Hansard Transcript 1986-Jun-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Gregory: It is a great privilege for me to rise in the House today to inform all members of the upcoming Mississauga Rainbow Festival with events and happenings scheduled from June 27 through to Canada Day, July 1.

This year's festival marks the 11th year in celebration of Mississauga becoming a city. To kick off this year's exciting and fantastic festival, the city is building Canada's largest rainbow balloon arch in front of Square One. The city has applied to the Guinness Book of World Records in order to have on record this 12-storey structure. The christening of the balloon arch is scheduled for this Saturday, June 21, at 12 noon.

Some of the highlights of this year's festival include the addition of a gigantic home show and horticulture show. An always spectacular event is the battle of the marching bands, with bands from all over Canada and the United States competing for $3,000 in prize money. The mayors' bathtub race is always a great event, which attracts mayors from municipalities across the province. A major focus of this year's festival is the 20 or more multicultural groups which will perform and entertain and operate food concessions in their native art and cuisine.

The significance of this very successful annual event is the contribution of the 350 or so volunteers and community groups which devote their time and effort so willingly. We in Mississauga are justifiably proud of the work involved in organizing this event, and I am proud to be able to take this opportunity to give the Mississauga Rainbow Festival the recognition it so richly deserves.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are now in our third week of clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 94. Yesterday afternoon the bells rang for more than an hour, and we spent more than an hour discussing an amendment that simply increases the number of people on the appeal board to deal with appeals under the Health Insurance Act.

What is the message the Tory party is communicating out of the Ontario Legislature to the doctors of this province? The message is very clear. It was enunciated by the Conservatives' partner in the Legislature, the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson), on Metro Morning. The message is that if they hold up the bill long enough, the strike will be successful and Bill 94 will be defeated.

The message that should be coming out of the Legislature is that the consensus in the Legislature and in the province is that extra billing will be banned by the legislators of this province.

This party has now offered twice, yesterday and today -- and I understand the Liberal Party has agreed -- to sit at night in order to finish Bill 94. The Tory party has refused that offer. The Tories are partners with the Ontario Medical Association and the doctors of this province in destroying the health care system of Ontario. We must pass Bill 94 today.

VISITORS

Mr. Shymko: We recently were honoured and privileged to greet Bishop Tutu at a special session in this Legislature as a spiritual leader and a champion of liberty and civil rights for his people in his determined struggle against the evil of apartheid.

Today I am privileged to greet in the members' gallery another spiritual leader waging a similar struggle for liberty, religious freedom and peace for his homeland. I greet His Eminence Myroslaw Iwan Cardinal Lubachivsky, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and Metropolitan of Kiev and Halych.

[Applause]

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I am losing some time because of the great applause. I hope you will consider that.

He is accompanied by His Excellency Bishop Isadore Borecky of Toronto and is currently touring North America. We want to stress that he represents some nine million Ukrainian Catholics, six million of whom do not have the right to practise their faith in the Soviet Union today. Practising their faith is punishable under the criminal code.

We wish him success. We understand the role that Christianity, churches and religions have played in places such as the Philippines, South America and South Africa, and we hope that some day he will reign over his faithful in Kiev as Metropolitan of Kiev.

BUILDING ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Philip: I bring to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) a problem existing with a company that owns a building in my riding. The company is called 493505 Ontario Ltd. and it owns a building at 2 Armel Court in Rexdale.

This building is considered to be a luxury building. It just recently opened. In the advertisements a number of promises were made, and I will go quickly through a list of some of the promises that appear to have been broken and that are quite distinct in the advertising of this company.

"Telephone outlets in the kitchen and all bedrooms" -- only some apartments have them in some rooms. "Mosaic tile floor in the foyer" -- that was not put into any of the apartments. "Durable and easy-clean, designer-selected, solarium-cushioned kitchen flooring" -- they have not done this. "Roomy, new, California-style, eat-in kitchen" -- that is in some apartments and not in others. "Kitchen sinks with single-lever faucets" -- none. "Self-cleaning ovens" -- none. "Dimmer switches in central dining rooms" -- none. "Shelving in storage areas" -- none. "Cable in the third bedroom or second bedroom" -- none.

I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to look at whether this company should be allowed to get away with this kind of false advertising.

SOUTH AFRICAN EVENTS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Our Legislature was recently honoured with a visit by Bishop Desmond Tutu. In the light of recent events, we should recognize the fact that yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the Soweto uprising. This uprising, which started with an incident in which an 11-year-old boy was brutally shot down, sparked a number of massive riots throughout South Africa and struck the consciousness of the whole world.

The Soweto uprising is considered to be the turning point in South African history. As a result of the riots, the government regulation concerning education was rescinded. Consequently, all events surrounding Soweto mobilized an increasingly organized opposition.

I know I speak for the whole House in strongly condemning recent events that have occurred in South Africa. It is appropriate to take heed of Bishop Tutu's prophetic words: "Only intervention by the outside world can avoid Armageddon. What is the world waiting for?"

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Brandt: Yesterday one of my constituents, Barry Brown, was informed by an official from the Workers' Compensation Board that a decision was being delayed on his claim because of an outstanding doctor's report. He was also told that no decision would be made until that report is received.

Mr. Brown's doctor is on strike in protest of the government's heavy-handed actions directed against the medical profession. It is totally unfair that Mr. Brown and others in his same situation should be victimized by the refusal of the government to negotiate to settle this dispute.

I demand that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wryer) instruct officials at the Workers' Compensation Board to take whatever action is necessary to adjudicate Mr. Brown's claim so that he can receive the funds that, quite simply, he needs to survive.

FIESTA WEEK

Mr. Breaugh: Briefly, I want to note that this is the 25th anniversary of the Oshawa Folk Arts Council. Members may not be aware, but should be, that this week in Oshawa is called Fiesta Week. We have about 31 pavilions open for visitation this year. All members are welcome to join us. It takes us about a week to get this done.

This week we are celebrating a great many cultures in many different ways. It is a wonderful opportunity for Oshawa to enjoy who we are and who we have been and to enjoy other nations that one may not always get a chance to visit.

Maclean's magazine has called this event the greatest celebration of multiculturalism in this country, and it is. All are welcome to attend.

NORTH BAY COURTHOUSE

Mr. Harris: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the abominable politics that are being played for the North Bay courthouse. This is a project where money was approved, the drawings have been done and everything has been ready to go. The government has sat on this. We have a former president of a Liberal association making statements and announcements. We want to know when North Bay is going to get a courthouse.

2:12 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PORK PRODUCTION

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to announce yet another initiative of this government in keeping with its strong commitment to the agriculture and food industry -- a refreshing change, indeed, over the past.

As the honourable members know, pork production is one of Ontario's most important agricultural activities. It is number three in farm cash receipts in this province and a major source of export dollars.

When it comes to jobs, about 15,000 people work in the production side and a further 14,000 in slaughtering and meat processing. There is a lot riding on the continuing success of this industry. For these reasons, I am pleased to inform this House of new programs that will mean long-term benefits to producers and processors alike.

Ontario is budgeting $54 million over the next five years to improve our pork industry. The marketing assistance program for pork will boost the processing side and the Ontario pork industry improvement plan will concentrate on production. The production program is aimed at improving the efficiency, profitability and competitive position of Ontario's pork producers.

The marketing program zeros in on market research, developing new products, upgrading processing plants and increasing exports. The pork industry improvement program is effective April 1, 1986. It will provide incentives to improve swine herd health, record of performance testing, production and financial management analysis and swine research.

Our marketing plan will offer financial assistance for consumer surveys, new product development, export expansion and new processing technology for pork. We recognize the importance of this industry and its potential and we are responding. Our new two-part strategy will help producers and processors maintain their competitive positions in national and world markets. In doing so, this will strengthen an essential element of our economy.

Mr. Stevenson: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We welcome the announcement today of support for the swine industry. I am surprised it took so long. Some of the initial meetings were held while I was minister, about a year ago now, and since this program is pretty much a copy of the red meat program the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) introduced two or three years ago, I do not know why it took a year to get this out. Obviously, it must have had something to do with a political schedule rather than a swine schedule.

The red meat program has been very successful in the beef and sheep industry, with significant improvements in the record-keeping of those producers and the efficiency of the people who have participated in that plan. In general, it has been favourably received. With the success of that program, I am sure there is no reason this one cannot be equally successfully.

I am wondering why the minister has not included in this announcement funding for the swine artificial insemination unit or, if it is buried in here, why it has not been mentioned. He did receive a report this past September or October from an outside consultant on that program, which has been very important in improving the quality of swine in Ontario. The Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board passed a resolution at its most recent annual meeting telling him to get off his duff and get some response to that consultant's report, but, unfortunately, that response does not yet seem to be forthcoming.

While this support for the swine industry is very favourable, it is not terribly significant in the light of what other jurisdictions are doing for their agricultural industry this year. We are into a totally new era of funding agriculture in many countries of the world. The minister does not seem to realize that yet.

To give some indication of the impact, the United States farm bill is an example. The minister is saying in his own speeches that 75 per cent of the net farm income of US farmers will come directly from government funding. That is a frightening figure. It is also important to note that the funding body of the US administration has been mailing out $100 million a day to US farmers. That $100 million a day has accounted for an increase in disposable income to all Americans of 1.2 per cent in April. One per cent of that 1.2 per cent was due directly to government funding to farmers in the US.

When one considers the impact of that funding to farmers and expresses it only on the basis of the farm numbers instead of the whole population, one begins to realize what significant impact government funding is having.

We look at a 75 per cent increase in the budget this year in Alberta and a 100 per cent increase in Saskatchewan.

Once again, action does not even come close to matching the rhetoric from this minister. Farmers in Ontario are getting left in the dust when it comes to competing with farmers in other jurisdictions with whom we must compete. We call on this government to take some action to try to keep Ontario farmers competitive in this new era of agricultural funding.

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In the recent budget, I introduced a proposal for the support of employee share ownership plans in Ontario. At that time I indicated the advice and counsel of concerned organizations and members of the public were necessary to ensure an effective program.

To assist those who wish to share their views with me, I have established a working group of senior staff from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Ministry of Revenue to consider suggestions or comments groups or individuals may have. I invite interested parties to submit written comments to this working group through the taxation policy branch of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. All submissions will be carefully reviewed.

I shall also personally welcome any suggestions or comments from members of the House.

I intend to discuss the issue of employee share ownership with my federal and provincial colleagues at the June 20 meeting of finance ministers. In addition, Treasury officials will be proceeding with discussions with their counterparts at the Department of Finance in the next few weeks.

I hope people are able to make their views known to me by August 31 so that legislation can be ready for the House when we return in the fall, assuming we leave.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government, I welcome His Eminence Cardinal Lubachivsky on his first visit to Metro Toronto. With him is Bishop Isadore Borecky.

Six million members of the Ukrainian Catholic Church are in the Soviet Union, where the practise of their faith is subject to persecution under the criminal code.

We simply join our friends from High Park-Swansea to say to His Eminence Cardinal Lubachivsky that we totally agree with him when he said at a mass yesterday, "Do everything possible to see to it that your voice is heard so that they may obtain the same freedom of conscience and worship you have here in Canada." Welcome, Cardinal.

Mr. Rae: On behalf of my party, I want to express regret that the minister for some statements, and without any other portfolio, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), has once again chosen to make a statement without distributing it to us. No doubt that is because it was made in response to the statement of the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and improvised on the spur of the moment.

With two such distinguished guests as Cardinal Lubachivsky and Bishop Borecky, I am saddened that we do not have the opportunity to pay a more official tribute to their visit, particularly since I know the cause of religious freedom in the Soviet Union is one of extreme importance to all members of this House. We have a very widespread concern about the freedom of worship of Jews in the Soviet Union. It is entirely appropriate that this House bear witness to the number of Ukrainian Catholics in Canada who feel very strongly about the repression in their homeland.

As I understand it, part of the purpose of the visit of the cardinal is to express concern, to attempt to raise some funds and to put a greater focus on the international relief effort for the tragic victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. It would be entirely appropriate for members of the House to have been made more fully aware of that by the government so that we could show the cardinal and the bishop the hospitality of which we are all so proud as members of the Legislature.

The cause of religious freedom knows no partisan boundaries. The right to worship one's God in the ways of one's ancestors is one of the most cherished human rights in the world. As Canadians, we can say it is one we have endeavoured to assure and to provide as freely and fairly as possible. Our hearts go out to those communities that do not have the freedom to say their prayers, light their candles and remember the God of their ancestors as they would like to do. The fact that it is not possible to do that in the Soviet Union and in many other countries is a gross, unfair and grotesque infringement of human rights.

We welcome Cardinal Lubachivsky to our midst and we welcome Bishop Borecky to this Legislature. On our behalf and on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I take this opportunity to express those sentiments today.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to take the occasion to draw to the attention of members that resolution 44 standing in my name on the Orders and Notices paper deals with the matter of the Chernobyl disaster and all its ramifications. We are attempting to find an occasion in the near future when we can put the resolution in front of the members, at which time we will have a more formal opportunity to have some discussion around that and lend as much assistance as we can, at least as a provincial Legislature, to all the people who have been directly affected by that.

Mr. Shymko: Notwithstanding the fact that --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: This is a response to the minister's statement.

Mr. Speaker: According to the standing orders, the time has elapsed. That completes the allotted time for ministers' statements and responses.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not mind being criticized, but I thought this government indicated to the two opposition parties when any visitors are coming in. I thought --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

2:27 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier, who was apparently able and willing to answer questions related to the doctors' strike outside the House yesterday while he refuses to do so inside the House. This afternoon I hope he will deem himself worthy of answering questions by members of this assembly.

In so doing, by now I am sure he has been briefed by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) with regard to the exact size and scope of what is becoming a very frightening circumstance throughout Ontario. With that in mind, will the Premier inform us this afternoon how many emergency wards are now closed, how many elective procedures have been cancelled, how many medical advisory boards have resigned and how many hospital boards have resigned?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We do have some information with respect to that. The minister is in a better position to give up-to-the-minute details than I am, but if the honourable member is so intent on asking me a question, I am happy to answer it to the best of my ability. Then if he is not satisfied, he may want to ask the minister for any up-to-date information.

The member is putting forward an interesting discussion here. I refer him back to April 27, 1982, when the very same question was asked of the then Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just a minute. The member may want to read this. I asked him the same question when he was Minister of Health and he said he could not be expected to know these situations; he could not be expected to know which hospitals were closed or how many elective surgeries had been cancelled. He was the minister and not the Premier on that occasion. It is interesting how he keeps changing his views on the situation.

