with the truckers this afternoon at four o'clock. I have just been informed they have cancelled the meeting pending further information.

To answer the honourable member's question, I cannot tell him what I am going to do for them because they have not asked yet. I will give them every consideration, and when I meet with them I will do everything I can to help them.

Mr. Swart: The minister is just as vague on this today as he has been on a hundred other questions that have been asked of him in the last six months.

Is it not true that the minister has a letter from a Raymond Cope, the general manager of OTA, dated December 4, in which he made it very clear that they will approach him for a guaranteed loan? if so, will he now give this House the assurance that he will look with favour on that request?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I just said I would look with favour at their request. They have not asked for it yet. When they do, I will look with favour at it.

Mr. Gregory: I heard the minister's answer last week when I asked him a similar question in regard to United Canada. The member to our left seems to have got much the same answer I got, which was no answer at all.

Is the minister telling me his course of action for insurance for truckers is to depend entirely on the consummation of the sale of that insurance company? Does he not feel he has a responsibility to investigate other insurance companies handling this type of product, rather than depending on just one?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: At present there are three companies that provide insurance for truckers, the largest of which is United Canada.

In the meantime, we have made arrangements with the Facility Association to cover any trucker who requires it. We do not know what the resolution of United Canada will be. On Saturday, I spoke to Barbara McDougall, who is working on it, and we hope to have a resolution. Everybody agrees that if United Canada can be saved and can become a viable insurer, it will solve the problem. That is the area we are looking at.

In the meantime, when the people who are trying to buy it approach me, not only the truckers but also another group that is trying to buy it, we will look at their requests with favour and try to help them out. I cannot anticipate what I will do for them before they ask me for that help.

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

Hon. Ms. Munro: In response to question of the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) regarding the amount by which requests for multicultural service program grants exceeded the available funds, the program was oversubscribed by $916,000. At the same time, I would like to point out that historically, requests have always exceeded the allocation. I am pleased that we have been able to serve, through this program alone, 76 organizations this year, as compared to 58 organizations last year.

TRADE OFFICE

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Muskoka.

[Applause]

Mr. F. S. Miller: My retirement is over.

In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), I would like to ask a question of the Premier. He received a letter from the mayor of Philadelphia and a letter from a senior representative of the House of the state of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Pilkey received a letter from the AFL-CIO, about the closure of the ministry's trade office in Philadelphia a scant year after it opened.

In view of the fact the budget of that office was about C$220,000 and in its first year it had $27 million in assigned-for sales in a state where we do $3.5 billion worth of mutual trade, why did the government close the office?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Would my honourable friend like the job? I might reopen it.

The member will be aware we have had several changes in the orientation of our trade offices. We closed the office in Brussels and the office in San Francisco, which was redundant with respect to the Los Angeles office, and we felt the Philadelphia office could easily be handled through New York and Boston.

We believe the limited resources for trade development should be put into new areas, particularly the Pacific Rim and some of the areas of the emerging world, where in the long term the taxpayers of this province will get a much better yield. That is why we made the judgement we made. We felt all the things being accomplished through that trade office could be accomplished through New York and Boston.

We have a number of offices in the United States, as the member knows. We will not miss anything. We will save money and be able to expand in other areas that will yield a much higher return over a long period of time.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. F. S. Miller: In a case where one has a market of $3.5 billion, $220,000 is not a big issue. I do not think it is either-or with the other eastern rim issues. If we look at the government's own policy of opposing free trade with the United States and the alternatives, we see one of the alternatives has to be to work to reduce nontariff barriers and gain access for Ontario and Canadian goods to the American market. That is the only viable alternative.

As the Premier knows, that office had been successful in seeing a Buy American act changed to a Buy North American act and easing problems with the steel industry. How can the government have two such contradictory programs, close an office and still oppose free trade?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, I think my honourable friend is oversimplifying this thing quite dramatically.

Part of our strategy is to put more emphasis on a multinational round. We believe one of the structural problems we have in Ontario, indeed our country has, is we are too dependent as a country on trade with the United States. Of course that speaks to the problems we have right now; that is why we are looking to some of the emerging areas of the world today.

Believe me, I am mindful of the responsibilities we have in Washington to put our case forward. I have been there, as has the member, to put forward the case eloquently. I am mindful of the problems in the steel area he speaks to, but I think we can accomplish all of that. With respect to the member's figure of $220,000, I take that seriously. I think we have an obligation to treat every penny of taxpayers' money with great respect.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier tell us the logic of closing that office at a time when we are not only attempting to deal with the problem which has been described by the member for Muskoka, but also when we are also attempting to convince midwestern American states, of which Pennsylvania is certainly an important component, to move with us not only with respect to trade issues but also on the environment, particularly as it affects the Great Lakes and as it affects acid rain?

What is the logic of that cut? Was the cut the consequence of some considered approach that came up with respect to advice that was given to him, or was it simply done as a whim at the very end of the budget process because the government felt it had to show it was being tough with respect to cuts and it took one here and took one there, because that is exactly what it looks like?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure the honourable member that is not the case. It was part of an overall strategy with respect to trade that I articulated a moment earlier in response to the member for Muskoka, because we do feel we have to put our resources into the areas that have the greatest potential over the long term.

Let me just mention another point. The leader of the third party suggested we should be lobbying on acid rain and other things. This was not a lobbying office. This was a trade office. If he is suggesting an Ontario House in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh or somewhere else to do that kind of thing, then so be it. These offices are essentially responsible for trade and unless we considerably increase the resources and turn them into lobbying operations, it is not going to happen that way. That is what our New York and Washington operations are for. We have a lot more work to do in Washington than we have done in the past. There is no question about that, but I think the member will see that our strategy is relevant to the long term and the real opportunities of this province. We are concentrating on dealing with those fundamental problems rather than just patching it up here and there.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last July, the minister said that prior to the 1984 increases in the minimum wage the Tories had done nothing for three years, that this had put Ontario behind most other provinces and that it had also hurt those at the minimum wage because they did not get a retroactive settlement when there was an increase. As another 15 months have gone by since the last increase and we are again falling behind the other provinces, will the minister tell us what happened to his July commitment to bring an increase before cabinet before or by this past fall?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not sure my honourable friend is correct that we have fallen substantially behind a number of provinces. The only two provinces that are ahead of Ontario are Saskatchewan, which I believe is at $4.50 an hour; and Manitoba, which is at $4.30 or $4.35 an hour. The Quebec government has indicated it is reviewing its $4 an hour minimum wage and the federal government has recently moved to $4; I believe that was at the beginning of this month.

The matter of the minimum wage and its appropriate level is under review. In a number of meetings I have held with business and labour, the government found that one of the things requested, particularly by the tourism industry. was that we give industry some lead time. l am sure the member is aware that many tourist operations post rates for the coming tourist season well in advance, and we did not feel it was an inappropriate or unreasonable request.

Our review of the minimum wage is ongoing and is very active. I agree with his sense that more regular increases in the minimum wage would be appropriate, particularly as there is no retroactivity. Business agrees that more regular and smaller increases would be more useful to the small business community.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware that workers in Ontario would today need $4.35 an hour just to match what they were getting in 1981? As they are earning less than $8,400 a year, is he prepared to assist them with an appropriate increase and by indexation to ensure there is a small measure of fairness in the future?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend provides an interesting figure by going back to 1981. One can choose, as I am sure he knows, any appropriate date one wishes.

The matter of an increase is under review. I think the time frame for a review ought to be shortened to annually or thereabouts because there is no retroactivity. Obviously, these reviews would have to take place in the economic climate that prevails. As I am sure my friend knows, an increase that was inappropriately large or in a time of economic downturn could have a serious effect on jobs, particularly jobs for students, who in many cases are the main recipients of the minimum wage, and jobs for women, who represent two thirds of the minimum wage force.

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to hear the minister take into consideration the requests made of him by certain industries, including the tourism industry, about the question of lead time. It is a change from the position he took in the ministry estimates. When does the minister propose an increase and how much lead time does he propose to give those industries?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I suggested to the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that the matter is under active review. I believe the industry knows that. As recently as this morning, I met with representatives from Canada's Wonderland. When they arrived at my office at 9 a.m., they were well aware that the minister and the government had taken the view that a review of the minimum wage ought to yield some change at an appropriate point. Their view is that the change ought to take place in the fall. I noted for them that the last time the previous government made a change, it made it in March 1984, to the tune of 35 cents, approximately a 10 per cent increase, followed by another 15-cent increase in October 1984. So there is no magic to the time of year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: However, the fall appears to be the one that is most favourable.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I am very pleased to see the minister has extended the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program; however, I would like to ask him a question. More than five months ago, he heralded the announcement of the OFFIRR program and stated it would help some 15,000 farmers immediately. The program has received a phenomenal amount of advertising and publicity from many different sources during that period. How does he account for the very poor uptake, the disappointing response from farmers to date?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Benefiting from my schooling in being calm, cool and collected, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the honourable member back to the Legislature. If indeed he was ill, I sincerely hope he has had a complete recovery. We did miss him, though.

In answer to his question, I will tell him that one of the reasons the farmers have not taken up the program to the extent we thought they would was the distrust farmers have for government programs because of option C of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, which the previous government introduced and which got many farmers into trouble.

I want the member to know the program has been far more accepted than any program the previous administration ever introduced. They never had 6,000 people apply for any program they introduced; we have had 6,000 people in five months apply for OFFIRR.

There are a number of other reasons the farmers have not taken up the program. One of them was a late harvest. As the member well knows, a lot of farmers were having difficulty getting their crops harvested, and when they are out with their combines they are not going to be spending a whole lot of time filling out forms, some of which are complicated. There is no question about that; some of the forms they have to complete are very complicated. We must have complete forms to ascertain how much money these farmers qualify for.

Those are the reasons the farmers have not been as quick to take up the program as I had hoped.

Mr. Stevenson: I am glad to be back in the Legislature this week. One cannot always plan the dates of deaths in one's family. If the minister was trying to be funny about it, believe me, it was not very funny.

It is quite true that the uptake so far is exactly 40 per cent of what the minister had hoped for five months ago. Would he not agree that if he had increased the staff in the local agricultural offices to work with farmers at a time of severe agricultural stress and assist with the completion of these forms, the number of applications would have been substantially higher than it is today?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, we do not feel we are that far behind in processing these applications. They are coming in, as I say, at a rate of 100 to 200 a day and we are expediting the process. I do not think we are the cause of the farmers not receiving their money to this point.

I have to correct the figure the member used. Never did I get up and say 15,000 farmers were going to be helped by this program. The figure has been 10,000 farmers. We have received applications from 6,000 over five months. That is not a bad average.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He will recall Bill 39, providing for the general election of the regional chairman of Hamilton West and for a majority of regional appointees on the police board, was passed on November 7 by this House without a dissenting vote and ordered for committee of the whole.

Will the minister tell us whether he will be proceeding in this session with the bill, as instructed by the House; and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I assure the honourable member that Bill 39 will be back before the House.

Mr. Allen: I thank the minister for that answer and for his assurance. I remind him and the House that in the regional vote on the referendum on that subject last fall, overall support for that measure was 77,259 to 13,836. The minister will certainly gain the plaudits of our region if he brings that back to the House, and I ask him only whether he can be a bit more precise about the date.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have spoken to the regional chairperson and I can tell the member only that Bill 39 will be back before the House. I cannot give him an exact date, but I hope it will be within the next six weeks.

Mr. Dean: I would like to be a little more precise about the intentions of the minister. I presume he fully realizes there are some downsides to what looks like a good, democratic suggestion. Has he actually considered fully the implications that such a move would have, not only in Hamilton-Wentworth but also in other regions of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can assure the honourable member that I have spoken to other regional chairpersons and that my ministry is open to any option or to any new mode of election or representation for regional governments. The responsibility rests with the regional municipality, and it should not be dictated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

EMERGENCY FACILITY

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Health. This party would like to try for the third time to get some answers from the minister about the situation at the Willett Hospital in Paris. Quite apart from the history of this issue, of which the minister is aware, he now has a letter endorsed by 34 doctors in Brant county that reads in part: "The situation at the Willett Hospital is now at total breakdown point and patient care is suffering."

I would ask the minister which of the following three courses of action he is going to take. Is he going to act on the recommendations of the Noonan report? Is he going to carry through with a public inquiry, as he promised to do when he was in Paris in October? Or is he going to do nothing and allow the situation to continue to deteriorate?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As the honourable member has said, I was at the Willett Hospital in October, at which time I indicated there would be a public inquiry. After I had visited that institution, it was brought to my attention that the local people wanted to work through and try to settle their differences in the community. I said I was very pleased they wanted to do so.

I have allowed them an opportunity. In fact, I have met not only with the past mayor of the town of Paris but also with the new mayor of Paris, both of whom requested that I allow the council an opportunity to work in concert with the board and with new board members to try to come up with a workable solution.

The problem that has arisen, I understand, is that I will be in receipt very shortly of a resolution of the council indicating it cannot come up with a local solution and urging me to go ahead with the inquiry. I am prepared to do that.

The letter the member speaks about comments on several things, including the fact that they disagree with the appointment of the head of the medical staff at Willett, and a number of other items have to be addressed that do not alone comment directly on the operation of the hospital.

Let me be very clear, however, that as soon as I receive word from the council -- and I understand it is coming -- that it has been unable to find a local solution, I will be prepared to move ahead with a public inquiry and to work along with the community under the auspices of that public inquiry to try to work out solutions to the difficulties in Paris.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: I thank the minister for his answer and I am very encouraged that he is prepared to look at a public inquiry. However, I would like to pursue the concern expressed by members of the Brant County Medical Association about the new chief of staff at that hospital. As best we can determine, the sole criterion for his selection was that he is a former candidate for the Liberal Party. Will the minister undertake to consult with the doctors on staff at the Paris Willett Hospital to ensure that a doctor is placed in charge of that hospital in whom the other physicians in the county have confidence, and not just some Liberal hack?

