Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

CONTENTS

Tuesday 23 January 1996

Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, Bill 26, Mr Eves / Loi de 1995 sur les économies et la restructuration, projet de loi 26, M. Eves

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président: Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)

*Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC)

Danford, Harry (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)

*Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)

Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

*Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)

*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)

Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC)

*Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)

Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

*Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre / Centre PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L) for Mr Sergio

Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC) for Mr Kells

Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND) for Mr Wood

Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Stewart

Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L) for Mrs Pupatello

Johns, Helen (Huron PC) for Mr Danford

Lankin, Frances (Beaches-Woodbine ND) for Mr Marchese

Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Grandmaître

Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty

Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:

Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND)

Ministry of Health:
Czukar, Gail, legal counsel
Finkle, Peter, director, central region, institutional health group

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Clerk pro tem/ Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd

Staff / Personnel: Baldwin, Elizabeth, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1000 in room 151.

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.

The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to our clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 26. When we left yesterday, we were partway through discussing a new proposed section 1.2 and Ms Lankin was about to have the floor. So, Ms Lankin, we will carry on from that point. The floor's yours.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Could I just ask your guidance on this? Yesterday afternoon, as you know, there was an amendment moved to section 1.1 of the bill and we had, I think, just arrived at the point of voting on it when there was some discussion and there was an agreement to stand that amendment down so that Mr Sampson, who had just received the Liberal amendments, would have an opportunity to review it.

Given the content of that and given that it also speaks to issues around accountability of government actions to the Legislature in a broader and more comprehensive way than the amendment we're actually dealing with, I'm wondering procedurally whether it would make sense to stand down the amendment on section 1.2 at this point in time and go back to that vote so that we are aware of whether or not that is carried before we actually deal with this amendment because of the similarity of the intent, if not the content.

The Chair: Is the committee ready to revisit the amendment that we stood down yesterday, the Liberal amendment to the new section 1.1?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Agreed.

The Chair: Does it make sense then to follow along with what Ms Lankin suggests, that we stand down the new 1.2 since it has some of the same content as 1.1?

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Sure.

The Chair: Okay. We'll stand down 1.2 for the time being and return to the new section 1.1 proposed by the Liberals, which was stood down yesterday. In that case Mr Sampson would have the floor.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I find it a rather interesting proposed amendment. I do have now, having had a chance to read it, some concerns as it relates to the technical wording of the particular amendment because it refers to "the preceding calendar year in exercising," but it says that the first report is due July 1996, so there could not technically be a full calendar year in July 1996 since it will be the end of January before the bill receives, if it does receive, third reading on January 29.

I'd like to ask, Mr Phillips, if you could tell me, what is the intent of this particular -- I believe you were the one who moved the amendment.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Yes. I appreciate the opportunity to go over it because some of the public aren't aware of what was moved yesterday. Let's just refresh our memory here. The government said this bill is absolutely fundamental to implementing their agenda. As a matter of fact, they put the gun to our heads and said, "This is so important, so important that this bill which we introduced on November 29" -- I might add once again, when most of us were in a lockup and most of us did not have any idea you were tabling this bill. As a matter of fact, I suspect most of the government members had no idea. It was tabled at 3:30 when we were in a lockup until 4 o'clock. The government knew that, yet you tabled this bill and then you said, "We want this bill passed in two weeks with no debate."

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): That was 14 days later than they wanted it.

Mr Phillips: As the member says, "14 days later than they wanted." It was November 29. You wanted this passed in two weeks. Why? Because you said it was absolutely crucial to the future of Ontario that this bill be passed. You went on to say that all of these sections of the bill are interrelated and that they all fit together in some kind of a pattern designed to implement your agenda. So we take you at your word, and that is that this bill is the centrepiece of the government's agenda. As a matter of fact, I remember the day that we finally forced some debate on this bill, when we arrived in the Legislature the next day there was some sign on the building about the amount of money per hour it was costing because you weren't implementing this bill.

If this bill is so important to you and if it's so essential to the future of Ontario and if it's the bill that you want to be evaluated on, surely you would agree to this motion, because the motion essentially says that each six months you provide the people of Ontario with a review of the progress of the bill. That's what it talks about, that's what it intends to do and that's the reason for the motion. It is essentially every six months a report card from you people on the implementation of this bill.

We have real concerns about this bill. We think it's wrong. We think you are grabbing powers you have no right to. We think you are taking on to yourself sweeping authority and we think there have been a whole bunch of people ignored in this bill. The people in the environment have had no input into this bill. This was a little bill concocted, cooked up behind closed doors, by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, by the government, with virtually no input from the rest of the people who were going to be impacted. It was this cosy little deal with a two-sided negotiating table designed to implement your agenda.

I will just say to you that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people out there who find the bill objectionable, who don't like your agenda and who feel you should be accountable for the implications of this bill. So it's very clear why this motion is before us. It says every six months, beginning with July, six months from now, that the Minister of Finance -- presumably this is his bill, although we've never seen the Minister of Finance ever before this committee, we've never seen the Minister of Finance prepared to sit and defend the bill, we've never seen the Minister of Finance give an explanation of why he has to gut the environmental provisions around the Mining Act and why he has to gut collective bargaining and why he has to take $250 million of pension. He has never been prepared to defend that.

But we say every six months the government has an obligation to come before the people of Ontario and give us a report card on this bill. What you're going to try and say is, "We'll do that other places," but you say this bill is all one big package. That's what you're telling us. "It's all one big package." That's what you tell the people of Ontario. So surely you can have no objections to every six months giving us a report card on the progress. You say this is going to allow you to save billions and billions of dollars. Fine. Give us the report card. Give the people a report card so that we can understand where you are on this bill.

Yesterday when we moved this motion -- that's the intent of it. If the government can fine-hone this, if you've got better language around this, fine. We're prepared to entertain it. You've got all the resources of the government behind you. We in the opposition have limited resources to prepare these things. We prepared it the best way we can. If you can improve it, improve it. But the essential element is this: Every six months the people of Ontario get a report card.

You've told us this is your big bill. We call it the bully bill; you call it something else. It's your big bill. So give us a report card on it every six months. We say in a calendar year every six months. Each year between six months you bring forward a report card. I think that's completely reasonable. If you try and slough it off and say, "We'll do it in some other committee," and, "You can do it this way and do it that way," then it's just more of the game you're playing with the people of Ontario, when you say this is all one big package but you're not prepared to give a report card on the one big package.

I hope you can appreciate the anger that we in the opposition feel because yesterday we began some what we thought were reasonable amendments, only to find it looks like it's the government intent to simply -- as from the start, you're under marching orders from the ministers, who are sitting somewhere watching this but afraid to come over here and present themselves. You're under your marching orders to do what they've ordered you to do, and this motion, I think, Mr Chair, is a reasonable one around getting an honest report card from the government on the progress they are making on this, and I suspect in the end the government will agree to this.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, followed by Mr Cooke and Mr Clement.

1010

Ms Lankin: I actually appreciate, Mr Sampson, that you raised an issue around the technical wording and the relationship between every six months and the calendar year. I think that's the sort of thing that, if there was an interest or a willingness to proceed with this type of amendment, could be worked out. I think the Liberals have indicated a willingness to reword this, and we would certainly support any clarification that's helpful in that respect.

The point I would like to make is not so much the large political context of the opposition to the way in which this bill has been brought forward and the way it has been put together, but I feel very strongly that the bill sets out very new, sweeping powers for members of cabinet to make decisions on an ongoing basis through the implementation of regulation in a way that exceeds the norm of most legislation.

We've heard the government argue that they believe that that was necessary, that these are extraordinary times and they need extraordinary measures. If that's the case, I think it is also appropriate for you to look at extraordinary levels of accountability. This type of an amendment might be something that we don't normally see in legislation, but similarly I would bring you back to your own arguments about the nature of the sweeping powers that ministers are taking on to themselves.

Many of the things that ministers will now do in the future under this legislation are things that would have been done through legislative change in the past. They are things that would have been brought before the Legislature for debate, for input, for public hearings, for the whole process that we know unfolds when the government has an intent to make major policy changes or take things in a new direction.

I've heard -- let me say this -- from government members, particularly on the sections related to health, which is the committee that I spent the last number of weeks on, that there is an intent to involve the public, there is an intent to proceed along the lines of consensus on health care reform that already exists. But that intent isn't written into the legislation.

What's in the legislation is essentially a blank cheque. I know the health committee members will remember a presentation by Michael Sobata in Thunder Bay where he said, "This is like the government is asking us for a blank cheque, but they're not telling us what the number is that they're going to write in."

I think that's a very apt articulation of this, because so many of the powers that are set out are just very stark statements of the ability to do something like establish a health restructuring commission, all the terms, the mandate, the powers, the limits on the powers, all of that to be done in regulation rather than in legislation.

Normally, I think you would all concede, that's the sort of thing you would want to have legislative debate and public input into and have the checks and balances set into legislation, and other things that flow from that would be in regulation. That's not the way this bill is constructed. I understand the arguments the government's put forward for that -- I disagree, but I understand them -- but therefore you bring upon yourselves a higher standard of accountability and a need to meet that.

I'll just fold in one point that I would have made to Mr Maves, if we do get back to 1.2. This doesn't delay government taking action. It doesn't slow things down. What it does is say, after the fact, that you need to be accountable, need to be prepared to explain it and prepared to have a legislative debate where members of the opposition, who have an important role to play in the parliamentary process and in the legislative process and in the safeguarding of the principles of accountability to the public, have an opportunity for scrutiny and for exposé and for comment on the actions of the government. As in certain circumstances committees may determine, so should the public.

If there are some problems technically with the wording and the time frame, I'm sure we can come to an accommodation on that, but the process set out is something -- you have put yourselves above the normal process in many ways in terms of the powers cabinet takes on to itself in this legislation, so I think you must set yourselves above the process with respect to accountability and achieve a higher standard of accountability.

I would ask government members to contemplate it in that context. You're not giving up anything in terms of powers. You are not giving up anything in terms of the timing of your own agenda. What you are doing is admitting to a higher level of accountability, which I think is the very least you can do, given the construct of the bill as we have seen it.

The Chair: Mr Cooke.

Mr Cooke: I'll let Mr Clement go first to see where the government's coming from and then I'll jump in, rather than going twice.

Mr Clement: I spoke on this motion yesterday and I was thinking about it last night. I confess I actually watched it over again. I think my answer was incomplete in two ways so I want to take another run at how this should be approached.

Let me first say that I agree with the premise that Mr Phillips has raised, on the large level. That is to say, there is a need for much more accountability of government and governance in our system. I'm' not laying blame anywhere; all three political parties have to do more to accomplish that goal. So I think the premise is correct.

But the way this motion seeks to remedy the fault I have some problems with, and I have problems with it on two broad fronts.

The first broad front is more or less what I mentioned yesterday, that there are mechanisms in the parliamentary tradition that allow for public accountability. Yesterday I mentioned the budget hearings, I mentioned the accessibility of the Premier and what happens if he or she isn't accessible, I mentioned the speech from the throne, I mentioned the daily question period, I mentioned the sunset provisions we had in the legislation. I neglected to mention but would mention at this time the opposition days that are accorded to the opposition, which allow them to set the agenda of the Legislature at certain points in our session, and I would also mention the role of the Auditor General, which is becoming a growing role, and quite necessarily so, of an independent assessment of government actions from a particular perspective. It is another brake in the system, as I see it.

There are also things that ministries should attempt to do. My personal view is that ministries should do a greater job at having some form of annual report on their activities, on how they are achieving the goals that have been set out for them in the throne speech or in the government's agenda. Perhaps that's something ministries would look at.

But having gone through all of that, Ms Lankin made a very good point yesterday on this: that that only takes you so far -- if I can paraphrase you, Ms Lankin -- it only takes you so far, and I confess that that may not necessarily be good enough either. There are other things that government and indeed all political parties must look at. We should continue to hold town hall meetings. It's no mythology, with respect to the Common Sense Revolution, to recall that countless town hall meetings went into the ideas of the Common Sense Revolution.

There are other what I would call extraparliamentary means to achieve that accountability, direct means rather than the parliamentary means of the give and take of the Legislature, in which all of us have a way to go, perhaps a long way to go, and all have a lot to learn on that.

My second problem with the motion is that this is another parliamentary means. I think we have to be a bit more creative and come up with other non-parliamentary, extraparliamentary means to get at this problem. Adding layer upon layer of so-called parliamentary accountability doesn't really get us accountable to the people who matter most: the electorate or, more broadly defined, the people of Ontario.

I would encourage Mr Phillips to continue to think of ideas that would be helpful in that regard. I don't think this motion really helps with the real accountability that we as government have to get at. That is why I'm uncomfortable supporting it. But I'm quite open and I think all governments should be open and all parliamentarians should be open to thinking of new ways in which we as a group of people, supposedly accountable, should be accountable in the future.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Frankly, I find the comments of Mr Clement more than strange. If you really are interested in accountability, this is the most reasonable way to do that. The difficulty that people are having with this bill is (1) its complex nature and (2) the fact that so much of it has to do with power in the hands of ministers and the cabinet as opposed to policy and its implication. Therefore, a report to the Legislature on a regular basis of how those powers have been used is an important accountability for all members of the Legislature, but it's also an important accountability for the citizens of this province. The intention of this is not in any way to delay the government. This is not, as we would call it, a dilatory matter. It's not. It's an accountability issue.

1020

When I listened to the objections of Mr Clement and his entreaty, "We think we've got to find ways of being more accountable, so maybe hold a town hall meeting," well, I hold town hall meetings in my constituency and in my riding and few people come out. The truth is, if it's an issue of real importance to people, you might get 100 people out to a meeting, and that would be a good attendance. I represent 72,000 people. I think the attendance you've had at similar town hall meetings would be in that range of 100 or a couple of hundred people. Unless they are aware of a specific issue that affects them, people tend not to get involved. If they see something on the parliamentary channel that is of interest to them, we'll get some phone calls and some questions.

I think democracy is well served by people having more information and more accountability. If people are going to respect the democracy in which they live, if they're going to feel there's any hope that they can influence future decisions, they have to know what's going on.

All the methods that you have identified are not possible unless the information is put forward first. Given the unprecedented nature of the powers contained in this bill, it is reasonable that we have that information.

One part of this motion would do exactly what you've said you support, that is, that the assembly shall refer any report that is tabled under this section -- reports from ministers and so on, reports from the government to the use of the powers of Bill 26 -- to a standing committee where there can be public hearings. If there is any better way of holding a town hall meeting, I think it's in a legislative committee, where people can come, can make representation; it's completely open; sometimes it's televised; it's open to the public not only from an individual riding but from any part of this province.

What this motion does is what I hope you believe in, and if the words you just uttered are true, I would expect you to support this motion. We have hundreds, I understand, thousands of people demonstrating on the front lawn of Queen's Park at this very minute. I think they're firefighters in particular, but others have come to join them because they are expressing their concern in a democratic way about the impact of Bill 26. I know this government sees them and anyone else who doesn't agree with them as simply a vested interest, and that is insulting to the thousands of people on the front lawn.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): That's not true.

Mrs Caplan: A government member interjects and says, "That's not true," but in fact a piece of literature put out by the government said exactly that: vested interest -- anybody who has an interest in this bill.

If you want to speak to the people, what better way than saying to the ministers, who will have enormous and new, unprecedented powers after Bill 26 is passed, "The one thing you have to do, Minister, is come into the Legislature every six months and tell us how you've used these powers." That might give some comfort to the hundreds of firefighters on the front lawn. That might give some comfort to the thousands of people who were turned away from these committees. Frankly, it doesn't give a lot of comfort, but it gives a little to know that there's some additional accountability built in. I don't see how you cannot support that.

Mr Cooke: I thought Mr Sampson yesterday was interested in the amendment. Maybe I could just ask a couple of questions of Mr Sampson, the PA, about what the government's view is of the amendment. Is there any ground on which the amendment could be amended that would make it acceptable: different time lines?

Mr Sampson: I think Mr Clement spoke to the issue with respect to the general concept of accountability. That is something this government campaigned on and I think needs to give some serious consideration to. But this particular amendment has more than just the one technical aspect. As you flip through to the (c)s and (d)s, it doesn't seem to follow through and make much sense. I would have thought, listening to the comments this morning, that the members of the committee would have been more interested in a depoliticized, if I can put it that way, review of the process which would have somebody who is paid by government to do that: the Auditor General.

I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to actually support this particular amendment. The concept, though, does make some sense and perhaps we need to work on that as we go through this bill. I'm a rookie here, but as I understand it, you can always revisit sections with the unanimous consent of the committee, and we may do that.

Mr Cooke: I'm very disappointed to hear the response from both Mr Clement and Mr Sampson. First of all, we don't have an Auditor General in Ontario; we have a Provincial Auditor. It's not his responsibility to be evaluating the implementation of a piece of legislation. He will take a look at how dollars are spent, whether they're spent appropriately, whether there's proper accounting, all of those, but it's not his job to make political judgements about whether your government is accomplishing what it says it's going to by this piece of legislation. Don't try to fool people by saying that an independent person, the Provincial Auditor, is going to be able to assess whether this bill has accomplished what the government has said it will. That's unfair. Quite frankly, it's very misleading to make that kind of statement.

Let's look at what this bill says it's going to do. Just take a look at the title.

"An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings": That should be fairly easy to report on and we'll get some feedback on that through the budgetary process. That should be fairly easy to report on and report every six months.

"...and to promote Economic Prosperity": You said yesterday that this bill is part of the job strategy of the government, so I would assume there'd be an opportunity every six months to report on various sectors affected by this legislation and some jobs numbers, whether they're increasing or decreasing as a result of this grand strategy.

"...through Public Sector Restructuring": That's something that could be reported on. You can report on how many thousands of people in the public sector you've fired and how that's affected the unemployment rate and the prosperity of the province.

"...Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda": If this is the implementation of the Common Sense Revolution, and you've said many times that you believe in accountability, I really fail to understand what your hangup is on this amendment. When you reflect on it, you would probably have expected it to be in the original legislation, because I think it's more in line with the kind of rhetoric you always used when you were in opposition and that right-wingers have always promoted, that there should be that accountability. But when you put it in some perspective, I guess I can understand why you don't want to do it.

This bill has nothing to do with job creation. This bill has nothing to do with restructuring. What this bill has to do with is downsizing government, pulling back from the role of government from people. I've heard many times that it's not the people you represent who need government; it's ordinary people in this province who need government. Your whole philosophy of withdrawing the role of government hits ordinary people, so I can see why you wouldn't want to be held accountable for the impact, because we would see in really raw terms what this bill is doing to the province and it would be reported in a very objective way.

1030

I also can see why you wouldn't want to have any kind of real, independent analysis of the impact of this legislation, because when it comes to independent analysis, what did you do on this bill on the one person who's supposed to report on what the government does in the environmental area? You exempted the entire bill from the independent environmental auditor of government. You pulled this whole bill out of that entire process.

So don't give us, quite frankly, the BS that you're interested in accountability. You pulled the whole bill out of accountability when it comes to the environmental laws of this province. You've taken huge responsibilities away from the Legislature and away from the public and you've given it to cabinet and you've given it to individual cabinet ministers and you've taken away the one, long-standing tradition of accountability to the legislators of this province, accountability even to the Tory legislators who aren't in cabinet. So you're using all of the rhetoric and it just doesn't wash. Nobody really believes it.

I found it very interesting to see last night -- Ms Caplan and I were on a CBC show -- your Minister of Health would not come on. He would only be taped ahead of time. He didn't want to sit at a table with lowly opposition members. But one of the clips from him was, there was a very blunt question asked to him that: "Everything that you said when you were in opposition, you are now basically saying that the NDP on some of the things that they were doing in health care were right on, even though we criticized it when we were in opposition. Why did you do that?" and he basically said: "Well, I didn't believe what I was saying when I was saying when I was in opposition. That's just the role of an opposition member. I didn't really believe it. It was all BS, and now that I am where I am, I'll do what I want."

It's about time that we bring some accountability, both for what was said in opposition and now what you're doing in government. It's no wonder there's cynicism in the province about the political process and politicians when they see Mr Wilson say what he said on CBC last night and they see the Tory members of the Legislature today saying, "We won't even build into the process a report to the public every six months." That's all it is, a report to the public to see what kind of progress has been made on the goals that you've set; a business-like approach to government business, accountability not only to the Legislature but to the whole province.

I'm going to finish by saying one other thing. I think that this amendment would be particularly helpful because I don't believe by the time we've finished with this legislation next Monday that any of us will even at that point fully understand all the implications of this bill and we need to see that reported every six months.

Yesterday we found out for the first time from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that if this legislation is passed as is, toll roads can be brought in by municipalities. Now, that has never been discussed here before and I think that at the very least we need some kind of a report because we need to know on an ongoing basis what the implications of this bill are for all of the people of this province. What you're saying to the people here today is, you don't want to be held accountable, you don't want them to understand. You want these bloody public hearings over with as quickly as possible. You're sick of listening to the public. You don't want the regulations reviewed. You don't want the implications of the bill reviewed. "Get the process over with. Let us govern. Let us downsize government and we'll get back to the people in four and a half years."

I think it's a shame that that's how you see your role already. You've only been elected for about seven months and that's how you see your role as MPPs already. It's a shame.

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I can appreciate the opposition's concern about accountability, but I would like to stress that there are many accountable mechanisms in this process: to the opposition, to the media, to our constituents on a daily basis, through question period on a daily basis where we stand up. Quite frankly, Mr Cooke, I would not classify these hearings as "bloody public hearings," as you said.

Mr Cooke: Oh, I'm not classifying them.

Mrs Ecker: I think they've been very useful and I think we've learned and received an awful lot of input from them.

You also made the comment that this act is about fiscal savings. Absolutely. That's why the auditor is there. That's one of the things the auditor talks about, how the money is handled.

You've talked about jobs. That's something that we do through the budget process. We hear people in the pre-budget hearings, as has been mentioned, and we bring forward a budget, which is an accountability mechanism to the public. It talks about jobs.

You've talked about the size and downsizing and what's happening with the public sector. Again, that is something that is frequently reported on through pre-budget consultations and through the budget and economic statements.

So I believe there are many accountability mechanisms there in the system now and I believe they will work appropriately, as they should.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Could I start, Mr Chair, with perhaps a question to Mr Sampson? I think he indicated when he spoke that he agreed with the intent of this but had some trouble with the wording. Is this the kind of situation where by standing this down for another day perhaps some acceptable wording might be found or is this simply the government saying, "Absolutely no"? Because if it's, "Absolutely no," then we'll proceed to a vote on this. If there's some chance that something can be found that the government members would find accountable, it would seem to me to make some sense to stand the amendment down and let some further thinking take place.

Mr Sampson: It's not my view that the surgery will make this particular amendment survive, so my suggestion is that we proceed with it. Should we be so inclined, we'll bring something back and ask the committee for unanimous consent to do so, to bring it forward and table it, since it would be an amendment that would need unanimous consent to be reintroduced.

Mr Silipo: I find that quite disconcerting, but I'll keep looking forward to seeing what comes out of the government members on this throughout the week. We heard Mr Clement talk to us about the existing provisions. He referred particularly to the Provincial Auditor. It's interesting to note that even when the Provincial Auditor has given some pretty clear examples of things that the government ought to be doing to increase accountability, such as the area of tax evasion, the government had to really be dragged into taking any small action, which at the end of the day was really only so far as reinstating some tax auditors the previous NDP government had put in place and they had stopped the hiring of.

But they clearly are ignoring the advice of the freedom of information commissioner with respect to this bill; they're clearly ignoring the advice of the Environmental Commissioner with respect to this bill. What we're saying and what I think this amendment from the Liberal caucus is saying is there needs to be a political accountability system. If this bill does all of the things, even half of the things that we have been hearing it does, it's incumbent upon the government to acknowledge that there ought to be some ongoing mechanism for them to be able to report back and for the Legislature as a whole to monitor the impact of this bill.

As Mr Cooke pointed out, even as late as yesterday, four days before final passage of this bill, we're hearing about new areas that are covered by this bill that none of us I think had thought before were going to be covered -- in terms of road tolls that can be charged by municipalities. Who knows what else is in this bill that we'll only discover as time goes on? I think it's incumbent upon the government to at least have the decency to say, "Yes, we're prepared to be accountable," not through the rhetoric, because the rhetoric any of us can use, but quite frankly through a process that says, "Yes, we're prepared to put the effects of this bill in front of the Parliament, in front of a committee and let there be some understanding and discussion as to what the impact will be."

Mrs Caplan: I'll be very brief. This is more for the information of the members of the government caucus. I'm aware, as is Mr Cooke, that it is the intention of the government to downsize the Provincial Auditor's office by some 20%. Before you vote to reject this amendment, you might want to stand it down and ask the Provincial Auditor whether or not, given the intention of the government to slash his office by 20%, he'll be able to undertake the kind of review that this amendment contemplates and that you have said you believe he will be able to do. Frankly, he's told us that he's able to continue to do the kind of work that he has been doing, that you have praised, only if the resources that he has remain intact. He's said that he thinks he can streamline, and he has over the past couple of years, I think by about a 5% reduction, but that if the government is intent next year on cutting his budget by 20%, he's not going to be able to even do the work that he's been doing to date. So ask him that question before you vote this down, if you really do care about accountability and if you believe the alternative to this is the Provincial Auditor.

1040

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I think we've had a lot of discussion, Mr Chairman, about the public accountability and the accountability of the Legislature with respect to this piece of legislation. I think we ought to take a look at the section, though, and see what's actually being contemplated here, rather than talking about it in general terms, which is important as well.

What this section is basically holding the Minister of Health accountable to in relation to the first four sections is to indicate to the general public once every six months under what circumstances the Minister of Health has appointed the supervisor, how often and under what circumstances he has revoked or rescinded a private hospital licence, under what consideration, for example, the Lieutenant Governor in Council has changed the prices of drugs etc.

It is not as if the kind of report that is being requested here is an all-encompassing report that would take an awful lot of extra work and additional time to prepare. What we're basically talking about here is to make the minister accountable in those areas where he will be given extreme regulatory powers to take some very drastic actions with respect to appointing a supervisor, with respect to taking funding away from private hospitals. We are not talking about his day-to-day activities under this bill. We're talking about the results of his actions. Surely the people of this province have a right to know once every six months how often and under what circumstances the minister has utilized the powers that we're giving him under this act.

We can talk about town hall meetings, we can talk about public accountability in the large extent, and all that is important and it's all part of the process, but let's focus back on what's being asked here: simply, an accountability of the most extreme powers that the minister for the first time has been given.

Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, I wouldn't mind, if I might, because it's my motion, having a chance to speak last.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, I just wanted to make one point in addition to what Ms Caplan has said, and that is that in my recollection of when the Provincial Auditor spoke to the Board of Internal Economy, he also said that one of his major concerns is that with the downsizing of government there are fewer employees to keep an eye on how programs are actually being administered, so therefore, there's less accountability in the ministries. He's going to be downsized by 20%, so there's less accountability through the auditor.

I just want to make sure that the Conservative members of the committee understand that when they talk about all of the mechanisms that are in place now for accountability, they are systematically destroying those mechanisms for accountability and on a process that I would argue would not cost the government much at all, and if this amendment were to pass, it would not cost much at all to implement. The government is destroying this opportunity as well. So don't give us the argument that you're concerned and interested in accountability. You're not at all. You're systematically destroying every process that's already in place.

Instead, we get this nonsense from Mr Clement that the solution is to have town hall meetings and glossy annual reports from ministries. We've had annual reports from ministries when the Conservatives were in power in the past, and all they did was cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to publish and brag about what a great job the minister was doing in that particular ministry, written and produced on the most expensive glossy paper that they could find, with the best colour pictures, after the makeup and all the rest of it was properly put on the ministers to make them look good. That's what they published. That wasn't accountability; it was absolute nonsense. It did nothing in terms of accountability. It tried to fool the public into believing -- and I guess it worked for 42 years -- that there was actually something good happening in the province. So let's talk about real accountability; let's talk about legislated accountability right here in this amendment.

The Chair: The final word to Mr Phillips.

Mr Phillips: This has become a bit of a symbol of I think our suspicions about how you want to operate being proven to the public.

Just so the public's aware, you have proposed this bill, which in our opinion gives you sweeping powers, unprecedented, in a whole range of areas. We think you're trampling on the rights of a lot of people. We think a lot of people have had no input into this bill. It's been a very selective, who's got the most power has the most input. We think, at the very least, you owe it to the public to review what you've done every six months.

It makes, I think, a mockery of what you told the public, that you're interested in, "This is going to be a grass-roots government." You are the exact opposite. There have never been as many backroom deals, as much done behind closed doors, as little done out in the public, as this government in its first eight months. And all of you are new, so you may be taking the word of some people that you shouldn't be, so we tried in this motion -- it's a very simple motion for the public to understand: Give us a report card on what you're doing. Give us a six-month report card, so that the people who are worried to death about your abuse of power at least have a chance every six months to know what you've done to them. Very simple.

You're very proud of this bill, I gather. You should be ashamed of it; you're very proud of it. If you're so proud of it, why are you embarrassed and why are you ashamed and why do you refuse to give a six-month report card?

Then we find, as we prepare this motion, some of the government members say, "Well, we kind of like the intent but we disagree with the wording," and then your bluff is called. We say, "All right, if you like the intent but you don't like the wording, bring forward a motion that encompasses the two principles of this motion, a six-month review and a public opportunity to debate the results of that." And what did we hear? "Well, maybe we'll do it later in the week."

Frankly, I don't believe you. I'm prepared to stand this motion down until we get another motion from the government implementing these proposals, but if we wait for you to bring forward, I don't think you will. There have been too many cases throughout this process where you said you'd do something you didn't.

I can recall very early on asking the Minister of Finance for a fiscal outlook, a medium-term fiscal outlook. Now, for those of us involved in the financial area, that's crucial. We were told we would get that. Well, I was very suspicious of that and I kept sending letters. We were told we would get that. When this report came out, it wasn't there. I was misled.

I was misled, so I don't trust you any more. I don't trust you until I actually see you delivering on what you say you're going to do, so I have no confidence at all that later this week we're going to see a motion from this government with the two principles in this amendment.

For all the public out there, I think you're laid bare here. Firstly, you're too ashamed to have a six-month report on the progress of your bill, and you're too embarrassed to allow the public to debate that.

We've heard from the government members you're going to defeat this, and frankly I don't have any hope that you people will bring forward in the next few days an amendment that will encompass the essence of this motion. It's just part, frankly, of the sorry tale of Bill 26: Say one thing one day and another thing another day. You can't be trusted.

The Chair: We'll now put the question on the new proposed section 1.1, as put forward by Mr Phillips. All those in favour of that new section?

Mr Cooke: I suggested yesterday that we just do every vote as a recorded vote. Could we do it that way, please?

The Chair: Okay.

Ayes

Caplan, Cooke, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The section does not carry.

Okay, we now return to the new section 1.2 that we stood down previously and Ms Lankin had the floor.

1050

Ms Lankin: In a sense, I'm glad that we had the debate we just did on issues of accountability and heard very clearly from the government that in fact it supports the concept but not the specifics of the amendment that was before us.I have a sense that it almost won't matter what the amendment is, that we're not going to get the support of the government, but we'll give it a try again here, because section 1.2 of the bill, a new section that's being moved, an amendment to the bill, is again a much softer version even of public accountability than the one that we just defeated.

Just to remind people what it says, it allows for 15 members of the Legislative Assembly to petition for an item of power being exercised or authorized under the terms of Bill 26 to be brought before a standing committee of the government, a legislative committee, for discussion and potentially for public hearings, if the committee sees fit, and for a report back to the assembly.

Yesterday, when we began the debate on this, Mr Maves spoke on behalf of the government caucus and said that he was very concerned about this, that in fact this could cause long delays and that the government wouldn't be able to implement its agenda.

Quite frankly, there's nothing in the amendment that suggests that would be the case at all. The actions that are authorized by provisions in the bill are authorized by provisions in the bill. The government may exercise its powers as authorized by provisions in the bill. The fact that 15 members of the assembly petition to have either the intended exercise of those powers or the past exercise of that power brought before the committee doesn't have any impact at all on the government's timing of implementing its agenda. I would think that if the government felt that it would be useful to hear from such a legislative committee before it implemented its intent under any authorized provision of the bill, it could choose to wait, but nothing in this motion, in this amendment, compels it to.

Here again we are saying that if there is sufficient concern among a number of members of the Legislature, there is an ability to request that some item of power of government being exercised under the provisions of Bill 26 can be brought to a committee, can be discussed by a committee, the committee "may," it says, "hold public hearings," but that would have to be with the agreement of the majority of the committee and the government has the majority and can control any vote in respect to that, and the committee "shall report back to the assembly."

It doesn't affect the exercising of powers by the government at all. It simply, again, is a mechanism -- and I will remind you, particularly in response to Mr Clement's comments to the last amendment where he talked about wanting accountability but not necessarily legislative, "This is just another means of legislative accountability," that in terms of the way this bill is constructed and the powers that you take away from the Legislative Assembly and on to the body of cabinet and into the back rooms of the halls of Queen's Park, you are taking away from legislative accountability, and this is one very small measure to restore, after the fact, some type of legislative accountability.

I don't think I need to go on any further than that. I think many of the issues have actually been explored under the details of the earlier amendment, but I would hope, given that this is much softer -- it is simply an ability for a committee to look at issues and discuss as a committee whether or not it wants to hold public hearings and report back to the Legislature -- that this is one that the government would be able to support.

Mr Gerretsen: This has got to be about the softest provision one could possibly have in a bill of any nature. We're talking here about the petition of 15 members of the assembly and that the matter may be referred to a committee of the assembly. There's no mandatory aspect to that. The government could at any time block it. In other words, even if there was a petition, they could just block it and say, "No, we don't want to refer to a committee." Then, even once it's referred, it says the committee "may hold public hearings." There's no mandatory aspect at that time. It just simply allows, if there are 15 members of the assembly concerned about a particular aspect of this bill at any one time, to have the matter raised in the House, have the House refer the matter to the committee, if it so feels, by a majority vote -- and the government controls that process. You have a majority of the members in the Legislature.

I can't for the life of me see how anybody could possibly be against this kind of motion. You control the whole aspect. About the only thing you don't control is the fact that 15 members may raise this issue in the House and may request that a committee in effect be struck.

Mr Clement: Two points. Firstly, I guess I was not making myself clear on the previous motion and my views on it translate into this as well. I will be very clear for the record and for Mr Phillips, who is the mover.

I do not support the concept embodied in this motion and the previous motion. I think you are on the wrong track by trying to build in extra parliamentary accountability, because the public doesn't give a fig about extra parliamentary accountability, they want public accountability.

Mr Phillips: Well, that's very interesting. You've denied the public hearings.

Mr Clement: They want us to be responsible to the people, not for us to argue amongst ourselves and posture for the cameras.

Mr Phillips: They want public hearings and you're trying to deny them.

Mr Clement: They want to be part of the public accountability. So I do not support the concept of Mr Phillips's previous motion, nor do I support the concept of this motion. That is why I'm going to vote against it.

Mr Cooke: That's not what you said a few minutes ago.

Mr Clement: It is exactly what I said a few minutes ago, Mr Cooke. Read the record.

The second thing is that right now, as members well know, any member of the Legislature may refer to a committee of this House any matter which he or she deems pertinent. Then the committee decides.

What this motion does, it says any member may refer, but "the committee shall" -- not may, shall -- "consider the matter." That is the change that you are suggesting.

Ms Lankin: That's the point. The key word is "consider."

Mr Clement: Yes, I know that's the point.

The effect of that is that it will allow, as Mr Maves said yesterday, a minority of the Legislature to tie up the legitimate agenda of the government, for which it was elected.

Interjection: No. No, it doesn't.

Interjections.

Mr Cooke: That'll drop them 10 points in the polls.

The Chair: Mr Clement has the floor, please.

Mr Clement: Quite frankly, the analogy of the impacts that that has on a jurisdiction has been played out over the last few months in the United States of America, and if Mr Phillips wants to be the Newt Gingrich of the north and tie up --

Mr Phillips: Oh, don't be ridiculous, for God's sake.

Mr Clement: I gather he does not want to be the Newt Gingrich of the north. But the effect of his motion is to parlay his position to be exactly what he has now just scoffed. For those reasons, I oppose the motion.

The Chair: Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: That is the most outstanding and incredible statement.

Interjection: Outrageous.

Mrs Caplan: It's absolutely outrageous. I've been sitting on this committee with Mr Clement and I've heard him say a lot of stupid things, but I have to tell you that that last statement is unbelievable.

Mr Gerretsen: Even his own caucus agrees with them.

Mrs Caplan: It's just amazing.

I want to be very clear for the people who are watching these hearings. What this motion says is that if there's an issue of concern, 15 members of the Legislature can request that a matter be considered, shall be considered by the committee, a committee that the government controls, and the committee could decide, under this amendment, not to hold public hearings, but if it was a matter of importance, the committee, controlled by the government, could decide to hold public hearings. And in fact, when you hold public hearings, that is direct accountability to the public. That's not a discussion for debate. That's opening the doors to the people and saying, "Here are things that your representatives think are of concern, and here's an opportunity for you to speak directly to the Legislature."

To speak against that, to speak against that kind of absolutely reasonable amendment for consideration of accountability -- because that's what it is; it's consideration by a government-controlled committee -- what that says to me is that everything we have ever heard from this government, everything we ever heard from Mike Harris, everything we ever heard from any of the members of the government who sat in opposition, any of those who were on the road during the election, talking about enhanced public accountability, lied. If they vote against this, clearly they never meant a word about being accountable to the public. And to listen to Mr Clement's stupidity in arguing against this most reasonable of amendments says to the people of this province, "Alert; absolutely be aware," because they want to do it behind closed doors. They are not interested in accountability. They don't want you to have your say. If you don't agree with them, you're a vested interest. If you want to come before committee: "Forget it. We're not going to allow that." That's what they will be saying if they defeat this amendment.

1100

I'd suggest to any of the members of this government caucus who are sitting here, now's your chance to leave the room. I wouldn't vote against this kind of a democratic motion that allows -- doesn't demand. This is not a demanding motion. It's one that permits the government, which controls the committee process, to decide to allow a matter to be heard by the public. It only requires committee consideration and the committee can decide in its wisdom not to hold a public hearing.

I can't believe that any member of the government who stood in the election and talked about accountability could possibly vote against this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Caplan. Did you want to go last again, Mr Phillips?

Mr Phillips: Thank you.

The Chair: Because Mr Gerretsen has asked --

Mr Gerretsen: I tried to be as reasonable as I possibly could in my opening comments, but what Mr Clement is suggesting, and I don't like getting personal in these matters, but this really --

Mrs Caplan: Provoked.

Mr Gerretsen: I won't, I won't, but I've got to refer to him because it was his comments basically that allow me to want to speak again.

He is somehow suggesting that the real accountability here is from the cabinet and the ministers, because the ministers basically act collectively through cabinet, to the general public and this really is sort of the new Republican, the new right-wing agenda. It really is, that we can somehow cut through all the parliamentary notions and parliamentary democracy and we have accountability to the public.

Mrs Caplan: The Legislature's irrelevant.

Mr Gerretsen: The Legislature's irrelevant. We send out press releases and we have these press scrums in all sorts of controlled situations and that's how we're going to show to the people of Ontario that we're really accountable.

I would like to remind him that in our parliamentary system, which has operated for over 200 years in this country, the direct accountability of cabinet and the ministerial system is to Parliament. I think that both federally and provincially, perhaps unfortunately over the last 20 to 25 years, the power of Parliament unfortunately has eroded to the extent that cabinets at all levels, both provincial and federal levels, seem to be playing the predominant role and almost seem to totally disregard the parliamentary institution from time to time, but that's where the real accountability is.

The moment that we say, "Look. Cabinet should be accountable to the Legislature" -- we're all elected here. You won the election. You've got 82 members on a 45% vote in the province out of 130 members, but there are 48 other people who were also just as duly elected as you were and some people in this province would even say that those people have a greater right to sit here by the mere fact that they were able to somehow withstand the Harris storm or whatever that came across this province. Okay?

What I'm saying is that we're all equal here, all 130 of us, and we are accountable to the general public. That isn't suggesting for a moment that there shouldn't also be accountability through the ministerial level and cabinet to the general public, but the initial responsibility is to each and every one of the 130 members who were duly elected in their own ridings.

For anyone to vote against a motion like this, in which you basically control the process, in which you basically control the aspect as to whether or not there are public hearings, particularly when one is dealing with a bill that has such major implications in the province of Ontario as this, to me is absolutely absurd, to suggest that somehow our accountability, namely the government's accountability, is directly to the people of this province and not to Parliament.

You've got a joint responsibility. Do not shut Parliament out of this. I am convinced that what makes democracies work successfully is in those countries in which the minority viewpoint, whether we're talking about the minority viewpoint of the general public or the minority viewpoint of those members of the House who are elected in opposition, is heard in a compassionate, fair and honest way by the government and that they adhere at least to the concept that those people have a right to be heard. This section does exactly that: that in those areas where there is a concern by at least 15 members of the assembly, hearings can be held and a committee can be struck in a process that you totally control.

So please, Mr Clement, don't mislead the public of Ontario by somehow having them think: "We're doing you a favour, Mr and Mrs Public. We are having our accountability directly to you rather than to Parliament." Yes, you do, but you also have an equal responsibility to this Parliament and that's all this motion is addressing.

The Chair: A final word from Mr Phillips.

Mr Phillips: First, the government's deliberately trying to provoke me by calling me the Newt Gingrich of the north.

Mrs Ecker: It worked.

Mr Phillips: I know. I know that you people love him. I know you love Newt Gingrich. I know that he had a big hand in writing this thing. I know that you worship at his altar. But he's not my God. Leave him to you people. Don't ever associate me with your hero, please. I know you love Newt Gingrich, but you could hardly call me a worse name. I hope, Mr Chair, you can persuade him --

Mr Gerretsen: You've ruined his day.

Mr Phillips: -- if he doesn't withdraw it, to never use it again.

Interjection: What about Rush?

Mr Phillips: There's your other hero, Rush Limbaugh. I don't mean to make light of it, but for those who may have been watching --

Mr Cooke: Those names are always on the tip of their tongues.

Mr Phillips: I know. Rush must be on from 1 to 2. I think that's why you scheduled the lunch break from 1 to 2.

In seriousness now, I think the thing that perhaps people found most offensive in this bill in terms of the way you went about it was that you were refusing to give anyone an opportunity for input. All of the alarm bells in the province went off when people realized you were going to try and force this bill through in two weeks with no hearings, no public input. And now we've found that the hospitals, the firefighters, the public servants, the people involved in the environment, the people involved in policing, the people involved in our whole health care system have finally realized, among others, that you were trying to pull something over on them. You were not prepared for a legitimate debate on the bill.

The two motions that we've debated this morning both have as a fundamental part of them public hearings. Mr Clement said he doesn't believe in that. Well, we fundamentally believe in it. He says that he fundamentally --

Mr Clement: I didn't say that.

Mr Phillips: You said you disagreed with the intent of both of these motions. The intent of both of these motions is to end up with public hearings on what you're trying to do to the people of Ontario. Nothing, I think, for the public could reinforce what this government is all about than the fact that these two motions, which would make certain that there is public input into what you're doing and protect the public from the abuse that you tried to inflict on them back on November 29 -- I think these hearings are unfolding for the public exactly as we thought they would: with the government being prepared to use its majority to force through its agenda and to shut the public out.

These two motions we dealt with this morning both had as their essence opening the process up and having public hearings. This government's going in the opposite direction. The decisions increasingly are being made by the Premier and by the cabinet with no debate, no opportunity for public input, and now again we're going to find that a motion, a simple amendment designed to ensure that there's some access for public input into it, is once again denied. I think it's an embarrassment to the government.

The Chair: I will now put the question. Shall the new section 1.2, as proposed by Mr Phillips, carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Cooke, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The section does not carry.

I understand there's a new section 1.3 proposed by the Liberal Party.

1110

Mr Phillips: I believe, Mr Chair, that section 1.3 was ruled out of order. Am I correct in that or am I wrong in that? It is in order? That's great. Thank you. I appreciate that, then. This is section 1.3 of the bill --

The Chair: Mr Phillips, just hang on for a second.

Mr Maves: Gerry, hold on. They're having a conference.

Mr Phillips: Lost, completely lost.

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin: I'm sorry, I may have put the wrong numbering on my memo, too. If I did, I apologize. It's 1.5 that's a money provision. This one is okay.

Mr Phillips: Section 1.3 is fine, then?

Ms Baldwin: Yes. I apologize.

Mr Phillips: This is section 1.3 of the bill. Mr Sampson, you've got your copy?

Mr Sampson: Yes, I do.

Mr Phillips: I'm very cautious of that. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Taxpayer pledge

"1.3(1) No provision of this act or any of its schedules shall be interpreted to contravene the taxpayer protection pledge signed by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on May 30, 1995.

"Binding referendum

"(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no provision of this act or any of its schedules shall be interpreted to allow for an increase in existing tax rates of new taxes without the approval of the voters of Ontario in a binding referendum.

"Same

"(3) For the purposes of this section, a fee hike shall be interpreted to be the same as a tax hike, as stipulated by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on April 26, 1994."

Frankly, what we're trying to do is to interpret the intent of the government's bill. The government, I think, has told us that the intent of the bill is to implement the Common Sense Revolution, and therefore, because I think it's fair to say there are many interpretations on the bill, we're making the assumption that this bill is designed to implement what you said you were going to do in the campaign. I gather, therefore, that the intent of the bill is to implement the taxpayer protection pledge. Without perhaps being completely confident that every section does or does not do that, this is designed to make certain that you are in fact doing what you promised you would do during the campaign. That's the intent of this, and as I say, it is designed to make certain that we understand what the intent of this bill is, and we gather the intent is that you are planning to carry out what you promised you were going to do in the campaign.

Mr Cooke: I will be supporting this amendment and I think that again this builds into the legislation and into the process accountability for what was said during the election. I remember very clearly before the election and during the election Mr Harris saying things like, "There's only one taxpayer." Whenever that's used in the Legislature, the Conservative members always now give it a round of applause, even though I'm not quite sure they understand how it's being implemented across the province when you look at the taxes and user fees and licence fees that are all being implemented at the local level in order to cope with the cutbacks at the provincial level that are all being put in place to fund a tax decrease at the provincial level. But I think this would actually build in some accountability for what was promised during the election, that in fact there would be no new taxes, that if there were going to be new taxes, there would have to be some form of referendum.

The other line that was used is: "There's not a revenue problem in the province; there's a spending problem. That's what's wrong with the province of Ontario." So I'm assuming that the Conservatives would simply have no problem with this at all because this just takes the rhetoric that was used in the election and puts it into law and says, "We intend to fulfil our promise to the taxpayers during the election."

Part of it -- and I'm not sure, I'm looking for it here. Does it also say that if this isn't followed that this would automatically kick in and the Premier would resign?

Mr Phillips: That's just assumed.

Mr Cooke: That's just assumed, okay. Because I assume --

Mr Phillips: He's a person of his word.

Mr Cooke: He's a person of his word. This part of it at least would have part of his word in law, and therefore I think is worthy of the support of the Conservative members. My only upset about this amendment is that we didn't think of it so that we could move it ourselves. I think it's a good amendment that is not only worthy of support today but worthy of support next week when we have third reading and will build another level of accountability that is so needed in government today.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cooke. Mr Clement.

Mr Clement: Thank you --

The Chair: Oh, sorry. Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'll defer. I'd like to hear this.

Mr Clement: With an introduction like that, I hope I live up to Mrs Pupatello's expectations.

I consider this motion unnecessary and redundant. I'm well aware of the pledge to which this motion refers. Of course, I signed it as well. It was a pledge relating to provincial taxes, and I might say parenthetically, Mr Chairman, that this isn't a tax bill. There are a couple of schedules within this bill -- B and C come to mind -- where we are trying to fix, through legislation, the fact that the previous government did not, through legislation, pass some powers which they were in fact using. That's the only element of it that I would consider deals with taxes, but that's rather tangential to the nature of this bill.

It's not a tax bill and it does not deal with provincial taxes, which is what the pledge referred to in 1.3(1) deals with. I would refer members of this committee to the evidence subcommittee Hansard of December 18, 1995, where Mr Paul Pagnuelo, who is I believe the president of the Ontario Taxpayers Federation, which designed the pledge referred to in this motion, came before the evidence subcommittee. There was a rather spirited exchange between Mr Cooke and Mr Pagnuelo where Mr Cooke did raise the issue of whether the pledge did include a pledge to resign and Mr Pagnuelo was quite clear on the point that it did not. I'm surprised that Mr Cooke is raising the issue again, but that's fine.

The other question that Mr Cooke raised was, did he believe that the pledge was being violated because of any downloading to municipalities that would occur or what have you, would the Premier be breaking his pledge on that front? Mr Pagnuelo said, from his perspective -- he doesn't want to see tax hikes, none of us do -- unfortunately not, because of the fact that the pledge the Premier made was specific to provincial income taxes. So I do find this motion quite redundant, and for those reasons and for the reasons I previously outlined about the fact that this is not a tax bill, I would speak against it.

Mrs Pupatello: As per usual, Mr Clement, you never disappoint us. If I could remind the members of the government here on the committee of the taxpayer protection pledge that the Premier, then leader of your party, signed, at the outset it says that if elected, he is to support immediate passage of taxpayer protection legislation. That's signed May 30 and the witness here is Jason Kenney. I think Jason might be interested to know that, even though it's seven months after an election, even with that length of time, you would choose now to implement this kind of legislation.

Here's one way I think that's quite easy to do it so it's really not redundant in that you're simply reaffirming your support to organizations like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which I might say during our hearings in Windsor and several other places had the opportunity to speak to us. Of all groups, they were the one group, often composed of former candidates for your party etc making presentations, but nevertheless often they spoke about your pledge to not increase taxes and that they had to sit with your leader and, even though before 1985 Mike Harris too voted 22 times in favour of tax increases while he was a member of government, evidently he has learned the error of his ways and has come around now to sign and put his name on a paper that says he will not increase taxes.

I think with this kind of an amendment to Bill 26, even those groups which were totally in support of government during the public hearing process, who insisted what you were doing was right -- although there were very few groups that did say that, there were a couple, and mainly they were represented by this organization, so I know you'll often go back to Hansard and use those as examples of public groups coming forward. I don't imagine that you consider those groups vested interests either, although you consider every other group that appeared vested interests.

1120

I think it's in your best interests, it's in Mike Harris's best interests, that you look at this amendment seriously, that you give it serious consideration, because after all it's only assisting you to do the very things that you campaigned on. Certainly in my area those things sold well. If you're walking down the street in Windsor or anywhere else, no one wants to pay more tax. You're simply identifying for the people that you too still agree with this.

Despite other campaign promises that have since been broken, here is one that you campaigned on. Just let's see whether you have it now to bring forward. I suggest to all of you that you pass this amendment. I can tell you that I'll make my commitment to informing those who are interested that this is an amendment that you would not support. If you're really true to your word, I suggest that you support it.

Mrs Caplan: The intention of this amendment is a very simple one, and that is to enshrine in Bill 26 the commitments that Premier Harris and the Conservative Party made in the Common Sense Revolution. What we've heard on this committee, time and time again, is that Bill 26 is to implement the Common Sense Revolution. We have some concerns that in fact it's going way beyond that, and so what these amendments do is say that nothing that they're going to do here would be inconsistent with the Common Sense Revolution.

Again I would say to the people who ran in the election, whose credibility is on the line, you should have no objection to this legislation referencing what you've been saying all along. It's not redundant; in fact it's comfort. It's comfort for those of us who see this as going beyond that; it's comfort to the people who believe that what you're doing with Bill 26 is implementing your so-called Common Sense Revolution. I can't understand why you would have any objection whatever to referencing it in the legislation, since that's what you told us during the public hearings that this bill is doing.

To the comment that it is not a tax bill, I'd like to just make the following point, that is, that this bill is carried by the Minister of Finance. It follows from an economic statement and it was treated exactly the way a budget is treated in the fact that it is an omnibus bill. Every justification for the omnibus nature of the bill, that is, including so many different aspects, was that it was to implement the fiscal policy and the economic statement. By virtue of the title of the bill, it is clearly one that is having an impact on the finances of the province.

I think the request is reasonable. I think it would give comfort to the people of this province that you are doing what you said it was your intent to do. If you don't do this, there is going to be an alarm bell that there's something happening here that people should be aware of.

The Chair: We'll wrap up with Mr Phillips.

Mr Phillips: I remember the taxpayer pledge very well. It was May 30, 1995. It was a great photo op for the then leader of the Conservative Party, the now Premier. Things were going badly for us at the time and I remember. Boy, there he was. It was a great big thing he signed there, and handshakes all around. The taxpayers' federation was pleased as Punch. I didn't sign the pledge because I frankly wasn't convinced that it was feasible to implement what they wanted, but obviously Premier Harris did.

I was a little curious about Mr Clement's comments. We should get a list of the promises he -- I think he said he wanted to resign if he didn't keep his promises. This one I gather he's not going to resign over, although I think it's a contract, dated May 30, 1995. Certainly the taxpayer federation people believed they had his solemn commitment to it.

All this does is to ensure that the government is carrying out what it says it solemnly promised to do -- nothing more, nothing less. As I say, it's not a promise we made. We would perhaps have loved to support them, but we didn't think it was a responsible promise. But you people made it and you are bound to carry out your promises.

I find it curious that here, when we're simply putting as part of the bill that you are going to do what you promised you would do, now you're going to vote against it, I gather, if Mr Clement speaks for the group. When you were looking for the votes and wanted the big photo op and the great taxpayer protection pledge, you were all there. You yourself signed it and I'm sure they were out knocking on doors for you. They weren't for me, I'll tell you that. Very few of the taxpayers were knocking on doors for you, Mr Cooke, probably, but they had them there.

Mr Cooke: All 60 of my canvassers were members.

Mr Phillips: All we're doing is putting it into the bill. I suspect, as one of my colleagues said, that if they choose to vote against it, it's a signal that before June 8 you say one thing and after June 8 you're saying another thing.

Mrs Caplan: We know Wilson did that.

The Chair: Shall the new section 1.3, as proposed by Mr Phillips, carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Cooke, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The section does not carry.

As agreed, we'll take a 15-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1127 to 1141.

The Chair: Welcome back to the hearings. Just for the information of the committee members, the new binder that has been passed out includes all the amendments that have been filed by all three parties, and they're organized in the order in which we will be dealing with them. That supersedes anything you've received previously.

Second, as requested by Ms Lankin last Friday in Hamilton, there's some information from the research group on user fees.

Mrs Caplan: I've had a look at that, and I'd like to compliment parliamentary research for the work they've done. It's an excellent document. For anyone who thinks that user fees are the solution -- or let me put it this way so the government members will understand: user fee, copay, delisting, deinsuring; anything that will make people pay -- if there was ever a compendium of all the arguments that those only destroy medicare and are not a useful policy tool, just read the work of parliamentary research. I'd just like to say thank you very much.

The Chair: The third thing, you will notice from your schedule that lunch on Friday has had to be changed from 12 till 1, because according to the order from the Legislature we have to begin the final process at 1 o'clock.

Mr Sampson, did you finally get a copy of the last information?

Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, I'm tempted to stop sitting on your left. I did now finally receive that one.

The Chair: Picking up where we left off, I understand there's a new section 1.4 to be proposed by Mr Phillips.

Mr Phillips: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"No user fees

"1.4(1) No provision of this act or any other of its schedules shall be interpreted to allow for new user fees, as stipulated in the Common Sense Revolution document released by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on May 3, 1994.

"Same

"(2) For the purposes of this section, the prohibition against user fees includes a prohibition against copayments, as stipulated by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on November 30, 1993."

I'm making the assumption that this bill was designed to implement the Common Sense Revolution -- that's the assumption we've been operating under -- and that the government is firmly committed to what it promised in the Common Sense Revolution, even the point where the Premier is planning to step down, has offered his resignation, if he doesn't keep his commitments in here. We're just trying to make sure the bill reflects that.

I think most members remember that on page 6 of the Common Sense Revolution, it went into quite a bit of detail on copayments and user fees on drugs. In my area, seniors particularly were quite reassured by that promise. Just for the record, I should read what it says there:

"For some time now, there has been growing debate about the most effective way to ensure more responsible use of our universal health care system. In the last decade, user fees and copayments have kept rising and many health care services have been `delisted' and are no longer covered by OHIP.

"We looked at those kinds of options," -- they were referring to copayments on drugs and the services -- "but we decided the most effective and fair method was to give the public and health professionals alike a true and full accounting of the costs of health care, and ask individuals to pay a fair share of those cots, based on income." Based on income. "We believe the new fair share health care levy, based on the ability to pay, meets the test of fairness and the requirements of the Canada Health Act while protecting the fundamental integrity of our health care system.

"Under this plan, there will be no new user fees."

The intent of this motion is to implement that. It was clear that the government wanted to make sure there weren't going to be any copayments or new user fees; that rather than having, for example, a cost per prescription or something like that for people, the fair way to do that -- because that doesn't reflect income -- was through this new fair share health care levy that was based on income.

The purpose of moving this is to make sure we put in the act what was promised in the campaign and make sure that people can be reassured that what the government promised in its campaign is indeed in the bill.

Mrs Caplan: I'm going to speak very briefly to this. I know we'll have a greater chance to discuss the government's intention in this bill to implement copay.

