Hansard Transcript 1993-Jul-29 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 50, An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act / Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le Plan de contrôle des dépenses du gouvernement et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé et la Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): By rotation, there should be an opportunity for the third party. Are there any other members who wish to enter into the debate? The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am pleased to take part in this debate. I do so at the outset indicating my position in opposition to the bill before the Legislature. I am hopeful, in view of the very thoughtful comments made by previous speakers against this particular legislation, that the government, even at this date, may see the error in its way and take back the legislation or vote it down. I am still hopeful that will take place.

My comments with respect to this legislation and in opposition to the legislation really have behind them three driving forces. The first which leads me to oppose the legislation is as a result of many discussions which I have had with constituents throughout my area. Many people from throughout my riding have called voicing some very deep concerns over the direction that the government is taking in the area of health care. They have voiced concerns, raised specific incidents and have shared with me I believe some very personal opinions as to their concern about this legislation and about the direction that the government is taking in this area.

The second driving force which leads me to oppose this particular piece of legislation is as a result of discussions which I have had with physicians in one portion of my riding. In the city of Mississauga we have two very good hospitals. I have had occasion to meet with physicians who have shared with me their opinions as to what this bill may mean to the health care system and the delivery of health care services in the province and, of course, in my area of representation in the riding of Mississauga North and throughout the city of Mississauga. After listening to those physicians as well as to my constituents, I am provided with the second reason for my opposition to the bill.

The third reason is my own analysis of the bill and some background information. I believe that on any objective reading of the legislation, one cannot help but oppose the legislation and the direction that the government is taking and be very concerned and fearful as to what the impact and implications of this legislation will mean to the provision of and delivery of health care services in our communities.

I am pleased that the Minister of Health is here to listen to these comments because I believe it is she who will be very responsible in terms of this legislation and in fact what its implications may mean.

I think within this province, and indeed throughout the country, there is no question that when people think of one thing that they are most proud of, many times the first thing that comes to mind is the health care system in our province. People speak about the provision and breadth of service, the scope, the expertise, and indeed that word "universality" comes to mind many, many times.

I think that as we discuss Bill 50 and what it means, and in this case my opposition to it, one cannot help but be always mindful of the fact that many people in this province hold out our health care system as one of the single greatest characteristics that make this province a place different from other jurisdictions, and indeed the health care system in this country different from other countries.

There is no question that people feel a certain security that in the event they require health care services they will get those services, that they will receive those services in an expert fashion and that they will not worry about the personal financial cost to them.

1010

We do not live in a jurisdiction where health care puts people into bankruptcy. There are other jurisdictions, other countries, where the single greatest cause of personal bankruptcy is the provision of health care services. We are fortunate that we do not live in a province or in a country where that is the case, and it is for that reason that I oppose this legislation. I believe this bill puts this system under attack. I want to take a moment just to explain my reasons.

Currently we have an OHIP schedule. It is a list of the services that are provided, the schedule of services in the health care field that every individual is entitled to. That list of services is as a result of discussion, primarily between the government on one hand and the Ontario Medical Association on the other.

The government comes to the table on those discussions and, I think rightly so, has in its mind the issue of cost: How much can the government put to the health care field in any one particular year? The Ontario Medical Association comes to the table primarily, I believe, with in its mind, the issue of what medical services should be insured to all citizens in this province. The two sit down and come to an agreement, the government keeping in mind the cost aspect, the medical association the health care aspect. In past years, after some negotiation, we have had an OHIP fee schedule that melds the two interests, and it has worked.

I believe under Bill 50 that what we are doing without any question is taking out the meaningful participation of the Ontario Medical Association in those discussions. I believe Bill 50 will destroy the heretofore successful participation of both the government and the Ontario Medical Association in determining what services should be provided to all citizens in this province with an understanding of the cost restraints and constraints that every government must face.

I am moved by a letter I received from the Ontario Hospital Association, which clearly indicates that this is their primary concern, and it reads in part:

"The proposed legislation is designed to give to the government extraordinary power to determine the type of services to be provided and the circumstances under which these services will or will not be paid for."

The Ontario Hospital Association goes on to say:

"We are not aware of any provincial legislation that gives to cabinet this type of all-inclusive power without the necessity for consultation."

It follows by saying:

"The powers defined in the legislation go far beyond what is necessary to satisfy the stated objects of the act, to the extent that one could conclude that the government may have abandoned all intentions of joint management of the system by the parties."

This letter from the Ontario Hospital Association clearly indicates firstly that the system is based on the principle of joint management: government dealing with dollars and the medical association dealing with the need to make certain there are essential health services provided. Bill 50 takes out of that management system the jointness of it. It takes out the meaningful medical participation in the decisions around what is medically necessary, and that to me is a fundamental problem that Bill 50 will bring forward. It is a reason why I believe everyone should oppose this bill and bring it down when it is called for a vote.

What we will have in the event that Bill 50 is passed is that the Minister of Health and the ministry will have extraordinary powers to decide what is to be covered, who is to be covered and the scope and breadth of the service to be covered. I believe, in a word, that they are just not qualified.

I will use a very recent example from my area, Mississauga. We have a private ambulance service in Mississauga. My portion of the riding has an ambulance service of two cars, four attendants. Because of the government's slashing of their budget, it has resulted in incidents where an ambulance will attend on the scene with only one attendant. I brought this forward in the Legislature on Monday. I explained to the Minister of Health how this happened, that on the one hand the government has frozen the budget of the ambulance service in my riding, while it has increased the cost of operating the service on the other. It means that in the event an attendant is sick or on vacation or on compensation, the ambulance service does not have the money to replace that person. In the event that there is a call for emergency service, an ambulance may appear at the scene with one person in the car.

I asked the Minister of Health whether, in her opinion, that is an appropriate level of emergency care in this province. And in fact, what she has indicated is that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate. I believe that response to a very clear question clearly outlines that the Minister of Health is not qualified to make those decisions as to what is or is not medically necessary.

Using that specific example in my riding, the fact that there are ambulances in my area attending on the scene with one person in the car is akin to having two flat tires on the 401: You're just not going anywhere. I wish the Minister of Health would understand that is not appropriate. She does not understand that. I fear what that means when we deal with even more complicated areas of the provision of health care services.

As I've said, I believe this bill will attack the universality of our health care system. Under the bill, the minister will, in an increasing fashion, have the right to indicate what the services are that are going to be covered, and she can continue to contract the services that are going to be covered.

It is absolutely clear that all of those services that are on the list will be universally accessible. But it is equally clear that the number of services on the list will become smaller and smaller and smaller. On principle, we have to ask ourselves, when is a program based on universality not universal, when the number of services, the number of degrees of service it covers, becomes smaller and smaller? Is it universal when everyone can share in nothing?

I believe that is a redefinition of what universality means. I believe the powers being given to the Minister of Health will contract the level of service provided under the health care scheme in this province to a degree where universality will in fact have been eroded.

The other aspect I bring forward -- and I'll try to make my comments as brief as possible, Mr Speaker, because there are many members in our caucus who wish to speak on this particular piece of legislation -- is that when you contract the service, when you are attacking the universality by virtue of the fact that fewer and fewer things are being covered, what does that lead to? It will, without any question, lead to a two-tier health system. It is as clear as the members here today that what you are doing by passing Bill 50 is, in short order, introducing a two-tier health system.

1020

In that respect, I read a further letter, this from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It states -- and again I read in part -- that they hope this bill "will give members of the Legislature the opportunity to reflect on some of the fundamental changes that could result from the passage of the bill."

"While the government has an obligation to control costs, it cannot, even with the best information and intentions, practise medicine by setting out in regulation what the limits of particular services should be under different clinical circumstances. Yet this is the apparent effect of one of the suggested amendments...contained in Bill 50.

"This amendment interposes the government both between the patient and the health care provider and between the patient and the actual place he or she must receive a particular medical service. It also opens the door to a two-tier, US-style health care system by introducing the notion that the patient must pay in certain circumstances for services which have previously been considered medically necessary and have thus been fully insured.

"Bill 50 provides for limits to be imposed by regulation on a patient's legitimate need for essential medical services and on a provider's moral duty to render those services. It precludes professional judgement and denies legitimate essential services to those who need to receive more than the arbitrarily imposed number of said services."

We'll take cancer care as an example.

"Who would determine how many treatments and of what kind could be rendered by a particular doctor in a particular institution to a particular patient?

"What would happen to that doctor or institution if the approved number of treatments were exceeded?

"What would happen to the patient if he or she reached the government-prescribed 'limit' and was either refused further treatment or could not afford to 'buy' the services required above the government limits?

"Cost controls are a fact of life. The issue, however, is where to put the controls so that essential medical and health care judgements are made by the most informed and responsible people, within the financial limits defined.

"Health care decisions are individual decisions: Individuals have different health care needs, and professionals must have the flexibility to exercise their professional judgement in the best interests of their patients. If costs are to be controlled in a humane manner, those controls must be based on front-line clinical judgements, not based on government decree."

Is there any one of us who does not have either a family member or a friend who has been stricken with cancer? This letter by the College of Physicians Surgeons of Ontario clearly indicates that what you are doing when you pass this bill is arbitrarily giving to the Minister of Health the right to say the number, the type, the breadth, the scope of treatment.

I say to you in this Legislature today that the Minister of Health is not qualified to make those decisions and members within the Ministry of Health are not qualified to make those decisions. The Ontario Medical Association, the experts, the professionals, are qualified. Our system has been based on universality. It has been based on a partnership of the medical association with government, the experts with the budget, and it has worked. Bill 50 kills that.

I believe that when we are talking about this particular piece of legislation and the impact it would have on issues such as cancer treatment, who will receive heart operations, who will be eligible for kidney dialysis, who will be eligible for a myriad of other essential medical services, it is not for us to say that the Minister of Health is the person who makes those decisions.

Remember on Monday of this week that the Minister of Health felt it was appropriate in certain circumstances that an ambulance could attend on a scene with one person in it. I ask everyone in this Legislature, how would you feel if, God forbid, you or your loved ones required the need of an ambulance service and it pulled up to your house with one person in it? What would you say to the Minister of Health when she responded to me and said that is an appropriate service? You figure out how a person needing that service can be properly attended to. The short answer is that they cannot be.

And this bill is giving far greater powers than that to the Minister of Health. I believe that is something in itself that should call upon all of us to say no, this is not the way to treat the medical system, the health care system in this province; this is not the route to take.

If we are going to be looking at restraint, we must involve the medical association, the professionals. We do not shut the door in their face. They are the ones who have the education and the moral duty to provide essential medical services in this province. We require their assistance and their input.

What we do not want is a Minister of Health who believes that a one-person ambulance service is appropriate in any area in the province to be making decisions on the breadth and scope of cancer treatment, on who should receive kidney dialysis, on who should be eligible for heart operations. That is what Bill 50 will inevitably lead to.

But it will go further, because as we take that list and make it smaller and smaller, we are introducing a two-tier system. What we're going to be saying as the list of insured services contracts is that those who can afford to pay for the extended cancer treatments, those who can afford to pay for kidney dialysis, those who can afford to pay for heart operations, will get, and those who can't, won't. That, to me, is a much different health care system than we have had in this province.

With all the problems that our health care system has had, with all the efforts to improve our health care system, it has always been felt by people across this province to be something of which they are proud, something about which the word "universality" still means something, something about which, when people do get ill, they do not have to worry about the financial implications that will accrue to themselves personally, that it will not throw them into a state of bankruptcy, as happens in other jurisdictions, in other countries.

Bill 50 will rip apart the principle of universality. It will, without question, introduce a two-tier system of health care services so that those who have the money to pay for that which has previously been provided will still get it, but those who do not, won't. I believe that is a disservice to all of us, because when one person is denied medical service because they cannot afford to pay for it, we are in fact all denied medical service. I think Bill 50, with its implications and the unilateral and arbitrary powers it gives to the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health, is one which we should be voting strongly against.

I end by saying that when a Minister of Health in this province feels that a one-person ambulance service is an appropriate level of service, that provides the reason why we should not be giving further powers to the Minister of Health to make decisions which are indeed in that area.

I am going to be voting against Bill 50. I will be voting against it because of the discussions which I have had with my constituents, because of the discussions I have had with, yes, physicians in my area and, yes, because of my own analysis of the legislation. Bill 50 will be an attack on universality. Bill 50, without question, will be the introduction of a two-tier, US-style health care system in this province, for which we will all have to shoulder the blame.

I ask at this time that the members of the government vote against the bill. I ask that they look to themselves and ask: Should any Minister of Health have the power to decide the scope and breadth of cancer treatments? Should any Minister of Health be able to say that a one-person ambulance is an appropriate service to the people of this province?

1030

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments? Seeing none, further debate on second reading of Bill 50?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I appreciate having this opportunity to provide a few brief remarks on Bill 50, the Expenditure Control Plan Statute Law Amendment Act, which is before us today.

During the recent debate on Bill 48, the social contract, I noted my opposition to Bill 50, which had been introduced by the NDP government on the same date. This bill represents a totally unacceptable government intrusion into the management of health care delivery in the province of Ontario. There are many other ways in which the objectives of this bill can be achieved without resorting to executive control of the detailed management of health care.

The major impact of Bill 50 will be on physicians and other professionals, and it will be extended into the hospital diagnostic and therapeutic services that are directly paid by OHIP.

Bill 50 will give the government extraordinary power to determine the type of services to be provided and the circumstances under which these services will or will not be paid for. On top of this, the amount of the payment, if any, may also be determined by order in council, as well as the type of physician or facility that will be paid.

I believe this is another example of NDP legislation that will set an unacceptable precedent, this time in the health care system, without major public debate and without much public consultation.

I recognize and respect the right of a government to control its fiscal position, and I support efforts to improve the delivery of health care services in the province of Ontario, but I really don't believe the actions of this government are improving our health care system at all, and neither do many of the people in Simcoe East who have written to me about delays in scheduling their surgery or abuses of the health card or the lack of beds to accommodate people who really need to be admitted to hospital for treatment. And now we have Bill 50; it's legislation that I fear will only make a bad situation worse.

Here are some of the concerns that have been expressed to me about health care under this government. Over the last several weeks we have had a lot of correspondence from constituents with regard to problems getting into the hospitals and having their problems looked after.

I had a letter that I sent to the minister from a Mr Morley Clement of Orillia, who has been seven months enduring a great deal of pain while waiting to have his hip replaced. Last week he was informed via telephone that his booking was for August 14, 1995. We find that very unsatisfactory.

I know there are other facilities in the province that I hope will look after this individual's care with a much more speedy result than this operation would be. As a matter of fact, I sent a letter over to the minister from him with regard to that. In the meantime we have looked at other facilities, and I understand now that Mr Clement may be able to have his operation before Christmas of this year. When we're looking at the overall aspect of health care, I think if you're turned down by one facility there has to be another avenue to look at.

I had a Dr Gaffney from Penetanguishene write to me on behalf of a Mr Robert Warren. He was having problems too: loose hip repair. To this date he has not got a date at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, where that operation is to be performed. There is a waiting list there of nine months to a year. Is Bill 50 going to solve these types of problems we have in health care today?

Dr Gaffney wrote me a letter about his concerns with regard to Bill 50. He said: "The biggest loser in all this mess, however, will be the patient, as physicians will no longer wish to extend their liability for zero dollars. If this current government wishes us to work less and not allow new physicians to pick up the slack, who then will be looking after the sick people?"

You can do a poll in the province and most people will say we have the best health care system in the world. But when you ask those people who have been involved in the health care system as patients, they realize we have the best when you get there, but the waiting time appears to be the problem.