Mr. Andrewes: Patronage, the pork barrel; here it comes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The choice of medical staff was not made by this minister or by anyone from this government. It was not made by anybody connected with the Ministry of Health. It was made at the local level. I do not know how it was arrived at. I know there is some concern expressed about that person. I did not know that person was a former Liberal candidate. If he was, he showed obvious good sense.

I can tell the gentlemen who are concerned about politics in this matter that there are no politics being played with this. I have found, in consultation with the local member and with others, that one of the best people to work with to try to come up with a local solution to this problem is the former mayor of the town of Paris. I endorsed his promotion and appointment as a member of the board to help work in a reasonable, sensible and very community-oriented way to find a solution to that situation. I do not think anyone would use that appointment as an example of political patronage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to dismiss out of hand any indication that member would make that I am playing politics. I categorically deny that I had anything to do with the choice for that position.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: For the record, I would like the minister to be aware that another former Liberal candidate is telling people in Paris that he will be the new provincial appointee --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Andrewes: The barrel grows.

Mr. Bennett: Without any staves.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure we consider all members honourable. I challenge the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) to step outside the House and make the comments he made about the director of the Paris hospital outside the House.

Mr. Davis: Why does the member not sit over there and put a red tie on? The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is going to be leaving pretty soon.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VOTE RECOUNTS

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am sure the minister is aware that since the municipal elections in November, a number of recounts have resulted in changes in incumbency, have shown gross inaccuracies in the counting and have undermined public confidence in the municipal counting process.

Does the minister agree that where this has occurred, a municipal council should have the authority to do additional recounts where the outcome of the original votes is very close and where the municipal council deems it in the public interest to clarify the situation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am quite aware not only of the problems that were initiated in the past election but also of those that have been going on for a number of years. I have spoken to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to help me in improving the Election Act and I hope a task force including AMO will be presenting a full report on it very shortly.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet in the evening of Thursday, January 16, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. D. S. Cooke be substituted for Mr. Lupusella in the private members' debate on January 16, 1986, and that Mr. Lupusella be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence.

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. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to add my comments to the many that have been heard so far on Bill 54. Let me be very quick to admit that I do not have a full understanding of the pharmaceutical business, the chemical business or anything else; however, I do have a fair understanding of the relationship between my constituents in Mississauga East and their local pharmacists. This is where we seem to be --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the honourable member, but there are very large numbers of private conversations that seem quite firm and noisy. I do not know whether they are all necessary, but I ask the members to refrain from their private conversations and listen to the member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You should have spoken more slowly and the Liberals on the other side would have understood.

In any community, and mine is no exception, the relationship between a citizen and his pharmacist is not unlike the relationship between a citizen and his doctor. It is based on a feeling of trust between the citizen and the pharmacist. Otherwise, people could not go to pharmacists to get prescriptions and feel they were not receiving something that might be harmful. There has to be the basic trust that the pharmacist has the knowledge to prepare drugs. The citizen must have confidence in him.

I see this bill as being somewhat insulting to pharmacists in that it insinuates that they have been getting rich at the expense of the government and citizens. I do not think that is the case -- we do not meet too many millionaire pharmacists; there are a lot more millionaire realtors, I suppose -- but that seems to be what is coming out of this.

The most important thing that has come out of this debate is the realization that many pharmacists want nothing more than an opportunity to present their case to a standing committee of this Legislature. That has been the outstanding request I have received from all the pharmacists I have talked to in my riding. Many of my caucus colleagues have expressed the same thing, that the pharmacists want an opportunity to bring their concerns to the Legislature by way of standing committee, so they will know at first hand that somebody at least has heard those concerns.

Mr. Haggerty: The member was not listening. That is what the minister indicated in his speech.

Mr. Gregory: The member for Erie should know I have heard that.

3:20 p.m.

I have a letter from the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) in front of me which includes a list of the groups he sees as satisfactory to come before this committee. He goes on to say, "A total of six sittings would probably satisfy the time requirements of these groups in order for their comments to be heard and taken into consideration." That is fine and that is what the minister has suggested to his House leader. However, I am suggesting to the member for Erie that I do not see anywhere in this where an individual pharmacist is going to be included and allowed to come forward. I see many of the associations.

Mr. Haggerty: They said in the House it would revert to a standing committee of the Legislature for public debate.

Mr. Gregory: My argument is not with the member for Erie. My argument is not an argument at all. I simply request of the Minister of Health that he reconsider his rather rigid position and grant the same consideration to pharmacists that his government was ready to grant to the various boards of education on another bill.

I am not suggesting for one minute that the debate on the hearings on this bill should go on for ever or even for months. I am merely suggesting that the minister compile a list from each member of this House of the number of pharmacists who have requested to come forward on an individual basis or as a group of five or 10 -- who cares? -- and allow them to come forward and be heard before the standing committee. That is what is being requested.

Simply because the bill states that certain things are just and fair for the community, and supposedly for the pharmacists, the drug companies and everybody else, does not necessarily mean that is entirely so. Things were pointed out in the brief submitted by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. It came up with many questions and irregularities. I assume the member for Erie has read that. I hope he has. I read it with some interest and recognize that these people --

Mr. Haggerty: I am waiting for second reading to be completed so it can go to the standing committee.

Mr. Gregory: I am glad the member is filling in for the minister. Obviously, the minister does not feel it is worth while to listen to this debate. It is wonderful that he has the member for Erie to make his comments for him. Perhaps the member understands it better than the minister does; I do not know.

The brief from the Ontario Pharmacists' Association points out many concerns. Are we going to say: "You have concerns, but so what? We are not going to listen to you. We are not going to give you the opportunity to present them directly to a standing committee." Perhaps the minister and the House leader between them could agree to be a little less stringent and a little more open. I keep hearing about open government from that side of the House. It is some open government when they will not allow a very upstanding and reputable profession to come in and comment on a bill that affects its income.

Mr. Haggerty: No; the member is wrong about that.

Mr. Gregory: He says I am wrong. All I have is a letter --

Mr. Haggerty: The minister has indicated that as soon as there is second reading it will go to a standing committee of the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Erie will have his chance to speak.

Mr. Gregory: The member is proving a little difficult, but that is not unusual. I understand what he is telling me, that all we have to do is give it second reading and it will be referred to a standing committee. I was not born yesterday. I know that. It says that. However, it also says that the minister wants to limit those hearings to a total of six sittings. That could not be any more clear. It is over his signature. I assume it is the same Murray J. Elston who is the minister. He says. "A total of six sittings would probably satisfy the time requirements of these groups in order for their comments to be heard and taken into consideration."

To the member, in the absence of the minister --

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am here and I am listening.

Mr. Gregory: The minister is here now; very good. I will not repeat what I said. I am sure he was outside in the lobby listening carefully to my words. All that we on this side of the House are asking is that he be a little more open-minded and realize that the pharmacists are interested in making their case.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows that the reason the letter was written was because his people asked me to give a list of people I thought might be interested in being there.

Mr. Gregory: Can I assume from that --

Hon. Mr. Elston: He is absolutely misconstruing the whole content of the letter.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member might address his remarks to the chair and ignore the interjections --

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows the committee will be ruling on them in the manner it usually does.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: The minister is developing some very bad habits. One of them is that he refuses to listen to what anybody else has to say. This is not unusual from that side of the House. This so-called open government refuses even to listen to what a member is saying, never mind the pharmacists out there. They could not care less.

If the minister is listening at all -- and I rather doubt he is -- he would have heard me suggest to him that all that is required is for him to stand up in this House and say he will not limit the number of sittings of that standing committee on this bill. If he stood up and said that, he might find a little difference in the attitude over here. However, he is not ready to do it because he has made up his mind, notwithstanding this one letter listing the groups that will come to him, that six sittings will be enough. Those are not our words; they are his.

Obviously, I am not going to get any reaction from that minister on this. He is not going to budge from his position. That is fine. He is going to have to answer to the pharmacists, I expect.

The whole thrust of this bill, as I see it, is to discuss the value of medication in terms of costs only and not in terms of the therapeutic value of these drugs. I suppose that in health care some limits have to be put on the cost of any program. I can understand that and I am not suggesting for one moment that the present legislation is adequate in respect of what is being paid to the pharmacists. Maybe they are making too much; maybe they are not making enough. However, it bothers me when the only consideration the minister is ready to look at is the cost factor.

He is very quick to suggest that generic drugs are fine, even though I do not think any doctor or any pharmacist would guarantee that one so-called generic drug is identical in content to the original drug the physician wished to prescribe. There might be subtle differences.

I do not know and I am darned sure a patient does not know, particularly if he is elderly and, like me, has no training in pharmaceutical matters, chemistry or anything else. I do not know that the patient has the ability to judge that. He is totally dependent, but not on the pharmacist, because the pharmacist does not get a chance to state his preference. He reads the prescription from the doctor and then is bound, according to this act, to submit the lowest-cost drug. Never mind the drug that is going to benefit the person the most; cost is the only consideration.

I think the pharmacists individually or in small groups would like to comment on this to a standing committee; they would like to be heard. We give this opportunity to many other people. I keep hearing about the open Liberal government over there, where everybody is going to be heard. However, inherent in one of the most major pieces of legislation it brings in is the fact that they will not be heard unless they happen to belong to one of the select groups that I see in this letter. I guess if you belong to one of those groups you will be heard, or someone will speak for you.

3:30 p.m.

However, on this list I do not see any pharmacists whom I know from Mississauga, if in fact there are any from any other community. There are not. I will address the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) because he is probably the only minister in the room at the moment. What is so wrong with allowing people whose professions are now being attacked to come before a standing committee to state their case? Is there anything wrong with that? Not a darned thing. The minister agrees with me, I assume, and will use his vast influence with the Minister of Health to convince him he should say that. The minister is in agreement, is he not? He is not. He is not listening. He is off somewhere else.

Hon. Mr. Curling: No, I am listening.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The member should speak to the Speaker.

Mr. Gregory: I am speaking to the Speaker, but through him to the Minister of Housing, who is one of the few ministers in the House at the moment. The Minister of Health is there, in the back row.

Interjection.

Mr. Gregory: Why does the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) not go ride in his limo?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the member the member for Essex South is not in his seat. There should be no comments when a member is not in his seat.

Mr. Gregory: I am a little disappointed to note there is not one member of the New Democratic Party in the House. I can understand, in a way, that they are not listening to me speak, but it also takes away from the quorum. With the New Democrats not here, we probably do not have a quorum. There is not one, but I will not ask the clerk to look. They have trouble understanding anything at that end of the House anyway, so it is probably just as well they are not here.

Another point on the bill which disturbs me somewhat is that pharmacists are protected from any liability arising from a drug that is substituted. I do not wish pharmacists any ill will, and I agree they should be protected, but who is liable, whether by a misunderstanding of the prescription or whatever, if a pharmacist substitutes a drug and it does not do quite what the other drug was supposed to do; or, worse still, it does some things to the patient which should not be done? Who becomes liable then? I do not understand that. I guess the person who gets very sick or dies because of this happening becomes liable

Mr. Cousens: Or both.

Mr. Gregory: That is right. There is a tide of members flowing in.

That bothers me somewhat. If a person does not pick up the drug himself, and an elderly person might not always be able to get to a drug store by himself, he might have to send a messenger, a child, a son or daughter or whatever. Does that messenger become liable? I do not know. It does not explain it very well in the bill. If one has gone to a pharmacy for a drug for an elderly person and some drastic result follows, one could find oneself, as the delivery boy, liable for that. It is difficult for me, and it must be difficult for many other members in the House, to understand why that is so.

Is the minister convinced the inspection methods used with pharmaceutical manufacturers is such that the quality is so accurately inspected that we know every generic drug is exactly the same as the one prescribed by the physician? It would require some rather sophisticated inspections to guarantee that. After all, Star Kist has trouble inspecting its tuna cans, and it is hard for me to understand how one could analyse drugs so accurately.

It bothers me that nobody seems to be liable if somebody makes a mistake. Whether it was an honest mistake or not, there does not seem to be anybody responsible.

Another thing that bothers me is the clause about pharmacists having to fill the prescriptions as written. There is certain merit in that in many cases. A senior should not be subjected to a trip to the pharmacy every week to have a prescription filled, and I am not suggesting he should.

Some care should have to be exercised by a pharmacist filling prescriptions for six months at a time. There should be some guarantee that the patients being prescribed for are fully aware of what is required. We all know elderly people who feel good after taking a pill and think they will feel that much better if they take three pills at a time instead of one. I know someone who is capable of doing that.

That would happen more often if unlimited supplies of medication, narcotics and what have you are given, simply to save on prescribing fees. This seems to be a rather ridiculous way of saving money. We can save $4 if we double the prescription. My heavens, if we triple or quadruple it, we can save a lot more money. We can save $8, $12 and so on. It seems a little silly and a little dangerous.

I do not know whether my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) agrees that prescribing unlimited large quantities of pills is a dangerous practice.

Miss Stephenson: Yes, unlimited is dangerous, but thoughtful flexibility is useful.

Mr. Gregory: Okay.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister is not in his seat.

Mr. Gregory: That has been noticed.

Many senior citizens do go to doctors on a fairly regular basis. It is not unusual --

Mr. Cousens: Does the member go? He is at that age himself now.

Mr. Gregory: Not quite.

It is not unusual for a doctor to examine seniors and determine that a new prescription is in order. If they go often enough, they can get a lot of new prescriptions but they are not always very careful about getting rid of the old ones. There are cases where seniors are prescribed something to be taken three times a day and they go back to the doctor for something else and he says, "I will put you on this other prescription." The new drug has to be taken three times a day, but they continue taking the other one three times a day. In such situations senior citizens may be taking far too much in the way of drugs.