I think it's important that people know that the Common Sense Revolution -- and I'm holding up the one that was distributed in Oriole riding during the election campaign; it has the very nice picture of Councillor Paul Sutherland on the back -- very clearly said that there would be no user fees. All this amendment we have tabled does is to say that anything in Bill 26 should be consistent with the Common Sense Revolution.

We think that's an important thing to do. I also point out that on numerous occasions prior to the election, then leader of the third party Mr Harris said a copayment is a user fee, that any fees charged to parents, as were being suggested by the previous government, any changes that would result in higher fees were also a tax and a user fee. Clearly, Premier Harris defined for the people of this province on numerous occasions what he personally considered to be a user fee, and we know that the debate and discussion on user fees and copay and making people pay is about values.

But what's really important in the debate as it relates to Bill 26 is the question of integrity and credibility. We know that the Premier has said he would resign if he didn't do what he said he would do during the campaign. He signed a taxpayers' pledge. We have the evidence of his commitment to people in this province as it related to any kind of changes under the Common Sense Revolution in terms of making people pay user fees, copay or new fees.

The amendment we have moved is just enshrining in this legislation the words and the commitment of Premier Harris, the Harris government, the Tory government. I can't see why any member would vote against that if they meant what they said when they handed out this document during the election campaign. If they vote against it, it's a clear signal that they didn't mean what they said. As Jim Wilson said last night, "Oh, that was all just posturing."

1150

That's why I say this is a question of integrity. This is a question of integrity and credibility, because people don't like politicians very much and they're feeling very cynical. While I'm pleased when people say to me, "You know, Elinor, we know that you always tell it like it is and we believe you; it's those other guys we don't believe," I know plenty of people don't like me, don't like any of us, simply because they don't think they can believe what we say. It's harmful and hurtful and it pains me to hear Jim Wilson say what he said last night, which is that you can't believe any of us. He casts the worst kind of doubt on anything we say.

I want to assure my constituents that they can have faith and confidence, not only in what I say and that I mean what I say -- as I've said to people, one of the reasons I wear and collect elephants is that I'm reminded of the old Horton story, where the elephant said, "I meant what I said and I said what I meant." I think that's what politicians have to be prepared to say. I know you think this is not an important discussion, but this amendment is about holding you to what you said. People expect that Mike Harris meant what he said and said what he meant. If he did and if you did, and if the Common Sense Revolution told the truth, you'll have no problem with supporting this amendment. It just holds you to your own commitment.

You've tried to modify that by saying, "We meant anything covered by the Canada Health Act," but clearly, that's not what the Common Sense Revolution said. My colleague Mr Phillips read it into the record. I won't waste your time by reading it into the record again, but the way I read it, the way it was interpreted by my constituents, the way it's been interpreted by the people who have been calling me to say: "How can they do this? They promised us. They said there would be no new user fees. Premier Harris said a copayment is a user fee. How can he now do this?" -- I throw my hands up in the air and I tell them, "This is an issue of integrity and it tells you something about Harris and Wilson and the people of this party and the people of this caucus."

Here's an opportunity for the Conservative members on this committee to enshrine in this piece of legislation the commitment they made when they knocked on doors during their consultation with the people in May and June 1995. If they vote against this, they are voting against exactly what they said in the Common Sense Revolution document that appeared on every doorstep in the riding of Oriole and I suspect on almost every doorstep across the province.

There are very few things I feel as strongly about. As a former Minister of Health, I know that the only thing the slippery slope of user fees does is begin the dismantling and Americanization of medicare. There are many aspects of Bill 26 that Americanize Ontario's health system, and we have that potential. And it's not just user fees; it has to do with the ability of the minister and the government to micromanage.

I have numerous quotes from Premier Harris and answers to questionnaires given during the campaign when they made commitments that they would not do many of the things that Bill 26 will allow them to do -- or potentially allow them to do, because we don't know how all these powers will be used.

These amendments are simple. They just say that as you implement Bill 26, which implements your CSR, it has to be consistent with what you promised. It's that simple.

I don't want to go on at length. I will take other opportunities to read into the record some of the things the Conservative party promised during the election campaign, but this one deals specifically with user fees and copay. I think it's a simple amendment, and I hope that some members of the Conservative caucus will vote for this.

Mr Gerretsen: Oh, no. Surely they all will. It's so self-evident.

Mrs Caplan: Not all of them, because I know that some of them believe in user fees and that when they were knocking on the doors and telling people they weren't going to do user fees, they didn't mean it. But anybody with any integrity, anybody who wants their credibility intact, anybody who said when they went to those doors, "I'm telling you the truth; we will not introduce user fees. Under this plan, there will be no new user fees," anybody who said that even once during the campaign must vote for this amendment, or they will have lied. They will have lied and they will have cast a cloud over their own personal integrity. This is a vote based on your own personal integrity. How you vote today will be attached to you and your performance during your time here in the Legislature.

Mr Cooke: I support this amendment, primarily because it's the type of amendment again that brings accountability to the process. This was the promise that was made during the election campaign, and probably in one of the most cynical moves of any politician that I've seen, when the Conservative party was absolutely clear before the election in saying that copayments are in fact user fees and that they would simply not move in that direction, to then come in after they win a majority and say, "Well, what we really meant was that there would be no user fees for any service that's provided for under the Canada Health Act," is just a cynical move by the government to try to fool the public, because the Canada Health Act is clear: You can't bring in user fees. You can't bring in those kinds of user fees under the Canada Health Act. So it was a promise, if in fact that was what they meant all along, and it wasn't, because Mr Harris was very specific about copayments in ODB and how they opposed that. If in fact they only meant to apply it to the Canada Health Act, there was no need to make the promise.

The other thing that makes this amendment I think important is, when you combine it with what Mr Eves, the treasurer, is asking the federal government to do, they're asking specifically that the Canada Health Act be dismantled, and if there's not some legislative protection at the provincial level, then the game plan of the provincial government is very clear: We bring in user fees now for the Ontario drug benefit program, and by changing the Canada Health Act and dismantling the nationwide system, we can then bring in user fees and a two-tiered health care system provincially and it will not be against the national law because there won't be one.

This isn't just being paranoid, this is being realistic about what Mr Eves is asking the federal government to do and what we all know the deep-seated beliefs are of this government and the Conservative party. They have never fully embraced the principles or the concept of medicare. Back in the 1960s, this province had to be brought in kicking and screaming to even get into a national health care system. In their entire time when they were in power, they would not eliminate extra-billing by doctors. In fact, when the Liberals brought in the ban on extra-billing, which was part of the NDP-Liberal accord, the Conservatives staged a filibuster in the Legislature to try to prevent that bill from passing. The government of the day had to bring in closure, which we supported, in order to get the ban on extra-billing through. If one follows the history and where this party, the Conservative party, has stood on medicare issues, it's essential that there be some legislated protection to maintain medicare against the moves that this government clearly wants to take to dismantle medicare.

If in fact the government's response is that they believe in medicare and that we are being paranoid, the way they can overcome that difficulty is simply by approving this amendment. If they approve this amendment, then I think we would all be convinced that this government is very much committed to maintaining a medicare system in this province and not moving to the two-tiered system that I believe everything they've done so far indicates they want to.

1200

Mr Clement: I thank the mover and the other speakers for the discussion to date on this very important issue.

Let me begin my remarks by indicating, in all frankness, that I suspect that for the next four years, or however long, we on the government side and the opposition on the other side will disagree on the nature of the Common Sense Revolution document, how we interpreted it, how, after the dozens and hundreds of meetings and conferences and iterations by the grass roots of our party and by the public, we interpret the Common Sense Revolution and how they interpret the Common Sense Revolution. And not all of it is partisanship. We probably genuinely differ on the wording of that document, because with the election of this government, that document became considerably more important than it was when it was launched on May 3, 1994. I do acknowledge that there is a real difference of interpretation in some cases and that perhaps reasonable people can differ on that interpretation. That allows for the ebb and flow of democratic debate in our parliamentary democracy.

I would say, however, just for the record, that on this side of the House we are quite confident that we are following the spirit and the letter of the Common Sense Revolution document, that the copayments we are suggesting in schedule G do not violate that principle, nor do they violate the Canada Health Act, and that we are still committed to the fair share health care levy, which will be a topic of discussion as we present budgets, both this year and in the future years, so that there will be a genuine discussion on those issues and how best to restructure the health care system.

If I can reply to what Ms Caplan was saying, she talked about what the real issue is behind this motion and the discussion that we're having. To me, the real issue is how to achieve genuine reform of the health care system so the health care system can do the things that we, as members of the public, want that health care system to do. There may be genuine disagreement on different sides of the House on how to do that, but that's where our head is at. We want a health care system, Mr Cooke, that does function properly, that does have the social accountability, but that also has the means to tackle the demands, the increasingly sophisticated demands, of both the providers in the system and the ultimate recipients: you and I, members of the public. And that means that we have to think of new ways to do things.

We never said, during the campaign or thereafter, that everything in the health care system was going to be the status quo. There were going to be shifts within the system so that we could focus our resources, the scarce resources that are made available to us on trust by the taxpayer, focus them on the best way possible to achieve a health care system that works. So there was going to be some changeover in where we allocate the moneys. Anyone who advocates the status quo in health care spending is condemning this province and its population to misspent resources and to ignoring some of the new challenges that we as a society face. I, for one, cannot countenance that. If there's anything that would be immoral, it would be that, in my earnest view.

That is how I would characterize the real issue with respect to this motion and with respect to the issue that this motion attempts to deal with.

May I say as well, just for the record, that this motion talks about user fees generically. It does not refer specifically to schedule G or the health care system. In the municipal sector, we are signalling to the municipalities that they have the right to achieve greater accountability for the using of municipal services to, in some instances, should that be the will of the local population or the municipality which represents that local population, an ability to have a user-pay concept, which is different from everyone paying for a resource or a service that is made available. So, yes, from our perspective, user-pay is one of a series of tools which may or may not be relevant and appropriate in the circumstances, and we are allowing the municipalities to have the authority to have that debate.

May I say again for the record that these are the sorts of debates that have occurred in our society for the last 20 years. There is nothing new about this debate over user-pay versus universality or however you want to characterize it. I would hope that the opposition would give us some marks for at least conducting this debate forthrightly and honestly, because, quite frankly, what has happened over the last 10 years at least, perhaps longer, is that this debate is not engaged in by the government of the day and things are allowed to sneak into place without having that debate.

There's a reference in the motion to Mr Harris's comments on November 30, 1993, and I believe what Mr Harris was indicating was: "We've got to have this debate as a society. We can't just assume that the status quo is in some" --

Mr Cooke: He said he had already made up his mind there would be no new user fees or copayments.

Mr Clement: What he was saying was that the status quo in fact was creating more user fees in the system, creating more copayments in the system, creating queue lines in health care, creating fewer hospital beds, and that no debate was happening because everyone assumed the status quo meant nothing was changing. Well, in fact things were changing. What our legislation seeks to do is to allow that debate to occur and quite frankly to have that debate openly, which is what we have attempted to do. So I would speak against this motion.

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, followed by Ms Lankin, and finish up with Mr Phillips.

Mr Gerretsen: It's always interesting to listen to Mr Clement, and I agree with him to this extent: We do have to reform our health care system. And if the Premier had not gone any further than that, then in effect he would have free rein right now to reform the health care system in whichever way, shape or form that he and his Minister of Health would feel appropriate.

The problem is that he put a couple of riders on that, and those riders are very clearly and emphatically spelled out in the Common Sense Revolution: "We are not in favour of the status quo. I'm not in favour of the status quo." What he said was: "We will not cut health care spending. It's far too important. And frankly, as we all get older, we are going to need it more and more." Under his plan, as a government:

"We will be aggressive about rooting out waste, abuse, health card fraud, mismanagement and duplication.

"Every dollar we save by cutting overhead or by bringing in the best new management techniques and thinking, will be reinvested in health care to improve services to patients. We call this commonsense approach, `patient-based budgeting.'"

Of course, he also states that "There will be no new user fees."

If he hadn't said any of that, if he had not said, "We will not cut health care spending," if he had not said, "We are not going to have user fees," then the ball game is wide open. You could do the restructuring any way you see fit. He himself made it an issue of putting those two riders on that. He went around this province for well over a year making these exact same statements. That's the problem.

Now, what have we had since the government's been elected? Well, the first thing we had, you may recall, was that whole debate about whether or not there's $17.4 billion or $17.8 billion in the health care system. At the time you were elected, in fact we were spending $17.8 billion a year. He said, "Well, when I made my promises, we were only spending $17.4 billion a year," and I suppose there could be some argument about that. We're taking the position that in effect, by accepting the $17.4 billion made in the initial promise, you have cut $400 million out of the system, but I'll give you that one. We think it's $17.8 billion; you think it's $17.4 billion.

What's the next thing that happens? The next thing that happens is that it doesn't mean $17.4 billion over the term of the government on an annual basis. No, what he's now saying, what the Minister of Health has said, what Ms Johns has said, what the Premier has said on a number of different occasions -- I've heard you, Ms Johns, say this in a televised interview: "As long as we spend $17.4 billion at the end of the mandate in 1999 or the year 2000, then we've lived up to our commitment."

1210

I would suggest to you that the commonsense way in which people look at that is that it is a betrayal to say you're spending $17.4 billion in 1995 and as long as you spend $17.4 billion in the years 1999 and 2000 that thereby you have lived up to your commitment that you're not cutting health care spending when during those five years you're going to in effect have a dip, that is just not honest. It's just not honest; it's misleading the public. If you say you will not cut health care spending, there's only one way I can interpret that, and that is you will spend exactly the same amount over the five years of your government as you're spending right now. Any other interpretation from any commonsense or any other sense viewpoint is just absolutely ridiculous.

The next thing we heard is that you've been encouraging the hospitals, different community health organizations within communities, to in effect come up with their own saving. Very laudable. It's part of the restructuring program. If we can do things better, if we can do it more cost efficiently etc, why shouldn't we be doing it. The carrot that has been out there is the fact that whatever health care dollars are saved in that area would at least be reinvested into that community.

That's the way it was originally explained, and it's certainly the only explanation I heard up until a couple of months ago, when all of a sudden we started hearing, and it was confirmed yesterday in a dialogue that took place at this committee, "What we really mean is that those moneys will be spent, the additional savings will be spent in the communities of Ontario."

That's like saying that if money is saved in Kingston within the organizations, it can be spent in Hamilton or in Niagara Falls or what have you. Whereas philosophically I've got nothing against that, from the practical viewpoint organizations aren't going to be involved in any cost-cutting measures if they are not guaranteed that they at least can utilize that saving for new ways of doing things.

I will simply wrap up by saying that I know there has been an awful lot of rhetoric about this issue and I would just suggest to the government members that, certainly from the people that I've been hearing from over the last four or five months, there is a tremendous concern that they felt that, quite frankly, no matter which party had been elected to government, there was a solid commitment made by all three parties that there would not be any health care spending cuts.

You, in your Common Sense Revolution document, put that promise out there more clearly and more effectively, I would say, than either of the other two parties. Now in effect you're stuck with your own rhetoric. You're stuck with your own document. Live up to that commitment. That's all that this section is doing. "We will not cut health care spending." That's what you said. That's all we're saying here, not have any user fees.

Ms Lankin: I must say I find Mr Clement's comments incredibly revisionist with respect to the events that took place both over the course of the two years of public consultation on the Common Sense Revolution and the actual election campaign itself, and I find him deliberately misleading. That both upsets me and disappoints me.

I think that Mr Gerretsen raises some important points and I think that this should be pressed home to the government. Your commitment was not to touch a cent of health care spending. Your commitment was to find efficiencies and to reinvest those efficiencies in the system, and I both support that and quite frankly am sick and tired of hearing Mr Clement and others say that people who have any criticism of their government support the status quo or that nothing was being done in the health care system before.

It's bull. It is not believed by the people of the province. It is not believed by the people in the health care system who have been engaged in the development of the plans, reforming the system based on community input, based on a framework of health that understands the determinants of health, understands the need to shift from institutional spending to community spending, from illness treatment to illness prevention to health promotion.

Your government has no framework for how you're going to restructure the health care system except bottom-line efficiencies in dollars. You haven't told us once in what context, with what set of principles, with what framework. The previous government adopted a framework of the determinants of health which had been recommended by community health organizations, by district health councils, by premiers' health councils, by the Medical Reform Group of Ontario, by many organizations. You've never once committed yourselves to that. So your restructuring will take place, and I support restructuring, but I'd like to know, based on what? Quite frankly, everything in this bill tells me it's based on bottom-line dollars.

Now I want to come back to the point that you say you're going to reinvest any savings you find in the health care system. You'll have a chance in a few minutes to support an amendment that would make that a reality, and we'll see what you do on that. But let me tell you that in the Finance minister's economic statement the over $1 billion that you are cutting from the hospital system is not earmarked to stay inside the health envelope and to be reinvested. It is very clearly in the out years put against the bottom-line deficit, to reduce the deficit.

Your commitment during the campaign of not touching one cent and not cutting health care spending and maintaining the envelope, sealing the envelope -- I was in a debate with the now Minister of Health during the campaign, a health care debate down at U of T sponsored by the medical school, and I heard him say it. "The envelope is sealed. We won't be taking that money out."

Well, the economic statement makes a lie out of that, and the shift in positioning -- and there's no other way to say it -- but, very cynically, the positioning of the government that, "When we return to the public in four years' time for the next election we will have restored that to the $17.4-billion envelope," makes a complete mockery of your commitment and your promises to the people of Ontario.

I understand why you're shifting your position. The promises you made were totally unrealistic. You couldn't balance the budget in the period of time you said you were going to do that, give the tax break that's going to help the wealthiest in this province the most and maintain health care spending, and we said that from the beginning. Your promises were unrealistic, you can't live up to your promises.

So what do you do? You misrepresent the past, you revise the past, you revise history to say, "This is what we meant all along and this is what we really said." Why don't you just be honest and say that the commitments you made weren't realistic in the context of what you see in terms of the fiscal situation and you're having to adjust them? For God's sake, just be honest about it, instead of all this misleading rhetoric -- and that's quite frankly what it is.

Secondly, with respect to the commitment on user fees, Mr Clement goes off into talking about municipal user fees and the user pay concept and the support of the government for giving that flexibility to municipalities. I'm sorry. Go back and read the Common Sense Revolution. You said that the actions you were going to take should reduce the provincial government's expenditures, including reducing transfer payments to municipalities; that you would work to ensure that municipalities did not transfer that on in terms of costs to the taxpayers, that they wouldn't raise taxes.

You said that, and then in the next breath, right in this same document, you said: "Let us be clear. A user fee is a tax." A tax is a tax. You're shaking your head. Pick up your copy of the Common Sense Revolution. It is right in there. Mr Harris says a user fee is a tax in documentation and in the press releases that went out in support of that Common Sense Revolution.

With respect to health care, I'm sorry -- talk again about revisionism -- we all have good cause to be very cynical about the sham that this government's trying to put forward. To suggest that when you were going door to door during the campaign and knocking on doors you were saying to seniors: "Trust us. We're not going to implement user fees in health care, and what we mean are user fees under the Canada Health Act for medically necessary services as insured under OHIP. We don't mean drug payments" -- were those the words that you said?

Let me tell you, the Tory candidate who ran in the riding in which I was both lucky enough and I think honoured enough to be elected said very clearly in all-candidates meetings, "There will be no user fees in the health care system," over and over again to seniors who worried about the cost of drugs. "No, we will not implement user fees. We don't need to. We've got a fiscal plan that will work. We can balance the budget, we can give this tax break away and we don't have to cut health care and/or raise new revenues in health care other than the fair share health care levy." That's the only thing that you put out there: "No user fees." You didn't specify.

1220

My colleague Mr Cooke is absolutely right. If you were really talking about, as you now qualify, user fees under the Canada Health Act for medically necessary services, (1) why didn't you say it and (2) why didn't you tell people that was an empty sham of a promise because you can't do it anyway? It's against the law. Were you just really saying to people that we're not going to break the law? Does anyone go out and canvass and say that they're going to break the law? Is that all that promise meant? The seniors in my riding understood that that meant there wouldn't be copayments or user fees implemented on the drug benefit program.

Mrs Caplan: They thought.

Ms Lankin: And I believe that every one of you sitting at that table over there believed that too until the Finance minister realized the problem that he had and realized that they had to do something and he found a fancy way to try and describe the difference in what you're doing today and what you said during the election.

I don't for one moment believe that any of you, if you even knew the difference between a user fee on the drug benefit program and a user fee under the Canada Health Act for medically necessary services as insured under OHIP -- I believe most of you didn't even know the difference in those sorts of things, so I just don't buy it.

Mrs Ecker: I did.

Ms Lankin: I said most of you. Ms Ecker, you happen to have a background in health care and I believe you're one of the people who do know and I believe you're one of the people who knows darned well that the commitment that your government made during that election was for no new user fees, which includes copayments under the drug benefit plan.

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: That's not what I heard.

Mrs Ecker: No.

Ms Lankin: Absolutely.

Mrs Caplan: You know, Janet.

Ms Lankin: I can't believe that you could go out there and say, "Gee, you know, a user fee is a tax by any other name, but boy, a user fee is not a copayment if it's in the drug benefit plan."

Mrs Caplan: You also know it's bad policy.

Ms Lankin: Come on, let's be real. Why don't you once again just be honest with people that you've changed your position?

But you know what I want to come back to? It doesn't matter how much I argue with you about what you said then and what you say now. People will determine whether or not they feel betrayed by your actions. I want to talk about what it is you intend to implement with respect to your user fee or your copayment under the drug benefit program, and I want to talk about how dangerous that is and how damaging that is to the health of the people of this province. This is where I come back to -- you've got no policy with respect to health care and the reforms you want to make. There is no framework within which you are operating.

Let me just cite a couple of examples. If you remember during the weeks of presentations we heard from people with respect to their concerns about the implementation of the user fees. Many of you, by the way, rely on, "Well, gosh, other provinces have them." Did you ever scratch the surface and determine what impact that was having on the health status of those people under the drug benefit program who were paying the user fee? Was there a differential impact depending on the wealth of the person covered under the program? Did you look beyond that? I think not, given the kinds of comments you made in response to presenters.

But you'll remember that there was one group of presenters that cited a number of papers, and I asked for legislative counsel to do some research and it has been distributed to us. I want to refer to some of the results in studies that have actually been done -- not top of the head, "We need the money, so we're going to implement a copayment," not, "Gosh, others do it, so it must be okay. We're going to implement a copayment," but actual research that has been done into the effects of implementing a copayment for drugs for people who are elderly, who are vulnerable, who are poor, and what the impact on that population currently covered under the Ontario drug benefit program is of implementing a user fee. The results of these other studies are actually very interesting.

One of the first studies cited is a study from 1968 to 1971, looking at the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Commission when they introduced charges of $1.50 for office visits or $2 for house calls. This was on physician services. They found that the overall use of the health care system fell slightly, 7.17%. One of the arguments you've put forward for this is: "Costs are out of control and people are taking too many drugs. We have to bring down utilization, and surely this will be a deterrent for unnecessary drug use." Well, here's what they found.

"Analyses found that `there was a redistribution of services from large families and the elderly to small families and the young...[and there was] a reduction in services [to the poor] of about 18%'," which was three times the reductions for families that don't fall into the category of the poor. This about that. Think about what you're doing.

Mr Young: There's no explanation of that.

Ms Lankin: There's no explanation? Well, this is a recap, a leg research recap of the study, so before we get to that section of the bill, I expect that you're going to pull out that study and be able to cite to me whether you still have concerns that there are no reasons set out for this. That is the bottom result. Does it not concern you that poor people dropped in their utilization of the health care system at three times the rate of families that are not poor? Does that not give you reason or cause to wonder? Do you not understand the relationship between poverty and ill health? Do you understand the concept of determinants of health? It's what I came to earlier in terms of --

Mr Maves: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: In that study which is being cited, the drop occurred with a user fee on the services; it didn't occur when a copayment came in. I just want to make that clear, that it was a user fee on services, that being put in.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr Maves.

Ms Lankin: Not only is it not a point of order, Mr Maves, if you would listen to me you will see that I made that point clear when I started to cite the study. Listen, don't just pipe in and mouth off. Listen to what's being said. That's been the problem through this whole process, that you folks are unprepared to listen. You won't listen to the public, the people who came forward and who talked about the implications of copayment. We have research documents that are now put before us. You're not prepared to listen to that. You just pipe in and want to defend your partisan interests, you want to defend the ideological approach you're taking. You want to just defend it because your government has said you're going to do it. Slow down and listen.

There are other studies here which you may be more interested in, given that you want to dismiss that one because it's dealing with medical services as opposed to drug payment programs. Let's look at the study that's cited in the New England Journal of Medicine. There they talk about the state of New Hampshire, which instituted first of all a limit of three prescriptions per month, and then a year later they replaced that with a $1 copayment for each prescription. They go through what the preliminary results of those studies are. Interestingly enough, the researchers found that there was a sudden, sustained drop of 30% in the number of prescriptions filled, which is the goal or the result that you've indicated you're looking for from introducing a copayment. There it is; you find it. But again, the effects were uneven, and "recipients of multiple drugs, who were predominantly female and elderly or disabled, were most severely affected." These are the arguments we've been making to you.

There are alternatives, by the way. When we get to that section of the act, we can talk about the alternatives in terms of working with physicians for better prescribing practices, and the fact that too many seniors are being given too many drugs. The way to get at that is not to punish seniors, but to get at education of doctors, and doctors working together with pharmacists, with pharmacological education with respect to appropriate drug prescribing and appropriate drug taking. There are alternatives that are already being worked on and that have proven to be effective in other jurisdictions, as opposed to copayments, which many jurisdictions have rejected when they looked at the basis of the research.

Let's look at the study with respect to Effects of Medicaid Drug-Payment Limits on Admission to Hospitals and Nursing Homes. This one is horrifying. This takes a look at a study addressing two groups of seniors, elderly patients, one in New Hampshire and the other in New Jersey. I believe New Hampshire is the state where they did in fact have a cap or cost-sharing, and in New Jersey was a control group where they didn't have a cap or cost-sharing with respect to the program. This goes on to say that the findings were dramatic. After the cap was instituted, the group in New Hampshire, the elderly patients, were almost twice as likely to be in a nursing home after 11 months -- the length of time the cap was in place was the period that they looked at -- as the matched group in New Jersey. Before the imposition of the cap, the proportion of the members of the study groups entering nursing homes in the two states had been similar.

If our goal is to help seniors stay in the community to receive the services that help keep them healthy and well and in their homes and not having to be institutionalized, I ask you, take a look at that study. Think about it. Think about what the impact is here.

Another study: Effects of Limiting of Medicaid Drug-Reimbursement Benefits on the Use of Psychotropic Agents and Acute Mental Health Services by Patients with Schizophrenia. We heard time and time again during the public hearings something you've obviously ignored, because you have not proposed any kind of amendment to that section of the act. We heard that people who are suffering from mental illnesses or psychiatric illnesses will be less likely to maintain a regime of needed medication to help them stay out of institutions with the imposition of a user fee. Many of those people are on the margins of our economy, and the impact of this is incredible. I asked Ms Johns yesterday if they were prepared to set out in regulation that these people would not be affected. She said she didn't know; she couldn't give me that commitment. But she and you and others on that committee heard this presentation over and over again.

1230

Well, here's a research study that was done that took a look at this particular community and the effect of introducing caps and copayments and the drug payment on this group. Interestingly, it says the overall increase in mental health care costs was 17 times as high as the saving in drug costs. We heard that over and over again, that it's going to cost you more because you're going to have people being moved: seniors into nursing homes and institutions; persons with psychiatric disabilities who have been able to maintain themselves in the community through needed medication ending up going into institutions. It's going to cost you more. So even in terms of the goal of your own legislation and the goal of introducing this user fee, you're likely to have the exact opposite effect, not to mention the deleterious effect on people's health. I ask you very seriously to take a look at that.

There was another study that was done, The Effect of Cost Sharing on the Use of Antibiotics in Ambulatory Care. It found that there was a reduction overall in antibiotic use; however, it reduced the use more for lower-income people -- by about 50% -- than for middle- and upper-income people. We've said this over and over again. That study and many others concluded that cost-sharing is not an appropriate way to reduce inappropriate uses, in this case of antibiotics, because it tends to reduce needed care as well. In addition, it does so in an inequitable way, since poorer people's access to these drugs was reduced more than higher-income people's.

Here in Canada, Why Not User Charges? The Real Issues, a study that was done and conducted by health economists -- it included Greg Stoddart, but I know that Barer was involved in that and Evans and very many well-respected names in the world of health economics in this country who put together a study for the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice. The research came up with two or three major findings: that patient-initiated contacts within the health care system, ie, visits to physicians and emergency rooms, make up only 8% to 10% of the total health care spending; that user charges tend to deter appropriate care as much as inappropriate care, and particularly for low-income people; and that health care costs were rising more quickly before the introduction of universal, publicly funded health care in 1971 than they have since that time, while in the United States, where we know they have a very different system, costs have continued to rise at rates similar to those seen in the 1960s.