I have another letter from a Mr Harold LeGard of Orillia, who expressed his great concern with regard to the way seniors are being treated in terms of health care in the province. He raised the issue, which was raised several years ago, of dental care. That was a commitment made by the previous administration, and to this date there has not been anything implemented in that regard; there has not been anything this government has done to ease the pain, so to speak, for some of those people who need dental care. Mr LeGard wrote to me on that and wanted me to bring it to the attention of the House, and I've done that. I hope the people who are listening know that they may be in the same position as Mr LeGard has been in.

In wrapping up, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has written many letters with regard to this very issue. Some of them, to me, spell it out very clearly in about one page. I just wanted to read a couple of paragraphs on one page to express that:

"A more sensible and sensitive alternative would be to allow the providers to work together with patients to provide necessary medical services within a predetermined global budget.

"As it stands now, Bill 50 provides for limits to be imposed by regulation on a patient's legitimate need for essential medical services and on a provider's moral duty to render these services. It precludes professional judgement and denies legitimate essential services to those who need to receive more than the arbitrarily imposed number of said services. For example, taking only the area of cancer, it raises questions such as:

"Who would determine how many treatments and of what kind could be rendered by a particular doctor in a particular institution to a particular patient?

"What would happen to that doctor or institution if the approved number of treatments were exceeded?

To wrap up, I'd like the Minister of Health to comment on some of these issues that I have just raised and find out whether these people are telling me exactly what they see in that bill. If they're not, then I would like the minister to be able to correct, for the record, what is really in the bill.

The College's letter says:

Those are some of the comments that I wanted to raise on Bill 50 this morning.

In conclusion, I urge the government to reconsider the intent and the scope of Bill 50 and either to withdraw it or to focus it more closely on the stated objectives. At the very least, this government owes it to people like Morley Clement, Robert Warren, Dr Gaffney and Harold LeGard to subject this legislation to open public discussion, and I hope the committee hearings will see the light of day on what this proposed law is all about.

1040

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Throughout the last two presentations, I kept thinking of history and particularly of Santayana, who said, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

Much of what I heard today reminded me of the arguments about universal health care back in the early 1960s. I was a mere child, you understand, but I still recall those arguments about how patients would suffer, how the province would go to hell in a handbasket if the idea born in Saskatchewan about providing universal health care to all the citizens of this great nation ever, ever was given substance in any part of Canada. Well, we have it in Ontario, and we have had it for these 30 years, and it has served the people of Ontario well.

I have heard a number of stories here today about patients who have written to their members to talk about what they have experienced first hand at the hands of this government. I too converse with my constituents and I have a number of stories that I could tell.

Firstly, I could tell you about a constituent who talked about his wife, who had recently received knee surgery, and how the success of that surgery enabled her to walk as she hadn't been able to in a number of years; how pleased they were and, interestingly enough, how they felt lucky to live in Ontario, because the woman's brother, a resident of Michigan, had to undergo the same surgery and it was going to cost him $13,000 per knee. He didn't know whether or not he could afford that; he had real concerns about being able to manage that kind of cost.

So in the province of Ontario, while we may have to wait, it's not like the US, where patients are welcomed into hospitals as long as they have the money and where the concern about how you can pay is foremost, and not whether your health and your wellbeing are in jeopardy.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I just want to add a little to what my colleague the member for Simcoe East has said this morning. Contrary to a lot of beliefs and myths that are being put out there, the government isn't about to start practising medicine. It's not the intention of this government to do that. But what is necessary is reform.

We've seen health care costs rise from the late 1970s and early 1980s from 25% of the budget to now a third of the budget: $17 billion. That's a huge portion of taxpayers' money that's going to health care.

What I've then got to ask is, has health care really gone up? Have we seen marked improvements in health care over that period of time? It has certainly cost us a lot more. I don't think so, because I still keep hearing about underserviced areas. I talk to my local physicians out in rural Ontario, and they have one heck of a time trying to get doctors to come out of the city to rural, small-town Ontario. It's a great place to live, a great place to raise children, warm, wonderful communities, yet we can't get the doctors to come up.

I would encourage any doctors who are watching this morning to take a look at some of the ads when you see them in your local papers suggesting that maybe you come up. I know a lot of my doctors up there spend a lot of advertising dollars to encourage others to come up, but they don't even take the chance. You know, there are a lot of wonderful people up that way, and it needs to be done.

We've got to make sure that health care remains accessible to the people of Ontario. I think the increased costs are going to end up causing a lot of problems down the road if we don't start tackling some of that.

The government is working on a lot of reform in health care right now. We've managed to take the cost of the running of hospitals, which is just a component of health care, and bring that under control. We've taken a look at reforming long-term care, and we're going to continue that reform. It's going to take a while, but at the same time, we're giving people alternatives, and if the best alternative for one of my constituents is staying at home, I think we have to offer that opportunity.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Initially, I want to compliment the member for Simcoe East. He has been around this House since 1981 and has witnessed a great number of changes in respect to health care in this province, certainly in the way in which physicians are treated, in efforts by both the Liberal government and the Liberal-NDP accord, and now the NDP government, in terms of increased intervention by government in the health care system in this province, reduced access to services and, in essence, a growing inclination to in effect turn physicians in this province into civil servants.

I don't have a lot of faith in the people in the health care community, especially physicians, to recognize who their friends are. I just want to remind the people out there of the deputy leader speaking in the House the other day when I questioned him on the position that the Liberals took during the extra-billing fight when they were, of course, in bed with their friends in the NDP. Socialist and quasi-socialist parties I would describe them, the NDP and the Liberals.

They're the people who made that first massive step in terms of getting their fingers into the pie in terms of determining just what doctors can or can't do in terms of the billing practices and in terms of chasing some very highly qualified world-class specialists out of this province, and indeed that's been the end result of that interference on the part of the Liberal government supported by its friends in the NDP.

I just want to once again put that point on the record for all of those people out there who are very much concerned about this inclination, this growth of government tentacles into the health care system, especially into the ability of physicians in this province to do a good job on behalf of all of us. Just remember that the Liberals were there in 1986-87 to do the job on you, along with their friends in the NDP, the socialist and quasi-socialist parties of this province.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Just very briefly, my colleague the member for Middlesex referred to the implementation of medicare in Saskatchewan and referred to it as being born in Saskatchewan in, I believe, 1963. I was also born in Saskatchewan, much before 1963, and I can remember discussions around my family's table on a particular occasion when a relative of mine was due to go in for some surgery.

There was concern at the time that the family would not have the money to pay for the surgery. I was a very young child at that point in time, and of course I looked at the conversation and listened very carefully and approached my mother after that and said, "Mother, does that mean if we don't have the money the relative is not going to get the operation?" Of course the answer was, "We'll find the money, and we'll get the operation done," and it was done. That conversation stayed in my mind all these years in terms of what it meant to people who didn't have enough money to deal with health care properly.

I'm proud of the NDP in Saskatchewan. I'm proud of Mr Douglas, who was instrumental in bringing medicare to this country and to all the provinces in Canada.

I think the reason we need to deal with health care reform today and the reason this government has to show as much leadership of the day and as much leadership as was shown in Saskatchewan is to ensure that such conversations as the conversation I referred to in my youth do not take place again in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe East has two minutes in response.

Mr McLean: I'd briefly like to respond to the comments made by the members for Middlesex and Durham-York, who didn't talk about my comments at all but talked about health care. I want to thank the member for Leeds-Grenville for his remarks. I want to thank the member for Sarnia, who talked about Saskatchewan, which wasn't in my remarks at all either.

The disappointment I have is the fact that the minister was here and I challenged her to reply to some of the concerns I raised in my remarks. The minister did not see fit to do that. She let her backbenchers all remark for two minutes, but she kept silent.

The other issue that has not been talked about in my remarks, and it's a very important issue in Simcoe county, has to do with the commitments that have been made for the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, the Collingwood Hospital and the Orillia Hospital for the expansions that were taking place there. I want to commend the communities that have raised the millions of dollars; over $5 million alone raised in the city of Orillia and communities for the addition and upgrading that was necessary there.

When we look at the long-range planning in health, Bill 50, to me, is going to probably put a lot of these on hold. There will not be any expansions taking place in the Health ministry; there will be cutbacks. When I look at the issue surrounding the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, which was designated as a regional hospital, there have been more sod-turnings at that hospital ground than any I can remember.

I understand in estimates the minister is making some commitment that yes, the commitment they have made with regard to the Simcoe county hospital will be proceeded forward with. I also understand that the minister has committed to setting some timetable of when she will be making the announcement to have those facilities done. I look forward to that announcement soon.

1050

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): It really is with a great deal of sadness that I rise to participate in the debate on Bill 50. I looked up the debates that we've had in this House and I pulled out in particular what I had to say when Bill 135 was tabled.

For the information of those watching the debates, Bill 135 was the act tabled by the former minister, Ms Lankin, as it related to the Ontario Medical Association and its agreement with the provincial government. That act was brought forward to this House in 1991. The debate on second reading took place, and I participated, on November 7, 1991.

I thought I'd begin my remarks today by repeating some of what I said. As I say, it is not only with the experience as a former Minister of Health but as someone who viewed that agreement with the Ontario Medical Association with some real concerns that I expressed here in the Legislature. Let me just put on the record what I said on November 7, 1991, about Bill 135:

"While the piece of legislation before us today conforms in spirit with the agreement that was entered into, I believe the government of the day, the New Democratic Party, before too long will realize that this is not in the interests of the people of Ontario and we will see that agreement discussed again in this Legislature in the not-too-distant future, when the agreement stands in the way of health reform and when the doctors of this province realize that the powers that have been given to the Ontario Medical Association are not in the interests of either the rank-and-file members or those who are not members. I do not believe this legislation is in the interests of the doctors who are licensed to practice in Ontario."

I also said very clearly at that time that I did not believe that Bill 135 was in the interests of the people of the province of Ontario. I said then, during that debate:

"In many aspects, the Ontario Medical Association will have a veto over further health reform policies in this province. At the same time as the Ontario Medical Association has achieved that kind of health policy veto, the Ontario government did not gain the opportunity to influence the structural reforms that are so badly needed in this province."

One of the other points I want to make about what I said during that debate, because I think it is relevant to the discussion today, is that I said:

"I know it might surprise many people in this Legislature when I make the statement that when I was at the Ministry of Health, I believe that on most health policy issues we found the participation and the involvement of doctors right across this province a very important and significant contribution to the development of health reform policies. Doctors were involved in virtually every committee within the Ministry of Health while I was there. Doctors, whether they were members of the Ontario Medical Association or not, were involved in the development of reform strategies of the Ministry of Health and served on virtually every advisory committee within the ministry."

On November 7, 1991, I said in this House, "We" -- and I was referring to the Liberal government of the day -- "had quite a good working relationship with individual doctors in this province." I said then, "That does not mean that we agreed on everything; we certainly did not.

"We had a reasonable working relationship with the Ontario Medical Association until it came to the question of powers for the Ontario Medical Association." They wanted the Rand formula, they wanted a union-labour management model and we objected. There were tensions. In fact, I said in quite a humorous way that I like the doctors of this province on an individual basis but that I found the Ontario Medical Association a challenge when I was Minister of Health, and I think that's fair comment.

It's not a partisan comment because I know that Larry Grossman and former Conservative Health ministers also found the professional association of organized medicine, under the name of the Ontario Medical Association, challenging during the many years of Conservative government in this province. I know that Larry Grossman, as Minister of Health, had a strike by the doctors at that time, and it was a very divisive and difficult time not only for the doctors of the province but for the Progressive Conservative government of the day.

I know the Liberal government between 1985 and 1990 had its struggles with organized medicine as we struggled to change and reform our medicare system as we know it in a way which would protect those basic principles we all believe in.

There was a strike in 1986, and it was about money and everybody knew it was about money, but there were many difficult feelings and passions that were raised during that strike. I remember on many occasions and I remember as well Premier Peterson at the time stating very clearly when that strike was over that nobody had won, that in fact it had been a pyrrhic victory because of the ill will that it had generated.

I remember standing in this House on numerous occasions during the three years of my tenure as Minister of Health between 1987 and 1990 listening to the rhetoric from the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae, from David Reville and from Dave Cooke and from those who were so sure they had simple and easy answers, from those who said, "Reform in the health system is not about better planning and better managing and structural change."

We stand in the House today debating a piece of legislation which I never believed I would ever see tabled in this House. Certainly it was not something I ever contemplated when I had the privilege of serving as Minister of Health.

The reason I never contemplated it is because this piece of legislation is the beginning of the dismantling of medicare as we know it. This is not about reform. This is not about better planning or better managing or better service delivery. This piece of legislation will not contain the rate of growth as a percentage of gross national product. This legislation will not contain the rate of growth of health expenditure as a percentage of our wealth, which is measured by GDP. It will not contain expenditure when you look at per capita expenditure, how much you spend on each person. This legislation will not affect those global costs, because when you consider gross national product, when you consider per capita expenditure, it doesn't matter whose budget it comes from.

I want to state very clearly, once again, as I did for the three years I had the privilege of serving as Minister of Health, I don't believe our health system in Ontario is underfunded. I don't believe more money will fix the system. In fact, I believe that as a percentage of our gross domestic product and our per capita expenditure we are spending enough to be able to provide for the health of our population and to treat people in need of care, people who have illness, people who have chronic disease and disability and need the supports that an illness treatment health care system can provide.

Let me state clearly, I believe we have enough money in our system. I believe we have enough money in the delivery of health care services in the province of Ontario. I believe we have enough of our resources, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, that are consuming our wealth in the delivery of health services. Having said that, I also want to say that if you allow too much of your resources to be spent on those things that consume wealth, one of the things that I know and believe is that this is very unhealthy for your population, because the determinants of our health have a lot more to do with having a job and having a clean environment than they do simply with being able to access illness treatment services.

1100

One of the flaws of our medicare system, when it was first developed, was that it was wholly and completely unmanageable in that it was open-ended. There were no incentives built in to ensure that the resources were used either effectively or efficiently. There were no incentives built into the system to encourage the kind of change and innovation, both structurally as well as in practice, that comes with a notion of a system.

I used to say -- and I say it today because it hasn't changed, unfortunately, in the two and a half, almost three years since this NDP government took power -- that we do not have a system, that we have a non-system. One of the reforms that I believe has to come is the development of linkages and networks so that people have incentives to work together, to talk to each other, to plan effectively, to manage within existing resources that are available, to make sure that we set our priorities and that people get the care they really need.

One of the major problems we have within the health system is that because every incentive is perverse -- let me repeat that: Every incentive as it exists today is for quantity. Every incentive is for volume. Every incentive in the system is for waste, and that's nobody's fault. I'm not standing here today to blame this government.

The only blame that I would assess is that they have wasted valuable time, particularly since Bill 135 put a halt to the important reforms that were under way. The reason Bill 135 put a halt to those reforms was that it gave a veto to one party in the discussion, as I said in that debate on November 7, 1991. That's unfortunate, because partnership in my view is about shared responsibility. Partnership in my view is getting all of those people -- stakeholders, interested persons -- together and saying: "All right, this is the problem. Let's sit down together and let's make the kind of changes that will improve results."

Unfortunately, this government's Bill 50 runs totally contrary to everything I believe in. Bill 50 gives to this Minister of Health and future ministers of health powers that I believe no Minister of Health should have. We do not have a government-run system. We don't even have a government-run non-system. We have a publicly funded, privately run medicare system in the province of Ontario.

With all of its flaws, it has served us reasonably well. It is not perfect. It has never been perfect. Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric that we have heard in this House over the years, that we have heard actually since the development of medicare in the late 1960s, has not changed. I listened very carefully to my friends from the Progressive Conservative Party, and I will say again, as I stand here today, that it doesn't matter which party serves in government, the challenges of reform of the health care system will remain. However, the difference between the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is their approach to solving those problems.

Time and again we have seen Bob Rae and the NDP say that their approach to solving problems is government intrusion, government intervention, governmentrun. We have seen them force the private sector out of child care. We are seeing them force the private sector out of the delivery of health services, all in the guise of health reform, and I will say to the minister, who's here today, that what is important in my view and from my experience as a former Minister of Health is not so much who delivers the service, but the result. Are those services meeting the needs of the population? Are those services sensitive and responsive and timely?

I believe there is a very important role for the private sector to play in the delivery of health and social services. I believe that with accountability built in and with government as a partner, with shared responsibility, not unilateral responsibility, we can avoid the pitfalls of the US model.

I despaired when I received a copy of the letter from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and let me quote what they say. I agree with what they are saying.

For those who are watching this debate, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has a mandate to act in the public interest. While we have a self-governing model for the professions, it is incumbent on the professions, through their colleges -- in this case I'm referring to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. That body is not only the discipline body for its members; that body has a mandate to act in the public interest and to advocate for the public interest, and I'm very proud it has taken that position in the last months since it has been given to it under the health professions legislation.

Let me tell you what the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the public body that shares, with the Ministry of Health, responsibility for the public interest -- not the interests of doctors, not the interests of health providers, not the interests of hospitals, not the interests of any individual, but the public interest -- has to say.

They say, and I agree with them, "The government has an obligation to control costs." However, they say, "It" -- the government -- "cannot, even with the best information and intentions, practise medicine by setting out in regulation what the limits of particular services should be under different clinical circumstances."

I'm quoting certain parts of their letter, "This amendment" -- to Bill 50 -- "interposes the government, both between the patient and the health care provider, and between the patient and the actual place he or she must receive a particular medical service."

This is intrusion into clinical decision-making in a way which was never, ever contemplated in the development of medicare in this country.

Let me say that again: With the development of medicare in this country -- and it began gradually. In the late 1950s we paid for what doctors did in hospitals, and in the late 1960s we decided as a society to pay for what doctors did wherever they provided that service. As medicare developed over the years and we unanimously, in the federal House of Parliament, agreed to the Canada Health Act in 1984 -- a unanimous vote in the federal Parliament -- never was it contemplated that public administration would mean anything more than government partnership or government payment for services.

We have seen this kind of intrusion of the insurance company, which has been the traditional role of government, in the United States, our neighbours to the south, and this is what the College of Physicians and Surgeons has to say about that:

"It" -- Bill 50 -- "also opens the door to a two-tier, US-style health care system by introducing the notion that the patient must pay in certain circumstances for services which have previously been considered medically necessary and have thus been fully insured.

"Deeming certain kinds of services (or a specific number of occasions of a particular service) to be uninsured will simply transfer the costs to either the patient or a third party. As in the United States, this will eventually lead to the third parties (ie, insurance companies) deciding and defining the medical needs of the patients."

1110

This is not hypothetical. This is exactly what is happening today in the United States. This is the US model. It is what people in the United States most detest about their system. It is that the insurance company decides what the patient in the United States can receive on the basis of what coverage he has, and it is totally the opposite of everything that we have believed in in Canadian medicare.

We believe that universal, reasonable access to a publicly administered, comprehensive health care system means that people will get what they need. The tradeoff for that is that we sometimes can't get what we want, particularly if medical judgements determine that it is not needed, or that we will have to wait while those who are in more urgent circumstances go first. Those are clinical judgements made by medical and nursing professionals, usually in the hospitals of our province.

I agree with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario when it says, "A more sensible and sensitive alternative would be to allow the providers to work together with patients to provide necessary medical services within a predetermined global budget."

During the years I served as Minister of Health in this province, I spoke on many occasions about the need to have the kind of reforms that would allow for better management. Certainly, in an open-ended system, it is impossible to reallocate, it is impossible to eliminate waste.

Predetermined global budgets have been in existence in this province in hospitals since 1982. That was a Conservative initiative and, frankly, I think it was a good one.

Unfortunately, following that, we had successions of governments and ministers who never encouraged the hospitals to manage anything because they picked up their deficits. They picked up the deficits at the urgings of official oppositions that screamed that if you didn't provide everything that the hospitals said they wanted, you therefore were not fulfilling the mandate.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): And nothing's changed.

Mrs Caplan: The minister says, "And nothing's changed." In fact, it has changed. It changed because in 1987, when I became Minister of Health, I stood in this House and said we need better planning and better managing, despite the cries of Bob Rae and Ruth Grier and others in this House. I said it was very important to manage the resources, it was important to eliminate the waste.

We must say to the hospitals: "You have an obligation to manage within available resources and then make your case for more, and make your case for more on the basis of who can provide the best high-quality service at the best price. Answer the question, where do you stand within your peer group and are you as efficient as you can be and what is your result? Let's move to an outcome review and analysis."

I'm proud of the progress that has been made in the hospitals of this province, and I see Minister Grier nodding her head in assent. They have done remarkably well during very difficult, challenging times. I'm very proud of them because I know how difficult that discipline of management is.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Elinor, you gave $100 million to Sunnybrook and zero to York-Finch when you were minister.

Mrs Caplan: Those are the kinds of reforms and changes in all of the programs that are delivered within the health care system in the province of Ontario that we should be talking about and discussing. What we should not --

Mr Perruzza: We know, we've got the goods on you.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You promised York-Finch money. What happened? Hundreds of millions of dollars and zilch to York-Finch.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. I would ask the members for Downsview and for Yorkview to be a little more moderate in the expression of your emotions, please. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: What we should not be doing at this time is beginning to dismantle medicare, create a two-tier system, or simply delist and make people pay. That is not a healthy alternative --

Mr Mammoliti: We want to know why you didn't give York-Finch any money.

Mrs Caplan: -- and when you consider gross domestic product, when you consider per capita expenditure, not only will that not solve our fiscal problems, that approach will make matters worse. I despair, because people do not believe that the New Democratic Party government of Bob Rae is doing what it is doing.

Mr Perruzza: Playing politics with medicare.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Yorkview, the member for Downsview, I ask you to remain under control, please. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I'd ask the Speaker to put the time back so that I can complete my remarks.

For the minister, let me quote to her from Dr John Evans. I know he's well known to the minister and very well respected. It sums up as well the concerns I have, but I'm going to use him today as a third-party validator, and I hope the members of the government benches will listen very carefully. This is not a partisan exercise: I'm quoting him as an expert in the development of our health system and as a former dean, a founder of the medical school at McMaster:

"With the pressure for strict cost containment of government expenditures on health care, some are recommending that private expenditures outside the publicly insured system should be allowed. While this might appear to be a safety valve for the pressures on government-controlled expenditures, it would almost certainly lead to greater total expenditure on health, reducing the share of GDP which is channelled into economic development.

"Additional private expenditures on health care are not likely to have a significant impact on the health of the population and will create the tensions of a two-class system of health services. At the same time, private expenditures on health will almost certainly lead to demands that employers provide these benefits, placing an additional strain on their competitiveness.

"It is critical that the total social service expenditures, public and private, not erode the economic investment necessary to create and sustain jobs in the productive sector. There is an abundance of evidence that unemployment isn't good for your health. In Canada at this time, investments to create jobs in the productive sector are more important to the population's health than additional investments in health services. The challenge is to continue to increase the efficacy and effectiveness of our health services to enhance their health impact and meet new challenges rather than add a major private channel of expenditure to supplement our existing substantial public investment."

I leave the minister and members of the government caucus with this thought, because what Bill 50 does is lead us exactly in the wrong direction down the wrong path to health reform. Bill 50 is not health reform. Bill 50 will lead us, I fear, to a government-run system which will not act in the interests of either patients or providers. It will not lead us to the ability to deal with that which is of concern to us, which is making sure that people get the care and the services they need in a timely manner.

Because you will, through Bill 50, lead us down the road of the dismantling and the destruction of medicare, it will, as Ontario and Canada today have one of the best-funded health care systems in the world, open the potential for us to become economically uncompetitive. You are allowing into the health care system and into medicare those private dollars which will kill jobs in the private sector, because it will be business and industry that will be pushed to pay for those additional costs in the long run.

I caution you as well that the powers that you seek today for yourself, in the hands of future ministers will wreak enormous damage on medicare. I plead with this government to withdraw Bill 50.

1120

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to add a few comments. Listening to the member, one of the things that came out is that there is a consensus on one thing, and that's certainly very rare in this House on a number of issues. Having listened to the former Minister of Health in the previous government, I think one of the things that everyone realizes in this House is that there have to be changes. We can debate about where they should be and how they should happen, but I think that for the first time, there is an agreement among all parties that changes have to happen.

I appreciate some of the comments. One of the things I think she said, which we realize now is all true, is that we can't throw any more money at it. That was the solution of all three parties in the past: "We'll solve health care by throwing more money at it." We threw more money at it and things have gotten worse.

At times, we may not think we're making much progress towards a consensus, but I think we are very slowly. For the first time, we have all three parties saying that our finances are in such bad shape that the health care system cannot be solved with more money. I think we in this Legislature should look for some small agreements when they come. We're going to disagree on where the solution should be and what we should do, but I'm very pleased to see for the first time that everybody is saying we cannot continue going on.

One of the things I think we should do is be honest with the public in this regard. I would like to see us, when the committee dealing with this bill goes out, talk about what the alternatives are, similar to what they did in Oregon, where they were open, they were up front with people, they said: "We can't afford it. You, the public, in conjunction with the medical community and nurses and the legislators, are going to make the decision on what services we will have."

If there is anything I can encourage the minister to do -- I'll be speaking next and will hopefully continue on that -- it is to be honest with people, tell them where we are at. I honestly believe the public, in conjunction with the legislators, will make the right decision, but they need to know where we are at with Bill 50.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd like to make just a few comments in the couple of minutes I have. I've heard a lot of discussion about two-tier medical systems. I've lived in a two-tier medical system. I can remember, before the war, sitting in a doctor's surgery all day with my mother in England waiting for the people who had money to get served first and then going down to the hospital and going through the same procedure.

It wasn't until 1948 and the introduction of the Beveridge report and the national health scheme in England, under the Labour government, that we were treated equally. Unfortunately, over there they are now drifting back to this two-tier medical system, which is an after-runner of Thatcherism and now Majorism. It's a terrible thing.

Unrestricted medical care, to me, is almost heart-wrenching. It is what I stand for and it's what I live for. I'll tell you, I couldn't and I wouldn't stand in my place and support Bill 50 if I thought this government was going to decide who gets what, because that is repulsive. That will not happen. I am confident in the Minister of Health that this won't happen.

We are controlling the costs as we move towards a new era in health care, and I think everybody in the House recognizes that we must control health care if we are to preserve it. I would hate for my grandchildren to go back to the system that I was under, where --

Mrs Caplan: But that is what you are doing.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I'm speaking through you to the minister -- they would have the indignity of waiting to be served because they didn't have the funds to buy medical care.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My friend the member for St Catharines observes parenthetically that he thought that Nye Bevan went to the private clinics.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He did.

Mr Conway: It cannot be so. I'm sure my labour friend from St Catharines has a confusion of memory.

I want to make a point, because I thought the member for Oriole, in her excellent remarks, raised a number of very timely points. One of the questions that I think has to be addressed, and we're facing it in my own community and I wanted to raise this with the minister today because I really didn't have time in my own remarks the other night, is that as the squeeze is put on, we're seeing in my city of Pembroke, where we have two hospitals -- both of which have laboratory capacity within the hospitals and work with a hospitals-in-common lab -- a situation which is very upsetting to everyone in the community, the local member included: Because of the constraints that are being applied, and in part to medical incomes, we've got a situation now where a private laboratory has come into our city of Pembroke and is opening up.

There are very few mechanisms, I find now, to regulate the expansion of a service that may not be necessary. The technicians in our hospitals and in our not-for-profit facilities are rightly concerned that, as we squeeze on the one side, we're creating a pressure to, in this case, bring in a private laboratory, Dynacare. They are planning to open up a new specimen collection centre, and more, perhaps. That could have a very real and negative impact on scores of jobs in our hospitals and in the not-for-profit hospitals-in-common lab in the city of Pembroke. Beyond that, there's no mechanism to evaluate whether or not this additional capacity is required.

It would be my view, and I'm no expert, that it is not required; that in fact we should be dedicating all of the resources in support of our public facilities. I'm really concerned, and I wanted to take this opportunity on behalf of the people in the Pembroke area to identify that as a real concern.

Mr Mammoliti: I find it really hard to listen to the member for Oriole on a number of different issues that she's mentioned; one of them of course would be the two-tier system. If there's somebody who might be guilty of creating a two-tier system -- more specifically for the member for Oriole, to perhaps jog her memory a little bit to the days when she was the minister, let's talk about the capital funding that occurred back then. Let's talk about, more specifically, the capital funding for hospitals in North York.

How many of those grants, the moneys that were issued from the Liberal government back then, went to hospitals east of Yonge Street? How many promises did the hospitals west of Yonge Street get? How many promises, but no acting whatsoever, no commitments, no actual commitments to money for the hospitals west of Yonge Street? The answer is none, zip, zero; all the promises in the world, but nothing. Remember she came up into our riding, up in Yorkview, and promised the community an expansion for York-Finch Hospital? What happened to that?

Let's talk about the two-tier system that you created. Let's talk about taking money from the poor areas and giving it to the rich areas. Let's talk about what you did as the minister in the Liberal government. The answer is a two-tier system, my friend, the two-tier system that you created and that we're having to suffer from in Yorkview and, frankly, west of Yonge Street to this day.

So don't stand up and talk about a two-tier system and criticize this government for creating it. Don't stand up and say that we are creating it. Look in your own backyard, for a change.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole, you have two minutes.

Mrs Caplan: I'm not going to dignify the comments even with a response. He's absolutely nuts.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Out to lunch.

Mrs Caplan: Out to lunch and then some.

At the beginning of my remarks, I referred to statements that I made in this Legislature in 1991. I imagine some day that I may refer back to the comments I made in the House today. The point I'd like to make is that these should not be partisan issues.

Unfortunately, over the course of time, there has been very little progress made in the area of reform. Back at the time of the Tories, following the strike against Larry Grossman, as I mentioned, the Patterns project was developed and there was good progress, excellent research that was done. Everyone was quite confident that progress was being made, notwithstanding the rhetoric.

That task force was disbanded, and the Scott task force was established and good progress and excellent work was made, although I must admit that as minister at the time, I was frustrated and I referred to that as wheel-spinning. That was replaced by a joint management committee under the NDP and again, after two years and a lot of talk and a lot of excellent work, we have now seen that disbanded and gutted by Bill 50.

1130

I despair as to what comes next because Bill 50 gives to the provincial government, not only the provincial government of the NDP but whichever governments follow in the future, the kinds of powers which I personally do not believe are in the interests of the public of Ontario and are certainly not in the interests of health and health care.

Yes, there is a need for reform, but Bill 50 is absolutely the wrong approach, and I would urge the government, before it is too late, to withdraw Bill 50.

Mr Carr: I'm pleased to enter the debate on this subject, which I think is very important. I must say that, when you look back at the polls going back to the 1980s under the Liberal government and under the previous Conservative government, health care was the one thing in this province that seemed to be working well. If you were to go back and look at the polls in the 1980s, you will see when you ask the open-ended question, "How are we doing in health care, education and the environment?" health care was the one thing that was always rated very high.

I had an opportunity to look at some of the polls of what people are thinking about Ontario, and even during the 1989 period when we had waiting lists for heart surgery, people in this province really believed we had the best health care system in the world, and I must say that is now changing.

I'm going to try not to be too partisan in my comments. I hope the other side will not take it, but I'm going to try and lay out the reality. I'm not going to blame any government because mistakes have been made in the past by all governments. But I want to just lay out where I think we are and then in the end offer some solutions to what I think we should be doing.

In a nutshell, I think we should be doing like they did in Oregon with this bill, where you go out and you talk to the public in the consultation process, with doctors, nurses, teachers, parents in an honest, true way saying that some of the services are out there and analysing them and saying exactly what we would like to see.

I don't think there's any doubt that this government is going to put a cap on the amount that is being spent, and if we don't talk to the people in an honest fashion, I don't believe we're going to get solutions.

There are now starting to be a lot of meetings in public. They have been started not by the government but by the medical community. I read in Burlington about the meeting that went on in Hamilton. I believe the Chair of Management Board was there. I just read briefly what happened.

I wasn't there, but I guess it turned into a rather nasty fight, and that's unfortunate because I guess the emotions are high around this debate. We see that in the big ads that are in all the papers. I know some of the members are taking a look at some of the papers now, and you can't open a Toronto daily without seeing the big OMA ads out there that are talking about "What are you going to do at 3 am if you get sick?"

While I think from one respect they may be helpful in that they're going to heighten the public awareness, I would hope that what we get to, in cooperation with the government, is an honest debate about where we are going in health care.

In my own community we're starting to do that. I know the Halton District Health Council has had some meetings. We are in the process, like a lot of communities are, of taking a look at the hospital services that are out in the region. Halton region has four hospitals. They're taking a look at how they can organize to be more effective. As a matter of fact, the former Minister of Health gave us $100,000 to do a study in Halton of how the services will be performed.

But I want to read some comments from some of the doctors across the province and what they're feeling. I do this, and I hope the other side will appreciate this, not to be partisan on the issue but just to raise to the minister who is here and the other people who are present what is happening out in the community, because in my short political career, since 1990, which is relatively short I guess, I have never seen so much anger and frustration, with the nurses, with the doctors and people in the medical profession.

I have a copy of an article from the Peterborough Examiner and it talks about some of the local doctors' fears about this bill, and again, I say to the members on the other side, this is what the people honestly, truly believe. It is not to be partisan that they're saying this. They believe this bill is going to affect them and it is going to be a bad piece of legislation.

When I read some of the comments, it's to raise the awareness, not to score political points, because that's not my intention. So I hope the other side will take it. I guess any time an opposition member is negative, a lot of the public would say you're doing that to try and score political points. I am not. But I am going to read some of them.

What they say is -- and this is Dr Wynd who said this -- "The quality of medical care is going to be under the care of non-medical people." Doctors across the province who are concerned about this aren't saying this because they want to throw this government out or defeat it like some of the members feel, that everybody's out to get them because they're socialists and New Democrats. I think they really want to improve this piece of legislation and they really believe this is what this legislation will do.

When you read the bill, if one is objective, one will see the provisions that are in there are provisions that have never before been in our health care system. They say, and this is a quote from another doctor, Dr Paul Leger: "Decisions are going to be made by bureaucrats with no medical input. What concerns doctors around Ontario is the vaguely worded clause that appears to let the province make changes to the health system arbitrarily."

That could always happen in terms of funding. If you cut back funding to hospitals and you cut back funding, as has been done in the past, to doctors and capping fees and so on, that has always affected health care. But what they see in this piece of legislation are broad, sweeping powers to make decisions on what services will be out there.

I know my friend the member for Durham East says we are not going to a two-tier health care system. He lived during some of the problems in Britain. But I think if he was to go back and examine what has happened in Britain, we have some of the same problems here in Ontario. We have the same challenges. I would hope that we would be able to, rather than stand up and argue about whether Britain has done a good job, learn some of the lessons from what has happened in other jurisdictions. Their health care system is not unlike ours.

I know when you get political, as we often do, there is going to be some tendency to try to make this a political issue. I think back to the last election in Britain and some of the ads, for those of you who saw them, when they had the young child in the washroom of a school with her ear aching and the caption was that the Conservatives were going to make this happen to everybody in Britain. So the political games that are played over there among political parties in elections, and I'm sure it will be a big issue --

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G et Grenville-Est) : On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Monsieur le Président, nous avons l'honneur ce matin de souhaiter la bienvenue à un groupe de parlementaires et de sénateurs de la belle France. Alors, à tous et chacun, nous vous souhaitons la bienvenue à l'Assemblée législative ontarienne et nous espérons que vous allez passer un bon séjour parmi nous.

Le Vice-Président : Alors, j'aimerais réitérer les mêmes mots de bienvenue. Nous vous souhaitons un merveilleux séjour parmi nous ici en Ontario et nous espérons vous revoir. Merci.

Mr Carr: I too would like to welcome the members from France, who I understand are here dealing with some of the energy matters. It's unfortunate we're dealing with some medical problems here in this bill, but I'm sure you'll get a good chance to hear about what we're doing in Ontario. We welcome our guests.

I guess, as I was just alluding to, taking a look at what is happening in Britain with their health care system is very worthwhile. It's kind of ironic that the folks are here from France learning a little bit about what is happening, because the same problems we are facing here in Canada have happened in Britain over the last little while.

Whether we go to a two-tier system and whether we have user fees and all the rhetoric that goes on for political parties, I want you to know that the medical community is fearful of this legislation. The medical community and the OMA have had many problems with all parties here.

1140

I wasn't here at the time, and I don't know if the member for Oriole was the minister at the time, but I understand there were doctors down in the legislative dining room during some of the debates -- it may have even been when the Conservatives were in power; I think it was during the Liberals -- and they were so angry and upset that they went down there and started throwing the rolls around in the legislative dining room, which I think would be something you wouldn't necessarily think many doctors would do. I understand there was a tremendous amount of frustration.

This isn't a new problem we're dealing with. We have major problems in the health care field. We believe we have the best health care system in the world, and while that may be true, we still have problems. We have waiting lists now for surgery. If you're in a position right now where you need a new hip, they tell me the waiting lists are long in Ontario. They tell that me in Windsor, if you need a CAT scan today they give you two options: You wait four months and go to London or you go across to the United States.

These are some of the things that are happening in Ontario that most people don't know about. Most people believe that when the health care system is there, when they need it, they can go and those services will be there. But this is crunch time, my friends, I say to the members in the Legislature. We are at a very critical point in our history in terms of health care. We have numerous problems out there, and if we do not deal with it directly, then I believe we are going to lose what we have today, which is the best health care system.

I say that not to dramatize it or to score political points, because whoever is in government would have to deal with this problem. What I think we should be doing with Bill 50 is going out to the public and saying, honestly, that we do not have enough money in the health care system right now. I think that's obvious, having spent some time in the standing committee on estimates over the last little while.

As the member for Oriole said earlier, it isn't a money problem. There is going to be no more money spent by this government or a Liberal government or a Conservative government in health care. To be political, I guess we would say, if we were in there, that we'd find money and there would be more money. What we need to do is be honest with people, talk about the situation like they have done in Oregon, and say: "This is the amount we're going to spend on health care in the province of Ontario. How would you like to spend it?"

That's happening right now; that's happening with the discussions with the OMA. They're deciding what services are going to be cut in the province of Ontario today. I don't know if the members opposite believe that or the members of the official opposition will believe that, but that is happening today. Decisions are being made about what services will be cut in the province, and they're not done in public consultation. They're done in the back rooms and all of a sudden we hear about them. The only reason they are not done in public is because the politicians don't have the honesty to go to the public and say: "We can't afford a lot of the health care systems. What are we going to do?"

There are user fees in the system today, in spite of what any politician may tell you. If you need an ambulance today and you get picked up, most people think that's covered. It is not; you will get charged for it. There are user fees in the system.

What I believe we need to do is be honest. The way to do that is to go out in public hearings, say to the public that we have a problem with our finances, rather than doing it through this Bill 50, where the cuts will be made in the back rooms. I believe the reason it is being done that way is that politicians don't have the honesty to tell the public the way it is.

The public may not have been ready for it two years ago, but I think they are now. They realize the fiscal crisis we are in, and the doctors realize it. They will still criticize. I'm not saying the criticism will not be there: The OMA will criticize the process if we do that. I read a couple of the other comments about the doctors fearing that bureaucrats will be treating patients and making the decisions. Ultimately the elected representatives have to make that choice, but right now it is being done between the committees, with no public input except when the cuts are made and the transfer money is cut, and then we go back to the hospitals and say, "Now, what services do you want to cut?" and the public gets all upset because, in the case of Oakville, paediatrics is going to be cut with no public consultation.

Certainly over the next little while these decisions are going to have to be made about what services are going to be available, how we are going to pay for them, who is going to pay for them.

I must say, on a negative note, all the rhetoric around this issue, the political games being played about two-tier health care systems -- I don't know whether it comes from the ignorance of some of the members who have spoken, not knowing the issue, or whether they're attempting to be partisan and political with it, but I want to tell you, I've been disappointed in the grasp of the health care issues of my fellow members of this Legislature in some of the debates that have gone on, not all of them, because I think there have been some good comments made by all three political parties. I would just hope that the government would be honest in terms of where we're going with health care, because this bill -- if you'd asked the NDP in 1990 if it would ever introduce a bill like this, there would not have been one of the 75-odd members who got elected who would ever have run on this platform in the last election.

We on this side of the House have always said they're driven by ideology, and they're now confronted with reality, but the ironic thing is for them to stand up and defend this piece of legislation. Quite frankly, there's either one of two things. I say this not trying to be too confrontational to my friend from Durham East, but you either have not read the bill or you're trying to be political in not letting the people know what this bill will do. When I say this to the member, I don't mean to be too confrontational, but you have either not read the bill -- and I wish you would, because this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come down.

I know that in this Legislature there are many bills that come through, and many debates. If you read no other bills, this is going to affect the health care system, not tomorrow -- we aren't going to get the public's criticism tomorrow. This is long term, this bill. As a matter of fact, it'll be long term, long past some of us in this Legislature, depending on who wins next time.

The public should know this piece of legislation. I say to the members opposite that if you read the bill and can support it, then fine, but most of you would have never, ever got elected on this piece of legislation. My friend from Durham East, you have either not read the bill or you're trying to be political in standing up and talking about a two-tier health care system and saying that's what the Liberals would bring in and that's what the Conservatives would bring in. I don't think that rhetoric is going to be helpful to the debate.

There is anger out there. I read a couple of the comments of doctors from the Peterborough Examiner. I've had calls and letters from doctors. I had one negative one. A doctor threw up his hands and said: "I'm just waiting for the whole thing to collapse. I've never been more frustrated in my life." They are offering solutions. I have some of the clippings here of what doctors are proposing. The OMA has come through with some good proposals.

Mr Perruzza: Everybody in this place speaks for doctors, lawyers and accountants. Who speaks for working people?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Carr: I've seen day after day where this government has said that it's cut health care costs for the first time. We all know the Treasurer and the Premier have said: "We've done a terrific job. Look, we're down to 1% now when it had been 10% and it had been 12%." If you put aside the political rhetoric for a moment, during the 1980s, of course, and the late 1970s, as you know, inflation was double-digit. In real terms, as the other side likes to talk about whether the cuts have been that significant or not, I guess that will be arguable and up to debate.

On the one hand, we have had the former Minister of Health -- not this minister; the member for Beaches-Woodbine, Frances Lankin -- talk about how she had done a terrific job cutting costs in the health care system down to 1% or 2%. We heard the Treasurer saying that. We heard the Premier. If that was working so well and if, on the one hand, you want to stand up and say, "Look at the great job we've done in cutting the health care costs," why, then, all of a sudden do you make this dramatic move to Bill 50?

They tried to take all the credit, as politicians will, for the great job in the cuts. I will say this, not to be in partisan politics: I don't think it was this government or the ministry; I think it was the cooperation that was there and the committees that were looking at it, in conjunction with the OMA. I heard some nasty comments -- I don't want to quote the member; he'll have his chance to speak -- some negative comments towards doctors. But the OMA, in conjunction with this government, was making some dramatic reductions in the cost of health care; not perfect, but they were making dramatic reductions.

Interjection.

Mr Carr: The member laughs and goes "Hah." If that's the case, why have I heard, as you all have, and it hasn't just been once, the Treasurer and the former Minister of Health saying, "I've done a great job cutting health care costs"? It was because of the committee work that was done with the OMA that these costs came in. I say to the member, if he doesn't believe that the OMA and the doctors were part of that, then I'm afraid he doesn't know the way it was working.

For political reasons, any government of the day is going to take credit for that. As to the fact that they were successful in cutting some of the costs, I think that is one of the few areas where they can be given some credit, although I don't believe it was driven by their good management. I think it was done because of the committee. The OMA now is saying, "With all the good work that was being done, the $2 billion that has been cut out, why all of the sudden are you changing and introducing this piece of legislation?"

1150

Make no mistake about it: What this piece of legislation does is allow the minister, the government, any government of the day, to decide what services are out there, what services will be cut, and we say to you in all honesty that if you're not going to cut services, then why are you bringing this bill in? At least be honest with the people and tell them that this is why this bill is coming in, because some services will have to be cut, that there may have to be some charges with some services.

Otherwise, why are you bringing this piece of legislation in at this time? Why are you bringing it in if that isn't your intention? Why are we wasting valuable time in this Legislature, when we don't have enough time to debate the bills, with all the problems in health care, in education, in the environment, in the economy? If you don't intend to do it, why are you bringing in this piece of legislation, I say to the members opposite?

I suppose -- and I guess in this part I am being a little bit partisan and angry -- they'll play political games and say: "Well, the Tories are going to bring in the user fees and the two health care systems. We'll let members talk about Britain, how he doesn't want to go back to that system in Britain, and he'll talk about the way it was."

That's what this bill does, I say to the member, and at least be honest with the people of the province if you're going to be an elected member. Come clean with them and tell them what this piece of legislation does, because what that does is give the minister, the government of the day, the power to cut services, medical services, in the province of Ontario. I say to the members opposite, if you have not read the bill, that is exactly what this legislation does.

Now, I'm not as opposed to that part of the provisions of it if in fact this government is going to work in cooperation with the medical community, not only the doctors but the nurses, the health care professionals who are out there, who want to give their input, but they are being shut out and that's why we've got the articles from the doctors that are so frustrating, saying the decisions will be made by the bureaucrats. At the end of the day -- and I know they use the term "bureaucrats" in terms of being a negative -- it will be the government's decision to decide what services will be available and how much money there is to pay for it. But for goodness' sake, let's have the cooperation and the consultation with the medical community, the nurses, the doctors and the public. That is not being done.

This piece of legislation, in my mind, and the one thing I agree with the doctors -- I'm not one who necessarily believes their big ads are going to be too productive. With the government, I don't think they are. But if they can heighten the awareness of what this piece of legislation does, then I think it will be a good thing, because this legislation gives this minister, this government, the power to decide what services will be available.

For the members to stand up and say they don't want to go to a two-tier system, remember the number of times you've had to backtrack in this Legislature, I say to my friend from Durham East, the biggest example being Sunday shopping. Don't stand up in here and talk about the two-tier system when you've got a piece of legislation which basically, when you look at it, gives the government of the day more power than any other minister has ever had, and the only reason it is being given is so that she can cut back service, he or she -- in this case, the minister, she -- so she can cut back the services that are available.

That is exactly what this piece of legislation is, and the reason I'm more upset, not about the legislation, is that this government has not been honest with the people, and to hear the backbenchers who don't even know what this legislation does, who have not even taken the time to read the legislation --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Get real.

Mr Carr: -- quite frankly, and I don't use this term lightly, Mr Speaker, it is disgusting. They have not read the bill, they have not read the legislation.

Mr Mills: How do you know we haven't read it?

Mr Carr: Otherwise, they would know exactly what this legislation does and they wouldn't be making the cheap political comments they do on the other side. I refer to the one that was made to the member for Oriole, and I guess she was right in saying, "I won't dignify the comments with answering."

For this government to say the things that this government is saying, the members of the back benches, who are being political on probably one of the most serious pieces of legislation -- read the bill. If at the end of the day you can say you support it, that's fine, but read the bill.

The reason your government is bringing this in is so it can take a look at what services, what fees are available. Right now they have not been honest in terms of letting the people know. They haven't been honest about the fees in the nursing homes. They have attempted to get things through. I watched the member for Halton Centre and my critic, the member for Simcoe West, talking about what has happened in that area, and the government of the day has not had the courtesy to tell the public where it is going, what the fees will be. They've kept the people in the nursing homes in the dark, and I say that's wrong.

At the end of the day, if this is what needs to be done, the public will support you, the opposition will be supportive, but don't do it through the back door. That is the worst possible thing that can be done.

That's why I believe that what we should be doing is similar to what they did in Oregon. They had a long period of consultation, public hearings, but they were honest with them and told them where they were going with the piece of legislation.

I must say, in all fairness, in defence of the backbenchers that I don't think the government has told you where it's going, and that may be more of a pity. I don't think you know where the government is going. I don't think you've asked. I don't think they want to tell you, because you've got so many disgruntled members, other than the ones who are political and will follow this government and Bob Rae right off the gangplank and right in.

Some of you, if you knew where they were heading, might speak up and have some criticism, but you have not, and I say to the members who have not taken a look at this legislation that it is your responsibility, not only the opposition's, to look at bills like this and ask the tough questions of where the government is going. That's what you were elected for. If at the end of the day it needs to be done because of fiscal responsibility or because there is no more money, then that is one thing, but for you to sit here and not question this government on where it is going with this piece of legislation is wrong. I say to most of the backbenchers who are here every day that they should read this legislation and ask the tough questions.

I guess this is being a little partisan, but I don't even think this Minister of Health knows where she's going. I believe it is being driven by the fiscal necessities of the Minister of Finance and the Premier. I don't think she has any long-term goal and objective for the health care system. If she did, she, believe it or not, would get some support from the medical community, from the nurses, from both opposition parties, if she knew very clearly where she was heading.

We have these ad hoc cuts being made, bills coming in that are very serious, at the last minute, because I do not believe this government has any long-term plan. If I have any criticism of this government, that's what it is. They are not being honest. They don't know where they are going. They are playing political games with this. We have members standing up who are trying to be political and talk about other jurisdictions and two health care systems instead of having honest debate about this bill and what it means.

When you look at this piece of legislation and what we've talked about doing, I will say as somebody without a background in health care -- and I know our member for Simcoe West, who has worked for the federal government in health care, has offered many suggestions -- I must admit that I'm no authority on health care. I have some theories and thoughts that may be helpful. Most of them are not my theories and thoughts about where we should be going. A lot of it comes from people I talk to: the doctors, the nurses, the district health council, the people who are out there.

I'm not trying to pretend to have all the answers, but what I'm saying to this government is that it has not laid any of the facts out clearly for the people of this province. They are attempting to do it because they are trying to hide the facts of what they are prepared to do.

This whole bill has got lost in the social contract. As we all know, that has been the topic of the day over the last two months in this Legislature. When people realize what this is going to do to health care in the province of Ontario, it potentially is going to be the worst -- and I say "potentially," depending on how it's handled by this government -- piece of legislation for health care that this Legislature has ever dealt with. I'm saying that not to be dramatic and at the end of the day; I am saying that we are there to help with this piece of legislation in spite of the fact the other members don't believe that.

This piece of legislation has the potential to do more harm to the health care system in Ontario than any other piece of legislation and we have backbenchers who didn't even have the courtesy to know or understand it.

Mr Mills: How do you know that?

Mr Carr: Because I heard your comments. That's how I know. For you to stand up in this Legislature and talk about what they do in Britain, that's exactly what this piece of legislation does, I say to my friend for Durham East. That's what this legislation does. If you have read it, that's what the medical community, the doctors and the nurses are saying.

I know the members opposite are continually upset about what doctors are saying, the comments coming across about doctors. I didn't just include doctors. I said health care. I include the technicians, all the people in the health care system. Everybody who works at hospitals needs to be a part of it. But the backbenchers don't even have the courtesy to understand and learn what the legislation is, and they don't even have the strength to stand up to this Minister of Health and say, "What are you doing with this piece of legislation?"

At the end of the day, people are going to be very seriously questioning this government's commitment, and particularly the backbenchers who are not doing their job and learning what this piece of legislation is, debating it honestly and telling the people what is in there. They stand up here, they parrot the political comments that are given to them by people who are writing the speeches, and I don't think that's fair to the members. You are elected to do a job in here. You should be open. You should be honest with the people.

This piece of legislation, I understand, is being lost with what's happened in all the other areas of health care, education, the environment, all the problems that are out there. I say to the people out there in the province, take a look at this piece of legislation, because this has the potential to do more harm to the best health care system in the world than any other piece of legislation that is coming down the pike in this Legislature.

To the backbenchers who have sat here, I can see in some of the bills where you don't. This legislation is too important. Read the material.

The House recessed at 1201.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I want to direct my comments today to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Along with my leader, Lyn McLeod, and my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, I was encouraged by the announcement made by the Minister of Natural Resources last Friday which heeded our advice, and also advice given to him by northern communities and the forest industry itself. That was to repeal the hasty policy announced in this year's budget which increased stumpage fees for the non-integrated forest industry sector by some 100%.

While the delay in increasing stumpage fees to October 1 is encouraging for some within the industry, many independent loggers in my part of the province will derive very little benefit and indeed are still faced with the cold reality of going out of business, yet instead of offering alternatives that would assist these hardworking individuals to continue operating and providing economic spinoffs for the communities in which they work, the minister has simply said, "Tough luck."

We are concerned with the way this government has treated these individuals and the forest industry sector as a whole throughout the course of the last few months. It is clear that they did not consult with the industry beforehand and have now acted, in an incomplete way, only in response to the great outcry that resulted.

It is time the minister and this government realized that the forestry industry is a critical component of the economy in northern Ontario and throughout the entire province.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Respect for the law in general continues to erode, and it's really not surprising to see violence and crime increasing among youth.

I find it understandable that much public anger has been directed at the federal government for its Young Offenders Act. The YOA is supposed to rehabilitate youth by recognizing their actions as those of an immature young individual rather than those of a mature adult criminal, but a growing number of people argue that because it is overly lenient and hopelessly flawed, it only encourages young people to commit serious crimes like armed robbery, theft and murder under the direction of an adult criminal.

Others are directing their anger at our school system for failing to crack down on student violence and crime or for not providing stronger moral instruction.

I suggest that a major overhaul of the Young Offenders Act is long overdue. Perhaps the age limit should be lowered. Maybe there should be no difference between the treatment of adults and young criminals who commit serious crimes. Possibly it should be easier to transfer serious young criminal cases to adult court.

I believe any reform must be backed by parental responsibility in order to prevent crime among youth. Parents and other authority figures must take more of a leading role in providing moral guidance to our young people.

RACIAL HARMONY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I wish to inform the members of the Legislature of a resolution that was passed on Monday, June 21, by the Kitchener city council. It states:

"Whereas Canada and the province of Ontario have policies which promote racial harmony in our communities; and

"Whereas the mayors of the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo and the regional municipality of Waterloo and the townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich have signed a statement of intent declaring their commitment to the prevention of any form of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination or harassment, as defined in federal and provincial human rights legislation; and

"Whereas this community consists of multiracial, multilingual and multifaith peoples learning to live together peacefully; and

"Whereas a number of racist organizations and groups have begun disseminating hatred and recruiting white supremacist members with the objective of destroying the rights and freedoms of groups who have contributed so much and so freely to this country; and

"Whereas we do not wish history to repeat itself,

"Therefore be it resolved that the council of the city of Kitchener hereby:

"(a) Condemns in the strongest terms the actions of the Heritage Front and other racist organizations; and

"(b) Continues to support and develop policies and actions within our municipalities that send out a clear message that racism will not be tolerated in this or any other community within the country; and

"(c) Takes a leadership role in encouraging the Attorney General of Ontario to proceed, where appropriate, with charges against white supremacist groups for the incitement of hatred in accordance with the Criminal Code of Canada."

I ask the members of this Legislature to join me in support and endorsement of this resolution passed by the Kitchener city council.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH STAFFING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): In a time of constraint, when people throughout the public and private sector are tightening their belts, government is expected to do the same: to cut out waste, to cut down its hierarchy, to be more productive with its resources. That's what this government is telling everyone else to do and that's what people expect this government to do.

How ironic, then, to learn that the Minister of Health has increased her staff budget by more than a quarter of a million dollars in this fiscal year. Does the Minister of Health have any new responsibilities? No. Has the scope of the Minister of Health changed? No. Is the Minister of Health providing more service to the people of Ontario? No.

But she does have a new junior minister of Health, who's not allowed to sit at the cabinet table, who's not allowed to participate in decision-making, who makes no apparent contribution to the public policy process. Could that be what is costing the taxpayers of Ontario an additional quarter of a million dollars every year?

Why should the taxpayers be required to pay more from their pockets to line the pockets of the NDP? When everyone else is feeling the chop, the NDP should take the chop. A quarter-of-a-million-dollar increase in spending for the political staff of the Minister of Health is totally unconscionable.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The Minister of Natural Resources has declared that he's delaying the increase in stumpage fees because, as he stated in his news release, the fees would have been too high and the forest industry could not afford them. The minister went on to say that the forest industry thought it would be more manageable to face this increase on October 1, 1993, yet the Northern Forest Coalition has told me that this is clearly not the case. They believe the minister's decision to delay the increase was just a political move to divert attention away from the damage he's already done.

The fact remains that the minister has already increased stumpage fees from $8 to $15.60 between last fall and this July. This 95% increase has led to the shutdown of many operations. Foresters in Atikokan have told us that they have not cut one single tree since July 1. They have also told us that if the minister raises stumpage fees again in October, it will be a death blow to their industry.

Instead of unilaterally raising the rates to gain more revenue for the government coffers, I ask the minister to consult the foresters and consider a fee structure that is truly reflective of the industry's needs.

CHARLES CLARK

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): The University of Windsor is proud to announce the appointment of a new chancellor -- who will be the university's first local person to take this position, by the way. Mr Charles Clark is a long-time Windsor lawyer and fund-raiser who will take on a massive responsibility during a convocation on October 16. Mr Clark replaces William Somerville, who completes a four-year term. The new chancellor will heighten graduate and postgraduate programs and of course confer degrees on behalf of the province to those completing the requirements.

I'd like to add some background on Charles Clark worth noting. He has served on numerous boards and charitable groups and has been a lawyer for 50 years. He joined the University of Windsor's board of directors in 1966, chairing it from 1971 to 1974. He graduated from Assumption College in 1940 and holds honorary doctorates of law from Assumption and the University of Windsor. Mr Clark graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the bar in 1943.

He is also deputy chairman of the university's Investing in Leadership campaign, a campaign raising $38 million in the next five years which will go towards the Odette business building and the CAW student centre.

Mr Clark certainly has the abilities and expertise to continue his fund-raising endeavours, and the university is delighted to have him on board.

I extend my congratulations and best wishes on behalf of Ron Ianni, president of the University of Windsor, the board of directors, student council and all the student population at the university, as well as the city of Windsor and my Windsor colleagues.

1340

FRUIT GROWERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "Sour cherry growers face a disastrous year in Niagara, with prices driven so low that the fruit of many orchards may be left to rot.

"Desperate to match prices on American cherries flooding Canada, the Ontario Tender Fruit Producers Marketing Board announced Saturday that it will pay growers only 11 cents a pound for fine cherries, down from 42 cents last year.

"The amount is so low that many farmers will let their cherries rot, because they would lose more money if they paid for harvesting."

This is the lead of a story that appeared in the St Catharines Standard very recently.

Farmers such as Harry Jansen of Pelham, Lee Johnson of Pelham, Ross McCarthy of Pelham and Bob Andres of Niagara-on-the-Lake have all complained about the fact that the cost of producing cherries in this province is greater than the price that can be obtained by selling those cherries.

I call upon the Minister of Agriculture and Food of Ontario to put pressure on the federal Minister of Agriculture to ensure that there is not dumping of sour cherries and other tender fruit on our markets at the very time that our fruit is being produced for people in our area. What is going to happen if we don't have this kind of action is that we're going to see a disappearance of both the farmers and the valuable fruit land, which is located where there is excellent soil and excellent climatic conditions.

ANTI-RACISM BILLS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The T-shirt I am wearing today displays an anti-racism message which says, "We are all one people, with different faces, from different places, but we are all one people. Something to remember." The message was written by Lisa Cherniak and designed by artist Mendelson Joe. Both are part of Artists Against Racism, a two-person team fighting racist activities by the white supremacists.

They are not alone in their battle. Six weeks ago, Charles Harnick, the PC critic for the Attorney General, and I introduced two private members' bills. One bill calls for amendments to the Human Rights Code; the purpose would be to give individuals the right to make a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about any public statement, any written material and any visual representation that discriminates or expresses hatred against an individual. The second bill establishes the Civil Rights Protection Act, which allows individuals to protect their own civil rights without the prior consent of the Attorney General. The intent of both bills is to put a halt to the growing number of hate crimes against people of African and Caribbean descent, Jewish people, Tamils and our aboriginal peoples.

The time for action is now. It is my hope that these two bills will assist in the battle against racist activities and racist literature. The fight against racism is non-partisan. We are, as this T-shirt says, one people.

When the bills were introduced, we brought them forward in the hope that something would be done. Again I call on the government to look at them seriously, and let's work together to put them into action.

CARLOS COSTA

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to honour Mr Carlos Costa, who many of us have been reading about over these past few days. Mr Costa, of course, is the business and marketing student at Humber College who last Friday completed a successful 32-hour-plus swim across Lake Ontario despite high waves and winds pushing against him.

It is ironic that this amazing swimmer is called, technically, an athlete with a disability. His awesome ability is matched by his determination and his generous spirit. He swam to raise money for the place where he has been swimming over the past number of years, Variety Village, which is in the fine riding of Scarborough Centre. Our government, through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, is proud to have supported Variety Village in its efforts to help people with disabilities enjoy sports, fitness and recreation.

By yesterday, Carlos had inspired donations of more than $40,000. His goal is $52,000: $1,000 for every kilometre he swam. I'm sure he'll reach that goal and beyond, thanks to the giving spirit of Ontarians. Sometimes a light from the courage of one person can reach many thousands of people.

On his third attempt to cross the lake, Carlos showed all of us that he had grit to spare. His coach, Vicki Keith, knows something about that herself. She said: "We always knew he was going to make it. Lightning stops you. Freezing water stops you. Waves just slow you down."

I'm delighted that Carlos is here today, along with his parents, Maria and Joe, his brother, Oscar, his swim coordinator, John Munro, and his coach, Vicki Keith. I invite all honourable members in this House to welcome our fine guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR LEGISLATION

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): In keeping with our government's progressive agenda for working men and women, I am pleased to announce that later today I will be introducing a bill to establish, for the first time ever, a system of labour relations in the province's agricultural and horticultural sectors.

This is an important and positive step forward for thousands of Ontario farm workers. Agricultural workers have always been excluded from the rights and privileges available to millions of other workers under the Labour Relations Act. Ontario is among the last of the provinces in Canada retaining such exclusion.

The development of these proposals over the last 18 months has been an exercise in consultation and consensus involving the government, the industry and its workers. The prime vehicle for this consensus has been the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations. It examined closely the many complex issues posed by the introduction of labour relations into the agricultural sector and delivered valuable recommendations to the government.

The result is a package of proposals that is progressive for workers but also one which reflects the uniqueness of agriculture, the perishable nature of its products and the time-sensitive nature of its operations.

Under the proposals I will introduce later today, agricultural workers will receive the right to organize and bargain collectively, but not to strike. In place of the right to strike, a structured process of negotiation, mediation and arbitration will be used to settle disputes. This is a recognition by the government of just how vulnerable this sector is to work stoppages of any kind.

The proposals also set out clear principles guiding access to farm property for the purpose of union organizing. Safety and sanitary conditions will be paramount considerations.

It is also our intention to establish a labour-management advisory committee for this sector of the economy. This committee will monitor and advise the government of ongoing and emerging labour relations issues in the industry. It will also coordinate educational and informational efforts in the follow-up period to this legislation.

There are approximately 18,000 year-round employees in agriculture to which these proposals will apply. The bill will also extend the right to organize to about 14,000 seasonal workers as soon as regulations can be developed for these workers. The advisory committee will assist us in this regard.

This bill puts the finishing touches on the government's agenda for reasonable and progressive labour law reform, and it does so in a way that is agreeable to all of the parties. Workers gain rights and benefits they have long been denied, farm owners are protected against work stoppages and there will be virtually no impact on the historical independence and character of the family farm. That's because the bill ensures that the introduction of collective bargaining will not override the rights of family members to work their farms.

Just as important, the agricultural sector will have its own bipartite labour relations committee composed of those who know the industry best: farm owners and farm workers. I am confident that this committee can carry forward the spirit and momentum that made this landmark bill possible.

1350

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Approximately three months ago, when I was asked to take on the Labour critic role, I was approached by Gord Wilson and by the current minister and asked if I would be prepared to support a bill such as the one we're seeing announced here today. That was three months ago.

At that time, I said I'd like to see the document and some details so I could sit down with our two Agriculture critics, so we could then take it to our caucus, so we could discuss it, so we could implement some kind of program to decide whether or not we were prepared to support this.

The Labour minister has come over to me in this place. I have talked to him. I have said I am prepared to be proactive. I have told Mr Wilson that I am prepared to be proactive and to take a look at this. Yet in this place, just yesterday, we had members of the government shouting that we never have anything good to say. You don't give us the information, Minister, that we need.

To the Treasurer, at a time when we're looking at record high unemployment, according to the Treasurer's own document, which I have here somewhere --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): So you're against this.

Mr Mahoney: He's chirping away and heckling. According to your own document, Treasurer, you say: "During the recession, many workers gave up looking for work. However, renewed employment growth" -- whatever that is -- "will encourage their return to the labour force. If these discouraged workers were counted as 'unemployed,' Ontario's current unemployment rate would be about 14%." That's on page 45 of your budget statement.

Even the chart shows we're looking at 13% in 1996. That's a great step in the direction of creating jobs and employment in this province by this government, which is just floundering around, introducing labour bill after labour bill --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry, but that's what you're doing -- trying to just placate the labour movement instead of trying to deal with the economic future of this province in a positive way.

We don't know what the impacts of this bill will be. The minister tells me that he has a consensus. I asked the deputy minister to provide me with the names and the addresses of all the parties who have agreed to support this bill. What do I get? Nothing.

I don't have an opportunity to go to those people to verify that indeed there is a consensus. If a task force truly has arrived at a consensus, it appears to be a mystery, or, for some reason unknown to me, the Minister of Labour doesn't seem to want to give the opposition critics the tools they need. I don't understand that.

Minister, I've told you I'd work with you on this bill. When I asked you weeks ago to provide me with the document, I said: "What instrument are you going to use? Are you going to make these changes by legislation, by regulation, by order in council? What instrument are you going to use, so that I can sit down with my caucus and my critics and attempt to understand the impact?"

We don't want to be obstructionist if indeed there is a consensus in the agricultural community. I've not been given the tools to do my job, and here we are on the eve of recessing this place, with just a few hours to go, and the minister introduces this document. It's totally, totally unacceptable and unfair.

With regard to the legislation, you will recall that my caucus, led by the former critic, the member for Mississauga North, fought this government tooth and nail on Bill 40, and one of the biggest concerns about the organization of new unions was: How are they going to be allowed to organize? Will there be a secret ballot? Will the farm workers of this province be free from intimidation and coercion? Will they be free from organized drives from outside unions that simply want to expand their base and their dues, which in some cases help this party increase its revenue, although even most clear-thinking unions are dissociating themselves from the NDP?

If this is truly good legislation, why have you waited until the 12th hour to introduce it, to put it on this table, when I have been asking you and talking with Gord Wilson in an attempt to get this information? This is just unacceptable.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In just a few moments I want to again express the concerns that are out there in the agricultural community.

This is the extension of Bill 40. Make no mistake about it: It's the extension of Bill 40 out into the food-producing chain.

Consumers are always concerned about the cost of food and, of course, who gets blamed? The farmer. The reality is --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What about the farm workers? Do you want them or not?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Durham East.

Mr Villeneuve: The reality is that the value of corn in a box of corn flakes is less than a nickel; it has very little influence on the final cost.

In agriculture, you have to make hay when the sun shines. And whenever you're subject to a contract with labour unions, that has no bearing. You have to harvest the tomatoes when they're ready, and the same with everything else. You're very subject to the whims of the weather, and it's not always that catering to our agricultural community.

What we have now is the policing of the production and processing of food by the Ministry of Labour. I'm very concerned about this, in that these negotiations happen under the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour will have a police force out there to enforce exactly what the labour unions want. I would certainly have preferred to have seen the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his ministry do some of the monitoring that will have to be done, quite obviously.

Agriculture is seasonal. It's most important that our farmers are not placed under the kinds of regulations that many of our small businesses and major businesses are put under through negotiations.

As to the social contract, Bill 48, we attempted to help the government: We brought in almost 30 amendments, which were totally overlooked. I do hope that in this case the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the farmers' union, and indeed the Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario and all other rural organizations, will have the opportunity of having their input so that, if they're going to live under this kind of policing, at least they will have input on some of the rules and regulations that will be applied by the Ministry of Labour.

To the minister: Thank you for bringing it in so that if we have to live with it, we have time to look at it and make suggestions to you. Yes, it was maybe too long coming. I was hoping it was not coming at all, but it's here. We have to live with it. Our party is committed, when elected, to repeal Bill 40, and this is part of Bill 40 and will be repealed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question today is for the Minister of Finance, and it concerns the social contract. The province was relieved yesterday to observe you and the Premier reverse your government's policy with respect to charitable donations in the health sector. I would like this afternoon to raise a similar concern in the university sector.

I have been told today by representatives of the Council of Ontario Universities that it is the position of your negotiators at the table that all payroll, including payroll supported by charitable endowments that belong to universities, will be affected or impacted by your social contract. Are you aware of this situation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): If I could respond to the preamble of the member for Renfrew North, to get that out of the way, because he did raise the question of charitable donations to other organizations: It is truly remarkable that when we finally got the member for Renfrew North to understand what we've been saying all along -- he and the headline writers in this province -- he says we've reversed our position. What we've done is finally got him to understand what we've been saying all along. There's been no reversal of any position.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): That is wrong, wrong, wrong, Floyd.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I suppose every time now that we manage to convince the official opposition or the third party that we are being consistent with what we said all along, suddenly, when they start to understand it and the light dawns, it's a reversal. I don't know how you deal with that kind of logic in this assembly. But anyway, I would simply say to the member of the official opposition that discussions are ongoing with the universities.

1400

Mr Conway: At 5:29 pm yesterday, just two hours after the Premier and the Minister of Finance made their declarations of policy and their retreat in this House, an assistant deputy minister in Management Board sent a memo to one of my assistants that says the following: "It is likely that as a result of negotiations being carried out at the local level" -- meaning now in the university sector -- "salaries of all individuals on a university's payroll earning more than $30,000 annually would be impacted as a result of the social contract targets."

This means, for example, that a researcher working at an Ontario university who is on the university's payroll, but whose entire funding comes from the Parkinson Foundation or the Medical Research Council of Canada, will be impacted by your social contract. That is clearly indicated in this government memo of 5:29 pm yesterday, and it is certainly the view of the Council of Ontario Universities.

Will the Treasurer and Minister of Finance give the universities of Ontario a clear and unequivocal direction today that their charitable endowments will not be impaired or in any way affected by the social contract?

Hon Mr Laughren: Here we go again. The member for Renfrew North is trying to put a bizarre spin on social contracts simply, I guess, because he opposed the legislation and, secondly, didn't think we'd be achieving any of the sectoral agreements which we are indeed achieving. Further, we have already reached agreements with eight of the universities.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Eleven.

Hon Mr Laughren: Eleven, the Minister of Education and Training tells me. Each of those negotiations is going on at the university level, not at the sectoral level because of the autonomy of the universities. Those agreements are worked out with the universities. Nothing is imposed by this government whatsoever.

Finally, I guess I have to say it again --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You won't give them access to the job security fund.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: A few moments ago, I spoke to a very good public-spirited citizen named Pat Adams at the Council of Ontario Universities. I'm only telling you what Ms Adams told me at noon today. The Council of Ontario Universities is absolutely clear on the basis of this kind of direction from senior officials in the government of Ontario, the ADM at Management Board, as late as 5:29 pm yesterday. Pat Adams told me just a few moments ago that this is exactly the interpretation they have been given and that is their understanding.

My final supplementary is simple and straightforward: Will the Treasurer of Ontario before the day is over pick up the phone and call Pat Adams at the Council of Ontario Universities at 416-979-2165 and tell Ms Adams and all of the universities in this province that their charitable endowments will in no way be impaired or affected by your social contract?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That is a good question.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try and respond if the member for Bruce doesn't shout me down yet again, or the member for St Catharines, who doesn't want an answer either, apparently.

I would simply say that the new Liberal math appears to be that you make a false accusation, we deny it, and that equals a reversal or a flip-flop. That's the new Liberal math. Seeing what I saw between 1985 and 1990 with Liberal math, nothing should surprise me in that regard.

Finally, I want to assure everyone in the province of Ontario that once again a silly allegation has been made and there is no taxing of charitable donations in this province whatsoever.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. It concerns the waste disposal sites currently being considered by the Interim Waste Authority, created under Bill 143. The minister will be aware of a great deal of public concern around the sites currently identified and the overall process chosen by his government to deal with the issue.

My question is, can you confirm today in this Legislature that the sites which have been publicly identified by the IWA in York region are the only sites which the authority is considering for solid waste disposal?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): No, I can't.

Mr Offer: The minister indicates that the publicly identified sites by the IWA may not be the only sites in which --

Hon Mr Wildman: No, I said I couldn't confirm that. You asked me if I could. I can't.

Mr Offer: Now the minister is denying that. I've been provided with a letter today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is this a letter?

Mr Offer: Yes, in a brown envelope. It deals with Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel Ltd. You will know that the company owns lands adjacent to the Keele Valley landfill in York region. You will know that this site has never been identified by the IWA as a property to be looked upon in its waste disposal process.

Yet this letter contains some very interesting statements. Firstly, it talks about some discussions which have been going on. The letter is from the general manager of the IWA, and it is to a Mr Michael Jeffery of Fraser and Beatty, the solicitor for Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel. It speaks about negotiations of June 2, June 21, July 13, the date of the letter. It says, "It is not considered yet to be in the public interest to commit significant financial resources to a detailed examination of the proposed Superior-Crawford site at this time."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Offer: The letter says "the suitable approach to coordination can be discussed with you and your client," and is finished by Mr McIntyre saying, "I look forward to discussing this matter further with you."

Mr Minister, it is clear that there are secret negotiations being undertaken between the IWA and representatives of Superior-Crawford.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Offer: My question is, will you now stand in your place and give direction to the IWA to say that this is an area which has never been identified, should not be identified and you are giving direction to the IWA to cease all secret negotiations with representatives of Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member knows that I do not give direction to the IWA. It's an independent agency that operates on its own.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): But you're the sole shareholder.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member also knows that there's no need for anyone to give direction to stop secret negotiations, because secret negotiations are not taking place. There has been contact by Superior-Crawford to the IWA, and that does not mean anything one way or the other.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): We are not asking the Minister of Environment to interfere in the IWA process. What we are asking the Minister of Environment to do is simply request that the IWA abide by the process that it set up for itself under his bill, Bill 143.

The Superior-Crawford site was closed off for discussion when the IWA did not include it on its long list of sites. The door was closed again to Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel when Metro Toronto council reversed itself and withdrew a request that the site be reconsidered. What this letter now shows is that, notwithstanding that the door has been closed and locked twice, the IWA is still undertaking negotiations and still entertaining submissions from the principals of Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel.

What we want the minister to do, and to do today, is simply to direct the IWA to cease those discussions and assure the people of Maple, of Vaughan, of York region and of all Ontario that this door which has been closed on that site will remain closed for ever. Will you do that?

1410

Hon Mr Wildman: During the speech by the honourable member, he was himself contradictory. At the beginning, he indicated that he and his colleague were not asking me to direct the IWA to do anything, and now, at the end, he finishes his question by asking me to do exactly that. He knows that would be most inappropriate.

The IWA will consider all information required to make proper decisions with regard to site selection. Those decisions, as the member knows, will be subject to full environmental assessment once the process has been completed. All members of the public and all intervenors will have the opportunity to have their say --

Mr Sorbara: They have to follow the law.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mr Wildman: -- and to be able to test whether or not the IWA has indeed carried out its mandate as it should to determine the proper kind of site that can be identified for greater Toronto area waste.

The member cannot be contradictory. He can't have it both ways. He can't stand on both sides of the fence at once.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour, who, as all of us, will know how difficult it is today for businesses to survive, let alone to make a buck.

Last December, changes were made to regulations which classify premium assessments at the Workers' Compensation Board. They assessed last year for 1993 every business with an increase of approximately 3% for 1993, and businesses budgeted for that increase. However, that is not now what is happening. Businesses are now being told midyear that they have been assessed at a rate of increase well in excess of the 3%. They've also been told that this increase will now be retroactive back to January 1, 1993.

As the minister supposedly responsible for WCB -- I hate to even use the words that way -- how do you expect businesses to pay retroactive exorbitant increases in these tough economic times?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I will get back to the member on his question on that matter.

Mr Harris: That really is not quite good enough. When I said the minister was supposedly responsible, I thought the minister, given the controversy over the last period of time, would know a little bit about what's going on affecting labour and business in this province and their ability to survive.

A small window-cleaning business just received its new retroactive assessment. The business cleans storefront windows at ground level without using ladders. They have been told that they're going to be assessed at the same rate as skyscraper window-cleaning businesses. That means their rate goes from $3.95 per $100 of payroll to $12.95 per $100 of payroll. That's an increase of over triple. In discussions with the business today, and it's a small business, they tell us that they may be able to keep on family members; they cannot possibly keep on any paid employees at that increased rate retroactive to January 1.

Increases of this size for WCB premiums are already costing us jobs. With high unemployment in the private sector, with government-imposed costs going up daily, I ask you: Are you aware of this, and how can you allow the WCB to retroactively increase rates -- in this case, triple from what they were -- when they were promised a 3% increase for 1993?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There have been discussions going on for some time as to the assessments and the rearranging of assessments at the Workers' Compensation Board. We are in the process of that right now.

I'm a little bit surprised that the leader of the third party would even ask me the question, inasmuch as he doesn't think I've got any answers for him anyhow.

Mr Harris: Boy, I suppose I should be criticized for thinking that one day you'll actually find out what the hell's going on over at the WCB. If that's the criticism, I'm guilty, because I expect you, as the minister responsible for WCB and on behalf of this government, to find out.

A concrete forming company is facing an increase from $4.98 per $100 of payroll to $11.83, retroactive to January. They've already got signed contracts based upon the lower rate. They now stand to either lose those contracts and forfeit them or go ahead and lose money under the contracts, which means lost jobs again.

We've got this unfunded liability. We're every day finding out new horror stories, such as the multimillion-dollar building with no good reason anybody can give as to why it should proceed. Every day we hear you out talking to workers, going to labour conventions, saying, "We're going to increase the benefits; there's more money to come," and they're sitting there with a $12-billion unfunded liability, and these ludicrous retroactive increases for small businesses are driving them out of business.

Since you apparently didn't know, would you agree that these increases are ludicrous, that they are not what the businesses were promised with the 3% increase for 1993, and will you put a stop to them before we don't have any businesses left in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The decisions will be made through the regular negotiation and consultation process by the board at the WCB, and I certainly am not running the Workers' Compensation Board.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On May 10 of this year, I asked you if you had in your possession a copy of a report that the chief of police in the city of Windsor provided to the Windsor Police Services Board. Your answer, and I would not want to misquote you, was: "I don't have that report which he is referring to." Will you now acknowledge that you were mistaken on that occasion?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): What I said at that time is true. I didn't have the report. I never had the report. It was a report that was commissioned by the Windsor police. It's my understanding that the project team did have that report and reviewed that report. I never did see that report myself.

Furthermore, the ministry at that time requested that the police not make that report public until after the deadline for the request for proposals was over, because one of the requests we made of the proponents is that they would tell us how they would deal with policing and crime problems in Windsor.

Subsequent to that, we have made it clear to the police, now that that deadline is past, that they should feel free to release that report. At this time the police are aware of that, and the chief of police has determined that he cannot release it until his police services board tells him to do so.

Mr Eves: I believe somewhere in there was an answer that indicated that the minister still does not acknowledge that her ministry has received a copy of the report. I would like to read from a letter of July 16 from Mr Domenic Alfieri, assistant deputy minister to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to the chief of police in the city of Windsor. This is from Mr Alfieri, the ADM, to the chief of police, and it reads in part:

"You faxed me a copy, and upon reading part of it I telephoned you indicating that I had a number of concerns about it and that if you chose to make the report public, I would be put in a position of having to disagree with it in public."

1420

It seems quite clear to me that in fact the ministry did have a copy of the report, that the ADM had a copy of the report since January, some seven months ago, has read it, knows what's in it, disagrees with what's in it and has communicated that to the chief of police. Why are you stifling this report and why can't you admit that you had it in the possession of the ministry in January of this year?

Hon Ms Churley: Now I see that the member for Parry Sound is saying something somewhat different: He is saying that the ADM had the report.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I have never had the report. The assistant deputy minister, yes, had communicated with the police chief on this.

I think the important thing to keep in mind here -- and I have a letter here from the police chief that clearly says he received a letter from the ADM telling him that we had absolutely no problem with him releasing that report. I believe the police chief spoke to him directly and told him that this ministry has made it clear to him that he could release the report if he wanted to.

What has happened is that he has a meeting of his board -- I believe it is today -- and he wants to be able to have a discussion with his board as to whether or not it chooses to release the report. I have no problem with him releasing the report; it's up to him.

Mr Eves: It would appear that indeed the ministry did have a copy of the report, even by the minister's own admission now.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: No, she didn't say that, with all due respect. As a matter of fact, her quote of May 10 says exactly the opposite.

However, assuming that we now all acknowledge that the assistant deputy minister in your ministry had this report some time in January of this year, and assuming that we all know they've communicated back and forth, the chief of police with officials in your ministry -- you are the minister, are you not? -- why have you not taken it upon yourself to read the report? Don't you want to know what's in the report? Don't you feel that to make an appropriate decision, as the minister who is introducing Bill 8 and a casino into Windsor, that you should take it upon yourself to read that report, see what's in it and act upon it as a minister of the crown?

Hon Ms Churley: No, I don't think I should have seen that report. That report was commissioned by the police. They made the choice to do it in the very early stages of the announcement of the casino in Windsor. That was a very preliminary report, practically before any decisions whatsoever were made. There are a lot of reports being written. There are a lot of things happening out there which the ADM and the project team are dealing with.

I will be very interested. If they release the report, I'd like to see it, but my understanding is that they made the decision -- and you weren't listening to this -- we wanted the proponents of the RFPs, the people who responded to the RFP, to tell us what they would do in response to policing commitments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Has the minister completed her response?

Hon Ms Churley: Now that we have all the proposals before us, the ADM has made it perfectly clear to the police chief that it is fine to release the report, that it wouldn't jeopardize in any way the results of the proposals that have come in.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: I believe that the police chief will make that decision today with his board. At that time, once the decision is made, I'm sure you will get the report.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I wish to bring to the minister's attention a matter dealing with the impact of your taxes in your recent budget. Throughout every community in our province is a legion of young boys and girls who deliver pamphlets and brochures to households. They may be affiliated with any one of the newspaper chains, private or otherwise, and they earn maybe upwards of $50 a month. The young kids walk door to door. They're usually covered by an insurance premium, and that insurance premium protects them against things like dog bites. This month, many community newspapers had to inform their carriers, these 11- and 12- and 13-year-old kids, of your budget. The question is: Why?

I have one of these notifications. It talks about three things: first, carrier day at Wild Water Kingdom; secondly, a summer-long subscription contest; but thirdly it says: "Effective July 6, the Ontario government has legislated an 8% retail sales tax on your insurance premiums. The tax will be deducted off your pay and submitted to the government." The last line says, "Make sure you explain this to your parents, and please call if you have any questions."

Mr Minister, how can you justify this tax on these young kids trying to earn some money this summer? What justification do you have for sticking your hands into the pockets of 12-year-olds?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I think it's a good thing the House is adjourning today. The questions coming from the opposition are getting sillier and sillier and sillier. The fact is that there's no tax on children. The fact is that there's a tax on premiums for companies who buy insurance. It's plain and simple.

The member opposite and the rest of the Liberal caucus don't believe there should be any tax increases, don't believe there should be any expenditure reductions and don't believe the deficit should be as high as it is either. So here we go again: No more tax increases, but keep the deficit down and don't reduce your expenditures. Just another line from the Liberals that means absolutely nothing at all.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Finance can say whatever he wishes, but it is his tax on those premiums, and they're affecting those kids walking door to door delivering brochures. This is not made up. These are notices that have to go to every kid, 11, 12 and 13 years old.

I want to hear how -- and I ask this question again -- you can justify sticking your hands in the pockets of 12-year-olds trying to earn maybe $50 a month, because what your tax is doing is taking money out of their pockets. That's what your tax says, that's what your budget said, and that's what I want you to try to justify to all those kids out on those streets this afternoon.

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: Like the member opposite, I'm somewhat surprised that these employers would indeed take money out of the pockets of children. I don't think that some of the larger corporations in this province which own community newspapers -- and I could name names, my friend; they're better friends of yours than they are of mine. But I can tell you that I am very surprised to hear that these employers would reach into the pockets of children and take money out of those pockets. I really hope that's an exception, because I don't believe that most employers in the province would resort to that kind of tactic.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. In my question to you on Monday of this week, I raised the possibility that American residents of the Akwesasne reserve could be defrauding Ontario's health card system. Subsequently, Health ministry officials from the province of Quebec have told me that at least 200 residents of the reserve who are American citizens could be receiving medical benefits in Ontario for which they are not eligible. Minister, what are the actual numbers of Akwesasne residents who have Ontario health cards who shouldn't have them?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I don't have those numbers available to me at the moment. I will certainly endeavour to get them and transmit them to the member as quickly as I can.

Mr Jim Wilson: On Monday, the minister admitted that she had launched an investigation to examine exactly how many Akwesasne residents are eligible for health care benefits in Ontario. I got the distinct impression from her answer that this investigation had been launched some time ago and that she should have results by now. I look forward to finding out the exact numbers of people who have cards who shouldn't. However, Minister, in your response to me on Monday, you were reluctant to share any details about the nature of this supposed investigation.

Health ministry officials in Quebec are meeting with the reserve's chief on August 4. They are insisting that Akwesasne residents show proof that they are indeed citizens of Quebec. The Quebec government has been investigating this problem for months and is taking actions to correct it. Minister, are you prepared to also meet with the reserve chief and ask the natives of Akwesasne to show proof of residency? Are you prepared to take appropriate action if you find that Ontario health cards have been used in a fraudulent manner?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have explained to the House in the past that I share the concern that I know is felt on all sides and by the public at any misuse of the Ontario health card and that we in fact are endeavouring to find ways of making that health card more secure and a better health card.

We have in place for the first time a registration division of OHIP that is examining every accusation and every suspicion that the health card might be used improperly. As I said to the member on Monday, we will certainly look into this. We have in place an agreement with the province of Quebec whereby information is shared. That will happen.

But I'd like to take the opportunity to say to the House that the member has on a number of occasions raised accusations. When I or officials have endeavoured to find out from the member what in fact that accusation was based on, who the complainant was, what the address was to which perhaps a number of cards had been sent, what we have found is that there is a rumour somewhere which the member has put on the record and which makes in impossible for the branch to check without accurate information.

Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The minister's response is simply untrue. I have provided --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Simcoe West take his seat. Aside from the vocabulary, there is simply a difference of opinion, I realize, but there is not a point of privilege. We do, however, have a new question.

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Over the past few months you have announced a new program, which is Jobs Ontario Community Action. There has been much excitement and many questions involving this program.

In the past, there have been many different programs which have funded projects in a community. There are people in Niagara Falls who are proposing an upgrading of our streetscape and sidewalks in our tourism area. What they want to know very clearly is, how does this new process differ from past processes? How does the community actually get involved in the planning of these projects?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The program Jobs Ontario Community Action takes a lot of existing money -- and I've said a number of times that this is not new money; this is money that existed in a lot of different grants programs in different ministries -- and brings it together into one program in a one-window, single approach, a much more flexible approach that is able to meet communities' priorities instead of communities having to meet government's priorities.

In the past, local communities would have to chase grant applications from one ministry to another to another. Now, they can approach any one of the six ministries involved: Municipal Affairs; Agriculture and Food; Culture, Tourism and Recreation; Northern Development and Mines; Economic Development and Trade; and there's one other, and I'm going to have to try to remember what that is. But there are six ministries. They can approach any one of them and work with it. Communities come together and set up their priorities.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm hearing some heckling from across the floor about the issue that the member for Lawrence raised yesterday with respect to Lawrence Heights, a community where they've come together and planned to use some planning money to develop a non-profit convenience store. The money from the profits that would be raised there is going into a Lawrence Heights economic development program in which that community will be able to do --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- further initiatives to improve the economic situation of their community. It's an exciting new process. It's one that's designed to meet community priorities.

Ms Harrington: I think it is very important for every community across this province to know that there are going to be different ways of working together for economic development.

I know you've announced some of the projects already that have been fast-tracked to get the funding. Now, I'm hoping, certainly in my riding, that some more announcements will be coming forward very quickly. But my question is, if these projects are not approved in the next set of announcements, which is expected soon, what happens to these applications? Do they go back into the process and are they reconsidered? Certainly the people of Niagara Falls want to know this on this particular project.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member refers to a commitment we made that a certain amount of the capital dollars for this year would be put aside and fast-tracked through an approval process to deal with a number of the applications that had been pending under old programs. Those were applications that would meet the criteria under the old programs. In fact, some of those announcements have been made and the rest will be made this week and next week. They're all unfolding at this point in time.

A project that was submitted under that which did not receive approval will receive, some time in the next couple of weeks, a response from the ministries involved as to whether or not it is a project that meets the criteria of the ongoing new program and willingness to work with that community to develop the proposal for the new program, or whether it's one that they should go back and work on with their community in a different way to try to see if there's funding available.

So to the member, I would suggest the best way that she can be involved with her community. We've offered to all MPPs to come out and set up meetings, to work with their communities, to explain the new program and to look at specific projects and help them develop to the point where there would be approval or at least an assessment for eligibility. That's the best thing that she can do over the course of the next couple of months with her local community.

ONTARIO HYDRO CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A new question to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro: The morning after we understandably voted ourselves a pay cut, a few days away from the fail-safe social contract, August 1, I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment and Energy a question about spending at Ontario Hydro and particularly about spending at Ontario Hydro in the area of energy conservation and demand management.

It's been reported today that earlier this year, Ontario Hydro awarded a contract for three months to an outfit called Canyon Consulting, a contract of three months' duration with a value of $264,880.10. I repeat, a three-month contract to a group called Canyon Consulting involving seven people working on a non-cash incentive program for energy management with a total value of $264,880.10.

Is the minister aware of this contract, and can he tell the House and the beleaguered ratepayers and taxpayers of Ontario what they got in this age of restraint and social contracting for this quarter-of-a-million-dollar contract over three months?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As the member I'm sure was made aware today of this contract, so was I. I can confirm that it was indeed a contract that was entered into by Ontario Hydro and, as I understand it, with Ontario Hydro going through the major restructuring that it is now and reorienting its energy demand management program, the corporation believed it needed information and assistance in how to reorient its program.

Interjection.

1440

Mr Conway: I say to my friend the member for Ottawa Centre, who yesterday took a pay cut, who's out advertising and advocating the social contract, this deal is $90,000 a month for seven people; that's $12,000 a month per person. This in the same part of Hydro where we've just spent $1.3 million for the love poll. We spent $900,000 for Market Vision Research to analyse the love poll, and now we've got $264,000 being spent on seven people over three months in the name of developing a non-cash incentive program for energy management.

I'm sure the people of Blind River and Algoma are as they are in Renfrew and elsewhere in Ontario: They're mad as hell and they're not going to take this kind of crap any more. Will the minister responsible for energy give the taxpayers of Ontario and the ratepayers of Hydro an assurance that this kind of spending in the name of energy conservation and demand management at the giant utility is going to stop and that these kinds of boondoggles will cease and that he will give an order to the chairman of Hydro that this kind of spending will stop?

Hon Mr Wildman: I was attempting to calculate how many of these types of contracts would have been required to make up the $14 billion that that government spent on Darlington.

I also, though, want to point out two things. First, I don't know the exact details of this contract. I can't confirm the number of people who were involved for the firm that received the contract. But I also want to indicate very clearly that previous programs on demand management were designed not only to give advice to corporations and to residents, owners in the province, on how they can improve energy efficiency and thus cut the amount of electricity being used and cut their electricity bills, but in many cases the programs in Ontario Hydro subsidized the work that then was to be done to do that.

The decision was made in order to be more efficient, in order to not spend as much money, and also to ensure that we have demand management in the province, that we move away from subsidization. The contract was designed to ensure that we no longer subsidize corporations to save money on electricity in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Burlington South.

Mr Conway: This was a boondoggle. You want to defend this, $90,000 a month for seven months. You want to defend this as you claw back money from universities and charitable institutions.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North, please come to order, and the member for Nipigon. This is not helpful.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General. On Tuesday of this week, I tabled private member's Bill 85, the Proceeds of Crime Act, which is an act I developed that came out of one of the sections of the Victims' Bill of Rights I've been trying to have passed in this House for the last four years. I think the minister is fairly familiar with it. She would be aware that the bill suggests that moneys paid to criminals for recollections of their heinous crimes, for interviews or for movie rights, would instead be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to then give them to the victims themselves.

Earlier this week, Doug and Donna French wrote me a letter in support of this bill. I wish to just briefly quote from it:

"Recently, Karla Homolka was convicted of manslaughter in connection with our daughter's death and the death of Leslie Mahaffy. Her husband, Paul Bernardo Teale, has been charged with several counts including first-degree murder in these same deaths.

"It has become common knowledge that several books are in the process of being written, as well as a movie in the works. There are also TV shows wanting interviews in regard to these murders.