I do not think that is anybody's fault. It is just a case of the seniors not understanding that they should not duplicate unless specifically ordered to do so by the doctor. It adds to the confusion and to the problem if we have unlimited drugs, or filling the prescription as written, unless the doctor uses some care. I assume most doctors would and would not be giving unlimited supplies, but they might be giving larger amounts than are healthy for senior citizens.

There is a small problem with the bill, in that it seems to indicate the pharmacist can no longer take requests for prescriptions over the telephone. Seniors on the Ontario drug benefit plan would be required to see their doctor pretty well every time they had to have a renewal of their prescription. This does provide a hardship for seniors, depending on the state of their health. It could mean that many of them are put to some serious inconvenience if they do not have someone to help them or to go their messages for them.

3:40 p.m.

A lot of small points bother me about the bill. I am not suggesting for one minute that it is not in order to examine the situation of prescription drugs and the Ontario drug benefit plan, but I do think it is a little like swatting a flea with a mallet in this case. Perhaps we are going too far.

Let us find out -- not from me, a complete novice as far as pharmacy is concerned. I admit that. Would members not agree with me that I am a novice? I do not pretend to know anything about pharmacy, drugs or pharmaceutical companies, but there are people who do, and outstanding among them are the pharmacists of Ontario.

We all remember visiting the local pharmacy when we were kids. We went down there and he was a friend of the community. He was like the doctor. He was a little like the barber, whom I do not visit much any more.

The pharmacists are asking for nothing else, really, than the opportunity to make their case before the standing committee of this Legislature. That does not seem to me to be too unreasonable a request. I would agree that the minister has gone part of the way in suggesting it should be done. When we vote on second reading, it will go to standing committee. It is understood; I am not questioning that it has been done. What I am questioning is that we seem to be putting an arbitrary limit on it.

I know of 10 pharmacists in my own community who have requested an opportunity to appear before this committee. I am not suggesting for one minute that every pharmacist should have an individual hearing. However, these are intelligent people and I think they would have the good common sense, if given the right, to decide that the 10 pharmacists in Mississauga East -- or, in fact, all the pharmacists in Mississauga -- might well determine, say, three people who could represent them at the standing committee.

I do not think every pharmacist in Ontario is going to want that or that he should be given it; there is only so much time to do these things. However, to be arbitrary and say that only those organizations representing pharmacy, pharmaceutical companies or senior citizens shall be represented, and only by their spokesmen, is a little unfair. Some organizations do not always speak in total agreement with the majority of their members.

I am not suggesting this is true in any of these cases, but surely we owe it to ourselves in this House to hear what they have to say before we go ahead and ram through a bill with a very short public hearing period. We are being unfair to them, we are being unfair to the citizens and we are certainly being unfair to the spirit of free enterprise as we know it in Ontario.

I do not know if a vote is ever taken by the membership at large of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association to elect their spokesmen; maybe there is. However, it seems to me it is probably done by mail or by paper. One does not hear about very many pharmacists' conventions around. Maybe they do have them; I do not know.

What I do know is that when I go in to talk to an individual pharmacist, to pick up a prescription or to buy a package of cigarettes, he tells me he wants to be heard and he is asking for nothing else but that. He is not even suggesting that the minister should listen to him and make the changes according to his wishes. All he is asking is to have the chance to tell the minister the way he feels about certain things from a grass-roots perspective rather than on an organizational basis.

I do not think that is too unfair, and perhaps the minister, in thinking this over and in realizing that in order to live up to what has been expressed as the new open concept in government that we keep hearing about, should in that open concept grant this request --

Mr. Haggerty: The member is being repetitious now. He has said that three or four times.

Mr. Gregory: The last interjections by the member for Erie were repetitious, too. He has said the same --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member can carry on.

Mr. Gregory: The member does not listen hardly at all, never mind very often. The member says I am being repetitious and perhaps I am, because I think it is extremely important. It is probably one of the most important things that has happened in this House in these periods of sittings we have had ever since the new open government took over. I am hoping this new open government will start to see a little sense and realize that being open means that it listens to people. It cannot argue with that. Right? The member has agreed to listen to me. I am asking that member, through you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the pharmacists and give them a chance to tell him what they have on their minds.

Mr. Haggerty: Is that a question'? Should I answer it?

Mr. Gregory: No, it is not a question. I am asking him to use his good offices and his influence, and I know he is very influential over there in the front row. He must have a great deal of influence with the minister, so perhaps he will convince him to be a little less stringent, to be a little open-minded, to listen to these pharmacists and give them an opportunity to speak to him. I hope the member will do that.

I am quite sure the minister, in thinking about it, will come to that conclusion. He is going to realize that the only way he is going to get the bill through is if he agrees to listen to some people instead of being so rigid.

Having said all those intelligent things and having enjoyed the attention of the vast audience in the House or as the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) would say, "the half-vast audience in the House," I am sure my comments will be considered by the minister. I am quite sure he is going to stand up on his feet immediately after I sit down and grant that we will have hearings required by the pharmacists without any severe limitations being put on them. I suggest to him that would be the commonsense thing to do.

If I was involved in that open government over there as the Minister of Health, I would want to be open, as I always was. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) will say that as minister I was always open and ready to hear delegations. I did not put a limitation on them.

If the government members want this open concept of government to work, perhaps they should all encourage the Minister of Health to not be so rigid and to grant a little lenience to the pharmacists, who are doing nothing more than trying to act in the best interests of the citizens and trying to protect their profession from the undermining that is apparently taking place under this bill.

I have reached the end of my very interesting speech. I will now sit down and let somebody stand up who is going to continue on in much the same vein, I hope, or be even more interesting than I have been. I know that is hard to imagine. I do thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this time. While I am on my feet, I will congratulate the Minister of Health, in his absence, on his appointment as Minister of Health. I wish him well and I hope his version of open government changes a bit.

Mr. Cousens: I am following in this important debate on Bill 54. Before I begin my formal words, I want to compliment the Minister of Health for the support he has continued to give to the great riding of York Centre in the continuation of two important projects that have been close to my heart since I became an elected member in 1981.

Most recently, he was able to come into a very important situation in Richmond Hill in which there was a lack of funds to meet the ongoing costs of the hospital. It would have meant some 40 people would have been laid off had he not been able to find the money to balance the budget so the hospital could continue to provide the service. He was able to do that, and that is one of the important things he did. I have not had a chance to put it on the record that I appreciated his coming to the rescue of those people in Richmond Hill.

3:50 p.m.

It is unfortunate he had to do it under the duress of the press and through people such as myself bringing the issue to the fore so he had to do it under that kind of pressure, rather than having a system that would respond to the need when it was supposed to be done.

The second thing is that the Markham Stouffville Hospital is continuing, and the approval originally given by cabinet in June by the then Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), with the support of the then Chairman of Management Board, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), and those who saw this need to be a recognized, an important one for south York region, has also continued.

Mr. Haggerty: That was a lot better than closing hospitals, which your government did there.

Mr. Cousens: However, the approval for the Markham Stouffville Hospital was further ratified and supported by the member's government, and I am saying thanks.

I think it is important that we continue to have health care as one of the very fundamental needs of our society and we do not want to undermine this quality health-care system in this province.

It is not something that just happened overnight. It has taken years to build this system and make it what it is today. There are people in this province who take a great deal for granted. They know that when they call upon a pharmacist or their doctors, or when they need some kind of support mechanism for their health, it is there, and not only there but also in a quality way and one they can afford. That is why over the years we have developed in this great province a system of support for all our people that allows us to go ahead with confidence, knowing the mechanisms are there.

Some of the things that are missing have to do with the lack of preventive aids so people will take better care of themselves and be looking for ways to maintain their health and be vigorous and strong, through exercise, self-discipline, proper diet, etc. One of the groups within our whole province that has made this possible is our local pharmacists, a small group of health specialists who care about the people who come in and out of their pharmacies and who provide the kind of assistance and support that goes far beyond dispensing pills, serums and medicines. It goes to the very heart of the needs of the people who come there, so a friendship and rapport develops that allows a person to know that his pharmacist, like his doctor, is one in whom he can confide, in whom he can trust and one whose advice is worth taking.

It is with great alarm that I stand here in support of pharmacists and others who are saying, "Is this part of our health care threatened by the decisions that are being taken by this House in the form of Bill 54, which could in the future affect the relationship that exists between patient and pharmacist?" Anyone who is going to do anything negatively or in any way hurt the health-care system should stop and make sure all concerns and considerations the public are raising have been aired and understood.

One of the reasons this debate is continuing is we want that full airing and a full understanding of all the ramifications of Bill 54 laid out so the discussion, even if it takes a little while, will at least mean no one will be surprised at the outcome. It will have been tabled in a proper and true way. This has been the process in the past in this House.

Perhaps the member for York Mills might be able to help me on this one, but I can think back a few years ago when there was a bill Dr. Elgie brought in that had to do with human rights. I think it was Bill 7. It was 1982 or 1983. There was a long debate about the effects that would have. When the bill was first tabled in this House, there was an outcry such as I had never heard, as a new member of this Legislature, because people said: "The province is being arbitrary. It is going to do things that are going to take away a person's rights." In his wisdom, Dr. Elgie said: "Put it in committee. Let committee deal with it and go over all the facets that are bothering people. Let the people come and lay their concerns on the table."

They did, and the legislators of this House sat through many long days in the summer to hear the people of Ontario before finally coming up with a number of amendments.

The process is not to say, "We will listen"; but it is if one listens and then does something with what has been heard to change the law to make sure it truly reflects what the people of this province want. That is the process, a process that allows for dialogue and allows all points of views to be tabled. Then, with the wisdom of all the combined research people have been able to deliver, we as legislators are able to arrive at a consensus and are able to accept a point of view that allows us at least to arrive at a compromise that meets the needs of our whole community.

Why would the government be afraid of such a process now? Why are the Minister of Health, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and those on the opposite side of the House not prepared to have that dialogue? That is a fundamental and historic precedent the previous government ensured and guaranteed through its actions, a tradition that allows for participation by the people of this province in the important and ongoing changes of legislation, so there is no arbitrary dictatorship that allows a single-minded purpose to be pushed through. It allowed for true participation.

Mr. McGuigan: It was studied to death.

Mr. Cousens: No. The bill I am referring to, the one brought in by Dr. Elgie, was not studied to death. It was studied for three to five months, brought back to the House and the amendments carried. The initial outcry that was raised was addressed and resolved through that discussion and dialogue. Out of that came a bill that now is history and people do not remember it. I am one of them. However, I remember the process. I remember that when people had a concern, they knew their concern would be listened to.

I am at the point where I do not have a point of view on Bill 54. I am not a pharmacist. A number of pharmacists in my riding have expressed to me their concern that the government is going to railroad this legislation through. I believe in railroads if it is a matter of getting somewhere, but the kind of railroad we are talking about is one that is going to take us into a stone wall; it is going to take us nowhere.

This has ramifications that have not been fully explored and discussed. Because of that, I would like to see more dialogue and discussion. I am reflecting the kind of concern that comes from Daniel Kohn, a pharmacist who sent me a telegram. He says: "Proposals on Bills 82 and 83 will affect all aspects of pharmacy. Serious public study is required immediately. These bills must not be railroaded through Legislature, but must go to standing committee."

He has discussed this further with me. He is asking me, "Please see what you can do to allow our concerns to be aired, and not to be aired through the way the minister is about to do it."

Another pharmacist, Larry Blumenfeld, says: "We must insist that no bill be arbitrarily enacted. Entire drug benefit program in jeopardy. OPA has our support and are willing to negotiate a fair settlement. The choice is yours."

The choice is the government's. It could do something about the concerns people are talking about. Please discuss it and allow it to be aired. This is not a dictatorship, or is it? Is this open government, as open as it says it is, or is it a government that is going to say, "Do it my way or not at all"? The pharmacists are saying: "Do not do that. We are prepared to negotiate."

The history of the former government was one of negotiation, and those negotiations sometimes took longer than what we are talking about today.

Mr. Haggerty: It took quite a length of time and you fellows did not settle it. That is the problem.

Mr. Cousens: I wish things could be settled more quickly. The same thing happened with the Wellington teachers not long ago. The negotiating process has to be taken to the nth degree before one arbitrarily enforces a settlement. I think the same thing is true with the professional body of the pharmacists. One does not arbitrarily try to solve a problem. One negotiates, talks, has dialogue, listens to them, gives and takes, and through that a compromise develops.

4 p.m.

The one thing that comes through in this debate is that some people would paint our side, or one side, as being good guys or bad guys. That is wrong. All 124 members of this Legislature are here to serve the people of Ontario. The most important people out there are the men, women and children who know we are here to serve their needs. They know that we in the Legislature are not just concerned with pushing things through; we are pushing things through that are in their best interests. That is why we are here.

When we look around, we see people who carry heavy burdens of responsibility for their constituents. They are doing it out of a sense of dedication and love for the people of Ontario. As we face up to Bill 54, we are not taking sides with anyone. We are saying, "Let us make sure that all the concerns that are obviously still being felt by the people who are writing to us have been faced up to."

I have a telex from Mr. Jelski, who owns Mackenzie Pharmacy in Richmond Hill and who is a very outstanding citizen in our community. He has written to me, "Pharmacy legislation cannot proceed as written." I am sorry he said "cannot proceed." He does not know that what can happen right now with the minister's bill is that it can go as written. I think what he means to say is it should not proceed as written. "Major flaws. Massive study and consultation needed. Halt passage of this ill-conceived injustice to all concerned."