To the best of my knowledge, the situation is as follows: Welland County General Hospital, 12 noon Monday; Scarborough Centenary Hospital, 12 noon Monday; Peel Memorial Hospital, six o'clock Monday; Humber Memorial Hospital, four o'clock Monday, reopened at eight o'clock today; Etobicoke General Hospital, 6 p.m. today; Queensway General Hospital, 6 p.m. Monday in rotation with Peel, the Credit Valley Hospital and the Mississauga Hospital; York-Finch General Hospital, today at 8 a.m.; Sarnia General Hospital, today at nine; Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, Burlington, today at 8 a.m.; Plummer Memorial Public Hospital, Sault Ste. Marie, today at 3 p.m.; York Central Hospital, Richmond Hill, today at 8 a.m.; Ajax and Pickering General Hospital, today at 12 noon; and Scarborough General Hospital, Wednesday at 8 a.m. At Cornwall General Hospital and Hotel Dieu Hospital, the physicians have voted to withdraw services from these hospitals on an alternating basis beginning with Hotel Dieu, I gather today, but I am not sure.

I have answered the question to the best of my information at the moment.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier referred to April 27, 1982. I want to read the question that he, as Leader of the Opposition, asked me, as Minister of Health. I remind him that on April 27, 1982, we were talking about day one of a two-day strike. In 1986, we are in day six of a strike that has included the closing of emergency wards. I want to read to the Premier the question he asked:

"Will the minister agree that he does not have the devices available to gather this information and that he does not know the extent of the crisis?...Given that and the evidence that we in this party are receiving...does he not feel it is time to bring in back-to-work legislation? We will co-operate with the minister in that regard to make sure he has that weapon available to him to prevent a serious tragedy, which we would all regret."

If on April 27, 1982, on day one of a much more modest strike than he faces in day six of a very serious strike, he was worried about a serious tragedy occurring, why is he not worried about a serious tragedy occurring now and why is he not doing something about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If it is now the position of the honourable member that we should bring in back-to-work legislation, then I am very interested in knowing that. I appreciate knowing from hour to hour what his position is, because it is very hard to determine, to have some understanding of this.

To the best of our knowledge, the closures I have reported on an up-to-date basis are partial closures. Those emergency rooms are still open. There is a doctor there. Nurses are there, paramedics are there and a doctor is there taking primary responsibility and referring some of the less serious cases to other areas that are open.

The ministry has an emergency plan in place, and I am sure the member is aware of that. It is functioning. I grant there is an inconvenience at the moment, but I can assure the member that the ministry is watching it very closely. At this moment we are proceeding on the course we have suggested.

Mr. Grossman: I want to tell the Premier that for tens of thousands of people this is too serious a matter for those kinds of games.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has assured this House that the ministry has an emergency plan available. This morning, we called the Ministry of Health number, which the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) gave out as his emergency plan. What happens when one calls the ministry emergency plan number is that, unbelievably, the Ministry of Health tells the caller to call his doctor or to go to the nearest emergency ward. That is the Ministry of Health's response to the chaotic situation we have across the province.

The Premier has described the situation in emergency wards and assured the public that there is one doctor and some nurses on hand and that a selection is being made. Is the Premier comfortable with the circumstance in which, having created a battlefield out of our emergency wards, there is a triage going on where a doctor is making a selection with regard to who will be treated and who will not be treated? As Premier, is he satisfied with that triage --

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister and his staff gave very rational and sensible advice to people. The minister is not trying to create a panic as some other people perhaps would attempt to do. The reality is that a large number of physicians are still operating in their offices. The honourable member knows the odds as well as I do, that if one phones one's physician, he or she will be there.

Second, if his or her physician --

Mr. Grossman: That is not good enough.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What does the member mean it is not good enough? It is very sensible advice. It may not be sensible for someone who wants to create a --

Mr. Grossman: It is not good odds. Is that what the Premier is doing to look after this crisis? Is that his response?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the honourable member will listen, the second point, and I believe the minister announced it, is that an ambulance can be called if emergency care is required, and the ambulance drivers are aware of which emergency wards are open and which are not.

Third, one can call the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which gives advice in this matter.

Fourth, there is a hotline number to assist people who cannot get advice or assistance through the first two or three methods.

It is very sensible and when people understand that message, they will understand that the ministry is on top of the situation. I recognize others would like to create panic and situations that would incite fear in people, but it is not justified in the circumstances. If my honourable friend wants to assist in this situation, why does he not help pass the legislation rather than stonewalling and delaying?

Mr. Grossman: My next question is for the Premier as well. He suggested ways to assist the situation. I want to read to him the comments which Dr. Railton made last evening and which were repeated in the morning paper. He said, "If the legislation is passed this week, the doctors' strike and protest actions will continue." Therefore, if the Premier is serious about wanting to stop this problem and solve it, I have a proposal for him.

Mr. Speaker: By way of question, I hope.

Mr. Grossman: By way of question. Given the fact that one phone call to Dr. Railton can stop the strike, I have here a telephone --

Mr. Callahan: Why does the member not call Jake Epp?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member should be in theatre.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members want to waste time, that is fine.

Mr. Grossman: I have here a portable telephone. We have --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This is the Legislature, not --

Mr. Grossman: That attitude caused this strike, I say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just going to wait. It is your time you are wasting. Order. Supplementary question immediately.

Mr. Grossman: The first question has not been asked.

Mr. Speaker: I want to hear the question. Mr. Grossman: Fine. They have not let me put it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to draw to your attention, as I am sure you and the members are well aware, the standing order that says: "In putting an oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question, the member is not to debate the matter to which it refers."

I suggest the telephone the member has is encouraging further debate on the matter.

Mr. Grossman: We had Wynken yesterday; we have Blynken and Nod today. We have Wynken, Blynken and Nod in charge of our health care system.

I have a telephone for the Premier. We have programmed into it the phone number where Dr. Railton will be this afternoon. With havoc in the health care system, will the Premier push this button so he can speak to Dr. Railton and end the doctors' strike simply by requesting a mediator? I am going to send the phone over.

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the honourable member for his suggestion. It is a better gift than the chicken I received from the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) some time ago.

This is a very serious matter, and we believe the ministry is looking at the situation and monitoring it on an ongoing basis. If it were as simple as making one phone call, it would have been done months ago. The member is asking me to withdraw the bill. If he wants to stand up and tell this House his real view of this situation-and it is not a phone call -- then I think the minister will be aware of it. If that is the member's position, I respect it, but if it is not, then why does he not pass the bill? The way he can be most constructive is to use this phone to call his House leader and tell him to get on with the discussion of this bill in this House.

Mr. Grossman: We do not have to call our House leader. This party is united in trying to stop the government from destroying the system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The spectacle of laughing, joking, smirking and more blinks today on that side of the House is scandalous when patients are waiting for heart surgery and cancer surgery. That is the government's response to the strike.

The Premier claims there is nothing he can do to stop this strike. Last night, Dr. Railton answered this question posed by Denise Harrington, "What are the Ontario Medical Association's conditions for ending the strike and restoring service?" The answer: "All the government has to do is consent to meet with us in meaningful negotiations."

The Premier has described the situation as a grade 8 high school dance with no one prepared to make the first call. On behalf of thousands of struggling patients and scared parents, will the Premier make that phone call today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, as legislators, we all have a responsibility not to put more fear or panic in the hearts of people than may be there now in a difficult circumstance. We all have a responsibility in that regard, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman). I know he would want to fulfil that responsibility.

Second, I am not sure of the exact words of Dr. Railton's position. I watched that debate with great interest yesterday, and I thought it was democracy at its finest. It was an excellent debate and an excellent discussion of the issues. Dr. Railton put his position very well, and the minister put the position extremely well. I hope every person in this province saw that debate last night. Let them judge. My sense is that the vast majority would support the Minister of Health in the cogent and thoughtful way he put forward the arguments to end extra billing.

To come back to the point, the Leader of the Opposition says it is a phone call. If it were so simple as to end the strike with one phone call I would do it, but that is not the case. They want us to withdraw the bill. I tell my honourable friend, we are not going to withdraw the bill. We are going to proceed with it. Dr. Railton acknowledged on television last night that the negotiating team led by the minister put forward a number of very constructive proposals.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes, he did. There was even a letter back to the minister by one of the team saying, "We are making real progress." We are prepared to sit down with the medical profession very shortly -- tomorrow, today -- and discuss a number of the outstanding issues. There is no question about that. However, one cannot bend in every little breeze. We told the people of this province where we stand on extra billing. It is a very difficult situation at the moment, and not one I am happy about, believe me. I wish this were not happening, but we are fulfilling a commitment in which we believe.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final, brief supplementary.

Mr. Harris: Will it be the same as the final, brief answers, or the final, brief yelling and screaming that interrupts this House all day? That is exactly what the members are doing.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, the Premier misrepresents what Dr. Railton said on TV last evening. He categorically referred to the "so-called negotiations conducted by the government." He categorically said he would like the legislation postponed to allow an opportunity for meaningful discussions.

The Premier may not think it is a frightening situation, but I want to tell him how I exercise my responsibilities in this House. I am frightened about what is happening in the health care system. Like the Premier, on day one in 1982 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a question?

Mr. Grossman: Is the Premier convinced there is an acceptable level of health care services available to the public of Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In his first supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition suggested one simple phone call would solve the problem. In his second supplementary he said, "if the bill were postponed." I wish he would give me the full information in his first supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Why does the Premier not quit playing games? Come on, grow up.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not playing games. He knows where I stand.

Mr. Grossman: Why does he not take some responsibility? He is playing word games. He should pick up the phone and settle this. It is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: The definition of a Tory phone is one that has one number on it, that of the OMA, and it is a one-way line.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I am going to wait.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: There should be an Oscar for synthetic indignation.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am concerned about another phone line, and that is the phone line that appears to have been operating over the past number of years between the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

On April 28, 1982, after a very short stoppage, Dr. Klotz, who was then the president of the college, wrote to every member of the college and said:

"In the opinion of the council, further interruptions in the services provided by individual physicians do not serve the public interest. The council is concerned that further disruptions of longer duration would have serious implications for the health and welfare of those who need medical attention."

Can the minister explain why that letter was sent out four years ago, after a very short disruption, yet we had a statement yesterday that simply said the complete closure of emergency departments is unacceptable, which clearly appears to imply that the rotating closure is acceptable to the college?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot tell the members of this House about what people did in 1982. I can say that the college has been quite active in reviewing and monitoring the situation and has been on the scene in a number of the locations meeting the needs of the delivery of service in those areas. It has developed for the first time a statement with respect to the delivery of services on a service basis rather than on an individual physician basis, and it has set out very clearly the principles of the requirement to deliver service in those emergency departments.

Mr. Rae: Dr. Myers, the past president of the OMA, is quoted today in an article in the Globe and Mail. It stated that as a result of a letter sent by the OMA to the college, "the OMA pursued the subject in correspondence and in meetings with the college. The college has now `rethought its position,' he said. `It was all straightened out in 1982.'"

Is the minister aware of that statement by Dr. Myers, and what steps has he undertaken as minister to find out precisely what correspondence, what meetings and what understandings have been reached between the OMA and the college?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am aware of the statement as reported in one of the dailies in this city. The registrar, Dr. Dixon, has contacted the reporter who wrote the story as well as others. I also called him early this morning and talked to him about that and was told that no understanding, either formal or informal, is being indicated by Dr. Myers. There is an understanding and an indication by Dr. Dixon that the college takes its responsibilities to ensure the public interest very seriously. It regards the upholding of the regulations under the Health Disciplines Act as its solemn duty and it is going to undertake that.

Mr. Rae: Any objective observer would agree there is a dramatic difference between these two pieces of paper, one of them sent out in 1982 and one of them sent out in 1986. Everybody would agree that what is going on today is far more serious than what took place in 1982. If the explanation is not collusion between the OMA and the college, can the minister explain why the response from the college up until now has been so pathetically weak with respect to the disruption of services?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The college has performed its function in this situation very well. It has had people on site in those locations. They have talked to people. They have counselled people with respect to questions that have come in. They have established a very public reference.

The honourable gentleman indicated the college has caved in. It has not caved in. It has been very serious about pursuing the public interest. Dr. Dixon has assured me they intend to pursue the public interest, and I think we will see that they will pursue the public interest.

Mr. Rae: The college is not doing what it did in 1982, when there was a much shorter disruption of services and when it ensured that all emergency services would continue to be provided. The minister has not yet provided us with an explanation. If he cannot explain that, can he explain why the college in any of its publications or statements has not made any reference to the Health Disciplines Act explicitly or to the Public Hospitals Act?

Why has there been no reference to the fact that doctors who are on medical staff of a hospital are supposed to, under the act, "arrange for another member to perform his duties and notify the administrator"? Can the minister explain why the college is not informing the medical profession what the law is in the province and why it does not appear to be prepared to enforce the law in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The registrar has indicated very clearly that the college takes its mandate very seriously and that it will enforce the law. It has been working quite closely, not only with the Ministry of Health but also with the staffs of hospitals and in addition with the boards of hospitals to underscore the requirements under the regulations.

I spoke with Dr. Dixon early in the morning and again at noon, and he assured me personally they are pursuing the enforcement of the Health Disciplines Act regulations and will not be deterred from that. There is no collusion. There is no agreement.

Mr. Rae: The minister is spouting nonsense. The fact of the matter is that hospital emergency wards are being closed right across parts of Metro and in the areas around Metro. It is happening in Sarnia, Welland and Cornwall. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has said virtually nothing with respect to how it feels about that action by those doctors.

If the college is not prepared to act, what does the minister intend to do about a statement by Dr. Sky, the OMA representative at Etobicoke General Hospital, who said: "Doctors are not listening to the OMA directive and they are doing whatever it takes to get the government's attention. It is getting pretty hard to co-ordinate the hospitals to ensure there is public safety at all times"?

It is clear that discipline in this situation has entirely and utterly broken down. The OMA is condoning this action and, indeed, in parts is co-ordinating it. The college is sitting back and doing nothing and is condoning it. It is saying that the closure at Northwestern General Hospital is okay and that as long as the other ones follow that pattern, there is no problem. If they are not prepared to act, what steps is the minister prepared to take to make sure patients continue to have access to emergency services in the province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman said the college was condoning this sort of activity. The college is not condoning this sort of activity. They have been on the scene in a number of areas and have done a lot of work to ensure that medical services are available at each of the emergency rooms that have been reported closed. There are people there delivering medical judgements, which is the way in this province when medical necessity is shown. The college has had a very large role to play in making sure there has been provision of services in this province.