"The fact that people want to profit from someone else's tragedy is disgusting, but the fact that the criminals themselves can profit from crime is an outrage."

Attorney General, as the minister responsible for our justice system in this province, do you agree with the French family that it is an outrage to profit from these crimes?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As I have told the member on a number of occasions before, I am very interested in his suggestion and the suggestion that's contained in the bill he tabled. It is very similar to a bill that our party, through Jim Renwick, tried to move through this Legislature in the past. I have asked the attorneys in the Attorney General's ministry to look at the implications of the bill that the member tabled and to look at other options that we have, to see what lies within our jurisdiction and to see how that kind of thing can come forward.

I share the member's view that this kind of notion of a criminal profiting from his or her crime is very unpalatable to the general public. I have also indicated to him that I would do what I could in conjunction with him to see what we can do within our jurisdiction.

Mr Jackson: Minister, I had your sympathy and your party's support when I tabled the Victims' Bill of Rights in this House, when the Liberals blocked it. You have been in office now for three years. The constant victimization and the profiteering have gone on.

Several weeks ago when the justice committee was examining this and other issues, Mrs Debbie Mahaffy was present, as she was this morning for a press conference in support of Bill 85. In Hansard, Mrs Mahaffy was reported as saying the following:

"My daughter was murdered, unfortunately, for the entertainment of her killer or killers. I do not think her murder should, nor do I want her murder to entertain or profit anyone else in any way in any country. There is no comfort or privacy in knowing that others can violate our family further without our knowledge or permission. I worry and am concerned for my daughter's friends, for my son. It is just a matter of time before her friends or he will be able to rent a video, read a book or watch a movie made for TV about her murder."

Mrs Mahaffy said very clearly that it is a matter of time before this can happen. Minister, by your own admission, your party has been interested in this issue for many years. When will you assure this House that you can proceed with legislation, not necessarily my bill but your bill? Please, will you bring that forward for these families who are today deeply worried and distressed about the implications of the profiteering from this highly celebrated and heinous crime that occurred in our province?

1450

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have indicated to the member that I will do what I can, and as quickly as I can, to see what is available to us within our jurisdiction that would stand up to the number of challenges that I know the member knows would come forward from those who regard their right of publishing material and so on to be violated by that kind of thing.

I am not going to make a commitment that we would necessarily move forward with some particular bill at this point in time. I have said that we will look at what our options are within our jurisdiction and that I share his concern, but I certainly am not in a position at this point in time, any more than the two previous governments were, to move forward on this, given the complexity of the issues and the conflicting rights that exist under this kind of matter. But I will move forward as quickly as I can and will keep him informed of our progress.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY COMPENSATION FUND

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can the minister outline for the House any mechanisms her ministry has in place to assist individuals who have not received the travel services for which they contracted with their local travel brokers?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The main mandate of my ministry is the protection of the consumer in the marketplace, and to this end there is a compensation fund which assists clients who have not received the travel services for which they contracted. This is usually because the travel agency or retailer that they have dealt with goes under, which has happened a fair amount these days.

My ministry requires that the travel industry compensation fund and its administration be fully financed by travel agents and travel wholesalers. They pay about $3.5 million a year into that, and this is not, let me add, paid for by the taxpayers of the province.

Mr Mammoliti: Minister, I don't have to tell you that recently, as early as about a week and a half ago, a Toronto-based travel company by the name of Trendy has gone under. This has resulted, frankly, in approximately 1,000 people being stuck in the country of Italy. Madam Minister, I have spoken to a number of individuals in your ministry, and you know that I'm concerned about the fact that these 1,000 people are still there and that a lot of them are experiencing difficulty, not only financially but in accommodating themselves there as well.

I know that you're aware of the case and I know that you've listened, but those people are still there. What has your ministry done to expedite their departure from Italy back to their home country, and how quickly will these people come back? For these people, it's very important, and I'd like a quick response.

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly am aware of the case. The member has brought it up on several occasions.

I'm pleased to tell them that the return to Canada has been arranged for practically all those affected. The ministry officials -- there are several full-time staff dedicated to this -- have by now contacted, I think, almost 90% of those affected. They will be brought home as comfortably and as conveniently and as soon as possible.

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I too have a question of the Attorney General, and it relates to the trial and the conclusion of the trial of Karla Homolka. I don't think I need a preamble to remind the minister and the members of the House of the revulsion that all Canadians felt at the brutal murders of both Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. I think the remarks of my friend the member for Burlington South have looked after that part of this, at least in that regard.

What I want to know from the Attorney General is to what extent the Attorney General participated in the negotiations between lawyers for Karla Homolka and crown attorneys within her ministry in the agreement that was reached in respect of the sentence, in the agreement that was reached in respect of the resolution of that trial.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I did not participate in any way at all.

Mr Sorbara: Frankly, I take the Attorney General at her word, but I find that extremely difficult to comprehend and believe.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): It would be improper.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the Environment minister suggests it's improper. Far from that, the fact is that it would be improper for the Attorney General to interfere in an ongoing trial, but when officials working in her ministry, under her direction and under the authority of the Attorney General, are participating in negotiation of an agreement respecting sentence, surely the Attorney General, as the person chiefly responsible for the administration of justice in Ontario, would at least have the responsibility and the duty to oversee the negotiations of her officials and to consider whether or not the agreement that her officials were about to enter into was appropriate, at least from her perspective.

Surely it would have been appropriate for the Attorney General to approve of the agreement that her officials, working directly under her, were taking to attorneys for Karla Homolka which ultimately ended up in a resolution.

How can the Attorney General say that she didn't have anything to do and refused to participate in those negotiations and that agreement? I just find it difficult to believe --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- particularly given the reaction of the public to the agreement that was reached.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I find myself somewhat speechless at the impression the member is suggesting about how the justice system operates in the province of Ontario. It is an extremely important principle in the justice system that there be no political interference in terms of any case, and the member knows that very well.

The issue that we need to be aware of here is that crown attorneys have the confidence of the ministry and the minister to work within the ethics of their profession to act as officers of the court to act on behalf of the public interest in the decisions they make, as do the other participants in the court process, and it would be most inappropriate, in this case or any other, for an Attorney General to interfere in this kind of matter.

TAXATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cousens: This is it. Once this question's over, we can't get at these rascals for another two months.

You and your government brought in the largest tax grab in the history of Ontario to beat up the downtrodden taxpayer even more. You've taxed and taxed and taxed us into economic ruin. And just when we thought we couldn't be taxed any more, you taxed us again.

It's bad enough that you taxed auto and home insurance, but you also taxed employee benefits. What's most distressing is that your tax on employee benefits makes no mention of premium taxes that also must be paid. Your budget calls for an 8% sales tax to be placed on benefits, in addition to a 2% premium tax. The grand total then is a 10% tax on employee benefits.

I'll just give you, Mr Speaker, because of what we're doing --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Cousens: -- just a backgrounder to this. The minister nodded.

Hewitt Associates has said the budget extends the 2% Ontario insurance premium tax to all uninsured benefit plans. The intent stated in the budget documents is to apply the new provisions in a similar fashion to the retail sales tax. For example, the 2% premium tax will apply to uninsured plans but will not apply to disability plans paid from payroll.

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Cousens: I therefore ask you, Mr Minister of Finance, why was this information that we would be paying a 10% increase in tax on these benefits not accounted for in your budget?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate that question by the uptrodden on behalf of the downtrodden. The member for Markham should know that there's an enormous difference between a premium tax and a sales tax. The premium tax was already in place, and if --

Mr Cousens: Not for these. You extended it.

The Speaker: Order.

1500

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Markham should understand that the sales tax was put on insurance premiums, not simply the ones to which he refers but other insurance premiums too.

There's nothing magical about it. It was not meant to discriminate against any group of workers or any group in society. I am as candid as possible with the member. It was a way in which we could raise revenues in this province so we wouldn't have to cut programs more and wouldn't have to have a higher deficit.

There's nothing mysterious about why government needs tax revenues, and I think the member opposite would be the first one to complain if we let the deficit go any higher. So there's nothing mysterious about it.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

I have a point of privilege over here, and then I'll hear the other member.

Will the member for Markham please take his seat.

Mr Cousens: He didn't answer my question, Mr Speaker. He failed to answer my question.

The Speaker: I will ask the member for Markham one more time to please take his seat.

VISITORS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask the members to join me in welcoming a couple of people over in the west gallery. The newly elected spokesperson for region 3 of the National Farmers Union and Art Macklin, president of the National Farmers Union, are here to join us this afternoon.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a brief point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that there has been some talk about adjourning for a summer recess, perhaps today, perhaps next week, and given the economic performance of the Rae government, I wonder if instead of adjourning I might seek unanimous consent for dissolution of Parliament so the Premier can take his record to the people in a general election.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): Mr Speaker, if I can rise on the same point, I would have thought the member for York Centre would have learned what happens to people who go to the people earlier than they should.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre indeed raises a point of order. Do we have unanimous consent to dissolve Parliament? No.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have petitions addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a serious reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature. I would also like to table a second one very similar regarding psychotherapy, since the House is about to adjourn.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition from the corporation of the township of Flos:

"Whereas the 1993 provincial budget imposed the 8% retail sales tax on premiums paid on group life and health plans effective July 1, 1993; and

"Whereas the imposition of an additional tax in the amount of $3,300 per annum is an unreasonable burden on municipal employers at a time when the province is dictating compensation reductions through its social contract legislation;

"Therefore, the municipality of the corporation of the township of Flos and many others resolve as follows:

"That the township of Flos strenuously objects to the imposition of the retail sales tax on group life and health plans and that the Minister of Finance, the Premier of Ontario and the local MPP and AMO be so advised."

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I herewith submit a petition on behalf of a number of constituents not only from my riding but from neighbouring ridings as well. They express a series of concerns regarding Bill 48.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health is proposing to reduce the budget of the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals by $45 million without first having developed community services for the seriously ill; and

"Whereas we believe that this measure will have tragic results for those individuals who have major illnesses such as schizophrenia, which afflicts one out of 100 people at some time during their lives and places an enormous burden on them and their families if left untreated;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We, the Peterborough chapter of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics and others who support us, wish to petition the Ontario Legislature not to cut back the funding to those who need care and services in our psychiatric hospitals and in the community."

I have affixed my name to this petition, as well as to a second one with respect to the removal or limitation of psychotherapy from the OHIP list.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation; to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

There are 118 signatures and I affix my own.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I again add these signatures to the many I've brought here against casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I am very happy to affix my signature to this important petition.

HUNTING IN PETROGLYPHS PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition here signed by over 500 people from the province of Ontario, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, object to the proposed closing of the Petroglyphs park to bow hunting in 1993 and beyond.

"This closing is due to complaints and concerns voiced by aboriginal groups and other park users.

"We, the undersigned, reserve the right to voice our opinion and keep the park open to bow hunting."

1510

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition here signed by some 400 residents of Brampton, in addition to the many, many hundreds of petitions that I filed earlier. It's a petition to the Legislature of Ontario which goes as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have released draft legislation for apartments in houses, granny flats, to permit accessory dwelling units as-of-right in all residential areas and to permit granny flats;

"We, the undersigned, object to the draft legislation for apartments in houses -- granny flats -- for the following reasons and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"(1) That the province examine the implications that the proposed legislation may have on the rights of property owners, landlords and tenants with respect to their expectations of zoning authority and the neighbourhoods in which they live;

"(2) That the province not entertain this proposed legislation removing the right of local government to regulate development without adequate public notification and opportunity to review and comment on the draft legislation;

"(3) That the local municipality be granted the authority to regulate and license or register accessory apartments;

"(4) That the province, in consultation with local and regional authorities, examine methods of compensating the municipality for increased costs of servicing new residential growth," ie, accessory apartments;

"(5) That the right of entry for bylaw enforcement officers to inspect accessory apartments during reasonable hours be incorporated into the legislation;

"(6) That representatives from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be requested to conduct a public meeting in Brampton to discuss the draft legislation with the community;"

"(7) That the city of Brampton supports granny flats as a form of housing intensification subject to the assurance that the units will be removed at the end of their intended use."

I have affixed my signature thereto and agree with the petition.

ABORTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government intends to implement the recommendations of the Task Group of Abortion Service Providers;

"We, the undersigned, protest these recommendations and their implementation because;

"(1) These policies are anti-family; and

"(2) These policies will use our tax dollars to kill unborn babies; and

"(3) These policies will cause essential hospital services to be slashed across the province."

I've affixed my signature.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Although I have normally stood to address a petition on Bruce A and its survival to the Legislative Assembly, I wish to introduce on this occasion a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads in part:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province" --

The undersigned basically ask that the government reassess its position on health care and actually work to bring about a well-rounded and rational reform of the system as opposed to destroying it altogether.

These signatures are from the Paisley, Southampton and Port Elgin area, and I've affixed my name to the petition.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition here signed by a number of people addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's from the people of Ontario and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario that:

"Firstly, that free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"Secondly, that the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians; and

"Thirdly, that the government withdraw Bill 48 and, in place of this bill, that the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

I have signed this petition and I agree with it and present it to the table.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's actually ironic today that I'm presenting this petition on the very day that we are about to give second reading to Bill 50, which will fully implement state medicine in the province of Ontario. This petition speaks to that issue. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction of the provision of quality health care services across the province;" -- I think that's an important point.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposals" -- that's going to happen -- "and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

That agreement, of course, has been violated, and this petition asks that its terms be honoured and implemented, but I don't think that's going to happen, given what we're going to vote on today.

I've signed the petition and I submit it on behalf of the hundreds of residents of my riding who have also signed it.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have another petition addressed to Honourable Lieutenant Governor:

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

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to the honourable position in Ontario;

"The social contract in its present form be destroyed and the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians; and

"The government withdraw Bill 48, and in place of this bill the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

I have affixed my signature.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a petition from the First Christian Reform Church, 40 parishioners from that church, the First Christian Reform Church in Thunder Bay, and it calls upon the government of Ontario to cease all moves to establish gaming casinos and is signed by some 40-plus signatories. I affix my signature as well.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I have affixed my name to the petition.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition, although not quite in the right form. I will attempt to perfect it at a later date. But it really basically needs to be said on behalf of the senior citizens' group from the town of Wingham -- signatories, Isabel Garniss and Bert Garniss, whom I've known for a number of years, and Alex Robertson, Dorothy Stevens and others -- that the seniors are protesting the work of the New Democratic Party on taking away the rights of access to medication. I want to put the message in front of the House that these people are protesting the way that the Premier is destroying medicare in this province.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38 because we believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work, and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually.

"We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

I have affixed my signature; signed by 22 constituents.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'd like to remind the members that when the House is not in session you may submit your petitions to the Clerk.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

On motion by Mr Mackenzie, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry / Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The only comment I wish to make is that it is a pleasure to bring this bill forward and it's one of the few bills where we have had the amount of consultation we've had and where we have reached a unanimous agreement of the committee that looked at it, both labour and management.

Report continues in volume B.

July 29, 1993

EXPENDITURE CONTROL PLAN STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE PLAN DE CONTRÔLE DES DÉPENSES

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

RACIAL HARMONY

MINISTRY OF HEALTH STAFFING

FOREST INDUSTRY

CHARLES CLARK

FRUIT GROWERS

ANTI-RACISM BILLS

CARLOS COSTA

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

WCB PREMIUMS

CASINO GAMBLING

INSURANCE TAX

HEALTH CARDS

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

ONTARIO HYDRO CONTRACT

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

TRAVEL INDUSTRY COMPENSATION FUND

HOMOLKA CASE

TAXATION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

INSURANCE TAX

SOCIAL CONTRACT

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

GAMBLING

HUNTING IN PETROGLYPHS PROVINCIAL PARK

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

ABORTION

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

CASINO GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE