Hansard Transcript 1986-Jun-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: An article appearing this morning in the London Free Press makes this the first opportunity for me to raise this point of privilege. The article says in part at the beginning:

"Oxford Tory MPP Dick Treleaven will be fired as the Legislature's Deputy Speaker if he filibusters defending extra billing, NDP House Leader Ross McClellan (Bellwoods) warned Tuesday.

"McClellan said the New Democrats and Liberals will team up to oust Treleaven if he delays the proposed Bill 94 to ban extra billing by doctors by filibustering for two days...."

This is a classic point of privilege, an occurrence of contempt for the Legislature. An attempt is being made to stop me, the member for Oxford, from debating in the Legislature on behalf of my constituents. The said newspaper article and previous and other comments of the government House leader and the House leader of the New Democratic Party, with threats of strong sanctions being taken against me if I debate Bill 94 in this chamber, constitute an attempt to intimidate me and deprive me of my rights in this Legislature and deprive my constituents of their rights to have a free and unfettered member of the Legislature represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest you find either (a) that this is a prima facie point of privilege and refer this entire matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly or (b) that this constitutes a point of privilege and that the two said House leaders are in contempt of parliament and that they be brought in front of the bar of this Legislature forthwith and dealt with by this Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: Before I am brought to the bar of the House and presumably hung, drawn and quartered thereafter, I want to speak to the point that has been made by -- and I stress this -- the Deputy Speaker of this Legislature.

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Oxford made that statement from his place in this Legislature, and at that point he is not the Deputy Speaker. That fact seems to have escaped the NDP House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) has illustrated the nature of the dilemma that is before all of us in this House. As the member for Oxford, my friend is perfectly entitled to do whatever he feels he must do to represent his constituents. If that includes filibustering on Bill 94, and I believe he was the one who indicated to the media that he intended to speak at length on Bill 94 and on other matters in order to make points that were important to him and his constituency, he is entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to do that as long as he is the Deputy Speaker of this Legislature. It is as simple as that.

The member for Oxford is going to have to choose whether he is prepared to set aside some of his partisan concerns to serve this House as its Deputy Speaker. If he is not able to do that, then he has no choice. If he insists on representing his partisan concerns in a vigorous way, he has no choice but to resign his office as Deputy Speaker. If he does not understand that, then I have indicated, as far as our party is concerned, we will insist that he stand down.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very concerned at the point the member for Oxford has raised. Concern has been expressed by a number of members after the news report that the honourable member was prepared to hold up legislation on the basis of his strongly held views on a matter of important controversy in this House. I would be the last to deny him the right to speak or even to hold up the business. Any private member of a political party has to use whatever capabilities he has in that regard. But I bring to his attention page 240 of Erskine May, which sets out the special responsibilities for a person who has the responsibility of Deputy Speaker.

In Erskine May, dealing with the Parliament at Westminister, the Deputy Speaker is referred to as the Chairman of Ways and Means. It says as follows on that page: "Impartiality. The Chairman of Ways and Means during his occupation of that office follows the same tradition of abstention from party controversy as the Speaker."

There are other things to be said there. I would be the last and no other member in this House would want to deny the honourable member every right that is his and that of every other member to take part in the debates and discussions. But if it is his decision to use whatever abilities he has to hold up legislation or perhaps to use the threat of that to change legislation, in my view, it is not consonant with his duties as Deputy Speaker. I do not see how he can do both. The choice is with him. It is completely unfair to make a choice like that the responsibility of the other members of the House.

Mr. Treleaven: I would like to reply --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I suspect what we are debating here is a lot of "what ifs" --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are not debating.

Mr. Harris: We are not debating? Okay. Could I enter in and offer some comments on whatever we are doing?

We are into an area of "what ifs." There are many "what ifs." The member in question has an obligation to his riding and an obligation as an MPP when he is not performing his duties as Deputy Speaker. As Deputy Speaker, he also assumes the role of Chairman of committees of the whole House. In that role, he has refrained from entering into any discussion during the committee stage.

If the members want to enter into "what ifs" -- and when I conclude I suggest we do not, but since others have perhaps I should -- there are many precedents throughout democracies and parliamentary systems, in Canada, in the United Kingdom and here in Ontario, where Deputy Speakers have on second reading, on readings other than in the committee of the whole House, entered into the debate and offered comments in their role as representatives of ridings. I suggest there are ample precedents for that, and if the "what if" comes about, obviously we will be pointing that out.

A lot of the discussion right now is in a realm we have not yet addressed. As I understand it, the member's point of privilege dealt with some discussions of a member of this Legislature with the media, and I suggest we stay within that, if indeed that is a point of privilege.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has had an opportunity to raise the so-called point of privilege. I have listened very carefully to all the comments, and all members are certainly aware that we operate here according to the standing orders and the usages and precedents of parliamentary democracy here and throughout the Commonwealth.

As the member for Oxford has stated, this is a matter in reference to another member of this House. I believe such a matter could be dealt with internally within this House, and if any member is not satisfied with the way any presiding officer, myself included, operates, any member has the opportunity to present a substantive motion by way of want of confidence in that individual. It would be my view that is the way this matter should be dealt with.

I do not feel I can consider it a point of privilege at the moment with the information I have before me.

2:11 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Wiseman: As all members are aware, a tornado lashed through the province Monday evening, leaving in its wake an estimated $4 million of devastation in eastern Ontario. Just over a year ago, a storm of a similar nature destroyed a section of the city of Barrie. At that time, the previous government responded quickly and compassionately to aid the victims of that tragedy. Once again, disaster has struck. Although the magnitude of the destruction may not be as severe, the very real loss and human suffering are equally as great. The efforts of the cleanup and the individual cost of reconstruction remain the same.

I have already received pleas for help from residents of my riding, and I know there are countless others, including those from areas held by members of cabinet, who are relying on our support. I urge the present government, through the cabinet, to move as quickly as possible to give serious consideration to once again assisting nature's victims.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Charlton: It has been a year since the Liberals took office, a year of loud Liberal silence on the future of Darlington. Before the election, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said on numerous occasions that Darlington was a colossal mistake and should be cancelled.

In April, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) told the select committee on energy he would be making a statement on Darlington soon. It is our understanding the government's decision on the future of Darlington has been made, but that statement has never been made in the House because of the unfortunate incident at Chernobyl making the statement politically unwise.

Instead, it would seem the government would prefer to wait for the committee to recommend a continuation of Darlington so that the decision, which has already been made, will be made first by the committee. Since the Liberals hold the balance of power on the committee, the decision will be made according to government direction. The government has made a de facto decision to continue Darlington but refuses to have it disclosed publicly.

Since they assumed office almost a year ago, almost $2 billion has been spent on Darlington. In fact, rather than slowing Darlington, in many respects it can be seen that Darlington has been speeded up over the course of the past year. At a time when almost every country in the world is reviewing its nuclear program, particularly questions of nuclear safety, it would appear we are proceeding to head for 70 per cent reliance on nuclear energy in Ontario. This is not a balanced energy future.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Mancini: I want to inform the members of the House of the immediate assistance offered by the Ontario government to the people of Jamaica as a result of the severe damage caused by a tropical storm that hit the island two weeks ago. This is in keeping with this province's tradition of providing relief assistance in cases of disaster.

We responded extremely quickly in this instance. In fact, 110 cases of canned goods accompanied Prime Minister Seaga on his return trip to Jamaica on June 7, following his private visit to Ontario. It was during this visit that the Prime Minister of Jamaica informed the Ontario government, through a conversation between himself and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), of the disaster that took place in Jamaica.

Members will be pleased to know that additional foodstuffs and supplies went to the island on Thursday, June 12. Antibiotics were shipped on Tuesday, June 17, and more clothing and goods donated by the private sector will be leaving as soon as transport service can be arranged.

On June 16, it was noted in the House by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) that we should act; that was 10 days after we had already provided assistance to the government of Jamaica.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: For clarification, is a statement by a parliamentary assistant not better addressed to this assembly through ministers' statements?

Mr. Speaker: It is a point of order. However, the standing orders do say that any member, other than leaders of opposition parties and ministers, can make statements.

LA SEMAINE FRANÇAISE

M. Guindons: Généralement, lorsqu'on parle de Cornwall, on pense automatiquement au chômage, aux fermetures d'usines et à la pollution.

Mais il arrive parfois et même plus souvent qu'on ne le pense que des bonnes nouvelles proviennent de chez nous.

Je me réfère particulièrement aux grandioses célébrations qui marqueront cette semaine la 24e édition de la Semaine française. En effet, depuis 24 ans, des gens convaincus, des gens fiers de ce qu'ils sont et déterminés à demeurer francophones ont organisé un festival appelé la Semaine française qui met en valeur la langue et la culture des nôtres. Il va sans dire que cet événement annuel a su contribuer à ralentir le processus d'assimilation, surtout parmi la jeune génération.

Il ne faut également pas oublier que cette fête qui se tient du 14 au 24 juin attire chez nous des visiteurs de plusieurs régions frontalières, ce qui contribue en un sens à mousser notre économie touristique.

Par la même occasion, je voudrais saluer tous les francophones de l'Ontario qui, à l'approche de la fête de la Saint-Jean, fête nationale des Canadiens français, organisent des manifestations dans leurs régions respectives afin de démontrer leur fierté et leur attachement à leur langue et à leur culture.

Que ce soit les promoteurs du Festival franco-ontarien d'Ottawa ou les organisateurs des nombreuses fêtes qui se tiendront en régions, tous ces gens partagent le même objectif: vivre en français dans notre province, l'Ontario.

Leurs efforts sont grands et méritent d'être soulignés, voire même encouragés, non seulement par le gouvernement mais aussi par tous les résidents de cette province.

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMAN'S ISSUES

Ms. Gigantes: In the past year, the minister responsible for women's issues, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), has proven to be an underachiever. He did see to family law reform by following through on a Conservative bill, but has left widowed spouses on their own to fight insurance companies for pension benefits under the bill. He did fight to remove discrimination by sports associations against women, but he has not committed the government to affirmative funding of women's sports.

He did continue the Conservative advertising of assistance to battered women, but he has not provided for adequate programs for women who respond to the ads. Neither has he persuaded his cabinet of the urgent need for decent child care; nor has he crusaded for affirmative action employment and training programs; nor has he secured government funding of rape crisis centres.

His most outstanding noncontributions are on equal pay for work of equal value and access to abortion service. The minister responsible for women's issues has been responsible for excesses of creativity when it comes to schemes to delay equal pay for work of equal value. The minister has laboured mightily in speeches but has brought forward a legislative mouse: equal pay protection for 1.5 per cent of our paid women's work force.

On access to abortion service, the minister's score is not even 1.5 per cent; it is in the negative value range. He is using a bad law to punish desperate women and the doctors who provide them with service. He plays a prosecutor when he should be the advocate.

In sum, this minister has not been responsible and he should resign.

VENDING MACHINES

Mr. Pollock: On June 8, a 17-year-old lost his life while working. The accident occurred when a young man went to a vending machine to get a drink. After several minutes, his friends went to see why he had not returned. They discovered him pinned under the machine. Attempts to revive him failed, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.

There have been two similar accidents in Peterborough and one in Toronto in which others have died. One of these happened at the Holiday Inn and an inquest is pending. The government seems to have no guidelines on how to stabilize these machines. It is clear that if there had been stipulations governing the setup of the machines, these people would not have died so needlessly.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to make a statement on behalf of residents of Sault Ste. Marie who are very concerned about actions taking place in Sault Ste. Marie in regard to hospital services. The president of the Algoma West Academy of Medicine, Dr. Apostle, has asked all chiefs of staff and chiefs of services to resign in the hope of making each hospital's medical advisory committee ineffective. I hope the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will look into this situation, prompted perhaps by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston).

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for statements by the ministry, I would like to inform the members of the Legislature that we have today in the Speaker's gallery Mrs. Marsha Coggs, who has been a member of the Wisconsin Legislature for 10 years. She is also vice-chairman of the Wisconsin health care committee. Please welcome, with me, Mrs. Coggs.

2:23 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DECADE OF DISABLED PERSONS

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: In 1981, the International Year of Disabled Persons awakened people around the world to the rights, needs and capabilities of persons with disabilities. The government of Ontario, reflecting an ongoing commitment, actively participated in this worldwide event through such measures as the "Label us able" public awareness campaign.

Today, to sustain this progress, it is my pleasure to announce that the government of Ontario will proclaim the Decade of Disabled Persons within its jurisdiction. This action formally expresses the determination of the government of Ontario to promote the fullest possible integration of disabled persons in the mainstream of society. We recognize that both individuals and the community as a whole benefit when all persons participate in every area of social, economic and political life.

In Ontario, the commitment to respect the dignity and independence of disabled persons is one that all three political parties share. Our government has signalled its intentions very clearly by creating a new cabinet position specifically to address the concerns of this community. My role as minister is to co-ordinate internal government policies for individuals with disabilities. I am also responsible for the provision of information to disabled individuals and their families, public awareness initiatives to heighten understanding of their abilities and liaison with community and advocacy groups representing their interests.

Our government is determined to accelerate progress towards a better life for persons with disabilities. In the past few months, we have demonstrated our resolve through several key initiatives.

Recognizing that equal opportunity depends to a large extent on a barrier-free environment, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and I have undertaken a review of the Ontario Building Code as it pertains to accessibility for persons with disabilities. We appointed a task force chaired by distinguished architect Pamela Cluff. It included representatives of the disabled community, designers, builders and government. We now are considering the group's recommendations, which would move Ontario to the forefront among Canadian provinces in barrier-free design.

Also, to strengthen the right of access, my cabinet colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) announced our intention to repeal clause 16(1)(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. This provision currently bars any remedy for a disabled person who is denied employment, services or accommodation because of a physical barrier. Our proposed amendment would give the Ontario Human Rights Commission the power to order the person responsible for the premises to provide access if the alterations would not entail undue financial hardship.

In a second thrust to promote the independence and integration of persons with disabilities, we have enhanced the province's network of community support services. For example, my colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) recently announced the phasing in of a new homemaker services program so more persons with disabilities may have the option of living at home with their families.

The government is also expanding the assistive devices program, which helps disabled persons with the cost of medically necessary equipment, aids and supplies. As of January 1, 1986, we extended the assistive devices program to disabled people 21 years of age and under. Beginning July 1, 22-year-olds will be included. In addition, prostheses such as artificial limbs will be covered for all age groups effective July 1. Respiratory equipment will be covered for all effective September 1. The government has made a commitment to expand the program further to include all remaining categories for all age groups.

We have also announced plans to ensure the fair treatment of disabled persons in sheltered workshops and other work-related rehabilitation settings. In a statement to the Legislature recently, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) announced we will guarantee that those in a true employment relationship receive the minimum wage. We will ensure that individuals in these settings are protected by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as are other workers in the province.

The strength of our commitment can be gauged by measures announced in the provincial budget by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). We have pledged $10 million to promote greater participation of the disabled in the mainstream of social and economic activity. We have dedicated an additional $5 million to expand and enhance housing programs to meet their needs better. We will spend $17 million over the next two years to further the integration of the developmentally disabled into our communities.

In proclaiming the Decade of Disabled Persons, we challenge Ontarians to join in creating a society where all individuals have a fair chance to reach their potential.

As an immediate step to translate these ideals into action, the government will establish a community action fund for disabled persons. We will dedicate $500,000 to this fund in the current fiscal year to support community initiatives to equalize opportunities. We will focus on projects that will help them achieve self-sufficiency or that build public understanding of their needs and abilities. Funding will be provided on a one-time basis rather than on an ongoing basis to encourage innovative ideas and help new initiatives get off the ground. Our overriding aim is to help special-needs groups gain control of their own lives.

The secretariat for disabled persons will manage the community action fund and implement a public awareness program in co-operation with other ministries.

Ontario is pleased to join in this concerted effort by the community of nations to promote equality for all human beings. We in government invite the disabled persons of Ontario to continue to work with us to open up opportunities and expand participation in the life of our province.

Mr. Baetz: When I began to read this voluminous statement that was handed over to us by the Minister without Portfolio, I anticipated something extraordinary to be announced today. Instead, what we have is a statement by the minister responsible for tooting his horn. He is the horn tooter of the party.

He has done nothing here. It sounds like a Greek chorus to me. Repetition, repetition. There is absolutely nothing in this statement except $500,000. Can members imagine? Every disabled person in the province today will jump for joy that the minister has announced $500,000 to be matched by community organizations. The rest is all old stuff; statements we have heard from the Minister of Labour, the Attorney General and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Treasurer.

Frankly, this is a rather dismal exercise on the part of the Minister without Portfolio. All I can say is, at least he has recognized the tremendous foundation the previous administration laid in truly helping the disabled in this province. More than that I cannot say. I cannot compliment him for anything. It is a sad day and a disappointment. Quite frankly, I think the Minister without Portfolio ought to occupy himself with something else, because he is contributing nothing to the disabled.

Mr. Rae: I want to express my profound agreement with the member for Ottawa West. Indeed, the Liberals are building on the foundations of the Tory party with respect to policies on the disabled. That is precisely the problem with this bafflegab statement we have from the Minister without Portfolio and without a great many other things as well.