The college does not have an agreement with the OMA whereby it has decided not to enforce the regulations. That is not an appropriate reading of the information. They have undertaken very clearly and strongly to me that they will enforce the regulations, that they are enforcing them and that they are taking practical steps to ensure there are services in the emergency rooms.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: We will do it every day if we have to, to get this minister to act. Mrs. Yvonne Pitre is a resident of a senior citizens' home in Hanmer. She apparently has bladder cancer and was told surgery was needed immediately. The cancer has to be cauterized. She was scheduled for surgery at Laurentian Hospital but now has had her operation put on hold. The woman is in quite a bit of pain and discomfort. She now has to wait for the surgery and does not know when it will take place as Laurentian Hospital has cancelled that surgery.

This is happening. Is it the minister's view that this is lawful under the Public Hospitals Act and under the Health Disciplines Act? What does he intend to do about this example and literally dozens of other examples of people who have had cancer and heart surgery delayed and who are not getting access to the services their doctors in the so-called sacred doctor-patient relationship are supposed to want to maintain and uphold in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have asked that when the honourable members of this House know of situations like these and others, they advise me so that we can take steps. I know the honourable gentleman is aware of situations that were brought to my attention before, and steps were taken to ensure there was delivery of service. I can tell the honourable gentleman, the members and the public that the college will take steps to intervene in this situation.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has abused my privileges as a member, because I had referred to the minister a specific problem one of my constituents had. Unlike what the minister says, this problem has not been solved by either the college or the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege, but it is certainly a point of view.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier --

Mr. Ferraro: We have a question.

Mr. Speaker: After the two leaders' questions, it must start with the official opposition.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier with respect to the current situation and the withdrawal of services across the province. I know the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was enjoying himself and laughing about this situation, but there has to be some concern somewhere in this government about what is happening to the health care system in this province. It is not in hand. It is not in control. It is totally out of control.

I am talking about the cancellation of cancer surgery and the removal of fibrous growths. I know what I am talking about. I am talking about 16-year-old children who have had necessary treatment cancelled for asthmatic conditions. I am talking about a 60-year-old man who sat in a hotel room in Toronto for three days waiting to be admitted for a cancer operation.

These are referrals from all parts of the province into the medical centres of our province for needed medical attention and surgical procedures. They are being forgotten in all of this.

What is the Premier going to do to guarantee them proper access to medical care in the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member puts the situation well. There is hardship; there is no question about that. I do not know the specific cases he refers to, but I can assure him the minister will pursue those if the member is prepared to share them with him.

We are being told that emergency surgery is not being cancelled and that medical judgements are being made in that regard. Presumably they are elective surgeries. I am not in a position to say one way or the other, but I trust the professionals to make those judgements. That is the position of this government.

With respect to the urgency of the situation, the member could be constructive by persuading his party to proceed with the bill. If he could use his good offices and the senior voice he has in his caucus to proceed rather than to stonewall, we could have a resolution of the question.

Mr. Pope: The Premier knows very well, on the basis of the comments my leader just made, that this will not happen. The speeding up of Bill 94 will not solve this problem. It will not deal with the backlog.

Mr. Foulds: Try it.

Mr. Pope: Try negotiating with them for a change, you turkeys.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat? I can wait. I was hoping a number of members would be able to ask questions.

Supplementary, and please direct it through the chair.

Mr. Pope: Can the Premier confirm that there are no medical assessments taking place on these cases, that there are no judgements being made on who will be admitted or not admitted, that these people are in fact prepurchasing tickets on the airlines and are having to cancel and pay that money, that there is no assessment being made by the Ministry of Health, that these people are getting no calls from doctors, no calls from hospitals, no calls from the Ministry of Health and that the situation is out of control?

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member is making some serious allegations against the medical profession and he is entitled to do that in this House. They still have professional responsibilities, and in spite of the inconvenience at the moment, we believe they are still fulfilling their professional responsibilities in that regard. If the member has evidence of someone who was irresponsibly treated by a physician, I know the college would very much like to hear about that situation.

With respect to his second point, about the inconvenience to people in northern Ontario, that is perhaps a real problem. I would be very happy to give an answer if the member would like one. With respect to inconvenience, if we can assist under our northern travel assistance program those people the member is aware of, we will do everything we can to assist those patients and compensate for hardships in these circumstances. If the member has the names of people who have suffered those difficulties, let him please bring those names to our attention. We will make sure they do not suffer.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Given that tomorrow the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal begins hearings on the Villanucci case -- a historic leading case before the tribunal, wherein one of the issues will be the meaning of subsection 45(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act, the subsection that establishes ratings for permanent injuries -- I want to ask the minister why the director of medical services of the Workers' Compensation Board, Dr. Dowd, on the eve of this hearing, would uphold the use of the meat chart by the WCB in its interpretation of that subsection of the act?

Why would he make the ridiculous statements that board doctors use "universal medical guidelines when it comes to dealing with back injuries" and that "socioeconomic factors are not our business"? Can the minister explain whether this palpable nonsense from the medical director is government policy?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I gather the honourable member is referring to the comments contained in yesterday's Toronto Star article. The issue of whether the payment of a permanent partial pension shall be for pain and suffering only or for the loss of income is an issue fundamental to the appeal beginning tomorrow before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. In the past, the payment of a permanent partial pension has not in any way been involved in the loss of income and, indeed, that has been an area which has been widely criticized and which brought forth the first Weiler report and the recommendations contained therein.

We are waiting for Professor Weiler's second study on this matter, a new study he is undertaking for the ministry. We expect it by the end of this month. Meanwhile, we will be watching with interest this appeal before the appeals tribunal.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: The minister did not answer the first question. Why on earth would the WCB retain J. J. Robinette to represent its case before the tribunal in the Villanucci case when the minister knows perfectly well the position Mr. Robinette expressed for the previous government was that this hideous meat chart, this ridiculous and unjust travesty of a meat chart, is the correct interpretation of subsection 45(1)? Why is the government taking that odious position tomorrow during the Villannucci case?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I assume the decision to hire Mr. Robinette was taken by the independent board of directors of the WCB.

The honourable member knows that we on this side of the House have also raised questions about the future of the meat chart and about the efficacy of its use in the future. Until new legislation comes forward and all members of the Legislature have a chance to review the findings of Professor Weiler, that is the method of determining permanent partial pensions that is now in place. Mr. Robinette will probably be placing the argument before the appeals tribunal that the interpretation the board has always put on the meat chart is the correct interpretation.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment --

Interjections.

Mr. Ferraro: I do not know why the Tories are heckling me. The question deals with waste management and is along the lines of the questions they have been asking this afternoon. I do not understand their reaction.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Are you not going to ask the question?

Mr. Ferraro: I will now. I did not want to interrupt their playtime.

The question is of interest not only to me but also to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson).

As the Minister of the Environment knows, the city of Guelph and the county of Wellington have undertaken a significant and massive waste management study for the last several years, costing a lot of money. The report is out and the two recommendations are either to expand the existing site or to create an energy-from-waste plant in Guelph, particularly at the University of Guelph.

Can the minister tell my constituents, who have been calling me regularly, his ministry's position as far as the energy-from-waste plant being created in Ontario, with specific reference to the one at the Victoria Hospital in London?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: A number of options have been available to all the municipalities in Ontario that have come forward with their waste management plans, but the basic choice they have for the disposal of the large majority of their garbage has been the option of either incineration or landfill. Both have their proponents and opponents in the area represented by the member for Wellington South and some adjacent areas.

The ministry is prepared to look at and evaluate all the proposals put before it for the disposal of what we call municipal garbage. There has been some considerable interest in the incineration of garbage in very recent times because of some reports that have come out. Our ministry is looking extremely carefully at all those proposals now. Up to this time, we have required that the best and latest available technology be installed in any of them. There are still those who see that as not being sufficient. We will have to evaluate everything when we take into consideration the proposals put before us.

Mr. Ferraro: Can the minister tell me what results, if any, he has experienced from the energy-from-waste plant at the Victoria Hospital in London? Second, what promotions for recycling is his ministry involved in?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The first answer I can give to the member is that we have looked at a number of incineration situations in the province to determine how well they are working. The one at the Victoria Hospital in London is extremely recent.

The evaluation of incineration as one of the options must take into consideration not only our experience in the past, but also what we determine can be done in the future. For example, there is one in Prince Edward Island that is of some interest to people and testing has been done. There is also one in Quebec. We want to ensure there is the best available technology, but we cannot accept it if it does not remove the products we do not want going into the atmosphere.

The new program for recycling is tied to the new regulation related to pop cans. Considerably more money has gone into it and there has been considerably more promotion of recycling. We see it being an important component in dealing with municipal landfill problems in the future.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Premier. With regard to the $17.5-million grant to the Exploracom project, I asked 12 days ago in this House whether the Premier would be willing to share with this House anything and everything he might have that would dispel the impression that the Schwartz submission got special and extraordinary consideration from the government. Seven days ago, I put questions in Orders and Notices asking whether he would table the submission by Mr. Schwartz to the technology fund and the minutes of the council of the technology fund. To date, he has not tabled any of this information or brought any of this information forward.

What is the Premier afraid of? Why will he not make this information available to the House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the honourable member then, I am not afraid of anything. We will be very happy to share the information. There are no minutes of the council. I have not maintained that there are. If the member wants some of the information, the person he should be talking to is the former Minister of Industry and Trade, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), because it came to the government when he was the minister. He is aware of this. It all came through the bureaucratic process. The member was aware of the submission and it came to the government up through the system. It was approved by a group. It was included in the throne speech. I was under the impression the member wanted to discuss this in the standing committee on public accounts some time. I will be very happy to discuss it. We will be happy to share the information. There is no problem whatsoever.

The member said he supports the process. I recall him standing in the House and saying he supports the project and thinks it is a good one. The bureaucratic review of the situation supported the project. The member will be aware of that. When he knows more about it, I suspect he will stand up and say it is the most wonderful thing this province has ever had.

Mr. Gillies: I was under the perhaps rather naïve impression that the person I should question about this is the chairman of the Premier's technology fund, who is the Premier. He says there are no minutes. He has given the House no indication of what process was gone through for the approval of this grant. Officials of his government continue to tell me that there is no process and no criteria. "Do not bring any projects forward. There will be nothing there until the fall."

Will the Premier come clean with the House and put everything on the table as to how this grant was made and who approved it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will be very happy too. I thought we answered this two weeks ago, but I will answer it again.

It came to the ministry in 1985. It was reviewed by the ministry. At that point, there was no technology fund. This was not a direct application to the technology fund. It was a project that was in the mill from the previous government. It fitted perfectly with our objectives and cabinet approved the expenditure to conform with our new plans under the technology fund. It was budgeted to the technology fund. It is quite clear. I told the member that two weeks ago. I know it is hard to understand, but that is what I told him. I also told him it was a budgetary allocation. It did not exist when the thing came in. It is all there for people to see. I do not think it is hard to understand. It may be, but I do not think it is.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I think you should send the phone back and then the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) can call the member for Sarnia and all the Tories --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

3:20 p.m.

JOB DISMISSAL

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I raise the plight of Richard Gerson, who was a faculty member at Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology. Since Mr. Gerson's dismissal has, at the very least, the appearance of being in response to his participation as a candidate in the last provincial election, will the minister conduct a full inquiry to determine whether Mr. Gerson was dealt with fairly by Sheridan College?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The allegations the honourable member makes are rather serious ones. I have not had any information about the dismissal or hiring of faculty members at Sheridan College. Neither I nor my ministry reviews hirings and firings. That is the responsibility of individual colleges. I am shocked at the allegations. I will look into them and report back to my friend if there is any sense of wrongdoing. I would be very surprised to hear that a member of a college faculty was dismissed because of his participation in a provincial election.

Mr. Warner: I am surprised and shocked that the minister is shocked, since I understand that concerns about managerial processes at work in the colleges are part of Mr. Pitman's mandate and flow from the Skolnik report. In that light, and assuming the government wants not an arbitrary managerial process in the colleges but a fair and objective one, will he at least conduct a full study of the process used in the Gerson case and then report the findings back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As I have already said, I will look into it. I am not about to suggest to the member that I will launch a full-scale inquiry. Colleges are hiring and firing all the time. With the new contract just being put in place, we expect substantial new hirings. There is also a periodic need for a faculty member who is not living up to his responsibilities and the standards in the colleges to be relieved of his responsibilities. While I will look into it, I will not endorse the member's comments that there has been some sort of impropriety. If there has been, I will report back to him.

COURTHOUSES

Hon. Mr. Keyes: On Monday, June 2, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) asked why the fire marshal's office had not acted with regard to repeated complaints, deficiencies and fire violations in both the Ingersoll and Woodstock courthouses.

There is no courthouse in Ingersoll, so I assume the member was referring to the courthouse in St. Thomas. That building is owned by the county of Elgin. The Ministry of Government Services, which leases the building, requested a fire safety inspection in the fall of 1985. That inspection was carried out by the local fire department. The responsibility for inspecting local buildings, including courthouses, is a local one.

The Woodstock courthouse is owned by the county of Oxford and leased by the Ministry of Government Services. An inspection was originally conducted by the local fire department in 1982. We now have an updated reinspection since the matter was brought to my attention as a result of a new inspection. Those earlier inspections confirmed there were deficiencies, notably with regard to the fire alarm system and the exits. Fire safety deficiencies are normally corrected through voluntary compliance by the building owner. If enforcement procedures are necessary, the local fire inspector serves an order on the building owner. The fire marshal is made aware of all orders issued in the province. No orders have been made by the local fire departments against either of the two courthouses in question.

However, the fire marshal encourages local fire departments to notify his office when they are proposing to take enforcement action with respect to any building owned or leased by the Ontario government. The fire marshal then acts as a liaison with the Ministry of Government Services and takes steps to ensure that the fire code is complied with. In the case of these two courthouses, the fire marshal has agreed to liaise with the two counties in question.

Mr. Sterling: I thank the Solicitor General for his answer. It is indisputable that the Ministry of the Attorney General through the Ministry of Government Services is a lessee. First, does the government's lease not state the building has to be up to regulations? Second, under clause 3(c) of the Fire Marshals Act, the minister is ultimately responsible for the safety of that building. He cannot duck it on to the local official. When is he going rectify this matter so that the safety of the courthouses in both Woodstock and St. Thomas is assured? When is he going to take some action?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The action I have taken is to ask that both of those facilities be reinspected by the local people, and as soon as that inspection has been carried out, as it was just last Friday, we will get the report, we will study it and we will gladly assist in recommending any changes.

TARIFFS

Ms. Hart: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I have received a number of calls with concerns about the new federal tariff of 10 per cent imposed on books coming into Canada from the United States. As she knows, this affects not only American books but also most British and Commonwealth books and also books written by Canadian authors that are published in the US and overseas.

What are the implications of this tariff in Canada for this very important cultural industry?

Hon. Ms. Munro: The implications of the federal government's actions are indeed broad. It is believed the action was taken in retaliation for the shakes-and-shingles action. There is also some indication it is a symbolic reminder to the Americans not to tamper with our cultural industries. There are some concerns that this action will have an effect on our exemption from the US copyright legislation, which permits Canadian punters to export more than $100 million worth of US-authored books.

There is a genuine concern by Canadian publishers who are involved in joint ventures, however, that they will be losing dollars in the case of reduced profits for presold books. As the member knows, the provincial government has made it very clear that we are concerned about cultural industries. Should this issue ever be brought to the free trade discussions, I am sure we will make our representations known.

Ms. Hart: I understand that bookshops are required to pay not only an additional amount of 10 per cent for the tariff but also, on each $100 of an order of books, a further $28 in customs brokerage fees. I also understand that our legislative library may well not be exempt because it is not a lending library. What action can Ontario take in this regard?

Hon. Ms. Munro: As I have indicated to the member, I presume the government will be sought out for input during the free trade discussions. It was not our responsibility to respond formally during those isolated instances, but now that the free trade discussions are on again, we will conform. The responses of the Canadian Book Publishers' Council and of publishers such as Malcolm Lester have been received by the federal government, and I presume Mr. Reisman will take this kind of input into consideration in the negotiations.

3:30 p.m.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Alan J. Bell, doctor of chiropracy and naturopathy, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

It is signed by about 40 individuals.

EVICTION PREVENTION

Mr. Grande: I have a petition from more than 100 tenants from the riding of Oakwood.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We are tenants of the Oakwood-Vaughan-St. Clair-Bathurst area of the city of York. We are good tenants and want to stay in our homes.

"We want our landlords to maintain our buildings at a reasonable level and to perform the necessary maintenance and renovations. We believe that this work can be done without evicting us or without forcing our rents to increase by double or more.

"More than 100 tenants in at least four buildings are already facing eviction because of the actions of property speculators. These tenants have done nothing wrong, yet they are being forced out of their homes.

"We call on our elected representatives to take strong and immediate action to save our homes and protect our rents from these attacks by landlords."

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this is not a petition. I am rising pursuant to rule 18 on a question of personal privilege. Is that permissible?

Mr. Speaker: Try it.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Last night, a debate took place on the Global television network in which Dr. Richard Railton, president of the Ontario Medical Association, made an incorrect statement which infringed on my privileges as a member of this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate all the assistance, but I cannot hear what the member is saying.

An hon. member: You do not want to hear it.

An hon. member: You do not want to waste your time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Dr. Railton accused the supporters of the government of trying to trump up events of an emergency nature to support the suggestion that the doctors' strike --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to say it cannot be a point of personal privilege. You are referring to something that has been done by another person outside the House to someone else other than you.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: No. It was a reference to myself personally.

Some hon. members: Were you mentioned?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, why don't you make him sit down when you are on your feet? You are always quick to call us to order for that.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) for her help. It is most helpful.

I believe the honourable member heard me refer to what is a point of privilege, and I gave quite a few items. I wish the member would refer to what I referred to.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Yes, sir. The comments were made in that context; I was just raising the context. He said, "You know that Mr. Cooke from the Kitchener-Waterloo area advertised in the paper for people to come to him, you know, and we never heard any more about the problem."

I wish to indicate to the House that I have never advertised in any newspaper concerning Bill 94 or anything else that has to do with the current doctors' strike.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for the information.

Mr. Rae: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I was listening to that debate, as I am sure many other members were. The member should know the confusion is as embarrassing to him as it is to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), who in 1983 launched a very successful campaign on extra billing. It was so successful it caused the Liberal Party to flip-flop and completely change its position just prior to the last election.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. I am sure this one will be.

VISITORS

Mr. Shymko: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In the light of the request I made to you, as a representative of the members of this Legislature, to have His Eminence Myroslaw Cardinal Lubachivsky greeted from the Speaker's gallery, and in the light of the respect and dignity that has been accorded to him by all members of all parties of this Legislature, I would like to have an explanation of your refusal that he be a guest of the Speaker in the Speaker's gallery, presented by you, while athletes from Ontario and other individuals qualify for that. What criteria do you use when a man of his importance and dignity, and who symbolizes universally what he does as an individual, does not qualify to sit in the Speaker's gallery?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of privilege. I will be glad to discuss that personally with the member and explain the reason.

Mr. Shymko: I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, since some of us may be placed --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Jackson: I have again this week several hundreds of signatures from constituents in a petition which states:

"We strongly oppose the unilateral actions of the Liberal government of Ontario which has created an atmosphere of adversarial confrontation with the health care providers of this province.

"We deplore the disruption of our world-renowned system of private and public health care by the imposition of a state-controlled health care system.

"We, therefore, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to begin immediate and meaningful consultation with the health care providers of this province in a manner that will sustain the quality and excellence of health care for the people of Ontario."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF HURON ACT

Mr. Reycraft moved first reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Huron.

Motion agreed to.

ST. ELIZABETH HOME SOCIETY ACT

Mr. Dean moved first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the St. Elizabeth Home Society.

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. Chairman: May we please have various members either take their seats or remove themselves from the chamber? It is too noisy to start this amendment.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Will the group up here by the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe), the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the past Minister of Education, please carry on its conversation elsewhere, please?

Yesterday we were at the minister's amendment of the addition of new section 4b. That had been moved and we were in the middle of discussion. However, section 4a had been voted upon.

Mr. McFadden: I had an opportunity overnight to review the Health Insurance Act again. I noted that the various committees provided for under this act -- for instance, the practitioner review committees, the medical review committee and the medical eligibility committee -- all have a provision whereby there is a set number of members on each. Various criteria are set out as to whether they are to be physicians or nonphysicians, but in the case of all the other committees provided for under this act, there is either a provision for a minimum and maximum number of committee members or, in some cases, merely a provision for a maximum number.

I cannot understand why this amendment is now being put forward for this bill. For example, why are the other committee memberships not also being changed to be open-ended? Why are we merely dealing with subsection 8(1) of the Health Insurance Act? Will the minister be kind enough to explain to the House why this board is being treated differently from the other committees provided for under the same act, which appear to have fairly significant matters to deal with?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have already gone over that several times. It may be necessary to refresh the memories of some of the members that this board is being given an extra duty under section 3a, as we spoke of yesterday and several other days before that. It is for that reason. We spoke at length yesterday about possibly needing more members on this board. That is why it is being treated differently.

Mr. McFadden: I have one question. In so far as the operation of this board is concerned, I notice the quorum requirement sits at three. That has not been adjusted. Would there ever be a time when it would ever sit as a board to look at anything, or does this board only sit in panels?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I spoke about that yesterday as well. The reason we are adding more people is that sometimes these people sit in groups of four. The minimum is three. They often require four to sit in case there is a problem in a longer hearing with one member not being able to continue. They do not like to start the process all over again. If there were two matters being heard, that could take up eight out of nine members. In this situation, under the current legislation, they would be sitting as single members.

Mr. Chairman: Before anybody else speaks, can this conversation to my right be held more quietly? I cannot hear the minister.

Mr. McFadden: The minister has not really explained, to my knowledge and satisfaction, the basis on which we need an open-ended board. I notice there is a provision that the number on the medical eligibility committee, for example, is not to exceed 15. In that case we know we will have some idea the number of committee members to be provided for in that committee. I fail to see why in the case of the appeal board we could not come up with a number now, whether it is 11, 13, 15, or 12, 14 or 16.

It is bad legislation, bad policy in general, to create an open-ended situation on any government board. Surely someone reading an act should have some idea who composes a board in terms of the number on that board.

It is my view and the view of a lot of lawyers that far too much in the way of powers and the exercise of power has been delegated to regulation. It is difficult for a citizen to understand a lot of bills and so on by looking at legislation, because invariably most of the governing of legislation seems to fall under various regulations. For the average person ever to ferret through and locate the regulations is difficult. One might be able to find the statute but frequently the regulations are hard to find. I suggest the same principle applies here.

The way this should be approached on this board is that if there is a feeling that we need to increase the size of the board and if there is some estimate on the part of the ministry as to the number of members, the number of panels and the number of hearings that would be required, we could have a number set out here, be it 11, 13 or 15. I cannot see why this Legislature should pass on to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a blank cheque in terms of increasing the numbers of this board to an unlimited extent. Obviously that has some effect on the public purse as well, but in this case it should not be our main concern.

Our main concern should be to have this board function properly and effectively. We are not necessarily arguing that there should be no increase. What we are trying to get is a justification for the increase and some idea of what that increase should be. I am sure the minister is in a position to tell us whether he expects the number to go from nine to 11 or 15. I do not see any reason why this House cannot grant sufficient authority to the government to go up to a certain number. This unlimited power to appoint any number of members on this board is unjustified and bad law.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Obviously we are going to be on this section for a long time since the Conservatives want to debate numbers. I ntight point out that one of the reasons for this amendment is there is an analogous situation, which the previous government understood very well, and it happens to do with nurses in this province and the Health Disciplines Act.

The then Minister of Health, Mr. Norton, introduced legislation three years ago that we never were able to find time to deal with on our legislative agenda because of other pressing legislation. As a result, the number of people on the disciplines committee under the health disciplines legislation is not adequate, and we are now booking hearings to discipline nurses into late 1987 because that legislation was never dealt with and because the legislation has to be amended rather than having the flexibility of dealing with it by regulation.

If we want to deal with the profession fairly and with the hearings in a quick and fair way, both for consumers and the profession, then there should be flexibility.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. O'Connor: I was going to ask a question that perhaps was referred to by the previous speaker; that is, what exactly has been the problem with the current board in terms of the perceived need that the minister now sees for increasing its numbers? Has their performance been inadequate? Has it been substandard? Have they not been doing the job they are supposed to do? If so, why does he not get rid of that board and simply replace those numbers? On the other hand, if they have been doing the job adequately, if there has been a satisfactory performance with the board as it exists, why does he see the need to increase its numbers in an open-ended and unlimited fashion?

To support the previous speaker in this regard, if the numbers are open-ended, unlimited or considerably larger than at present, then in fairness there will be the necessity to employ these additional people on a rotating basis so that all will hear fewer hearings and sit less often; therefore, they will be less experienced in adjudicating the difficult matters that come before them. To be fair to them all, there will be the necessity of keeping them all employed on a rotating basis.

Does the minister not see the sense of at least establishing a set number, perhaps with a small increase in the existing number? If the problem is as previously stated, too many hearings which a nine-man board cannot handle, perhaps he could see the need to add three, four or five members, a set number, to keep within the usual approach on these matters in a myriad of boards and committees under many statutes of this province.

I would suggest the minister would have difficulty finding a circumstance where an open-ended, completely unlimited number of appointees is permitted in any board in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The official opposition has brought in some fresh people who were not available yesterday to hear one of the examples. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has an open-ended ability to appoint. It has nothing to do with the particular quality of people who are on the board now; the honourable gentleman should know that. We have people who sit and do a good job.

When we add extra responsibilities, we like to have flexibility as well. That is the reason for the request for this legislation being moved so we can have the flexibility to add people when we need them. We do not know the exact numbers, but at this stage it is enough to have the flexibility to add people so we can deal expeditiously with any reviews required under this legislation.

Mr. O'Connor: To a certain extent I can understand the minister's dilemma. The system is bogged down and there is a waiting list for hearings. He has some difficulty establishing how many additional bodies he may need to bring these hearings into a reasonable time frame and waiting frame.

Would the minister be prepared to undertake to this House not to appoint more than a certain, limited number given to us at this point and have the flexibility to do so up to that number? We would thus avoid what we see as a difficulty, that of a totally unlimited possibility for the appointment of additional people.

Perhaps he can give us a figure of five or seven, or some figure which he will guarantee will not be exceeded before coming back to the House in the next two years.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sorry; I did not hear the line before "coming back to the House in the next two years."

Mr. O'Connor: My point is that the minister could give us a limited number and agree not to exceed that number before coming back to the House or, alternatively, give us a limited number which he would agree not to exceed within a period of time, say two or three years.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We must be able to appoint the people who are needed to address the needs of the system. At this stage we have asked for an elimination of the capped numbers for this board. We wish to retain the flexibility of appointing people to meet whatever need is there. If we do not need them, we are not going to appoint them; it is as simple as that. If we do need them, we must have the ability to appoint them.

Miss Stephenson: The minister has cited the example of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which has a natural kind of limitation upon it. The labour relations board's hearings are always presided over by one of the full-time vicechairmen of the board. There is also the natural limitation of having a balance in each of the hearing boards, with a representative of labour and a representative of the employers. That is not the circumstance in this case. This is a different kind of board. It is an appeal board with a different quasi-judicial role from that of the labour relations board.

I understand the minister's perplexed situation at the moment in not knowing precisely how many he is going to need, but I would hope he might seriously consider a friendly amendment that would provide an upper limit on the number. The upper limit could be relatively generous -- I would even suggest 30 or perhaps 36 -- to provide him with the kind of flexibility he is talking about. The minister should seriously consider having some kind of limitation placed upon the numbers to be appointed for this mechanism.

I remind the member for Windsor-Riverside that the numbers on the Health Disciplines Board can be moderated or changed by a simple amendment to the act, which can be brought into this House.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is not so simple, though. We have been waiting for three years.

Miss Stephenson: It may not be simple, but an amendment to the act can be brought before the House. If it is necessary, the same kind of arrangement might be invoked for the Health Disciplines Board. I am not sure it is the right thing to do, but it is something that could be considered in that situation. In this situation, which is related specifically and directly to appeals about the decisions taken by the general manager under this legislation, surely the sensible thing to do is to have some kind of flexibility within a framework. The framework could be a fairly generous number, which I would hope the minister might consider as a friendly amendment.

Hon. Mr. Elston: If the member wants to move that it be amended to say we have a generous number, or if she wants to provide 36, that is fine; I have no problem with her moving that amendment.