The conclusions of all the research have been very clear, yet you're just marching ahead and doing it because you're driven by the bottom-line fiscal situation, not because you believe this is going to provide better health care. If you do, you're wrong. You haven't read the research. You haven't understood it. You're just moving ahead. And it's absolutely contrary to everything you said in the campaign and in the Common Sense Revolution.

The last point I want to make, Mr Clement, is with respect to your suggestion that the debate about user fees or the debate about moving to a two-tiered system is one that is out there and is current in the public but has never been allowed an expression, and you should be congratulated for bringing it to the forefront and for allowing a forthright debate of the issues. Give me a break.

Mrs Caplan: No debate.

Ms Lankin: There has not been a forthright debate of those issues through the course of these hearings, and you know darn well what it took to get these hearings and the length of time to be able to have hearings in January and travel the province and give people time to reflect on the bill.

I want to remind you of the words of the bioethicist Dr Kotalik, who came before us in Thunder Bay. I thought it was a very important contribution to the debate in terms of Bill 26, but to debate overall with respect to the future of health care in this province and in this country. He indicated that in fact there are schools of thought out there, and there always have been, who would argue that we should move away from universality or who would argue that we should introduce user fees -- that's another way of saying the same thing -- and the system should change more to a user-pay, that there should be more market-driven forces in it like your introduction of foreign-owned for-profit companies coming into the independent health facilities sector. He said, though, that that debate has not taken place in this society, and from an ethical point of view it's critical that before the government gives itself the powers to unilaterally take us down that road -- which all of us who know anything about the health care system and see the way you have constructed this bill believe very firmly is the direction you will take us, because you will be forced by the bottom-line fiscal, with no parameters, no framework, no philosophy or principles of health care reform, to take the easy way and the immediate way under the powers you've given yourself.

He has stressed that the principles of health care in this country of comprehensiveness, of portability, of universality, all of the aspects we know of our publicly funded health care system, have at the base of them a set of values which are intrinsic to our Canadian culture, and that this bill leads inevitably to a move away from that system and a change, inevitably, in the value system that underpins that system. And he argues that a shift in the value system which underpins our universally accessible public health care system is a major shift in the value systems of the culture of Canada and needs to be debated openly by the public and a consensus needs to be arrived at as to whether or not we are prepared to see that change take place.

He doesn't argue that we would come down on that issue one way or the other. He suggests that debate needs to take place in an open forum and not behind closed doors with regulation-making powers being given to the cabinet of Ontario: not by a government that says they won't cut health care and then proceeds to do it and proceeds to tell people, "Well, what we said was something different," not by a government that says they're not going to introduce user fees in the health care system and who proceed in spite of all of the relevant research indicating that this will have a differential impact on people depending on their income levels and a deleterious impact on people's health, that you're going to proceed to do it when you said you weren't going to do that at all. This doctor, this bioethicist, said: Put that debate out in the forefront. I implore you to do that.

Quite frankly, that's where the debate should be. It should be among people in this province and in this country to determine where they want to go with the health care system. I'm prepared to predict where they will come down, and it is not on the side of this government; it is not on the side of the actions that you're taking under this bill. It is not on the side of introducing user fees or copayments in the drug plan when they understand what the impact is on people's health, particularly on poor people's health. But have the debate. Don't do this behind closed doors, which is the approach that you continue to take.

The amendment that is here is here to make a point. It's here to say to you, if you've committed yourself not to introducing user fees, not to introducing copayments, live up to that commitment. Put that restraint on yourself. You're prepared to commit to the taxpayers' federations and taxpayers' coalitions that you're going to introduce a taxpayers' protection legislation and yet you wouldn't put that amendment in here, but you're prepared to commit to that. It's like the Republican new right in the south that wants balanced-budget legislation that they're going to bind themselves with, but you won't bind yourself to your other promises of no user fees in the health care system, of not shifting the tax implications of your cuts down to municipalities, who will raise it through user fees and through different kinds of taxation, property taxes, which again don't have any relationship to the concept of ability to pay. You're so hepped up on putting ability to pay as a fettering of arbitrators' powers in decision-making in public sector arbitrations where there's no right to strike, but you don't consider ability to pay with respect to the public and how user fees and higher property taxes are going to impact lower- and middle-income people versus high-income people.

Your refusal to deal with some of these early amendments to this bill and to put it in the context of your own campaign rhetoric speaks volumes about what the people of Ontario can expect from this Tory government, as, quite frankly, does this whole bill: the approach you have taken, the lack of due process, the way in which you continue to try and ram it through, the way in which you continue to refuse to deal with any amendments from the opposition.

Quite frankly, Mr Chair, I feel that over the course of the week I'll be proven right, that this is again a sham of a process. All I can say is, thank God we pushed you this far, because the some 100-odd amendments that are you are going to move, many of them, as we've heard, being technical and such, wouldn't have been done at all. The unintended consequences of the bill, we wouldn't have caught any of them. I suspect there are many, many more that we haven't caught yet. Yesterday we just found out about the tolls on municipal roads.

This is going to be a journey of discovery that we will take with you and the people of Ontario over the course of the next years as we see this bill being implemented and the effects of it touching every aspect of our communities' lives. A journey of discovery.

1240

Interjection: The slogan of Ontario.

Ms Lankin: The slogan of Ontario, someone's saying -- "Ontario: Yours to discover." I predict that after four years of this government, unfortunately the challenge is going to be, "Ontario: Ours to recover." Thank you very much.

Mrs Caplan: I'm going to be very brief. The studies Ms Lankin referred to are correct. The impact on lower-income Canadians and Ontarians and those in the United States who were part of those studies is clear. Their health status is impacted; there are serious compliance problems -- that means they don't take the drugs they are supposed to -- and it ends up costing you more money. One of the concerns I have is that Mike Harris and the Conservatives feel they can implement this policy simply because it has been done in other provinces, but in fact all the studies from those other provinces add to the weight of why Ontario should not follow that path.

One of the things that did bother me a bit while Ms Lankin was speaking was that the NDP had considered copayment in Bill 50 when they brought it forward. I can now imagine, after listening to the eloquence and the passion of the previous speaker, that it was a proposal from the treasury that the former Minister of Health likely knew nothing about. I would imagine that the speech she just made before this committee she also made in a cabinet meeting when they were finally aware of the proposals that would have permitted user fees in the drug plan. I was disturbed at the time to see those proposals come forward. I know, as a previous Health minister, as a matter of fiscal policy the treasury has always wanted to do this. I would imagine that there has been very little discussion or debate at the Conservative caucus.

The point I want to make as I end my remarks on this debate is that if we're going to do what Mr Clement says, that is, have a values discussion and debate, they should have it in their caucus, we should have it in the Legislature, we should have it in public forums. The NDP, when they were caught trying to put the ability to allow government to have copay in their Bill 50, once that was drawn to the public's attention, they withdrew that, because I think their own caucus said, "What the hell are the treasury and the Finance minister trying to do here by putting that into an omnibus bill?" They took it out.

I'm hoping that when the Conservative caucus start to listen to their own constituents and realize that this isn't about health policy, isn't about a discussion and a debate on the values of medicare and whether we want to see our health system on that slippery slope of user fees, in spite of all the evidence that says it's the wrong way to go and is going to end up costing us more money and hurting the people we want to protect -- those most vulnerable in our society, those who are made sicker because they don't have access to appropriate medication-that user fees for drugs have nothing whatever to do with optimal therapy; that the mother with a sick child isn't going to go out to barter for drugs; that access to drugs for people who are low-income and rely on the Ontario drug benefit plan, with incomes under $16,000, simply cannot afford the copayment, and that even those over $16,000 may choose not to have their prescriptions filled; that those people who are using the kind of psychotropic drugs required for those who suffer from mental disorder and have to take those drugs -- we heard time and again from those appearing before the committee that it would have an adverse impact on their health, would have an adverse impact because they would decide not to take those drugs if they couldn't afford the few dollars this government is charging them. Every study that has been done says this is bad health policy. Today we realize that this is fiscal policy, not health policy.

It also runs completely contrary to the promises of Mike Harris in his document that we call the CSR, the Common Sense Revolution. This motion is an opportunity for the Conservative bench to do what the NDP bench did when their government tried to bring in in Bill 50 the ability to charge copayment -- stop them. Stop them from doing something that you know is wrong and stop them from doing something that you know you promised you would not do. Just as the NDP caucus stopped Floyd Laughren from including the provision of copayment in Bill 50, so the Conservative caucus can stop Ernie Eves from imposing user fees. This is your chance, by passing a motion that clearly says that whatever you're going to do has to be consistent with the Common Sense Revolution. If you do that, you will have stood for what is right and what is honest. If you don't vote for it, your constituents and the people across this province will know that they cannot trust you, and it will be a breach of their confidence and a breach of trust.

The Chair: Have you anything to add, Mr Phillips?

Mr Phillips: Yes.

Mrs Ecker: Surprise.

Mr Phillips: I'll be the judge of that.

Just to wrap up on the motion, this is actually quite an important motion. I don't think there's any doubt that before the election the government made a couple of very solemn commitments to people. Among others, one was that there would be none of these new user fees on drugs. You were very clear that user fees, copayments, none of those things were going to be allowed. You had a different way of doing it, you said. You may now have changed your mind. Maybe you've changed your mind now and said, "We were wrong."

Mr Gerretsen: They're shaking their heads no. They must be prepared to vote for this.

Mr Phillips: There's only one explanation. You have changed your mind on what you promised before the election and what you want to do now.

The second very clear commitment that Premier Harris made was that he said a user fee is a tax. He was very clear on that and he attacked the NDP relentlessly on that, saying many times that a user fee is a tax. The people expected when he made a big commitment around taxes that he wouldn't simply say, "We're going to hold the line on those taxes but allow a bunch of new user fees." This bill, without a question of a doubt, opens the floodgates on user fees. We didn't go to one community where the local municipality didn't say, "We have been cut dramatically on our transfer payments by the provincial government and we have been assured that one thing we will be allowed to do would be to make up a portion of that through user fees." No municipality said they are going to reduce property taxes and put user fees on. They all said -- when we were in London they said, "Get this bill passed because we have to get some new user fees in place."

This opens a floodgate of new user fees. I don't think there is a department in the municipalities that will not be subject to user fees. In Kingston, the police said, "Listen" --

Mr Gerretsen: A great place.

Mr Phillips: Yes, it is a great place. The mayor said there, "Where you don't wear a seatbelt, we're going to have you come in and do a safe-driving class and we'll charge you a hundred bucks." The police are turning over every rock, opening safe-driving schools, to try and make up for their lost revenue.

1250

Mel Lastman has said, "If your car catches on fire anywhere in North York and you don't live there, we are going to charge you a fee." We heard some people with the spectacle of driving as fast as they can to get over to Scarborough with a flaming car so they won't have to be charged a fee. We heard about putting fees on garbage; there is zero question that is going to happen. Mel Lastman has said, and Al Leach supports him, about putting fees on the use of libraries, and there is no question of that; inspectors. If you can believe this, the city of Kingston even said: "Please let us increase the fees for death certificates and for marriage licences so we can save two jobs. We can save two jobs if you will increase the fee on, when someone dies, getting the death certificate, and when two people want to get married, getting the marriage certificate."

The point I am making in all of this is that what you are asking us to approve is a bill that we know will result in an incredible number of brand-new fees in every single department in municipalities. It cannot come as a surprise to any of us when this happens. We have been told that's what's going to happen; the bill permits it. We heard yesterday, for the first time as clearly as I've heard, that tolls on municipal roads -- and it can be done. With the new electronic systems it is now possible to have tolls on municipal roads. So it should come as no surprise.

Why is all this happening? It is happening for two reasons. One is that the Conservative Party philosophically believes that the way you get this done is you start putting a fee on it, so those who are least able to pay are penalized the most. The second thing is, there is no doubt, that it is your intention to privatize a whole bunch of municipal services. We understand that. The way you do that is you get, what you call in your money markets, a stream of revenue on it, and once you get a stream of revenue on it, you sell it. We know what is behind these provisions for licensing and for fees. First you get the fee on it and then you privatize it.

The point I am making is that if the government were simply up front with people and said: "Listen. We misled you. We didn't plan to hold the line on taxation, including fees. We misled you on that. We are going to permit municipalities" -- and you called it this in your briefing -- "unlimited flexibility for fees." That is your language, "unlimited flexibility." It is clear that unless it is prohibited in the legislation, it is permitted. We heard that yesterday. Unless a toll road is prohibited for municipalities it is permitted. We can only dream of the things that are going to be permitted.

This relatively small motion is important. If the government members choose to vote against it, we know what the intent is: that property taxes probably will remain where they are, but every department in every municipality will be scrambling to find new user fees. As I say, it will be the Metro Toronto police safe-driving school, public health inspectors, the libraries, the toll roads. Every single department will be scrambling to try to find a way they can put a fee in their area.

The second thing is, no question, this will be a bonanza for the money markets because they will privatize all sorts of these things. That may or may not make sense in certain municipalities, but we should have been clear with the public in dealing with that. This will be a bit of a litmus test for the government. If it defeats this motion, I think we then have pretty clearly on the record the government's intent.

The Chair: Shall the new section 1.4, as proposed by Mr Phillips, carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Cooke, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The section shall not carry.

Mr Phillips, I understand you have a new section 1.5.

Mr Phillips: Yes, Mr Chair. It may take me a moment to find it; I'm being overrun by paper. We do have a revised section 1.5 of the bill. Legislative counsel indicated that our previous wording was not appropriate, so we put it into appropriate language. It may be that not all committee members have this, so I will read it. We may, in the end, deal with this right after lunch anyway, which may give people a chance to get a copy.

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following:

"Report on savings:

"1.5 Each annual report of the Ministry of Health shall include an item that sets out any amounts saved as a result of actions taken under schedules F, G, H or I and shall specify whether those amounts have been reinvested in the Ministry of Health as stipulated in the Common Sense Revolution document released by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on May 3, 1994, and any amounts not so reinvested."

The Chair: In view of the fact that it is a few minutes to 1, we will recess until 2 o'clock. We will get a copy of the motion for the rest of the committee members.

The committee recessed from 1259 to 1400.

The Chair: Welcome back to the Amethyst Room for continuation of the hearings on clause-by-clause on Bill 26. When we broke at lunchtime, Mr Phillips had proposed a new section 1.5 to the bill. Mr Phillips, everyone has copies of that now, and you have the floor.

Mr Phillips: Just to refresh our memories, one of the solemn commitments by the government in the campaign was that, to use their language, they would not touch a penny of health care funding, if the members recall that. I must say they've since revised that a bit to say, "Well, we'll make sure we don't touch a penny of it at the end of our mandate," although I would offer a reward of $20 if you can find --

Interjection: Twenty?

Mr Phillips: Twenty, that's all I can afford -- if you can find anywhere where before the election your campaign promise was that you would have the health care spending at the same level in the year 2000 as it was before the campaign.

Ms Lankin: I'll add $20 to that.

Mr Phillips: For those who can't hear, my colleague Ms Lankin added $20.

It was very clear during the campaign, and that provided a lot of reassurance to people, that it was the government's intention to essentially freeze health care spending and you were going to keep it at $17.4 billion. To use your language, you would not touch a penny of it. That was what the public expected.

Certainly you got a lot of support from those in the health care sector, who felt: "That's their commitment. They're not going to touch a penny of it." Everybody in the health care sector is going through turmoil right now. There's restructuring in the hospitals for our doctors; there's incredible change going on, as we all know, in the home care sector; there's incredible change going on in the drug benefit plan. But there was a commitment that this pot of money would be frozen.

We now find after the election that the government is saying something different. They're saying: "We're going to cut $1.5 billion out of the health care budget" -- and that's what this bill is all about, cutting $1.5 billion out of the health care budget -- "but," the government is saying, "we're going to restore it at the end. Just before the election, it'll be back up to $17.4 billion."

I would say to any member today or tomorrow or any time before the hearings finish, bring me the evidence that before the election you were promising that you would make sure that in the year 2000 health care spending was the same as it was in 1995. Your commitment was in 1995 and in 1996 and in 1997 and in 1998 and in 1999 and in 2000 the health care budget would be frozen, but you've changed that commitment. In my opinion, you've broken a promise.

This amendment is designed to assure the public that each time you cut somewhere you identify that amount of money, you record it in the annual report of the Ministry of Health, you show the health results of this bill, and you specify specifically where those amounts have been reinvested. I can't imagine you not wanting to do this. You've said all along that you're going to take money you save and reinvest it. It is simply a small way of assuring the public and showing the public where you've cut and where you've added back. I see no reason why the government can't support this. I think it requires relatively little expense for the government to do this, and it's a way for the government to clearly outline for the people that it's kept its commitment on the health care spending.

Ms Lankin: I will be supporting Mr Phillips's motion, but I want to move an amendment to that motion. It reads as follows:

I move that the motion of Mr Phillips to add section 1.5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an amount shall be interpreted to be reinvested in the Ministry of Health only if it is reinvested in programs and services both delivered and regulated by the Ministry of Health on the date this act receives royal assent."

I'll speak briefly and hold it to one intervention, unless provoked. I support the comments Mr Phillips made. I think the basic argument here is whether the government really intends to live up to its commitment to seal the health care envelope. I can accept the commitment being made today that as you find savings you will reinvest them in health. That's quite a different positioning from what you said during the campaign, because I think you now see that you're applying the savings you're finding to the bottom line of the deficit reduction for a couple of years and then maybe you'll reinvest. Be that as it may, that's an issue in terms of integrity of commitment, integrity of promises, and that's an issue we can battle on another day.

What is clear is that at the end of the day you have committed that your savings will be reinvested over periods of time in the health care ministry, in the health care services provided by that ministry, and that when you return to the public in an election, you will have maintained that spending envelope.

The reason for my subamendment is to make it very clear that we're talking about the $17.4 billion currently identified as the budget of the Ministry of Health and that that is the budget that you're going to maintain. I'll be very honest and very straightforward as to why I put this amendment forward. All the discussion that is taking place inside government, in the bureaucracy right now, which may or may not be the intent of your government, and you will determine whether you follow through with this or not, is that the Ministry of Community and Social Services is going to be restructured in a major way. There is speculation that the income support packages of activity within that ministry will be moved to the Ministry of Finance. Whether that's the case, I don't know.

But more relevant to today's discussion, the buzz, if I can call it that, inside the bureaucracy is that many portions of the Ministry of Community and Social Services that deliver community services -- children's mental health services particularly is the one area identified as being a key candidate for being severed from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and being moved over to the Ministry of Health. If you choose to do that, that's fine, I've got no problem with that, but let's be clear about your commitment with respect to the $17.4 billion, that you don't take $1.3 billion or whatever it is in cuts to the hospital sector and then bring over an area of activity from another ministry with a budget attached to it and call that beefing up the health spending envelope back to $17.4 billion.

What this does is define the $17.4-billion envelope as those types of services that are currently delivered and/or regulated by the Ministry of Health. Of course, there's room for development of new services etc, but what there would not be room for is moving over an area of activity and a budget envelope from another ministry and somehow trying to con the people of Ontario that you've lived up to your commitment by doing that.

1410

It's a very important amendment to Mr Phillips's motion overall. This is something I have heard you say, as members of the government back bench on this committee, over and over and over again, that you are committed to the reinvestment of the savings found under the health care sections and schedules of this bill into delivery of health care services in the province. We can quibble about what your commitment was in terms of the timing of that, but your commitment to do it has been articulated and rearticulated by ministers, by the Premier, by parliamentary assistants and by members of this committee.

There is no reason, other than maintaining the flexibility to do other than what you have committed to, for you not to support this motion. This doesn't restrict your spending or your decisions in any way. It is not a money bill proposal in that sense. That would be ruled out of order, as we know, unless the minister himself brought it forward, which would be a welcome addition, if he would agree to do that. All this does is call on you to report accurately and fully the savings and the reinvestment. It keeps you honest.

If you're prepared to say over and over again to those of us on this committee and to the public of Ontario that you are going to keep this promise, which we already believe you've redefined, repositioned -- you're quite revisionist in talking about what your commitment was, but be that as it may, in terms of the commitment you're making today, if you're prepared to continue to say to the public of Ontario that it is a commitment of the Progressive Conservative government, there is no reason you should be hesitant to report these matters to the Legislature so they can be there for full public scrutiny.

That's all I have to say at this time. I hope members will support my amendment to Mr Phillips's motion, and I hope the government members will support the motion overall.

Mr Clement: I have a point of order first, Mr Chair, then some comments. Do I take it from the mover, Ms Lankin, that the consideration of this amendment means that her party's motion respecting a new section 2.1 is withdrawn, since it covers essentially the same ground?

Ms Lankin: I'm very certain that if you pass this motion with my amendment, I would withdraw it when I come to 2.1. We're not quite there yet, but that would be my intent, yes.

Mr Clement: I don't want to have this discussion twice.

The Chair: Basically, we deal with the motions in the order in which they're presented, so we'll deal with this one at this time, Mr Clement.

Mr Clement: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Are we dealing with the amendment first? Should I confine my remarks to --

The Chair: We have to vote on the amendment first, but you can address the amendment and the motion together.

Mr Clement: I would be happy to do that. With respect to the amendment first, my problems with the amendment are that I fear this amendment would enshrine the status quo. The mover of the motion has made it abundantly clear throughout the whole presentations that she understands, as a former Health minister, that the status quo is not an option for us. She took me to task at one point during the hearings when she took my remarks to mean that I felt she was embracing the status quo, and I think she's made a good point.

We heard from all the presenters, none of whom, as far as I can recollect, was in favour of the status quo. They all understood that change was necessary and in that regard they were looking forward to a process -- we disagreed as to the ways and means, but they were looking forward to a process -- in which the right form of health care for the right people in Ontario would be available to us as citizens and as people living in Ontario.

My fear is that this only bolsters the status quo by focusing on the programs and services delivered and regulated by the Ministry of Health at this date. If the mover would try to correct this -- I don't think it is correctable, because we are talking of future events of which we have no knowledge until they occur. I'm wondering whether this is salvageable even if it were changed. That's my problem with the amendment to the motion.

With respect to the main motion that we are discussing, I consider the point it is trying to make as a valid point. I would argue again, as I have done earlier this day, that there are current mechanisms in place which allow for parliamentary accountability, which is what Mr Phillips is talking about in this particular case, to occur. We have a budget process, pre-budget hearings, which then are incorporated into a budget bill, so we as parliamentarians do have an opportunity to hear what the public is thinking about the direction of the budget and we have an ability to discuss those issues and have that debate, which no doubt we will have, about how the funds are being reinvested.

We have the ability as parliamentarians to debate and discuss ministers' announcements. For instance, the minister has announced already reinvestment of some of the savings -- some, not all -- in cardiac care, in ambulance services and in other initiatives. I recall that in the House there was a rather robust debate about whether this goes far enough, whether this is on track as to where we should go in our health care system, and those are legitimate debates that parliamentarians can engage in.

Finally, we have the estimates process and the ability of the Legislature, through its committee, to engage in a debate about whether the expenditures of a ministry are on track, whether they should be changed at all, whether they mesh with the overarching strategy of the government and its promises to the people.

I think we are on the right track in terms of the parliamentary aspect, and I would refer to my earlier comments when I said we have to find other ways to be accountable. Mr Phillips is absolutely right, but they need not be strictly in the parliamentary domain; there are other ways. An earlier speaker belittled me because I mentioned town hall meetings, but town hall meetings are a legitimate way to get at where the public is in a particular riding or a particular geographic region. It's not the only way. I'm not saying we have cornered the market on the best way to get public input through just town hall meetings, but that was an example of the kind of thing that we as parliamentarians should be engaging in. It's not the only thing, by any stretch of the imagination. We should constantly be thinking of new ways to be responsible and responsive to the public we represent.

From that perspective, I feel that section 1.5 is redundant because of the current parliamentary practices and traditions, and furthermore, we should be looking at different ways, other than the ones presented by the mover of the motion, to deal with increased accountability.

Mr Phillips: I found Mr Clement's comments unusual in that he said Ms Lankin was trying to embrace the status quo. All Ms Lankin did in her motion was to put into words in this amendment what the Conservative government promised. If she's embracing the status quo, I think you're looking at the wrong person to accuse of that. Accuse yourself of that, government, because she is simply putting into this amendment what you promised. If you don't like what you promised, I can understand that, but you promised during the campaign that you would maintain the spending level in the Ministry of Health at the current levels. Maybe you're saying now that that was the wrong promise and maybe you're saying that this makes the finances too difficult. I don't know what you're saying. But the last thing you should do is accuse Ms Lankin of maintaining the status quo. In this amendment, she simply is saying: "Here's what you said you were going to do. Now let's just monitor that."

I personally have no difficulty with Ms Lankin's amendment because your pre-election promise was clear. Now, post-election I do fear you may be starting to play some games with people and will start to say, "Well, that's health care and that's health care," and we'll have once again misled people.

On the idea that this is not helpful to the public in the debate, I argue exactly the opposite. The only way the public can participate meaningfully in the debate is to have the information. If you hide the information from people, it's an uninformed debate.

1420

We know that because for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario, we have no budget. This is the first time since Ontario became a province that the government has not presented a budget. It's never been done before. And they say, "Well, we only got elected in June." There have been lots of governments elected in June that prepared a budget.

Why have you not done it? Because you don't want the public to have the information. I was, frankly, terribly offended -- "almost outraged" sounds typical politician I guess, but I was very offended --

Mr Gerretsen: You were outraged too, Gerry.

Mr Phillips: I was outraged, but you're not allowed to sound extreme so I'll just say that I was extremely offended to read in the newspaper that Standard and Poors said they had an opportunity to discuss internal, not publicly available forecasts on the government's revenues and expenditures, and they were able to conclude by that certain things that the public has no idea on.

And I was offended on two counts. One is that you have refused to give the public the most important financial information for the province, what's called the medium-term fiscal outlook. You've refused to do that. It's never ever happened before in the history of the province. And then, privately, organizations are getting that information. Frankly, they benefit from that. If you've got inside information, you benefit from that. Standard and Poors is an extremely reputable operation, top class, undoubtedly, but you put them in a tough spot because you refuse to give the information publicly and then you discuss it privately.

Why do I go through all of this, Mr Chair? It's because if you truly believe that the public should participate in this debate, then you've got to provide them with the information, and frankly, we don't get the information from you. So the amendment and my motion is designed simply to give the public the necessary information to debate this in a meaningful way.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand why in the world you would ever say no to this, other than the fact that you want to keep the information hidden from the public and just simply allow the debate to take place only in one place, and that's in the cabinet room and not out in the public where it should take place.

Ms Lankin: I'd like to respond to a couple of points that Mr Clement made. First of all, there is nothing about my amendment which codifies the status quo. What it does is it protects the public against a government playing shell games with budgets of different ministries, and in fact when we all are aware of at least the fact that it is being contemplated that you will move services and a budget envelope from the Ministry of Community and Social Services into the Ministry of Health, we want to make sure that those moneys that you're bringing in supplement the moneys available in the Ministry of Health and the services and supplement your commitment to seal the envelope at 1.4 and don't replace dollars that you are cutting and applying to the deficit.

Because that would be a real scam on the part of the government. It would be a real shell game being played and it would be a real misleading of the public of Ontario. That's what the amendment achieves. It doesn't achieve maintenance of the status quo, and I remind you this doesn't restrict whatever you decide to do. This just forces you to report it and report it in such a way that it can be judged against your own government's commitment. So I, (1), take offence at your description of it, but (2), really challenge the accuracy of your description of it.

Secondly, I wanted to respond to the points you made with respect to the parliamentary accountability measures that are already in place, and you talked about budget and estimates in particular. I want to let you know, again, having been a minister, been through this process, defended estimates in front of the estimates committee, then part of contributing to the discussions around a budget and the budget for the ministries that I've been involved with, but in the information that is presented either through a budget process or through an estimates process, it is impossible for you as a legislator or any member of the public to understand the specific changes inside a line item of a budget or a set of estimates.

So you might be able to determine that the hospital budget for the province of Ontario, overall, has been decreased by $1.3 billion, as was set out in the economic statement, and which will probably be reflected in the budget, in the line-by-line items in the estimates. You cannot tell, from any specific actions you take under the course of this legislation with respect to closure or merger or rationalization of services, the amounts of money that have been saved, identified as operational savings achieved and then reinvested.

That's the information that we think you need to be upfront with, that you need to be very clear with the public with, that you need to be open and presenting as very concrete information for the public to judge whether or not in fact you are living up to the commitment that you have made day after day after day during the course of these hearings with respect to this bill. It's not just in the Common Sense Revolution. You've been repeating it every day as we've gone through these hearings.

This is quite simple. It says, "Okay, report the savings in health care in the areas that you take action under this bill, these new powers that you've said you needed to have in order to restructure and save money to be able to reinvest in other areas in health care delivery." It says, "Show us where you've saved it, show us how much, and then show us where you've invested it and show us how much, and by the way, don't play a shell game, don't scam us, don't bring in budgets from other ministries and say that you've lived up to your commitment." That's all this amendment does. I'll be interested to see whether or not you support it.

Mrs Caplan: I'm going to be very brief. I agree with exactly the categorization of what this contains, both by my colleague Mr Phillips as well as the analysis that's just been given by Ms Lankin.

As a former minister, I can tell you, I've gone through the estimates process. I've also had the requirement to draft up annual reports. When we listened to government members about their desire for new ways of accountability, when they rejected the motions that were put forward that would have allowed legislative committees to look at issues in areas of concern, one of the things that in particular Mr Clement noted was the annual reports of ministries. This amendment is a simple request that within the annual report the Minister of Health detail information on savings and reinvestment. That's completely consistent with what was in the CSR and it should cause no problem to the drafters of an annual report.

Further, I'd like to support the amendment by Ms Lankin for the following reason: There are a lot of rumours going around this place about significant restructuring of ministries and the commitment that the Harris government made on the sealing of the health envelope at $17.4 billion. In order for that commitment to have any integrity whatever, they have to be held accountable to the dollars presently in Ministry of Health programs. The rumour that's going around is that particularly many of the programs presently in the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be amalgamated -- merged, in other words -- with the Ministry of Health programs and that in that way you will achieve your $17.4 billion target and be able to stand up and say, "We did what we said we would do."

Frankly, I don't put that past you, so I am concerned enough that this might be your intention. But if you are honest and straightforward and you think I'm wrong, you're not going to do that, and Elinor and Frances and Gerry and John and the rest of us sitting here on committee have no reason to be concerned that you're not going to live up to your commitment of $17.4 billion and that you're going to live up to that commitment with the existing dollars that are in the sealed envelope of health expenditures under the Ministry of Health today, then you should have no problem with this amendment, which is just a recording of savings and reinvestment against which you can be held accountable.

I'm not going to get into why I am cynical or concerned or worried or why I believe you might try to manipulate those figures in a way that would test further your integrity and the commitment that you made, because I don't frankly want to antagonize you, in the hopes that you will support this amendment. So I'm going to just ask you if you will consider a reasonable amendment that will bring some accountability within an existing vehicle. You've said no to the committee; you've said no to accountability to the House. What we're asking for here is just, in the annual report of the Ministry of Health, that you outline the expenditure savings and the reinvestment that you've committed to. It shouldn't be a problem. I expect support for this amendment and for the amendment to the amendment as placed by Ms Lankin.

1430

Mr Gerretsen: That's precisely the point that I was going to make -- that is, that the amendment is very simple, namely, that in your annual report you set out those reinvested savings.

I just have a number of quotes here that I would like to read into the record, because they're very plain, unequivocal and not subject to any kind of unusual interpretation.

The first quote is, "There will be no cuts to health care funding by a Harris government.... This is our first and most important commitment." That was in your own party document, the health backgrounder, on May 3, 1995. All this amendment is doing is living up to your first commitment to the people of Ontario.

Next, in an April 1995 newsletter, it states, "The budget for health care, currently at $17.3 billion" -- now it's $17.4 billion -- "will be sealed, and we're the only ones to make this financial commitment to health care." The other two parties made commitments, but even according to your own document, their commitment wasn't as unequivocal, as straightforward. You're going to spend $17.4 billion on health care. All this amendment is saying: "We're changing the status quo, which has to be changed. We're finding new ways in which money can be reinvested in the health system. Let's at least have an annual report on it as to how that's being done." You shouldn't have any problem with that at all. It's straightforward and unequivocal.

Next, another quote: "Health care professionals will have a Mike Harris guarantee that savings they generate through their own initiative will not be siphoned off into other non-health-care-related programs. Local health care communities will share in any savings identified locally for reinvestment in community priorities." This was also in the health backgrounder on May 3, 1995.

I've already spoken about this earlier today, but this deals with the whole notion that any savings that are being found in a local health care community ought to be reinvested there. That has now, by extension, been taken to mean all the health care communities within this province. All this resolution is doing, this amendment and the amendment to the amendment, is basically putting into practice exactly what Mike Harris said on May 3.

Next, on May 25, 1995 -- we're getting closer to the election -- in the PC response to the Ontario Association of Nonprofit Homes and Services for Seniors, it states, "Health care funding will be maintained at current levels." Next, "Any savings in health care will be reinvested in front-line services."

It simply cannot be any simpler than has been stated in those five or six quotes, very simple sentences, very direct, and subject, in my humble opinion, to just one interpretation. What I'm going to ask the members of the committee to look at is that all this amendment does is simply put into practice the direct promises that you made to the people of Ontario.

The Chair: Any further comment? Okay. We will call the question on the amendment to the proposed new section 1.5, as proposed by Ms Lankin. Shall the amendment be added to the section?

Ayes

Caplan, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: Shall the new proposed section 1.5 as proposed by Mr Phillips carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: Section 1.5 shall not carry.

I understand, Mr Phillips, that you have a proposed new section 1.6.

Mr Phillips: Yes. This is section 1.6 of the bill. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Maintain law enforcement and justice budgets

"1.6. No provision of this act or any of its schedules shall be interpreted to contravene the pledge to guarantee funding for law enforcement and justice, as stipulated in the Common Sense Revolution document released by the Progressive Conservative Party on May 3, 1994."

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Phillips. You have the floor.

Mr Phillips: Just to speak briefly on this, I think the government members can appreciate that what we're doing here is trying to find out whether what you said in the Common Sense Revolution, when you ran, is what you mean. Bill 26 is, according to you, the document that allows you to implement the Common Sense Revolution.

We now, though, have found that you don't support putting the taxpayer pledge that you made into the bill. You don't support prohibiting the user fees that you said you would prohibit. You don't support reinvesting health care funding as you said you would do. Now we're into an area where you've given a commitment to Ontario that you are going to maintain funding for law enforcement and justice.

That was one of the cornerstones of your campaign and certainly people are concerned about safety and concerned about safe communities and they thought you actually meant what you said in it. Very simply, if you meant what you promised, this amendment ensures that the bill carries that out. If you didn't mean it, you'll turn it down.

This is the fourth of those big promises you've made. You've rejected three of them so far. This is the fourth on law enforcement and justice that I assume you believed when you ran, believed when you got elected and we'll see whether you believe it now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Phillips. Mr Silipo, followed by Mrs Caplan.

Mr Silipo: Briefly as well, let me just say that this really, as Mr Phillips has said, was one of the areas that the Tories and Mr Harris were quite clear in, that they would protect from any cuts. We've seen what's happened to their promise on health care -- no cuts there. There was $1.3 billion in cuts. Classroom spending is going to be affected. That was the other area they said they would protect; $400 million being cut just this year alone. That's going to affect the classroom. At least this one, there is an opportunity here to see if in fact the government wants to redeem itself.

Clearly from the anger that we saw reflected in the hearings on this one, particularly from the police associations and police officers across the province, it seems to me that whether they want to admit it to us or not, that the government members must be reeling from seeing individuals like that who were quite clear that they, by and large, supported this government towards its election, feel -- to use their words, not mine -- betrayed by the actions that this government has taken to cut funding to municipalities which includes cuts to funding to police services and not to speak of all of the changes that we know are coming with respect to the courts side of the justice system and the cuts that will ensue there.

This, I think, is a very sensible amendment which certainly will support, which says you made a promise that you would protect these areas from cuts. Let's make sure that this bill gets implemented in a way that maintains that promise.

Mrs Caplan: I held forums in my riding during 1994 on safety, and the message from my constituents was very clear. They were worried about their personal safety. They wanted and were worried about the safety of our streets and they expected, I believe, that when Mike Harris told them that there would be no cuts to policing services, that those were priorities for his government. He had set out very clearly three priorities: health care; classroom education; and policing services, law and order. Those were three priorities that my constituents -- many of whom voted Conservative, and many of those who voted Conservative did so because they believed that promise.

1440

We have Bill 26, and we're also seeing a lot of very significant actions being taken that are going to affect law and order and justice. I'm already receiving some questions from my constituents, who are equally concerned if not more concerned today because of the initiatives of the government about what will happen to policing services in our community, and I honestly don't know that I can give them any assurance, given the numbers of things that Harris and Wilson and Eves and Runciman said during the election and before and some of the actions that are taking place now.

But when I hear from police associations that Bill 26 is not going to protect policing services and that it is going to affect community policing and police services and it's going to have an impact, a potentially negative impact, on our streets, where people are already concerned for their personal safety and the safety of their families, then I believe this amendment is essential. And I know the government members are going to support this one, because they would want to give the same assurance to their constituents that I would like to give to mine, and that is that Mike Harris meant what he said when he said he was going to protect police budgets.

I'm not going to speak at length to this, but I just want to tell the Conservative members that I'm sure they heard the same thing from their constituents when they knocked on the door and they had their consultation over the development of the Common Sense Revolution, and they would want to assure their constituents, as I would want to assure mine. Since we've heard from police associations and others who are concerned about the impact of Bill 26 on public safety and the safety on our streets, because it will have a negative impact on police services, I know that they'll want to support this amendment so they can go back to their constituents and say: "It's in the law. We now have an amendment that says that all the guarantees of funding for law enforcement and justice are going to be kept. It's now in Bill 26. You don't have to worry about it." It says to the police associations: "Don't worry. Bill 26 responds to the concerns that you raised at committee." You can also tell people you meet when out you're on the beat and in the communities and having contact with people who care about good law enforcement that they don't have to worry about this any more. So I look forward to this amendment passing.

Mr Clement: I feel compelled to speak against the motion.

Mrs Caplan: Against?

Mr Clement: Yes, against. The motion, from my perspective, is unnecessary and redundant. In fact, we as a government believe that we have evidenced our commitment to public safety. We are very proud of the Victims' Bill of Rights, which was passed in the recent session. Both the content and the message of that particular piece of legislation is that the victim does count and not all the rights rest with the criminals. Secondly, we have made at least one announcement, possibly more, relating to the equipment that the police need in order to do their jobs properly, to fight the armed and dangerous criminal element. And we believe we have made our roads safer from drunk drivers through our suspension announcements. I don't think we have to be lectured by the opposition, quite frankly, as to our commitment to public safety, and I wish to restate our commitment to that point of view here and now for the record.

There's nothing in Bill 26 which deals with cuts to provincial funding in this area.

Mrs Caplan: So why are the police opposed?

Mr Clement: The issue, of course, and what Bill 26 is partially about, is giving the municipalities the tools necessary so that they can deal with their internal budgets in a responsible manner so that we can get out of the spiralling of debt and debt servicing that takes money away from the services that Ms Caplan feels so emotional about.

I feel the same emotion that Ms Caplan does about the need to keep our streets safe for men, women and children, but our streets will not be safe if we continue to spend $1 million more an hour than we take in. That means more and more money going to interest on the debt -- going to foreign bond holders or whatever debt holders we have that are currently in the system -- will only grow as a result of irresponsible spending. That means that each year that we fail to deal with this issue, and deal with our transfer partners, quite frankly, on this issue, means that more and more money comes out of the services that the opposition and we so cherish.

I would just say for the record that, as we know, it's the police service boards that craft the budgets for the police services in their local communities and that there are certain standards that are expected that are enshrined in the Police Services Act. We feel comfortable that Bill 26, should our amendments carry the day, will be an improved bill which will enact the necessary savings that the government of Ontario has to enact in order to deal with our deficit situation but will allow the local governments the opportunity to decide what their priorities are, which should be done, quite frankly, at a local level.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't think Mr Clement should mislead the public to think that local governments control police boards or police services committees.

Mrs Caplan: Exactly.

The Chair: That's not a point of order.

Mr Gerretsen: If anything, the minister should have --

The Chair: It's not a point of order.

Mrs Ecker: He didn't say that.

Mr Gerretsen: He did say that. He talked about local powers and police services boards.

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, it is not a point of order. Mr Phillips, did you want to --

Mr Gerretsen: He's misstating the facts.

Mrs Caplan: Tell the truth and correct the record.

Mr Clement: I'm sorry if you took it that way.

The Chair: Mr Clement, you had finished, had you not, or are you --

Mr Clement: Well, just as an addendum, just to correct the record --

The Chair: Thank you very much. Did you want to finish up?

Mr Phillips: Has everyone else spoken?

The Chair: Yes, everybody else has spoken. Did you want to finish up?

Mr Phillips: Just to wrap up, when the member said he doesn't want to be lectured by us, actually we're just quoting the police. The police were lecturing you, not us. Mr Silipo's comments were -- he was simply reporting what the police reported to us, which was that they feel betrayed by this bill -- that wasn't us, that the association of police of Ontario -- because you made some very firm commitments to them before the election. They would be the first to acknowledge you probably had 70% or 80% of the vote of the police organizations because you made that commitment. So if you're mad at somebody for saying it, you're accusing the wrong people.

The other thing I'd say is that when the member says they've got to deal with the enormous deficit problem, as I think we all know, the intent of this bill is to find the $5 billion for the tax break. You're going to cut $8 billion of spending. You're going to take $3 billion of it to reduce the deficit and $5 billion goes to the tax break.

We could understand it. I think the public could understand it. If this were an all-out assault on the deficit and this is why everybody's got to sacrifice, we could understand that. I think people could say, "All right, we know we've all got to do our share."

1450

But the problem is, for all those people out there who are being asked to make the cuts to get to the $8 billion, they should all be aware that you're going to take $5 billion of that for the tax break. By the way, those aren't my figures; those are your figures. This is called the "Direct Fiscal Impact of the Common Sense Revolution," and you can see the top line is, "Tax Cut, $5 billion."

I just wanted to get those two things on the record and then close, Mr Chair, because I know we want to move on, by saying that this is the fourth of what I think were the cornerstones of the Common Sense Revolution. So far you've rejected putting in legislation three of them, three of your big promises. This is the fourth that you're going to reject, which is that you were going to maintain spending -- these are promises you made. You're going to reject putting in this legislation, your cornerstone legislation, the commitment on spending for law enforcement and for safety.

The Chair: Mr Phillips has proposed a new section 1.6 to the bill. Shall the section carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The section does not carry.

Mr Phillips has a proposed new section 1.7.

Mr Phillips: This is section 1.7 of the bill. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Aid to seniors and disabled

"1.7 No provision of this act or any of its schedules shall be interpreted to contravene the pledge to guarantee benefit levels for seniors and the disabled, as stipulated in the Common Sense Revolution document released by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on May 3, 1994."

Again, just so the public and the rest of us are all aware of what these five amendments were designed to do, if this bill is designed to implement the Common Sense Revolution, what we've tried to do in the five amendments we've proposed is to put in the legislation your five big commitments. Commitment number one was the commitment you made in the whole area of taxation and balancing the budget. Commitment number two was on the user fees. Commitment number three was on the health care area. Commitment number four was on law enforcement -- that was your fourth commitment -- and the fifth one was your promise to the seniors and people with disabilities in this province that you would ensure that your funding there would not be interrupted.

I will say once again that I think you got elected with a very large majority because of those five big commitments. There's no question of that. So far, you have chosen to repudiate four of them, and this is the fifth, your commitment to the seniors of this province and people with disabilities.

So that's the intent of this amendment, and I would hope we would find at least a few of the Conservative members who would decide they might live up to this commitment.

Ms Lankin: Let me say that we will be supporting this amendment. I suspect that it is quite clear to all in this room and all watching at this point in time that the government will continue to vote against its own commitments, that it intends to, I guess, leave itself the flexibility to break more promises as time goes on.

This was a clear commitment, it's written in the Common Sense Revolution, and yet already in Bill 26 we see a violation of this commitment with the introduction of copayments on drugs for seniors and persons with disabilities who are under the Ontario drug benefit program. I've spoken at length already with respect to that issue and I don't intend to repeat that.

I think it's a shame that the government members just blindly vote against all these amendments when they have been carefully worded to not take powers away from government, not insist on anything beyond accountability, accountability to your own commitments and promises to the people of Ontario, which you have today, time after time after time, voted against. I think that is an eloquent statement of the state of affairs of the government of Ontario and the state of affairs of Mike Harris's commitment to the people of Ontario, and I don't think much else needs to be said. We'll be supporting this.

Mr Clement: Let me speak first generally to the point Mr Phillips has raised about his interpretation of the commitments we made in the Common Sense Revolution and our ability to meet those and our commitment to those, and reaffirm for the record that we are absolutely committed to the Common Sense Revolution's goals and the methodology for getting there. We believe that we are on track in implementing the Common Sense Revolution, which was a revolutionary document because it set out, well before the election, the platform of a political party. We took some hits from the opposition, who scoffed at it and who ridiculed it for fully one year before the election, but we believed it was important for the public to understand what they were getting when they elected a Progressive Conservative government in Ontario. So we're quite proud of that document and we're quite proud at the speed with which we have decided to implement those, not only just because it fulfils election commitments but because, quite frankly, the prescriptions are absolutely necessary for Ontario to regain its leadership role in Canada as an economy and as a society.

I would note for the record then that section 1.7 we believe to be unnecessary and irrelevant to Bill 26. The reference to the Common Sense Revolution deals with our commitment to ensure that welfare reductions would not impact seniors and the disabled who were on social assistance and our commitment to transfer those persons to a different system of social assistance divorced, eventually, from the welfare system. That was the reference and the context in which that commitment was made, and we're sticking to it. With respect to the legislation at hand, I don't believe there are any changes to the social assistance system that were contemplated to be part of Bill 26 and so I fail to see the relevancy of this section.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Mr Phillips, did you want to wrap up?

Mr Phillips: Just to quickly wrap up, actually we did kind of scoff at the Common Sense Revolution when it came out. I remember the day it came out, actually, we were meeting with a group of economists and financial people. I brought it back in and I said: "They've released this document calling for a 30% cut in personal income tax. What do you think our response should be?" They said: "Well, that's ridiculous. It fiscally cannot be done. Let it die of its own weight." Well, it obviously didn't die of its own weight, and you're there and I'm here, but I --

Mr Sampson: So much for those economists.

Mr Phillips: They will still be proven right. I'm with them; it's just that it may take longer.

So I did scoff at it, but I think people will in the final analysis recognize that it can't be done, and I think we've proven it can't be done today, because we've now had four amendments, and we've got the fifth amendment coming up here, all designed to see whether you're going to live up to your commitments, and now you're backing off them.

I think those people will be proven right. It's just that it's a little late now, because you're there and we're here, and you're bound and determined to move on. I hope the public will appreciate that this will be fifth of these amendments designed to hold you accountable and you've decided to reject all five of them.

The Chair: Mr Phillips has proposed a new section 1.7 for the bill? Shall the section carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Cooke, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The section shall not carry.

We now move on to section 2. Are there any amendments to section 2?

Ms Lankin: I just want to indicate I had tabled an amendment to add a section 2.1 and I would withdraw that at this time.

The Chair: Any questions on section 2? Shall section 2 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Cooke, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

The Chair: Section 2 carries.

Are there any amendments to --

Ms Lankin: Sorry, this is just a question of procedure and order so I understand how we do this. We were voting on an amendment proposed by Mr Phillips, section 1.7 of the bill, but did we vote on section 1 of the bill?

The Chair: Section 1 originally we voted on. It stood by itself and then there were several new sections proposed.

Ms Lankin: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Is there any amendment to section 3 of the bill?

Mr Phillips: Let's move quickly through this.

I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out "Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995" and substituting "User Fees and Concentration of Powers Act, 1995."

I'll just speak very briefly to it. I was amazed at the number of people who came supporting the bill, but they essentially were supporting the title of the bill and then proved to have --

The Chair: Just a second, Mr Phillips. I missed a note here. That amendment is out of order because there have not been amendments to the bill of such a nature as to render the short title as set out in the bill inaccurate or to require it to be changed.

1500

Mr Gerretsen: Yes, but the title of the bill is inaccurate.

The Chair: Any further discussion on that?

Ms Lankin: Would you explain that for us?

The Chair: There have not been amendments to the bill of such a nature --

Mrs Caplan: It doesn't have to reflect that.

The Chair: Can I get a chance to answer Ms Lankin's question, please. There have not been amendments to the bill of such a nature as to render the short title as set out in the bill inaccurate or to require it to be changed.

Ms Lankin: May I ask you how you come to that conclusion? This is procedural, I understand, but how do you come to that conclusion when we haven't in fact gone through the whole bill and dealt with all of the amendments yet?

The Chair: We haven't gone through the bill, we haven't gone through the schedules yet. There have been no amendments to the bill to change the nature of it so that the title is not appropriate.

Ms Lankin: But if the argument is that the bill was misnamed to begin with, and there is an argument to be made that the name of the bill, short or long, didn't accurately reflect the contents of the bill, why are we not allowed to put that case forward and to argue that? Your ruling presumes a correctness in the naming of the bill in the first place.

The Chair: I guess it does. Why don't we stand it down?

Ms Lankin: I've got a problem with that, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I realize you do, but the process we follow is that the ruling that the Chair makes regarding the appropriateness of a motion cannot be challenged.

Ms Lankin: I do understand that, but I also know that you are very fair in the chair and you will reflect upon the words that you are using. You've just agreed that your ruling makes an assumption that there is correctness in the content and implications of the title of the bill. In fact, the amendment that is proposed challenges that very issue and that shouldn't be reliant on the number of amendments or not that the government chooses to pass with respect to the bill itself.

The Chair: May I correct myself?

Ms Lankin: I always appreciate it when you do that, Mr Chair.

The Chair: The ruling of the Chair is not debatable, but it is changeable by majority vote.

Ms Lankin: I would ask for unanimous consent to entertain Mr Phillips's motion.

Mr Maves: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Because the complaint has to do with the title of the bill and we've already determined that we will be discussing the title of the bill at the end of this process, would they not be content to have this then discussed at the appropriate time?

The Chair: Basically this is the short title of the bill. The long title of the bill we discuss at the end. This is the short title of the bill we're talking about.

Ms Lankin: We'd be prepared to do both at the end.

Mrs Caplan: Happy to defer.

Mr Silipo: We could, by unanimous agreement, do that, could we not?

The Chair: So we want no more debate on this issue unless there is consent or a motion to debate the ruling of the Chair. Are you making a motion that we debate Mr Phillips's motion?

Mr Silipo: No, I want to pick up on what I think was a sensible suggestion made by the Vice-Chair of the committee, which is that this is not the kind of section we should be spending a long time on. I think everyone understands that. It would probably be more sensible to just defer this section until the end when we are dealing with the overall --

The Chair: So are you asking for unanimous consent to defer this section to the end?

Mr Silipo: Yes, I'm asking for unanimous consent to do that.

Mrs Caplan: You don't need unanimous consent to defer.

The Chair: Hearing no unanimous consent, the Chair has ruled and the ruling will stand.

Shall section 3 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Cooke, Gerretsen, Lankin, Phillips.

The Chair: Section 3 carries.

As stated earlier, we deal with the long title to the bill at the end of the process, so we now move into the schedules.

Schedule A. Are there any amendments to section 1 of schedule A? Have you got a new one, Mr Cooke?

Mr Cooke: On section 2.

The Chair: So there are no amendments to section 1?

Mr Cooke: I've got section 2.

The Chair: Shall section 1 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Gerretsen, Phillips.

Mr Cooke: This is actually something I'm prepared to support.

Clerk Pro Tem (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Cooke votes yes.

The Chair: Okay. Section 1 carries.

Are there any amendments to section 2?

Mrs Caplan: Are we not voting on the NDP amendment?

Mr Cooke: My amendment is schedule A to the bill, subsection 2(1).

I move that the definition of "employer" in subsection 2(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "that does not carry on its activities for the purpose of gain or profit to its members or shareholders" in the second, third and fourth lines.

The Chair: Mr Cooke will be the first to speak on that.

Mr Cooke: Just an explanation of the amendment. What we would like to see is that with the involvement the province has with for-profit nursing homes, for-profit child care centres and the dollars that go into those facilities -- and we support the concept of sunshine on salaries -- if the government supports that for the non-profit sector, it only seems appropriate that it would support it for the for-profit sector for businesses or operations or government services that are identical to the non-profit sector. We support sunshine for public sector wages over the $100,000. We're just asking that the same rules apply to the for-profit sector in human services.

Mrs Caplan: I would like to say that I believed this was what we were voting on. Given where we are in the bill, it had been my intention, and our intention actually, to support section 1 of schedule A. I ask that we take that vote again. I thought we were voting on a different section and would appreciate the opportunity to correct the record. That is a courtesy which is extended, especially if you're in a complex piece of legislation.

The Chair: I think I made it fairly clear we were voting on section 1 of schedule A. The vote has been taken, so the vote will stand as taken.

Mr Cooke: Oh, come on, Mr Chair. If the members are suggesting that there was --

The Chair: You voted on it. It's on the record.

Mrs Caplan: I just ask that we take the vote. It will take about 30 seconds. It's normal procedure, courtesy of committee, that if a member notes an error, we just ask the vote be taken again to correct the record. You can't object to that. That's common courtesy.

Mr Cooke: Come on.

The Chair: Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: Dealing with this issue, Mr Chair?

The Chair: It's dealt with.

Mr Cooke: I don't believe it.

Mr Silipo: I find it strange, Mr Chair, when people indicate that they thought they were voting on a different section, that you wouldn't allow them to correct the record.

Anyhow, speaking to the amendment that we've put, I think the other important element to add here is that what we're talking about -- and this is the reason why we support also very much the overall thrust of schedule A. This is one of the few sections that certainly we've said from the beginning we do support.

We are talking here about disclosure of public funds. We are talking about, in instances where people who receive, groups that receive all or a significant amount of their moneys from the public purse and have employees who earn over $100,000, that the disclosure of those salaries ought to be done. What we are trying to do with our amendment is to correct one mistake that we believe exists in that, which is that it would exempt for-profit operations not just by virtue of being for-profit, because we're not looking here to capture all of the for-profit groups, but we're talking about for-profit operations that receive that same amount of funding from the government coffers as do the non-profit groups.

For example, we know that there are many nursing homes that are privately run that receive the same proportion, in some cases even more, than non-profit nursing homes from the public purse. We think in those instances the same rules should apply, that is, that the salaries of employees who earn over $100,000 ought to be disclosed, and so on.

Let there be no mistake that that's what we're adding by the amendment. We're saying, apply the same rules in the for-profit sector that the government legislation proposes to apply in the non-profit sector, all under the caveat of the way they receive the amounts of funds from public funds as set out in the legislation. We think that's something that improves the disclosure provisions and we hope the government will support it.

1510

Mr Sampson: I can understand where my honourable friend is coming from with respect to the amendment, but I think we need to sit back a bit and take a look at what the purpose of this particular schedule is. It's to encourage the disclosure publicly of information with respect to compensation for those individuals who are being compensated directly by funds expended out of the public purse. To widen the net, so to speak, or make it finer, or however, and catch public corporations in that particular definition you're proposing would do more than that. It would capture individuals who are employed and compensated by funds raised privately.

Private corporations are responsible solely to their shareholders. That's the nature of the private corporation setup. Public corporations are responsible to the public purse, and that's what this particular schedule is trying to do: to establish that responsibility, the reporting requirements with respect to how the moneys are used, and more specifically, as it relates to this schedule, how the moneys are used in the compensation of individuals.

It would be inappropriate, in my view, to have a piece of legislation on the books that would, for instance, capture a large multinational corporation and force it to disclose salaries for activities that were not related whatsoever to the expenditure of government moneys. If they got a government grant for X amount of dollars, it could potentially capture them by the scope of the net that you've carved out here. I don't think that's appropriate. It's certainly not the intent of this particular schedule.

This schedule was designed to ensure that there is a level of accountability for the moneys that are drawn from the public purse and expended by public corporations or public entities in the delivery of a certain level of service. That's what this particular schedule is doing. The wording is, in our view, appropriate enough to achieve that objective. There's no reason, I believe, to change the scope of the definition here to try to capture the publicly traded or private corporations.

I would put to you also that the publicly traded corporations have their own reporting requirements with respect to salary in another jurisdiction. So I gather by your amendment you're really trying to get at private corporations as opposed to publicly traded corporations that might receive money, but the emphasis of this initiative is on public sector accountability to the taxpayer. That's what it is and that's what it's doing.

The Chair: Mrs Caplan, followed by Mr Cooke.

Mrs Caplan: The concern I have with this amendment to schedule A is that I think it is a slippery slope of government intervention into all private corporations. I think that's wrong as far as that kind of regulation is concerned. I very much support the disclosure rules for publicly traded corporations where it does require the disclosure to the shareholders of the salaries of the executives of that organization. I also support disclosure in the public sector of salaries, and the broader public sector as well, which is what schedule A is about.

But while I think the argument is a reasonable one to make about the same services being provided, I am very concerned that it's a very small step to then getting into regulation of businesses and requiring disclosure of corporations that are delivering similar services not funded by the public purse. That's my concern with this amendment and I will be voting against it, although I do support disclosure in publicly traded corporations, I support disclosure in public agencies, boards and commissions, the broader public sector, from the so-called MUSH sector of the municipalities: universities, colleges, hospitals and school boards. I think that that is very appropriate, but I'm always concerned about where we draw the line on that sort of thing.

I think the proposal that is in schedule A for disclosure from the broader public sector is an important first step and I would not want to see us go beyond that at this time.

Mr Cooke: The difficulty that I have with that line of argument or that of Mr Sampson is that we're talking -- let's give a real example: a non-profit nursing home and a for-profit nursing home. If the administrator has responsibilities -- it'd have to be a fairly large one, I guess, but if the administrator is making more than $100,000 in the non-profit nursing home, under your schedule A that will be published. If that same nursing home were for-profit and the administrator got exactly the same wage, it wouldn't be published. I guess then you have to start questioning what is the purpose of sunshine legislation.

I support it because I believe in public accountability for those who are getting public funds, whether they're for-profit or whether they're not-for-profit. I think by voting against it, what is being demonstrated here is that you can go and make your arguments of privatization and say that privatization saves money. There'll be no comparisons with the not-for-profit sector and you can continue to bash the not-for-profit and public sectors and to praise the for-profit and private sectors, and you have completely different rules to measure them by.

If you believe in public accountability for the expenditure of public dollars, then it should not depend on whether it's a for-profit or a not-for-profit. It should be for those services. The argument that you're talking about employees who are directly paid by the government, that's not the case with universities, that's not the case with hospitals, that's not the case with child care centres or the not-for-profit sector.

They're not paid directly by the government, and in fact a lot of those services have a substantial amount of their money that doesn't even come from the provincial government. Universities get a lot of their money, close to 30% now, from tuitions. They also get lots of money through private fund-raising, and so do hospitals. So those arguments don't wash.

If the wording of the amendment is inappropriate, then I'm obviously prepared to look at other wording, but all we're saying is that when you have exactly the same funding arrangements with a for-profit system, then the same rules should apply in terms of sunshine on salaries that are in excess of $100,000 for those services, not for the corporation that might have a president of the corporation who isn't even delivering that particular service. I'm talking about that particular service. Whether it's the administrator of the nursing home, whether it's the administrator of a chain of child care centres, that's the comparison that we're looking at.

The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment to subsection 2(1)?

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Cooke.

Nays

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Gerretsen, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment does not carry.

1520

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of information: All the sections in this bill probably amount to well over 2,000 to 3,000. I haven't counted them, but I'm sure they do. I think some of the confusion that arose with respect to the discussion on section 1 was the fact that most of us were dealing with the amendments at that time. Would it not make more sense, just to speed the process along, to deem all those sections that are not in dispute to either have been carried or defeated? We can have one vote on all that and just deal with the amendments, either government, NDP or Liberal amendments, of which you have about 300 to 400 in total, rather than going through every section, when obviously on an awful of the sections we're either going to disagree as a group from one side or the other. It's just a suggestion to speed the process along.

Mr Cooke: There's a difficulty with that. Just because there's not an amendment to a particular section doesn't mean we're either opposed or in favour. There may be some there are no amendments to that we'll be voting in favour of or that we'll be voting against. I'm not quite sure how you do that, since they will all be dealt with differently -- by the Liberals I assume, too.

The Chair: The only way we could entertain that would be with unanimous consent and obviously there are reasons -- Mr Cooke has put forward some reasons he wouldn't be prepared. So we will be going through it piece by piece.

Are there any further amendments to section 2? Is there any further discussion on section 2? Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

The Chair: I note no amendments on section 3 --

Mrs Caplan: Mr Chairman, can we not have a vote on schedule A, just do all of schedule A at this time?

The Chair: There are no amendments to sections 3 through 10. Shall sections 3 through 10 carry? Carried.

The Chair: Shall schedule A carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Cooke, Ecker, Gerretsen, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: I'm having trouble keeping up with this change in pace.

Mr Sampson: As we proceed to schedule B, if I could, I'd like to ask Ministry of Finance staff to join me.

Mr Gerretsen: The parliamentary assistant yesterday told half of them to go away, that he could handle it himself. Do you need help all of a sudden?

Mr Sampson: Another day, another dollar -- or $20, as Mr Phillips was saying.

The Chair: The first amendment to schedule B that has been filed is in section 6. Therefore, shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.

Are there any amendments in section 6 of schedule B?

Mr Sampson: I have one. I move that subsection 43.2(2) of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in subsection 6(1) of schedule B to the bill, be amended by striking out "this act, other than tax payable for the year under this part after making all deductions claimed under sections 39, 40, 41 and 43" in the third, fourth and fifth lines and substituting "parts III and IV."

Mr Gerretsen: I would like a detailed explanation of that amendment. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could oblige.

The Chair: I'm sure he can.

Mr Sampson: Thank you to the ex-mayor of Kingston. I appreciate being asked. I would have thought that somebody who had been the mayor of Kingston for so many years and on AMO for so many years would have understood this, but --

Mrs Caplan: Could we have a vote right now just on whether anybody understands?

Mr Sampson: This is a technical amendment. One of the problems with the current wording is that there was a potential that the innovation tax credit and the mining tax credit, as proposed under this schedule, would have doubled up, so to speak, so what we're doing is trying to order these credits to prevent the unintentional double reduction of the credits in the year they're earned if corporate minimum tax is applicable. I will pass the floor to my colleague from Finance who knows the tax act a shade better than I do.

Mr Gerretsen: That's satisfactory. I knew that, but I was just checking to see if he knew.

The Chair: Any further discussion on this proposed amendment? Shall the amendment to subsection 6(1) carry? Carried.

Are there any further amendments to section 6?

Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, guess what? I have one.

I move that subsection 43.2(6) of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in subsection 6(1) of schedule B to the bill, be amended by inserting "sub-subclause 43.1(2)(a)(ii)(A) and" after "For the purposes of" in the first line.

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, did you want an explanation on this one too?

Mr Gerretsen: No, no.

Mr Sampson: If he wants an explanation, I'll just have Hansard read back my lines for the previous amendment.

The Chair: Shall the amendment proposed by Mr Sampson carry? Carried.

Any further amendments to section 6? Any further discussion on section 6? Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.

Any amendments to section 7?

Mr Sampson: Surprise, surprise, Mr Chairman, I have an amendment to section 7.

I move that the French version of subsection 43.3(9) of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in subsection 7(1) of schedule B to the bill, be amended by adding, after "dépenses" in the seventh line of item D, "en capital."

Mr Cooke: Can you read the whole amendment en français?

Mr Phillips: And you people didn't want hearings.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on Mr Sampson's amendment? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chairman, does this mean that all the other sections that were amended in English only remain as they were in the French version?

The Chair: I assume it does.

Interjection: No, it doesn't.

The Chair: Any further amendments to section 7?

Mr Sampson: I move that section 43.3 of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in subsection 7(1) of schedule B to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Application rule

"(17) A corporation shall be considered not to be entitled to claim a deduction under subsection (1) for a taxation year for the purposes of determining an amount referred to in sub-subclause 43.1(2)(a)(ii)(A) or clause 57.3(2)(b).

"Same

"(18) If a corporation is entitled to claim a deduction under subsection (1) for a taxation year, any deduction allowed to the corporation for the taxation year under subsection 43.1(2) that would otherwise exceed the amount of tax otherwise payable under this part for the year shall be deemed to be equal to the amount of tax otherwise payable under this part for the year."

The Chair: Any questions? Shall the amendment proposed by Mr Sampson carry? Carried.

Any further amendments to section 7? Shall section 7, as amended, carry? Carried.

Any amendments to section 8? Any discussion on section 8? Shall section 8 carry? Carried.

Any amendments to section 9?

Mr Sampson: I move that subsection 74.2(1) of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in subsection 9(1) of schedule B to the bill, be amended by inserting "or causes another person to provide" after "provides" in the first line of the definition of "planholder."

The Chair: Any questions for Mr Sampson on the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Any further amendments to section 9? Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.

There have been no amendments filed on sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15. Shall sections 10 through 15 carry? Sections 10 through 15 are carried.

Shall schedule B, as amended, carry? Carried.

This seems to be a logical place to have our afternoon recess, so we'll break for 15 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1531 to 1549.

The Chair: Okay, we're back in business. We now are at schedule C. There have been no amendments to schedule C filed with the clerk's office. Are there any amendments to schedule C? Shall schedule C carry? Schedule C is carried.

Schedule D. There have been no amendments filed to schedule D with the clerk's office. Are there any amendments to schedule D? Shall schedule D carry? Schedule D is carried.

Schedule E. Are there any amendments to schedule E?

Ms Lankin: Yes, schedule E to the bill, subsection 1(1). I'm in order to move that amendment now? Mr Chair, I'm awaiting your yes. Okay, thank you.

This is dealing with the definition of "toll device" in section 38 of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993.

I move that the definition of "toll device" in section 38 of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 1(1) of schedule E to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Toll device' means a toll device prescribed under clause 47(1)(a.1) (`appareil à péage')."

1550

The Chair: Did you want to begin your discussion on that?

Ms Lankin: In the original construction of this piece of legislation -- most people know it relates to the building of Highway 407 and financing that through the introduction of tolls on Highway 407 for new highway construction -- the intent of the previous government had been that the electronic toll device to be established would be a voluntary device, available for the assessment of tolls for users of the road. But there had always been an intent that for those people who did not carry the monitor which is necessary for the electronic toll device to work -- it's called a transponder, if memory serves -- there would be an opportunity for others to use the road and there would be a system of photography to take photos of licence plates and a system, from that licence plate information, of billing the owner of the car for the length of kilometre use of the highway and that those photo operations would be set up at the on ramps and the off ramps.

There were essentially two options. If you were a regular user of the highway and wanted to have a transponder in your vehicle, mounted on the dash or wherever the appropriate placement is, you could use the electronic device, which would take a running total and be able to bill you on a periodic basis, or if you were an occasional user and/or wanted to remain a voluntary user of the system, the photo system would be in place.

The bill, as it is currently constructed and set forth in Bill 26, leaves some concerns that the only way you would be able to use the toll highway system -- in this case we're referring to the only one being the 407 -- would be with the electronic device and to have a transponder. That's raised concerns about the mandatory nature of that and, second, specifically the privacy commissioner has raised concerns with this, because he believes it would require every citizen who ever had an intent to use that highway to carry a tracking device.

To quote from his letter to members of the Legislature, he indicates: "Law-abiding citizens going about their daily business on a public highway could have their comings and goings monitored and tracked by a government computer. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on the use of information collected by this electronic monitoring device."

The privacy commissioner has raised a number of concerns and we think those are valid concerns that should be taken into account. The intent was always that this would be a voluntary process and that there would be another mechanism available, and in all the design work done around the toll device, the option for the photo billing as well was in place. We believe this amendment, with some of the further discussion that will be taking place, would allow the province to implement the tolling system with either the photo system or with the electronic tracking device. We think that would meet the concerns of the privacy commissioner.

Mr Sampson: Speaking to this amendment, I need to address two items Ms Lankin has raised. One is the actual definition of a toll device. she started to speak and did have some comment with respect to the privacy issue. I want to speak to the definitional issue first.

The reason the definition is as it is, is that the offence with respect to the violation of the non-payment of tolls is in the Highway Traffic Act, in which there is a current definition of "toll device," so we must make sure this definition is consistent. That is indeed what we have here. What we have here is a schedule that deals with the administrative issues relating to the setting up of the tolls for that project in particular, but the offence is still in the Highway Traffic Act, so that's where the definition should lie, because that's the act that will be used in the event of applying a charge and acting against the charge.

As it relates to the privacy issue, there were some concerns raised by the privacy commissioner. I'm led to believe that discussions have occurred subsequent to that. I'm also told that he is now satisfied with the procedures we intend to use with respect to the toll device -- the transponder, as you called it -- and there has been some further communication between the commissioner and the ministry with respect to that item. I've been told that the concerns he expressed a month ago, related to this particular item, have been resolved and addressed.

Ms Lankin: I'm glad Mr Sampson pointed out the issue of the definition producing the violation and enforcement aspects under the Highway Traffic Act. I should have mentioned that. He's quite correct, and that's one of the reasons for making our amendment. This is a series of amendments which we believe, together as a package, would be necessary to deal with the privacy commissioner's concerns as he had set out last month. The effect of this particular amendment would move the issue of toll devices out of the Highway Traffic Act -- Mr Sampson is right in that where there is a violation, it would require a finding of an offence -- to the Capital Investment Plan Act, where that wouldn't be the case.

However, let me say that the information Mr Sampson provides to the committee with respect to the privacy commissioner's satisfaction with the government's intent in terms of the implementation of this is not something that has been shared with other members of the Legislature. The Chair will know that a group of us met with the privacy commissioner on Monday morning prior to the clause-by-clause committee meetings commencing and he indicated that certain issues had been dealt with with respect to health information and suggested that in other areas there hadn't been discussions. If there have, that would be helpful for us to know, and I would suggest that we contemplate some process of standing down this section until we receive confirmation in writing from the privacy commissioner that his concerns have been dealt with and until we are informed in what manner they have been dealt with.

Mr Sampson: I'm afraid I can't support the standing down of that particular item. The issue as it relates to the transponder was whether the information will be used for purposes other than collecting the tolls. The intent is clearly that the information will be used for the purposes of collecting tolls and that's all. In fact, the technology will not be able to allow one to identify, for instance, me as the driver, but only the fact that my licence plate crossed a particular point of the highway at such and such a time of the day. The information will be used only for the purposes of collecting tolls. That's the point that has been raised numerous times throughout this, and I don't believe there's a reason to stand down this particular schedule to deal with that item.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, we are being provided information by the parliamentary assistant that the privacy commissioner has had his concerns with respect to this schedule of the bill resolved. I am suggesting to you that this is important information to be before all members of this committee. That is not information that has been shared with other members of the Legislature. As you know, the privacy commissioner is an officer of the Legislative Assembly. His reports are subject to a review by all members of the Legislature, and the concerns he raised were in fact circulated to all members of the Legislature. So it is reasonable, if the parliamentary assistant wants us to accept that these concerns have been addressed, that we are provided with that information before having to vote on this schedule. Otherwise, we are in a situation where we would have to continue to pursue our amendments to meet the concerns of the privacy commissioner as we understand them -- and our understanding has not been corrected.

1600

I think it is unreasonable of you, Mr Sampson, to suggest that we shouldn't stand this down until we get that confirmation. It's a simple matter to bring it back before the committee. I'm sure you would be able, by tomorrow morning, to get confirmation from the privacy commissioner if you are correct.

Mr Phillips: I agree with Ms Lankin. Let's recognize what we're dealing with here. What is this section all about? It's all about bundling up a deal to sell a highway. That's what it's all about. It's using really advanced technology, state-of-the-art, Star Wars stuff, to sell it off. In the end, what the government wants to do is to sell 407, and I presume other highways, lock, stock and barrel. The way you sell it is that you make sure you guarantee them that they can collect all these revenues, even if you have to trample on some people's rights, even if you've got to put a lien on the house. The member is shaking his head, but that's what you're all about.

The technology is extremely advanced. This is leading-edge stuff. Make no mistake about it, the private company that owns this will have some very interesting information at their disposal, about how often that vehicle went on or off that road, what time they were there, how many times, where they got on, where they got off, what type of vehicle. They will know who is the owner of that electronic device and how often they used it. It's very interesting information.

What the privacy commissioner says is: "Listen, this is right at the edge of privacy. You are selling off to the private sector, with this plan, access to incredibly potentially sensitive information." I can remember that one of the government's concerns about photo-radar was this very point about beginning to get into people's freedoms by photographing their cars and that sort of intrusion of privacy. This stuff goes well beyond it. I can assure you that from our party's point of view, we've got some amendments designed to ensure that there is some assurance for the public that there's some protection.

If the parliamentary assistant is saying there has been a deal struck between the privacy commissioner and the Ministry of Transportation, I'll just say that before we proceed with our amendments, we'd like to see that. I think it would be in everybody's best interests to take this section -- I guess we're on schedule E now -- and simply say let's stand this down until tomorrow until we get a copy of the letter. That's going to be quite fundamental to how we'll want to proceed with our amendments and how I think the NDP will want to proceed with their amendments.

I guarantee you, this issue of privacy of information around leading-edge technology is extremely important, and I would think the government members, like the opposition, will want to make sure we treat it that way.

Maybe you need a motion. Is there a motion already that we stand down schedule E until tomorrow and we get the privacy commissioner's letter.?

The Chair: You can request that, Mr Phillips.

Mr Phillips: Yes, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Mr Phillips is requesting unanimous consent to stand down schedule E. Do we have that? No we don't.

Mr Cooke: Why? What is the problem?

Mr Sampson: Because we need to proceed with this particular schedule.

Mr Silipo: You're asking us to take your word for it.

The Chair: Mr Sampson has the floor, Mr Silipo.

Mr Sampson: The corporation collecting the toll is an institution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, so it's governed by that act. That's clear. It's governed by the provisions of that act with respect to the information it gathers. I gather you're questioning the competency and the extent of that particular act, the freedom of information act. That's not what we're debating here. We're debating whether the information collected pursuant to this schedule and pursuant to the business of that corporation is going to be covered under that act.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We're not debating that. We're debating a point the parliamentary assistant made, which was that the freedom of information commissioner has been assured that his concerns have been addressed. All we've asked for is the decency to have confirmation in a letter from the privacy commissioner to that effect. That's all we've asked for. I don't think it's an incredible request on our part. It's simply decency and courtesy we're asking for so that we know, given that the commissioner appeared before this very committee and expressed some serious reservations about these and other sections of the bill -- the parliamentary assistant is saying to us that those concerns, at least as they relate to this section, have been alleviated, but he won't give us the courtesy of letting us see that in writing. Why not?

The Chair: Mr Silipo, that's not a point of order. A request was made for unanimous consent to stand the section down. There wasn't unanimous consent. We have to deal with the section.

Mr Clement: So we can properly understand the import of what Mr Silipo is suggesting, could I suggest a recess for five minutes so that we as a caucus can discuss it?

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for a five-minute recess? Okay.

The committee recessed from 1606 to 1611.

The Chair: Mr Clement had requested a five-minute recess. Mr Clement, did you have --

Mr Clement: I think Mr Sampson has the floor.

Mr Sampson: I want to respond to the point raised by Mr Cooke, who was looking for I believe unanimous approval to stand down this particular section. I believe the comment I made on the record was that I was led to believe the commissioner's concerns had been dealt with. I am going to try to confirm that in writing. So I will propose that we do indeed stand down this section until such time as we can confirm that one way or the other.

The Chair: So we have all-party approval to stand down schedule E? Agreed? Okay.

We now start on schedule F, amendments to section 1. The first one on the list here is the New Democrats.

Ms Lankin: With respect to schedule F to the bill, section 1, subsection 8(2) of the Ministry of Health Act:

I move that subsection 8(2) of the Ministry of Health Act, as set out in section 1 to schedule F of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) The members of the commission shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council in accordance with the following criteria:

"1. One third of the members of the commission shall be members of district health councils.

"2. The commission shall include at least two members who are members of the Association of District Health Councils.

"3. The membership of the commission shall be representative of the diversity of the population of Ontario."

If I may speak to it?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms Lankin: As we went through the public hearings and listened to individuals coming forward, there were a couple of points made with respect to the restructuring commission, in particular the linkage that people felt needed to be built between the work of the restructuring commission and local planning that had taken place in most communities under the auspices of district health councils, and we'll get to that issue in amendments coming up. But people also talked to the concern they had about the makeup of the commission, that the commission reflect the expertise that is in the province but also the diversity of the province.

This amendment attempts to do that by insisting that there is some district health council representation on there so that the knowledge of DHCs, not on a specific restructuring plan but about the nature of health services restructuring, about the general framework of wellness and determinants of health that have been underpinning the work of most district health councils, informs the work of the restructuring commission.

The reference to the diversity of the population of Ontario I think is important in terms of understanding both the geographic and regional differences that people bring in their perspective to these issues. We heard much of that as we went across the province and listened to presenters, as well as things like denominational issues. We heard very significant representations from the Catholic hospitals, the Jewish hospitals, the Salvation Army hospitals of a concern that the hospital restructuring commission be sensitive to the fact that there are denominational institutions and that they play a special role within the delivery of health care because of the Christian mission that they bring or the religious or denominational mission that they bring to the delivery of services and the manner in which they treat individuals from their community and others in a holistic way.

We believe it is very important, if the government proceeds to establish this restructuring commission, which we believe they will, that it reflect the reality of health planning and concerns about the direction of health care reform in this province in its makeup, in the people who are appointed to it. In a subsequent amendment we will go on to make the point that there also needs to be a linkage to the work of local health planning and restructuring reports.

I think that's all I have to say right now.

Mrs Caplan: Since this is the beginning of our discussions about very significant amendments to health policy, powers of the minister that will have huge implications on health policy, I thought that as we start talking about the restructuring commission I would take the opportunity to ask, if I could, a couple of questions of the parliamentary assistant on the policies that could flow from this, but also to be clear about what I think is appropriate.

I want to begin with a question of the parliamentary assistant. Could the Minister of Health, under the existing Ministry of Health Act, establish a restructuring commission similar to the DHCs and other advisory bodies which can be established under the Ministry of Health Act?

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'll defer that to the lawyer.

Ms Gail Czukar: My name is Gail Czukar, legal counsel for the Ministry of Health, and yes, it would be possible under the Ministry of Health Act to establish an advisory body. It would be purely advisory and therefore different from the way in which this commission has been set up.

Mrs Caplan: That's a very important answer, because my contention is that the minister today, and you've confirmed, could establish a restructuring commission, that it could have the weight of his full authority. If the minister makes a decision, he could allow the restructuring commission to draft implementation plans and to begin implementation on the authority of the minister, and I'll cite the case of where this has been done in the past.

For example, the district health councils were asked for the first time when I was Minister of Health to decide where dollars should be allocated under the mental health envelope. They made those recommendations and dollars flowed exactly the way they said they should.

It's my view that a restructuring commission that made recommendations about program changes and hospital restructuring could advise the minister as to what their plan was and then the minister could say that they could implement those plans without the minister having to delegate the actual powers to the commission.

1620

Ms Czukar: Can I clarify that answer? That's quite different from the question that you asked me and that I answered. An advisory committee to the minister may advise the minister on actions which the ministry could then carry out, but the advisory body would not have the authority to implement those plans or to issue directions.

Mrs Caplan: But they could issue directions and the minister could say, "I accept their directions." In other words, if they say, "We think that in the future this should happen, that should happen, " the minister could approve that and say, "Yes, I approve that," and implement it through that commission.

Ms Czukar: It would depend upon the kinds of decisions that the commission would then have to take. They would not be a body corporate as an advisory committee and therefore would have no protection from liability for any actions they took or that sort of thing.

Mrs Caplan: Protection from liability is another issue, because I think ultimately the minister should be the one who is held accountable for the decisions that the minister makes. But the purpose of this first section is the establishment of a restructuring commission. I support the notion of having a body which reviews a plan, holds a public hearing, listens to what the DHCs have said and recommends to the minister action to be taken. I believe that can be put in place under the existing Ministry of Health Act, as it exists today.

I also think it's inappropriate, as we heard from every delegation that came before this committee, for the minister to be able to delegate powers to a commission, particularly where there will be no ability to have the kind of natural justice to appeal their decision through the courts. So without any accountability, the proposal here is to set up a commission accountable to no one but the minister, exercising broad powers, where individuals and communities affected will have no right to appeal. Is that a fair categorization of what is being proposed? I want to make sure the people understand that this is what's being proposed by this part of the legislation.

Could the parliamentary assistant answer that? Is that what's being proposed?

Mrs Johns: What you have said so far is you're proposing a duplication of services, basically, because you're saying the district health council would do the planning. What we're saying is that there's planning that's being done by the district health council, but then we have to go to a restructuring commission to be able to implement the process.

Mrs Caplan: And how is that different than what you are suggesting?

Mrs Johns: How is it different than what I'm suggesting?

Mrs Caplan: You said I suggested a duplication. How is that different than -- what I am saying is exactly what you're saying as far as the setting up of a commission. The difference between my proposal and yours is that the minister is accountable instead of an unelected, unaccountable body.

Mrs Johns: Not exactly, what you're suggesting. We're suggesting that the district health councils plan the proposed changes with relation to the community. We then go to a commission that does the restructuring, which has the ability to implement, has the ability to make decisions and has the power and the duties to be able to restructure the hospital commission. You are suggesting that there shouldn't be powers and duties with this commission, as I understand what you're saying.

Mrs Caplan: No. I'm saying that there should be duties but no powers. The question that I have for you -- and if you could please reference to me where in this legislation it says "district health councils."

Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Chair.

Mrs Caplan: This is the time to question how it's going to be established. I don't see any other point --

The Chair: Let's hear Mr Cooke's point of order.

Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, I don't want to be overly picky, but when we look at the next amendment, we do have an amendment that specifically deals with the duties and powers of the commission. Now we're talking the makeup of the commission, and I just wonder if we could try to stick to the makeup of the commission right now.

Mrs Caplan: My difficulty is that unless my concerns are addressed, I cannot support the establishment of the commission under this act because of the duties and the powers it's going to be given. So at the very beginning of this discussion I'd like to have my questions answered, because I can't vote on an amendment that deals with the makeup of a commission that I don't support.

Mr Cooke: We can deal with this in a pragmatic way. There's going to be a commission; there's only three of you and two of us. Let's just look at the makeup --

The Chair: If I might make a decision here, I understand Mrs Caplan's approach and I think it's in order.

Mrs Caplan: The other part of that is that while at the end of the day they can set up the commission, I also think this is an opportunity to discuss with the ministry and the minister, through the parliamentary assistant, some alternate suggestions they might consider if they understood, if I'm right. And I will not take too much time in doing this. Will that satisfy you?

Mr Cooke: Another way of doing this, and I think it would probably be appropriate, would be to stand down the amendment -- we're at the beginning of a new schedule -- and not have the amendment on the floor right now but have some general questions or specific questions about this schedule. That would be appropriate and probably would save some time doing it at the beginning.

The Chair: Everybody understand Mr Cooke's request that we go back to 8(1) and deal with the committee as a body? Is that what you're suggesting, that we go back, take the amendment off the floor, stand it down?

Mrs Caplan: I don't think it really matters. I'd be happy to do it that way. I don't think it happens any faster, because we can ask the questions relating to amendments --

The Chair: Obviously there doesn't appear to be unanimous consent for that, Mr Cooke, so we'll let Mrs Caplan carry on.

Mrs Caplan: I promise not to be too much longer. I guess the point I want to make, and I'll make it again very clearly, is that I have a great deal of difficulty supporting a statutory commission that is going to have powers, especially when that commission is not accountable, where the parliamentary assistant has said there's going to be process. I see nothing in this legislation that requires any process whatever. There's nothing here that says there must be a district health council report or there must be an implementation plan; there's nothing here that requires minister's approval. So while you can say that is our intention, it's not here, and therefore I can't in good conscience support a commission that is going to have all the powers of a minister and none of the accountability.

If I were supporting the establishment of the commission, I would support this amendment. So I want to go on the record as saying that if there is a commission established at the end of the day, it should have the features of this amendment. So I support this amendment and I don't want to be in the difficult position of supporting an amendment and then ultimately not being able to support the provision.

In the interests of time I will support the amendment because I accept the fact that you're determined to have a statutory, undemocratic, unaccountable body. But I don't believe that is the necessary approach to achieve your goals, and I'll discuss it further as we go through this.

Mr Cooke: Obviously, I support the amendment that's proposed and I can certainly say, after going through the process without a commission, a process of restructuring in our community, that one of the reasons progress has been made is that it has been driven by the district health council. It has in fact had the workers involved; it's had people from the retiree community. The whole community has been involved in the makeup of the process, and advisory committees have all represented the community in which we live.

I guess what I want to know from the parliamentary assistant is whether or not this amendment is supportable and whether we can move on.

1630

Mrs Johns: Is it my turn? The government will not be supporting this amendment, Mr Cooke, and the reason we will not be supporting it is maybe double- or triple-fold.

We believe that we need to have a commission. We need to be able to have someone who moves the process forward, is responsible for implementing it, as we were asked for in the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council. So we believe we have to be able to put the commission forward, first of all, to answer the question. We believe that the commission has to be arm's length to allow us to be able to move quickly and expedite the process, because there are going to be 60 --

Mr Cooke: Arm's length from whom?

Mrs Johns: From the minister, with an accountability to it. We believe there has to be an ability to move quickly with these because there are 60 of them coming up in the next period of time. We find the amendment prescriptive regarding appointments to the commission --

Ms Lankin: Is that your word, Helen? Jesus.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, Mrs Johns has the floor.

Ms Lankin: Come on.

Mrs Johns: You don't want to hear the rest of it?

Ms Lankin: What do you mean by that?

Mrs Johns: We find that it's too narrow. We find that there are other reasons why we have to be able to do this. For example, you're suggesting that one third of the members of the commission shall be members of a district health council. You're suggesting that two members be from an association of district health councils. We're saying that there are people who are better able in some circumstances to implement the policy, they have a better ability to be able to take the process from a planning process into an implementation process, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the district health council that comes forward. The district health council is a planning body; the commission will be an implementation process.

The Chair: Ms Lankin.

Mr Cooke: No, I think I had the floor. I was asking a couple of questions and that was the answer to one of the questions, albeit the big question is, are you going to vote for the amendment or aren't you? Let me just ask you specifically as we get to this, you do not believe then that there should be any representatives from any of the district health councils on any of these commissions because they are, what, not arm's length or they don't have the expertise? What's the problem?

Mrs Johns: I didn't say there would be no representation from the district health council. I said that the recommendation we have here of one third of the members being from the council and two members being from the association of district health councils was too narrow for us in this particular --

Mr Cooke: Nobody knows for sure, but if one third of the members from district health councils is too narrow, or whatever the word is you used, would a minimum of one fifth be --

Mrs Johns: We're saying we want the ability to be able to choose the best people to be representatives on the commission, and that may take into --

Mr Cooke: Well, you have all of the people on all of the district health councils. We haven't got names plugged in here. You'd be able to look at all of the members of that particular area's district health council. If one third isn't -- and we're looking at a floor. You could say one fifth. I guess the principle here is that you're asking the district health councils to do a lot of the dirty work in terms of doing the planning, doing a lot of the preliminary work, developing a consensus at the local community. They have the knowledge and they've put their neck on the line to do a lot of that work. Why would you then shut them out and deny, quite frankly, the commission their community expertise?

All we're saying is that there should be some link between the district health council and the commission, so if you don't like the number "one third," what would be appropriate? There's got to be some guarantee that there will be some members of the district health council on these commissions. What would the number be?

Mrs Johns: What we're saying, Mr Cooke, is that we don't want to put a number into it of how many from different areas will come. We want to be able to choose the best people --

Mr Cooke: All right, so what you're saying is that in some areas of the province you don't like the members of the health councils. So you're not going to put them on because you don't think they're appropriate to be on the commission. The principle that you want to follow is that you don't want there to be any legislative direction. You want to be able to do whatever the hell you want to do, set up a commission, give them the entire power. This thing about "arm's length": What do you mean, "arm's length from the minister"?

Mrs Johns: What we have heard along the line through all of our hearings is that what happens is, we get the planning process done and the process becomes logjammed, if you will. It stops; they're unable to implement the policy.

We have heard a number of people say that it's a very difficult process to be able to implement the process and that we need some other group of people to be able to implement rather than plan.

Mr Cooke: But I think what you're saying by "arm's length" --

Mrs Johns: We heard that constantly throughout the process.

Mr Cooke: No, but you're not answering the question.

Mrs Johns: What we're saying is that we want to make sure we have the ability to choose people who will be able to implement the process. This is a very important process.

Mr Cooke: That's not the question I asked. The question that I asked was, what do you mean by "arm's length"? I suggest that what you mean is you know that there's going to be -- there should be -- a lot of accountability to the minister because he is the one who ultimately -- and you've already decided that there's going to be a reduction in the health envelope, so that's going to have a direct impact on the restructuring of the health care system. You want to somehow insulate yourself as a government from those very difficult decisions of which hospitals -- because it's not that many years ago that your party had an experience with closing hospitals across the province. It destroyed Frank Miller as the Minister of Health.

So now you're coming up with a process that while you should be directly accountable to the people of the province, you're setting up a commission that will be isolated from the government. You'll be able to say in the House when there's a question asked: "Hey, don't ask me the question; I'm only the Minister of Health" --

Mrs Ecker: Mr Chair, point of order.

Mr Cooke: -- "There's an independent commission that we've established."

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Cooke. Mrs Ecker has a point of order.

Mrs Ecker: I do believe that the opposition did pass a motion earlier this week asking for time to question the parliamentary assistants on the motions and what was in the legislation.

Ms Lankin: It's not a point of order.

The Chair: That's not a point of order.

Mrs Ecker: We are here to debate the motions, Mr Chair, not to have another --

The Chair: That's not a point of order.

Mr Cooke: I think that not only has the parliamentary assistant made the government's position very clear, but so has the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mrs Caplan: No debate.

Mr Cooke: They don't want a commission that's accountable and they don't want the parliamentary assistant or the government to be asked any questions. They just want this legislation rammed through the Legislature.

Mrs Ecker: We're here to debate the motion.

Mr Cooke: They just want this rammed through the Legislature so that they can start closing hospitals and say, "We aren't responsible; the independent commission is responsible." It is really, really politically I think a bankrupt process and policy that the government's putting forward.

Ms Lankin: May I say to Mrs Ecker, we are here to deal with these sections of the bill clause-by-clause, which includes asking the parliamentary assistant questions. You absolutely had no point of order. You know something? I think it's just horrible the way the two of you over there, both parliamentary assistants who are on this committee, continue to humiliate the parliamentary assistant from the Ministry of Health by trying to shield her from questions. If she can't handle the questions, then that's the problem that she has.

Mrs Ecker: Give me a break, Frances.

Ms Lankin: Well, I'm sorry. Every step along the way -- take a look at what we went through yesterday when you tried to move the agenda around from the motion --

Mr Cooke: "Give us two hours, please."

Ms Lankin: -- so that you wouldn't have the parliamentary assistant up. I mean quite frankly, I think the minister should be here answering this. I think it's him who should be accountable, through the legislation and through this process, to answer questions.

Mrs Caplan: Right on.

Ms Lankin: But we don't have him here and so we will take our right to ask questions of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Health.

Mrs Caplan: If you don't like it, you can leave.

Ms Lankin: If you don't like it, that's too bad. Sorry, we will do it, because in fact we deserve these answers. It is not clear, and it's not clear from the answers that she's giving, that she knows what she is intending to do with this restructuring commission or why she's intending to get all the powers and give them to the restructuring commission, take them away from the minister, or why she is refusing to be reasonable about setting out some terms of reference of who's appointed to it, who is represented on this body.

I can't quite believe some of the comments you have made. "We don't want to be narrowed," you say, "in terms of the terms of this motion to have to put anybody on from a district health council because we want to pick the best people in the province." You shake your head. Are you suggesting that from the hundreds of district health councils in this province you can't find good, qualified people who know more about local health planning than you do? Please, answer that. You don't think the talent's out there?

Mrs Johns: I'm not suggesting that at all, Mrs Lankin. What we're suggesting --

Ms Lankin: So why are you suggesting that you can't have one third --

Mrs Ecker: Allow her to answer it.

Ms Lankin: -- of the people appointed to this commission from district health councils? Why?

Mrs Johns: I'm either going to answer the question on whole or I'm not going to answer it, Mrs Lankin. I don't think it's fair that every time I start to answer it you cut me off.

Interjections: Hear, hear.

Ms Lankin: Then answer the question.

1640

Mrs Johns: We believe that there are a number of people out there who are qualified to do it. There is no question about that. What we're saying is, the minister is approving, so he's not insulating himself from the hospital restructuring, he's setting himself up as ultimately responsible for it. He's setting up powers, he's setting up members of the committee, so he is ultimately responsible for it. But there are 60 different projects, planning commissions, that are coming in in the next number of months. We need an ability to implement them quickly, to expedite the process, to move forward, so that Ontario will have proper health care and we will be able to reallocate the funds within the health care budget.

Ms Lankin: Have you finished answering the question?

Mr Gerretsen: Why did you vote against the earlier motion then?

Ms Lankin: My question, Ms Johns, is, why do you think it is inappropriate for one third of the membership of the commission to come from district health councils? You didn't answer that.

Mrs Johns: All I'm saying is, we want the ability to be able to choose where the members come from on the commission. We don't want to be tied by two members being from the association of district health councils.

Ms Lankin: I've heard you say now twice you want the ability to choose, you don't want to be tied. I'm asking you why it's inappropriate that one third of the membership -- you've still got two thirds of the membership to choose whoever you want. Why is it inappropriate that one third of the membership of this commission, which is going to be responsible for implementing restructuring plans to health services, be made up of people from district health councils, which I think, if you were to be fair, you would agree are the people and the bodies in this province who have the most experience with health services restructuring planning. Why would you think that's inappropriate? Why do you want to leave the power all up to yourselves all the time to make any rules at any point in time that you want?

Mrs Johns: I would suggest that they'd have the most experience with planning, because they've been doing planning for health care in the future, but they don't have the most experience with implementation. What we've seen over the time frame is that we get the planning done and we're unable to implement the process. We had a number of people who said that when they came to talk to us and they said that we had to have a way to break up the bottleneck. The Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council said that they could not do the planning and do the implementation. There has to be another way to be able to get the implementation done.

Mr Cooke: They're not being asked to.

Mrs Johns: That is what we are doing here. We are trying to get the process done to be able to implement the plans that came out of the district health council. We believe, as does the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council, that it has to be a separate body that is responsible for implementing the process.

Ms Lankin: Ms Johns, I wish you would at least attempt to address the point before us. I have not suggested to you in any of these questions that there shouldn't be a commission. I have not suggested that it shouldn't work with the minister with respect to implementing health restructuring. I will have some points to make on what powers I think are appropriately rested with or vested in the commission versus remaining with the minister. That's a separate issue.

I'm talking about the membership of a commission and what it should look like. I have not said that there shouldn't be a separate commission. I have not at all disputed the fact that there are some who think it's a good idea to have the commission. As you know, I have said on a number of occasions I'm not opposed to the commission. What I'm talking about is to respond to the other point that you so conveniently forget, that we heard time and time again, that people wanted to make sure that the work of the commission was in fact related to the work that had gone on in local communities and was in fact informed by the people who had an understanding of the framework within which health care reform needed to take place in this province.

You say that there are people on district health councils who have the experience in local planning but not in implementation. You say there are bottlenecks all over the place and it's not getting done. I can tell you, as many people who came forward who raised concerns in certain communities, there were as many who said, "Leave us alone; we're doing quite fine," and you in response to them during the hearings said: "Great, we won't interfere with you. It's only where we reach the bottlenecks."

You've said that these folks don't have the experience in implementation. Who does and who are you going to put on the commission? Why do you want to exclude the possibility of one third of the membership coming from local district health councils?

Mrs Johns: I'm not excluding. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't be limited to that criteria that you're setting up. I'm not excluding the possibility that this may be the case. I'm saying the Ministry of Health doesn't want to be limited to your agenda on what the commission should represent.

Ms Lankin: Some of your colleagues across the way are using words like "straitjackets" -- "We don't want to be straitjacketed here. We don't want to have rules." You know, that's what legislation's about. In fact, you set out the terms of reference, the membership, you debate these things, you have a sense of the direction you're going. You don't give yourself the blank cheque that we've talked about so often. You don't just say, "There shall be a commission and we'll put anyone we want on it, at any time, and it doesn't matter whether it's reflective of the desire of the majority of people with respect to health care reform; it doesn't matter whether or not it builds in the expertise of people who for the last number of years have been working and learning and know a whole lot more than most of us sitting in this room about what has to happen in the health care system."

What is straitjacketed about talking about one third of the membership? I didn't prescribe the makeup of the whole membership. You have two thirds of the membership to deal with, the majority as a matter of fact, if you take a look at it. All we're saying is, relate this to the people who have actually been doing the work in the province of Ontario, the people you rhetorically said during the hearings, over and over and over again, you were going to listen to. You were going to have regard to their reports, you were going to take that into consideration. Bring them into the process. Put them on the commission. I'm only asking for one third of the spots.

Ms Johns, you have not given one reason. You've skirted this issue. You've gone around it. All you've said is, "We want this, we want that, we want the ability, we want the freedom." You don't know, I don't believe, who you're going to put on this or what you're going to do. And if you do, then tell us. Tell us why that should preclude the possibility of one third coming from district health councils.

Mrs Johns: I believe that I've answered the question. The minister does not want to be tied to who will be on the commission. We aren't prepared to accept this amendment and we won't be supporting it, because we do not believe that we should be setting now who will be on it.

For example, with your idea we could have people who were on the district health councils who were unhappy as a result of the planning process. Let's say there was a rift between them. There may be a conflict of interest with specific people who went through the planning process of a district health council. That may be one reason why we don't put some of those people on. It may that they're planners, not implementers. There are a number of reasons why we would choose specific people versus other people. We're not prepared to say at this moment who the people will be who will be on the commission. We are not prepared to be tied to who these people will be.

Ms Lankin: But I've heard over and over again that you have to have this bill passed on January 29 so January 30 you can start to save all of this money, the $1 million an hour more that you're spending than you're taking in. On January 30 you're going to be able to save it because these powers will be there. So you're going to have that commission in place and it's going to be closing hospitals. You must know who you're going to put on it, so tell us.

Mrs Johns: I believe I've answered that question.

Mr Maves: Several times.

Ms Lankin: I don't think so.

Mr Gerretsen: How many members are going to be on the commission in total?

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, I don't believe it's your turn.

Mr Cooke: It's a good question.

The Chair: It is a good question, but it's not Mr Gerretsen's turn.

Ms Lankin: It's a good question, so I'll put the question: How many people are going to be on this commission?

Mrs Johns: Eight to 10.

Ms Lankin: So what's wrong with three being from district health councils? Are you suggesting that you can't accept that three of those people are from district health councils?

Mrs Johns: That's correct.

Ms Lankin: Why is that?

Mrs Johns: Because we don't want to be tied to where the people will be coming from for the commission. We want the ability to be able to choose the best people to be able to implement the process and to be able to restructure hospitals in an expedited manner.

Ms Lankin: Have you discussed this proposed amendment with the minister?

Mrs Johns: Yes.

Ms Lankin: Did the minister suggest to you that he has a list of names and that it doesn't include district health councils so that you couldn't possibly support this amendment?

Mrs Johns: No, he didn't.

Ms Lankin: Does he know who he's going to appoint at this point in time?

Mrs Johns: As far as I know, he doesn't know who he's going to put on the commission yet.

Ms Lankin: And he doesn't know the exact number of people who will be on the commission?

Mrs Johns: Eight to 10.

Ms Lankin: But he doesn't know the exact number, whether it will be eight or whether it will be 10, at this point in time? Have you discussed the rest of the amendments with respect to the commission that are set out in this schedule?

Mrs Johns: Yes, the minister has seen all the amendments.

Ms Lankin: Are you going to support any of these amendments with respect to the commission?

Mrs Johns: With respect to the commission?

Mr Cooke: Any of the opposition amendments.

Mrs Johns: No.

Ms Lankin: Well, you know, Mr Chair, I'm sorry if this has taken on a tone that's uncomfortable for people, but let me tell you, I am really uncomfortable with the process that we have and with the bill that we have in front of us and with the powers that are being taken into government and with what I believe is an abusive process when we have a parliamentary assistant who comes here and sits here and says: "We believe we want to be able to pick the best people. I can't tell you that the best people aren't in district health councils, but we don't want to be prescribed, we don't want to be straitjacketed, we don't want to have to commit at this time." That's the problem with this whole bill. You won't tell people what you're going to do with the powers.

1650

In this section, we're talking about a commission that is being set up. You won't discuss with us what the membership and the makeup of that commission is. That's pretty fundamental to the work that's going to be done, and to whether people feel confidence in the government that the restructuring and reform that will take place is in keeping with the nature and the direction of the work that has been set out in local community after local community, within the framework of determinants of health and health care reform that many people have worked a long time to build a consensus in support of. We don't have one word from this government about whether it's your intent to continue and to follow down that line.

You've set up a commission in which you won't set out what any of the terms of reference are. You won't set out what the powers are, simply that you're going to give it powers. Presenter after presenter after presenter came forward and said: "We do not want to see this commission having the powers directly. We want to see the minister maintain those powers. We want the commission to develop the implementation plans, and that's fine, but we want the minister to be the one that has the approval and says, `Go for it, do it, implement it.'"

You've completely ignored that in your presentation. You've said this is what we've heard from people with respect to the commission. You've completely ignored that the next amendment we'll be dealing with, which is a government motion, runs absolutely contrary to the advice we got from every presenter who dealt with this issue.

You're cherry-picking your arguments. You're not giving us full answers in terms of what you intend to do. It's the blank cheque, because I don't believe you know what you intend to do. You've rushed through with this. You've put in place a commission that you're going to give all sorts of powers to, and you're not telling the people of Ontario how it's going to exercise those powers and in what framework of health care reform. You, Ms Johns, I don't believe can answer those questions.

This process is flawed. This is an abuse in terms of being able to deal with legislation in an open, public way. It is a continuation of the way this government has tried to ram this legislation through. We have fundamental issues with respect to how this commission's going to work. Unlike my colleague next to me, I support the concept of a commission, but I want to see the membership, the rules, the terms of reference, the powers and the limits on the powers in the legislation.

We have amendments setting that out, and we've done it in a way to be as constructive as possible, not to limit the powers and final decision-making of the minister -- in fact they'll allow him to continue to make decisions -- and you've just indicated that you're going to vote against every one of them.

I find this a real unfortunate approach on the part of the government, that any kind of constructive criticism, any kind of taking what we heard from the public and trying to build it into amendments to the act, you're simply stonewalling. That's the approach I think you're going to be taking all the way through this. It almost makes me wonder why we waste our time sitting here. We can't get answers from you, we can't get response to the public presentations and the issues that have been raised, and we can't get a due process that builds into legislation accountability of ministers of the crown in this government.

Mr Phillips: First, in response to Mrs Ecker, I hope she wasn't suggesting that we can no longer ask any questions, that the question time stopped yesterday and we can't be asking questions of the parliamentary assistants from now on. You weren't suggesting that, were you?

Mrs Ecker: I'd love to answer if you'd allow me, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Did you want Mrs Ecker to answer that question, Mr Phillips?

Mr Phillips: I'll just make the assumption she wasn't. If she was suggesting that, it is a mockery of the whole process. So we'll continue to ask questions, and if you don't like it, you can interrupt again, as you did Ms Lankin. You can interrupt me -- or try it.

Somehow or other the government members have been told, "You go over there and vote against every single opposition amendment and vote for every one of your amendments." We just heard that the Minister of Health has reviewed the NDP amendments and we're told they're voting against every one of them. I say to the government members that if I were in your shoes, I would be looking at these amendments and saying: "Surely we can adopt some of them. We can't look like we are against every one of them. Logic tells us we can't do that."

Here's one amendment that the NDP have proposed that you should be supporting. The public is extremely concerned about you. Even your supporters, even the great believers in the Common Sense Revolution believe you've overstepped your bounds on this bill. Yes, you won the election, and yes, you're going to implement this thing, but even your supporters say you've trampled on the public.

The bill you've got before the Legislature does give enormous powers to the ministers, does take away enormous rights from a whole group of people. If I were in your shoes, I'd be looking for some symbols that you're prepared to at least back down a little. Here's one amendment that suggests that, rather than the commission solely being picked somewhere over in the corner office with no input from anybody, handpicked by the Minister of Health to do his bidding, a minority, three of the eight, nine or 10 members, be from health councils. If I were in your shoes, I would be looking for ways to assure the public that you're not trampling on the rights to the extent that we certainly think you are.

You still control the thing; actually, you make the appointments. But I would grab this amendment, because I'll guarantee you that in the end you're going to be held responsible for closing hospitals. Yes, some hospitals in this province have to close, but if you want -- you're shaking your head yes. I say to you that this should be a public decision. The public should be involved in it, not the dictators over at the Ministry of Health led by the Minister of Health. If I were in your shoes, I'd want the public involved in it. After all, they built it, they raised the money, it's a community facility; many of the Catholic orders have built these, the Salvation Army, the Jewish community, and many community organizations put their hard-earned money and sweat into this. And you're going to close them. I might perhaps understand that, but I would be looking for ways that you broadened the public input in this thing. But we're told no way, that you won't even consider this amendment.

I want to ask a question to the parliamentary assistant. You've indicated that you don't think this is a role for planners, this is for implementers. What's the difference in the skills, and where will you likely find the implementers for this?

Mrs Johns: I think there's a change process that has to happen. Implementers have to be able to take the plan and say: "How strategically can we implement this? Which is the best way to do this?" They have to be able to deal with people on the issue, they have to be able to deal with the closing of hospitals, with amalgamations. There's a number of different issues that are actual implementation issues versus planning issues.

Mr Phillips: What sort of people are they? I'm just trying to get an idea. What would they likely be doing right now?

Mrs Johns: I think there would have to be a vast array of people who would come into the process. There would have to be people who have gone through amalgamations, there would have to be people who have dealt with labour changes, there would have to be lawyers who have dealt with the amalgamation process, a number of different people who can add their expertise to a process to make it work. There's a vast array of people. Consumers have to be involved in this.

Mr Cooke: Should we have a section here that says a minimum one third of lawyers?

Mrs Johns: I didn't say that. You asked me specifically for some of the people I would perceive in it and that's the kind of people. Providers too.

Mr Phillips: With all due respect, those people exist on the district health councils. There's no question of that.

Mrs Johns: They may well.

Mr Phillips: My experience is that you don't separate a planner from an implementer. People who run good organizations have both those skills, and the thought that this is a unique, different, completely planningless skill makes no sense to me. I say again to the government and to the parliamentary assistant, can you explain in simple terms to me why the government would not want to try and find one third of the members, three of them, who would be members of district health councils? Are there not three competent people in the province who have that background and experience that you could find from among the 200 or 300 people or more on these boards?

Mrs Johns: I would like to say that your stand is not the same the Metropolitan Toronto health council, which has recommended that there be a new body set forward to be responsible for the implementation.

1700

Mr Cooke: There is a new body. This is the commission.

Mrs Johns: They're saying there has to be a different group of people to implement. That's what we've taken as our basis to move forward with this.

Mr Phillips: I would be interested in seeing the Metro DHC's recommendation that nobody on this commission could be from a district health council. I understand the need for the commission; I'm not disputing that. It's the makeup of it. You're telling me that the Metro Toronto district health council said there should not be people from district health councils on this?

Mrs Johns: No, I didn't say that. I said it should be a separate body that implements the process.

Mr Cooke: It is a separate body.

Mr Phillips: That's not a problem. I thought you said I disagreed with the district health council, which said there should not be representation from district health councils on it. They never said that.

Mrs Johns: They didn't say who they thought should be on this new commission. That's correct.

Mr Cooke: So they didn't really say anything relevant to this debate at all.

Mr Phillips: I must say to the government, today we proposed a series of amendments to you that you should have embraced, some designed to show that you're implementing this thing; this one designed to help you through what's going to be a very difficult period.

Obviously, Jim Wilson has flipped through these things and said: "Tell them no. Tell them no. Tell them no. Tell them no. Tell them no." So the answer to all the NDP motions is no. Did he look through ours?

Mrs Johns: I didn't say we were saying no to all amendments. I said we had decided on the hospital restructuring amendments. There is a difference between what you're saying and what I said.

Mr Phillips: I'd like to see the Hansard on that tomorrow, because I thought you said --

Ms Lankin: To the commission.

Mrs Johns: To the commission.

Mr Phillips: Unfortunately, I guess you've given us your decision. You're making a big mistake, and the debate will continue.

Mrs Caplan: We have proposed several amendments after this one. Despite my reluctance to support a commission, I recognize that it is the government's intention to move ahead with a statutory commission, so we were attempting to be helpful and suggest ways we could support this commission: if it had process that involved the communities, if it had procedures, and also to ensure that it was accountable and carried no ministerial powers with it, that the minister was ultimately accountable.

I'm very upset to hear that the minister is not willing to consider any of those amendments to the restructuring commission that might make it possible for us to ultimately support a commission. My own view is that you could establish a commission without statutory authority in Bill 26 simply by using the Ministry of Health Act. I recognize that you may ultimately choose to have a commission, but it could be structured in such a way that it would be accountable and would have very specific duties as well as procedures that had to be followed. Without that, I think the commission is unsupportable.

It's unsupportable for one very good reason, that is, that the Ontario Hospital Association and almost every -- I use the word "almost" because I can only remember one presentation that supported a commission that had full powers as proposed in Bill 26. Of the many, many presentations that spoke to the restructuring commission, each one said they supported the Ontario Hospital Association or expressed their own concerns about a restructuring commission that had powers delegated to it by the minister. With the exception of only one, the Ottawa General, I can't think of any other presentation before this committee that said, "Delegate powers." Each and every one said, "Do not delegate the powers." Similarly, I remember the Hamilton district health council making the point which is completely contrary to what you've just said. They said, "If you want implementation to be successful, there must be a link with planning."

My last word on this amendment, before we start debating the other amendments -- and I think we should debate them, because I think it would be helpful to you if you consider supporting them. The proposal to have a third of your members, three out of 10, come from the district health council movement is a very reasonable one. It would give you that link between implementation and planning. You talk about the need to have experience. Certainly people from the district health councils around this province have experience in procedures. They have within their own communities been responsible for planning. I don't think anyone in the province has been involved with the implementation of a plan to close, because we haven't seen any, so you're not going to be able to find anybody in Ontario who has the experience of implementing a plan to close hospitals.

Therefore, I suggest very strongly that an amendment that suggests to you that you look at the hundreds of people who have participated on district health councils, who are active in the Association of District Health Councils, for just three out of your 10 or two out of your eight members -- call on their advice and expertise and I think you would have support out there in the communities and a link between planning and implementation.

The other problem I have is that you haven't told us until today what the commission is going to look like. You've made no commitment as to representation. You haven't told us what the duties and responsibilities are going to be, except that all powers will be delegated. You haven't told us the specific mandate for the commission; in fact, there is no mandate in the legislation as it now stands. The concern I have is that while you're saying you don't want to be straitjacketed and you want flexibility, you also don't want to tell us what it is you intend to do. What I've heard, and here's the question I have for you: Is it true that any one of the individuals who are members of this commission could act as a single commissioner to deal with any one of the 60 proposals you are going to have coming before you? Could any one of them act with all the powers of the commission in implementing any of those plans?

Mrs Johns: The potential could be that yes, one person could act, especially on a specific proposal that comes in from one of the 60 areas. We may allocate a specific person to one of the 60 plans that come through.

Mrs Caplan: That's exactly what I understood the intent was. That is a real concern I have, because if you have a commission that isn't balanced -- the district health councils today have one third provider, one third consumer, and one third representation from what would be considered the general public, someone with no experience in providing service. As I understand, that's the way the district health councils are established. Within that movement you have people who, at the time they arrived at the district health council, had no experience whatever in planning. It's really important that you consider an amendment, that you tap some of that energy, that expertise and that advice and do what the district health councils, all of which came before you being very positive, wanting to be helpful -- to slap them in the face and say, "There's no role formally for you. We will not be fettered or constrained in any way as to the membership," I think you're making a big mistake.

If none of the opposition amendments are acceptable to the minister, then frankly, as much as I would like to see some suggestion that you've listened, that you want good law or that you've heard from the presenters, I think the message to them will be that you haven't heard anything, because the only amendment to this section runs completely contrary to everything that we heard. The only amendment that is here is a government amendment that expands the ability to delegate powers when all the presenters said, "Don't delegate powers."

I could go on but I don't think there's any point, and I will ask the minister, through the parliamentary assistant, to reconsider this position, because it's tremendously frustrating for those of us who sat on the committee and heard the presenters come forward with good ideas and good suggestions to have them told, "We're not accepting any amendments."

1710

Mr Cooke: Just a couple of questions: I must say that when I just heard the answer to one of Ms Caplan's questions that could be looking at a one-person commission, then I think of this person as being basically a one-person community arbitrator.

Mrs Caplan: You've got it.

Mr Cooke: That gives me some reason for concern. I think if you could accept this type of an amendment, at least you begin to build into the process some diversity that gives people the security that this is going to be a fair process. But I don't see how anyone can believe it's going to be a fair process when everything's done by regulation and you won't accept any direction at all for the makeup of the commission. It's really quite scary.

When Mr Bradley and I met with the government House leader when we were dealing with how this bill was going to be dealt with, we were told for the first period of time that there would be no public hearings because the government had to have the legislation by Christmas because they were going to begin implementation on January 1, both municipal restructuring processes and hospital restructuring processes.

I'd like to now ask, can you outline for us some of the time lines we're looking at? January 29 is when the bill likely gets third reading, and I say "likely" because I just read things in the paper and I don't know what some members are going to do, but likely gets third reading. Then what happens? When does the commission get appointed? When do we start seeing hospitals closed? When do we start seeing savings? And then when do we start seeing reinvestment?

Mrs Caplan: Maybe the answer, Mr Chairman, to be helpful to the parliamentary assistant, if you said Mike Harris has no plan to close hospitals.

Mrs Johns: I would like to say that on January 29 the minister will be looking for people for the commission. He will be looking to appoint people to the commission.

Mr Cooke: So he's done no work on looking for members of the commission?

Mrs Johns: As you know, he's looking at people now, but he hasn't decided on people. We will be looking to try and approve the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council report or to make changes to it. We will be looking at the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council report. We will be setting up this commission as quickly as possible to be able to implement the approved plan from the minister as soon into the new year as we possibly can.

With the savings that are incurred, as we have said, as we find savings we will be looking at reallocation of dollars into health care in different areas. We're already doing some allocations into health care, as you know, such as dialysis.

Mr Cooke: I heard that. Maybe the ministry can be more precise because you really haven't been precise. You've said, yes, there's going to be a commission set up some time after January 29 and Toronto's going to be looked at and there'll be savings and we'll reinvest. Are there time lines that are attached to implementation?

Mr Peter Finkle: I'm Peter Finkle from the ministry. The time lines are not specified. There's a limitation plan associated with the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council restructuring report. We do have a fiscal imperative starting April 1. We do have 5% less dollars in the system so it's important, and I think you heard that from all the hospitals that presented, to move on with restructuring to make sure dollars are directed to patient care wherever possible and not redundant administration and excess cost in the system.

Mrs Caplan: Is that the $1.3 billion reduction?

Mr Finkle: But the establishment of the commission is awaiting the passage of the act. We have not --

Mr Cooke: I know the commission wouldn't be established. I know that. I'm assuming that since the Deputy Premier and the government House leader have indicated that things were originally going to get rolling January 1, the ministry has time lines that are attached. You can't be telling us less than a week before the bill is going to get third reading that you don't have an implementation plan and time lines attached to the establishment of the commission, when you're going to respond to Metropolitan Toronto's recommendations. We know how you work; you work very efficiently and very effectively. We used to see your reports. We're not privy to that now, but you're before the committee and you can share that information with us.

Mr Finkle: We're working on a number of things concurrently. Certainly in my responsibility we're dealing internally with the recommendations of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council whose report, as you know, was tabled I think September 29. There was an amount of public consultation that went on, deputations and representations made by hospitals affected by the recommendations of the report made to the council. The council then submitted its recommendations to the ministry and we're reviewing those recommendations right now.

We will be moving forward with our final consideration with how it fits with the implementation plan, because some of those changes the council made did affect the implementation schedule that was laid out in the original report.

Mr Cooke: Toronto's your number one priority. That gives me some comfort.

Mrs Caplan: Keep talking. It could get done in Windsor.

Mr Cooke: That's what I'm afraid of.

Mrs Caplan: Or they could have just one guy doing it in Windsor.

Mr Cooke: That's true. Do you have any time lines with respect to Metro?

Mr Finkle: No, we've not concluded our work yet.

Mr Cooke: I've always really thought that most of the public servants, in the way that they can answer questions before a committee, would do better than any cabinet minister in question period and you've proved me correct. I've got nothing out of you.

One final question to the parliamentary assistant. You won't accept this amendment that gives some guideline for the makeup of the commission. Is there anything in terms of regional representation?

Mrs Johns: There may be some people put on the commission from different geographic areas. We are looking at a number of people from different areas and with different expertise. So yes, there will be some geographic representation. I know you're probably going to ask me next how many, and we haven't ascertained that at this particular point.

Mr Cooke: I know that probably does Windsor-Essex out because there are no card-carrying Tories down in Windsor-Essex.

Mrs Johns: That's not necessarily true.

Ms Lankin: Actually, that gives me an idea. Maybe if I added to my amendment a requirement that a minimum of one half of the commission be card-carrying Tories, that would pass.

I want to ask a question of the ministry and ask Mr Finkle if he could tell me whether in his experience in seeing the work of district health councils around the province there are any district health councils who have had any experience in development of implementation strategies and reports or who have thought about the issues of implementing what it is they're planning, or do they just do planning in the abstract, totally separate from any thought of how it gets implemented?

Mr Finkle: In the main, as you know, the functions of district health councils are on the planning side. We do have a hybrid situation in Windsor-Essex that was set up to do a little bit of both, but it has limited responsibilities on the implementation side. Even in the way that restructuring be carried out, it's largely going to depend on the goodwill and participation of hospitals to voluntarily implement a lot of these changes. I've certainly witnessed that in the case of Metro where 18 months of planning -- we had nothing but goodwill during that planning process, and I expect it's going to carry on during the implementation process.

1720

Ms Lankin: Are you of the opinion that there aren't people on district health councils who have any experience with implementation of restructuring of any sort?

Mr Finkle: No, there's a great variety of people who have experience in other sectors and other jurisdictions and other types of industry with broad restructuring, and certainly it has been my experience that the district health councils have those sorts of people. They will in all likelihood form the basis of some part of the decision-making.

Ms Lankin: Just one other question, then I have a couple of quick ones for the parliamentary assistant. You did refer to some of the presentations from hospitals and others over the course of the hearings, and I know that you witnessed a number of the days of proceedings of hearings. Did you also hear presentations from any of the district health councils or the association of district health councils?

Mr Finkle: No, I did not.

Ms Lankin: Okay, then I will redirect that question to the parliamentary assistant, who I know did. Thank you very much.

I just want to try one more time to understand your reasons for refusing this, because I really think this is incredibly unreasonable. You've said you want to be free to pick whoever you want, you want to be free to have the best people. Let me tell you, I reject that you can't find three incredible, wonderful, dynamic, skilled people from among all of the district health councils in the province.

You said that everyone came forward and argued that it had to be a separate body. No one is saying anything about that. We're just saying that on that body there should be some representation of district health councils. You said that Metro argued that it should be a separate body, but I don't think Metro argued that there shouldn't be any representation from the district health council community on that restructuring commission.

You haven't given us any reasons other than that you don't want to be told that you have to have district health council representation on the commission, and I find that absolutely unreasonable, because again the one thing that you refuse to acknowledge when you keep pointing to, "We heard that we had to have a separate body. We heard this. We heard that," the association of district health councils and every district health council that came forward argued that there should be representation from district health councils on the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

Why are you refusing to respond to that request, made very directly from some people who are supporting the establishment of the commission? Why are you refusing to respond to what you heard in the hearings and why are you refusing a reasonable request that does not tie your hands in terms of the entire makeup of the commission or in terms of the individuals, but simply sets out in legislation the intent that you've articulated over and over again that you say your government's committed to, which is to build district health councils and build linkages between them and the work of the restructuring commission?

Mrs Johns: I do not believe that I am saying there will be no district health council representatives on the commission. What I am saying is that we're not prepared to set the structure today or in the legislation. We want the ability to go out and choose the people in case different circumstances arise along the line also. It's not a static process. We want to be able to choose the people who best can help us implement the hospital restructuring.

There may well be district health council people on the board. I'm not saying and I have never said that there won't be district health council people on the board. What I have suggested is that we do not want legislation that ties us to having a specific number of people from different groups on the commission.

Ms Lankin: My last comment is that you have in fact said that district health councils are planners not implementers, you have in fact said that the Metro DHC report called for a separate body and therefore shouldn't relate to district health councils. You've made comments which anyone listening to you today would have to believe suggest that you don't plan to include district health council representatives on this commission. You've dismissed them in so many ways in trying to defend your argument about not having a set number, and that gives me cause for concern.

Let me also say that the one recommendation that people have made about the membership of this commission to you is that there should be DHC representation on this. Sorry, there are two recommendations. The other was there should be someone who is sensitive to denominational institutions. Those are the only two recommendations that we've heard, but by and large the one we heard most often was that there should be DHC representation of some sort -- not a majority, not overwhelming, but they should be there -- and you're refusing to acknowledge the public input that you have received and you are refusing to accept that notion.

Quite frankly, it is wrong of government to simply say, "We will do what we will do when we want to do it in the way we want to do it and we don't have to be accountable to anyone in terms of the suggestions we hear or the commitments we make and nothing needs to be in legislation, except the power to put whoever we want on, and we'll go ahead and do it."

That is symptomatic of your bill. To listen to you sit here and say, "We want the ability to do whatever we want, to appoint whoever we want and we don't want any rules placed on us with respect to who those appointments could be," even very minimal rules that give you hundreds of people to choose from -- when we're suggesting that whatever size your commission is, just one third be representative of district health councils, and if it's three people out of 9 or 10, two of those should come from the provincial association because they have a provincial overview, that should be helpful.

In closing, let me say that I suspect we are going to see this attitude from you in every one of our amendments coming forward, where we try and give some definition, try and get from you some understanding of exactly how you're going to use these powers that you're giving to yourself. It is the fear that the public has expressed and it is the fear that we have expressed, that it is a blank cheque, that you're refusing to write the number in before you cash that cheque. This is not good governance, this is not good legislation, and unfortunately all of us are going to have to live with the results of it.

The Chair: That concludes the discussion on the amendment proposed by Ms Lankin to section 1, subsection 8(2) of schedule F.

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Cooke, Lankin, Phillips.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The second amendment we will consider is a government amendment.

Mrs Johns: I move that subsection 8(7) of the Ministry of Health Act, as set out in section 1 of schedule F of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Duties and powers

"(7) The commission shall perform any duties, and may exercise any powers, assigned to it by or under this or any other act."

There are a range of duties that we want to clarify. We want to clarify the commission's authority to exercise powers which may be assigned to it. We want to make sure that, in addition, they are able to perform different duties as we require them and as we need to have them come into play. We're trying to set out in this particular section the duties and the powers of the commission.

Mrs Caplan: Where in this legislation have you set out the duties and the powers? We'd like to know exactly what duties and powers you have in mind.

Mrs Johns: We're assigning powers under section 6 of the Public Hospitals Act.

Mrs Caplan: Where are they listed here, so we'll know exactly what duties and powers you intend to give to the commission?

Mrs Johns: Under section 6.

Mrs Caplan: Under this amendment. This amendment, as I read it, and I stand to be corrected, broadens the powers that the minister can delegate to the commission.

Mrs Johns: It sets out the duties and the powers that the commission will have; that's correct.

Mrs Caplan: No, it says, "The commission shall perform any duties, and may exercise any powers, assigned to it by or under this or any other act." The existing legislation says, and this is the one that you're amending, "The commission shall perform any duties assigned to it by or under this or any other act."

Why do you need this amendment? As I read the initial section in the act, and I had some concerns about that, "The commission shall perform any duties assigned to it," everyone who came before us had concerns about the ability to assign powers. Now this legislation says, "and may exercise any powers." You've made it worse.

1730

Mrs Johns: What we're saying is that the commission needs powers to be able to look at different items that may come out of restructuring, which may be long-term care or different areas. There might be powers and duties that were set up in the district health council that may be expanded, in the ability to have health care restructuring as opposed to hospital restructuring.

Mrs Caplan: Could I draw your attention to the "Summary of Recommendations, Bill 26," that's been put together very excellently by the research staff. On page 3, it begins, "S.1 revises section 8, the Health Services Restructuring Commission," and in here are all the recommendations of all the presentations to the committee. Could you point out to me which one of these recommended an amendment that would enhance the ability to give powers to the commission? Who came before you, who did you listen to that said to give yourself the ability to give this commission more powers?

As I read this, every one of these suggests limiting the ability to delegate powers and authorities to the commission. Could you just point out to me where you heard that you had a problem over the course of these hearings and why you brought forward this amendment which will delegate and give any powers to this commission?

Mrs Johns: Jacques Labelle, for example, says, for one thing --

Mrs Caplan: The one. It's Ottawa General. I referred to the one presentation out of --

The Chair: Mrs Caplan, let Mrs Johns answer.

Mrs Johns: "We understand that the ministry will be given extraordinary powers, but we're saying for the next four years, we're willing to live with this. At the end of four years, based on the achievements, we should consider whether these should be abolished. But we think we have to go through extremely difficult, perilous years, and what above all is needed is decisiveness and the ability to get changes to occur rapidly.

"Closing hospitals, transferring whole programs, transferring patients, transferring medical staff are extremely complex. If we don't put any urgency on that, I can see ourselves 10 years from now still looking at it and trying to find ways for it to occur. This has to be a number one priority for the next four years, not only to plan it but to get it done, and I'm willing to pay whatever price is necessary to see it achieved."

Mrs Caplan: I acknowledge that those were the comments of Jacques Labelle, the president of the Ottawa General Hospital. In my earlier comments, I did mention that there was one presentation that recommended that. As I look through this, I can't find a second one.

We heard several dozen that came forward, including the Ontario Hospital Association, that said do not delegate powers. Can you find one other reference that said you should delegate these powers and bring in an amendment to strengthen your ability to delegate powers?

You've read the one that I acknowledged was there. But it's amazing that in three weeks of hearings that was the one. I would suggest to you that while there may be a need for Jacques in Ottawa, if he sees that problem, I can tell you the other Ottawa hospitals do not agree with him; neither does the Ontario Hospital Association, the Norfolk Hospital -- I don't want to go down the list of each and every one of the presentations. But I specifically asked you that question to see if that was what you were going to read into the record, and it's amazing that you listened selectively to one out of several dozen. Were there any others?

Mrs Johns: I was going to say that the OHA acknowledges that the commission has to have flexibility to be able to implement the plan also, and a number of people suggested that, a number of different hospitals suggested that there had to flexibility so the plan could be implemented. People daily said, from our hospital sector, that there is a crisis in hospitals and there had to be some ability to get the restructuring done. Admittedly, a number of them said, "Not our hospital, but somebody else's hospital will need this."

Mrs Caplan: That's not what they said. That's misrepresentation. What they said was that your decision to cut $1.3 billion out of hospitals has created a crisis. They acknowledged that. But the Ontario Hospital Association and the other hospitals did not come forward and say, "Not my hospital." What they said was: "If you're going to establish a commission, make sure it is the minister who is accountable for the decisions. Do not allow the minister to delegate his responsibility. The commission should implement. Be clear about their duties and responsibilities, but do not give them the powers to act without accountability." We heard that time and again, yet selectively, you've listened to the one hospital administrator in the province.

What this tells me is that you really were not listening at all. You only listened to those who came in and told you what you wanted to hear. To the dozens of others who came forward with legitimate concerns, you've dismissed them, and I think it's disgraceful.

Ms Lankin: Mrs Johns, you looked like you were going to just respond to that point. No?

I think Mrs Caplan is absolutely right in terms of her assessment of what we heard. I would fire the political staff -- I'm sure it wasn't Brad, but whoever it was -- who decided to pull out that one Hansard of Mr Labelle and give it to you to try and justify this when you know that every other presentation on this issue gave the exact opposite advice. You might remember that Mr Labelle is also the person who said, "We don't want to have DHCs having input into this because we don't like what's happened in Ottawa and we don't want the minister listening to DHCs."

When I asked the question very directly to Mr Labelle, "If there isn't a consensus here in Ottawa," and I think the words I used were, "If you're saying Ottawa can't get its act together, who is it that the minister should listen to?" he said "Us." That's the one hospital that thinks it has all the answers and that the minister should listen to it -- that's what he was suggesting in that presentation -- and all the others came forward and said they supported the commission and that the commission had to be able, on the direction of the minister, to do the implementation, but that the accountability had to rest with the minister.

Given that that's what we heard from everybody who commented on this section except Mr Labelle, why did you not listen to all those other people and why did you only listen to Mr Labelle?

Mrs Johns: I believe I listened to all the people, but I believe we have to give the commission the power to act. We heard all the time that there were bottlenecks, that we could not get the process completed and we had to be able to act. This is what we are doing: giving the commission the power to act.

Ms Lankin: That's the same answer you give when we talk about the powers in section 6 that the minister takes on to himself, "Because the minister has to be able to act," but in subsection 8(7), you are saying the minister's going to give those powers to the commission. Why is it the commission that has to be able to exercise those powers and not the minister? That's the point people made, that if the minister is taking these powers on to himself under sections 6 and 8, he should be accountable and responsible and not delegate them out to a body for which there is no accountability back to the Legislature or by any other means.

Mrs Johns: First of all, we believe there is accountability because the minister will be accountable for what the commission does. You have said that previously. We believe there is accountability.

Ms Lankin: Maybe this is at the heart of it. Would you explain to me what that accountability is? You did say earlier that the commission was arm's length, so I'm confused in terms of what your expectation is.

Mrs Johns: The minister has the ability, under one of the sections of the act, to go in and look at a commission at any time and see what it's doing and see what it's enacting, so there is some accountability with the minister from that level.

Mr Silipo: We have a commission to oversee the commission.

Ms Lankin: Exactly. The way the act is set up and in the amendments you're bringing forward, there's going --

Mrs Johns: Also, we have accountability through appointments.

Ms Lankin: -- a commission to look into the commission that's going to look into the planning commissions at the local level.

Mrs Johns: We have accountability --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mrs Johns, Ms Lankin has the floor.

1740

Ms Lankin: And this is the government that doesn't like bureaucracy? Oh, please. There is not a lot of rational thought given to how this has been structured, and I think there are significant problems.

But you said earlier that this section sets out the powers and the duties of the commission. It doesn't. We don't know what powers you're going to be giving to the commission. When you started to talk about it, you said these words: "powers that may be set up in the DHC that may be expanded." I don't know what that means. Could you tell me?

Mrs Johns: I'm sorry, can you say that again?

Ms Lankin: You referred to the powers this commission was going to have. I wrote your words down as you were saying them, that they could be "powers that may be set up in the DHC that may be expanded."

Mrs Johns: For example, in some of the district health councils they've been looking only at hospital restructuring. We may want the ability to look at health care restructuring within a community. We heard a number of times, for example, through the --

Ms Lankin: I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. That's powers I'm asking you about.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, why don't you let Ms Johns finish answering the questions.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, Ms Johns does have a habit of going off on a totally different tangent from the question I ask. If you would like us to move expeditiously, I will try and be polite and not interrupt, but I would like her to address the point I'm raising, which is powers, not what reports DHCs are looking at. DHCs don't have powers under this legislation other than to advise.

The Chair: Moving expeditiously is not one of my objectives. Did you want to finish answering the question, Ms Johns?

Mrs Johns: I was going to say something different than maybe she wants me to, so I'm kind of lost now on what I should say. I was going to say that in the Ontario Nurses' Association proposal, for example, the ONA suggested that we had a narrow scope in some our hospital restructuring and we needed to expand that in some cases to be able to provide a better continuum of care within the community. That's one of the things I was talking about when I was talking about powers and duties.

Ms Lankin: Before you go on to something else, let me ask you about that. I think most people who know anything about health care restructuring would agree that it's health systems restructuring that you need to be looking at and not hospitals. But what has that got to do with powers? That's what you ask the DHC to look at on a local basis. It's got nothing to do with powers. What powers?

Mrs Johns: Those were the powers with the district health council that I was talking about previously.

Ms Lankin: What powers? The district health council is an advisory body to the minister, set out in the legislation. They have no specific powers. The minister asks them to do a report. If they agree to do the report, they do a report. What powers are you giving this health care restructuring commission?

Mrs Johns: Powers under the Public Hospitals Act, in section 6.

Ms Lankin: You said that before, the last time Ms Czukar wrote that down for you and underscored it. Would you tell me what you mean by "under section 6," which powers you are going to give them? By the way, you do add in here "and any other act." What powers under other acts are you going to give them?

Mrs Caplan: The right answer is, "Anything we want them to do under any piece of legislation."

The Chair: Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: I'm just trying to be helpful.

The Chair: Ms Lankin would like Ms Johns to answer.

Mrs Johns: "6(1) The minister may direct the board of a hospital to cease operating as a public hospital on or before the date set out in the directions where the minister considers it in the public interest to so.

"(2) The minister may direct the board of a hospital to do any of the following on or before the date set out in the direction where the minister considers it in the public interest to do so" --

Ms Lankin: Without reading all of section 6, what you are referring to are the powers of the minister to close or merge hospitals, or to direct the ceasing of providing of services, essentially that section, right?

Both times you've been asked very specifically what powers, and we pinned you down on it, the only answer you've given, both times, are the powers under section 6 of the Public Hospitals Act. Now answer me, why won't you amend this section to say -- I would still disagree with it, I'll tell you that up front -- that the powers you're going to give to the health care restructuring commission are the powers under section 6 of the Public Hospitals Act?

Mrs Caplan: If that's what you meant, to be that specific. You just don't want be tied down and straitjacketed.

Mrs Johns: Well, we need flexibility to consider changes that happen within hospital restructuring.

Ms Lankin: "Give me the blank cheque. Don't tell me what the number is. I'll cash it when I want. I'll write the number in. I don't want to be straitjacketed. I want flexibility. I want to be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want to do it." I'm sorry, but I'm going to continue to make this point: You don't know. You don't know what powers you're going to give them. You don't know what acts you're going to refer to. You have a responsibility to know that answer if you're asking us to write you the blank cheque to say you can give any powers you want from the minister down to this particular restructuring commission, under any act in the province of Ontario. You have a responsibility to know what you're going to do with it and what powers you're going to give.

Mrs Johns: The Ministry of Health at this particular point has not gone through the restructuring so they don't know what's going to happen. You're right. They don't know what's going to happen. They need the flexibility to adapt to different situations that are going to happen in different communities. That's correct.

Mr Cooke: You would never have supported this if it came from anybody else.

Ms Lankin: I wish I had the Hansards in front of me, the Jim Wilson quote about hanging from the ceiling by the fingernails if you tried to take these kinds of powers into the government and into ministers' offices. This is incredible.

Ms Johns, do you understand the complete effrontery to the legislative process, to the drafting of laws of the land, to the balance of interest between public accountability and democracy and government powers and abuse of government powers? Do you understand what it is you're bringing forward in this legislation when you ask us to give you such carte blanche and you can't even answer what powers under what acts it is? You don't know, you haven't figured it out, but you want us to just say okay and give it to you, because at some time you'll figure out what it is you want to use under this section?

Mrs Johns: What I understand, Mrs Lankin, is that this is a changing environment, that we need to restructure hospitals. No, there is no set way that we're going to do that because every community is different, every community is being drawn by their own planning process, every community has different needs that they have to meet, and we're going to have to be adaptable as legislators to be able to handle that and move this process forward. That's what I understand.

Ms Lankin: I've asked you a couple of times to give me examples of the powers and the only example you give is section 6 under the Public Hospitals Act, which is the power to merge or close hospitals or direct a ceasing of the provision of services.

Please give me examples of the other kinds of powers you think you're going to need to deal with things that are so unforeseen in health care restructuring that we don't know what sorts of things we would possibly have to do to be able to merge services, rationalize services, reorient where services are delivered, whether it's from the hospital institution or from the community. What is it that's so unforeseen out there that you're going to need different powers for? What are the circumstances that vary so much from community to community?

Mrs Johns: For example, my community in rural Ontario is very different from yours, Mrs Lankin. We have different needs, we have different demands on the health care system. There are going to be different needs in all areas. We haven't even started the process in Huron county at this point. We may merge services as opposed to amalgamations as opposed to closing hospitals. As we've seen in northern Ontario, we may put a continuum of service right in a hospital from chronic care to acute, as they have in specific areas. A number of different things are solutions that aren't the solutions for Toronto, and the Toronto solutions are not the same as they will be for rural and northern Ontario. All those different things are flexible. We have to be flexible to allow the system to --

Ms Lankin: Ms Johns, can you answer the question of what powers you need to be able to do all those different things in the different regions? That's what I'm trying to get at. Please don't lecture me about regional variations. I know that as well as you do. I don't need to hear that from you.

I want an answer to the question of what the kinds of powers are that you're going to delegate to this commission under what pieces of legislation. If you don't know the answer to that, just tell us you don't know the answer and admit that this process is a bad process because you're asking for a blank cheque and you don't know what powers you're going to delegate to this commission.

Mrs Johns: I am not admitting this is a bad process. I'm admitting that this is a flexible process that we need to be able to restructure in Ontario. It's not a bad process. We need the flexibility to be able to move the system forward as we come against roadblocks of hospitals and health systems that we need to restructure in Ontario.

Ms Lankin: Quite amazing. You cannot answer the question of what powers.

Interjection.

Ms Lankin: Yeah? Really? That's too bad, and I'm sorry you don't like it, but let me tell you that a lot of us don't like the abuse of your government continuing to write legislation that simply gives you all the powers to do anything you want whenever you want to do it, and to refuse to have the minister here and to have a parliamentary assistant who cannot answer the question of what powers she envisions giving to this commission. You are moving an amendment because you are saying it's not enough to say "any duties as assigned to this commission under this act or any other act." You're now saying that you want to be able to assign powers under this act or any other act, and the only example she can give us every time she's pushed is section 6 of the Public Hospitals Act. So I say write it in. If that's what you need, write it in. But tell us what powers you are going to use.

1750

This is absolutely wrong in terms of a process of drafting laws of the land, not to tell the people what the laws are that apply, not to say what powers, which are ministerial powers, that you're going to delegate to a commission, to leave that wide open. I don't know how you can defend it, and I don't know how you can defend it back in your communities when you ran on a platform of accountability of government. This runs absolutely contrary to everything you have indicated you stand for as a political party and it runs contrary to the tradition of drafting laws in the land of Ontario.

Mr Phillips: To follow up a little on Ms Lankin's question, I would appreciate some examples of the other laws. For example, I think you talked about long-term care. Could that be considered by the restructuring group?

Mrs Johns: Yes.

Mr Phillips: You implied nursing homes. Could nursing homes be covered?

Mrs Johns: As part of long-term care, yes.

Mr Phillips: Could home care be considered here?

Mrs Johns: Yes.

Mr Phillips: Could community health centres be considered here?

Mrs Johns: Yes.

Mr Phillips: Could ambulance service be considered here?

Mrs Johns: Yes. The continuum of health care in Ontario could be considered.

Mr Phillips: I'm not knowledgeable in the area. Can you just give us a list of things that could be considered here?

Mrs Johns: Peter, do you want to give a full list so I don't leave anything out?

Mrs Caplan: Let me ask a generic question that might be helpful. Is there any piece of health legislation that would not be?

The Chair: Mrs Caplan, Mr Phillips had the floor.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just kidding, Elinor.

Mr Finkle: Normally, in the more comprehensive hospital restructuring plans we've seen, they call for reinvestment in a great variety of services that will be enhanced through changes in the hospital system. The most prominent of those are institutional long-term-care services, nursing homes, homes for the aged and home care. The Metro report, for instance, calls for a reinvestment plan of some $75 million to those two sectors, so they are affected by restructuring.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that. The reason I raise this is because I appreciate that the government says it's dealing with a crisis and all that, but every government deals with crises. They're just different crises. There's never been a government elected that hasn't had crises on its hands. But the danger in all of this is that, to solve your "crisis," you override a more important principle.

If I can summarize what I think this commission now can do, it essentially, in a community, can dictate the entire service for that community: home care, nursing homes, the ambulance service, the long-term care, the independent health facilities. It's not just "may perform any duties," it's now "and may exercise any powers." For the public out there listening to this, what you're asking us to do is to essentially truly turn over the entire health care system in a community to the commission -- and the commission can be one person -- and the commission's report is final. I'm not exaggerating this, because this is exactly what you're telling us you want the power to do. That is unacceptable to the public.

The Canadian Bar Association said, from a civil libertarian perspective, the centralization of power is virtually untrampled. I can't imagine us ever approving this. I can't imagine the government members ever agreeing to essentially turn over to the commission the power to completely reconfigure health care.

It's not just the hospitals. I suspect that the people who came and presented to the committee thought they were dealing with hospital restructuring. I'm not sure my nursing homes knew that this commission could completely restructure them. Had they known that, I think they'd have been there. I'm not sure that all the home care organizations in Ontario knew the commission could completely restructure them; they'd have been there.

You have the nerve to want us to approve this: "The commission shall perform any duties" and may exercise any powers "assigned to it under this or any other act." Here we are, at three minutes to 6 on a Tuesday afternoon, truly turning over to a commission --

Mrs Caplan: Or an individual.

Mr Phillips: In the end, it could be an individual -- the absolute power to completely restructure fundamental systems in our community. Surely you don't want that. Surely that's not what you would ever ask the Legislature to give you.

I was not on the health section of this committee. For anybody watching this, we split into two; there was a health section and a non-health section. But I am absolutely astonished at the power of this. I'm absolutely astonished that you want to add powers to this commission. I now, more than ever, wish the Minister of Health, sitting over there in his office, would get himself off his chair and get on over here and explain why in the world we should ever give these powers to him.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Phillips. It being 6 o'clock, we are adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

The committee adjourned at 1757.