For the minister to state with pride that the Liberal Party's achievement with respect to prosthetic devices has been to include those people who are 22 years old as opposed to those people who are 21 years old is a crying disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a big step forward.

Mr. Rae: The Minister of the Environment, who is heckling me at this moment, will have difficulty looking in his mirror this evening as he goes back to his constituency and talks to those people who are 30, 35, 40 and 45 years old and who are paying out of their own pockets for things that ought to be part of a universal health care system in this province.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a step forward.

Mr. Rae: The minister knows it and he is embarrassed. Every member of the Liberal Party with any degree of honesty in his or her soul knows full well that the failure to act with respect to prosthetic devices is a crying disgrace in Ontario in 1986. It breaks its election promises. It breaks everything it stated.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Moving forward.

Mr. Rae: Let me tell the minister this, since he has appointed himself a one-man heckling show over there, it is simply not good enough at the pace of adding on a year every year. We will be well into the 21st century before we finally do justice.

I am reminded that the Liberal Party adopted medicare as part of its official program in 1919. We are not prepared to wait and the people of Ontario are not prepared to wait for decency and justice for disabled and handicapped people in the province. Maybe the member is prepared to wait, but I do not think the people of the province are prepared to wait for that basic justice.

The minister got up today and said nothing, not a word about affirmative action, a government program with respect to employment, or the commitments, even the ones the Attorney General and the Treasurer signed in the accord with respect to an affirmative action program for the disabled. The Minister without Portfolio responsible for the disabled stands up a year later and shows how hollow is the Liberal Party's commitment. When it comes to spending money and actually investing in the future, they are not prepared to do it. The $500,000 will hardly pay for the plaques that the Minister without Portfolio and minister for plaques has been handing out around this province.

It is an insult to the disabled to have a Minister without Portfolio who has no real responsibilities, no real clout in cabinet, no co-ordinating role, no authority with respect to employment and no authority with respect to housing. It is a mere tokenistic kind of appointment. This statement should never have been made. The fact that it has been made gives us on this side of the House an opportunity to say that the record this government has established with the disabled is no record at all.

They and the Tories may think they are building on the foundations that were laid by the Tories. That is precisely the problem. Those foundations were rejected May 2 last year. When it comes to programs for the disabled, the Liberal Party has betrayed the promise of that election and the negotiations that followed and the change that was supposed to come with the change of government.

Mr. Warner: I find the announcement of the Minister without Portfolio quite strange and curious in professing some concern about providing better services for the disabled when his government decided yesterday that it would not be appropriate for MPPs to make sure that their offices were accessible to the disabled. That is a strange contradiction. In passing, I also find it a little strange watching the Conservatives jump on the bandwagon of social issues. No matter how one paints a dinosaur, one cannot hide it.

2:37 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is my telephone.

Mr. Martel: The phone is back. Off with the glasses today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Send it over one more time.

Mr. Grossman: Not only can we not trust the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) with patients, we cannot trust him with telephones. Anyway, his leader does not know how to use one.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: We have a series of very crucial questions for the Premier (Mr. Peterson). We were notified that he would be in the House at 2:35 p.m. Is there some information from the government?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is anticipated that the Premier will be here at approximately three o'clock. He is presiding at the opening of the Margaret Birch wing of Scarborough Centenary Hospital.

Mr. Grossman: Mount Sinai Hospital cancelled an opening the Premier was supposed to attend yesterday because it knew his presence would cause a great deal of difficulty.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: In view of the absence of the Premier of Ontario on this crucial day for the health care system, I have a question that I will ask of the Minister of Health. The minister has told us day after day that basically all we are seeing in the system is inconvenience. He has also assured us that he is looking after matters as best he can.

This afternoon I want to raise with the minister a case that concerns a constituent of the Speaker, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer). The father of a 20-year-old woman in Listowel is today desperately trying to save his daughter's life. She is in hospital suffering from anorexia nervosa. She has dropped from 150 pounds to 82 pounds. She has had nothing to eat and only juice to drink for the last 16 days.

Her doctor is quite concerned that she may collapse without proper psychiatric and medical treatment. That treatment is not available at the Listowel Memorial Hospital, where the minister attended a short time ago. For several months, the doctor has been trying to get the young woman into a major medical centre such as the University Hospital in London or Toronto General Hospital.

The family has been told for two months it must wait for space to be available in one of the treatment programs. Now that the strike is on, however, the doctor reports that the possibility of obtaining this treatment is nonexistent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: This young woman is not going to get treatment.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, your constituent phoned our office this morning because he has called you on five occasions asking for help. The member for Perth has diligently and loyally tried to serve his constituent by speaking to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and taking the case up with him.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The caller called back this morning to say that despite all the calls to the Minister of Health by his member, the Speaker, nothing has come of it, and the member for Perth has had to say, "There is nothing the Minister of Health can do about it." Can he tell us --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot comment on why the physician was unable to get help for several months. I do not know which people have refused to see the girl during those several months. I will look into why people have refused to see or to treat her. I cannot comment on medical decisions that have been made by other people. The system is under the care of the physicians. That general practitioner must surely have been trying his very best during the past several months to get that help. I cannot explain why people have not been able to reply to his request for help. I will look into the matter much further and report back to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

Mr. Grossman: I remind the minister that by legislation he is ultimately responsible for the care and safety of the health care system. This case has been raised with him by the member for Perth on four or five occasions. The member for Perth ultimately called his constituent back on four or five occasions.

Mr. Laughren: Is this your supplementary statement?

Mr. Grossman: If this is not important enough for his party, let the member for Nickel Belt stand up and say so.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: After having assured this House he is looking into all cases raised by members and finding out what can be done, can the minister explain why, when the member for Perth has raised this case with him and his office on four or five occasions, only this afternoon he has promised to look into it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is not providing all the details. It is very difficult when there are no names attached. If he would provide me with the name, I would be able to check on the information. The difficulty is, with somebody standing up and describing those details without names, dates and places, how can I comment without risking being inaccurate?

In one case, and I am not sure that this is the one, we were in touch with two or three people in that town. I presume it is the same one. Several weeks ago, we advised that there should be a visit to a hospital facility where there is an emergency department that has an anorexia facility on site. I am not sure that is the right case. I am sorry, I have to know the details so I can respond in a reasonable way with a degree of certainty about the facts. That is the best I can do without enough information to be confident the information I am providing is right. I will tender that as the information I can make available to the member at this point, guessing about the details.

Mr. Grossman: The family has indicated we can make all the information available because it is so desperate.

I want to emphasize that the question is not whether the minister has an answer to this matter this afternoon, the question is, how can he assure the public of this province, through this House, that cases raised with him will be resolved by him and that he will look after them so they do not have to worry, when the Speaker, the member for Perth, has been trying to help in this desperate situation for several weeks?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I told the Leader of the Opposition that I can respond with a degree of certainty only when I have been given the details of the case. He has provided a very minimal set of facts. I do not like to guess. I have done that in my answer to the second part of his question.

However, we did suggest a means of responding to the need. I guess it was not acted upon in that one case. The member is not right. We do take our activities extremely seriously, but when he stands in the House and does not provide the details, I cannot answer with any degree of accuracy.

One thing the member can do to help us to move forward in the development of the health care field is to help us pass the bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. Grossman: The member for Perth has to desperately report to his constituent that the Minister of Health can do nothing to help a seriously sick young woman.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat? Does he have a new question?

Mr. Grossman: I have a second question of the Premier but we will stand it down until he arrives, or we will see what happens if he does not arrive.

Mr. Speaker: Is the House agreeable to stand down the question?

Agreed.

Mr. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister knows that the House spent 13 days on second reading of this bill. We spent 19 days in committee and we have now spent 10 days in committee of the whole House, including today.

Does the minister not agree with me that, first, we need back-to-work legislation as far as the Tory opposition in the Legislature is concerned to get Bill 94 through? Can he tell us what steps he intends to take to see that Bill 94 is passed by this Legislature so that a clear signal can be sent to the Ontario Medical Association with respect to our position on extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I agree that I would like to see the bill move somewhat more quickly than it is moving. We have spent whole afternoons to do one section at a time. I cannot control the activities of the official opposition. I am not sure that anybody can control that membership. That is a concern that must be expressed by the public at large, that there is no control in the manner in which this bill is being currently debated.

I would like to see it move along much more quickly. I would like to see this afternoon's debate proceed, and assess at that time what is required.

Mr. Rae: In this province there is a strike which is seriously affecting the ability of citizens to get access to health care. At the same time as the strike is going on, we have had a systematic filibuster, holding up legislation which expresses the view of this Legislature and the people of this province with respect to extra billing.

We are now entitled to ask the minister, as spokesman for the government, what he intends to do. What steps does he intend to take to see that this debate, this filibuster, is brought to a conclusion and the bill voted on, and to see that a clear message is sent to the OMA from this Legislature with respect to the end of extra billing? There can then be no illusion as to what the majority view of this Legislature is and the majority view of the public of Ontario is with respect to extra billing in Ontario.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no misunderstanding in the public as to the view of the majority of this Legislative Assembly with respect to this bill. It knows that this bill is going to pass. We know that the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly are committed to ensuring that extra billing in this province ends. It will be brought to an end. We will process the bill and we will debate the bill. I am in a position to call for an extra sitting this evening if that is required to complete the clause-by-clause discussion and I am prepared to sit here all evening, if that is appropriate to finish this bill.

Mr. Rae: As I indicated earlier, we are happy to sit as long as it takes to get this legislation through. We challenge the Tory party today to stay in this House until such time as the legislation is through and until such time as Bill 94 is passed. That is the challenge we issue to the Tories. They are the ones who are sending out the wrong message to those physicians and those strikers who are denying the patients of this province the health care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: In the event that the Tory party indicates it is not prepared to sit, not prepared to deal with this legislation and not prepared to get it through, is the minister prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that we allocate time in this Legislature to bring the debate on Bill 94 to a conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have debated this bill at length. I know the public has seen us debating and making sure we can come up with the best bill possible. My opinion is that we should take extra time, if that is required this afternoon, to sit and deal with the clause-by-clause. I am prepared to do that and the members here ought to be prepared to take that step to ensure that Bill 94 is passed. With that in mind, we look to progress this afternoon and I will assess the situation later in the afternoon.

Mr. Rae: I have a new question to the same minister. Does he consider that as minister he is responsible for ensuring access of patients to the health care system, or does he regard that as the sole prerogative of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will know that in terms of access a number of people have worked together to ensure that there is access. We have worked in the past and will continue to work at ensuring access to the health care system on the part of the patients of the province.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not answered the question. He will be aware of a number of statements today in the press by members of the college of physicians and surgeons indicating that they agree with the actions of the OMA, that they support the strike action by doctors and that they do not agree with the steps that were taken in 1982.

Given that clear endorsation of strike activity and the denial of access to health care by members of the college, which is supposed to be responsible for disciplining members of the profession who deprive patients of health care, what does the minister intend to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to answer that question in the past tense. I have already done something about it. I have been in touch with the college and found out, for instance, that the registrar to whom some quotations were attributed has received an apology from the reporter indicating that the quotations were incorrectly attributed.

I know the college is concerned about quotations that are attributed to two other members of the college. They are looking at that very question this afternoon at their extraordinary meeting.

Mr. Rae: Dr. Shelley McLean, president of the medical staff at the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital, was on television last night. I am sure the minister will be aware that Dr. McLean said on The National on CBC, in a report by reporter Claude Adams, "If one patient dies now, we may be preventing 100 patients dying in five years because of lack of access to health care." Has the minister referred Dr. McLean's outrageous and thoroughly unprofessional comments to the college of physicians and surgeons, and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: First, the only reason this matter was not brought up in my earlier discussions with the college was that I did not know the name of the physician. I had only heard about the reports. I was not in a position to do much media gazing or watching these last few days, but I find the honourable gentleman's description of that statement to be an accurate one and I intend to refer that matter to the college.

I do not think there is any physician in this province who, as part of his or her training, would follow seriously what the member has reported as a quotation. Even those people who are in emergency rooms that are on restricted service are assessing people as they come in the door. They are delivering medical decisions, rendering judgements, and in my opinion that statement is not indicative of the medical profession in this province.

Mr. Pope: I have a question --

Interjections.

Mr. Pope: The member is with them, so do not worry about it.

Mr. Breaugh: Is there a lawyer's strike too?

Mr. Pope: The member should ask his leader.

My question is to the Minister of Health arising out of a question I raised with him yesterday and a conversation we had after question period. Can the minister explain in detail to me and to the people of this province what monitoring and what medical assessments are going on with respect to referral patients to Toronto, whether they be from Listowel or northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yesterday the honourable gentleman asked the question of the Premier in the House. We had a concern expressed yesterday about those referral patients who were unable to get information from their physicians. In a situation where people have a concern about whether a referral from northern Ontario or any other facility to another physician is in question, we would advise they contact our hotline so that we can make further inquiries on their behalf.

In my conversation with the honourable gentleman yesterday, I expressed concern that there was difficulty for patients in getting information when the patients' physicians were not able to provide those answers. I still have that concern. First and foremost, the patients must make extraordinary efforts to get their own general practitioner, or whoever they have been referred by, to give that information to them about the success of a referral, as to whether somebody is or is not working.

Mr. Pope: Under law, the minister has a responsibility to the people of this province for the delivery of health care. The fact is that when one calls the ministry hotline, as our party did over the last two days, one is told to get in touch with the emergency department of a local hospital. The people who are being referred to Toronto hospitals have nowhere to call to get an answer. The minister said two nights ago that the situation was in hand. Dr. Railton said the situation was in hand; there was only minor inconvenience. That is not true. There is no control. There are no medical assessments. There is no monitoring going on of referral patients from other parts of the province to Toronto hospitals. How can the minister still claim the situation is in control?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: In situations where there is a concern expressed such as that, particularly if people are being referred for surgery and cannot reach their family physician, a good piece of advice is to go to an emergency facility if it is of an emergent or critical nature. If it is in the member's home town, for instance, what about going to that one, because one may find the family physician is on duty in that emergency room?

The concern the honourable gentleman raised with me yesterday after question period is a real one for me, because in that situation extra steps have to be taken to contact the family physicians or the specialists to whom the person may have been referred.

In this case, that is the best piece of advice, but if a medical assessment is required, obviously people are going to have to contact the emergency room to find out whether a further assessment can be made there. I still have concerns when it is difficult to reach the physicians but, generally speaking, physicians are available to make those medical assessments.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Charlton: I have a question to the Minister of Energy. The minister is aware that since the government was formed last June, an additional $1.9 billion has either been spent or committed on the Darlington nuclear power project. Each day that passes means millions of dollars in terms of Darlington.

The minister promised in April there would be a statement very soon on the Darlington question. Can the minister confirm for this House that the government has made its decision on the future of Darlington, and can he explain why that position has not been put in the House as he promised?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think it has been made very plain that this government has not made a decision on the completion of Darlington. The honourable member should know better than anyone else that this government reconstituted the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, which was disbanded by the previous government when it formed a majority. We are placing a very high priority on the select committee on energy.

We certainly have not made a decision, and such a decision will be shared here in the House before it is shared anywhere else.

Mr. Charlton: The minister referred to the select committee. He should realize the kinds of problems he is causing for that select committee. The select committee made its interim report last December, but the government has not yet responded to that interim report. The Liberal members on the committee are unsure and divided to the extent that one of them has withdrawn from the committee over the Darlington question.

The select committee requires the minister's response. When will he respond at very least to the December interim report of the select committee?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is obvious many other things have transpired since the first report from the select committee. There are other initiatives that this government is looking at very diligently. They have to do with conservation, the use of power in an economical way, load management, cogeneration and small hydraulic sites.

We are going to go forward with a plan to guarantee the people of Ontario a demand-supply situation that will meet the requirements of the residents and the manufacturing base, which happens to be the heart of this whole process in Ontario. That is the program this government has. It will be done in a most responsible way, and the decision on whether we should finish Darlington will be made in this forum.

Mr. Grossman: We are in a conundrum here because the Premier's driver has been seen in the environs, his press aide is here and we are told the Premier himself has been in the building for five minutes. I wonder --

Mr. Speaker: The House agreed to stand down the second question until the Premier arrived. Maybe we could go on with another question.

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MULTICULTURALISM AND CITIZENSHIP

Mr. Shymko: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I see she is going to her seat. On April 25, the minister claimed that her government was committed to multiculturalism, that it was a priority with her ministry and that she had an excellent working relationship with the president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

I do not want to accuse the minister of misleading this House, but can she explain why she slashed the budget of that council from $323,000 last year to $252,000, which is less than the budget of two years ago, and refused to increase that budget? Why has she failed to reappoint half of the council members, thus paralysing the council? The president of that council sent two memos on June 6, saying the following --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. Now you are making further comments on your question.

Mr. Shymko: I had to get up and sit down because the minister was not in her seat.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that.

Mr. Shymko: With your permission, may I complete my question? I seem to have problems.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the help of everyone, but I have heard the question.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The reduction in the budget between last year and this year is occasioned by the fact that the previous president was on a full-term salary of $70,000. Mr. Frolick is on a different arrangement. We have been taking a look at his work plan and are in constant contact with him to indicate the basis on which he is asking for additional assistance, secretarial, research or otherwise.