He is someone whose business has been to serve the people of Richmond Hill in my riding on Yonge Street just north of Major Mackenzie Drive, a street named after a legislator who sat in this House representing the same riding I do, Lex Mackenzie, and who walked that street and talked to the people of Richmond Hill. People still have a trust that their member is going to serve their needs, as did Don Deacon and Alf Stong after him. They are good people. I am sure if they were here they would be sharing in the concern that Jelski raises in his telegram: "Halt passage of this ill-conceived injustice to all concerned."

He is concerned, not only for himself as a pharmacist but also about the people who come to him and trust him. He is concerned about the long-term effects the legislation can have on pharmacists across the province. He does not know that unless this House begins to rethink its position through an open, public debate that allows all the concerns to be expressed, the major flaws will stay in the bill. They will haunt this government and all legislators if we do not do something to face up to them.

How can anyone come into this House and not want to do a proper and good job? We will not be doing that job for the people of this province if we allow the legislation expressed in Bill 54. When I get to Bill 54, I will go through it section by section to expose the flaws I see inherent in it, which are the flaws that are causing us to be continually concerned. We will not rest until they have been solved.

I have a telegram from Fenton Drug Mart, dated November 20, addressed to "Mr. Donald Cousens, Room 472." He does not realize they have moved us around since we had our offices in this building. We are now over in the Whitney Block, but that is another matter I would like to address some day. He says: "The proposed legislation is unnecessary, unfair and unacceptable. Must consider OPA and individual pharmacists' input. Legislation will be devastating to all aspects of pharmacy."

Do people come along and write telegrams to people just to till in their time, to relax and do nothing? Eddie could answer that question. The answer is no. They are doing it out of a sense of concern and compassion, not only for their own interests but also for the interests of the people they are trying to serve.

The proposed legislation is unnecessary. Do members know why it is unnecessary? It is because there is another way to deal with the people in this province than through the arbitrary push tactics that we have in Bill 54. It can be done through continuing dialogue and continuing discussion. That is why it is unnecessary, and Mr. Fenton is right when he says so.

It is unfair because it does not consider all the aspects and all the ramifications of this bill for all the people of the province and for all of the industry that is involved in it. It is unacceptable for a variety of reasons that we will get to as we continue to discuss this bill in this House today.

I have a telegram from two other local pharmacists, Safin Bandali and Rebecca Ho: "We ask you not to pass any legislation regarding pharmacy without any communication with the pharmacists." They too are saying: "Here it is. Someone is making a decision again that is going to affect our livelihood and our business, and we have not been consulted."

It seems that in our world today, in this democracy in Ontario as we now have it, more confidence is being placed by some people in what the government can do than in what the free enterprise system can do. That is an inherent flaw in the thinking behind a bill like this. Where is the balance that once existed that made for an environment in which business could prosper at the same time as government made the rules and regulations?

Go back to the days of our forefathers, who came here for freedom. The freedoms that once made this land so great are being eroded gradually as government intrudes further and further into the enterprise that business is all about. The freedoms we once took for granted are being placed in the hands of government officials and of regulators; government then imposes regulations upon the free enterprise system. The day when I and many of the people on this side of the House sit back and accept that is a day when this House will cease to represent all the people of Ontario.

Many of the people of this province like to have dialogue and communication. That is why we are presenting the view that there is still time for Safin Bandali and Rebecca Ho to know that their communication to me through their telegram not only has been read but also has been listened to, understood and acted upon. That time is now. A nod from the honourable minister in the right way -- I like the nod I just got, but I would like a little bit more -- and I will know, either by the sound of the rattle or by the emphasis he is giving, that he is truly behind us.

I have another 150 telegrams I would like to read, but I am going to touch on just a few more so members can get a feel for the flavour of some of them. This one was sent to the Minister of Health; it is from R. Huebel, pharmacist-manager of the Olde Towne Pharmacy in Thornhill. However, because not everybody has received it -- the minister received it, but the House has not necessarily had the opportunity to review these comments -- I would like to take the few moments it will take to read the few words he has sent along:

"I am writing this letter in regards to the two bills in the Legislature:

"1. The Ontario Drug Benefit Act, 1985;

"2. The Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, 1985.

"These bills as presented are totally unfair to the pharmacy profession and are a serious threat to the continued standard of health care in Ontario. A responsible and competent attitude must be adopted by all parties concerned before any further development takes place in this regard.

"Yours truly, R. Huebel."

4:10 p.m.

The standard of health care is the point that this telegram is raising. The pride the people of this province have enjoyed for a long time, for at least the past 42 years, that there was someone who cared honestly and wholly and completely about their needs, has allowed us to develop a quality standard for health care in Ontario. Now these very people are alarmed that those standards might disappear and that it is not important that we have that quality still in place.

Let us talk about it. Let us allow ourselves to continue to think about the ramifications this bill could have. Bill 54 has upset them. Pharmacists know about it because they are part of an association that shares information and they are dispensing drugs every day. Their livelihood is wrapped up in it; so their association is able to communicate with them.

The tragedy is that many people in the province do not begin to understand the problem because of the media. It may not be an important issue to the media, so it is not covered and discussed as fairly as one might expect it to be. People know, however, that if we in the Legislature are aware, something can be done about it; they trust us to do that. They take for granted that the system may not have informed them of everything that is going on, but they trust the fact the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), the member for York Mills, the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), who are all sitting in this House now, are going to be responsive to the immediate concerns that exist within their ridings and within every dimension of the province and will speak up accordingly.

I have a telegram from another constituent, again written in the latter part of 1985, sent to the place I used to be. I liked it when I was in this main Legislative Building, before we had to move across the street, but none the less they will continue to send mail here for quite a while.

Miss Stephenson: Just as long as we get roller skates.

Mr. Cousens: We need roller skates, and we need to get our mail on time. Half the time it takes me a few more extra days before I get my mail.

Here is a telegram from T. Garden, who has a bachelor of science degree in pharmacology: "I strongly urge that serious public study of proposed bill be undertaken. Do not rush through without proper consideration." If only we could live up to his expectations.

In the past, when constituents came to me and asked for assistance, I said, "Yes, I will do my best," and I had the inner feeling that I would be able to do something for them with my best. Now I have a fear that nothing will happen, in spite of my genuine and deep concern about the needs of the people in my riding, because the railroad across the way is going to push through legislation that does not have, within it, time for due and proper consideration.

It is not unlike a person who is head of a family or household. When teenagers or young people want to do something different from what we want them to do, the old-fashioned way might have been to be very arbitrary and say, "No, you do it my way." In the household I am part of and share with my wife, we like to sit down with our young people and review with them the options and possibilities. Through that it is sometimes necessary to force a decision, but I like the fact that we are able to discuss things with them, go through all the various pros and cons and then when we are finished, arrive at a conclusion in which at least we all understand all the facts.

That is what I call a good process. It shows respect for others, an understanding on the part of one to hear the others out and to know all their thinking and concerns; then we are able to do what is right, having considered their point of view, which is important as well. Why not have the same kind of luxury for pharmacists in Ontario who are asking for nothing more than that chance to be listened to so their industry can be understood?

I hope we are successful for Mr. Garden. I hope the Legislature will pause and consider his concerns. When the minister is reviewing his notes for his speech when this bill is fully debated, I hope he will acquiesce to their concerns and allow that consideration to be held.

I have another telegram, from Russell Cohen, a pharmacist who lives in Thornhill. He has sent this message to the Minister of Health, who will maintain his honour as long as he does something with the full public hearing of this bill. Mr. Cohen says: "A serious public study should be undertaken of proposed Bills 54 and 55. It is critical to postpone the January I implementation date." I am not sure how that got settled, but he is at least searching and hoping someone like myself will be able to assist in that continuing dialogue.

I have another telegram, from Howard Borden, a resident of my riding whose practice of pharmacy is in Metropolitan Toronto: "I as a pharmacist insist Bills 54 and 55 not be pushed through the Legislature. They require serious public study and negotiation with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. The level of service by the pharmacist to the public must be upheld. Do not act without consultation."

They continue. I do not know whether I should continue to read the great number of telegrams I have. I am concerned that in so doing I am taking up valuable time in the House. I do not desire to do that because of the amount of time that has to be spent on this larger issue. I would like to continue to go through the bill and allow us to consider some of its different effects. I will go through it section by section so we will be in a position to be apprised of the concerns I am trying to raise.

Many people are not as aware as are the members of this House of what the explanatory notes describe.; they give an indication of where the government is going to go with this bill. The bill's explanatory notes state in part:

"This act provides a legislative framework for the Ontario drug benefit plan" -- I see it as a framework that will be made of steel and iron, with no chance for any movement on the boundaries; it will lock in all the pharmacists "under which the minister pays operators of pharmacies, physicians and suppliers of substances for supplying prescription drugs and substances free of charge for certain classes of persons, including senior citizens and welfare recipients."

4:20 p.m.

Under this legislation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council will have tremendously large powers in making regulations. He might start exempting, including or changing some of the guidelines that were part of the original legislation this bill was to amend.

What we are seeing is the danger zone for senior citizens, who were one of the primary concerns of our government when we were the government, and for welfare recipients, who were being looked after properly, fairly and fully and their rights not being abrogated. I believe that and know it to be a fact. This legislation can come along and tamper with the important safeguards our government brought about in times past.

What we see in the explanatory notes is, "The act gives broad discretion to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations." What are we here for as legislators if we go and give all the decision-making power to the Lieutenant Governor in Council? What are we doing here if we do not ask and search for the opportunity to participate in what is going to happen to that important component of the health care system of this province?

It is not our desire to give up that responsibility easily, especially when this bill will take away and erode an important part of the fabric of the health care system this province has come to enjoy. The Lieutenant Governor in Council will "make regulations concerning, (a) what prescription drugs and substances are to be listed under the act" -- I think that is similar to what we have now -- "(b) who is to be eligible for the benefits under the act; (c) how much the minister will pay for the supplying of drugs and substances under the act; and (d) what charges, if any, may be made directly to eligible persons." I am going to deal in some detail with the concerns I have about these parts of the regulations.

It also says: "The act provides that subject to the regulations, operators of pharmacies and physicians may charge the minister, but no one else, when they supply listed drugs for eligible persons. There is provision for the minister to agree in writing with an operator to pay an amount different from that in the regulations." Can the House believe he will do that? I see the members chuckling. We know he will not.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is no different from what we had before.

Mr. Cousens: At least there was trust in who we had before compared to who is there now. There is a new degree of distrust.

"The minister is given discretion, if a physician says it is necessary, to allow a nonlisted drug supplied for a particular eligible person to be treated as if it were a listed drug."

That is one of the fundamental flaws of this legislation. Who are we, as nonmedical practitioners, to make decisions that can have a life-or-death effect on the recipients of these products? I would not want that power. I would not want to be in a position to say that I have hurt someone through the decision we are making here.

We come to the last part of the explanatory notes. "Offences are created for contravening a provision of the act or regulations and maximum penalties of $10,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a corporation are imposed."

It could become a police state. If they are going to have every pharmacist who does not follow every rule and every regulation -- do members realize what is happening? A regulation is not developed in the Legislature specifically to deal with a law or an enactment. It is something that someone across the street comes up with. They develop the idea of what a regulation is going to be. Someone in the civil service, in the Ministry of Health, says: "There is a regulation I like. It is a new one. Let us put it in." Penalties such as $10,000 for an individual or $50,000 for a corporation can become a new source of revenue for the government. The concerns of the people of this province are substantial and should be addressed by this House.

I have no trouble with section 1, although when we talk about what an inspector is, I wonder how many inspectors we are going to have. Are we going to have thousands of inspectors? With the new police state that is going to have the right to charge so much in penalties, there might be all kinds of inspectors.

Maybe we should spend some time talking about what is a listed drug and not a listed substance. " `Listed drug' means a drug designated as a listed drug," and " `listed substance' means a substance, other than a drug, designated as a listed substance." Who does the listing? That is the concern. The listing is not done by the association or the health care field; it is done by the bureaucracy.

So the bill comes forward and, like many of the bills that have become the history of government in Ontario for the last number of years, it talks about regulations made under the act. I worry about the number of regulations we will soon see in the health care field and about the number of people who are going to be coming out with more and more government enforcement, government ideas of changing the culture, the environment and the world that the province has come to take for granted.

Yes, we are living in a regulated world. We regulate the rents of people, we regulate the amount of income a landlord can make, we regulate the amount of increase he comes across with; and out of that regulation we have a cutback in the number of units being built and we start having intrusion in the free enterprise system.

I oppose the proposal being brought in by the minister because I see it as an expansion of government intervention, control and regulation, which undermine the free enterprise system that I think can make this province, and has made this province, a very strong, economically viable unit in the Dominion of Canada and in North America.

There is regulation at all levels. We are seeing regulation of the fishing industry. We see regulation of every area.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We are going to regulate all the Tories.

Mr. Cousens: They are hard to regulate. The Conservatives are about as hard to regulate as any group the minister would ever find, but that is the strength of the Conservative Party in that there is open discussion and dialogue on all issues. Then when it is over, once a consensus has been arrived at within our caucus, we accept it; we work together to achieve it. Why can we not do the same thing in this House again? It was done before and it worked. It was a way of allowing the whole community to be involved in the lawmaking process.

Mr. Runciman: Back in the days of good government.

Mr. Cousens: Back in the days of good government. They can come back even now and the word "Honourable" in front of the name of the Minister of Health will mean something.

I am going to skip to section 4 of the bill, because section 4 of Bill 54 prohibits pharmacists from charging or accepting payment from an Ontario drug benefit customer. While welfare recipients cannot afford to pay extra for their drugs, many senior citizens can. However, even if these individuals would prefer a more expensive brand of drug than the one covered by the ODB and if they could afford to pay the price difference or all of the cost, this section would prohibit it. The pharmacist must either refuse to grant the request or lose money in providing the customer with his preference.

If a drug is not listed in the Ontario drug benefit plan and if a physician wishes to prescribe the product to a patient, he must get the minister's approval. The minister is not even in the House right now. How are physicians going to get his approval if they cannot reach him, cannot phone him and cannot touch him?

How soon do members think that is going to happen, especially if something happens where a drug is going to make a difference? A decision has to be made. How quickly will it be made? How fast can they be? This could prove to be a somewhat onerous procedure if the patient were seriously ill. We have to put the people of the province first, not legislation and not regulations. Those laws are to uphold the very fabric and being and purpose of our province.

Subsection 4(1) of the bill says: "No operator of a pharmacy shall charge, or accept payment from, a person other than the minister in respect of supplying a listed drug for an eligible person pursuant to a prescription, unless a charge or payment is authorized by the regulations."

Those regulations will give him all kinds of loopholes. He can go in any direction because he has someone writing a regulation to protect him.

When it comes to our health care, which comes first: the person who needs the care or the regulation? I think we are going to end up having the regulations supersede the importance of the needs and rights of people in this province.

It says, "No physician shall charge, or accept payment from, a person other than the minister in respect of supplying a listed drug for an eligible person...unless the charge or payment is authorized by the regulations."

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, coming from the Ombudsman's office, you would have a greater appreciation of what a socialized state is all about as we move into this government control over everything, or this other system that allowed for a balance of government to prepare the environment for business to prosper. What we are moving towards here is government domination. There will not be an area in this province that is not controlled, or moved, or motivated except by government regulation or government money. The bureaucracy, instead of getting smaller and more efficient as it did over the past several years, will end up burgeoning and growing. The money it will spend will increase and the level of service will go down.

That has to be alarming. It has already alarmed enough pharmacists and people who are starting to ask: "Can we do something to stop it? Can we not at least have a chance to review its effect on our industry?" There is still time that the minister could respond to our request.

I want to refer to section 6 of the bill. If a drug is not listed in the Ontario drug benefit plan and a physician wishes to prescribe the product to a patient, he must again get the minister's approval. Since section 6 --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I call for a quorum. We do not have a quorum.

Mr. Cousens: I am prepared to go without a quorum because those three members are not listening anyway.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin) ordered the bells rung.

4:36 p.m.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) called for that quorum, seeing it as a popular way to get his name in the record for today. I was quite prepared to carry on with my speech.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is what I was afraid of.

Mr. Cousens: I do want to take the time of members of the House to respond to that because I know they will be able to read these words in Hansard and find them quite satisfactory there.

I resent the fact that some people feel a quorum call is necessary when there are other ways of accomplishing the business of this House. I know members of this House were listening carefully. It is highly unlikely the member for Windsor-Riverside is even listening. He asked for a quorum call. When we make new regulations for the House, we should have the person who calls for the quorum sit up and listen for a change.

The Acting Speaker: All right; let us get back to the topic.

Mr. Cousens: It is very hard when I have had this distraction. I think I will start from the beginning, where I was before.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Maybe the member will get it right this time.

Mr. Cousens: Yes. One thing that has happened is that it has brought the minister into the House and it is always a pleasure to see him because he is --

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was listening intently at the time I was having a meeting with some others.

Mr. Cousens: I can believe he was. The only thing I want the minister to do is to not only listen but also to act on the advice we are trying to give him. If he does that, then I know the people of Ontario will have a higher respect for the legislative process than they will have if this bill is not given the full understanding and debate that would take place by having open discussion.

I want to make note for the record that the member for Windsor-Riverside, who called for the quorum, is now leaving the House. That is typical of the kind of action --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I cannot take it.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: That is a very valid point. If someone is going to call a quorum, the same person should sit around here and suffer like the rest of us.

Mr. Swart: Who is suffering?

Mr. Cousens: I am suffering because I am sorry he is not here to enjoy the words I have to share.

Mr. Swart: We thought the member was insufferable.

Mr. Cousens: I am not insufferable in my own mind, but the fact the member for Windsor-Riverside has left is an insult to the whole process of this House. What he has done is take up four minutes of everybody's time by calling a quorum. I was prepared to continue speaking and not bother to take that time.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You have made your point.

Mr. Cousens: I want to make sure it is in the record.

I will proceed on the important discussion before us, which has to do with section 6. Since it is written in terms of the individual patient, each case would require approval. Let us look at subsection 6(1): "If a physician informs the minister that the proper treatment of a patient who is an eligible person requires the administration of a drug that is not a listed drug, the minister may make this act apply in respect to the supplying of that drug as if it were a listed drug by so notifying the physician."

That is just more government bureaucracy. We have been doing our very best over the last number of years; and I am one of the people most complimentary of the member for York Mills, whose position in government has been to make it more efficient and bring about improved standards and quality so the numbers would be brought down and at the same time it could be more responsive to the people of this province. Now what we are going to do is add another layer of bureaucracy to this whole system. That layer costs money and takes time to get through.

Why do we need that? The people of this province would rather see their money going into the things that are going to generate jobs through the free market system, rather than a government bureaucracy which we have to pay for in taxes that are already too heavy, and a deficit we already cannot even begin to cut back. We do not need to spend more money, we need to save it.

This bill is going to cost the province many dollars. Some people say, "Oh, it does not matter." It matters to those who care. It matters to all of us because if we start spending and the economy changes as it did in the early 1980s, then we will not have the money.

At that point we start borrowing money against the future, the deficit gets larger and, before one knows it, we will not even need a budget. The deficit itself will have the money pre-spent because we will be busy paying the interest. That is when the people of this province will make an outcry. That is when the government will have to say to that layer of bureaucracy: "We do not need you anymore because we cannot afford you."

Why not teach the people of this province to drive the engine themselves through their own enterprise and business acumen? Then we can be strong again. What we are doing here, in fact, is saying: "We want more bureaucracy, more layers, more costs."

Subsection 6(2) says: "An operator of a pharmacy is not liable for contravening this act or the regulations in respect of supplying a drug referred to in subsection I unless the operator has received notice that this act applies to that supplying."

One has to depend on the federal mail, too. How is he going to get this notice? Is the government going to set up a computer system so there is on-line interaction with a drug store, a local pharmacist -- who by the way cannot afford that? We are talking about people who have written these telegrams, who are making an existence out of serving the people, and they are now saying: "You are going to need more and more."

I cannot help but take the side of the pharmacists who cannot afford these things, but I take more the side of the citizens of Ontario who will be paying the costs in taxes, paying for this far larger bureaucracy and this government control of the system.

Let us look at section 8 of the bill. It takes away the right of the pharmacist to refuse to supply a prescription to avoid the act. That is, all pharmacists are opted in. Section 8 states: "No operator of a pharmacy shall refuse to supply a listed drug for an eligible person in order to avoid the operation of a provision of this act."

That is just more of the same. It is a further example of the government saying: "This is how we are going to run things. It is going to be our way or no way."

I believe in certain controls when it comes to health care because there have been examples of drugs that were dangerous that got onto the market. One needs to have certain controls. That is responsible government. I would not want to take away that option of government to say: "This is safe, this is not." However, there are others that do not come into that category. It is of those that I speak.

Under section 9 of the bill, ministry inspectors or their agents will have broad powers to search and seize pharmacists' and doctors' records.

Oh, my goodness. Mr. Speaker, do you want that to happen? I would think you have a large family.

The Acting Speaker: No, I do not.

Mr. Cousens: Do you not? You look as though you could have because you are such a happy man.

How would you like it if one of your relatives was an inspector? Surely you would then be able to appoint all your relatives as inspectors, and all the members opposite would be having inspectors in their families somewhere because it probably is going to be a special order in council appointment. Under section 11, the inspectors' appointments are going to come into cabinet and then the Lieutenant Governor in Council can ensure that those people who are otherwise unemployed can be inspectors. The same inspector who might be one's relative can then go in and seize the records as they apply to one's case; even though one wanted to keep certain parts of one's health situation secret because of its personal nature.

I can understand that; I would want that. I do not want the information that pertains to an individual to be publicly available, but it is almost making it publicly available with the number of inspectors the government will be having. These records contain confidential information but the bill contains no guarantee of the maintenance of confidentiality. If we are going to have the government looking over our shoulders and getting involved in all the different effects of what goes on in Ontario in 1986, why should we not have some guarantees built in to protect people's confidentiality?

It is Big Brother all over again. I do not want to see that, neither do members when they start to think about it; and neither does the minister if he starts to think about it. The Liberals' freedom-of-information legislation heightens the concern over the issue of confidentiality. I wonder when that is going to come out and what it is going to do to what we are talking about.

It is a concern and a worry. It is one of those things about which all of us want to ask questions. It is one of those things, if we are not going to allow discussion on it, it means it is just going to be the railroad again. I know what is happening in the minds of the Liberal members -- not in the mind of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) because not much is happening there -- but I am sure there is something going on in the minds of some.

Mr. Mancini: I have too much hair. That is my trouble.

Mr. Cousens: The member has a lot of nice things about him. As someone who is concerned about this bill, if he could do something about it with the Minister of Health, he would probably go on record as being one of the heroes of 1986: "Man of the Year, Rimo; get that limo."

An hon. member: Remo.

Mr. Cousens: I thought it was Rimo. It rhymes with limo, and he wants a limo. He can affect what the minister is going to do.

Miss Stephenson: He should get a haircut.

Mr. Cousens: I do not tell anybody to get a haircut because I pay half price now.

He could have a significant effect in caucus if he attended tomorrow and brought this point of view to assist the government to come to a better understanding.

We will move slowly now to section 11, which grants the cabinet broad powers to establish regulations. Sweeping changes that could amount to policy changes could be effected by the cabinet without any input from the Legislature. I have a lot of respect for the people who serve our province in cabinet, those who go there go with good intentions and put in a lot of time. I know the kind of dedication shown by the people who are so active within our party and who have done so much for this province.

But why put more responsibility upon them when that responsibility should be out of their hands and in the hands of the Legislature? Why should there not be some accounting to the public for the decisions that are made? If we have a great big pile of decisions to make, how can they all be as good? How can the last one be as good as the first one? It cannot be, not when they are trying to pile so much in. There are other ways of accomplishing this, but not by putting more of the onus on cabinet.

Subsection 11(2) of the bill and sections 5 and 6 of the draft regulations in the schedule establish the reimbursement by the Ontario drug benefit plan to the pharmacist as an actual acquisition cost of the drug and the dispensing fee. No mention is made of any method for negotiating the dispensing fee. That is something new. Why can there not be negotiation? Why can there not be discussion? Why can there not be openness? Because they are not in the bill.

4:50 p.m.

If we are going to have a bill that responds to all the people of this province, it should have the balance I am talking about. This is a dictatorial bill which will undermine the health care system.

According to the schedule, only the cheapest, multiple-source drug price will be listed. The pharmacist will be reimbursed for this amount unless the drug is not available to the pharmacy at that price and the doctor writes, "No substitutions," on the prescription, or the minister has approved a more expensive brand for the use by the patient under section 6 of the bill. That is assuming the minister got the letter and responded and the patient is still alive, because the time that could have passed since the whole initiation of these proceedings could have been so exasperating that everybody gave up and the ghost is gone.

Let us move on to section 4 of the bill. This will effectively take away the right of senior citizens and welfare recipients to receive whichever brand of medication their doctor and pharmacist deem best. It will not be that long before some of us are in that position. Do members want to have someone who is not totally aware and understanding of all their health concerns making a decision that affects them?

Mr. Taylor: The government members are in that position now.

Mr. Cousens: They are, and if that is where government is to be, that is not where I want government to be. It is for us to make sure that government knows what it is getting into with this.

Everyone has a sense of compassion for our senior citizens, and they have a sense of not being able to light for themselves in the way we can. We are making a decision here that means confusion for a senior citizen who has sent a neighbour or someone else to the drug store to pick up their prescription if one week it will be one kind and another week it will be another kind. They may be going by the way the pills were coloured or what size they were.

The confusion that will start coming in will be just another matter. They will not know what they are taking and why they are taking it. When they go back to their doctor, and if there has been some effect that came into it, will the doctor be able to understand fully all that has happened? The doctor will not be able to understand because all the answers will not be in front of him. The doctor will no longer know exactly what pills or medication that patient was taking.

An hon. member: Send them to the government.

Mr. Cousens: Yes, they can go to the government. They can ask the Minister of Health, but how can they ask him if he is not around? It is a very serious problem. The problem is fundamental to the very freedoms we have built into this province, that a person who has made the decision to go to a doctor to receive medical aid and has been prescribed a certain form of medication, will no longer be guaranteed or certain that he will receive from the pharmacist the medication his doctor has prescribed.

The minister has now taken one component out of the equation, and that is the doctor. We are no longer following his will. We are going to be following someone else's. Is this not against what the federal government would have? Is this something that could come up under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is it something that is taking away one of those rights from an individual patient who says: "I want something. I have gone to my doctor. Because he says I should have it, I want that."

Now someone else along the way says: "Well, no. We have another thing here that will solve your problem and we are prepared to give you that one. In fact, you have to take it. You do not have any choice, old person. You take it, because now the law says it." I want to protect those senior citizens who otherwise will have no one to voice their concern. I am voicing it now before it is too late.

The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) shakes his head. He will probably be a senior citizen soon. Maybe there will be an opportunity for him to raise the same question when he himself has that experience. I do not want that to happen to him. I will go a step further. I do not want him ever to be sick because he is too good a person.

It does not say what the government is saying. What the government is now doing is intruding on the personal freedoms and rights of an individual. We do not have to be arbitrary. We do not have to be uncaring. We can come through with a sense of balance that allows us to fulfil more of the intent that was part of this government before the Minister of Health took over.

The lowest-price, multiple-source drug will always be a generic product. What then will happen to the innovative pharmaceutical manufacturers?

People say, "Oh, Cousens, you are taking the side of those free enterprisers again." I am probably also taking the side of the 1,800 employees who work for them and whose livelihoods are dependent not only on preparing the drugs but also on helping to explain the use of new products to doctors and to pharmacists. They are the ones who have the overhead and the high costs of introducing new drugs into the marketplace that allow us -- the consumer, the sick or whoever -- to obtain the benefit of those innovations far more quickly than we would have done if those people had not been working for the pharmaceutical companies and coming out to make sure we were aware of what was available.

I have a great concern that the whole effect of this legislation on the drug business in Canada could be to force pharmaceutical manufacturers to reconsider their involvement in Ontario. Do we want to see an exodus from Ontario, as there was from Quebec a few years ago? The drug companies moved from Quebec to Ontario. I think we are going to drive them back to Quebec. "With a Liberal government there and a Liberal-New Democratic Party government here, I guess it does not really matter," they are going to say.

However, the change will come sooner than we think. If we see them start to go, then the government will start scratching its head, if there is anything there to scratch, and begin to say, "Maybe we went too far with Bill 54." It will be just one of the straws that breaks the camel's back and causes others to say: "The government is getting involved. How can we survive in business? There is no reason to be around here any more." The American head office will ask: "Why stay in Ontario? They really do not need us; they do not want us." It will close down the operation in Canada and send their products in across the border.

The innovative or the name-brand manufacturers will never be able to compete with the generic manufacturers on price alone. Their prices have to reflect the research and development costs they bear, as the generic manufacturers do not. The generic manufacturers are concerned that only the lowest-priced generic drugs be listed, that all other manufacturers of that drug product effectively be shut out of the Ontario drug benefit plan market. Is that what the government wants to do?

I am pleased that the Minister of Health is now sitting in his seat. The member for Windsor-Riverside is not back yet after making that quorum call, so we can see the genuineness of his intent in this House. I appreciate that at least the minister is here, though he is not totally listening because he is talking to one of his honourable good friends, the member for Kent-Elgin.

I still think there is time for the minister to allow open discussion and debate on Bill 54. I would stop speaking right now if I had some feeling from the minister that he was willing to open up greater discussion and dialogue on this.

The tragedy is the innovative drug manufacturer will be shut out of the Ontario market. It is one of the institutions that has helped make a strong health care system, which is part of the free enterprise system. The government cannot do everything by itself. We need to have a relationship with the free enterprisers and with the free market to keep the doors of communication open and to allow the dialogue to continue.

The message they get when the government is not prepared to discuss this bill any further is that we do not care about their attitudes, we do not care about their views. Should we not care? We would not be where we are today had they not made the contribution to our health care system that they have.

The anxiety builds up, and it builds up over a period of time. Once we see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) with more legislation on what the Ministry of Labour is going to expect, that will be another straw on the camel's back. They are going to say, "Hey, this is becoming a true socialist state."

5 p.m.

We are going to have workers' compensation benefits so high and excessive that it is going to be impossible for a company to do business here because the profits are going to be spent in workers' compensation costs. We are going to see others with the spills bill and the kind of further regulation of industry through that. We will see the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) bringing in more laws. We will see the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations doing its thing. What happens is a closing in on or a strangulation of the businessman and the free enterprise system. Now we are affecting that system as it directly affects the health care system in our province.

The cries will be loud. The people will not like what the government is doing. This government will not be around to correct it someone else will be here. It will take a few years for it all to happen. The good companies will not leave right away. They will try to work something out. However, the regulations will pile up. This is just one and there will be another. Who knows? There will be another from the Ministry of the Environment, another from the Ministry of Government Services and another from the Attorney General. Then they will say: "I give up. I quit."

That is what they did in Quebec when they said: "Mr. Levesque, you have finally done it to us. We have had it; we are through. We are moving to Mississauga;" and they did. A lot moved to Mississauga. We received a large infusion of people from Quebec when the drug manufacturing industry felt the serious impact of government intervention. That is the next step in Ontario. Maybe this will not cause it, but if there are enough bills such as Bill 54, that is all it will take. What will they do then? We will rely on generics, on the American experience or on another province's experience and say, "If it is okay for them, it is okay for us."

It has never been that way in this province until now. We have allowed the opportunity for Ontario to make its own decisions. If they rely on generic drugs, they are doing that. They are saying, "If it is good enough for someone else, it is good enough for us." I do not want that. I do not think they want that either.

Mr. McGuigan: The member likes the freedom of the apartment flips.

Mr. Cousens: It is not only that. There are more freedoms than that. It is the total freedom that allows a person in enterprise to maintain his business and livelihood in a spirit and way that allows him to know, "This is home." Government establishes an environment for business

Mr. McGuigan: The western banks will take us for a billion; the member likes that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I had better go back to some of my original points because the honourable member obviously does not fully understand what I am trying to say. If only he were able to sit back and realize there is a benefit to the various drug companies. The thing they have a problem with is that the third party does not like the fact someone makes a dollar. It does not like to see anyone make a profit in almost anything. There would be government regulation and government control all over. Every aspect would be controlled.

Mr. Taylor: Whose bill does the member think this is?

Mr. Cousens: I wonder. I think the bill originated at one of the early-morning coffee parties that existed between - -

Mr. Davis: Over at Sutton Place.

Miss Stephenson: The Sutton Place breakfast.

Mr. Cousens: No, not a Sutton Place breakfast.

An hon. member: Yes, the Sutton Place breakfast.

Mr. Cousens: Does it include the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in the discussion of Bill 54?

Miss Stephenson: Yes, and the Attorney General.

Mr. Cousens: The Attorney General?

Miss Stephenson: And two members of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Cousens: Two members of the NDP; probably Mr. McClellan and Mr. Breaugh. It probably also includes Sean Conway, because he is good eater at breakfast.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please refer to other members by the names of their ridings?

Mr. Cousens: I should have known better. t will do it over again with the ridings.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is meeting with the member for St. David (Mr. Scott). Sometimes the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) comes with his appetite. He is still a single man and has to have someone prepare breakfast; so he goes to those meetings. As well, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and two members of the third party's research group sit down and talk about the evil things --

Miss Stephenson: Plus Hershell Ezrin.

Mr. Cousens: Yes. He does not have a seat, but I have to mention Hershell Ezrin's name because he is part of the milieu and the body that make up the thinking that goes into this pernicious bill.

Mr. Runciman: The Speaker agrees. He is nodding his head.

Mr. Cousens: I am talking about Bill 54 and how it began. It began over a cup of coffee. Probably when they brought out their saccharine tablets they realized, "Oh, my goodness, we should not be using saccharine any more."

Miss Stephenson: It was the aspartame.

Mr. Cousens: We need the aspartame now. Then someone said: "Hey, a job has come up for Murray. We can give him something to do." Then someone else said: "Does he not have enough to do? He is going to lock the doctors out shortly. In fact, he really has a lot of things on his mind because we have a lot of meetings over here." "No," they said, "Murray is a brute for punishment. Let us have him take the pharmacists on."

At that point the Attorney General says, "1 think we should do something about the lawyers." The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon), who is also the Treasurer and Minister of Economics, said, "Let me get them." It was the Minister of Revenue who said, "I want to see us take away their QCs and then we can really put our name on the map."

That is how they are doing it. They are doing it by taking on individual groups and having fun with them and not being responsible to them or for them in their best interests and in the interests of the province.

Over a cup of coffee -- I can just see it now -- they said, "The Minister of Health can begin to make changes here and we can make this province different from any other." Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? You are, they are, we are doing that. We will make it different because we will cease to be the democratic state we have been until now. There has been open and true dialogue by all people in this great province on all issues that are going to affect every person here.

The problems with Bill 54 have yet to be addressed fully and discussed in great detail. When that happens, then the people of the province will know the process has been right. If the process is not complete and the dialogue full, how can people believe for a moment we are worth the money we are collecting in this job as MPPs? We are not worth it unless we do a full and complete job. It is not fun to do unless we do it right.

I know many of us are anxious to do the right thing. I know others who look on this Legislature have that desire, as Larry Zolf goes and talks to people out in the world and tells them the Legislature is alive and well. He is going to say we are barely alive and are sick, but he will not be able to find a pharmacist who will deliver a pill because we are too far gone, or a doctor because they might be out on strike. He will go to a lawyer and say, "I am looking for one with a QC," and they will all be out wondering how they are going to get their QCs back.

We have problems developing in this province. Some people may think it is funny. I do not think it is funny at all. It is only funny to those who do not understand the ramifications. Look at the people who have written the telegrams and talked to us. They are just saying: "Please, legislators, discuss it fully. Take a full account of what your responsibility is all about."

I am not taking sides with anyone on this. I have a constituent and very good friend who is a pharmacist in the town of Markham. He has written the Minister of Health in support of the recommendations on the Ontario drug benefit plan. I would like to spend some time going through those recommendations, because he is taking a position quite different from the Ontario Pharmacy Association's.

5:10 p.m.

Bill Crother, an athlete of great renown, and I are good friends. We even bicycle in the annual cancer bikeathon, and I see him on a regular basis at our ski club. He is a man who has conscientious concerns about the reactions people are having to the Ontario drug benefit plan.

He has communicated with the minister, largely in support of what the minister is doing. To me, that is the balance we must have in this Legislature, but my point is to hear all sides; do not arbitrarily make up one's mind and say, "It is going to be this or this way."

Do not gag the public. Do not gag a professional group that otherwise has no voice in what happens to its members' careers or professions. If anyone in this House thinks for a moment a pharmacist is not a professional with great responsibility, he does not understand the situation. Why do something to them without giving them that opportunity to be heard? I can speak in the Minister of Health's defence in this regard. He will find people who agree with him, but will he find the vast majority of those in that system?

Mr. Shymko: We need a professional minister.

Mr. Cousens: No, I would never say that. I believe the Minister of Health is a nice guy, badly directed by the coffee group, but nevertheless --

Mr. Mackenzie: The honourable member is a nice guy too.

Mr. Cousens: I try to be, and with the honourable member to help me I will be a better person. I am willing to listen to the member if he has a good idea for a change.

Let me give a few quotes from Bill Crothers, who says:

"The act is rather well written and gives the government virtually the authority to negotiate or impose almost any condition upon pharmacy. Some will consider this a weakness because they will feel uncomfortable being in the position of being reasonable when they negotiate."

He outlines some of the strengths and weaknesses. Regarding clause 11(1)(g), he points out:

"In principle this clause seems good because it provides for the mandatory supplying of verifying information to the ministry. However, from a practical point of view, it has the potential of being a monstrous headache. It really depends on the number of drugs involved, the frequency of the reporting and the kind of data required. But because unless the pharmacist knows in advance what data is required for which drug, he may have some difficulty locating that information."

He then gives an example of some of the things in his store that show it may be a problem.

"I am sure that there is a way to use the regulations in such a way to gather this information in a manner which is not reprehensible or offensively time-consuming to the practising pharmacist."

That is from someone on the minister's side -- he is gone again -- someone in support of what the minister may be trying to do. There is nothing wrong with two points of view, or three or four, but let them all be heard.

He has quite a few comments on the regulations. I suppose I cannot talk about the regulations in the House. Mr. Speaker, what is your ruling on that?

The Deputy Speaker: If they are connected with Bill 54, I see no problem.

Mr. Cousens: Excellent.

Mr. Mackenzie: He has not seen the regulations, mind you.

Mr. Cousens: I have not had the pleasure of going through the regulations in intimate detail, and I wish I had a copy of them here, but there are a number of concerns there that have to do with the schedule and the mechanism by which all pharmacies are entitled to their compensation.

There will be some strength in that it will restore a certain marketplace to the pharmacy, according to Bill Crothers, because the Ontario drug benefit fee will no longer dictate the minimum fee that will be charged in the marketplace. There is a sense of opening up there that he feels is good. He feels the schedule will make provision for compensation to pharmacies for their acquisition costs. He goes on into some of this price spreading that is a concern to him in the use of PC 34.

I am pleased he is able point to some of those things. He feels there is an opportunity for further competition in those areas, but he also points to a fundamental weakness of the regulations in subsection 9(6).

"I am not sure of the rationale for submitting the amount claimed, except in the circumstances listed under schedule or claims normally submitted on a special claim form. This subclause would seem to be redundant." He goes on: "It is just poor writing of the clause. It is possible that this figure may have some relevance to the ministry." He is saying there are some areas for discussion.

"I believe, I think, that you can expect a significant amount of criticism for clause 5, because many pharmacists will be apprehensive of a price war where dispensing fees are advertised. This representation, of course, gives credence to the claim that the ODB agreement in effect now, specifically the marketplace concept of pricing, has been used as a method of controlling dispensing fees to make sure that nobody charges less than the ODB fee.

"The existing situation, and one which many will wish to keep, certainly has been in the interests of most pharmacists, but one can hardly claim that it has been in the interests of the citizens of the province."

The one concern I have is that we do the right thing for the citizens of this province. If we can do that, we have done our job honourably and we can feel we have contributed to the future wellbeing of our children and our children's children.

Mr. McGuigan: That does not include a price war.

Mr. Cousens: If someone is raising concerns and both sides are still in the process of raising those concerns, why not complete the dialogue? I could go further. I have some more data here that pertain to some of the concerns of Bill 54. I am in a position where I could go on at some length, but I know there are others who wish to take part in this debate.

Mr. Davis: Keep going. I am enjoying it. Go right ahead. There is no problem with the member speaking for ever.

Mr. Cousens: I could deal with the philosophy of government.

Mr. Mancini: Go ahead. We would like to get all this on the record.

Mr. Cousens: I am prepared to do anything that deals with the bill. I would like to see a bill come through that does not allow one person or the minister to have the kind of control there would be in the legislative assemblies of Haiti or the Dominican Republic where there are dictatorships.