Miss Stephenson: What about 36?

Hon. Mr. Elston: She has suggested 36, and I do not see any reason I would object to 36.

Mr. McFadden: As I was listening to the minister, I found it interesting that he equated with this board and used as his supporting argument the labour relations board. The context in which the Health Services Appeal Board is created comes under the Health Insurance Act and is under health legislation. It is interesting to note, as one looks through at least all the health legislation, that boards are treated in a similar way, namely, in terms of a maximum number; some have a minimum, but all the others have a maximum number.

I hope I am not understanding from the minister that he is now equating the situation of the medical profession with labour relations negotiations. If he is, that is one of the real worries the medical profession has frequently talked about. Up until now, they have tried to approach the provision of their services as independent professionals, and that has been the manner in which Ontario has treated them.

4 p.m.

Part of the reason we have the problem today with the walkouts and the disruption of service is that the doctors feel the relationship between themselves and their patients is being changed. I found it interesting that even the minister himself brought up the labour relations board. That is exactly the kind of relationship the doctors do not want. They want to be able to maintain their status as independent professionals contracting with their patients. Most of the doctors accept the Ontario health insurance plan fee schedule anyway; so it is not a question of money. They believe it is important, in terms of the quality of the service they offer and the morale they feel they need as a profession, to be dealt with as independent professionals.

To have the amendment to the section governing the Health Services Appeal Board equated with the Labour Relations Act, while it may not have been meant by the minister, was perhaps an interesting psychological transference on his part to imply it is going to be the government's relation and attitude towards the medical profession in the future. That is exactly the thing that worries the medical profession so very much. The doctors are not comfortable being out on strike, having to appear before boards and being in an adversary role as they are today.

Mr. Chairman: The member should get back a little closer to the section 4b amendment, please.

Mr. McFadden: Yes, I will. In conclusion, equating the Health Services Appeal Board and the way its appointment process is handled with the way the Ontario Labour Relations Board is handled is like waving a red flag in front of physicians. It will confirm in their minds the mindset of the government, at least to some extent, in its approach to doctors as a profession. If nothing else, it would be valid and valuable to put an upper limit, so the suspicion that this will be equated with the labour relations board will not become the current view of the medical profession. I do not think that will be very helpful.

Hon. Mr. Elston: There was no equation of this act with the Ontario Labour Relations Act, as the honourable member knows. He was here yesterday and knows full well that the former Minister of Education, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), requested a piece of legislation anywhere in this whole province that had an open-ended list. This is one of them. Another was also brought to my attention, but this one is well known. The member knows full well there was no equation of these two statutes, and he does himself a disservice in trying to make that argument.

Mr. McFadden: What I said was that it was an unfortunate example to use in connection with section 4b.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has moved that the bill be amended by --

Hon. Mr. Elston: Dispense.

Mr. Chairman: Dispense? Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

4:45 p.m.

The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Elston's motion to add a new subsection 4b, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 61; nays 35.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions or amendments to section 5?

Mr. Andrewes: I believe the minister has another amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Elston: No. We did sections 4a and 4b.

Mr. Andrewes: There is a subsection 4b(2), I believe.

Hon. Mr. Elston: They were all moved, were they not? I moved them all.

Mr. Andrewes: No. I believe we carried only subsection 4b(1). We have some concerns about subsection 4b(2).

Hon. Mr. Elston: We moved the entire sections 4a and 4b at one time. We voted on section 4a, as was requested. We did that and then we did section 4b. That was the motion.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to draw to the minister's attention that section 4b is not consistent with an amendment he accepted earlier in the discussion from the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling). We have one short amendment which would make it consistent with the intent of the member for Carleton-Grenville's amendment, which restricts the access of information and those people who would be disseminating that information to the general manager.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We voted on the section. I think we just voted on the amendment as put. I will take a couple of minutes to see what the problem is.

The advice of my assistants and the people from the ministry is that there is no need to amend that section.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will check the record to determine what amendment the minister accepted from the member for Carleton-Grenville last Wednesday or Thursday. It is my understanding the intent of that amendment was to limit those people who would be providing information to the general manager. Therefore, it seems only reasonable that in moving this section the minister would want to be consistent with the intent of the member's amendment which he accepted last week. I would hope he might reopen that section so we could discuss it.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The information is that there is no need to consider an amendment. We know the subject matter and substance of that amendment. We will abide by that. Section 4b does not have to be amended in order that anything further comply with that amendment.

Mr. O'Connor: Let me address that matter for a moment --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Yesterday the Chairman of the committee of the whole House ruled that we were doing section 4a and then section 4b. We did it that way. We have taken the vote. The comments on trying to reopen the section are out of order. We must accept section 4 as amended and move on to section 5. We are not redebating the section.

Mr. O'Connor: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman: There is a clear inconsistency between the amendment made by the member for Carleton-Grenville last week and clause 44(2)(a) of the Health Insurance Act. In the interest of clearing up that clear inconsistency, I am sure the minister wishes to hear remarks on that point at least and then determine whether it should be reopened.

The minister conferred with his officials without even looking at our amendment or without understanding, -- I suggest, with the greatest of respect to the minister -- the point we would like to make. There is a clear inconsistency. The Health Insurance Act refers to "the general manager and each person engaged in the administration of this act." That wording was amended last week with the deletion of "each person engaged in the administration of this act" and by the insertion of "one other designee of the general manager." Can the minister not see the need for consistency between the two acts?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I accept the advice of my staff that there is no need to amend this. That is an appropriate position on which to end this discussion.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, there is a hue and cry to dispense with the reading of what we are actually voting on. I admit I did not speak up and ask that you not dispense and that you read it. It will be the last time that will ever happen in this Legislature regardless of what it is. Our understanding is that we were voting on section 4a, and not sections 4a and 4b(1) and the whole thing. We have not debated that. Can I ask the Chairman to tell us what he intended to read, what he started to read before the word "dispense" came out?

The Deputy Chairman: I started to read and I heard comments from the floor that I should dispense. I was about to read subsections 4b(1) and (2). Then from the floor it was said, "Dispense." I said, "Dispense?" "Dispense."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I must admit I have not been following the details of this as closely as I should have. Somehow I have vaguely lost interest in some of this. My view is that if the official opposition feels it has missed an opportunity to debate a section, we have no objection --

Mr. Harris: Subsection 4b(2).

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My own experience is that we can spend a lot of time and suffer problems when there is no problem at all. We want this to get through, but we do not want any of the members to feel they have missed their opportunity to express their views properly or to vote the way they want. We want to co-operate.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: If we are going to do that, that is fine, but we had a debate yesterday about whether we were going to divide these sections for voting. At the time, the Chairman of the committee of the whole House decided we were doing sections 4a and 4b. We got here today and found we were going to take three separate votes. In addition, the Conservative Party filed with me two minutes ago a further amendment and, just before this vote, another on section 5. This bill has been before us since December 1985. Why did we not have these amendments?

Two rules are being violated; one, a ruling yesterday, and the other, a standing rule that these amendments are supposed to be filed ahead of time.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for your point of view. Is there unanimous consent that section 4b be reopened to debate?

Mr. Foulds: Like all members of this House, I seek courtesy, co-operation and kindness. On the point of order, however, it seems to me we violate at our peril the basic parliamentary rule that once a bill or a section is passed, it is not reopened at will or at whim. It is a very grave error in parliamentary procedure, because then the precedent is set.

Some members of our caucus would be very loath to reopen a section that has already been debated and voted on. However, if we had consent from all parties that the debate would not go on for longer than 20 minutes once this section was reopened, we might look on this much more favourably.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot agree with the honourable member who just spoke that this is some terrible precedent. There have been many occasions when the House has moved on in a bill before an individual, sometimes a party, has had an opportunity to express his views completely. My own experience is that we might as well do it first as last because people such as myself keep getting up on endless points of order and talking about it. I do not think it is a dangerous precedent and we might as well do it.

5 p.m.

Mr. Martel: I am only going to say one thing. Yesterday, at the request of the official opposition, the House agreed to split it into two sections, 4a and 4b. That was done to meet the request of the Tory party members yesterday. Today we come in, we vote the way they want us to vote and they say, "No, let us pull back and start all over again."

There is nobody who can drag out time more than I can if I feel like it. I am prepared to concede that. But how many kicks at the can do the Tories want before they get their house in order? They are like a bunch of kids. If they want something, they should tell us.

Mr. Harris: I will try very hard not to be provocative or to be taunted into being provocative. The kids reference reminds me of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) negotiating at a grade 8 dance.

To my understanding, my party has not discussed subsection 4b(2). We did not understand that we were voting on subsection 4b(2). We would like an opportunity to do that. If we were in error, we apologize to the Legislature for being in error. We are trying to proceed in the spirit of co-operation. We said to dispense with the reading. Our friends only bring to us a desire to say: "No, we cannot dispense with reading. No, we cannot do this." If we get into that way of proceeding in the House, not only this bill but also many bills will start to bog down.

We have not debated subsection 4b(2). We would like an opportunity to do that. If we were in error, we apologize and ask the consent of the House to deal with it now.

The Deputy Chairman: I will place the question again. Do we have unanimous consent that the section be reopened and reconsidered?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Since I understand we have already passed subsection 4b(1), I will remove subsection 4b(2).

The Deputy Chairman: Subsection 4b(2) has been withdrawn?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes.

Mr. Andrewes: We concur with that suggestion. Shall we move on to section 5?

The Deputy Chairman: I am confused. You do not want to proceed with the subsection 4b(3) you submitted? You want to deal with section 5?

Mr. Andrewes: The minister has withdrawn subsection 4b(2); so our amendment has become redundant.

On section 5:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Andrewes moves that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"5(1) This act comes into force 90 days following the receipt by the parties referred to in subsection 5(2) of the mediator's report which will be made public within three days of receipt thereof.

"(2) A mediator agreed upon by the government and the Ontario Medical Association representing physicians shall be appointed immediately upon passage of this act.

"(3) The mediator shall bring the parties together to develop and recommend the structure of the relationship between the government and physicians in the delivery of health care in Ontario."

Mr. Andrewes: We are proposing striking out section 5 of the bill, which is an open-ended proclamation depending on the will of the government to pursue that proclamation, and setting some terms and conditions upon which the bill would be proclaimed. We are proposing the amendment to provide some time for sober second thought and an opportunity for some relief from the situation that currently exists between the doctors and the government. We are proposing it, in the view of some, as a stopgap measure.

We are proposing it in an attempt to inject a voice of reason into the whole discussion at a time when dissension seems to prevail; dissension that, despite the minister's attempts at calming remarks today, will lead to a serious risk to the public's health.

It is a reasoned amendment. I prevail upon all members of the House to give it careful consideration and elicit their support.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It will come as no surprise that we will not be supporting this amendment, which would have the direct opposite effect. The message that can be carried out of the Legislature today, if this legislation is passed, is that the tactics being used by the doctors of this province will not change the will of this Legislature or of the people of this province; this bill is going to pass, democracy will prevail and the majority of the people of this province will see enshrined in law their right to accessible health care without extra billing.

The tactics of the Conservative Party to delay passage of this bill are having a detrimental effect on this situation. This amendment would enshrine delay, the work stoppage would continue and the Ontario Medical Association and the doctors would get the impression that by withholding services, they could defeat Bill 94. As a Legislature, we have to get across the message that we are not going to withdraw the legislation.

Mediation and negotiation on the principle of Bill 94 simply will not work. There is no compromise on the principle of Bill 94. If the doctors of this province want to work out an agreement whereby Bill 94 can be implemented, there is provision for that under section 2 of the bill.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: To clarify this, did the member say he would not be supporting this amendment? Is that correct? I did not hear him.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We will not be supporting this amendment either. It has become clear throughout the long history of this that we have made efforts to come to grips with a way of coming up with a negotiated settlement that was possible to mediate. Compliance with the federal statute would be something, but one cannot mediate compliance. We must have compliance with that statute, in addition to invoking the end of extra billing in this province. We have had the campaign for about a year ago now, and we cannot support an amendment that is designed to postpone this bill for a further 90 days.

Mr. Pope: There is nothing more fundamental to our party's position from the outset in this matter than this amendment proposed by my friend the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes). Very briefly, I want to quote from Hansard comments that were made.

"The government has written off one of the best health care systems in the world, a system founded on co-operation, negotiation and consultation, which recognized that the private sector and the individual professional had a role to play and tried to nurture individual professional responsibility and liability vis-à-vis health care being provided at the front line through day-to-day negotiation, discussion, caring and concern for individuals across this province.

"The government is willing to throw that away. It is willing to accept the dictates of the third party and throw the best health care system in the world into complete and utter chaos. I do not think that is appropriate. As my leader said yesterday, there are other ways to do it. Negotiation with the medical association has been done in every single province in which there was an end to extra billing.

"We saw the exchange of correspondence on January 21 between the Ontario Medical Association and the Premier. Both letters were made public, both clearly stating and reiterating the Premier's position that he will proceed with Bill 94 and not negotiate.

"The government took the same position on Bill 54 and Bill 55. There were no discussions with the pharmacists."

All of this was said in Hansard on February 12, 1986, by me as Health critic, with respect to what I foresaw happening down the road. That is precisely what has happened.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is when the member used to come here every day.

Mr. Pope: The member can make any comments he wants to make.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) will please not interject, and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) will not pay attention to it.

Mr. Pope: The member should ask the leader of his party why he is on the letterhead of a law firm in Toronto if he is not an active participant

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You should get 40 per cent of your salary.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Cochrane South will please address the chair and pay no attention to the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Pope: The member for Windsor-Riverside, as usual, has added nothing to the health care debate in this province for the past decade and never will. He will never add anything constructive to the health care debate in this province.

We have, as everyone has agreed, one of the best health care systems in the world.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: In case there is anyone watching on television, let the people know that what we are talking about is the fact that the member for Cochrane South is a part-time member and collects two salaries.

Mr. Chairman: That is not an appropriate point of order.

Mr. Pope: I remind my friend that what he has talked about in this Legislature over the past decade can be put into one hour. He should not be so boastful. He has added nothing to the progress of health care in this province. He has torn it down.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Will the member please resume his seat. Things are getting a wee bit out of hand. Will the member for Windsor-Riverside please stop interrupting the member speaking, and will the member for Cochrane South please address the chair.

Mr. Pope: I am reminded of a former leader of the New Democratic Party who went to university at the same time he was holding the position in this House. They would not talk about it in those days, though, not at all. They will not talk about their participation in law firms around the city. They will not talk about that at all.

The issue is too important to allow the dictates of the third party to run roughshod over the health care system of this province. We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Can we say that today, with what is going on in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario, with people waiting in emergency rooms? That is because there is no attempt at meaningful negotiation, no attempt at mediation. The Premier will not even pick up the telephone today to call Dr. Railton.

Miss Stephenson: Except that he took the telephone.

Mr. Pope: Except that he took the telephone.

Mr. Haggerty: You cannot get hold of the doctors; they are not at their offices.

Mr. Pope: He cannot get hold of them. That is funny. It seems to me that when the doctors go to the members' constituency offices, they are not available for them all of a sudden. They are important enough --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: How many hours is the member in his constituency office?

Mr. Pope: I am there more than my friend is. He should go and check. He thinks he knows everything.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member please address the chair. Please, other members, do not interrupt. Go ahead, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: As I was saying

Mr. Turner: What was the member saying?

Mr. Pope: That is not nice. The member used to be Speaker. He is not the Speaker any more; so he should not give me a hard time.

We have said repeatedly over the past few weeks that there has to be some other process; there has to be some negotiation. We have suggested a mediator. We think that, given the opportunity, a mediator can make some progress. We have heard what the doctors have said. We have heard what their spokesman said on Global television last night. We have seen their written statements and have heard their press conferences. They have said they are anxious to negotiate a resolution of this matter.

In spite of what the minister says, if we review last night's tape from Global, they also said, in fairness, withdraw or adjourn the bill; have a period of meaningful negotiation. That is what we have said since February 12. That was the position I took in the Legislature as the Health critic for my party. It is the position my leader has taken in the Legislature on behalf of our party as far back as February.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: He does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Pope: I do know what I am talking about. It is all on the record.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We know he wants to withdraw the bill, and his leader does not have the guts to say that.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Pope: I listened to the debate last night with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) participating. He gave two examples, one with respect to the financially disadvantaged and the other with respect to senior citizens, knowing the Ontario Medical Association had already offered some weeks ago to protect the senior citizens and the financially disadvantaged as part of the negotiations.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Charity medicine.

Mr. Pope: The member may call it charity medicine. We have one of the best health care systems in the world. It was built with the help of doctors, nurses, Ministers of Health, hospital workers, caring professionals and technicians, who deliver one of the best health care systems in the world.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Those guys want charity medicine, the typical Tory approach to health care.

Mr. Pope: If my friend had his way with his ideology, his socialism -- I remember very well the statement of the leader of the third party on February 11. He said, and I quote from Hansard: "There are those who say we are talking about the socialization of medicine. To those who say that, I say amen; we are talking about the socialization of medicine." He wants to dramatically restructure one of the best health care systems in the world on the basis of a political philosophy or ideology.

It is up to the government to bring about progress, improving health care in this province, by the same system that has worked over the decades through negotiation, discussion, cooperation and using a variety of mechanisms to resolve differences between health care providers and the government. Mediation is just one method and a very important suggestion our party has put forward. All we have had is derision from the New Democratic Party and opposition from the government party, and only one member of the government party has stood in his place and indicated his opposition to the way the government has proceeded with this bill. His opposition to the --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Conflict of interest.

Mr. Pope: What does the member mean, "Conflict of interest"? Can he not comment on issues that concern the people in his riding and the people of Ontario? I see. Every member of this Legislature has the right to make an individual and personal statement.

I indicated today some of the access problems. We have a referral system in this province, and if any one of the links in that referral system breaks down, the patient is now lost in the process.

I telephoned the minister's office today. I heard what he --

Mr. Mackenzie: Baloney.

Mr. Pope: Pardon? Ask the minister.

Mr. Mackenzie: Absolute baloney.

Mr. Pope: The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) is the expert on baloney.

I phoned the minister's office today with these --

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton East indicated that the member for Cochrane South was deliberately misleading this House. The member for Cochrane South said he had telephoned the Minister of Health. The member for Hamilton East said, "Baloney." Is that not a challenge of misrepresentation?

Mr. Chairman: It was not obvious to what he was saying "Baloney." I heard the word and it was not obvious. It is not a proper point of order.

Mr. Pope: I took it as a general comment on me and not with respect to anything specific I said. I do not take offence.

This is a very serious issue for those who are caught in the referral system. The local doctor makes the referral to one of his colleagues who is a specialist in a medical centre, be it Ottawa, London, Toronto or Hamilton -- we have cases of all four -

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Why does the member not stick around here five days a week?

Mr. Pope: I love it when the member talks. Just keep talking.

A local specialist in a medical centre in turn books an appointment for a surgical procedure or treatment in one of the specialty centres.

We have brought to the minister's attention enough examples of people who, by reason of the local physician, the referring physician or the Toronto specialist withholding services, are not able to get a clear and concise answer about the time of the scheduling of operations in the major hospitals in the big medical centres of this province. There are enough examples of people getting lost in the shuffle.

It may be elective surgery from someone's point of view. Whether it be an operation for removal of a tumour, for the removal of a fibrous growth, for treatment of a severe case of asthma or an exploratory operation to see whether the patient does have a cancerous or precancerous condition, these are the things that are happening. These are the anguished days people from northern, eastern and southwestern Ontario are going through.

It may be all right for someone somewhere to make an assessment that it is elective or nonelective, but these people have scheduled their holiday time or their time off work to be able to attend these medical centres in the province. They have booked their air flights to come down to be treated in the way they thought they would be and now cannot be, and they cannot get answers from anybody. If any one of the three reference points is withdrawing services, they cannot get an answer on whether to go ahead with their plans.

We have had cases where individuals have actually come to Toronto in the hope that they could get in and get an assessment. The problem we have is that the Minister of Health says there is the capacity to monitor, the capacity to make a medical assessment of the necessity of admission and of surgical procedures being performed. However, that capacity exists only in Toronto. One has to travel to Toronto to get that assessment done. This means a person could come to Toronto, having had a time scheduled for an operation, and someone might make the assessment that the person has to wait further down the list and might as well go back to Timmins, Kapuskasing or North Bay because he is not going to do the procedure until the withdrawal of services is resolved with the government.

People from all over the province are being inconvenienced. Not only that but there is the anguish, the worry of the families and the worry of the patients not knowing what the final diagnosis is, not knowing the consequences of delay of the medical treatment or of the surgical procedure -- all of these things.

Mr. Sargent: What is the member stalling for? Pass the bill.

Mr. Pope: The passage of this bill has nothing whatever to do with the withdrawal of services or with the dissatisfaction and the chaos that reign right now in what used to be the best health care system in the world. The president of the Ontario Medical Association said that last night. He reiterated it today for the media. It has nothing to do with it. We are now at an impasse.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Whatever he says goes for the Tories.

Mr. Pope: No. The member does not know what he is talking about. Our party has taken a position for some time now that we do not support a withdrawal of services. We are very concerned about the consequences for the public. We have said that from the outset.

Mr. Swart: Then sit down and let the bill go through.

Mr. Pope: The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) makes the naïve assumption that to sit down and vote now automatically means that tomorrow morning all of this will pass and nothing will happen.

Mr. Swart: It will sure help. Give it a try. What does the member propose?

Mr. Pope: It will sure help? Tell me another one. My friend wants to play Russian roulette with the people of northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and this city. He can go ahead. We are more responsible. We are not going to do that to them. We want a resolution of this matter. We want a mediator appointed. We want the government to step in and end this withdrawal of services. We want it to get together with the medical profession and reconstitute that relationship of co-operation and negotiation that brought us one of the best health care systems in the world. We want them to do it through a mediator.

If the relationship among the minister, the Premier, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Ontario Medical Association is such that they do not feel they can discuss face to face any more and that this appears to be a fact, then let them bring in a mediator. Bring in somebody who can talk to both sides. Try to explore the positive things that could be worked out -- for instance, the concessions that have already been made with respect to the elderly, the financially disadvantaged and emergency health care -- and build upon those concessions. Include more and more as they are covered under the negotiated settlement. Resolve this dispute in a way the doctors have a right to expect by treating them as professionals and by treating individual professionalism as an important part of the delivery of health care in this province.

Those are the kinds of issues our party and my leader have been concerned about over the past months. Those are the kinds of things we discussed right through January, February, March and April with respect to this bill.

We have heard the comments of the representatives of the government. We have heard the comments of the representatives of the third party. We still believe, on balance, that a negotiated settlement using whatever means is available to the government, including a mediator, is the best way to resolve the matter, to improve the quality of health care and to improve the coverage of health care to every single resident of Ontario.

The Premier and the Minister of Health have a responsibility to make sure that happens, because this is not going to end today with a vote; it is not going to end tomorrow with a vote. We are talking about an ongoing relationship between the doctors and other health care professionals and those involved in the delivery of health care with the government, their perceptions of their future role in it and their perceptions of their future role in professional decision-making and their relationship with the patients.

It is a serious matter. It affects the front line of health care, as the minister has said before, in the doctor's office, the patient-doctor relationship and how the government protects the common good in that context. One has to do it through a mature, negotiated relationship with the medical profession.

5:30 p.m.

For that reason, I urge the Minister of Health, the members of the government party and the members of the third party to support our amendment calling for a mediator, to suspend the impact of the bill and to allow a mediator to resolve a very ugly situation that is getting out of control. I ask the minister to reconsider his position for the good of the patients of the province.

Miss Stephenson: We have heard it suggested by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), by the Minister of Health and by members of the third party that the problem facing patients in Ontario, the problem of the disruption of the delivery of health care, will magically disappear as if a wand were waved over it as soon as Bill 94 is passed.

I do not know what material is in the food these people are eating or what it is they are smoking in their funny pipes, but they are not hearing the truth. They are not hearing the very factual statements that have been made by the representatives of the Ontario Medical Association and the physicians who are actively involved in this impasse at the moment. The passage of Bill 94 will inflame even further the irritations that have already antagonized them. It will make the situation, as it is perceived by the physicians, far worse. It will ensure an increase in the level of antagonism and the level of activity by those who are absolutely enraged and frustrated by the actions of the government and the third party. It will not serve the members of the public in this province at all.

I honestly do not know what the members of the third party, or of the government party except for one rational member, believe will happen when Bill 94 is passed. Do they believe that simply because they produce an act of the Legislature there will suddenly be a complete change of heart on the part of almost 17,000 physicians who are responsible for delivering care and services to patients? Do they believe the action we saw yesterday will dissipate magically when this bill is passed?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Sure it will.

Miss Stephenson: The Treasurer must be naïve. He honestly does not understand what has been done to the medical profession in this province.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They are going to be mad for 30 years. They have been mad for 30 years.

Miss Stephenson: No, they have not. They have never been as angry as they are now. I do not know why he cannot understand this.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member was the president of the OMA and she was mad.

Miss Stephenson: When I got angry when I was president --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member was treated with kid gloves.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) can have his turn on the floor afterwards.

Miss Stephenson: When I got angry as the president of the profession, my anger was with members of the profession. It was not with government in all circumstances, except that one could perceive that we were in a very uncomfortable relationship with tensions from time to time, which were resolved. That can be done; tensions can be eliminated; they can be minimized.

I must tell the members of the House that at this point there is not a member of the medical profession in this province who would believe anything any provincial politician said, save perhaps for 30 physicians who are currently members of the Medical Reform Group of Ontario. We have apparently lost any confidence they might have had in us in our relationship with the physicians of this province, and I understand that.

When they began negotiations with the government, which they agreed to back in December 1985, they believed there was an opportunity and a chance to try to resolve the difficulties related to the government's stated intention. They believed the government was going to participate in this negotiation or discussion with the kind of wholeheartedness they believe people of goodwill do in all circumstances.

They believed naïvely there would be some rational proposal by the provincial government that would give them an opportunity to solve the problem they perceive is the root of this confrontation. They believe they are members of a profession that has been responsible for the development in this province of the best health care system anywhere and that they have acted responsibly through all those years in toto.

They have made concessions. They have assisted the government in the development of the health care program. Through their participation they have ensured that patients have never had to worry about the cost of health care. They provided the service in almost all circumstances, except in some where there are no figures in the Ontario health insurance plan because one apparently cannot precisely establish a level of remuneration for some services.

They have worked co-operatively. They have participated, supported and assisted government through all the years of the development of a health care program, even though they were not the people who insisted it be brought in. The third party will be delighted to say they were dragged kicking and screaming into the health care program in Canada; it is not true. When it was introduced, they worked diligently to make it work. It has worked because there has been a degree of co-operation, because there has been a feeling we were mutually responsible and because there has always been a sense of professionalism on the part of all the physicians, and a sense that the guidelines, the rules of ethics and the rules of behaviour traditional in medicine would be honoured and understood by the government and would ensure a reasonable relationship with government.

Because of the action of the government, because of its single-minded, tunnel-vision approach, because of its absolute unwillingness to move off its butt in terms of the position it took even after negotiations had started, there was no negotiation of the item at all. Because of the declaration of war by the government in the banning of extra billing, there was an escalation of rhetoric, on both sides I admit, but certainly a very significant escalation on the part of the government in public speeches and other kinds of activities.

As a result, I am aware that there is real disillusion at present within the profession, within the association; dreadful disillusion I have never seen before in the profession in Ontario, the kind of disillusion that has led certain of the senior physicians, who might not have made the decision quite so soon, to determine that they will cease practice in Ontario. If this bill is passed, they will retire. I am not kidding. The Treasurer need not look at me like that. This is a fact. I talk to these people.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am restraining my interjection.

Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, but the Treasurer does not have to restrain his interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, he does.

Miss Stephenson: That is a fact and it is disturbing to hear people who have been very dedicated physicians in this province make that statement. They have made the statement. They believe the government and the third party feel there is no place for the responsible professional in the delivery of health care in this province. They feel that the government, with its adamant position, will not negotiate and will not let anyone who could be an objective outsider intervene or play a part in this, that it feels the only route is total control of the health care delivery system by the politicians in this place.

I have to tell the gentlemen, and I am speaking only to gentlemen, because I cannot see any other lady in the House at present, that they are wrong.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman --

5:40 p.m.

Miss Stephenson: I am sorry and I apologize to the ladies at the Hansard table. I meant the members in the House. The member for Oshawa correctly corrects me. There are also the pages. I meant the members of the House, if the member can understand that.

The minister simply does not understand what he has done to the profession. The one way he can resolve this is to make a gesture that he is willing to have a thoughtful, knowledgeable, objective mediator appointed to sit down with both parties and begin to attempt to heal the wounds and resolve the issues.