In regard to the member's concern about the appointments to the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, we have been getting in representatives from various regions and from various multicultural groups. Those appointments are now being considered.

Mr. Shymko: The president is saying the entire council is going to resign. There is a crisis in that council. How come the minister found $570,000 to build a garage for the Royal Botanical Gardens and $70,000 of that council's budget to redecorate the deputy minister's office?

I would like to know what her priorities are. If a garage and the decor of her deputy minister's office are more important, she should resign, as should her sidekick the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I believe our ministry is treating the requests of Mr. Frolick in a sensitive way. We have asked for a work plan. He gave it to us after the estimates for this year went in.

Any of the member's other comments relating to the Royal Botanical Gardens, the garages or resignations are clearly not connected to anything, at least from what I am able to see right now.

We are having an ongoing dialogue with Mr. Frolick, and his advisory counsel is most supportive. I am having ongoing think-tanks with various members of the multicultural group at the moment. They turn up. I cannot see the kind of antagonism the member is talking about, but I am very much supportive of his concerns.

I do not know what the paper is that the member is holding up. Why does he not send it over?

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. A couple of minutes ago, the Ontario Medical Association indicated the resolution of its council meeting. The first resolution indicates the president of the OMA is authorized to escalate, at his discretion, the sanctions being carried out in protest of Bill 94. Item 3 goes on to say the medical profession will continue to withdraw its services, if Bill 94 is passed, to tell the government and the public that the OMA will not work under conditions of tyranny.

Mr. Foulds: Has the member ever heard of the tyranny of the minority?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Given the clear indication by the OMA this afternoon that this already difficult situation is likely to escalate into a dangerous situation, if we are not already there now, might I ask the Premier whether he agrees that nothing is to be lost and much is to be gained, particularly in view of the thousands of patients who are being more than inconvenienced? Why not simply call a halt today for a short time and bring in a mediator?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, may I apologize to the honourable member opposite and my colleagues. I was at the opening of the Margaret Birch wing in the Scarborough Centenary Hospital, where we honoured one of our former colleagues. It was a glorious occasion in honour of Margaret Birch.

I was not aware of the resolution passed by the OMA just a minute or so ago, but this government has set its course very clearly. I do not believe it is tyranny at all. The federal Conservative Party, the federal New Democratic Party and the federal Liberal Party all agreed two or three years ago that extra billing was going to go. We are complying with the Canada Health Act in that regard. I do not see it in terms of tyranny.

We have gone on for almost a year discussing this in a variety of ways. It has been in this House now for at least three weeks. My own view is that the most constructive thing all of us, including the member, could do would be to pass the bill and not drag it out unnecessarily.

Mr. Grossman: Several months ago, the OMA warned the Premier there would be job action and he again presumed there would not be. As he got closer to getting this bill passed, the OMA warned him there would be a closure of emergency wards. He did not believe them, and we have a closure of emergency wards. He now has been cautioned by the OMA that it is going to escalate, not stop, the job action, should Bill 94 be pushed through. He continues not to believe them.

Mr. Foulds: Yes. You gave in to blackmail in 1982, did you not?

Mr. Grossman: We solved the strike in 1982.

So far, in the 38 hospitals we have checked, 3,295 elective surgical procedures have been cancelled. Surely it is now the time for all of us -- the Premier, the leader of the third party, our party and the OMA -- to back off for a time. Surely it is time for everyone to back off a bit. No one loses face. No one gains or loses political points here. Surely it would be appropriate now.

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: His second question is the same as his first. I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that if there is a holdup on this situation, it will be any different three months from now or any other time.

There is a principle at stake here, and the member has seen the will of the majority of the House here. I think it is quite obvious where the majority is. Obviously, in a democratically elected Legislature, we all have certain rights. The member's party has the right to express its point of view, and it is doing that. We all understand what is happening here, and the government and the NDP are committed to passing this bill.

It has been going on almost a year now. There has been thorough discussion. We have spent an awful lot of time ringing bells in this House for an hour at a time for minor votes. When we are supposed to be discussing the legislation, we have seen history lessons on the College of Physicians of Surgeons of Ontario, not discussion focused on the bill. It is our view, and I think the view of the majority of the members of this House, although I cannot speak for the third party, that we should be proceeding on this matter. We are prepared to do so and think that would go a long way.

Sometimes in life we cannot just postpone these problems. We cannot postpone it to next week or next month or whatever. That is why we are proceeding on the basis we are. We are going to keep the lines of communications with the OMA on any subject it wants to talk about, but we are moving on the question of extra billing.

Mr. Grossman: I believe the Premier should abandon his determination to get Bill 94 passed. I accept that he is not today going to do that, but there are thousands of patients who are no longer just being inconvenienced; their health care is being endangered by this bill. Whether or not he believes might is right, whether or not he believes putting in a mediator would be bending to the breeze, all that patients, parents, young children and cancer patients want today is their doctors back at work tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Those patients want this question asked of the Premier: Will he please put in a mediator to solve this problem and get their doctors back to work? They do not want a game of brinkmanship or a game of chicken played between the Premier and the OMA; they want their doctors back at work. Will the Premier do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The very simple answer to my friend opposite is that one cannot mediate the Canada Health Act. It is that simple. One is either for or against it. Many discussions and formal meetings have gone on for a long period. I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) we are prepared to sit down and discuss any issues the profession wants to talk about, because there are problems we have to address. However, if the member is asking me to back off on moving this bill forward, the answer is no.

I repeat: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks things are so serious, why does he not assist? He just admitted the bill was going through. Why delay it more than he has already? Having just admitted in this House that the bill is going forward, he has some responsibilities too.

ABORTION CLINICS

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please show a little respect for other members. I say that to all members.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister must be aware that women who have run the procedural gamut and been booked for abortions at Scarborough Centenary Hospital are having their appointments postponed, and some have been cancelled. Yesterday, one woman who went to the hospital for an appointment was told right then and there that it was not on. Is the minister not glad that doctors at the Scott and Morgentaler clinics are prepared to help women who are desperately looking for help right now?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not hear any question there.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister responsible for women's issues does not seem to care what happens to women in these circumstances. Is it not the height of cynicism for this government to depend now on services performed at the Morgentaler and Scott clinics and then to turn around at a later date and perhaps raid them and charge people at those clinics?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The record will show that, while a comment has been made, no question has been asked of me. What is the question?

Mr. Gillies: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) should get his hearing checked.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier. Since I asked him to table the documentation surrounding the rather unusual award of a grant to the Exploracom project, 13 days have passed. He has said publicly he is happy for us to have access to any information, but on repeated checks with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology this morning, we were told, "Nobody knows what we are supposed to show you," and "Nobody knows who is supposed to be getting this together." If the Premier is so happy to share this information with the House, where is it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. I have asked them to gather it up. The member put a question in Orders and Notices, and he is welcome to it; no problem. It is all being gathered up, I assume. I asked my staff to gather it up. I cannot tell the member the name of the person.

The member should just keep phoning, because they are enjoying his phone calls to all over the place. We are hearing from him quite regularly. We hear he is turning up blind alleys and culs-de-sac everywhere he turns, but he should keep searching. We are very happy to give it to him. There is no problem. It is a marvellous project. We are gathering it up, and we will get it to him in due course.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: Nobody is leaving this cloud over his government but the Premier. He is making public statements that he wants to share this information, and it appears he is stonewalling and trying to wait it out until the House adjourns.

Will the Premier give clear and unequivocal instructions to the staff of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) to table that information in the House today or tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have told the member we will table it when we are ready. Good Lord, there is a procedure for having questions in Orders and Notices, as the member knows. There are a lot of questions in Orders and Notices. We are answering them all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is one question in Orders and Notices about the postal charges for bulk mail. That is the quality of the questions that members are asking in Orders and Notices.

It is all being gathered up, and he will get it. He can ask me every single day, but my friend opposite, who demonstrates his immaturity on many occasions, is again going to find that there is nothing there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing. Would the Premier take his seat?

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Premier indicated there was a question in Orders and Notices. We have 65 questions in Orders and Notices that he refuses to follow procedure and answer. They are more than two weeks old. That will not wash.

ILLITERACY

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. More than 1.4 million adults in Ontario cannot read road maps or street signs, cannot read the directions on their medicine prescriptions, cannot read telephone books, cannot fill out job applications and so on.

Rumours abound in the literacy network of this province that the literacy leadership in this government is being transferred to the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Does the minister not agree this would give the mistaken impression that this is a problem essentially of immigrants, ethnic groups and the like and is not an education problem as such, which it is, given the high drop-out rates, the low streaming of so many of the children of low-income families and so on and given the inattention to general-level student programs?

Is it true the minister is abandoning the leadership in this question and running away from the issue?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Might I respond to the honourable member by saying that we in the Ministry of Education certainly accept our responsibility in this very important area. The government made it clear in its recent speech from the throne that new efforts and energies were going to be applied in the area of literacy, which is a concern shared by all honourable members. My colleagues in cabinet are now working to give a specific form to some of this new effort, and the honourable member will not have to wait long to see the fruits of that labour.

Mr. Allen: I trust we will not have to wait long, and the movement is going to have to be pretty great, because the government of which that minister is a member at this date spends only $5 per functionally illiterate adult in the province. His own ministry spends only $1.40 per functionally illiterate adult.

Why does the minister not seize the leadership in this question, get his own vision into his ministry and have it attack this problem in a very significant and aggressive fashion?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have found in this minority parliament that sometimes my leadership is not responded to favourably by my colleagues in the third party --

Mr. Foulds: Or by the minister's own colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to think I have demonstrated leadership where leadership is required. We have said as a government that the area of literacy is a matter of real concern. More has to be done. The Ministry of Education will certainly discharge its responsibility, but my colleagues the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and other ministers of this government do have important mandates that they will continue to discharge as well.

I invite my honourable friend, who brings a keen and sensitive understanding to this and to so many other areas of education, to stand by and await the results of some of the internal work we are doing.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister will recall that last week I pointed out to him that 40 per cent of the tenants living in apartments where there are what we call chronically depressed rents cannot afford to pay more in rent, according to a report of his ministry. In reply to my question, the minister said:

"It is a chronic complaint of those landlords that they are not able to make enough return on their investment. In the meantime, there are also tenants in those units who would have difficulty if the rents were to rise drastically. The Rent Review Advisory Committee has come up with a formula by which we can address the difficulties of those units' landlords and be sensitive to the tenants living in those units without a drastic increase. That formula will take care of the balance between the landlords and tenants concerned."

Will the minister tell us what the formula is and how it will work?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for the question. If he has read the legislation, he knows it explains the formula. As he also knows, our new proposal, Bill 51, addresses many issues. What the member has done is to recognize the brilliance of that bill which has that balance, brilliance that has clearly identified the concerns of the landlords and the concerns of the tenants. I remind the honourable member how anxious I and my government are to put Bill 51 into place to show where we will strike that balance.

Mr. Gordon: How can the tenants of Ontario believe that the minister has their best interests at heart when all they have to do is to refer to the brochure he was talking about a minute ago and they will see there is no formula protecting them? He had the nerve to get up in this House last week and say there is a formula. He has the nerve to get up in this House today and give us a lot of mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with the question that was asked. Will he now explain to this House what the formula is?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I advise the member to read the legislation. He is reading the guide. When it was produced, it was hoped it would help the member to understand the legislation. He has taken a shortcut to understanding the legislation. He should read the legislation. The ideas of those members were bankrupt. They had no housing policy and no relevant guideline. He stands there to criticize. The honourable member is right over there.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am very reluctant to accuse the minister of misleading the House, but this borders on misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the honourable member that he is coming close very close to unparliamentary language.

Mr. Rae: There are a lot of borderline cases in the House.

3:30 p.m.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I would like to address a question to the Premier. At the press conference today, I understand that Dr. Railton said he could not rule out the closure of intensive care units. He said: "All emergency room closures are grass roots. They are not centrally co-ordinated." He admitted that.

The official resolution which was apparently passed today -- and I do not have the advantage of the hotline which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has to the Ontario Medical Association -- said, "The president of the OMA has complete support to escalate sanctions at his discretion."

Does the Premier not feel it is time the government looked hard at the legislative framework ensuring access to necessary services in this province and time the government said that if the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario cannot and will not, and dithers, at least the government of Ontario will ensure that patients are not held to ransom by this kind of irresponsible action by the OMA and its leadership?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry but I have not seen the resolution. I arrived late in the House and I returned the telephone yesterday, so I was not able to find out directly from the horse's mouth what the resolution was.

I am aware of the honourable member's point of view and frustrations, should I call them, and I do not mean that in any pejorative way. It is a very difficult situation for everyone. My direct response to his question is that I think it would be most injudicious at this moment to start looking at changes in legislation in that regard. We are in the middle of a supercharged situation and it has been inflamed by a number of people, some for legitimate reasons, some for other reasons.

I believe that kind of discussion should not take place at the present time. Who knows? Everything should be discussed at some point or other in the future, but I do not believe it will solve any of the situations right now, at this moment, today, tomorrow or the next day. As I said, everything that is under our jurisdiction could be discussed at some point in the future.

Mr. Rae: The Premier was quoted in the Toronto Star yesterday as saying in response to a question with respect to back-to-work legislation, "We are not planning to bring it in." He was asked, "What if they do not go back to work?"

Is he seriously suggesting that his government would refuse or fail to take the necessary steps to ensure necessary services for the patients of this province because it is afraid of the power of the OMA? He would not do it for nurses. He would not do it for nurses' aides. He would not do it for anybody working in the public sector. He would not do it for a worker in a nursing home. He would not do it for somebody operating in an operating room who was not a doctor.

Why is there one rule in this province for the doctors, for the upper-middle-class group of professionals who are denying access to their services but who are partners in the health care system and who should be partners in the health care system, and a completely different set of rules for everybody else who has ever worked in the health care system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Since this discussion with the doctors started almost a year ago, both myself and the minister have been asked many questions, the vast majority of them hypothetical, starting, "What would you do if?" or "What about in these circumstances?" I and the minister have resisted all temptations to deal in the hypothetical because the honourable member can see how misquotes or responses to hypothetical questions or speculations about what may or may not happen only inflame an already very tender situation.

I am not surprised at the speech the honourable member makes. I am not happy about the conflict we are in at the present time. I would beg to differ with my honourable colleague about courage being shown in this situation. I believe the minister has shown unbelievable courage and judgement.

We are responsible. We do not have the luxury of just standing up and yelling. We are charged with carriage of this situation. We bear the responsibility for that and we take that on our shoulders. I believe the minister and the judgements he has made -- and the member is perfectly entitled to second-guess any one of them -- are being second-guessed by both parties opposite on both sides of the issue. But, ultimately, the judgements are made by a minister who has shown remarkable integrity, judgement and sensitivity in the circumstances. I cannot second-guess him.

FOOD LAND PRESERVATION POLICY

Mr. Ward: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Several months ago, in a statement to the Legislature, the minister indicated some draft proposals for changes to the Ontario Foodland Guidelines. These proposed changes would have a significant impact on municipal severance policies throughout Ontario, and for the past several weeks many farm organizations, individuals and communities have contacted me expressing their concerns.

Can the minister indicate to the Legislature what the status of these proposals is and what efforts his ministry is undertaking to gather the input of those who may be affected by them?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is obvious that the official opposition does not realize the seriousness of the amount of good agricultural land we are losing in this province through erosion and through the development uses of this agricultural land.

I have to tell the honourable member who posed the question that after I made the statement in the House, I distributed the policy statement widely to all the municipalities, to all the farm organizations and to other individuals and groups, and I asked that we receive their comments by a certain date. I extended that date to the end of June.

We will look at all the comments that have come to us at the end of June and we will then be in a position to draft a statement that I will be making in the House some time in the fall session.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today I pointed out to you that there were 65 questions in Orders and Notices that were in violation of standing order 88(d). Some of them are more than six months old.

I ask you, as Speaker of the Legislature, whether you intend to uphold standing order 88(d), whether you intend to do anything about it and whether you intend to direct the government to bring itself in compliance with standing order 88(d). Where is this matter going to end?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The standing orders are quite clear. I hope the government House leader is listening and will make certain the responses will come forth appropriately.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Cordiano: I have a petition on behalf of interested citizens:

"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."

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Jackson: I have several hundred petitions signed by constituents from Burlington South: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We strongly oppose the unilateral actions of the Liberal government of Ontario which have 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 consultations 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."

3:40 p.m.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Haggerty from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Pamaglenn Investments Limited;

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting Sherrydale Investments Limited;

Bill Pr19, An Act to revive Mylake Mines Limited; and

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 81, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: It is to clean out the swamp, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you.

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to work more than five consecutive days without a day of rest.

Mr. Barlow: That will help them.

Mr. Martel: That is correct. The Tories insisted on working 10 days in a row.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 88, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of the bill is to authorize the apportionment of the school rates between public and secondary school cases in the case of rateable property jointly owned or leased.

INSURED SERVICES UNDER OHIP ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 89, An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of this bill is to declare that surgical procedures for breast reconstruction are insured services under the Ontario health insurance plan.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I would like to table the 1985 annual report of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Gillies, moved second reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the Brantford General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT

Mr. Epp moved second reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

RENFREW VICTORIA HOSPITAL

Ms. Fish, on behalf of Mr. Yakabuski, moved second reading Bill Pr50, An Act respecting Renfrew Victoria Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

3:50 p.m.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT

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: When we left off yesterday, we were in the middle of an amendment to section 5 proposed by the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes).

Mr. Brandt: It is my pleasure to participate in this debate and also very specifically to discuss the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Lincoln with respect to a very logical and reasonable recommendation by our party to have the government call at this time for the type of measure that has worked in so many other instances, that being mediation. That, specifically, is what the member's amendment has requested.

This province has a long and successful history in the use of mediation as a measure or means to end this type of dispute. On a number of occasions we have used it in municipal government, as the members are probably well aware. The most recent application of mediation in the municipal field is with respect to boundary disputes where two sides are extremely hostile and very hardened, firm and definite positions have been maintained. In many instances, as a result of bringing in a mediator, a third party, who can very calmly, coolly and quite professionally discuss the various issues and lay them out in an unemotional manner, they have been able to resolve some of the issues.

I suggest, and I strongly recommend to the government, that when we have a situation as chaotic and as desperate as the one we are faced with at present, the whole question of mediation may be one of the answers that should be entertained very seriously by the government.

I can recall when I served as Minister of the Environment -- and I see the present minister is here -- I provided in that ministry a mechanism, known as environmental mediation, for the current minister to resolve disputes. I remind the minister who is here with us this afternoon that was used with some degree of success in a very difficult situation that has been somewhat affectionately referred to as the Pauzé matter in Perkinsfield. While the minister is signing his autograph -- he need not sign one for me; I have his autograph on a number of documents already --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: The member raised the Pauzé matter, and I want to inform him that his leader appears to want to undo the mediation he initiated in that area now by suggesting that one of the sites --

Mr. Chairman: Order. That is not a proper point of privilege.

Mr. Brandt: I can understand your ruling on that, Mr. Chairman. I only reminded the minister that in connection with the Pauzé site a number of very positive steps were taken. I am speaking to mediation.

Mr. Chairman: The Pauzé site, with regard to mediation of medical matters?

Mr. Brandt: Yes. I am using that only as an example of how mediation works. It is important that all members of this House recognize that mediation is a mechanism that can be used to resolve the current dispute related to Bill 94. I am going to draw reference only in a very limited way to the Pauzé site in Perkinsfield to suggest in the presence of the minister that a new water system was put into that municipality and that measures were taken to secure that landfill site.

A whole host of things was done as a direct result of bringing in a mediator who sat down with a dozen and a half groups. I believe there were 15 or 16 interest groups, each of which had a position it wanted to take in that matter. It was extremely complicated, but it was resolved as a result of a mediator being introduced into the process.

When we have a dispute such as we have under Bill 94, with the doctors suggesting they are going to take certain actions and with the government very adamantly maintaining its position and its resolve, with the concurrence of the shadow cabinet over here, the third party which is going to support the government on Bill 94, it is vitally important that we recognize we do have a very polarized position on the part of two bodies which can be resolved if some common sense enters into the debate. The government has refused --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Does the member have any suggestions?

Mr. Brandt: Let me give the Attorney General some suggestions. I am glad he asked for some, because I have a whole series of suggestions to make during the course of my brief address this afternoon. I do hope the minister will spend a little bit of his very important and valuable time with us, because I want to make a number of suggestions as an individual who has been a conciliator all his life, who has tried to reach for compromise and who has tried to reach out and find a process by which to bring people together. Yes, I do have some suggestions to make.

One of my suggestions is that the government stand back from its present position, which is one of refusal to negotiate. On two days now, the government has refused to accept the phone offered by the leader of my party. We have provided him with a portable phone and the number of the Ontario Medical Association, which has indicated that it is prepared, on receiving a phone call, to bring the strike to a halt immediately if the government will delay passage of Bill 94 and look for some compromise issues in the context of that bill.

Has the government agreed to negotiate? Under no circumstances. It is taking a hard-and-fast line and playing fast and loose with the health services of the people of this province by not agreeing to negotiate, by not agreeing to even pick up the telephone to make a call. It is doing something even more dramatic and of even more concern to me when it refuses to make that phone call or make any contact whatever with the OMA.

It sends out a very clear signal to that profession. It is going to be treated differently than other professions. It is going to be treated differently than other trade groups. It is going to be treated differently than virtually anyone else in this province when an 11th hour attempt to resolve an issue does not include the offer of some form of mediation. That is why I say the government is dealing in a very heavy-handed way with this very serious issue, in a manner that I and my party find totally unacceptable. The future of the health system of this province is at stake.

What has happened in other jurisdictions is a matter of some concern to me. If the members of the government will recall for a moment what happened in Quebec with the passage of similar legislation, there were hundreds of physicians, and of even more concern, specialists, who fled that province to get away from the very draconian legislation that was introduced. They came to a province that offered them the freedom and the right to practise their profession without intervention on the part of government.

That province is Ontario. We welcomed those specialists and physicians with open arms for one reason only. Any jurisdiction in the world would be pleased to have them.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member must get back to the amendment that is in front of us, which basically discusses mediators.

Mr. Brandt: In the context of that, I do not want to take issue with the comment you just made, Mr. Chairman, but let me remind you that the lack of a mediator in this process is causing some difficulties within the system. One of those has led to the situation in Quebec that I am attempting to describe.

You allowed me to go ahead with the earlier description I gave in connection with the Pauzé landfill site in Perkinsfield, where a mediator was called in. I think you have to allow some reasonable degree of flexibility so that I can prove the case I want to put forward to the government. I hope to shift their position even ever so slightly during the course of this debate this afternoon. That is all I am asking for. I will attempt to be somewhat more judicious in keeping to the point.

I want to relate to the government that in Quebec, as a result of passing a bill that is very close to Bill 94 and where a mediator -- see, I am on to it now, Mr. Chairman -- was not called in, a great number of physicians and specialists left that province to come to Ontario.

I suggest that in all probability a similar problem developed in the British health care system. Again, no mediator was called in to resolve that issue. What we have in Britain at present are long waiting lines for health services and a flight of doctors, particularly to Canada, as a direct result of having legislation like Bill 94, legislation we are trying to amend, change or make somewhat more livable as a result of the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague the member for Lincoln.

4 p.m.

The government will not accept the argument we have put forward justifying the role of a mediator. It wants to ram through legislation. It wants no debate on this issue; it wants no mediation on this issue. Yet what it is bringing about is the most fundamental change in the health care system in the history of this province; let there be no mistake about that. I know if you were allowed to speak on this question today, Mr. Chairman, you might even sympathize with some of the comments I am making. It is the most fundamental change that has ever occurred in the health care system in Ontario.

The doctors are obviously very angry. Under Bill 94, we are taking away their rights and privileges. Where previously they were independent professionals allowed to serve the people and their patients in a manner they saw best, they are now having some of those rights and privileges removed and there is the threat of further rights and privileges being taken away from them. Yet the government still will not sit down with a third party, namely, a mediator, in an attempt to arbitrate this process in a fashion that makes some sense.

Some doctors have expressed the opinion that they are very disappointed with the actions taken by some of their colleagues. Other doctors have become very militant over the way in which this issue has transpired up until this time. Some of the political spokesmen who have talked about this issue to this time have expressed an opinion that simple passage of Bill 94 without the introduction of mediation as a preliminary step to whatever ultimately occurs with respect to Bill 94 is going to solve the problem. They are sadly mistaken.

We have word today, as you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the House have heard, that if Bill 94 passes without a mediator -- do you notice I am staying on the mediator? I want to comply with your instructions, sir.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What is the Chairman nodding his head for? Is he participating?

Mr. Brandt: Oh no, I just want to make sure I have the concurrence of the chair with respect to the basic thrust of my remarks.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) should know the member for Sarnia was saying, "You will notice, Mr. Chairman, I am staying on point." I was nodding my head that he was staying on point at that moment.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) that I need that kind of assurance from time to time, since on two occasions the Chairman has pointed out, with some degree of appropriateness, that I have strayed, only slightly, off point. I quickly brought it back as soon as I realized there was some problem with regard to some of the comments I was making.

To get back to mediation and to Bill 94, which is part of this process, I hope the government will agree the hostility that is going to develop as a direct result of the government not agreeing to any form of mediation and the government hammering home Bill 94 in the fashion it intends at present is going to cause further frustration for the medical profession. It is going to cause further anger and is going to cause further hostility in their bitterness. We have been told today of the very distinct possibility of an escalation of some of the disruption of services we have experienced during the past few days.

This issue is reaching crisis proportions. The matter is not in hand, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has assured us on a number of occasions in this House. He does not have control of the situation, and we have a very serious and a very critical situation that is going to have to be addressed by the government.

The introduction of mediation has worked in so many other instances, such as labour disputes, municipal disputes and environmental matters; why will it not work with respect to Bill 94? The answer is that it has a very good chance of working, but the government wants to take a very rigid and very inflexible approach to this whole thing and is not prepared to back down even one little bit to attempt to adjudicate this issue with the doctors in a reasonable and intelligent fashion.

It has reached a point where not only can we not get mediation but also a situation occurred yesterday which I found particularly displeasing and which angered me a great deal. I am glad my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was on hand and able to resolve, at least in part, the problem that developed as a direct result of the government not bending one inch to reach a compromise with the doctors through a measure such as mediation. Some of the medical fraternity came to this building yesterday and were denied entry. Thankfully, the member for York Mills was able to step in.

Miss Stephenson: It was on Monday.

Mr. Brandt: I apologize for misleading the House. It occurred on Monday, not on Tuesday. This is something of which the government should not be too proud. This is the first time I can recall in the history of this province that any group, however hostile, militant, upset or angry, was denied entry to this building. The government should be ashamed of itself. Not only will it not introduce mediation but also it will not allow into the building some of the very people it is expecting to deliver health and medical services to the people of this province. That will hang over the heads of the Liberals for a long time to come.

Mr. Chairman: Please stay with mediation.

Mr. Brandt: This is mediation. It is as a direct result of not introducing mediation that all these things have occurred.

The doctors have agreed that if a mediator is introduced, they will restore services immediately. As the Minister of Health well knows, the minute there is an indication the government has agreed to that one small step in the direction of negotiating a settlement, namely, mediation, the doctors have agreed they will call off the disruption of services that is occurring at this time.

The doctors have gone even further with respect to their position. They have already mediated their position -- notice I am staying on the point -- by moving towards the correction of some of the problems the government has identified in part. They have mediated their position by indicating they would not extra bill seniors, emergency cases or welfare recipients.

We recognize that only about 10 per cent of the doctors in this province extra bill. That amounts to about three per cent of all billings in this province. The doctors have pulled back even farther from that position in an attempt to find some negotiated settlement with this firmly fixed government. We are now talking about perhaps one per cent or 1.5 per cent of all the billings in Ontario that would be affected.

How can this government possibly attempt to negotiate with the doctors at any time in the future when it is not prepared to take one small step and agree to mediation? I find it absolutely astounding that the government would not do that.

When we talk about the question of mediation, I have to remind the government that a year ago, when this whole process started, there was not a problem with respect to the delivery of health services in Ontario. Our system of health care was looked upon and proudly identified as being probably the best health care system in the entire world, absolutely second to none.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Is the honourable gentleman reading from a text? There is a rule about that.

Mr. Brandt: The member knows full well I am not.

We have now angered the doctors, we have refused mediation and we are now pushing it to the point where there has been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a very serious and critical breakdown in the finest health care system that can be found anywhere in the world.

4:10 p.m.

If the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and I were talking on an informal basis, I am sure he would say to me: "At least in part, the member for Sarnia makes some sense. I have to agree with some of the comments being made by the member for Sarnia because he is correct when he states to this assembly that we did have a fine health care system." I am sure the minister would agree with that.

When we look at the chaos and breakdown of the system today because the government has refused to introduce mediation or any form of negotiation, the fault for that lies squarely in the minister's lap. The government is the author of its own fate. It has brought about the disruption of services, the breakdown in the health system and the anger the doctors are sensing and feeling. All those things have occurred because the government has been totally inflexible.

The Minister of Health is an individual whom I respect very highly. I have said that on most occasions he is a rather flexible individual; he is the type of individual who will give and take a little bit to find some common ground upon which to land this issue, some compromise on Bill 94. I do not know what has happened to him. Maybe it is the water he anticipates drinking in Tiverton shortly -- maybe that has something to do with it; I do not know -- but something has caused him to change his personality. It has changed very substantially as it relates to this bill as a result of his failure even to consider the introduction of some form of mediation.

We have been in committee on Bill 94 for 19 days. We have talked in committee of the whole House for about 10 days now. There have been some slight compromises made by the government in connection with this bill, one of which was the fine that was reduced from $10,000 to $250 through an amendment by the government. That was a brilliant stroke on the part of the government, because the $10,000 created even more hostility and anger among the doctors than one could even imagine, but the government did compromise on that.

I plead with the government that if it wants to open hospitals, get doctors back to work and do something responsible for a change, then one of its members should simply pick up the phone and agree to bring in a mediator. That is all it will take. It may fail; it may not be successful. That is the chance the government will take when it calls in a mediator, but at least it will send out a signal to the doctors and the health practitioners of this province that the government is going to make one last effort to resolve the matter and that it is not simply going to press on through with Bill 94 at all costs.

We have had 10 days with respect to this bill in committee of the whole House. We are speaking to a matter --

Mr. Grande: How many more months do you want?

Mr. Brandt: I am going to get to that. I am going to get to the matter of mediation as it relates to the third party very shortly, because the people in the third party ought to be ashamed of themselves. There is no other group in this province with respect to mediation whose rights the New Democratic Party would not stand up for and say that matter should be resolved through negotiation. The NDP members stood up time and time again when it came to transit workers, the recent disruption of service with respect to those --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What did your party do?

Mr. Brandt: At least we are consistent, which is far more than my friend can say for his party. We are consistent in that we are calling for a mediated settlement of this issue. What the third party is calling for and what it spoke about in connection with the remarks made by the leader of the third party today is the introduction of back-to-work legislation in some fashion.

The third party is saying we should press on quickly and not hear any further debate on the merits of mediation or on the merits of some of the amendments -- we have a whole host of amendments -- we are going to continue to bring forward and we want considered. We want those amendments to be placed before this House in an attempt to resolve this issue in an intelligent and humane fashion.

We do not want to move the process quickly to the passage of Bill 94, as the third party has been suggesting, because it has been warned that the matter is going to be escalated, the hostility is going to increase and the anger is going to become more intense. It has been told that. Immediately after that, for the first time in my recollection -- and I have been here for only five years -- I can see the third party standing up in the House and talking about back-to-work legislation. It is funny that this is the only group they are going to talk about that requires that kind of heavy-handedness. I find it very difficult to accept.

Why does the third party not talk about calling the doctors? Why do they not discuss the issue with the OMA? Why do they not attempt, as they have accused us of doing, to develop a pipeline with the OMA so they can find out what it is the medical association is really concerned about? All they can think about at present, and this perception may well be shared by the government, is that they may have a popular issue and may pick up some political points.

Some surveys have indicated to the government that perhaps the people of Ontario think they are going to get free, no-cost health care if Bill 94 is brought in, that there will be no further extra billing and no additional charges. In speaking to the amendment on the introduction of a mediator, I have to say there is no free lunch. In some way, shape or form, you pay for everything you get in this world. The free lunch theory, so closely grasped to the hearts of the members of the third party, is nothing more than a fallacy.

They could talk to the doctors and the OMA and suggest mediation. They could say: "We are into a very sticky wicket here, a very serious problem. We want to get the doctors back to work and open the emergency wards in our hospitals. We want to get health services back to the good level they were at about a year ago when another government was in charge and responsible for health care. We want to do some of these things. What is it the OMA would like us to do with respect to the position of our third party?"

They have not even talked to them. Have they picked up the phone and talked to the OMA? No, they have not. They do not even know the phone number. If it were any other group, any other average citizen of this province, they would be out there carrying picket signs. They would be demonstrating with them and doing all the things I have seen them do so frequently in the past, but to them the doctors do not deserve the same consideration.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, there are some interventions coming from the third party. I am trying not to be --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Why does the member not speak to the amendment?

Mr. Brandt: I am. I say to the Minister of Labour, I am speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the other members will not interrupt the member for Sarnia. If the member for Sarnia were to face the chair, perhaps they would not distract him.

Mr. Brandt: The lack of introduction of mediation in this process is going to do nothing but humiliate the doctors even further, which the government has already tried to do with some of its uncalled-for comments. They are going to try to frustrate the doctors even further in connection with what the doctors would like to see in terms of a compromise on this measure. They are going to anger the doctors even further, which is something we do not need when we are attempting to deliver a first-class system of health care in this province.

I am surprised by someone who knows as much about labour as the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the current Minister of Labour. He recognizes how effective mediation has been in some very difficult cases that I am sure have come to the attention of his ministry. When I served as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour some years ago, I felt comfortable about suggesting to the two sides that a mediator or negotiator be brought into the process in an attempt to resolve it.

4:20 p.m.

The minister knows full well that one's batting average is never 100 per cent in these things, but the rate of success is good enough that it is at least worth a try. It would send a signal to the doctors that the government was willing to give it a chance, that it was willing to give some indication that its position is not so totally hardened and so totally fixed on this issue that it is inflexible. That is all we are asking for with this amendment.

Let me read a definition of the verb "mediate" from Webster's dictionary: "to interpose between parties in order to reconcile them; to reconcile differences." Also, "to effect by action as an intermediary," and perhaps more important, and I underline this, "to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary."

I suggest that both the government and the third party have a well-known fondness for accord or for accords, although I agree the third party's enthusiasm for accords has faded somewhat in the past months. However, I ask both the government and the third party to agree with our party to work towards an accord that would have real meaning and would serve to defuse the present crisis.

This dispute begs for a mediator. We already know the OMA has agreed to suspend all work stoppages if the government will agree to suspend Bill 94 until such time as a negotiator can sit down in an attempt to find some common ground in this dispute. There is no doubt that our party would welcome such a farsighted move on the government's part. It would be the first indication that it was prepared to be flexible on this issue. We would welcome that and would work along with the government in an attempt to resolve this issue if it were to introduce a mediator.

I suggest to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Labour that at the very least it would end, even if temporarily, the threat of a tragedy which we have on our hands at present. It might not end it permanently, but it might temporarily. There is the obvious possibility that we are going to have a further breakdown in the health care system of this province, which is critical enough now. We could put a halt to that. We could stop that. We could give a pause and perhaps a little breathing space to all parties to sit down and review their positions.

We join with the Minister of Health in that we do not want to see a further breakdown in the system. As a result of his not introducing a mediator, we do not want to see further difficulties develop for people in this province who require health care and need either to see a medical practitioner or to get into a hospital or an emergency ward. I truly believe that for us as parliamentarians, serving different constituencies, our first and foremost thought must be for the people we so proudly represent. I do not want the people of Sarnia and Lambton to live in fear of what the present bill means because of the lack of any mediation process in the bill.

It is also important to recognize that the doctors of the province have already indicated they will not stop their strike activities if the bill is passed. We have had that warning already, and let me reinforce it. Passing Bill 94 is no solution at all. The government has heard this from the OMA today and has heard it previously from my colleague the member for York Mills. All it will do is cause further hostility and further breakdown.

The minister may well not have seen anything yet. I say that to him in the hope that he will see the correctness of both the proposition we have put before him and the intermediate step of introducing a mediator into this process in an attempt to stop what could be an increasingly chaotic situation. We must find a solution and we must find it soon to protect the people of this province. I suggest that the first step in that process is to introduce a mediator.

Mr. Callahan: Did the member stop? Is it over?

Mr. Brandt: No, it is not. I have a few other words I want to share with members. I was just collecting my thoughts for a moment and I want to stay on the bill. It is important.

The Deputy Chairman: And on the amendment.

Mr. Brandt: I am staying on the amendment, which is part of the bill. We are amending the bill, so I am staying on the amendment related to the bill.

The reason I want to see a halt brought to the present chaos, speaking very directly to the amendment and the need for a mediator, is that in my community, as is the case in many other communities, the health care system has already broken down. We can stop all that.

As an example, in the city of Sarnia, one of the two emergency wards is already closed. Sarnia General Hospital does not have emergency services at the moment. Those emergency services are being transferred to St. Joseph's Hospital. It is delivering services and attempting to meet its responsibility as it relates to health care in my community, but it is having great difficulty. The numbers are doubling and tripling because some doctors' offices are closed and because we have an emergency ward that is closed in the only other hospital in the city.

All this can stop today if the Minister of Health, with the support and concurrence of his Premier (Mr. Peterson), will pick up the phone and say he is prepared to introduce a mediator. If the government will do at least that, we can stop the chaos we are faced with.

It is not only in my community. The other evening I was in the great community of Cornwall; the same problem exists there. Health services are breaking down on a very serious and critical basis right across the province. It is happening right here in Metropolitan Toronto.

The hospitals are attempting to cope. They are attempting to cope with the breakdown in services by doing whatever they can. From having spoken to the administrators of those hospitals, I know it would encourage and compliment the government if it would bring in mediation. From speaking to the administrators of those hospitals, I can tell the members they are frightened at present. They do not know whether they can cope with the increased case load that is being pushed on them at this time. They do not know whether some situation, some slipup, something beyond human control is going to occur as a result of the very fixed position of the current government as it relates to this matter and the insensitivity of the government as it relates to the complete disregard for the need of mediation.

The complete disregard for the need to bring in a negotiator is absolutely baffling. Time and again, during the life of this current government, it will use third-party mediation; it will use a negotiator to solve other disputes. I will remind it of what I have said during the course of this debate on this occasion. I will remind it that it is introducing a mediator to solve the problem related to some other matter but that it adamantly refused to bring in a negotiator or a mediator to solve one of the most critical problems that has ever faced a government in the history of Ontario.

This is not a small matter. What we have seen over the course of the past few days is not something that is resolving the issue. It is not getting better; it is not healing itself. The issue is becoming worse; it is deteriorating. The government has a system that is collapsing in front of its very eyes. It has a system that is not going to be healed with the passage of Bill 94.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: While I am speaking, I have to remind the member --

Mr. Callahan: The Conservatives have caused everything that has happened thus far.

Mr. Pope: It is the government's bill.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Brandt: I believe some voices here in the assembly have now quietened down; so I will attempt to resume the debate. I was about to say that mediation would put a halt to the critical situation we are faced with at present. It is one that concerns me a great deal as it relates to my own community and the communities represented by my colleagues on all sides of this House. The lack of mediator and a mediation process, which could be introduced with the stroke of a pen by the government as part of Bill 94, has resulted in the kind of breakdown we have in medical services in this province at present.

To have the naïveté to suggest that the simple passage of Bill 94 is going to see all these problems fade away is absolutely absurd. To suggest that our party is not concerned about sick individuals, senior citizens and those requiring health services, I consider to be not only an insult but also beneath the dignity of this House. It is not the truth, and the member well knows it. We are fighting for the rights of individual professionals to practise their profession. We are fighting for the right of those professionals to have a mediation process as part of the process that we hope will resolve the very problem that has been created by the actions of the current government.

Even if the minister had a mediation process that he introduced today in an attempt to resolve Bill 94 and if he made that part of Bill 94, if it were to pass at some future point, that would still not resolve all the problems. I understand that. There are some very strong feelings -- and that is an understatement -- with respect to what Bill 94 stands for. Without that mediation process, without moving towards that now, without making at least that gesture, without at least sending out the signal that he is prepared to negotiate, that he has not got his mind and his position so fixed and so inflexible that he is not prepared to even talk about it, he is sending out a very dangerous signal to the health practitioners of this province that is going to come back and haunt this government time and again in the future. That is what concerns me. I do not take any great joy in saying that, but with the level of hostility that is out there -- and I am sure the Minister of Health has sensed at least some of it during the course of his travels -- I fear for the future of the health care system in this province.

We may think there is a small problem related to extra billing, but in all the time I served in government and all the time I have served in this assembly, I have yet to receive my first phone call from somebody complaining about extra billing. That is just some indication that the government a year ago created a problem where there was not a problem. It has created chaos where there was order, and it has created a breakdown where there was a smooth-running health care delivery system in this province, second to none anywhere.

We have to live with it, but I think they can resolve it in a spirit of compromise, in the hope that at least some semblance of intelligence will permeate across the floor and reach the minister and the Premier. All the minister has to do is pick up the phone and say to the OMA, "We are prepared to sit down and negotiate with you." If he is prepared to go that far -- and the government does not have to lose face in doing that -- he still has every opportunity to bring through Bill 94. It will not come as any surprise to the government that we will probably not support it in that effort. It still has every opportunity, if the mediation process breaks down, to move right back on the fast track it is on at present, which will lead to the final passage of Bill 94.

I too am capable of reading the numbers in this House, and I know the ultimate fate as it relates to Bill 94. When the day comes that we vote on it, I can tell where I am going to stand and where my party is going to stand, but we can reach that fateful day, that particular point, with a position that is at least somewhat more comfortable for the members of this House where all members of this House feel they have made every effort to resolve this issue in a manner that is at least reasonably acceptable to the medical practitioners in this province and to the people who require those services, namely, the patients who are going to need doctors in the future, as they need them so desperately at present. I say in all sincerity that the kind of confrontational environment we have at present has been created by a government that is unwilling to compromise, negotiate or mediate.

We have a very simple amendment, which I am sure has been read by most if not all members of this House. It simply calls for the government to sit down and bring in a third party. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why is it so difficult for the government to say: "We are prepared at least to try this as a mechanism to resolve the issue. We are prepared to move" --

Mr. Callahan: What was going on before?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the member for Brampton that he does not have the floor.

Mr. Brandt: The government has not moved at all. That is the problem. They have not moved one inch over there. The minister thinks he is on a hot streak politically with respect to this issue, but I can tell him he is not, because the chaos that is breaking this system down will come back to lie on the shoulders of that government for a long time to come.

The people who are going to suffer are the people who are going to need health services in this province, because failing to bring in mediation or a form of arbitration in this process is now --

Mr. Swart: He is good for another 20 minutes now.

Mr. Brandt: I am glad the member for Welland-Thorold is here, because I have some points to make with respect to the participation of the third party in this whole process.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Ignore the interjections.

Mr. Brandt: I wanted to welcome the member. I will get back on the point.

Mr. Swart: I was sure he would have, but we have had useful participation without attempting to filibuster, haven't we?

Mr. Brandt: The word "filibuster" is entirely foreign to the Canadian parliamentary system. I am not aware that we have anything like that. What we have here is an attempt on the part of our party to convince the government that mediation is right and proper and that it will be helpful in this instance. That is all we are asking for. That is a reasonable position.

What is so difficult about the government moving even ever so slightly on this matter? I realize they have been discussing Bill 94 as a point of principle as it relates to their party. I question the principle certainly, but they think it is a point of principle. I realize they are going to continue to move unswervingly towards the completion of Bill 94, but at the very least they could say: "Let us hold back just a touch here. Let us take the time to rethink this position just a little bit."

The member for Lincoln, who has proposed a partial compromise on the part of our party, has an intelligent amendment, which should be supported and which could bring a little bit of peace to the current chaotic situation. That is all we are asking for. We are asking for a pause in the confrontation. We are asking for a truce in the war that is going on.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) accused me and other of my colleagues of something called a filibuster, but this is a long way from any kind of unnecessary delay. What we want, I say to the member and his party colleagues, is a thorough and complete review of this bill and of the amendments we are proposing as they relate to the bill. We want to make absolutely certain we bring in the most sensitive, most intelligent and most workable type of legislation that is possible.

I recognize we are not getting very far with respect to a great number of our amendments, but a great number of those amendments would have strengthened Bill 94 very considerably. They would have made it a more workable and more operative kind of bill, which would have delivered a high level of health services to the people of this province. Because of the lack of sensitivity on the part of the members of the third party and on the part of the members of the government, there has been no compromise whatsoever as it relates to this piece of legislation.

What we want to do --

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: With all respect to the current Chairman, I have been here for a long time, almost 25 years, and I have never seen such terrible harm to a system as we have had today. Every one of the speakers across this House in the opposition party has said the same thing. Every one of them has used the same speech.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Miss Stephenson: Was it a point of opinion? Do I have an opportunity --

Mr. Sargent: The member for York Mills said the same thing yesterday that the member for Sarnia is saying now.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) should have heard the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) for four weeks two years ago.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Sarnia has the floor.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the amendment being proposed by my party and with respect to the possibility of mediation being introduced into this process, we are going to work very hard to make this House understand the importance of the position we are putting forward. No matter how much time it takes, we are going to continue to put forward that position to the extent we are able and capable. I consider it a compliment to have whatever remarks I am making this afternoon associated with my esteemed colleague the member for York Mills.

Mr. Callahan: Not associated; a mirror image.

Mr. Brandt: Someone suggested it is a mirror image. I do not want to digress in any way.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The member for York Mills delivered this speech last weekend.

Miss Stephenson: No, I did not.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say that is not true.

By not moving to mediation, the government is forcing the doctors to act in a manner totally in contradiction to their very dearly held convictions. By not moving to mediation, they are forcing the doctors into a position of hostility, which is going to escalate the present breakdown in the system even further both before and, if it does happen at some future time, after the passage of Bill 94. That is what concerns me and why we are fighting so hard on this side of the House. That is why we feel so strongly about this issue.

We are in total disagreement with the solutions being proposed by the government and the third party. We are trying to bring some intelligence into this system by suggesting that in this instance mediation is part of the solution. I admit it is not the whole solution. I agree with those who argue it is not going to solve all the problems -- they are probably quite correct -- but it may solve some of the problems. It may create an environment in which the attitudes are somewhat more positive and the atmosphere in which the negotiations are being conducted will be somewhat more beneficial to all the people of Ontario and not just to one party or one government or one small group.

I am going to paraphrase the amendment very briefly. If the government concurs with our suggestion, the mediator will be agreed upon by both the government and the OMA, representing physicians, and will be appointed immediately upon passage of this act. The mediator will bring the parties together to develop and recommend the structure of the relationship between the government and the physicians in the delivery of health care in Ontario.

All the doctors want is a voice in their professional futures. That is all they are saying. As the professionals on the front lines of delivering health care in Ontario, they want to have a voice in what happens. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why is it so difficult for the government to accept that as a reasonable position?

They are suggesting we set up in a balanced way government representatives and representatives from the OMA, then we sit down and see if we can work out something that makes some sense. We will bring all the hostilities to a close. All the hospitals and all the doctors' offices that are closed at present will be reopened immediately. What is so wrong with that? The only step the government has to take is to agree to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know you are a sensitive man and concerned about the constituents in your riding, as I am about those in my riding, who are experiencing a very serious and critical disruption of health services, the likes of which they have never seen before in Ontario. That is what the government has brought into the system with its firm and adamant attitude on Bill 94, and that is what it has done to the people of this province.

It has angered the doctors and caused citizens to go without health services, and it may bring about a critical situation for patients if something is not done very quickly. I am thankful nothing has happened to this point that has caused an even more serious breakdown or perhaps the loss of a life or serious injury to a patient as a result of not being able to receive health care.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The member should sit down quickly then.

Mr. Brandt: That is not going to solve the problem, and the member knows it. It is so naïve and infantile to suggest that; I find it absolutely frightening. The member has been warned, and I warn him again, if Bill 94 goes through without this amendment, without mediation and without some sensitivity on the government's part about this problem, he is going to see an escalation of what we are experiencing at present.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Is the member supportive of that attitude?

Mr. Brandt: No, I did not say I supported that. I do not tell the OMA what to do, any more than the member does. I can tell members, it is going to be out of hand unless that side of the House makes some intelligent decisions; those include at least sitting down with a third party and attempting to resolve the problem. That is what we are asking for at this point.

We are asking the government to use at least some common sense in sitting down with the very people who are going to have to serve the health needs of the people of this province. We are asking that it sit down to try to compromise with them. Heaven knows, after this whole issue is over, after we have completed the debate on Bill 94 and all the amendments, somehow or other the Minister of Health is going to have to bring some semblance of sanity into the health care system. He is going to have to sit down and negotiate with them over Ontario health insurance plan rates, their fee structure and the type of work schedules doctors are involved with. All those things are going to be involved at some point down the road.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Not work schedules.

Mr. Brandt: Oh, yes. The minister knows full well what has happened in virtually every other jurisdiction where they have moved to a Bill 94, and he knows why the doctors are fighting on a point of principle as it relates to Bill 94. It has nothing to do with money or their present fee schedule; it has to do with taking away their individual professional rights as private practitioners. That is why we are proposing this amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Will you please address your remarks to the chair? Ignore the interjections and address your remarks to me.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry; I did not even realize they were interjecting. I was so caught up in what I was saying that I was looking over at other members across the aisle. I just wanted to make sure they were paying attention, because sometimes I wonder.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member's audience is few and far between.

Mr. Brandt: During the course of my time in this House I have heard some speeches here on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and he has had very thin audiences.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I get a great audience every place I go.

Mr. Brandt: I know. I have heard a couple of his speeches, and I have heard he gets squatting ovations too.

My colleagues and I have argued over the course of the past very short while that we want the Minister of Health and the Premier to find a way to negotiate a settlement that will bring the doctors and the government back to the bargaining table, that will bring the two parties together. We suggest one of the ways that can be done is through third-party mediation. Third-party mediation has been used successfully in many other instances during the course of the history of this great province of ours. I plead with the government and ask why does it not employ that mechanism now?

4:50 p.m.

Ministers of Labour and ministers with other responsibilities, in both the present government and the previous government, know full well that when two parties get so utterly hostile and so completely adamant about their positions and there appears to be way of negotiating it, sometimes the only way a resolution of the matter or a negotiated settlement can be brought about is to bring in third-party mediation.

These people are experts. They are experts at resolving this kind of breakdown in whatever the negotiations happen to be all about. In this case, we are negotiating about the single most important thing in Ontario, namely, health care. When we are talking about something so totally important and so completely of priority in the minds of most people in this province, why in this instance would we not use the compromise mechanism available, namely, mediation?

I am going to wind up my remarks very shortly.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Good.

Mr. Brandt: But before I do --

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I hope the latter part is better than the first.

Mr. Brandt: Any time the Minister of Agriculture and Food wants to debate this issue on any platform anywhere in this province, he should let me know. I will be there with him any time.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Just send me an invitation.

Mr. Brandt: I will. The member's riding and mine.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind you to address your remarks to the chair. Ignore the interjectors, please.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you and to the House. I got carried away. I just get so absolutely spellbound by some of the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food that I cannot contain myself.

Miss Stephenson: Spellbound? Anaesthetized.

Mr. Brandt: May I insert the word "anaesthetized" instead of "spellbound"? I do not know how to spell it.

Let me make one last plea to the Minister of Health before I give up my place and pass the opportunity on to someone else who may want to speak with respect to this important amendment. We feel very seriously and very strongly about how to bring this whole matter to an appropriate resolution. As a party, we feel very strongly that compromises are available. We say in all sincerity that there are ways to stop the kind of chaos going on at present. People of goodwill who have the best interests of the citizens of this province at heart can reach out and find a solution that makes some sense.

The people of my riding want the minister to negotiate. The people of my riding do not want to see him pound all over the doctors and beat them up. They want to see him sit down and negotiate something that makes sense with them. They want to see him bring in a mediator or a negotiator in an attempt to resolve this in an intelligent fashion. That is what they are looking for.

I appeal to the government to think very carefully and very clearly about the amendment we have put forward. It is an amendment that makes sense. It has been well thought out and very carefully reviewed by various members of my party. We put it forward in all sincerity, not in the interest of prolonging the debate or of simply carrying on discussions about Bill 94 but as a mechanism we hope will take at least one small important step towards resolving this very critical breakdown in the health services in Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I thought it would be useful to relay to those in the House a very -- I am advised not to do that. I will participate at a later stage.

Mr. McFadden: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment since I think it provides the framework for a solution to the current impasse we are facing with regard to the health care system.

As honourable members will recall, our party put forward an amendment several days ago that would have provided a process of arbitration for the establishment of fee schedules and other matters under this act. We felt that was a reasonable solution to the current impasse that would have contributed in a very significant way to re-establishing a good working relationship between the government and the medical profession. The government and the third party decided on that amendment. The amendment, which would have been satisfactory to the medical profession and in the long run would have worked to the benefit of the whole health care system, was defeated.

We now are attempting again to suggest changes to the act through this amendment, which I hope the House will adopt. This will go a long way towards solving the impasse and acrimony that is disrupting the health care system in Ontario today from one end of this province to the other.

Essentially, we are suggesting a process of mediation. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) provided this House with a definition of the word "mediation." If we use that definition, any reasonable person looking at the current impasse would have to agree that mediation is what we need currently. We need it badly.

I do not know what the minister expects will happen if this bill is passed in its current form. I hope he is not living under the illusion that if the bill is passed, everything will go back to where it once was, that everybody will get along fine, that a situation of trust will be re-established overnight and everything will just go away, all the problems will dissipate and suddenly we will be back to the good old health system we used to have.

I have news for the minister, for the Premier, for the other members of cabinet and for the members of this House. If this bill passes in its present form without this amendment, the current difficulties, acrimony and upset will not be solved. We will have a continuation of the problems we have today. I cannot understand why the minister does not comprehend this. Obviously, he is not talking to any doctors in this province.

I find it amazing that the minister who is responsible for administering the health care system has so completely ignored the feelings of the medical profession, the people on whom the whole health care system is based. It is absolutely remarkable that the Minister of Health does not recognize the strong, deep, profound opposition the medical profession has to this bill and what it portends for the future of health care in this province.

Strictly speaking, the medical profession is not upset about the terms of this bill; it is upset about the way it has been treated and what that indicates in terms of the government's plans for health care in the future.

5 p.m.

This amendment is intended to provide a cooling-off period in which the essential working relationship between the government and the medical profession can be re-established. Given the current situation of bitterness and acrimony, I cannot understand why any government would not welcome a cooling-off period as suggested by this amendment. I am absolutely amazed that when this amendment was proposed on the floor of the House, the minister did not stand up and consent that it be included in the bill. If we in this House are hoping to create good quality health care, why would the minister not be agreeable to including this kind of amendment in Bill 94?

The bill, as it now stands, allows for no arbitration, mediation or cooling-off periods. It fails totally to respond to the real environment out there today and the bitterness that is being felt by the medical profession. It fails totally to respond to the crisis we are facing. The minister and the government cannot now say they do not know anything about it. They say: "Do not worry. If this bill passes, everything will be fine. The doctors will go back to work and everything will be satisfactory."

The government knows that is not going to happen. The proof of that is in the fact that the Ontario Medical Association's provincial council today stated that if the bill passes, job actions could increase, not decrease. The government and the third party have misled the Ontario people into believing that if this bill passes, all the job action will stop and it will go back to where we were before. That will not happen.

If this bill passes in its current form, the crisis will deepen. If this bill passes without this kind of amendment, we will head into a quagmire the like of which we have never faced. I do not think there is anybody in this House who knows how to deal with that quagmire. If we are saying we are going to bring in back-to-work legislation, for example, I think it would tax the imagination and legal ingenuity of the Attorney General to come up with any kind of legislation that would achieve that. My worry is that if this bill passes in its current form, we are going to head into a nightmare that we in this Legislature will not be able to solve in any form of lawful fashion.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If we do not have a vote, there will be a nightmare. Talk, talk, talk. Let us have the vote; that is the nightmare.

Mr. McFadden: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to direct my talk through you and I am being interrupted by the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Democracy calls for a vote.

Mr. McFadden: Contrary to the rules of this House, the Attorney General is interrupting me. I am trying to speed up this debate.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will go for a smoke.

Mr. McFadden: No. The Attorney General should stay here. It is not healthy to smoke.

This amendment is intended to do two things. First, it is intended to provide a cooling-off period before this bill comes into effect. Surely that is a desirable objective in the light of the current crisis we are facing. This will give the medical profession a chance to cool down, the government a chance to start discussions again and to begin to re-establish bonds of trust and links of communication that will be necessary for the long-term future of the health care system.

Further to that, this bill is also intended to encourage the establishment of a framework in which a working relationship between the medical profession and the government can be re-established.

Looking at the amendment, subsection 5(1) provides for what is effectively a 90-day cooling-off period.

Mr. Sargent: We have heard it 50 times. Tell us again.

Mr. McFadden: The honourable member did not hear it. It is 90 days. We could expand that period if the member feels it is desirable, but I suggest a 90-day period is and should be adequate to reach some form of an accommodation. The 90-day period will encourage both sides to get on with the job, to try to come up with some form of a settlement, some form of a framework. I do not believe a 90-day period is too much. It is a minimum period in which to cool down the tempers so we can get on with discussions.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Tell us the compromise the member supports.

Mr. McFadden: Mr. Chairman, you have instructed me to talk through you, so I will ignore the interjections.

Subsection 5(2) relates to the appointment of a mediator. An earlier amendment suggested the appointment of an arbitrator. That was deemed to be unacceptable. We are now suggesting that a mediator be appointed, agreeable to both the government and the OMA, who would get both sides together to start discussions, to go over areas in which settlement can be reached.

Lord knows, mediation is needed today. It provides for that useful mechanism, a mediation process, in which discussion can get started again. As we know from the question period and from all the reports, no discussion is going on at all today. The mediator would at least create an office through which discussions could get going.

Subsection 5(3) suggests that the mediator would seek to develop and recommend a structure for a new relationship between the government and physicians to provide for the effective delivery of health care in Ontario. Who could be against the development of a structure, the development of a relationship that will enable the effective delivery of health care in Ontario?

It is beyond me why any member of this House would be opposed to the establishment of a mediation process, given the current situation. If it were three months ago and there were no tangible evidence of difficulties, then I could understand people saying: "Who needs it? The doctors are not going to do anything anyway. We do not need a mediation process." However, if I have ever seen a situation in a vital service in Ontario that cries out for mediation and discussion, this is it.

We cannot settle this by passing legislation in this House, We do not live in a system of government where laws are passed and people are pushed around. We hope we live in a system of government where people can get together, discuss and work out their differences. Surely that is the Canadian way. That is the basis on which we have built our society and our culture. We have a humane and civilized system here in which discussion and mediation are part of an accepted way of life. It is the Ontario way as well.

This amendment reflects the kind of good-faith relationship there should be and must be between the government and the medical profession. This bill, if it is passed in its current form, will make that kind of relationship very difficult, if not impossible, to develop in the months ahead.

Mr. Sargent: That is a lot of nonsense.

Mr. McFadden: The member opposite says it is a lot on nonsense. I guess he believes this bill is creating a co-operative atmosphere. I do not know where the member has been. He probably has not been watching television or reading the newspapers recently. Maybe he has been closeted away somewhere.

If anybody watches even one night's news, he can see that the situation in the health care system today has reached a crisis. I suggest there is not a single member in this House who has not talked to members of the medical profession about the concerns they have. If they have spent even five minutes talking with the doctors, they will understand the kind of bitterness that has been built up. We hope the amendments set out here will provide a useful framework in which the kind of animosity that has developed can be worked through.

5:10 p.m.

I cannot understand why an effort towards mediation and settlement would not receive the unanimous approval of this House. We have provided this amendment because we are anxious that when this bill passes, this issue can be behind us. We are anxious that when this bill passes, we can get back to a peaceful and productive relationship between the government and the medical profession. We are anxious that when this bill passes, the health care system will get on with providing top quality care to the people of this province.

The one thing we know is if the bill passes in its current form, that objective will not be achieved. If members believe that the bill, if it passes in this form, will put everything back to where it was, that everybody will be co-operative and that we will maintain the kind of system we had before, the first-class care we received, they are dreaming, because that will not happen.

My concern is if we do not provide for the kind of mediation we have here, we will be back trying to deal with what could be a potentially bigger crisis in a little while from now in another bill. Surely we have debated this long enough that we should not want to --

[Applause]

Mr. McFadden: Members can applaud like a bunch of seals, I know. The fact is we have debated this bill long enough that we do not want to come back and have to deal with this again in the summer or in the fall.

When this bill is through this House, I hope at least we can provide for a framework that will enable the medical services of this province to get back to normal, quietly and in good faith and in a good atmosphere. The way this bill is now structured and set up, that will not happen. I do not say that with satisfaction; I say it with regret.

I do not think any person in this House is happy with what is going on across Ontario right now in terms of slowdowns, walkouts, and so on. There is nothing to be proud about on the part of anyone. It is a blot on public affairs in this province that it ever came to this. We have never had this situation before. Nobody can point to a single time in the history of this province when we faced this kind of crisis. The crisis created by this bill is of historic proportions and cannot be looked on with any pride or satisfaction by any member of this House. It certainly cannot be looked on as a proud achievement by this government.

It looks as though the bill will pass, but at least this House could pass this amendment which would help to alleviate the problem. It would give a cooling-off period in which the minister and his officials, together with officials of the OMA, could get together and begin discussions to develop a working relationship again. If that cannot be done in the near future, the damage being done today to the health care system will be long-term and potentially irreparable.

What happened with Dr. Ian Munro may not be an isolated occurrence. There could be doctors of world renown leaving this province. I know of five right now who will be leaving within 12 months, who are leading specialists not only in Canada but also in the world. I hope this amendment will have the effect of getting these people to stay.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: There will be 800 coming in. We graduate 600.

Mr. McFadden: I hear we are talking about 600 new doctors. I heard the member for Kitchener mentioning that. The people we are losing will not be replaced by new graduates out of medical school. Tell me of one medical graduate out of that 600 who can replace Ian Munro. Will the member for Kitchener tell me of one of those graduates who can replace Dr. Munro tomorrow? He knows there is not one and I know there is not one, and it is mischievous and misleading to the people of Ontario to imply that there is.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The member knows that Ian Munro is not leaving because of Bill 94.

Mr. McFadden: The Liberal Party is obviously trying to delay this debate with these interjections. I do not want that to happen. I know other members are anxious to make points here and are anxious that this section be fully debated by this House without interjections so that all the points can be made by the members who wish to make them.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The member's points are misleading the House. He is misleading the House.

Mr. McFadden: I will simply say over the interjections by the member opposite --

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener has accused my colleague of misleading the House. It is clearly on the record.

Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Kitchener accuse the member for Eglinton of misleading the House?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I withdraw any suggestion of that sort, but I think it should be on the record that Dr. Ian Munro is not leaving because of --

Miss Stephenson: Oh?

Mr. Chairman: Order. Will the member for York Mills please be quiet while I deal with this? You withdrew those words. You will have your chance as this comes around to mention whatever else you wish.

Mr. McFadden: Dr. Munro is a constituent of mine in the riding of Eglinton. I probably know more about Dr. Munro than the member for Kitchener does. I suggest I am not misleading this House in anything I have mentioned about Dr. Munro.

Before this bill goes through, we should be finding every route we can to ensure that the kind of crisis we now have can be resolved. As the bill is worded now, with the provisions it has, it will merely inflame the situation and remain an irritant, a source of division and acrimony, for months and years to come. Surely this House does not want to leave that legacy to the people of Ontario. Surely we should be looking dispassionately and objectively at amendments that will help to alleviate the current impasse.

This amendment will help in that direction. It is reasonable, it was put forward very thoughtfully by the member for Lincoln and it deserves the support of the House. Not only that; I believe it requires the support of this House because, in my view, it is needed for us to have any hope of rebuilding the health care system we once had.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We discussed this matter at length this afternoon and yesterday afternoon as well. As we discuss the amendment presented by the Conservative Party that would now further defer the implementation of this legislation, I should inform the Legislature that I hope the minister later on this afternoon will give an up-to-date report, and tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock will give a full statement on the incident that occurred in Ajax this afternoon, when Theresa Black of Empson Court in Ajax attended hospital. She was haemorrhaging and was turned away and sent 30 kilometres to another hospital and lost her baby en route.

5:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are getting information in relation to that. The information just provided does not comply with the information we have at this moment. We are checking on it. My information is that the woman has been admitted. There has not been confirmation of the loss of a child. The early release of this information has not been of assistance to us.

I can tell the honourable members of this Legislature that she was seen on both occasions by physicians at Ajax and a decision was made. She was also seen and admitted at the Whitby facility. I regret that the information was made available. I intended to make a statement when we had all the factual information. That is as much information as I can provide the members at this stage.

Mr. Shymko: I rise to support the final plea to seek some intelligent, rational approach to --

Mr. Sargent: Is this the last speaker?

Mr. Shymko: I am trying to say that this amendment is the final plea for intelligence and responsibility to us as lawmakers. It is tragic when we begin hearing the news that has just been reported in this Legislature by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke). I am speaking in a totally nonpartisan way.

A few days ago, one of our colleagues was faced with a problem. Thank God it was not serious. I was at the Mount Sinai Hospital with him, as were a member of the third party and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). We waited to see the results when the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) was taken to the hospital.

As I watched my colleague the member for York Mills provide assistance, at that moment there was no partisanship. We were trying to help in a crisis situation. There were no politics. An ambulance made a wrong turn on University Avenue. Thank God the ambulance transporting an emergency victim from Brampton to Mount Sinai made a wrong turn and we were lucky to hail that ambulance to take the member for Lake Nipigon to Mount Sinai. Had this situation been critical, I am sure a serious problem would have complicated the issue and maybe would have turned around a debate here.

At noon today, St. Joseph's Health Centre in my riding closed its emergency area. The entire west end of Metropolitan Toronto is closed. At any moment today, there may be someone with a problem and an ambulance may not be around as fortunately, as quickly, by accident, by fate or by destiny as we had one in the circumstance of helping one of our members.

I do not believe in symbolism, but that told me something. In the years I have been a member in the House of Commons and a member of this Legislative Assembly, I do not think I have ever seen an issue that pointed to a crisis which no other piece of legislation addressed. We have seen problems with teachers. We were debating and there were demonstrations on the economic restraints bills, but the difference between that legislation and the final appeal of this amendment is that it affects directly the lives and the health of nine million people. That is how this is different.

Every day we get up here and listen to the Speaker in our prayer as he demands divine guidance in our deliberations. Perhaps we need some guidance from some source. I appeal to my honourable colleagues that this circumstance is not the same as addressing an economic restraints bill. It is not the same as the strike of some workers. I saw at first hand a colleague of ours at the risk of his life, had that ambulance not arrived.

We may make eloquent speeches here in this Legislature, and there is no doubt partisanship, but I want to stop speaking for myself and quote the words of a doctor who refused to follow the OMA's directive and who did not resign as chief of staff at St. Joseph's Health Centre. He wrote a letter to the honourable minister, and I hope the minister will listen to this letter. I know the pressures he is under and I am sure he has not read it. Copies were sent to me. It is the final emotional plea of a doctor who did not go on strike.

It is from Dr. David Hynes, chief of staff at St. Joseph's. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read this letter which demands and pleads for mediation in its conclusion. I have had this in my possession for the past two days, but I did not know we would have this amendment. I want to read it for the record. I hope the minister will listen to my second attempt to have his attention. I know he is sensitive to these views.

I also know my colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) has some things to say that may be of importance to his constituency, but I would appreciate it if that member will allow the minister to listen for a minute to this letter, dated June 13, 1986.

"Dear Mr. Elston:

"Like the majority of physicians who hold the appointment `Chief of Staff,' I felt that it would be irresponsible of me to hand in my resignation to the chairman of the board. Indeed, that was the unanimous decision of the medical advisory committee" at St. Joseph's "which met on Wednesday morning.

"However, this apparent rejection of the OMA stand does not indicate my approval of Bill 94 and its long-term implications.

"I am a British graduate who worked, as a young consultant, in the National Health Service in the late 1960s. At that time, the profession was disillusioned, with a three-way split developing between consultant specialists, family practitioners and junior hospital staff. These differences were compounded by a `pay pause,' a four per cent mandatory limit to annual increases, and complete rejection by government of any salary increase for physicians recommended by an `independent' review body. "Subsequently, there has been a weakening of medical representation at all levels in the health system" in the United Kingdom "with an escalating nonclinical bureaucracy. Needless to say, a viable two-tier system is now beginning to emerge" in the United Kingdom.

"The Canadian system (personally experienced since 1970) presents an enormous improvement over the UK scenario. There is an excellent medical and nonclinical representation at all levels" in Ontario. "There is a system" here "of well-equipped modern hospitals, largely run by dedicated independent boards responding to local needs. Also, it is still reasonably easy to obtain equipment and supplies, and the work environment is second to none anywhere. Furthermore, there is a slow but steadily progressive move, with everybody's co-operation, towards regionalization and sharing of services."

Mr. Sargent: Get to the point.

Mr. Shymko: I am coming to the point.

"It is the potential destruction of our current Canadian model which I dread, and it must be avoided at all costs.

"Every organization has its warts, and the medical profession is not immune. Abuse of extra billing must be controlled, but please do not kill the potential of our health system in order to weed out a relative handful of offenders."

5:30 p.m.

Here is the plea for a mediator, for dialogue:

"I plead with you to return to the table and rediscuss these issues. There has to be a way to deal with it. The OMA has offered a few suggestions, and these, with additional documented commitment to protect the necessary freedoms which might even be written into law, could solve the problem. Finally, in spite of my experience in England, I still think that there is a place for an independent review group to make recommendations with regard to physicians' fees -- perhaps this could also be explored in greater depth.

"This letter is sent in the spirit of a concerned and involved physician, who is worried about this unfortunate confrontation and the resultant damage to goodwill on all sides. It is my opinion that, in the long term, the patient is better served by an independent medical profession who can act as the advocate. Furthermore, this will provide a much needed `balance of power' as there are future major decisions regarding health care.

"I hope something can be done without further delay.

"Yours sincerely, David M. Hynes, MD; chief of staff, and chief, department of diagnostic imaging" St. Joseph's Health Centre.

None of us can predict what may happen following the passage of this bill. I hope to God it will not be more information such as we heard today. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the mediation processes and dialogues pending similar legislation in other jurisdictions in this country, be it in Saskatchewan or Quebec, there has never been a point of confrontation threatening the lives and the health of millions of people as we have had, so shamefully in this province.

I plead with the minister to listen to this final plea for a cooling-off period of 90 days and a mediator. That is all we want. We have listened to the distinguished men and women who came before us and spoke of the intransigence of governments that refuse to be flexible, where confrontation is the rule of the day. We see the tragic results in such jurisdictions. This intransigence will not resolve the problem; it will perpetuate the problem. Unfortunately, it will perpetuate the tragic instances I have heard today. I address the minister, and not as a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, and I appeal to him as I would whether I was sitting on this side or on the other, and as one member of his caucus had the courage to do. I say the same thing. I plead with him to allow for a cooling-off period and for some final mediation to prevent further tragedies.

Mr. Pope: I rise to participate briefly in this debate. I may discuss some of the nonsense I have been hearing from the Liberal members today such as that the Canada Health Act contains a provision banning extra billing. The minister made the same statement erroneously and then corrected it, in fairness to him, during the debate on Global television.

Mr. Callahan: Why do the federal Tories not give the money back then?

Mr. Pope: I say to the member for Brampton that there is no provision in the Canada Health Act that bans extra billing. If he knew what he was talking about in this debate, if he had an informed opinion on this matter and had bothered to read the Canada Health Act, he would not give the opinion he just gave in this House. There is no such thing as a ban on extra billing in the Canada Health Act. There is a provision for a penalty, a withholding of transfer payments; that is what is contained in it.

As I have discussed before in the Legislature there is an obligation, which I bore when I was Minister of Health, to deal with the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, with the federal government. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on one's point of view, I had 97 days in the Ministry of Health. On two occasions I met with the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare and his officials with respect to a comprehensive package, much the same as the current Minister of Health has contemplated as he went through this very difficult process with respect to extra billing.

I looked at all the options, many of which have been presented to the current Minister of Health and his colleagues. I had discussions with the federal minister about what would satisfy him in terms of a comprehensive accessibility package that would meet the five tests placed on us all under the Canada Health Act.

I want to say in response to some of the insinuations I have heard today that if I felt the passage of this bill would end the withdrawal of services, as the minister knows from information he has in his hands, it would be in my personal and my family's interests to do so. However, I do not believe that to be the case and I do not believe the matter will end with the passage of Bill 94. If I did believe it, it would be in my personal interests to expedite passage of this bill.

I do not believe passing Bill 94 is going to resolve the problem. The Ontario Medical Association says it is not. I do not believe it will because of the way passions are inflamed on this issue. I understand the minister's point of view. I understand what he is trying to do to bring the province in conformity with the Canada Health Act and to meet his party's policy, which became party policy a couple of years ago. He has the mandate as the Minister of Health to implement the policy direction of his party. This is why mediation is so important. It is the principle surrounding where one intends to head with the health care system that is as much cause for concern as this specific piece of legislation. This is why mediation may help.

I am going to be brief. The statement made by the leader of one of the parties to the accord on February 11 was not that we were dealing with a ban on extra billing and was not confined to the specific Bill 94. I quoted him yesterday. It was a call for the socialization of medicine and of the health care professions in this province.

That is what the doctors heard on February 11 in this Legislature in the windup speech on second reading of this bill. That was the signal that went out, that one of the two important partners who represent the majority in this Legislature had an agenda that was not restricted to a ban on extra billing, but was broader; it was the socialization of medicine. He said: "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." That was on February 11, 1986, during the afternoon sitting, in the middle of the windup comments by the leader of the third party on second reading of this bill.

Mr. Foulds: What was the date?

Mr. Pope: February 11, 1986, in the afternoon. If the member can hold on for a minute, I will even get Hansard for him. I have read the speech from that day --

Mr. Foulds: Do not worry. I can find it for myself.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Free-enterprise medicine.

Mr. Pope: Free-enterprise medicine gave us --

The Deputy Chairman: Please address your remarks to the chair.

Mr. Pope: -- one of the best health care systems in the world, my friend.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Address your remarks to the chair.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Pope: That party wants to tear apart one of the best health care systems in the world, created by government programs and by public support, but created equally by the private sector and by private individual doctors exercising their care and their competence to the benefit of their patients. That was an important part of the process. Now they are being told they are on the eve of the socialization of medicine in this province.

On February 11, there was no discussion about their role, just a bald statement by the leader of the New Democratic Party that the socialization of medicine had begun -- Hallelujah! -- combined with an attack on the doctors of this province saying that the only thing they were interested in was money. That was all; they were greedy doctors. I heard the words and I again invite my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) to read the Hansard of that day. There was nothing about the individual acts of doctors during our history in accepting no payment for their services, nothing about the individual sacrifices of doctors at all hours of the day and night and on weekends to treat their patients on a caring basis as professionals with responsibility. There were only examples that he could point to to condemn the profession and to say all it was interested in was money.

Mr. Foulds: That is not true. He did not say that.

Mr. Pope: He certainly did. My friend should go back and read Hansard, example after example --

Mr. Foulds: The member is misleading the House. He is imputing motives.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Resume your chair for a minute, please. Make sure that your debate relates to the amendment. Address your comments to the chair. Ignore the interjections. The member for Cochrane South has the floor.

Mr. Pope: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept your direction.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, it is good of you.

Mr. Pope: It is better than listening to the member.

I was going to end with a couple of sentences but now I want to talk about something else. This perception that it was only a matter of money, which the New Democratic Party perpetuated in this House in the February debate, has been carried on by it in public since that date, aided by a release of information to one of the Toronto media -- not about net salaries but about gross salaries, not about office expenses, payment of taxes and after-tax dollars but about gross payment out of the OHIP system -- to further underline the perception that this matter related only to lining the pockets of the doctors of this province.

Mr. Foulds: Are you accusing the doctors of lining their pockets?

Mr. Pope: No, that is what the member accused them of doing, and he does it continually. We heard it today again in a similar vein from the New Democratic Party when it used the word "elitism." In other words, they see the doctors as an élite target, an economic target. In their socialist system, they are damned well going to tear the doctors down. That is their agenda. That is what the accord means to them. That is one of the partners to this legislation, one of the partners of this government. That is what they are saying to the doctors of this province.

Is there any wonder that they need mediation? Is there any wonder that they need someone to cool it out, someone somewhere who may understand the fears and frustrations of the medical community of the province and allow for saner heads to prevail in some discussions about this bill and this bill alone?

In fairness to the minister, he has tried in the past month to scope his comments into this bill and we have noticed the change. I think he has recognized the reaction and the response of the medical community. We have noticed the change in his rhetoric about the importance of the individual doctor as a professional and as a deliverer of health care in this province. We have noticed an abandonment of the dollar argument and we have noticed a scoping-in on the specific provisions of Bill 94 and an attempt to say: "This is on our agenda. This is what we are doing. Do not look for a hidden agenda."

I am not imputing motives at all, I am not saying anything about it, but the history of this is such that it will take some time for that attitude and those statements to work their way into the medical profession, to get a like response and to allow for some meaningful trust, co-operation and discussion between the government and the Ontario Medical Association.

There is no doubt that with respect to the specific so-called issue of extra billing, there have been some changes in position. The public initially supported the government measure by 85 per cent. It is now 56 per cent. There is a growing concern and a questioning, not a lack of confidence, about whether this is all it is cracked up to be, whether this is the solution people were promised it would be. There is a questioning of that by the public. I do not think it will go away with the simple passage of Bill 94. If I thought the passage of Bill 94 would solve the personal situations -- and in some cases, of tragic proportions around the province -- I would be the first to rush and demand its early passage. I do not see that happening yet.

I genuinely believe a mediator can help in this situation. There are problems. There is no human way possible that the minister, as one individual, or his staff and his office, can keep track of what is actually happening in the province. I know he is trying. I know his people are making calls. I know the minister is trying to co-operate with the members of this Legislature when problems are brought to his attention, and we appreciate that. We understand the genuineness of his feelings in his attempts at this. However, with the complexity of our health care system, the number of practitioners in it and the number of reference points and transfers within it, there is no possible way one human being or one organization can keep a handle on it. That is why I said today, and it was not in a critical way, that despite the minister's best efforts, there can be no monitoring, no assessment, unless the patient attempts it in his own way.

I will go back to my riding and make this statement to the media. I will say, "If you have any problems, call on our office and we will try to refer you through the Ministry of Health system to make sure your personal problems are resolved." I am worried that I will not catch all the people in my riding. I know every single member of this Legislature is worried about the same thing. We are worried that we might not move quickly enough, that we might not understand the seriousness, that we ourselves might not be able to get hold of the doctor in Toronto, his office, his staff, the local doctor or the hospital in Toronto to which these people are being referred. We are afraid of the consequences of that.

The situation in terms of what is happening across the province is out of control. This whole thing started with the introduction of Bill 94, but it has gone beyond that. Our party has been clear from the very outset that we do not support the withdrawal of services. Our leader and the spokesmen for our party have said that. We are worried about the consequences to the public, the patients of this province. We are worried about their medical needs being met.

At the same time, we are worried that the opinion and philosophy that pervades one of the parties to the accord is one that will never be accepted by the medical profession. While that philosophy is there, unaddressed by a mediator, there cannot be any progress. I think the minister has attempted genuinely to dispel that notion in the past few weeks as I have watched him handle this issue.

5:50 p.m.

I will conclude by saying that I have not had the support of doctors in my riding in the past. The House leader for the government knows that. I have not necessarily been a favourite spokesman for the medical community. I have not been on the phone every day to the Ontario Medical Association or to the local medical society in Timmins. All I know is that the phone calls we get in our constituency are from people who are genuinely afraid.

They do not link it to the passage or nonpassage of Bill 94. They relate it to the general uncertainty and what it means to a miner in Timmins who has scheduled his time off, who has bought an Air Canada ticket in advance to come down to Toronto to have an operation for the removal of a tumour and to whom somebody in Toronto says: "I am sorry. We have decided that is elective surgery. Do not bother showing up because we are only handling emergency cases."

They are worried about the fears of that miner in Timmins and about the anguish of his family, even if it is only an exploratory or a biopsy operation, the concern of that family as to what the future holds for a loved one, wondering whether they are going to have to go to Toronto because they cannot find the doctor to whom the case was referred, cannot find the doctor who was going to perform the operation. Is he supposed to come to Toronto and spend three days in the Royal York Hotel?

Is what we say here as politicians in terms of principle, as we adjust our positions and try to gain the upper hand in this issue from the point of view of the media, as important as what we hear in our constituencies? Is it as important as what we hear from an individual? I have had people come into my constituency office in tears because they cannot get an answer from anybody as to whether they are going to Toronto for an operation. Is that the answer? Is all this skirmishing here the answer to a doctor, and this happened, who breaks down and cries in an emergency ward because she has to make decisions she does not want to make as to whether a case is urgent enough for admission or should be sent to another emergency department?

This is happening all across the province. Believe me, it has nothing to do with the passage of Bill 94. It has to do with the government and its responsibility to deliver health care across this province and its relationship to only one important element in the delivery of health care; that is, the medical profession.

Once I got going, I tried to cool my tone and not to shout. I sincerely believe that a mediation process is our joint responsibility as a Legislature. I hope it works. I hope we can get back to the old days, not necessarily in terms of the law or the financial relationship. I remind the members of the Legislature that the government can still claim credit for concessions from the OMA for senior citizens, for the financially disadvantaged and for emergency services. The government can already claim credit for some of those concessions.

Things have already changed. Senior citizens are going to be protected if the existing position of the OMA is accepted. Things are going to change for the financially disadvantaged if the position of the OMA is accepted. Things are going to change in the emergency rooms in hospitals across this province if the position of the OMA is accepted. This government can say that the process it started publicly on December 19, but perhaps undertook before that, brought about these changes. There have been some gains that the government can claim. What is wrong with taking the rest of the issues and trying to sort them out in a mediation process? I think that makes sense.

I hope the members will accept the words I have given. With that, I will sit down and thank you for your indulgence as usual, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jackson: It is not with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to discuss the current health care crisis in this province, and in particular to discuss an amendment to the bill. I am afraid it is somewhat fitting for two reasons. First, having been a member of the standing committee on social development and having participated in the public hearings on this bill for the past four months, I would wish to make some comments on the bill. Second, yesterday, for the first time in its 25-year history, the emergency department at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital was closed to public service.

The minister is familiar with our hospital. He visited it just two weeks ago and was treated in a most cordial manner as he saw one of the finest health care institutions in the province. Merely two weeks later, we have a crisis of unprecedented proportions that undoubtedly will leave a scar on this government's reputation for its treatment of this issue for many years to come.

The amendment before us has to do with a third-party resolution. It is important for the members of the House to realize that yesterday, when the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital shut down its emergency department, I took the initiative of bringing additional staff into my constituency office to handle the calls, to listen to the concerns and to see if we could help in any way the citizens and patients who would be calling as a result of that.

I did this because on the previous day I received no assurances from the Minister of Health that a proactive approach was being taken by this government with respect to the current crisis. He made the offer that any cases would be dealt with on an individual basis, but one can appreciate that was after the fact. The minister, having responsibility for the entire province, was hardly going to handle the several hundred calls and concerns that were anticipated in my riding.

What I learned yesterday was that there is a growing shift in emphasis on the part of the public to the position that the government not seek a stonewall position, that the government not persist with its current approach to this bill and that a mediator be appointed immediately. That was a clear consensus because public awareness of the issues of this bill is growing every week. If any member in this House would set aside his party position and listen more closely to what concerns are being expressed in his community, he would realize that the public knows better than he what is involved with this bill.

It is not unusual to see that the public now is saying there are two sides to this dispute that have taken fixed positions and that this situation will persist beyond passage of this bill. The public is convinced of that. My friends in the NDP are keenly aware of times in history when a bill has been put forward and yet there has not been peace or settlement or tranquility to follow, when a group, whether an organized bargaining unit, whether unionized or whether citizens without such protection, realizes there is no immediate relief from this kind of legislation.

6 p.m.

We hear today in the House, reports that the doctors have indicated mere passage of the bill will not stop the kinds of public activities that are going on. One can hardly blame the doctors and the public for calling for a mediator. They are calling for a mediator because they no longer see this as a monetary issue. They see it as an issue that deals with the changing of the unique and special relationship that exists between a doctor and his patient and the government's attempt to interfere with that right.

I have heard the minister say in television debates and in other public forums that nowhere in the bill is there evidence of this. Yet, as the member for Cochrane South has alluded to and my friends to the left have referred to in their summary statements on this bill, we are talking about socialism and socialized medicine for this province.

We heard from our very Premier -- it came out of his own loose lips in a statement he made to a Kitchener radio station -- that there was more in his agenda for Ontario than what is contained within Bill 94. If the Premier is going to talk about capitation, there being too many doctors in this province, sickness taxes and fees for service, then he has no right to criticize the doctors or the citizens of Ontario for saying and believing that his agenda is far greater than the boundaries of Bill 94. That is why mediation is required. It will not stop with the passage of this bill. The public can no longer be fooled by this public relations program.

There are more and more people who are coming to this conclusion. During the hearings, a number of groups presented themselves before the standing committee on social development and argued strongly and cogently in favour of the government's position on Bill 94. During discussions and examination, we asked them, "What if the climate in Ontario should escalate to a conflict?" In our wildest dreams, we had no idea it would get to this state. Many groups were concerned that the potential for this would exist, because of their own experience as organized groups in Canada and in Ontario.

The Consumers' Association of Canada was very quick to line up to support the government and the New Democratic Party. On March 5, its representatives appeared before us and said they would support a binding-arbitration model similar to that of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan in the event of nonagreement on fees and other matters, and that model includes mediation. It is interesting they supported the bill, but they also supported the very concept of what the Progressive Conservative Party tabled before the House today.

Even Bob White of the United Auto Workers Union of Canada, who may some day be in this House or some other great House in this country, representing the sons of the social pioneers, said on March 5:

"We have been involved at thousands of bargaining tables over the years, but not once have we seen a resolution whereby one party to the agreement can unilaterally vary key terms of the agreement. In some instances we have been forced to negotiate things we did not agree with. Our response has been to find a compromise that both sides can live with."

I want to repeat that for the three members of the New Democratic Party who are paying close attention to these comments. He said, "Our response has been to find a compromise that both sides can live with."

During cross-examination, Mr. White agreed that a model of co-operation, which Ontario has been built on, would involve mediation or arbitration. On March 5, Mr. White may have had the foresight to see what might happen or how badly this situation might escalate. This is what Bob White said, representing his friends to the left: "I do not have any problem with protesting actions. I do not have any problem with the doctors having the right to bargain" in such a way.

That is very interesting. We understand that we might have the support of one of the traditional supporters of my friends to the left for the principles involved in our motion.

Mr. Foulds: The member does not have the support of Bob White. Quit misrepresenting his position, you clod.

Mr. Jackson: I have more of them. I imagine the member for Port Arthur is really asking me for more examples. The Ontario Nurses' Association, on March 18, dutifully and carefully came prepared to respond to this bill.

Mr. Foulds: Typical dishonesty of the Tories.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: That is how he got all those signatures on those petitions, by misrepresenting to his own constituents.

Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) has been making some absolutely unparliamentary remarks. The last one was that the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) was misrepresenting the situation to his constituents. I believe the member should be called to order.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Further to that, I distinctly heard the member for Port Arthur refer to my colleague as a clod and dishonest. I question the parliamentary nature of either of those remarks.

Mr. Foulds: I will grant easily that they probably are provocative, but I am not sure they are unparliamentary. However, if the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is so sensitive, I will easily withdraw them so the debate can go on without any rancour.

Mr. Jackson: I can assure the members that the comments of the member for Port Arthur were not new to me.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. You will apologize after that one.

Mr. Jackson: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Did the member for Kitchener make those remarks?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I was referring to the relationship that the member for Burlington South had with his own constituents. They did not concern any remarks he made in the House.

Miss Stephenson: I have rather good ears. He said: "That is how he got all those signatures on the petition. He misrepresented the situation to his constituents."

The Deputy Chairman: Will the member for Kitchener withdraw those remarks? I am sure he will.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: At your request, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jackson: I point out for Hansard that the quotations the member for Port Arthur finds so offensive are a matter of record. They were taken directly from the public hearings of the standing committee on social development.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order or a point of privilege --

The Deputy Chairman: Is it a point of order or a point of privilege?

Mr. Foulds: You can take it the way you want. Mr. White, as I understand it, was talking about the negotiation of the Ontario health insurance plan fee schedule; he was not talking about mediating the principle of extra billing.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Foulds: In that sense, Mr. Chairman, I stand by my point that the member is misrepresenting the White position.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for your point again.

Mr. Jackson: I invite the member for Port Arthur to read the entire transcript before he rushes to his feet and rushes to a judgement. I will be pleased to have him do that.

The Deputy Chairman: I remind the member for Burlington South to debate the amendment.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been most helpful.

I was in the process of inciting the member for Port Arthur with a quotation from the Ontario Nurses' Association, which I assure him is not out of context but is consistent with the theme I am trying to convey with respect to traditional supporters of this bill and their opinion of the issue of third-party intervention and mediation.

Here is what the Ontario Nurses' Association said:

"The association also believes physicians have a reasonable right to expect an open and publicly accountable mechanism for dispute resolution. When the parties cannot agree, there should be a third-party intervention to resolve the dispute and we expect neither party would unilaterally impose a settlement."

That was stated on March 18 by Mrs. Alexander, who I believe is the chief executive officer of the Ontario Nurses' Association. You will also note, Mr. Chairman, that the Ontario Nurses' Association attended the hearings as members of the Ontario Health Coalition and reiterated that position.

6:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not think she was talking about Bill 94.

Mr. Jackson: There is more. If the members are asking me to clarify further, I can go on about their support for strike action. I hope I am not being prophetic, and I hope they will not have to be brought forward in some future debate in this Legislature because of the government's total and absolute miscalculation of the events that may befall the province following passage of this bill.

The Medical Reform Group of Ontario appeared on March 4. We love Dr. Berger, who has commented quite extensively in the local media. Dr. Berger said, "Our opinion is that binding arbitration and a grievance procedure with the absence of a legislative veto would meet both our demands and perhaps your concerns." He was responding to questions about third-party intervention.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, a favourite of the government, was very anxious to appear before the social development committee and comment about third-party intervention and about mediation.

Miss Stephenson: It had special status.

Mr. Jackson: That is right. The member reminds me that OPSEU was allowed special status before the committee to respond. They appeared before us on April 11.

Mr. Upshaw, the vice-president of OPSEU, said when responding to negotiation:

"In our view, the methods should be modelled on those which apply to the negotiation of collective agreements between unions and employers, and they should specifically include the right to strike. It is well known that all the members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union involved in health care and who come under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act are denied the right to strike. Instead, they are required to submit to binding arbitration. We always have opposed this restriction and have no wish to see it imposed on doctors. It seems unlikely that the doctors themselves would agree to it, and in this they would have our support."

Mr. Usher from the same group went on to say: "The doctors should have the right to strike. Anybody who works in that kind of a relationship should have the right to strike."

Finally, they said, "If they do not like the fee schedule the government offers, we are saying that they should have the right to withdraw service."

This is from a group that came forward and supported Bill 94, supported the government and supported the members of the third party.

The government has changed the rules, and the public has woken up to the changes to Bill 94 that have occurred since the bill entered this House. The ground rules have changed, and there is growing support even from groups that started out in this debate and made presentations before the standing committee on social development in support of the bill. They had no idea some of these things were being planned.

OPSEU concluded on that same date of April 11:

"If...it comes to the point where they might bargain about that, then they should have the right to strike over those issues in just the same way they should have the right to strike against a fee-schedule offer they are not satisfied with. It is as simple as that. We go no further than that item on which the government now negotiates with the doctors, their fee schedule. They may want to strike over any change, not only in the fee schedule as far as dollars are concerned but over the method of payment, if a different method of payment were proposed. That would probably lead to an even hotter debate than over Bill 94."

It is clear that more and more groups are concerned that the rules of the game with respect to Bill 94 have changed and that there might even be support for limited job actions on the part of doctors after the bill is passed by groups that came before this Legislature in support of Bill 94. That would certainly create an interesting dilemma for members on my left.

Mr. Foulds: We have no dilemmas on this bill. Unlike the split in your caucus, there are no dilemmas on this team. If you want to put the OMA under the Labour Relations Act, we will be pleased to do that too.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Port Arthur will please not interrupt.

Mr. Jackson: I am coming quickly to a reference from the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) which may be of interest to the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Chairman: I presume you are referring to excerpts and not to whole passages at length.

Mr. Jackson: This is my last one.

The Ontario Health Coalition --

Mr. Foulds: Are you going to misrepresent their position too?

Mr. Jackson: They were doing a good enough job of it during the hearings.

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

Mr. Chairman: If the point of order is regarding the interjection of the member for Port Arthur, that is fine. I heard it. Will the member for Port Arthur please withdraw the word "misrepresent."

Mr. Foulds: I just asked the member whether he was going to misrepresent their position. If he wants to reply in the negative that is perfectly --

Mr. Chairman: Order. Please withdraw.

Miss Stephenson: He said "too."

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word "too."

Mr. Chairman: Please withdraw the entire phrase "Are you going to misrepresent this too?"

Mr. Foulds: I withdraw that phrase.

Mr. Jackson: Again, I am quoting from the Hansard report of the standing committee on social development of March 6.

The Ontario Health Coalition executive director, Miss Harding, was very clear; so there is no room for misinterpretation. I quote:

"The coalition also believes that all agreements between the minister and practitioners must conform to the established principles of collective bargaining. Most important, there must be procedure equity. Both parties must bargain in good faith and agreements must be binding on both parties."

Dr. Rachlis said:

"In resolving disputes between the medical profession and the government, the Ontario Health Coalition believes that medical practitioners have a reasonable right to expect an open and publicly accountable mechanism for dispute resolution. Thus, such mechanism must adhere to the principles of collective bargaining. The coalition is opposed to mandatory binding arbitration. It provides no incentive for either party to negotiate in good faith."

It appears clear during questioning on this matter that virtually all groups that presented themselves before the standing committee on social development felt there would be a need for mediation of matters outstanding, especially matters that have been allowed to escalate to the extent they have throughout Ontario in the course of the past seven days.

6:20 p.m.

I would further like to report on the fact that I have had four occasions to present petitions from constituents of mine from the greater Hamilton area. I know the member for Kitchener has alluded to some form of manipulation in obtaining those signatures. I want to assure the member for Kitchener that, had he read the petition, he would know it only asks for three things. Primarily, it asks for the climate of confrontation to stop and that a dispute resolution method or medium be found as quickly as possible to avoid any further upset with respect to Bill 94.

I do not know why the member for Kitchener finds the objectives of that petition so difficult to live with or why he would impugn the motives of the citizens of Ontario who signed it. I believe they are expressing the opinion of the majority of the citizens of this province, that a dispute resolution mechanism must be found immediately. Simply passing the bill is not the answer.

Earlier there was an objection to the fact that our motion on mediation calls for 90 days. I would like to point out that the penalties, if we can call them such, contained in the Canada Health Act do not reach a point of no return until April 1987. Clearly, the government cannot use the argument, as the Premier did in the House today, that the Canada Health Act in and of itself is the reason he is unable and unwilling to negotiate with the medical profession.

Mr. Chairman: Order. There are many noisy conversations going on. I know it is distracting the member who has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He has the right to speak, but I do not know of a rule that says we have to listen.

Mr. Chairman: However, you cannot interrupt him.

Mr. Jackson: It is unfortunate the members are not listening as intently as we had hoped. This bill was ripped out of the standing committee on social development after we had agreed to a public debate and to receive public input. I am disappointed that members in the Legislature might scorn direct references to those public hearings when they may enlighten the members about some of the concerns that were raised. I was careful to present those groups that supported the government and the members to my left in what they were saying, specifically and with focus on the area of third-party resolution.

It is interesting to note as well that our amendment asks the mediator to "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."

It strikes me as odd that there has been a lot of talk from all quarters about the need to examine the health care delivery system in Ontario. In the time of crisis we find ourselves in, if real leadership were to be expressed by not only the government but also the Premier, who is responsible for that leadership, it appears to be an appropriate time for him to give some signal to the medical community that he will set aside his confrontation and what he calls his principles in favour of a mediator and of sitting down to discuss the structure of the relationship. Obviously, it is badly in need of repair. The Premier is deluding himself if he thinks the relationship will repair itself five minutes after the bill is declared.

The citizens of Burlington South have endured their first emergency department shutdown in the 25 years of the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital. It is a community which, incidentally, believes that passage of the bill will not mean an end to the torn relationships that exist between this government and health care providers. It is on behalf of those citizens that I particularly appeal to all members of this House to consider this mediation tool and to allow it to be in the bill.

I believe strongly that once this bill is approved, the Premier is still going to be seeking a solution to the political dilemma in which he finds himself. It appears he has an opportunity to exercise a great personal face-saver by moving to a mediator, and a face-saver is very important to our Premier. He has modelled his leadership style around what he thought would occur with this bill. We all know -- the media, the medical profession, the public and the politicians -- that the bill has not evolved in the way the politicians on the government side thought it would.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will interrupt the honourable member and ask that he yield the floor for a moment. I wonder whether the House would be prepared to give unanimous consent to sit beyond 6:30 p.m. so we can continue with this important issue.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: I hear noes on my left.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I have been asked by my leader to bring to the attention of the House a concern that was expressed to him by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) in a letter he received just a few minutes ago. The Leader of the Opposition expressed his concern that the Premier would not be in his place tomorrow to answer questions because the Premier has agreed to go to the opening at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

My leader, the Premier, has indicated his timetable would permit him to carry out his duties in Ottawa if the House were to sit at one o'clock tomorrow afternoon instead of at two. Perhaps before the committee rises, there might be an agreement that we could put to Mr. Speaker when the House resumes that we make that minor adjustment tomorrow to accommodate both leaders. It would also give us an additional hour to continue with the debate.

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. This is committee of the whole House. I believe it would be more appropriate if that were put to the Speaker of the House so the House has a chance to express unanimous consent or otherwise.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have already brought to the attention of the members present the request from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that the House sit a bit early tomorrow so he might be able to attend question period. I ask for the consent of the House that when adjournment occurs today, the announcement be made that we sit at one o'clock tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Is there unanimous consent that the House sit tomorrow afternoon at one o'clock?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Our friends at the table have pointed out that we sit at 10 o'clock. I am talking about the afternoon session.

The Acting Speaker: The House would sit from 10 o'clock to 12 noon and from one o'clock until 6:30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. Harris: Will we start with the ordinary two o'clock proceedings?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately, I am afraid that is not what we have in mind. To take part in the question period and to meet the requirements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), the question period would start right at one o'clock. If the members want to stand it down after 15 minutes, when the Premier can get away on his other duties, that is okay. But it will not be possible for us to go through the routine proceedings in the ordinary course of events.

The Premier has asked that this be done in response to the request from the Leader of the Opposition. It seems perfectly reasonable, but if anybody thinks it is not, then let us not do it.

Mr. Harris: That is fine. I wanted to make sure that is what we were doing. I had understood we would start the two o'clock program at one. I would concur if we were to start right with question period and as long as we were not debating Bill 94 from one to two.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that question period start at one o'clock?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to make a comment on the business tomorrow. After the adjustments that have just been agreed to in the first part of the afternoon session, we would like to call Bill 94 for a continuation of this committee work. We are hoping confidently the committee review will be completed, at which time we would like to call the bills, the numbers of which I do not just have handy but all the members know the bills to which I am referring, previously scheduled this week for Wednesday.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has also asked me as government House leader to include Bill 109, the Health Disciplines Amendment Act, which he assures me he has discussed with his critics. While the bill is extremely important, it is possible it might proceed without extensive debate, which would be substantially convenient for the people directly affected. With the concurrence of the House, I would like to call Bill 109 for second reading after the conclusion of the committee work on Bill 94.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that we proceed with what Mr. Nixon proposed?

Agreed to.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To correct the record, the member for Cochrane North made certain allegations against my leader --

Hon. Mr. Elston: Cochrane South.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I apologize to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine).

I would like to read that quotation in its entirety: "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. We are saying that health is an individual and social right that is too fundamental to be left and treated as a commodity."

I quote the definition of socialized medicine from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "provision of medical services for all from public funds." That is the definition of medicine the Tory party and the Ontario Medical Association disagree with and one we endorse.

The House adjourned at 6:34 p.m.

June 18, 1986

ROLE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISASTER RELIEF

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

DISASTER RELIEF

LA SEMAINE FRANÇAISE

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMAN'S ISSUES

VENDING MACHINES

EXTRA BILLING

VISITOR

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DECADE OF DISABLED PERSONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MULTICULTURALISM AND CITIZENSHIP

EXTRA BILLING

ABORTION CLINICS

TECHNOLOGY FUND

ILLITERACY

RENT REVIEW

EXTRA BILLING

FOOD LAND PRESERVATION POLICY

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

EXTRA BILLING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

INSURED SERVICES UNDER OHIP ACT

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT

RENFREW VICTORIA HOSPITAL

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

EXTRA BILLING