Our government, because of the confidence the people had in it, did not do the kind of thing the member is talking about now. What we are seeing is a government of regulations, a regulatory power that is going to come into this province and this jurisdiction in the way it runs business. It is already at the point now where many people do not want to start up a business any more because of all the rules and regulations.

The first thing one has to do is get an accountant, and the accountant can keep one going for hours making sure one does all things right. That accountant has to be someone who comes out of Clarkson Gordon or Woods Gordon with the kind of background that understands all the rules and regulations this House has made.

Free enterprisers are not necessarily people who know all the rules. They know how to make a dollar and they know how to serve the community. If that service is for a just cause and is worth something, then they can make a dollar out of it. If it is not, they will sit as members of Parliament for the Liberals or something. In the past there was an opportunity for people in this province to go out and do something with their lives. Now it is going to happen that there will be regulations.

I draw the Speaker's attention to what some of the regulations are all about in section 11. Subsection 11(2) talks about a regulation made under clause 11(1)(f), which has to do with the amounts payable to the minister. It goes on to delineate a very large regulation that may "provide for a specified amount, provide one or more methods for determining the amount or authorize the minister to determine the amount payable in respect of each drug or drug product."

Oh, boy. Maybe one of the questions that has to be answered is this: how many more people are going to be hired by the Minister of Health to run the ministry?

Mr. Polsinelli: Is the member accusing us of creating employment?

Mr. Cousens: Yes, I am. When the member for Yorkview says I am saying that, I would not be smiling on that one if I were him. To me that is going to be the very thing that cuts his legs out from under his feet, because the people of this province do not want to see us spend money we do not have. The people of this province do not want to see a large bureaucracy. They were proud of the efforts being made by the Davis government to reduce the number of civil servants. Now the Liberal government is trying to increase the numbers again.

Mr. Davis: Thirty-six new Housing officials, all Liberals.

Mr. Cousens: I do not mind the fact that they are hiring their relatives because it gets them off the street, but I wish they would not hire any.

Mr. Polsinelli: The member advocated a stiff economic climate that would attract enterprise.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I want to attract; did the member say detract enterprise or attract enterprise?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I am anxious that we develop an environment for business to prosper in, and I think we have been doing that in recent years. However, we are moving to a new era with the actions being detailed in this legislation.

Mr. Ferraro: That is why unemployment went down.

Mr. Cousens: I would do anything to fight unemployment except to see us hire the unemployed into the bureaucracy of Ontario. I do not want to fight unemployment that way. I do not want to see the unemployed going around as inspectors checking the pharmacists.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Davis: With no qualifications.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: That is a Liberal for you.

I do not want to see that. I would like to see us find ways of generating employment, but we do that by generating confidence in what the marketplace is all about.

By the way, the government's recent budget does nothing to stimulate confidence in the future of Ontario. The budget provides lots of good services that I want to see, but it does nothing to stimulate business. It is not doing anything to help the businessman. The government is taxing him more and penalizing him more and now it is putting more regulations on him.

It is saying to the businessman "Government has the confidence of the people. We, with the New Democratic Party accord, are in a position to do what we want." What it is doing is eroding the confidence that business has always had in the government of Ontario.

Mr. Ferraro: That is why Toyota came in. The member is right: they do not have any confidence in the government.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased that Toyota came in, but I despise --

Mr. Davis: That is why the government lost Hyundai.

Mr. Cousens: I would love the member's answer to why it went to Cambridge and not to Markham. In response to that important interjection, when the question came up as to why Toyota went to Cambridge rather than to Markham, someone said, "We did not want to give up the good agricultural base in Markham." What they are taking in Cambridge is agricultural land.

Mr. Ferraro: Does the member want us to throw Toyota out?

Mr. Cousens: No. I look for business to come into this country. I am exceedingly proud of Sinclair Stevens and his efforts to bring it in and I think Sinclair Stevens was exceedingly instrumental in getting Hyundai into the country.

I will go a step further. If something is good for Canada, it is good for Ontario. I will take that stand any time. If Hyundai has certain reasons for going to Quebec and not to Ontario, that is fine.

Mr. Davis: Those guys did not fight hard enough.

Mr. Ferraro: Ask Brian.

Mr. Cousens: I am just saying I will fight for Canada and Canada comes first because I am a Canadian first.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) and the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) are being noisy with their interjections. Please let the member continue his debate.

Mr. Cousens: Toyota is just an example of a company, and it could have been a pharmaceutical company. If Toyota pharmaceutical were to come into Ontario, I would be pleased. However, with this legislation Toyota pharmaceutical, if there were such a company, would say: "I wonder whether I would want to locate a plant in that province. That province is getting so overregulated it is even more regulated than Japan is. We had better go to some other state." So the Toyota pill would not be available in this province.

It could happen with any pharmaceutical company. I am not privy to what companies are looking at coming into this province right now, but if a pharmaceutical company were to see Bill 54, it would think twice about it; it would think three or four times, and we would not see it come in. I challenge the member to tell me of one pharmaceutical company that is now even thinking of coming into Ontario. I will sit down while he tells me.

They all went quiet. Tell me what pharmaceutical company is thinking of moving into Ontario right now.

Mr. Ferraro: Tell me one that is moving out.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address the chair.

Mr. Cousens: They will all be thinking of moving out, and I can give --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member has the floor. Will the other members please stop interrupting? Carry on.

Mr. Cousens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is rather distracting when other members are bringing up points that are not germane to this important issue.

Mr. Ferraro: Toyota pharmaceutical is?

Mr. Cousens: Who knows? I do not know the name of the next pharmaceutical company that is going to come into Ontario. I simply want to make sure we do everything possible to attract it here. Then when it is here, the second part of the equation is to do everything we can to keep it here. However, when it is here, this does not mean that one starts changing the regulations and rules so it no longer feels comfortable in our environment and then it says, "Okay, we will go back to our head office environment, perhaps in the United States or maybe back to Quebec."

I will fight that every day of my life. I will disagree with the government's policy if that policy is to undermine the free enterprise system in this province. If the government can undermine the rights of our patients and of the people who are going to the pharmacists, I will fight it on that one. I am fighting only because the person in Ontario who has come to depend upon a strong health care system is the person who is now vulnerable, and we who are his defenders in this House have to do everything within our power to fight for him.

I am not fighting for the pharmacists, and that is why I put forward the view of my constituent Bill Crothers, who has quite another view. I respect the fact that there is more than one point of view. However, let us at least listen to them all. Let us allow this House to open up its mind and hear them all. If it takes a few weeks or a few months, what is the matter with that if, in the end, we are able to come up with a piece of legislation we ourselves can believe in?

It has happened before in this House. Controversy has been laid on the table and we have had to work it out. We have gone to committee and through committee there have been amendments. Those amendments have helped to respond to the outcry of the people of this province. My concern is that we not shut them off before they even start.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I have always listened to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), even though I did not always like to. I have obviously hit a hot spot. They cannot take it. They do not like it. The people of this province will question him when he goes to them for the next vote of confidence. Someone is going to say to him at his next meeting, "Why is there not a drug?"

They will go the member for Yorkview and say: "You are our good friend. You have been nice. You smile good. We like you very much." They will say it in a way that is genuine, but at the same time they will ask: "Why can we no longer get the kind of response for a prescription that we want? When we take our prescription in we expect something, but it is different now."

What is the member going to say when someone says: "My mother died. We wondered what happened. Something happened. Why did you arbitrarily change things"? Someone from northern Ontario, not as far as Wentworth North, but someone who is way out of town --

Mr. Ward: That is really north.

Mr. Cousens: The member does not have anyone up north.

My good friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) is dreadfully concerned that, with the changes being imposed by this legislation, pharmacists in his riding will close down.

Mr. Ward: Is he concerned for the consumers?

Mr. Cousens: Absolutely. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin is concerned for the consumer because once the pharmacy is closed down the consumer will have to drive 30 miles or more to get his prescription filled. That is the ultimate concern.

Our ultimate concern has to be the consumer, because it is that very person who will suffer if we make it difficult for a pharmacist to have a viable, operational business. If pharmacists make a reasonable profit, there is nothing wrong with that. It is the consumer who is going to have to drive 30 miles to get his prescription filled it if closes down; it is there now 24 hours a day.

I know this about Englehart. I used to travel through that part of the area and I knew a pharmacist there. If he went out to the theatre or a show or was out of town, he would come back to find a note on his door saying: "John, I have a problem. I have been to the doctor and I need this prescription filled. Can you look after it? I will be over to pick it up if you will phone me when you get in."

John would get into the house, go downstairs, mix and prepare whatever it was, phone and the person would be there. He lived above his pharmacy and he provided that kind of service.

That service could disappear. Perhaps the pharmacist will say: "Why be in this any more? It is just more aggravation, more government control, more government intervention. My opportunity to serve my patients, people who have established a relationship with me over these many years, is something -- I will retire early or maybe I will let it go to one of the big chains and get the money."

These guys do not have a lot of money. Before we had the excellent programs instituted by our government that allowed people on welfare, people with different disabilities or senior citizens to profit by having drugs available to them at no charge -- it was not long ago that was not available -- those people got drugs free of charge from that pharmacist. The members should not forget it. He was there serving the people of his community because he loved and cared for them. It was a sense of obligation that he felt within himself.

Why now do we come out and say: "To heck with these guys. We are going to legislate it. We are not going to negotiate. We are going to change the rules. It is going to be our way or no way"? That is why they are upset.

Mr. Ward: How did you change the rules before?

Mr. D. W. Smith: Just stop talking. We will go to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. This is not question period. Please continue.

Mr. Cousens: I would have loved to have responded. It would have been a pleasure to have gone into it. The sense of confidence now is gone. They knew the government was doing it in their best interests. They were not happy with the Conservatives because the negotiations took so long.

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It took 42 years to do it.

Mr. Cousens: It is true. I do not think the pharmacists have ever been great friends of the Conservative Party. Their primary interest has always been their patients.

Mr. Polsinelli: Some of them are.

Mr. Cousens: Okay. Do members know something? The honourable member is right; it is probably the best thing he has interjected all day.

As in any profession, there is always going to be someone who does not do it the way the rest of the profession does, so a disciplinary act has to take place within the pharmacy association. I am not sure how it is done, but there is a self-governing and self-policing system, and if they cannot do it, then I am sure the Attorney General or the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) would find ways of making sure they are fulfilling their responsibilities in the best interests of the public of Ontario. I support that.

I do not want to be in the position of having said that all pharmacists have done the greatest thing for all the people of the province. There have to be one or two pharmacists who have not, just as not all MPPs are necessarily the very best for all the people in doing all the right things.

This may well be one of those situations where those members as Liberals want to stop, step back, rethink and do the right thing for the people, which is to allow open and complete dialogue on this matter. Then out of this, if the bad pharmacist comes up and gives a point of view, listen to him. Members opposite can then determine, along with ourselves, whether his point of view should be taken or not.

I would support that. If it is going to committee right now for a full and complete dialogue, I will pass to the next speaker. If that is the intent, obviously I am thrilled that the members in the back row are starting to support the fact that it should go for a full discussion in committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: Look, we almost have a quorum of the Liberal caucus. There are five or six members, and that is all who ever attend their caucus meetings anyway.

Mr. Ward: Let us go right now.

Mr. Cousens: If those guys would allow a full, open and complete dialogue on it, I would be pleased to be chairman of it. It looks as though I might well have been made chairman, and I would do this at no charge so we could get on with what is the right thing for the province.

I have shared some of my views on this important issue. I know there is a member in the wings who is anxious to make a few further comments on this important bill and I will allow him to have some time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much your indulgence and that of all honourable members in this House for the comments I have made on this issue. My only purpose in speaking has been to relay the concerns of all my constituents.

Mr. D. W. Smith: And of Toyota pharmaceutical.

Mr. Cousens: If there is such a company, I would be honoured to use whatever it had if I needed it. I sure hope it is there when I need it rather than somewhere else because we went and turned it off and did not give it a chance to come into this province. Who knows how many people we are turning off right now.

Mr. Haggerty: Quite a few.

Mr. Cousens: We want to see every pharmaceutical company possible come into this province. In these remarks, I am serving that interest. Let all the people benefit through the full and complete dialogue that would be held in committee. Time is the most important ingredient in this process right now. Let us take the time for discussions to take place so this bill can be understood and, where necessary, modified to respond completely to the balanced needs of the whole of our great province of Ontario.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): I would like to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 43, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

Bill 44, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Ward: Before the last two speakers, I was not intending to speak to these bills this afternoon but a number of points have been raised that I would like to touch on.

It is interesting to note that much of the discussion being generated by members on the other side relates to the whole process by which this government is addressing this very important issue, the process and the issue of open discussion. This government is a very open and accessible government. It was interesting to note that at the outset of the debate the critic for the Tory party, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), went on at length to say he recognized there was a problem.

There has been a problem about drug pricing in this province. Unfortunately, the member maintained that this problem had come to light only in 1984 and that during the previous administration some steps were being taken to address this very important issue. I want to bring to the attention of all members of this House that this is not a new problem; it is a long-standing problem.

Drug pricing has been a subject for previous commissions, including one chaired by Julian Porter. I am not sure of his political affiliation, but apparently he contracted to undertake a review of drug pricing in the early 1970s. I want to stress this whole issue of openness and public discussion.

In 1978 the government of then Premier William Grenville Davis recognized that there were problems in relation to drug pricing. Did he have public hearings? No, he did not. Did he bring in legislation? No, he did not. Did he have public discussion? No, he did not. What he did was commission a confidential report by one Knowles Bailey, a retired food company executive, who reported to the Davis government that the consumers of this province were paying too much for prescription drugs because the province effectively sets retail drug prices.

From much of the discussion that has gone on, one would think the members of the Tory party are not interested in supporting this legislation. I find that rather hard to believe or to understand. There was a very interesting article in the Globe and Mail on September 28, 1985, immediately before the leadership convention held by the opposition party. In that article the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) "said he still supports the recommendations of the Bailey report. He said on several occasions he put forward recommendations based on the report to cabinet but they were not accepted."

Further on in the article there is some input from another former Minister of Health in the Davis cabinet, Keith Norton. It is most interesting to read that in Mr. Norton's opinion the issue had got tremendously out of hand, the consumers of this province were suffering under the current drug pricing legislation and the provincial tax coffers were being unfortunately ripped off by the current process. He thought the situation was so bad that he immediately referred all the information he had to the Ontario Attorney General.

It is refreshing to know some members on the other side of this House have recognized that there are serious problems related to drug pricing. I hope those members over there still have enough influence among their caucus members that they will encourage that party to support this bill so we can get it as quickly as possible to a standing committee of this Legislature, as we do all pieces of legislation, and have public hearings to gain a little further input.

5:40 p.m.

It is also interesting to note that the members opposite seem to be complaining so loudly about this whole business of open discussion. I know for a fact that in the first week we had some responsibility for governing this province, the issue of drug prices came very much to the forefront and was under active review by the Ministry of Health. Indeed, the Provincial Auditor identified in his estimates that more than $14.5 million was paid in excess of what was appropriate for drug prices in Ontario, so we knew we had a serious problem and discussions began with representatives of pharmacy groups.

Before we get too far along assuming the pharmacists are solely to blame for this process, there is one fundamental matter that should be understood by all members of the House. It is not the Ontario Pharmacists' Association that sets the prices; it is the government of Ontario through the publication of the drug price formulary. Unlike most retail transactions where a product is purchased on the basis of the least cost, in many instances pharmacy products are purchased by pharmacists on the basis of what product will generate the most profit by way of the price spread, the difference between the cost price listed and the selling price listed.

Consequently many pharmacists have been able to take advantage of the fact they can pay more money for a product but if it has a much higher selling price, then they are going to make extraordinary profits on the basis of the price spread. It is not on the basis of the best cost available to them or the best cost the consumer can gain with a reasonable markup, but on the basis of a unilaterally submitted price on the part of the drug manufacturers. That is the most fundamental problem underlying the whole issue.

Since this legislation was put forward, it is fair to say I have talked to 20, 30, or maybe 40 pharmacists and many of them support some of the changes being put forward. If one looks at some of the submissions that have been made and reads the Gordon commission report and previous submissions made by the OPA, one will recognize that many pharmacists have shared the concern of the government over the practice of price spreading.

One thing that is very interesting, since we are talking so much about openness --

Mr. Davis: We are not objecting to that. It is the heavy-handed way the government dealt with it.

Mr. Ward: I know the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) will want to hear this. The one thing that really surprises me when I have suggested to the pharmacists I have met with that I would like to see their background information and could they provide me with a copy of their brief to the Gordon commission, the one thing that should come as a surprise to all of us and to the public of Ontario, is that the OPA insists that its brief to the Gordon commission remain confidential. That is openness? I do not know what it has to hide. Perhaps members opposite do.

The article in the Globe and Mail on September 28, suggests there was one reason these changes were sidetracked along the way. When the member for Don Mills wanted to bring in changes he was shot down by the cabinet or by his Premier. When Keith Norton wanted to bring in changes, he was shot down. The article goes on to suggest that apparently a close personal friend of the Premier, one Donald Mills, was a lobbyist for the OPA and whenever it looked like some activity was going to be placed, it suddenly became sidetracked.

I would not want to believe that for a minute. It concerns me that the idea of openness for some people in this House, particularly those opposite, is not to listen to Ontario consumers or senior citizens or to act necessarily in their best interests, but to listen only to special interest groups, to have access by the back door to the very high-powered lobbyists. To them that is open discussion.

We have broken some of those patterns of access. We are prepared to listen to consumers, pharmacists, independent pharmacists and all those who have a concern about health care in the province, not just the high-priced lobbyists with close Tory party connections.

I do not want to go on too much longer because I know the member for Scarborough Centre has quite a bit to say in this. Over the course of the past week, we have had many letters, petitions, etc. read into the record. The issue of petitions is very interesting. I have had some concern about the kind of public relations exercise the pharmacists' organizations have been undertaking in the past few weeks.

I do not doubt for a minute that many of the letters I have received, if not most of them, are very conscientious and legitimate. I am somewhat distressed by some of the obvious distortions that are being put out, such as pharmacists telling their customers they will not be able to counsel them because of this legislation. It has nothing to do with that. As an independent businessman and a professional, I cannot see that happening.

There is something which concerns me even more. To highlight it, I will use an example. Last Friday, my wife visited a pharmacy in Hamilton, a Kohler's Drug Store on James Street North. Perhaps the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) is familiar with it. She went in to buy some products. She did not identify herself, went up to the counter and was asked to sign a petition to oppose Bills 54 and 55. Playing the devil's advocate a little, she said: "This is very interesting. Can you tell me what Bills 54 and 55 are about?" The person behind the counter said: "Yes, ma'am. It is a proposal by the government of Ontario to remove all Ontario drug benefits from senior citizens in this province. Sign it here."

As far as I am concerned, those kinds of practices are despicable. I do not want to suggest all pharmacists are guilty of that.

Miss Stephenson: Was that a pharmacist?

Mr. Ward: All I can tell the member for York Mills is that it is but one example of what I believe to be many distortions which are going on.

Miss Stephenson: Was that person a pharmacist?

Mr. Ward: I cannot answer that. I do not know.

Mr. Davis: That is exactly the point.

Mr. Ward: That person was under the control of the pharmacist. I think the member would concede that.

I want to read some letters into the record. The members opposite have been wonderful at reading many form letters and personal and individual letters explaining the positions of consumers and the general populace in this province. I have a few letters to which I would like to draw the members' attention. The members opposite claim they are very concerned about the consumers of Canada, and certainly we are as well. One letter I would like to quote is from the Consumers' Association of Canada, Ontario division.

"We feel that price spreading is most unfair to consumers and that it has been going on for far too long. We welcome some action on this by your ministry."

The Ontario Health Coalition, in a press release "for immediate release" on November 26, expressed its concern that pharmacy association ads were misleading and unprofessional. "These associations are attempting to alarm the public, especially the elderly, by threatening them with the loss of service. Further, Ms. Harding said it was high time the health industry and health providers face the fact that times have changed and the public is no longer awed by professional mysticism."

The Toronto mayor's committee on ageing forwarded a letter of support on November 4 on behalf of the senior citizens of this province. "The committee is pleased with your plan to permit some drugs to be dispensed in quantities larger than one month's supply."

It is interesting that in some of the background information I looked at in the submissions to Mr. Cordon, etc., one of the reasons identified by this high-powered lobby for retaining a 30-day supply -- there are differences of opinion on this. I am sure the member for York Mills, given her professional background, probably has some strong opinions of her own. The one reason put forward so strenuously by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association was that the 30-day supply would generate additional volume dispensing fees for the druggists. That is not a reason for a 30-day supply. If there are good medical reasons, I would be more than pleased to hear those.

I have another letter from the United Senior Citizens of Ontario: "We are appalled that the previous government, having spent $89,000 on the Gordon report, had taken no action to alleviate this situation. We realize the high cost of drugs is attributable to the practices of pharmacists and manufacturers of inflating drug prices in the semi-annual list."

Mr. Polsinelli: Is that the same group that was against the federal deindexing of pensions?

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Ward: I do not think that is the same group that was against the --

Mr. Polsinelli: Against deindexing.

Mr. Ward: Yes, against deindexing. I believe that was a Tory plan in Ottawa.

I have another from Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Ontario division. "The Ontario division of Canadian Pensioners Concerned is appalled about the price-spreading practices by pharmacists and drug manufacturers. We herewith submit our support."

The Association of Jewish Seniors, November 22, 1985, "The two bills introduced at the Legislature, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, should ensure more responsible drug pricing, which in turn will benefit Ontario taxpayers."

I do not want to consume a lot of time because I know the member for Scarborough Centre has many interesting things he wants to say, but I do want to set the record straight on a few items.

First, this problem is not new. It comes about as a result of inactivity or a refusal to act by the previous government on a long-established problem that it recognized. The member for Don Mills, during his leadership campaign, was quite prepared to recognize it. Keith Norton, a previous Minister of Health, as recently as two weeks ago said he wished the Minister of Health well because it was about time something was done.

Second, I want to set the record straight with respect to much of the input, the telegrams and form letters, we are all receiving. Pharmacists have a right to have a voice in this province and they will be heard before the committee. All the members of this House know perfectly well that as soon as this is referred to committee, they will have their opportunity for input.

I also want all the members of this House to know that the Association of Jewish Seniors, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, the Toronto mayor's committee on ageing, and thousands upon thousands of other Ontarians support us on this legislation.

Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is nearly six of the clock and I would like to make a number of remarks. Do you wish me to begin now or should we --

The Acting Speaker: Adjourn the debate at six.

Mr. Davis: Adjourn the debate at six; fine.

I take great pleasure in rising to speak on this important issue. I think the issue has a number of parameters that need to be examined and I would like to begin with my learned colleague's remarks about the openness of dialogue.

It seems to me that the present government uses the smokescreen of dialogue and open communication to blind the people of Ontario. They should have some kind of sense that they have an opportunity to come, debate, be heard and change legislation. We know we have been asking for openness in debate. It is my understanding the minister has stated that he would like to have debate very restricted. He would like to have six or nine large organizations come to speak to us. He wants to control the amount of time we spend in the day.

The only time this government seemed to approach the concept of open debate -- perhaps it is afraid to do it again -- was when we had the Bill 30 open debate, when we did have unfettered hearings and everybody was welcome. All through that process the government continually tried to limit the amount of debate saying, "If you have heard one or two, you have heard them all."

When one of our illustrious members on this side of the House decided to make a career decision and run for the leadership, it was the government members who were publicly quoted as saying, "To make that kind of statement prior to the hearings ending was wrong." What they tried to do was to limit it. That is what these members are trying to do. They are using smokescreens. "Come and talk to us." They pass legislation. They introduce legislation and they state to the public --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. Davis: I do. It is the trained seals that are barking. I thought they were on this side.

The present government says, "We are going to introduce a piece of legislation and we are going to have open hearings on it." Then what it does is --

Mr. Offer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member indicated with respect to the hearings on Bill 30 that there was an attempt not to hear everyone. I wonder if the member could please expand on that.

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Davis: They have this smokescreen and they say, "Come and talk to us." Then they go off to committee but they may limit the committee. They limit the amount of time and they rule by mandate, by decree, by fiat. They make those decisions.

Mr. Ward: How did the Tories handle drug pricing profits before? The back door; lobbyists.

Mr. Davis: We were prepared to sit down and negotiate. One of the things the Liberals have to remember is that if they want to play the game called negotiation, if they want to play that game and have public involvement, they have to be prepared to allow it to run its course. The present government is not prepared to do that. What it is prepared to do is to hold out a carrot and say, "Come along, let us begin it, but we are going to cut you off here."

That is what this government is prepared to do. If they do not allow openness in the hearings, then they do not have hearings. The minute those in government get a little flak from the other side they say: "I am going take my ball and run with it. I am going to start a new game and you are going to play it that way." There is no rationale for the introduction of Bill 55 or Bill 54. They can use the present piece of legislation and change it. There is no rationale whatsoever.

We established the Ontario drug benefit program which pays the cost of prescription drugs to senior citizens and to welfare recipients. An important point my learned colleague made was that before we introduced that bill, many pharmacists across the province ensured that those people had adequate drug protection because they cared about people and because they were professionals.

I daresay the kind of action the present government has taken lately against the professionals in this province often makes them wonder why they want to be professionals. A number of people are beginning to say, "You have rights and you do not have rights," depending on the mood of the government, along with their counterparts on this side, as they begin to try to bring in a new era of government.

I believe Orson Welles wrote about it in his book Nineteen Eighty Four --

Mrs. Grier: He did not. It was George Orwell.

Mr. Davis: George Orwell. Thank you. In his book.

Miss Stephenson: Orson Welles predicted the invasion of the Martians.

Mr. Davis: He predicted the invasion of the Martians. I sometimes think we have had the invasion of the Martians on the other side.

Mr. Ward: Is the member supporting the bill?

Mr. Davis: I am still talking. I will let the member know in due course. In the fullness of time, I will make my remarks known.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is what the Tories have been doing since 1978. All talk and no action.

Mr. Davis: Let me finish. We began the process, and as time went on, it became apparent there were difficulties -- we are not denying that -- but we sat down to negotiate. The problem is that sometimes one cannot solve issues overnight. One can deal with the problem two ways: one can either protract those negotiations and attempt to bring them about --

Mr. Ward: For seven years?

Mr. Davis: It has not been seven years.

Or one can do what the government does and rule by decree. They can rule by government intervention in the lives of the people of Ontario. Big Brother government will look after us. That is what they are going to do.

One of the problems we have with this bill is that it has been the intention of the government not to have completely open hearings, not to allow the people of Ontario and the professional people and the pharmaceutical people and the doctors of this province to come and present their case. The government has made a decision. Now they are going to run with it, whether anybody likes it or not. It is important that we begin to have that sense of the openness they proclaim as their party policy and that they have an open dialogue with anybody who wants to talk to them.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

January 13, 1986

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CROWN EMPLOYEES

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

DRUG SUBSTITUTE

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

PENSION FUNDS

INSURANCE RATES

ROOMERS AND BOARDERS

INSURANCE RATES

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

TRADE OFFICE

MINIMUM WAGE

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

EMERGENCY FACILITY

VOTE RECOUNTS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)