That is not such an unusual circumstance. I cannot understand why the third party would not accept it with open arms. It is part of what it considers to be the only sacrosanct relationship in the world, the labour-management relationship, although I hope they do not think it is a labour-management relationship here. A manufacturer may believe he can manufacture widgets without a staff, but nobody on that side of the House or on this side of the House, save for one or two of us, could deliver health care without the professionals involved. I remind them of that. They are powerless to do what the law says they must do unless they have the co-operation of the health professionals. Surely they understand that to gain that co-operation, they need to move from the position of absolute cement-headedness that appears to have prevailed in this Legislature on the part of those who strongly support Bill 94.

Mr. Sargent: Time.

Miss Stephenson: Sorry, Eddie, you have had your time.

Mr. Chairman: Please refer to the members by their ridings.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), the owner of Owen Sound, interjects.

Mr. Andrewes: The obsolete riding of Grey-Bruce.

Miss Stephenson: That is right; it disappears. Much of the tradition of the medical profession will disappear as well if Bill 94 is passed as it is at present.

I was heartened to hear today that the Canadian Bar Association-Ontario passed a resolution at its annual meeting over the weekend condemning the government's passage of Bill 94 as currently written. The lawyers recognize that the anti-professional, anti-intellectual pursuits of the members of the accord are leading all our paths in the direction of total control of all professions in the province.

I have a little difficulty understanding that they are going to do it to lawyers immediately because the Attorney General is a lawyer, the Premier is a lawyer, the Minister of Health is a lawyer and others are lawyers. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) is not a lawyer. Thank God, somebody over there is not a lawyer. There are too many lawyers on that side of the House to be comfortable about the government pursuing that direction immediately.

There is an absolute necessity on the part of this Legislature to consider seriously the amendment that has been introduced by my party as the only means at this time of removing the irritants and eliminating the apprehension. It could lead to a reduction in the confrontation going on right now. We are all apprehensive and concerned about the things that might happen.

No one who is a reasonable practitioner of medicine ever wants to withdraw services. I have never been able to understand how members of the profession could feel so strongly about anything that they would consider doing so. I recall discussions about what might happen as a result of the actions of the Quebec government in 1970. Please do not tell me they are praying for an apprehended insurrection and the introduction of the War Measures Act in Ottawa to solve the problem here. That is what solved the problem for the provincial government of Quebec in 1970.

Mr. Breaugh: The member has to stop buying those cheap street drugs.

Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, but this is a fact.

Mr. Breaugh: Absolutely.

Miss Stephenson: I am afraid these members are too young to remember. I was in Quebec at the time of that unholy situation. It was a situation much akin to what this government has engendered in Ontario. There was no recourse, because the introduction of the War Measures Act ensured that it all disappeared and dissipated. Please do not suggest to me they are asking for that to happen in Ontario. What they are doing is akin to the kind of action that was taken by the Quebec government in 1970 and has led to the dreadful situation in Quebec related to the delivery of health care.

Mr. Breaugh: This is right on the amendment; I can see that.

Miss Stephenson: I am talking about the only route that will resolve a problem that is going to lead health care delivery in this province down the drain.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment talks about mediation, not about the War Measures Act.

Miss Stephenson: That is fine. Mediation is far better than the War Measures Act and I hope every member of this Legislature understands that. I am not sure they all do, but I believe they should understand that it is much better. It is a much more humane, much more human, much more sensible and much more just way to resolve the problem.

There is no doubt that the passage of this bill as it is currently written will not solve the problem. It will not end the withdrawal of services. It will not in any way alleviate the concerns of those who deliver health care. It will not improve the relationship between the health care professionals and the government. It will not provide any improvement to the health care system in Ontario.

Mr. Grande: It certainly will.

Miss Stephenson: You are absolutely naïve.

Mr. Chairman: The member will address the chair. Pay no attention to the interjections.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) is infantile in his understanding of this problem and this matter. I abhor that lack of understanding, but there is nothing I can do about it, apparently.

There is an absolute necessity to develop some mechanism that will ensure there is some suggestion that the government understands what this is about. At the moment there appears to be no suggestion that the government understands what the fuss is about. The government persists in saying that this has to do only with its concern regarding the banning of extra billing. It has to do with a much more complex issue than that. Obviously, since the government did not succeed at eyeball-to-eyeball negotiations without help, there is no way in which it can be made to understand this other than with the help of a mediator. That is why it is absolutely essential a mediator be appointed.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does the member not believe in democracy?

Miss Stephenson: I believe in democracy, but the member opposite does not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Let a vote of the Legislature settle this.

Miss Stephenson: The member does not believe in democracy, obviously, because if he did, he would never have put the province in this bind, this situation into which he has thrust it today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is losing.

Miss Stephenson: I am not losing anything. I have not lost my self-respect, which is what that member has lost in terms of what the government is doing to the professions of this province.

I must insist that mediation is a route that could be accepted with honour by the government if it would understand what we are trying to do. We are trying to resolve the impasse. We are trying to ensure that there is a cessation of the difficulty patients find themselves in at the present time. We are trying to ensure that there is a greater understanding on the part of both parties in this confrontation of the needs of the other. As I said, obviously they were not able to do it when they talked eyeball to eyeball without assistance.

5:50 p.m.

I was Minister of Labour for only three years, but I have learned the capacity, the capability and the talents of good mediators. They can bring results in what appear to be absolutely impossible situations. There is no doubt in my mind that we could find the appropriate mediator and that this individual could be jointly appointed by the two parties in this situation. I am not asking that all the parties be involved in it; although I know the optometrists and the dentists are concerned, it is not a direct attack on all of their professional activity, since so few of their services are covered by the health care insurance program in Ontario.

For purposes of ease and some reasonable aspiration to success, we suggest that the Ontario Medical Association and the government jointly appoint a mediator who would be jointly financed by the OMA and by the government to ensure there will be no imbalance of favour perceived or possible.

We believe that type of person can be found. It will probably be necessary to bring that individual in from some other jurisdiction at this point, because almost everyone in Ontario has developed some kind of mindset concerning this confrontation. I feel very strongly that type of mediator can be found. I am also aware that mediator, that superior individual -- and I am not saying "he," because it is more likely to be a woman than it is to be a man --

Mr. Grande: A member of the third party.

Miss Stephenson: A member of the third party, my foot. That would be absolute disaster as far as any mediation is concerned, because the New Democratic Party members' opinions have been set in concrete now for 20 years and there is no way they can hack them out, even with one of those marvellous jackhammers.

Mr. Andrewes: Mike Cassidy.

Miss Stephenson: Please, my heart. Let us not do that to the people of Ontario.

It is important that the government understand the purpose of this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to try to ensure that there is a reasonable and honourable means of resolving the problem confronting us at present. That reasonable and honourable solution will not detract in any way from the position of the government. It will not diminish its stature. It will not make it look less adult than it thinks it is. It will not increase any degree of childishness that it does not want people to perceive.

It will persuade the public that the government really has an interest in resolving the problem it has caused. Make no mistake about it: the government is the cause of this, and no one else. It is the cause because it has been persuaded by the third party that this is the only route to go. The third party, although it shares responsibility, is not in the public eye. The public eye perceives that the cause of this is the Premier and the little negotiating team who spend evenings discussing I do not know what without resolving the issue.

Mr. Chairman: Back to the amendment about the mediator.

Miss Stephenson: This is the only route that will provide the government with that honourable course, that will give it the out it is looking for and that will ensure it does not have the aura of having an adolescent need to control, which is what is being perceived out there in the public by a large number of people. It will ensure that the government's willingness to move in this very positive, sensible and rational direction demonstrates the maturity of its intellectual processes and its understanding of and sensitivity to the needs of the people of Ontario.

That is what the appointment of a mediator would do. That is the direction it could be pursuing if it were to consider this amendment seriously. It is the one thing the government can do at present that will resolve a problem that is currently insoluble. I do not know whether the government believes it can legislate all the health care professionals back to full-time activity, but I would like to see the piece of legislation that is going to do that. I promise that simple passage of Bill 94 as it is currently written will not stop what is going on right now. It will escalate it.

Does the government want that to happen? Does it want an escalation of the discomfort of the patients of this province? If it does not, then consider seriously the appointment of a mediator. The government members need simply to say yes to the fact that they are big people with big minds and that they are not little people with little minds trying to solve a great, big problem.

Mr. Wiseman: The member is expecting a lot from them.

Miss Stephenson: I suppose I am expecting a lot, but I do anticipate that there are men of honour sitting on the other side of the House. That is debatable at times, considering some of the remarks the Premier made about the members of the profession with whom we were supposed to be negotiating.

It is obvious we need a mediator when the Premier makes the kinds of statements about physicians that he did, statements that have been quoted and recorded. When that kind of discussion goes on in the eyeball-to-eyeball situation, an objective, superior outsider is needed to guide the conversation to ensure there is some hope of resolution.

There is no hope of resolution at the present time with the direction the government is pursuing. It does not have a hope. Its only hope is that which can be provided by getting back to the table with someone who is going to be of assistance in sorting out the difficulties and providing a route to the solution of the problem. If the government cannot understand that, then the fate of the people of Ontario is sealed. If it cannot understand that in relation to this bill, it will not understand it in relation to anything. This province will suffer irreparable damage at the hands of the current government.

The government must know that many out there believe it should accede to this request to appoint a mediator. There are thousands of people who have been phoning saying, "For goodness' sake, make sure a mediator is appointed."

Interjection.

Miss Stephenson: They have been phoning. I am afraid the member for Grey-Bruce thinks I am exaggerating. I am not at all, and I can give him chapter and verse and lists. They may not phone that member, but they certainly phone us. We have the names of thousands of people who are saying: "This is the way to solve it. Why can you not persuade the government to do it?" Why can we not? Give me an answer. Is that not a reasonable suggestion? The minister may have an answer to that question.

We have not yet heard an answer from the Premier, except that he is saying we are expecting something as simple as a phone call to resolve the issue. That is not what anybody has been saying. We have been saying, "Pick up the phone, tell them you are ready to appoint a mediator and that will provide the route to the solution;" because it will. Members have heard it said by the president of the Ontario Medical Association and by the past president. They have heard it said publicly by members of the association, by individual physicians and by the executive director of the Ontario Medical Association.

It is not a trade union. Not everybody can be made to comply, but it can be persuasive if it wants to be. It has not been persuasive yet. It has been persuasive in the direction of trying to hold the profession back, unhappily.

The profession is angrier than any professional group I have ever seen. Even the teachers were not as mad about Bill 100 as the physicians are about this bill.

Mr. Sargent: Is that not too bad.

Miss Stephenson: What did we do with Bill 100? We amended it dramatically to solve the problem, with the help of mediation. Can we not do the same thing now? Is the government not concerned about the quality of the delivery of health care in this province? Is this not a matter that should be of absolute importance to it because the minister is ultimately responsible for the delivery of health care? Is there not some rationale it could provide to itself that would allow it to support this motion?

Mr. Sargent: It is federal law.

Mr. McKessock: Cry on Mulroney's shoulder.

Miss Stephenson: As the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) knows, there is a resolution before the federal cabinet that the section of the iniquitous Canada Health Act, introduced by the government's kissing cousins in 1983 --

Mr. McKessock: And agreed to by the member's.

6 p.m.

Miss Stephenson: -- should be removed: the section that says the provinces should be penalized if there is any extra billing. That section is iniquitous because it talks about extra billing only in one area, and we all know that governments extra bill all over the place. Members of the Legislature extra bill when they sit in committee and get paid for it in addition to their regular salary. That is extra billing. Remember that. That is one of the things that is not fair within that act, and it is there only because there was a vindictive vengeance on the part of the then minister, who hated physicians with a passion. It is there only for that purpose and for no other. It is recognized by many that she was kept there to do that because her leader wanted her to ensure there would be a piece of legislation with that vindictiveness in it.

That resolution is before the cabinet. It is considering it even now. I do not know when the final decision is going to be made, but the resolution was made by the Nielsen task force. It is a sensible resolution because there is no constitutional capability on the part of the federal government to so interfere with the delivery of health care in the provinces. Health is a provincial responsibility.

That is only part of the problem. What the government has done in pursuing singlemindedly an iniquitious piece of legislation has led to this impasse, which is causing great problems for the patients of Ontario.

There is a solution to this impasse. It is before them right now. It is the appointment of a mediator, jointly supported and selected, who will be of assistance and who will report. The report will be made public so that every member of the public can see exactly what the mediator has to say. Only at the end of the 90-day period following the report will this act come into effect. If there is no resolution within the time of the action of the mediator and within 90 days of the general publication of that report, then the act can come into effect.

We think this is a reasonable route to go. It provides a cooling-off period. It is the kind of route that can resolve the issue and be helpful in solving the problem.

I suggest that if the government does not understand the attitude and the feeling of the profession at present, it has not been listening. It cannot deliver health care, cannot provide a good service system and cannot provide commitment with professionals who are absolutely frustrated, totally unhappy and absolutely antagonistic towards government. If they do not understand that, there is no way I can persuade them we are going to have a very inferior health care system in this province. If they do not understand that the kind of conscription in this bill is absolutely damaging to the quality of the health care system in this province, there is no hope for any of us.

Those are the facts, gentlemen. Passing this bill as it is written will not alter those facts. As much as the pie-in-the-sky socialists would like them to believe that all they have to do is to pass a piece of legislation and suddenly everything will change, that is not reality. Reality is that human nature is a very significant part of the successful functioning of any system anywhere in the world, and nowhere is it more important than with the health care system.

Human nature permits people to become angry, antagonistic, totally opposed to circumstances and totally denigrating of the efforts of others. We have heard this from both sides in this impasse. To have that feeling persist after this bill has been passed bodes ill for the health care of the people of Ontario.

A mediator could modify that situation, could begin the process of healing those wounds, improving those attitudes and providing some solution to the fractured relationships. That is all that is necessary at this point: just the appointment of a mediator as embodied in this amendment to Bill 94. That will ensure that we pursue the right direction.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is pretty naïve.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Windsor-Riverside suggests it is naïve to move in this direction. The member is obviously a robot. He obviously has no understanding at all of the emotions of human beings, of the deep feelings engendered within human beings. He believes everything can be done by legislation and it is all black and white.

Nothing in this life is black and white, buster, and it is time he realized that. Life is made up of shades of grey that can be modified by the kind of direction we are proposing in the amendment. Those shades of grey can be taken from battleships, which is where they are right now, to silver, which is where they should be, because in that kind of silver shade of grey we know that the tensions which are productive, the tensions which move people forward will still be in existence. But they will be positive tensions, tensions that will improve the health care system. If we stay in the battleship zone, fellows, that is exactly what we are going to have: we are going to have war constantly, and that is not what we want within the health care system.

Interjection.

Miss Stephenson: I am not pointing at the member, I am afraid. No, I am not afraid; I am just not pointing at him.

What we need is some kind of mechanism that will ensure there is a painting of that palette which brings in other tones and other shades in order to relieve what appears to be unrelieved gloom right at the moment. There is nothing in this bill as it is currently written that will resolve the impasse. There is nothing in the bill as currently written that will ensure there is any return to normalcy as far as the delivery of health care is concerned. There is nothing in the bill as currently written that will even encourage health care professionals to function as they have traditionally functioned.

What is within the bill at the present time without this amendment will ensure that we have a very pedestrian, very uncommitted kind of health care delivery system; a system that will be unionized within one year in a way that will probably cost the government about one half more in the total health bill simply because no physician in his right mind who is going to be so totally controlled by government is ever going to provide the kind of commitment and dedication he has provided in the past.

Why would he work 50 or 60 hours a week? That is silly. Nobody else does when the government controls him. He works 32 to 35 hours a week. Therefore, we will need a significant increase in the numbers of physicians to cover all of those circumstances. We also will not have them functioning without the kinds of benefits that other people get when they work for government.

This amendment will ensure that we allow the professionalism that has been a significant part of the health care delivery system to continue in Ontario; and that is really what we want, is it not? Do members want robots like the member for Windsor-Riverside delivering health care in this province? Do members want the Minister of Health delivering health care in this province? God help us if that happens. He may be able to examine one's tort, but he certainly could not examine one's tonsils and understand what was going on.

This is a solution, and it provides a solution that I believe the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) could support without even being concerned about it. I believe this is the kind of solution the members of the medical profession, who are so vital to the delivery of health care, could support. They might not like it, but I think they would support it because it provides for them an honourable release from the difficulty as well. It demonstrates that there is some thought, some sensitivity, some understanding on the part of government.

Even if it is only a scintilla, as I have suggested before -- and members know what that is: just a tiny flash of light -- a little flash would relieve the unrelieved gloom that is out there right now. The members of the profession do not believe that any one of those members has any honourable intention at all in this bill -- none. This would demonstrate that they really do have some honourable intentions. I think some of them do; I am not sure about all of them, but some of them do have honourable intentions in delivering health care in Ontario.

They are not going to do it with Bill 94 as it is currently written. They are going to destroy health care -- nothing more, just the total destruction of health care. All I am asking of the minister is that he provide a route to a solution that will ensure we maintain the quality of health care.

Can you not think about it seriously? Do not chat with the member from Guelph. He is a nice guy, but the minister should think about it seriously. Do not sit there and wobble your head.

6:10 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member please address the chair?

Miss Stephenson: I apologize for not addressing the chair. I apologize for expecting the minister to consider seriously the amendment we are putting forward. I apologize for my naïveté in that direction. Obviously, he is not going to do it. This is precisely what is going to happen as a result of Bill 94, if passed.

Mr. McKessock: The ability to pay.

Miss Stephenson: That has nothing to do with it. What we will have is a skeleton in bed. That will be the health care system in Ontario if Bill 94 is passed without this amendment.

The minister shakes his head because the minister is truly naïve. He has not been around long enough to understand all the criteria that are necessary with respect to the delivery of any type of professional service in health. It is not the same as law, which is a good deal more precise. Law does not have the basis in science that medicine has although law does have a little of the art, but the art of medicine is even more dramatic than the art of law. It is exercised in slightly different ways, on a one-to-one relationship instead of before a judge.

The only solution I can see at present to the problem which the health care delivery system in this province is facing is the amendment we have moved in section 5. I have no doubt that the members of the third party will not consider it at all, because although they think mediation, conciliation, discussion and negotiations are the route to solutions, they do not believe so in this instance. They simply do not believe there is anything to be gained. They believe that what is necessary in this instance is the total subjugation, the total control of the health care deliverers, the health professionals, by government so that they, as politicians, can tell them where to go, what to do and how to do it.

That has not proved successful in any other jurisdiction. It will not be any more successful here. At this point, I believe we should remove ourselves from that great Canadian tradition, which has been to examine the world for programs that do not work and then import them into Canada as a solution to our problems. We in Canada have a strong history of doing this in a number of areas and I hope we are not going to be seduced into the introduction of the type of system which Bill 94, as it is currently written, will provide for the people of Ontario. We do not need that.

We need thoughtful, sensible, sensitive groups on both sides, to understand the problems, and that they must co-operate and participate together in a co-operative stance to ensure that our health care system remains of the high quality it is right now.

That is my only plea. I hope it is not a plea which is falling on deaf ears, although I have doubts because I have not noticed any great attention being paid by the minister throughout all this discussion. I should have thought that he perhaps might have listened a little bit. He has not listened to the member for Humber and that worries me. I am concerned that there is no understanding of the absolute blackness which is out there right now with respect to the delivery of health care and the fact that it must be relieved. It will not be relieved by Bill 94 as currently written.

Our predictions before have been right. The government has paid no attention. The prediction now is that Bill 94, if passed as currently written, will escalate this unfortunate situation. The minister will unhappily understand it is the truth. I beg the minister not to let that happen because it is within his power to ensure it does not. We do not need war of the type he has initiated in the health care delivery system and which he is fostering right now. We need peace and co-operation to ensure a continuation of the high quality and the high dedication which has been a part of our system for many years.

I ask the minister one question which has to do with the need to appoint a mediator to ensure a co-operative, understanding and sensitive stance is demonstrated by government. Is the minister aware of any significant advance in health science, in medical care, in Quebec since 1970? Is he aware of any area in that province which at present supersedes Ontario in the quality of the delivery of health care?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Some creative things are being done with respect to research into acquired immune deficiency syndrome. That has been going on very well. There are some co-operative efforts going on. I know of some very highly qualified and skilled physicians in Quebec, for instance, on the one particular matter, just off the top of my head.

Miss Stephenson: I would remind the minister that most of the work being done is in private laboratories in Quebec, not under the aegis of the government of Quebec in that area. The one major advance which Quebec did provide was CEA. That was developed before the introduction of the kind of system which is limiting. Unhappily, the same sort of thing is true in many other jurisdictions in which there has been total suppression and repression of the health professionals. I guess that is what the minister wants and what the third party wants. They want legislated, egalitarian mediocrity in health care. That is not what the people of this province are accustomed to. They are accustomed to a high quality of service provided by high-quality physicians who are dedicated, concerned and professional.

Bill 94, as currently written, removes all of that and ensures that there will not be that kind of possibility within this province unless the government demonstrates that it is willing to think about it.

Mr. Sargent: Why is the member sitting over there, then?

Miss Stephenson: I am sitting here, member for Grey-Bruce, because I thought I had a small contribution to make.

Mr. Sargent: Every day for three weeks the member has had the same contribution.

Miss Stephenson: At least it was based on thought and not on vacuous mouthing of New Democratic Party policies.

I still am pleading with the members of the government party, since obviously I cannot have any effect on the third party, to consider seriously this amendment which is put forward in good faith as a real solution to a very difficult and significant problem in this province.

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to join in the debate on this clause for a very few brief moments. I respect the opinion of the previous speaker and the arguments she is making but I must say it is a little bit much. When talking about angry and frustrated workers, I would remind members of this House about some of the angry and frustrated workers in the public sector in this province, or teachers or transit workers who have had the boom lowered on them, almost with abandon. I do not know of anybody who was more angry than some of those workers were.

It is obvious we are not in a labour-management situation. But when we talk about dedicated professionalism, a couple of things have bothered me in this dispute. One of them was early on when Dr. Myers, who was then president of the Ontario Medical Association, went on the John Hardy phone-in show in Hamilton. One of the questions he was asked was whether or not the doctors would go so far as to strike if this legislation was pushed through. Myers's answer was: "I am not going to answer that right now. Ours is a very professional organization, unlike some of the unions, and we would have to contact our members and have a vote first." Insult and élitism really showed in those remarks.

I watched the debate last night and I heard Dr. Railton say that they had not directed the actions to close the hospital emergency wards, but a day or two before somebody had whispered in his ear. My God, they are going to try and talk to us about dedicated professionalism?

I watched on television last night while some of the doctors jumped the barricades in the front of the building here. I noticed we did not have the police there, just our own security people. If that had been auto workers, steel workers or packinghouse workers they would have been hauled off to jail in one hell of a hurry. So do not give me this claptrap about dedicated professionalism.

6:20 p.m.

I want to make it clear concerning the amendment that is before us that I do not think one can appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate a matter of basic principle. I have no objection to their moving this amendment, but it is a little bit phoney. The reason is that we are now on section 5, which simply sets the date when this act comes into force.

What does this amendment do? It is very, very clear. I do not know what the member is talking about when she says, "Just accept this amendment and we will go along with it." Does it mean she will accept the bill in 90 days? That is what it says -- unless, of course, she is hoping for some decision from an arbitrator. As I said, I do not think one can arbitrate a matter of principle.

Also, this amendment takes us back to square one. It is not just a change in the legislation; it is a last-minute attempt at the end of the bill to take us right back through the entire debate we have had up to this point, and that does not make any sense at all. It is a phoney amendment, and that is why I will not support it.

Mr. Andrewes: I am somewhat revived after the comments by the member for Hamilton East, particularly --

Mr. Foulds: The member for Lincoln was almost dead after listening to the member for York Mills.

Mr. Laughren: It is difficult confronting one's élitism, is it not?

Mr. Andrewes: Listen, if the member would pay some attention to what the member for York Mills was saying, he might have an opportunity to learn something.

Mr. Laughren: The member was the one who needed reviving.

Mr. Andrewes: I take some exception to the point by the member for Hamilton East about going back to square one. However, he is entitled to his view. He and I can agree to disagree.

Speaking to the amendment -- which I assume is what you are getting ready to call me to order for, Mr. Chairman -- as I said at the outset, the amendment itself is an attempt on our part to put to rest the current dispute between the doctors and the government. It is rather interesting that the government and the New Democratic Party have started during the last day or two to try to engender a thrust in the minds of the public that the passage of this bill would end that rancour. It is a strange sense of logic when it is the bill itself that has fostered the rancour. It troubles me somewhat that this attempt at logic perhaps has fallen prey to the ears of the New Democratic Party as it picks up that chant.

The minister has been indicating some concern to me about the time it has taken to debate this bill. He has consulted me periodically about our agenda on this debate. He has been indicating, through some of his comments and through comments of the New Democratic Party members, that we have been wasting time on these issues.

I would agree with one thing the minister has said: he probably does have better things to do than to sit here and listen to this debate. I expect he has many other things on his agenda, many things that probably would contribute significantly to an improvement in the health care system. That is why we find it passing strange that the government has placed such dramatic emphasis on Bill 94.

Now that the Liberal Party is in government, it has an opportunity to make a substantive contribution to the improvement of the health care system, and Bill 94 simply goes about dismantling an appropriate system that has stood well and served well the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman: Speak to your amendment.

Mr. Andrewes: With respect to the amendment, I have moved this amendment in order that we can find some cooling-off period under which reasonable discussions can take place between the medical profession and the government. If we as thé opposition were to accede to the obvious desire of the government to pass this legislation, we would be abrogating our responsibility to those many people in Ontario who oppose Bill 94.

The member for Windsor-Riverside has said that democracy will prevail. That is what he said at the outset of his comments on this amendment. When the final count is taken by Mr. Speaker, perhaps this bill will carry, but I say to the few members of the Liberal Party who might listen to some reasoned logic, that it is our obligation to speak for those people, whether they are in the minority or the majority. I am not here to argue that issue, but it is the majority of the people of this province who want an end to this rancour; it is a majority of the people who want their services restored, and who want to be able to go to emergency wards in hospitals and receive treatment. The passage of this bill will not restore those kinds of services to the majority of the people of this province.

Interjection.

Miss Stephenson: Tommy Douglas had enough sense to concede.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege: As Mr. Douglas is not here to defend himself, I ask the member for York Mills to withdraw those derogatory comments about one of the great parliamentarians of our time.

Mr. Chairman: I heard some remarks and I do not believe there was anything derogatory.

Miss Stephenson: They were factual.

Mr. Foulds: I thought the member said something about stupidity. I thought that was an unparliamentary word.

Miss Stephenson: Oh no, that is not what I said.

Mr. Chairman: No, I heard it. It was quite the contrary. In fact, it was positive rather than negative.

Miss Stephenson: I was talking about Tommy Douglas, not the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: That is all right then. I feel my privileges had been restored.

Mr. Andrewes: We were dealing with the subject of whether or not the passage of this bill will end the current dispute. It is the opinion of the Ontario Medical Association that it will not. They have said no. Dr. Railton said that to the minister last night during their debate. It is the opinion of 27 doctors in the riding of Lincoln, none of whom is opted out, none of whom extra bills, that the passage of Bill 94 will not end the work action they are currently involved in.

The government and the New Democratic Party say it will; yet they have not offered anything to substantiate that allegation.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) will please let the member finish. I point out the clock to the member for Lincoln.

Mr. Andrewes: This legislation affects approximately 10 per cent of the physicians in the province, yet as a result of its introduction, it has involved 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the physicians in the province in the dispute.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. The time has expired. It now is 6:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: I ask for unanimous consent of the House for the debate to continue past the normal adjournment time.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent of the House?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: I hear several noes to my left. There is not unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I regret that.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to advise the House of a change in the order of business for tomorrow. We will deal first with second and third readings of Bills Pr18, Pr31, Pr42 and Pr50, followed by committee of the whole House on Bill 94, followed by committee of the whole House on Bill 30.

The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.

June 17, 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MISSISSAUGA RAINBOW FESTIVAL

EXTRA BILLING

VISITORS

BUILDING ADVERTISEMENT

SOUTH AFRICAN EVENTS

EXTRA BILLING

FIESTA WEEK

NORTH BAY COURTHOUSE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PORK PRODUCTION

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

WASTE MANAGEMENT

TECHNOLOGY FUND

JOB DISMISSAL

COURTHOUSES

TARIFFS

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

EVICTION PREVENTION

EXTRA BILLING

VISITORS

EXTRA BILLING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF HURON ACT

ST. ELIZABETH HOME SOCIETY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE