Journal des débats 1986-janv-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Minister of Health has had on his desk since December 2 the case histories of at least six people, specifically named, who suffered very serious side-effects as a direct result of taking a generic drug called metoprolol in place of the brand-name drug Lopresor. One doctor -- I want to give the Premier his name: Dr. Robert Sager of Meaford, Ontario -- has even sent the minister a report that this drug may have precipitated a heart attack in one of his patients, a 78-year-old man.

Can the Premier please give this House an explanation of why the government has not moved on this matter since it was raised with the minister, with case histories, some six weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea. I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) would not ask the Minister of Health. He is not here today; he is in Montreal on government business. However, these are questions that would properly be addressed to him.

Mr. Grossman: When we learned this morning that the Minister of Health would not be here after what was, in fairness, a quite unusual response without specifics yesterday to this very serious matter, we thought about holding the question until Monday. However, the burden would then have fallen upon the opposition party, which learned of this information overnight, and we did not want to be in the position of hiding from the public concerns that have been raised specifically by an esteemed medical practitioner in this province, thus allowing the ministry to let perhaps thousands of drugs to be taken over the weekend without any action having been taken.

Will the Premier undertake to have the ministry review today, not Monday, the concerns that have been raised by Dr. Sager and report before four o'clock by way of a press release to the public that Dr. Sager's concerns are well founded and that the drug should not be substituted or, in the alternative, that the government thinks the drugs are perfectly safe?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot guarantee we can give a response by four o'clock. It would not be credible of me to stand here and say that. I will get in touch with the ministry after question period and see whether it has any reflections on this issue.

The Leader of the Opposition has made a number of allegations that a lot of people dismissed as being incorrect. Whether he has some allegations here today that are correct I have no idea. Any time the Leader of the Opposition makes a charge, I am prepared to investigate it, but, very frankly, he has made so many charges lately that have been wrong and stated so many facts in this House that are incorrect, that we do not take some of his charges as seriously as perhaps we would like.

Mr. Grossman: We have the response given yesterday by the Minister of Health. When he finishes alleging that any person who raises concerns about the safety of drugs being taken by seniors must be working for the Ontario Medical Association or the pharmaceutical companies, he does not respond in any way with a clear, categorical statement that the drugs are safe and that the concerns and charges are unfounded.

Given the fact that he has not done that, may I say to the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: By way of a question, please.

Mr. Grossman: May I ask the Premier whether he will reconsider his answer, given the fact that the ministry, by the minister's own statement, has a committee set up to review these things? Thousands of these drugs are being taken every day; tens of thousands will be taken over the weekend. Surely it is not asking a lot, after questions have been raised, to have the government say by four o'clock today that the drugs it has been allowing seniors to take for many weeks are safe. Surely the Premier should be prepared to say by four o'clock today that the drugs they have been taking continue to be safe.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said in response to the last question, the honourable member has made an allegation. I will take it seriously. I will discuss it with the ministry. I am not sure I can produce an answer by four o'clock. If we can, we will. That is all I can say. I have no idea whether the member is right or wrong in his allegations or charges, but we will look at them.

Mr. Grossman: I want to remind the Premier in this matter that these are not allegations thought up by the Leader of the Opposition or the Progressive Conservative opposition. We are conveying to the Premier allegations and concerns that were conveyed to him by medical practitioners, and in some cases the Ontario Medical Association, some weeks ago. Our questions relate to his inaction since that information was brought to his attention and the concerns were raised by practitioners.

I have a question for the Premier on the same issue. The minister's defence continues to be a referral to the work done by the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee of the ministry. Can the Premier explain, perhaps with notes sent to him, why that committee has always had an OMA representative on it, why that representative resigned in July and why the minister has not appointed a replacement on that very important committee since July?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The note I am looking at, for the member's reference, is a press release he has sent out with some of these suggestions; so it is not any help in answering his question. I do not know the answer to that question, frankly. I will find out.

Mr. Grossman: When the Premier is finding out, can he also see whether he can get an explanation of why the committee the minister relies upon to ensure the safety of these drugs to the public has not met for many months, since July? In fact, our information is that it met in July, then on December 3 and not at all in that interval. Can he get an explanation of why this committee the minister relies on has not met?

10:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting they should meet more. I will be interested in having his suggestion as to how often he thinks they should meet; then I will carry his suggestion back.

Mr. Grossman: My suggestion to the Premier is that they meet as often as they met under the previous administration, which was monthly.

Given the concerns that have been raised, will the Premier give a simple undertaking to this House that the DQTC, the committee that is there to protect the public, will meet to review these circumstances earlier than the February date the minister has said the committee will next meet?

Will the Premier give an undertaking that the Ontario Medical Association's position on that committee will be filled immediately with the doctor whose name has been nominated and forwarded to the government by the OMA for several months and that he will personally intervene to cause that committee to meet next week, and not some time in February?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not going to give that assurance now. I will look into the situation, and if it is something that needs my attention, believe me, it will have my attention.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning the question of soaring insurance rates, which we have been debating in this House for a long time.

Can the minister explain why his Liberal colleagues in Ottawa, when they filed their letter charging there was evidence of a conspiracy with respect to the insurance industry, did not mention the four causes the minister set out in the House in his statement -- excessive price competition, low interest rates, higher court settlements and overly specialized underwriting? Can the minister explain why his colleagues in Ottawa disagree so fundamentally with him as to the cause of the problem?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not answer for my colleagues in Ottawa any more than the leader of the third party answers for his colleagues in Ottawa. They have taken a stand and I am watching it with interest.

Mr. Rae: I'll bet he is.

Can the minister tell us whether he agrees that there is evidence of a conspiracy under the Combines Investigations Act? Does he agree that there is a serious lack of competition? Does he agree that what has happened in Ontario has a great deal to do with monopoly and oligopoly price-fixing practices in the insurance industry?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The area the honourable member refers to is not in my jurisdiction. We have a task force that is looking at various problems. When it reports back to us, I will be able to respond to him.

Mr. Runciman: It is interesting to hear the leader of the third party talking about the minister's views and the views of the minister's federal colleagues. I just hark back to the leader's position with respect to de Havilland.

Mr. Speaker: I am interested in your supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: My supplementary question deals with the concerns of some life insurance agents in this whole problem. They have been required by the superintendent of insurance to have written permission from their sponsoring company each and every time they place business with another insurer. Many of these insurers are saying this is not conducive to getting the best possible price for consumers. Has the minister spoken to the superintendent, and is he considering making a change?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is hardly a supplementary question. It is on a totally different subject that we were not discussing, but I will be happy to answer the honourable member anyway.

Mr. Runciman: We were talking about insurance companies.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I know, but there is no crisis in the life part of the insurance business. To address that particular problem, I met this morning with the Canadian life underwriters. We have come to an understanding, and I expect to bring forward amendments to the regulations to deal with that problem.

Mr. Rae: The fact remains that there is a daily crisis in insurance in this province. It is affecting school boards, the St. John Ambulance society and groups right across the system.

His colleagues in Ottawa charge there is a conspiracy under the Combines Investigations Act, and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations stands here and says he is watching all these things with interest. Instead of watching them with interest, why is he not doing something to fight for the consumers of this province, to make sure there is an end to the insurance ripoff that is affecting so many hundreds of groups across the province?

When he meets with the Honourable Barbara McDougall today, is it the minister's intention to raise with her the question of the Combines Investigation Act? Does he agree with his colleagues in Ottawa that there is a problem with respect to combines investigation and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: When I meet with the Honourable Barbara McDougall this afternoon, I am going to be raising all the questions concerning insurance in Ontario. I am going to lay some of the responsibility on the federal government. It has said publicly it has no interest in this situation. I feel it has a very great interest.

Mr. Rae: All right. Let us find out what the minister's interest is in this instance. If the minister has an interest in this instance, as he says, why has he failed to move in every instance where he has had an opportunity to provide lower rates for people? For example, why has he failed to move in Ontario, as they have moved in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, to provide lower rates for people who drive cars? When the evidence is so overwhelming that there is a better deal when one has a public insurance plan, why has he failed to move?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not convinced the evidence is so overwhelming. That is why we have set up a task force to make recommendations to us.

Mr. Rae: The minister stated to reporters at some time in the past few days that one of the things he is concerned about is that the delivery costs and what he calls the cost of administration might be higher in the public sector than in the private sector. All the studies done by Woods Gordon and all the other people for the select committee give the lie to that when they say it is bunk. They say one gets a better, more efficient plan under the public sector than under the private sector.

Is the minister aware that when one compares the experience in the past five years -- between 1980 and 1984, the latest years for which we have figures -- less than 81 cents of the Ontario premium dollar is paid out in claims and claims processing costs, whereas in the public plans the range of these returns is anywhere from 88 cents to almost $1.05?

Is he aware of these facts? Why is the minister not moving to protect consumers in Ontario when it comes to car insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am aware of the facts. We are waiting for the report of the task force, and we will act on their recommendations if we feel they are reasonable.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware of these facts? Why has he taken every opportunity, both in the press and in this House, to denigrate the ability of the public sector, public sector plans and public sector insurance to do a job where a job needs to be done?

Why has he not recognized that there is better service, better value per dollar, better value for the consumer and better protection for car drivers in those provinces that have public insurance plans than there is in Ontario? Why does he not have the courage to stand up to the insurance companies in this province and say to the people of this province, "You are being ripped off"?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Are they subsidized?

Mr. Rae: No, they are not, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am sorry I asked.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister glad he asked?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We were getting along very well here for a time.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In all our discussions about automobile insurance, I have always said Ontario is a special case in that we have special problems here. If the member took a look at the paper today, he would notice the various provinces in Canada are saying Ontario is the problem. They say if they did not have Ontario and our special problems to contend with, their insurance rates would be great. The member cannot have it both ways. We are looking at the situation. When we get our report, we will act.

EXPO 86 PAVILION

Mr. Rowe: My question is for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. With Expo 86 scheduled to open in approximately 100 days, can the minister tell us what steps she has taken to deal with the delays in construction and the millions of dollars in cost overruns related to the Ontario pavilion, which is to be our showcase for the world?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I wish to inform the member that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is the lead ministry hosting the pavilion. Expo's theme is transportation. We recently had a report to Management Board and I am not aware of any undue delays in the construction of this project.

Mr. Rowe: In spite of what the minister has said, it is our understanding that the project is over budget and behind schedule. Can the minister explain why the deputy commissioner of Ontario's pavilion -- a man with nearly a quarter of a century of experience in building an operation and project such as Ontario Place, the Ontario pavilion at Expo `67 and the Ontario pavilion at the Osaka world fair -- was let go?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Let me get this straight. The member's question refers, first, to cost overruns and delays. As I said, I have not had any information that the pavilion will not open on time. Second, it refers to a personnel matter, on which I could perhaps get information for him. I am not at all sure the two are related.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, again on the subject of insurance. For months the minister has stonewalled on any request for justification by the insurance companies for the horrendous increase in rates or for refusing to provide insurance. All sectors of the public have been hurt badly, as the minister knows.

According to the press, we now have 14,000 St. John Ambulance volunteer first-aid workers without insurance. How can the minister condone a situation where those individuals can be responsible for and can eventually be saddled with perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs?

Would the minister not agree --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought the question had already been asked.

Mr. Swart: I have a second part to it.

Mr. Speaker: That may make a good supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On a daily basis we are apprised of various insurance problems confronting the citizens of Ontario. We have set up our information lines and we have also set up our market assist program every time these needs are identified. We have been in touch with St. John Ambulance; we are calling the people, counselling them and helping them with their problems.

Mr. Swart: The minister has not done a single useful thing. I asked him to put a freeze on during the next three months and I asked him to call in the insurance companies. The minister is an apologist for the insurance companies; a gutless wonder. If he is not willing to do something, he ought to resign and let in someone else who would take action.

Will the minister now take some real action to protect the people of this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Could the minister hear the question?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would have heard the question if I had still been at home. When the member raises one of these problems and starts to harangue me, that is not going to solve the problem. We are looking at the overall problems facing this industry and we are dealing with them. The member's comments are not helping the situation at all. We are dealing with the problems responsibly.

Mr. Gillies: Is the minister telling the House he is unaware that thousands of St. John Ambulance volunteers are not covered and he is not prepared to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member was not listening. I said I am totally aware of it, our people have been in touch with them and we are trying to resolve their problem.

ENTRY FEE TO U.S.

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier with respect to a bill which is currently before the United States Congress. It would require all Canadians and all companies in Canada to pay a user fee at ports of entry into the US.

Is he aware of the bill, and has his government taken any steps to protect Canadians and Canadian industries against this heavy charge that would be assessed by the US government if such a bill were to pass?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes, I am aware of that and I was discussing it with some senators in the US, particularly Senator Moynihan. If the honourable member will check the Congressional Record, he would be aware that he has taken a very strong stand that this would not be in the interests of good Canada-US relations, particularly in communities such as the member's, Windsor and others -- the border communities, where so many people cross the border daily for work.

The answer to the member's question is yes, we are aware of it; yes, we are putting our point to the US legislators, and if the member has any ideas on how we can make that message even stronger or suggestions on how we can assist, I would be delighted to hear from him, because I share his concerns.

Mr. Brandt: Since the Premier asked me for a suggestion, one would be to reopen the Philadelphia office.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Does the member have any good suggestions?

Mr. Brandt: I have not got to my question yet; I was really responding to the statement by the Premier.

Has the Premier made Ottawa aware of the concerns of Ontario, as Canada's most industrious province? In addition, has he made representations to Washington other than those to some of the senators he has talked to?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are the most industrious province in this country; I agree with the member.

I have not talked to the President of the United States, but if I have the opportunity, I will take that message to him. As the member knows, it is the Senate that has made some of these decisions. I have not talked specifically with Ottawa about this situation. I just assume they know, and I think that is a reasonable assumption. They are a sophisticated group, as the member knows, with wide networks.

We have put our case to these senators, which we think is the most effective place. However, as I said, if he has any good suggestions, I would be happy to follow them, but they have to be good.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Mackenzie: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations how he can justify the fact that my assistant, Lorraine Carroll, 26 years of age, who does a very limited amount of driving, for pleasure only, in a 1970 Pontiac Firebird and has no accident record, would receive an offer to renew from Constitution Insurance Co. of Canada on December 30 at a rate, for $1 million liability only, of $355 for six months, or $710 a year, as against the $187 she had been paying up until this notice?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot respond to or justify each individual case that is brought to my attention. The task force is going to look at all of those issues and it will respond to us.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister then tell me why, since Hamilton and Winnipeg are not dissimilar in size, when my assistant called the insurance office in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and laid out her case -- a 1970 Pontiac Firebird, pleasure only, 26 years of age, $1 million liability -- she was told she could have the car and herself insured for the $1 million liability plus $200 deductible for $145 a year, or 20.4 per cent of what it costs her here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Again I would state that if the honourable member's constituent were in Winnipeg and asked for that insurance, she probably would get the same rate. There is no use comparing apples and oranges. If one could get a rate comparing what the insurance is in Ontario, it would have some validity. There is not much sense in saying this is the rate in Manitoba or in any other province.

Mr. Runciman: All of us on this side of the House are getting a little tired of this constant repetition and stonewalling: "We are looking at it. We are looking at this problem in Moose Factory. We are looking at the problems of a variety of people in this province."

This government has been in office for almost seven months and we have seen no action. Will the minister admit that he and this government have fumbled the ball, and fumbled it badly, on this issue?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I assume that supplementary had to do with car insurance. The members on that side, who were the government for 42 years, never made a move to do anything about it. Now, suddenly, they have got religion and are saying, "Why is the government not doing something about it?"

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On December 4, he stated that 10,000 farmers could be helped by the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program. A more accurate figure would be 13,000.

One of his ministry officials stated applications were coming in at 800 a week and he further stated, "I am aware that far more than 3,000 applications are in." The other day, the minister stated the applications have been flooding in at 100 to 200 applications a day for the last several weeks. If one takes the figures of December 4 and last week, they simply do not add up.

How many applications does the minister really have? How many have been returned for further information? How many have been approved in the OFFIRR program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have been advised by my staff working with the OFFIRR program that the applications are literally flooding in. They had 500 applications the other day. They tell me they have their room full of applications, and they even asked if the members opposite would like to go over to help us process the applications, there are so many.

Rather than standing up in the House and being critical, maybe the opposition members could come over and help us process all these applications we have. I would venture to say we have between 7,000 and 8,000 now in our office. I would even venture to say we will reach the 10,000 target, if not more.

Mr. Stevenson: I hope the minister is giving us the right figures now. Our members have been using the OFFIRR program in our own newsletters to help the government sell the program, in case the minister is not aware of that. We might volunteer to come over to help process them. Some of our people are getting tired of waiting for their money.

Since the interest rates have gone up recently, and some would say they are likely to stay up, at least for a while, will the minister tell us how many millions of dollars he plans for the extension of OFFIRR or the sibling of OFFIRR in 1986?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We will address that when the time comes. We still think $50 million will be adequate for the OFFIRR program as it is at present, but if we find it will cost more than $50 million my cabinet colleagues will attest to the fact I have a very loud voice in cabinet. If it is a situation in which I have to go back to cabinet to get more money, I shall do so. We will honour the OFFIRR applications.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding Mr. Roy, a Shell service station owner who owns his own garage and sells propane and whose insurance last year was $1,249. He has the appropriate fencing. To my knowledge, there has never been a problem or an accident involving filling up cars with propane. His insurance has jumped to $3,500, a 300 per cent increase. Can the minister tell me how and where this man can obtain a decent rate so that he can have insurance coverage?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot assure the member this person can get what he considers a decent rate. Insurance is allotted on a class basis. It is not the one individual who has a propane tank who has a problem, it is all the people who have propane tanks. We had a major accident a couple of days ago where there was an explosion with propane tanks. As a result of that, there is a problem. If that person will contact my ministry, we will get our market assist program to take a look at it to see if there is a solution.

Mr. Martel: Since I assume the minister is going to look into this case, will he first find out if there has ever been an accident involving filling up vehicles at the pumps, and if there has not been can he then tell us why there would be a 300 per cent increase in a classification where there has apparently never been an accident? If these people go out of business along the highways of northern Ontario, who the hell is going to sell propane for the vehicles?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be happy to investigate that particular case. I am not familiar with every single classification of insurance and what the accident rate is, but we will look into that. That is one of the terms of reference of the task force.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: It is interesting to note the depth of feeling of the members of the third party. It would also be interesting to note how they feel about a no-confidence motion on this issue.

An hon. member: Let us not go that far. "We have principles but they do not run that deep."

Mr. Martel: Stick it in your ear. You guys did nothing for years.

Mr. Runciman: Earlier this morning, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) called for the minister's resignation. I want to indicate that our party supports that position. Will the minister submit to the wish of the majority of members of this assembly and submit his resignation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will not submit my resignation, but I would be delighted to put it as a vote of confidence.

Mr. Cousens: He has more faith in the NDP than we do. My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Did the member buy that tie on Sunday?

Mr. Cousens: No, and unlike the minister I will not be putting mine in the refrigerator.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cousens: This is to one of the warmest ministers here, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question or will I recognize someone else?

PARENT RELIEF PROGRAM

Mr. Cousens: With respect to the proposed divestment of Surrey Place Centre -- the minister has heard of it and knows about it -- and in particular the elimination of the parent relief unit, can the minister guarantee that services such as the parent relief unit will be assumed by other community facilities immediately upon divestment?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Not only will I give that guarantee to the member, but I have also already given it to the staff members of Surrey Place who are involved in that program and to the parents of the children who are using the program.

By the way, the decision has not yet been made but it will be made very soon. The point has been made very clear that the program itself is not being eliminated. It would simply be transferred to some other site or to several other sites.

Mr. Cousens: Can the minister assure this House that he will do everything possible to make sure there is no disruption in the lives of these young people and the people who are now served through the special services of places like Surrey Place, that they will be looked after carefully and well and they will be told where to obtain these services?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The parents have been advised that Surrey Place will continue to provide a service to them at least until June. Therefore, when a change is made, they will get approximately five months' lead-time notice.

10:40 a.m.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The minister will be aware that the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario has had its liability insurance raised 100 per cent for its 10,000 members for 1986 over 1985, and the members of the Ontario Nurses' Association, which has 40,000 members, have seen their insurance go up to $450,000 a year from $80,000. Does the minister agree that those are justifiable rates? If he does not agree they are justifiable rates, can he specifically say what he is going to do to stop this ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am very familiar with that particular incident; I had a visit from the president of the nurses' association. I am not happy with the rate and I sympathize with the problems these people have. Whether they are justifiable or not, I do not know. That is what our task force is looking into. It makes no difference whether we say they are high or low. If that is what it is, that is what it is.

If the member takes a look at what is going on, it is not peculiar to Ontario. It is happening right across North America. Every province has the same problem. We cannot just get up and say we are going to solve it. How are we going to solve it unless we come up with a concerted effort?

I am meeting with the Minister of State for Finance, Barbara McDougall, this afternoon to see if we can get some federal involvement. We are dealing with this in the most expeditious way we can and we are trying to come up with a resolution.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Is the minister aware that such nurses as the insurance companies consider high risks, such as industrial nurses and private practice nurses, cannot get insurance at all? If he is not willing to see that fair rates are brought in, what is he going to do to see that the patients of this province are protected?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The statement that they cannot get insurance at all is not true. They can get insurance, albeit at a rate they think is excessive. We are looking to see if those rates are justified.

Mr. Brandt: I am sure the minister is aware, after the number of questions that have been posed to him today, that he has a full-blown crisis on his hands with respect to the insurance industry.

I would like to bring to his attention and ask him if he has any answer whatever for a taxi fleet operator in my community whose insurance over the past four years has gone from $1,400 to $1,900 to $2,200 per vehicle and this year his liability --

An hon. member: We are talking about nurses, not taxis.

Mr. Brandt: It is a liability insurance question and it is related. The insurance for this year has tripled to between $5,000 and $6,000. By the time the minister's task force is through looking at this question this taxi fleet operator may well be out of business. What do I tell him?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member should tell him to call our information line and we will put him in touch with our market assist program. That market assist program is made up of actuaries and lawyers who specialize in insurance. It has one of the largest brokerage firms in the country on it, plus underwriters.

We are dealing with these problems. We are not solving all of the problems satisfactorily, but only in that sometimes the rates are still excessive; however we can get insurance for virtually everybody and that is something we are dealing with.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I wonder if he might share with us the details of any studies that his ministry is undertaking regarding the rather delicate subject of free trade.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: One of my ministry staff by the name of Bob Seguin is as knowledgeable about this whole matter of free trade as anyone in the province, or in the country for that matter, and he has certainly been following it up.

We had a study to see exactly what free trade would do on each sector of the agricultural industry in this province. I sincerely hope that the federal government is also conducting a study as to the impact that free trade would have on each sector of the agricultural industry in Canada before the Prime Minister ever sits around the table with the President of the United States to come to some kind of an agreement on free trade.

I would hope the provinces would be very much involved in any discussions after we have completed our study on free trade because we know that it would have a serious effect on the supply-managed commodities. We know that the fruit and vegetable industry would be very sensitive to free trade. We know that beef and pork have been trading back and forth without any tariffs, so it would probably have little effect on our beef and pork. It might have little effect on grains, although it would have an effect on the wheat we produce in this province.

We feel that the cost would exceed the benefits at this time and that our study will bear this out. That is why we feel it is very important that we have an opportunity to sit around the table with the Prime Minister of this country.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister has alluded to the rather mixed feelings in the agricultural community on the subject of free trade. It appears from his answer that he has already reached certain conclusions with respect to this subject. Would he table with us the details of the studies he is undertaking and share with us the concerns he apparently has?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Once the studies are completed, I can see no reason why we would not be prepared to share them. I think the members opposite should take the same interest in this that we do. The member for Lincoln, who is connected with the agricultural industry, knows what serious effects free trade would have, even on the wine industry, in which I know he has a real interest. I see no reason why we would not share it, so collectively we may be able to talk some sense into the Prime Minister of this country.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In his statement last week he stated four causes of the insurance problem. He said there was excessive price competition, and I think that has been thrown out the window. He said there had been low interest rates which have reduced insurance industry investment revenues, and that has proved to be completely untrue. We can document how untrue it is in terms of what real rates of return have been and how the revenues have increased.

He also discussed higher claims in court settlements. Is it the minister's intention, when he raises this question today with Barbara McDougall, to agree or disagree that court settlements in Ontario have been too high? Is he going to admit that is a problem or is he going to deny that is a problem? What position is he going to take with respect to the representations Mrs. McDougall is going to be making to the international insurance industry with respect to settlements in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The problem with the court settlements is the perception that they are high. I would like to use as an example --

Mr. Rae: Why did the minister not say that? That is not what he said here.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Just one second. In the famous Brampton case of a $6.3-million settlement, the total award for pain and suffering was $180,000, and that is the maximum that any award can be in Canada as a result of a Supreme Court decision. The rest of that sum is based strictly on what it costs to care for that young man for the rest of his life.

That is something that is a cost. I admit there can be some ways of taking a look at that cost and structuring it in such a way that we can reduce that element of it. That is something we are looking at and the courts are looking at. I am quite confident, from what I have heard, that it will be addressed under appeal. That is where that is. There is a perception out there that these large awards are affecting the insurance rates. They may be, but also it represents less than one per cent of the awards that are made.

Mr. Rae: Would the minister not agree that if there is that perception, it is because the insurance industry has started an international campaign against the courts which have been trying to compensate people for the real costs of the extent of their disabilities?

If the minister does agree with that, why in his statement did he give credibility and credence to the attack on fair compensation by the insurance companies? Why did he state that one of the causes of the higher costs was higher claims in court settlements? He has added to the credibility, he has added to the perception and he has bought the line of the insurance industry. That is why we are in the situation we are in with respect to that argument.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The higher court awards are not only on these unique, very high-cost settlements. There is no question that we have to look at the whole Family Law Reform Act to make sure that the smaller awards, which may be smaller but are still double what they were by the extension of the people who can claim liability -- they are the major problem because there are a lot more of them. That is something we are reviewing and something the task force is addressing.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Grossman: The leader of the third party was asking a question not with regard to the answer the minister just gave, but with regard to the perception that the minister says is an inadequate and unfair perception. Will the minister explain to the House why he and his officials, but he in particular, were not speaking to the reinsurance companies overseas and to the insurance companies here about the inaccuracy of their perception?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The reinsurance market is international. One of the things I am going to be addressing with the member's colleague from Ottawa this afternoon is that there is some federal responsibility in this problem. We feel the federal government has to take the lead in the reinsurance market. It is a problem that affects all of Canada and it is something we are pursuing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Hennessy: I direct my question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In the city of Thunder Bay, we have a waiting list of 464 for subsidized housing. There are 257 rental units under construction, but only about 90 of them are rent-geared-to-income. As he is minister for the north and made a big splash the other day when he was up there when he jumped into the pool, what has he been doing, along with his colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), to address this urgent issue facing the people of Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I want to remind the member that I was one of the first in northern Ontario to have a nonprofit corporation. I was the president. I know what he is talking about. I was active in politics. For 10 years, I tried to get some housing in the Hearst area and I got only 14. I was promised another 14 and they never came. I was involved in that in Hearst for the past 10 years.

I was the one who brought in the home ownership made easy plan in Hearst in 1973 after fighting for about three years to get some housing for the north. When we took over, there was a list of 500 senior citizens between Cochrane and Hearst. We had 32 approved that year. That was the minister of housing at that time. Now we have a program that is going to produce housing for the north. I will be part of it and the member will see the result next year.

Mr. Hennessy: The Ministry of Housing proposes 2,500 subsidized units a year for the entire province over a five-year period. That is like trying to make the 40 loaves last. How many of them is the minister fighting to have in northwestern Ontario to address the crisis in affordable housing in our area?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Through the offices of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, I asked last week or the week before to have a public forum to hear what kind of housing the people want. When I was president of the nonprofit corporation, I fought to raise the subsidies from 25 per cent to 50 per cent for people who are low-income. It took us 10 years to raise it to 35 per cent and now it is 40 per cent. We are going towards 50 per cent; that is my goal. We are going to produce some. From the reports today from the north, we know we need housing for seniors that they can afford. The problem for seniors now is that those without money cannot get any housing. That is who I am fighting for.

Mr. Pouliot: The point is well taken and it is refreshing to notice that at least the people in Hearst will at long last be given the opportunity to partake in nonprofit housing. If I may remind the minister, with all due respect, Hearst -- even if it is a coincidence that it is his home town -- is only part of the problem in northern Ontario. Since the minister has been in office as Minister of Northern Affairs and then Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the people of the north have benefited as never before from a litany of promises. What we need, and the minister has the power -- it is his mandate and his job with a firm commitment --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very good speech. Did you ask your question? I did not get it.

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Cela me fait très plaisir d'entendre les questions de mon ami le député de Lake Nipigon (M. Pouliot), mais je dois lui rappeler que pendant mes voyages dans le Nord, je n'ai fait aucune promesse, à l'exception de dire aux municipalités de s'organiser avec une corporation à but non lucratif. Je leur ai dit que je pourrais les aider à s'organiser.

I told all the municipalities in northern Ontario that were not organized with nonprofits that they had to start with nonprofits. One does not build anything in the north without nonprofits, including for senior citizens. I told them that I am ready to give them money to organize themselves. After that, we are going to produce, because we have a minister who has these things at heart.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Laughren: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, who will know that yesterday his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) launched the first of a series of open houses in northern Ontario designed to present to the people of the north the options in spraying a forest to control budworm infestations across the north.

Can the minister tell me whether he thinks the following quotes are an unbiased and rational presentation of the options designed to elicit a rational response from people in the north: "The alternative to not spraying would be the total destruction of millions of trees"; or "A yearly spraying program is essential to them and to us if we wish to keep our lovely land healthy and green"; or "Forestry Expert Urges Budworm Spraying in 1986"?

Does the minister think that kind of glossy presentation, incredibly biased towards spraying, is any alternative to put to the people of Ontario? Is it an alternative to a more rational environmental assessment of what goes on in our forests regarding spraying?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I suppose the Minister of Natural Resources is attempting to respond to many of the representations that have been made to his ministry by some people in northern Ontario and some people in eastern Ontario who have experienced difficult problems in terms of these pests that are causing considerable damage to the forests.

The member will be aware that these open houses are there to present what the Ministry of Natural Resources sees as viable options. The public is invited to comment on them. As Minister of the Environment, I invite the public to comment positively or negatively on the representations that are made and on the material that is provided. My ministry will have considerable input into the ultimate decision that will be made in this regard. All environmental considerations will be given to any final decision rendered by this government.

Mr. Laughren: I guess my primary objection is the insult to the intelligence of people in northern Ontario when the government presents a document such as this.

Does the minister really believe when he puts a return card on the back of the document designed to elicit a response from the public that the public can believe the minister is serious when the question is put like this: "Dear Mr. Kerrio: Having read this booklet, I support efforts to save our forests from this serious infestation"?

Does the minister not think that card is less than a serious attempt to get information from the public and resembles more a Russian ballot?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As a student of politics, the member will know that in many jurisdictions, including south of the border, there is an opportunity for those who wish to do so to write in a candidate's name from time to time. In this case, as Minister of the Environment, I invite those who have an opinion to express on this issue, to agree with the program the ministry has put forward, to write in their disapproval of that program, or to write further comments in the form of a letter, both to the Minister of Natural Resources and to me, so that all environmental concerns regarding this issue may be met, as I, as the Minister of the Environment, indicated they would be.

Mr. Pierce: Knowing the Minister of the Environment is working hand in hand with the Minister of Natural Resources on any spraying program that may take place in northern Ontario as well as in southeastern Ontario, is the minister prepared to provide us with a guarantee that the Ministry of Natural Resources will not be given an exemption on the environmental protections for an assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: My understanding is that what is called a class exemption exists at present, and has for some time, in regard to this. The Natural Resources people have provided a document to our ministry, which they were required to do by the end of the year, dealing with forestry management. Among the issues concerned in this, I believe, is the issue of spraying.

They actually have an exemption already. However, to meet that exemption, they have to meet a number of different stipulations and conditions to be in a position to undertake those activities. That is why they have to go through the process of open houses, which they are pursuing at present. That is why there must be consultation.

I know the member is vitally concerned about the damage being done to the forests in the north, and I can assure him my ministry will go over with a fine-tooth comb all the material that is provided. As the minister, I invite the people in this province to write their representations to me in order that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is a satisfactory answer.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I preface it by thanking a number of my Liberal colleagues across the House who stood yesterday in support of my private member's bill. I thank them for their concern for the young children of this province.

Can the Minister of Education give us a time frame when he will create the legislative select committee to review the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I appreciate the Friday morning question from my honourable friend the member for Scarborough Centre. I have indicated on previous occasions my willingness to review the issues that concern him and members of this House with regard to Bill 100. He knows, as does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), that this Legislature, seized as it is of the historic reform agenda this new government has brought forward to the people of Ontario, has a very busy timetable and that the standing committee on social development, of which the member is so sterling a representative, has a busy agenda.

I can tell the member that this minister and this government are quite prepared to look at the issues that concern the assembly with respect to Bill 100. I have suggested on previous occasions that a first step in that direction might be the estimates debates of the Ministry of Education, which I await with much anticipation.

SPEAKER'S VOTE

Mr. Speaker: In reference to that last question, the members may be interested in knowing, because of the tied vote yesterday, that the last vote cast by a Speaker was on April 22, 1904.

Mr. Andrewes: What happened to that Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: He is not here any more.

[Later]

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker's casting a vote is such a rare occasion in the proceedings of this House, perhaps you would add to our information by telling us which way the Speaker voted in 1904.

Mr. Speaker: It was nay, was it not? If I remember correctly, it was on an amendment to a motion for third reading, and he voted nay.

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I was keeping track of the questions this morning. Since June 4, the greatest number of questions we have had during question periods, other than the leaders' questions, has been 11. Today we managed to reach 13; so we are progressing.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 11, An Act to revise the Change of Name Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

POLITICAL AFFILIATION

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Written questions 183 to 190, which have been submitted, ask for the political affiliation of certain employees of the ministry. I am told by some people that when I hire someone, for example, I cannot ask the question of political affiliation because it is against the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I ask for a ruling from the chair as to whether it is proper to put a written question that asks for the political affiliation of certain employees of the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot give you an immediate answer. I will take a look at it.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. South and Mr. Poirier exchange positions in the order for precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, January 21, 1986, and in the afternoon of Wednesday, January 22, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, resolution 14:

That in the committee of supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics be considered before the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs; that the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation be transferred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills and be considered for nine hours; that in the standing committee on general government the estimates of the Ministry of Skills Development (including supplementary estimates) be considered for five hours; and that in the standing committee on resources development the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (including supplementary estimates) be considered for five hours, the estimates of the Ministry of Housing (including supplementary estimates) be considered for 10 hours, and the estimates of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology be considered for nine hours and be considered before the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable members will be interested in knowing that the motion adjusts the allocation of time for the discussion of estimates. It moves some of them to other, more convenient committees. The aim of the motion is to reduce the number of hours that would be applicable for these discussions as provided for under the rules. Although there is no particular aim, it would be possible to complete these discussions some time in the second week of February if other business does not intervene.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 95, An Act respecting Science North.

AMUSEMENT DEVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved third reading of Bill 97, An Act respecting Amusement Devices.

Mr. Ashe: I know it is somewhat unusual to place remarks on the record on third reading of a bill, but I wish to do so regarding Bill 97. The reason is that I had an opportunity to meet yesterday with quite a contingent from the amusement ride industry at its request. We were not aware of some of its concerns prior to the bill's debate on second reading on Tuesday.

We will be supporting the bill, but I thought it was important to get on the record some of the concerns that were brought forth of which the minister may not aware.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw to the member's attention that on third reading, you can discuss reasons why you oppose the bill, but you just said you were going to put matters on the record. If members of the House agree, you can do it briefly.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not see the purpose in opposing the bill per se, but if it makes you feel better, I will. I do not think anyone, including the industry, is against the principle of the bill, which is obviously the safety of the consumers, the general public, the taxpayers of Ontario. Regardless of political affiliation, I do not think anyone is opposed to that principle.

I will put my concerns briefly. On second reading, the minister indicated in his statement that there had been ongoing dialogue and virtual unanimity within the industry about the bill. I want it on record that this is not so. There has been very limited dialogue, and the industry does have some concerns about the bill, albeit I am sure they can be addressed by regulations.

The industry met with the minister's senior staff on Monday of this week and asked when the bill might be considered for second reading. They were told, "We do not know, but we do not think it is imminent." However, it happened the very next day. I find it very disconcerting that any group of ratepayers should be dealt with in that manner.

Some of their concerns are the cost of registration fees and inspections, which they feel will put some of them out of business. They also say the police authority is rather unusual. I do not think there is any disagreement with a qualified inspector doing his job, but they are concerned that the bill purports to give police virtually absolute authority. I think we all agree that is not necessarily their area of expertise.

They hope the minister will allow them an opportunity to meet with him to voice their concerns directly and to have some input in the regulations that will be drafted. In the minister's statement on second reading, he indicated there was going to be a significant opportunity for the amusement ride sector of the industry to do that, and it is only appropriate that meetings take place.

I appreciate the opportunity to put those brief remarks on the record.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

FAMILY LAW ACT

Consideration of Bill 1, An Act to revise the Family Law Reform Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, statements or amendments to the bill, and if so, to which sections?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There are amendments to subsections 7(3) and (4), subsection 38(2) and subsection 72(2), all in both the French and the English versions.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsections 7(1) and (2) stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Scott moves that subsections 7(3) and (4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(3) An application based on subsection 5(1) or (2) shall not be brought after the earliest of,

"(a) two years after the day the marriage is terminated by divorce or judgement of nullity;

"(b) six years after the day the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation;

"(c) six months after the first spouse's death."

L'hon. M. Scott propose que les paragraphes 7(3) et (4) du projet de loi soient remplacés par ce qui suit:

"(3) La requête fondée sur le paragraphe 5(1) ou (2) n'est pas introduite après la première des dates suivantes:

"(a) deux ans après le jour où le mariage prend fin en vertu du divorce ou du jugement de nullité;

"(b) six ans après le jour où les conjoints se séparent et qu'il n'existe aucune perspective raisonnable qu'ils cohabitent de nouveau;

"(c) six mois après le décès du premier conjoint."

Hon. Mr. Scott: The purpose of this amendment, which should have been made in the standing committee on administration of justice, is to correct a slip in the drafting of the existing section 7, which would revive a right to apply where the spouses were separated for more than six years and one of them died. That was not the intention of the original draftsman or of the committee that reviewed the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 8 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 38:

Hon. Mr. Scott: I indicated that there was a change here in both the English and the French versions. That is not correct. The amendment proposed is in the French version of the act only.

Mr. Chairman: L'hon. M. Scott propose que la version française du paragraphe 38(2) du projet de loi soit modifié par substitution, aux mots "à l'indice" à la quatrième ligne, des mots "au facteur d'indexation."

11:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The reason for this is simply an error in the French version, in that it and the English version are not consistent. The new language makes the two versions of the act consistent.

Motion agreed to.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 39 to 71, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 72:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Scott moves that subsection 72(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "subsection 7(3)" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "clause 7(3)(b)."

L'hon. M. Scott propose que le paragraphe 72(2) du projet de loi soit modifié par substitution, aux mots "au paragraphe 7(3)" à la première ligne, des mots "à l'alinéa 7(3)(b)."

Motion agreed to.

Section 72, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 73 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 78:

Mr. Warner: Section 78 deals with the date of proclamation. I understood through discussions that the Attorney General was interested in having the bill take effect as of February 1 and was planning some instructional sessions for lawyers in the latter part of this month. I am curious to know whether that kind of timetable is, in fact, what he has in mind and whether it can be met. If not, are there any problems? Do we have to advance the date?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Our original intention was that the bill be proclaimed in effect on February 1. Before it can be implemented in practice it will require some rule changes, which are made by the judges' committee of the provincial court, family division, and it will require an instructional course for the members of the bench, for whom much of this bill is new, and an optional course for lawyers.

This timetable could have been met had we been able to pass the bill before Christmas. It is now excessively tight and it is unlikely the rule changes can be made in the time available. Therefore, we propose that the bill be proclaimed and in force on March 1.

Mr. O'Connor: The minister and everyone are well aware that the property division sections of the bill are retroactive to June 4 of last year. The bill has been before the House since that time. It has been debated in committee and in public. There have been public hearings with respect to it. The bar and the bench are well aware of its provisions. The confusion and difficulty of its not being fully in effect have created considerable delay and considerable costs to many people who are before the courts on these matters now.

In view of the fact that the substantive parts of the bill are retroactive in any event, l wonder why it is not possible to give it royal proclamation on February 1 or even sooner.

I understand what the minister has said, but all of the provisions of the bill are so well known that, whether these instructional periods take place immediately before or immediately after, I do not see that it would have very much effect on anything. On balance, the far greater good is that the thing become law as soon as possible so people can get on with their cases, which have now been delayed eight or nine months pending getting on with this business.

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is no end to ingenuity. We have been anxious to call this bill for some weeks now, and on two occasions we have been impeded from calling it by the Conservative critic who said his caucus was not ready to deal with it. That is why the bill was not passed weeks ago but comes up for third reading today. I was not going to make a point of that, but I will not allow my honourable friend at the same time to assert that the bill is delayed. He knows the cause for the delay, and I want to make that a part of the record.

The reason the request is sought is that the judges have to make the rule changes, and since it is being passed only today it will be difficult to make those rule changes in the week or 10 days that now remain before the end of the month with appropriate consultation with members of the bench.

That is why we have decided to pick March 1. It will allow the considered rule and form changes to be made and will allow the conferences, for which thousands of practitioners as well as judges have registered, to take place. Those conferences are fixed at present for the end of January. If the bill had been available earlier I have no doubt we could have proceeded with the originally intended date.

Mr. O'Connor: I want to make some things clear on the points raised by the Attorney General. He is well aware of the fact that on the Tuesday prior to Christmas, on the day after the bill cleared committee hearings, our party made public by way of a press release distributed in the gallery and all around the province our wish to deal with the bill on third reading before Christmas. I believe the Attorney General knows well that the reason it did not come forward for third reading before Christmas is that he or someone over there failed to put the matter in Orders and Notices on one of the four subsequent days.

On Friday of that week, the last day we sat before Christmas, he came to me asking for unanimous consent to change the Orders and Notices of that day. He spoke with his House leader, who is in the House now, and our House leader. It was simply impossible, given the time constraints existing at that time.

The second alleged delay occurred last week, when he came to me with two further amendments to the bill some hours before he was to propose third reading. He knows that this is not how the House operates and that the rules do not permit him to do that. I must have notice of these things so I can bring them to my 50 colleagues in my caucus to discuss them. That is the regular procedure before this House, and I chose -- quite correctly, I suggest -- to follow that procedure.

The delays in bringing this forward have been entirely on that side of the House. I object to his alleging that we are somehow responsible. I know he is getting that message out, because I have had calls from some of the newspapers with regard to that same allegation and I have taken great pains to straighten them out. He simply did not get it in Orders and Notices the last week before Christmas, and it is his fault.

11:30 a.m.

Ms. Gigantes: On the same point, many of the remarks by both previous speakers are accurate. However, I would suggest that to pursue this discussion does not advance our purpose here today. I wonder whether the minister would not consider that we draw together post-haste the necessary consultations and considerations and see whether perchance we might not scrape through with well-considered regulations before the House rises.

It sometimes happens that the House will set itself a goal of rising at such-and-such a date and it can fall behind that schedule by a day and a half, two days or maybe three days. I am sure the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) would indicate to the Attorney General that it has been known to happen for even longer than that.

It might well be that we could deal with these matters before the House rose and then proceed to early proclamation. The degree of urgency on this matter is very high. Whatever the background to our failure to get this legislation passed well before this point, let us leave that behind us now and assume that, with the best effort, we can try to get the matter resolved before the House rises.

If we do not get it done before then we have lost nothing, but at least we tried. It is important that we try to do it for the groups and the people in Ontario who are waiting so anxiously to have this bill proclaimed.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I undertake to use my best efforts. The practical difficulty is that the regulations or rules are not passed by the Lieutenant Governor. They are passed by the rules committee of the provincial court, family division, which has about 11 members, and the Supreme Court and District Court rules committee, which has close to 30 members.

Those members come from all over Ontario, not merely from Toronto, and there is a time frame involved in getting them together to look at the review and the rules that are proposed, and to consider amendments. Frankly, if they followed the leisurely process of our committee it would be long after March 1 before they got their rules together.

I will put whatever pressure I can on them, within reason, to see if the rules cannot be put into place at the earliest time. Consistent with that, and the obligation to establish the courses, with printed copies of the material, with notice and due time, I will make every effort to see that the earliest date possible is utilized, but I anticipate it will be near, if not on, March 1.

Ms. Gigantes: I appreciate the commitment of the Attorney General and I hope he will be able to achieve what we are looking for in this case. I feel compelled to note that there was nothing leisurely about the way the committee proceeded. We may have been disorganized at points, but I do not think it was a question of our taking the matter in a leisurely fashion.

Mr. Warner: I initially raised a simple question designed to elicit information. I apologize for having done so.

Section 78 agreed to.

Section 79 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 1, An Act to revise the Family Law Reform Act.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may Charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I wish to begin by suggesting that this matter, as with most substantive matters, is not simple. There is a tendency to generalize when we debate a number of items. Some of the members who have spoken previously have tended to generalize the situation, and it is not one which lends itself readily to a generalization.

There are doctors in Ontario who support the notion that the extra billing provision should end, and they have stated so publicly. There are doctors who maintain that extra billing should not end, that this is an infringement on their rights, privileges and freedoms and a very wrong thing to do. There are doctors who have never extra billed but support the concept and support their colleagues who do extra bill. I dare say there are some doctors who are currently extra billing who are quite prepared to live with the prospect of not being able to do so.

So it is not a simple matter. It is not one which, with respect, can be generalized. I suspect many of those doctors who are very hard-line about losing their right to extra bill are perhaps not so much concerned about the loss of income, which will be considerable in some cases, but with what they see as a much deeper problem, and that is their loss of control over the health care system. Historically, medical doctors have been the ones who have directed the health care system.

I am not going to say whether that is appropriate or inappropriate, but they have been the ones who have directed and controlled the health care system. Many of them now have the perception they are losing that control, that this is but one step and the next step will be a more direct involvement by the government in how health care services should be delivered. Therefore, they are very upset because extra billing, as they see it, is the tip of the iceberg.

Doctors in this province are extremely important in the delivery of our health care system. They are essential to it. There is no question about that. Their highly-developed skills and experience have saved many lives over decades, and I do not think anyone in this assembly would deny that.

There is, however, a bigger issue. For those doctors who are not prepared to look at it, I feel some regret. The bigger issue is the concept of health care in its entirety, not just simply the doctor's role but that of health care givers in every aspect of what we determine is health care.

Our party has taken the position over a very long time that the delivery of health care is a right for every citizen. It is not something which is provided on the basis of one's ability to pay. A health care system should not be part of the capitalist free enterprise system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the economy in the sense of operating as a business. Surely the delivery of health care is not a business and should not be viewed in that way.

11:40 a.m.

Until recently, this point of view has never been shared by people other than New Democrats and the supporters of the New Democrats, or their forerunners, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. More recently, we have seen some conversions to this way of looking at things right across the country. Not just in Ontario: it was governments, and not New Democratic Party governments, in British Columbia and Saskatchewan that ended extra billing in those provinces. The forerunners of the party I represent, those in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, were pioneers in this way.

It has taken a long time, but slowly and surely other political parties have come full circle in understanding what the concept of health care is all about, that whether one receives health care should not be dependent on the ability to pay. We know that was not always the case in Ontario. Unfortunately, in years gone by one received health care in this province only if one could pay. If one could not pay, one did not receive health care.

Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member is absolutely incorrect and it would be appropriate if he were to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Warner: I will be most pleased to elaborate on the remark. I would like to inform the member for York Mills, whom I have awakened, and I will try to do this without becoming totally angry --

Mr. Cousens: If the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere had half the brains and the spirit of democracy of the member for York Mills he might be doing a good job.

Mr. Warner: If the member for York Centre is finished nattering, I will go on.

Mr. Cousens: Then do not put down the member for York Mills.

Mr. Warner: I will put her down and I will tell the member why.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Warner: If the member waits around for a little while he too will have the opportunity to participate in the debate. Until then, Mr. Speaker, is it your intention to invoke order in this House?

The Acting Speaker: Just ignore the interjections, address your remarks to the chair and we will listen.

Mr. Warner: That is a great idea. We will talk above the member who is nattering.

I carry and will always carry in the front page of our family bible a little clipping from a newspaper. The clipping from the newspaper is about the sale of my grandfather's house that was brought about because of medical bills. My grandmother was seriously ill for 10 years. My grandfather attempted to pay for her care. It was quite apparent that if he did not have the money she would not get the care.

Miss Stephenson: This is not true.

Mr. Warner: When he exhausted his funds, he took a second mortgage on the house. As the medical bills piled up --

Miss Stephenson: But it is not true.

Mr. Warner: I realize it is painful for the member to listen to this. It is painful because the members of her party were the ones who supported this nonsense where people ended up selling their homes to obtain health care. That is precisely what happened. My grandfather's house was put on the market to pay the medical bills to the doctor, because otherwise my grandmother would not have received any medical care.

Miss Stephenson: That is not true.

Mr. Warner: It happens to be true. It is part of the sad and sorry legacy of this province because of the member and her party. Thank goodness we put an end to that.

Mrs. Marland: Maybe you could tell us.

Mr. Warner: I will tell that member that I will never forget it. That is why I fight so strongly for medicare. It is because the member does not understand that her party has always fought against medicare and was dragged kicking and screaming into it in 1969-1970.

Prior to that, through the 1930s and 1940s, when our party fought strongly for medicare, the member's party fought against it, equally as strongly. They said: "So what if somebody has to sell his house to pay medical bills? Big deal; it does not matter." It does not matter to the member and it does not matter to most Tories, but it happens to matter to me very much. As long as I live I will carry that little clipping from the newspaper about the sale of the family home. No one in this province should ever be faced with having to sell his house to pay medical bills. As long as I am alive, I will fight for that, notwithstanding the concerns of the member for York Mills.

I suspect that when the dust settles on this, the vast majority of the people of Ontario will be quite pleased that we have ended extra billing. It is a matter in two parts. First, it is a financial matter. We lose $1 million or more from the pockets of the people of Ontario every week. An equal amount is withheld by the government of Canada. It is a very severe financial situation.

More important than that, frankly, is the principle that we should have one-price medicine. Health care should be available to every citizen in this province regardless of ability to pay. The moment the government allows extra billing, which it does, it harms that principle.

As Mr. Justice Hall said, "Eventually the extra billing process will undermine and destroy the medicare system." Surely, after the decades that we have spent trying to build our system, we do not want to see it destroyed. It is too precious.

I have a very interesting quote from what is to me a surprising source. "Bette Stephenson called the bill a blatant act of terrorism against the medical profession."

The Acting Speaker: Please refer to the member by the riding and not the name.

Mr. Warner: I am sorry. Mr. Speaker, I am reading a direct quote from an editorial. I am allowed to do so.

"Bette Stephenson called the bill a blatant act of terrorism against the medical profession." It was an embarrassingly intemperate remark from a former cabinet minister, but not surprising from a person who was once president of the Ontario Medical Association, the doctors' union.

The editorial, from the Kingston Whig Standard, says: "People know that medicare is one of Canada's finest achievements. They treasure it. They expect it to be carefully guarded." That is our responsibility. I could not have put it better myself. That is precisely what this issue is about: the protection of our system, the guarding of our system and, in fact, the improvement of the system.

To be fair, I have spoken with a number of doctors, some of whom are specialists and others who are general practitioners. They tell me that while they have a concern about the extra billing issue, they have other concerns which they feel deserve equal attention, and I agree. The doctors say that while some doctors are upset about losing the privilege to extra bill, they are also concerned about the state of our hospitals. Hospital care has been severely cut over the past 10 years in particular. They are concerned about the province's commitment to expand the insured services. They are also concerned about the opportunity for the upgrading of skills, especially in the remote areas.

They have a number of concerns related to how they are able to use modern equipment and make use of the hospitals. These concerns need to be addressed. Instead of addressing those concerns and attempting to expand our health care system over the past 10 years, the Tories launched quite a mean attack on the health care system and cut back drastically in transfers to the hospitals.

The latest budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has increased the amounts allotted to hospitals. This is a good move. I am very pleased to see that.

11:50 a.m.

When we debate the prospect of removing the extra billing that some doctors hold to be quite dear, they argue that they require this because they are not properly reimbursed through the system.

On the other side of the coin, we have to recognize that, in many instances, we provide an office in a hospital for the doctor. We provide the facility in which he or she works. We have shelled out probably in the neighbourhood of $250,000 per person for the education and training of a doctor. I am not saying that is wrong; I think that is proper. I think we should be doing that, but in fairness, when a doctor complains about losing income, I think we have to look at what we the public have put in. We have put in a lot. We have provided hospitals and we have provided for education and a bill collection system.

We heard stories a while back of high-priced doctors leaving the province and going to Texas and other exotic spots where they could make vast sums of money. I understand many of those have since returned to Ontario. Why? Elsewhere, while they were allowed to bill whatever the market would bear, they encountered other little difficulties. For starters, they had to move into an area and establish a clientele, against already established doctors. There is malpractice insurance, for which I understand the rates are quite high. They then had bill collection problems.

None of these little irritants exists here in Ontario. The doctor is reimbursed through the Ontario health insurance plan and receives a cheque. There is no difficulty. The doctor does not have bad debts. To some doctors, I suspect that is very nice. I gather some lawyers have concerns about bad debts and trying to collect from clients who do not pay. Obviously, doctors here do not have that difficulty.

Some of the reading in the debates was rather interesting. I do not mean to be provocative at all when I read this, but I found it fascinating that, while we now have the Liberal Party agreeing with the concept of ending extra billing, all members may be reminded that on June 23, 1969, there is a record in Hansard on a bill presented before the House on OHIP.

A reasoned amendment was put forward by the New Democrats, sponsored by the leader at the time, Mr. MacDonald. He said, in part, the bill "fails to prohibit extra billing by participating doctors, thereby supporting a deterrent to use, which runs contrary to the principle of equal access to medical care services for everyone in Ontario."

It was part of a four-part resolution. The resolution was brought to a vote and, after the bells had stopped ringing, the Liberals and Tories stood together to vote against that proposal. Listed here in addition to the other names is the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) is here as well and the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer). These folks are still part of the team around here.

In 1969, they were opposed to the notion of ending extra billing. However, today it is a different story. I am very grateful for the change in mind.

On the other hand, I gather from previous speeches that the Tories are voting against this bill. That is not surprising to anyone because they have consistently supported the notion of extra billing and so it would be entirely consistent for them to vote against this bill. In their view, I suppose extra billing is part of the free-enterprise system. It is kind of akin to running a hamburger stand or any other business. One charges what the market will bear and tries to exact as much money as one can. That is part of a free-enterprise system; therefore, it is not surprising they are opposing the bill.

Mr. Grande: However, they will not dare to vote against it.

Mr. Warner: They are voting against it and that has been clear from their speeches.

Mr. Grande: They will change their minds.

Mr. Warner: I want to touch on one last item before I conclude. It was suggested in an earlier speech that one of the reasons to support this bill is simply because it is a populist thing to do. Like others, the Conservatives have taken readings of public opinion. The rating of public opinion generally is that it is strongly in support of ending extra billing.

In my own riding, the survey indicated 70.2 per cent wishes to end extra billing, an additional nine per cent of people was unsure and the balance was opposed. I suspect that is general across the province.

I wanted to remind the Conservatives who feel it is being done because it is popular that we know it is popular but that is not why it is being done. It is being done on a matter of principle. The principle is universality of our medicare system.

Quite frankly, I think passing this bill is step number one. The next step is expanding our health care system in so many ways. I suggest starting with denticare for seniors. I am sure the idea is not foreign to the Tories, but imagine supplying dental care for senior citizens and children.

These are advances which have been achieved in other provinces and Ontario lags behind. There is nothing unusual about that. Those are goals and challenges for us. When we have completed this bill and righted a wrong, then we can move on to meet the challenges of expanding our health care system.

It is with pride and pleasure that I take the opportunity of participating in this historic debate. I look forward to our passing this bill, notwithstanding the votes. In fact, the Tories voting against it gives me a certain sense of security. I know that some things never change.

Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 94, which is a very contentious, emotional and, to a number of people in the community these days, very disturbing piece of legislation.

I will not attempt to respond, or be drawn into responding or replying, to many of the inaccurate remarks of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). In serious debate in this House, I sometimes wonder about the necessity for members to attack other members and other parties by suggesting motives for positions they take when in fact those are incorrect.

I think it is a situation we are seeing frequently. I think it is one which is perhaps unnecessary in the course of debate on a serious and contentious piece of legislation before the House.

Mr. Grande: That is what debate is all about, my friend.

Interjections.

12 noon

Mr. O'Connor: I agree in response to those interjections that is what debate is all about. However, it should be primarily involved with putting one's position to the House and attempting to convince one's fellow members, the public and the press. To spend as much time as the previous speaker did in putting the position of another party that in my opinion is totally inaccurate and unfair, is neither productive nor fruitful.

Bill 94 does not specifically deal with extra billing, although it has been portrayed as doing so by the government and its supporters in the New Democratic Party. There is another side to the argument which has been eloquently put by many of the 17,000 doctors in Ontario and by many of the patients of the 17,000 doctors, whether they are doctors who have opted out of the plan as it now exists or doctors who have chosen not to opt out and who bill only OHIP rates and receive payment from that plan.

I have spoken to many people -- doctors, patients and members of the general public about this issue. I will agree that if simply asked a question dealing with extra billing along the lines of "Do you favour allowing some doctors to make more money than others?" or "Do you favour extra billing?" the majority of the people will not agree. However, our responsibility in this House is not to pander to the majority on each and every issue that comes before us, but to stick to principles and pass responsible legislation which, when fully explained to the public, would probably gain support.

If the issue is put to people on the basis of accessibility to the health care system, the quality of health care to be delivered to the people of the province, and they are asked whether, to maintain the high quality that exists and has existed over the past number of years under our current OHIP system, they would be agreeable to some more experienced, some longer-serving, some better-educated doctors being permitted to make some small amounts more than some of their confrères, most people will agree. They will say: "Yes, that is a fair and reasonable system that has worked in the past. We are in complete agreement that the health care delivery system in Ontario is a good one. It is one of the best in the country and should be maintained."

The concern that some of us have on this side of the House is that when this bill is fully implemented, it will have a negative effect on the health care delivery system. In the long run it will create many more problems than it allegedly attempts to solve. Approximately only 12 to 13 per cent of Ontario's 17,000 doctors have chosen to opt out of the OHIP plan. Of that total, only about five or six per cent of all the doctors in this province actually extra bill any amount. In the vast majority of cases where doctors have chosen to extra bill, the amount involved is small, insignificant and well within the means and ability to pay of the patients with whom they are dealing.

Some problems admittedly cannot be avoided. There have been some instances where doctors, through greed or other motives, have charged patients an exorbitant amount of money. If the situation were to be examined, we would find that there might be 50 or 75 -- fewer than 100 doctors in total -- who fall into that category. In any group of 17,000 people, some will attempt to abuse the system and, for motives of their own, may charge more than the market they are dealing with can bear, more than is warranted or fair in the circumstances. When the numbers are that small, why is it necessary for the government to use the legislative sledgehammer it has used in this case to solve a problem of such small magnitude, involving 50 to 75 doctors in total?

I point out the situation of my own profession. There are approximately 17,000 lawyers practising in Ontario. They are not under a general system of government control, government organization or government payment to them. They have the option in certain circumstances to avail themselves of the legal aid plan, quite correctly, but as a general matter, they do not. There is that difference.

However, there is a significantly larger number, 100 lawyers out of that 17,000, who abuse the system. They become involved in schemes with their trust funds which they ought not to be involved in and appear annually before the disciplinary committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada and before the courts. There is no suggestion on the part of the government that a similar sledgehammer to the one being used here -- that is, total socialization of a profession is the answer to that problem. I do not think that is the answer to the problem with regard to the medical profession.

The medical profession has taken steps to ensure that no person or patient in this province ever goes without the best medical services. As I indicated, about half the opted-out doctors actually charge above the OHIP rate. Of those, in certain circumstances where the patients needs are such that they have difficulty paying that fee is waived.

I spoke to a constituent recently, a lady who has three children with medical difficulties. All three kids are under seven years of age and they have had the necessity of some nine operations since they were born. In each case she was dealing with an anaesthetist in Oakville who is opted out, as they all are in Oakville. In each case she dealt with a different anaesthetist. There was the same anaesthetist on one or two of the operations at issue, but in none of the nine operations did she ever receive a bill from the doctor for any amount over the OHIP amount. She did not have any previous conversation with the doctor about the situation. It was a case where the doctor assumed there might be a condition of hardship and chose not to issue the bill to her in those circumstances.

Doctors are sensitive to the needs of their patients, and in a case where there is any suggestion that there will be a difficulty in paying, the fee is usually waived. That is how that is handled traditionally.

There is also a telephone system set up by the Ontario Medical Association for referrals to doctors who are opted in, to provide a service where a patient is having difficulty because of the opted-out and extra fee situation.

The law as it stands provides that an opted-out doctor must notify his patient in advance if he intends to extra bill and of the amount he intends to extra bill. In these circumstances the patient would have the option to accept what the doctor is saying and pay the extra amount or to seek services from a doctor who does not choose to opt out and extra bill.

The vast majority of doctors in this province practise within the plan. I have indicated the figures are somewhere between 88 and 94 per cent for those who practise within the plan, even though the option has always been available to them to opt out and to charge an extra fee. It is not a question, therefore, of the desire for doctors to make more money.

12:10 p.m.

The objection coming from doctors around the province is not based on their overwhelming desire or their greed, as was suggested by the previous speaker. When objection comes from the vast majority of the medical profession, 90 per cent plus of whom do not extra bill, it simply means a large number of doctors out there do not intend to avail themselves of the privilege of extra billing, yet object violently to the actions this government is taking against their profession.

There is a principle at stake; it is not the money. The principle is one of adherence to a social contract that was established some 18 years ago, when the medicare system was introduced to this province as a result of negotiations between the profession and the government of the day. The doctors were permitted their independence to opt in or to opt out; it permitted the freedom to make that choice. That contract, upon which the doctors agreed to become involved in the medicare system, involved the right to opt out of the system and to charge extra if they saw fit. The actions of the government in introducing Bill 94 are a breach of that contract, and it can well expect objection to those actions by the other parties to that contract.

To quote the current Premier (Mr. Peterson) when he was Leader of the Opposition, in talking about the right of doctors to opt out, he referred to the system as a safety valve; a safety valve, I presume, to encourage doctors to stay in the province and to encourage doctors of additional competence or experience to remain with us and to provide their services to the people of this province rather than to people of other jurisdictions where such a system does not exist.

The concerns of the medical profession on this point are several. They see Bill 94 and the taking away of their right in this regard as a clear and unequivocal step towards socialized medicine. Some might argue that this is a desirable social step and one that should be taken; that socialized medicine, socialized legal services, socialized everything is the way this province should be going.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The experience that a number of previous speakers have cited, one we should all be cognizant of, is that of Britain. The socialized medical system in Britain, as everyone now recognizes, is a disaster. It was introduced a number of years ago for perhaps the best of motives, motives similar to the direction in which this government now is progressing.

It has led to a clear two-class system of delivery of medical services, one that has become horribly costly during the past several years; one in which waiting-lines for medical services have become interminable; one in which the better-off, the rich, are entitled to better services than those who are not so fortunate, and one that has achieved an end directly contradictory to the end that was intended when the system was first introduced. The same argument can be made with respect to the ultimate end of the system we are now amending to the degree to which we are amending it.

In 1980, the cost of delivery of the socialized medical system in Britain was nine billion pounds. By 1983, that cost had risen to 16 billion pounds. It had almost doubled in the course of three years. Interesting also -- and this point has been made by other speakers -- is that the unions, which are more numerous, apparently more vocal and stronger in their points of view than those we are used to in Ontario, which initially led the fight for socialized medicine, now routinely attempt in their negotiations with companies to include private treatment coverage for their members. They no longer wish their members to be subjected to the socialized medical system, which they were primarily responsible for bringing about in the first place. That fact alone says enough about the need to avoid the direction we are going.

It has been suggested that Bill 94 will ultimately lead to a decrease in the quality of services offered by the profession. The example of Britain that I have just cited should be uppermost in our minds. It is argued that the doctors who now are permitted to make some additional funds by opting out of the plan will see a need to see more patients, spend less time with each patient and less time on each service delivered to maximize their income. It is argued that the result will be a lessening of the quality of service delivered to people they formerly were able to see for a greater period of time or more often by charging a slightly additional fee.

It has been argued that some doctors will leave the province to seek greener pastures. There are the difficulties outlined by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. On balance, we are perhaps going to lose some of our better doctors, some of the doctors who have greater experience, who have opted out and who see the opportunity to do better in another area. Whether that perception is correct is not the point. They will leave and deprive us of the skills and experience of some of our much better doctors.

The primary concern of the medical profession that the doctors have made to me is maintaining the principle of independence, of acting as a free profession. They see this bill as a move towards socialism, making all doctors subject to the same rules and regulations and making all doctors civil servants. They want to be free at least to have the opportunity to opt out. As I have indicated, although the majority of them want the freedom to do so, the majority of them do not seem to wish to. They want freedom from oppressive government regulation of their profession.

They see this as a move towards characterizing or categorizing them as civil servants. If that is the case, why do we not simply pay doctors a salary? Why do we not afford them the benefits and pension rights that we do other civil servants? Why do we not say, "All you have to do is work nine-to-five," the usual hours of someone on a salary? Is that the direction in which we wish to go? Is that what we are ultimately saying to doctors? Is that what we want to happen to our medical delivery system in Ontario?

The majority of them see that. They are the ones most affected, other than the few patients around the province who now are going to be relieved of the small extra amount of bills they pay to their doctors. Is that the message we want to get to doctors? Is that what we are trying to tell them? If it is, why do we not go all the way and say: "Henceforth, you have a salary and here it is. It is the average that everybody makes in your specialty"? Why do we not afford them the benefits they now have to pay for privately, but which other civil servants and people working for the population --

Miss Stephenson: Allow them to work 40 hours a week instead of 80.

Mr. O'Connor: I have mentioned the hours, about which the honourable member has just interjected. They would be expected to work only nine-to-five or a regular 40-hour week. I do not think that is the way we want to go. It is not what the medical profession wishes. The quality of medical delivery in this province would suffer dramatically if that ever came about.

There must be something to it; 17,000 people cannot be all wrong. They argue vociferously that is where we are taking them. I tend to agree about this piece of excessive legislation.

12:20 p.m.

Mr. Callahan: How is the member voting on the issue?

Mr. O'Connor: I have not made up my mind.

The principle of independence, the necessity to maintain that principle and the fact that it is a principle the doctors are fighting for -- it is not the money they are fighting for -- was perhaps best demonstrated recently by the doctors in Sudbury. We have read that there are 41 doctors practising in that city, none of whom has chosen to opt out of the plan; therefore, they are not permitted to bill extra. For them, the issue is not money, but on the principle of the right to do so, they have chosen to opt out. They have chosen to demonstrate to the government their displeasure with this legislation in that fashion.

They will now, as a result of that move, have less of an income, because by opting out they will now have to bill their patients privately. There will no doubt be some problems with collections and nonpayment, which was not a concern of theirs prior to this.

It demonstrates a feeling in the medical profession where 41 physicians in a city would unanimously choose to take a cut in salary over the principle at stake throughout the profession. I ask the government to take into account the depth of those kinds of feelings should it choose to proceed with this bill to its conclusion.

The larger issue and the larger point that should be made with regard to this kind of legislation is that it demonstrates to the province as a whole the manner in which this government has chosen to govern. It appears it has chosen the route of confrontation instead of consultation.

Would it not have been much simpler to have sat down with the Ontario Medical Association or representatives of the doctors, discussed this issue and attempted to negotiate some resolution? It may well have involved the banning of extra billing, but it would have provided the doctors with something in return, something with which they could be happy, some substitute that would have satisfied their needs.

But no, the government's message to the doctors was simply: "Sure, we will sit down and negotiate with you, but extra billing is not on the table. It is gone." What is the sense of negotiating if the prime issue of concern to the doctors is not on the table for negotiation?

The government seems to be choosing the route of legislation prior to and instead of negotiation. That is not the way to run things. That is not the way to govern effectively in a democratic society. We must communicate, we must discuss matters with the people whom we wish to abide by the rules and regulations and laws we introduce or there will be chaos.

This manner of dealing with different groups in society has been amply demonstrated not only with the doctors, as I have indicated, but also with the lawyers with respect to the matter of depriving them of their QCs. That is a small point. Again, perhaps the majority of the people agree with that, but the government will find the people most affected by that issue, the lawyers, do not agree.

Would it not have been the simpler and better thing to have sat down with the Law Society of Upper Canada or the Canadian Bar Association or some such representative group and said: "Our inclination is to do away with the QC system or revamp it. What are your thoughts? What are your ideas?"

The government did not do that. It simply banned QCs in the future and retroactively, something which came entirely as a surprise to everyone concerned with the issue. As a result, it antagonized most of the legal profession over that issue.

It dealt similarly with judges and their salaries. There is a committee set up to investigate the needs of judges, their working conditions and their remuneration levels, which has been given the authority to make recommendations to the government. The government gained the support of all three members of that committee by representing that if a certain salary level were suggested by the committee, it would be accepted.

What does it do? It totally ignores the recommendations of that committee and sets a salary level different from anything recommended by that committee which had provided three alternatives by way of an approach to the nagging problem of judges' compensation in this province.

It was the same with pharmacists. Negotiation? Forget it. They simply brought in Bills 54 and 55. Through a process similar to pulling teeth, and because the debate on the matter was so extended, the government has finally and reluctantly agreed that there will be full and open discussion of the matter in the committee stage.

That is all the pharmacists ever wanted: the right to negotiate, the right to discuss matters. They now have that right, but it was a difficult matter to arrive at, and it could have been done much more simply if there had been that course of negotiation and discussion before it was dragged out of the government by the opposition during second-reading debate.

Who is next? What group is targeted next by the government to be legislated arbitrarily? Whose wishes and concerns is it going to ignore before it brings in legislation with regard to their profession, business or whatever? The government simply appears to read polls that indicate it might be popular to take a certain step and then it goes ahead and takes that step while ignoring the rights of those who are most vitally concerned with the issue put forward.

Mr. Callahan: How is the member going to vote?

Mr. O'Connor: To answer the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), I oppose this bill. I will vote against this bill on second reading on the point of principle. There has not been consultation. The government has not taken into account the wishes and concerns of the people most primarily concerned with the medical delivery system in this province, and I think it ought to do so.

For this reason and for the reasons I have mentioned before, I will oppose and vote against this bill. I urge other members of this House to read their mail from doctors, listen to the concerns of those who are involved and consider seriously amending this bill, withdrawing it or at least voting against it on second reading.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to participate in this because it is an important debate and it has been an interesting one. I have listened with great care to previous Conservative speakers and tried to determine whether they are for it or agin it. The last speaker has been the first one I have noticed who has been bold enough to say he opposes the bill. I do not find this surprising, since one of their members referred to it as an act of terrorism. It surely must cause some trouble in their own caucus to vote for acts of terrorism.

I do not view it that way at all and I am sure Brian Mulroney and the federal Conservatives, who are urging all the provinces to pass legislation of this kind, do not consider it an act of terrorism either. We are not particularly well served by that kind of rhetoric.

I have immense respect for our physicians. I was a Health critic for our party and, like most members, I have an ongoing relationship with a lot of physicians and health care providers in my own area. We deal with them on a daily basis with compensation problems, the problems people have getting access to hospitals and all kinds of medically related problems that my constituents have. There are a few jerks in the medical profession. I dare say there are a few jerks even in this beloved Legislature of ours, too. Everybody has those and one just has to contend with them.

An hon. member: Name names.

Mr. Breaugh: I would name names, but I have only half an hour left and there is not time to do it.

I do not think we can base our opinions on what a few unkind folk might have to say or do in their whole profession. I want it on the record that the doctors with whom I deal are decent, respectable men and women who try to provide the best health care possible to their patients. They have aggravations with the Ontario health insurance plan, as does everybody with any bureaucracy, and I spend about as much time fighting with OHIP over whether it will or will not respond to a request from a physician for payment as I do with almost any other bureaucracy a member has to deal with. I am quite happy to do it that way.

12:30 p.m.

I do not believe we have devised the world's perfect medical care system in Ontario, not by a long shot, but I believe we have established something that is pretty fundamental, that our population understands and very much treasures and reveres and that is a workable system.

I believe we have some problems in the system, but it is not all bad either. I get a little upset when people talk about socialism versus capitalism, or whatever terms they use. I do not quite view it within those concepts. It is fine to talk about the health care system in England, but it is not really relevant to our situation.

We have developed something that is unique and different. We have a system in which, if physicians want to receive a salary and work regular hours they can do that. Many physicians are on salary and work regular office hours; many of them have what amounts to a nine-to-five job. Most of us would say, however, that a physician's job, almost like the job of a member of the Legislature, is not a regular nine-to-five existence. It is not a job in the sense of somebody in a factory who punches in and punches out and at the end of a day his whole life changes; the business end of the day is finished. A physician's job is different.

I am happy that in our educational system we probably subsidize the training of physicians with more tax dollars than we do any other person in our university system. I am very happy that we do that. I want us to have the finest medical schools we can afford and I want our physicians to be the best-trained physicians we can possibly have. I am an advocate of that.

I am also an advocate of our physicians being about the best-paid people in our society. I believe they are worth it. I have no qualms about that and no argument with that at all. I am happy that in this town and in communities across Ontario the taxpayers pick up the overhead for the hospitals. We provide our physicians with technology, equipment, support staff, nurses, orderlies, recordkeepers and everything we can think of. We absorb almost totally the overheads of physicians working in our hospitals.

I am happy with that system. I realize it is unique. We do not do that for lawyers, for engineers, for auto workers or for anybody else, but I am an advocate of covering that cost for our physicians. I am happy that our physicians have traditionally set up the framework for our medical care system. I cannot think of anyone else more appropriate to do so. I am happy to take their advice. Once in a while they make mistakes, and we have sad acknowledgements of that around, but doctors are only human. They do work long hours and they do contend with a great deal of stress.

Why are we dealing with this legislation? The federal government, in its wisdom, decided that physicians across the country should not be able to opt out. I tend to agree with that position. I have never understood why the Ontario Medical Association can negotiate a fee schedule -- that is a long, complicated and rather difficult system to understand, but they do negotiate a fee schedule. I am happy with that. However, at the end of the negotiations some physicians then can break from the fee schedule, opt out and charge more. I find that difficult to understand.

Where I come from there are a lot of negotiations going on. When the boys at the truck plant have concluded their negotiations they live with their negotiated settlement. They can renegotiate it, open it up and deal with new situations. There are some options, but at the end of the process, when their organization has negotiated what the compensation will be, they live with it.

I believe that is a fair system. It may not serve everybody's purpose, but on balance I believe that negotiating process is a fair and reasonable way to proceed. With physicians, there are some variations on that. I understand that. It is a complicated field, but I believe it is not impossible to negotiate something which fairly compensates physicians for the work they do. I am an advocate of that.

I listened a little to the discussions and I listened intently to the presentations I have received personally from physicians in my area about how they want freedom. They have to realize a couple of simple facts. The people in my constituency want freedom too. I happen to come from an area where there are no physicians who have opted out of OHIP. They are all within the plan. They are not all happy, I suppose, but they are all living good lives. They are being well paid for their services, and I am a real advocate of that. They are good, caring physicians and I am happy with that.

Occasionally, my constituents and people in my area have to go to downtown Toronto for specialist services. There they receive the shock of their lives. If the members do not think this is a problem or they think it is not worth dealing with, it is. I have people, friends of mine, who cannot afford the services offered in the downtown specialist hospitals. There are people who come to my constituency office who are waiting for the passage of this bill so they can get medical care.

I know the OMA itself has attempted to find a way around it. I know the OMA has said, "We will find you that care." I have tried to make that system work and I have to report to the members that it does not always work. It is an awkward system.

If one really believes in capitalism in medicine, whatever that might mean, one might look south of the border to the United States. I have friends who work in the medical care system there, doctors who report to me that the system surely is not a perfect one.

I have a physician friend who works in Texas. He reports to me that he works in what is known as a publicly funded hospital. He works a 48-hour shift. He says that in his hospital he gets all the people who cannot afford to pay. It is a continuum. There are accident victims. There is a lot more violence in the streets there, so gunshot wounds are fairly common. There are all kinds of things. He says he works with about half the facilities of the privately operated hospital just up the road.

He says they make no bones about it: when one is admitted to an American hospital, one provides proof at the door that one can pay for the medical care service. If a person does not have a Mastercard or sufficient evidence for the medical officer who is doing the admitting they will not take him in. They ship him back in the ambulance and up the street to another hospital. I do not want that here; I make no bones or apologies about it. That has no appropriate application in Ontario; none at all.

I believe our people deserve access to the medical care system. I believe that among reasonable people it is possible to do that within one plan, the Ontario health insurance plan. I believe it is possible to negotiate a fair and honourable settlement with our physicians as we do with everybody else.

This does not mean every doctor in the province is going to be happy. That is not possible with anybody else and I doubt if it is going to be possible with our physicians.

Mrs. Marland: One does not do that with the United Auto Workers.

Mr. Breaugh: Someone just chirped in that we do not do it with the UAW. She inspires me to go a little further. The UAW members negotiate a contract, as do a lot of other people in our society.

Mrs. Marland: They do not all get paid the same.

Mr. Breaugh: In fact, the UAW members all get paid exactly the same dollars for each classification according to the contract for the life of the contract, and there is not one iota of deviation from it. That is precisely what I am proposing.

Mrs. Marland: Do they get paid the same for the same experience?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, as a matter of fact they do. I do not mean to interrupt and educate other members on how a trade union works, but I will. I want to go on a bit more because I think some important points have to be made.

It is true that under this legislation the doctors have to give up some freedom; there is no question about that. They are losing their freedom to opt out of OHIP. It is the same kind of giving up of a freedom that a lot of people in our society have to do. We are being asked today to make a judgement call.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Oshawa has the floor.

Mr. Breaugh: It is true that we are making a judgement call as to whether this is fair. I believe it is. I believe it is unfair to have some of our citizens denied medical care or punished in terms of receiving medical care because of money. I believe the Canadian people, the people of Ontario, feel we have worked out a medical care system that is paid for by tax dollars. It is paid for in a number of ways. Training physicians, nurses and technicians is, by and large, an effort of the tax dollar. Providing the hospitals is almost totally an operation of the tax dollar.

Mr. Davis: Would the member pay the nurses the same amount of money as the doctors?

Mr. Breaugh: I do not mind interjections; I just do not like stupid interjections.

I believe we have a medical care system that provides all our citizens the right of access to good medical care. We have tried to work that out carefully through negotiation over the years. I believe we have not done a totally perfect job, but I do believe we have worked out something that is reasonable. Those are my criteria.

12:40 p.m.

I believe this legislation is reasonable. Without question, it inhibits some freedoms on the part of physicians but, on balance, it provides a bit more, a little better medical-care service for some citizens.

Obviously there are some people here who do not like the people out there having a medicare system. If that is their position, I invite them to stand up and say so. If they do not want medicare, if they do not care about the patient, if they think this is the wrong idea, they should stand up and say so.

Miss Stephenson: The member should stop being silly.

Mr. Davis: Are the dentists next?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Oshawa has the floor.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for York Mills says: "This is silly. It is silly to argue for medical care. It is silly to argue for patients. It is silly to say that anything in the Ontario health insurance plan is wrong."

Miss Stephenson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is not what I said. What I suggested to the honourable member was that he stop being silly, because the position that was suggested has nothing to do with what he said.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Breaugh: No, but it is pretty close to an act of terrorism.

I think there are some obligations to go through here in political terms.

Mr. Davis: They should socialize lawyers because we should all have access to legal opinions.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) deserves a chance to get named here; apparently he is now advocating socializing lawyers. I do not know what that means. Maybe it means to take them out for drinks or something. He will get his chance and he may even have the guts to stand up and participate in the debate and tell us whether he is for or against the bill, unlike the occasion when we had the pharmacists' bills before us. That is why he is here.

Mr. Polsinelli: None of them will tell us.

Mr. Breaugh: Some let it slip. I am not sure it is even in order to participate in a debate on second reading without somewhere saying whether one is for or against the bill. My reading of the standing orders indicates that is an obligation on the part of the members.

They will get their chance. The bill is supportable. It is a reasonable response to a request from the federal Conservative government to put an end to extra billing. I believe eight out of the 10 provinces have now done it and it has not been seen as a revolutionary act or an act of terrorism; it has been seen as an act of reason.

If people want freedom to leave this design of a medical care system, the freedom is always there. They can pack it up in the pickup truck and go south of the border. They will probably have to pick up a gun rack on the way, but the freedom is there to do that.

It is worth noting that physicians are not doing that in large numbers because they like this medical care system. I am sure they would not all say it is a perfect one. There are some things wrong with it, but by and large the physicians I know feel they are well compensated and that they participate in a good medical system. Some would even say it is the best in the world. I do not know whether it is the best, but I believe it is as good as any medical care system I have ever looked at.

The bill itself is supportable. It addresses a problem some of my constituents and some people across Ontario are having. It is not an unreasonable way to proceed. I believe most physicians themselves would agree, perhaps not publicly but at least privately, that they are not exactly hard done by in our society; that we attempt to provide whatever our physicians might need. Whether it is income, facilities or support services, we endeavour to provide that.

It is part of that process. It is part of that obligation -- and the obligation pertains on both sides -- for us as legislators and for our population as a whole to provide proper support systems, financially and otherwise, to physicians. On the part of physicians, who are part of the bargain, part of the agreement, it is reasonable to say they should adhere to a freely negotiated fee schedule; that is, they too would be in OHIP.

Mr. Bernier: I listened to the previous speaker with great interest. His socialist background came through loud and clear, but I will have more to say about that as I go through my remarks. It is a pleasure for me to rise and join my colleagues in this very important debate, particularly because of the legislation we are examining.

To me, the real issue we are debating is not whether the doctors of this province should be able to charge their patients more than is allowed under the OHIP schedule. The real issue is whether the present government is truly committed to maintaining and improving our health care system or whether it is more concerned with its deal with the members of the third party.

Given what I have witnessed in this House, I have to question the motivation behind this legislation. I am not convinced it will drastically improve the health care system in our province. It may satisfy the socialists who are currently located on my physical left; they are always positioned philosophically on my left.

For the most part, the legislation will do little to satisfy the needs of the people of Ontario, particularly those located in northern Ontario. I am having a very difficult time trying to understand what this government stands for and what it is committed to. They do not appear to be very committed to their own policies. They have yet to follow through on many of their election promises and pledges, and I have seen no indication that they intend to honour any of these promises.

Yet the Liberals, or I should say the Liberal Democrats, do not appear to be wholly committed to the infamous accord they signed last June. Granted they have fulfilled some of the commitment contained within that document, this legislation being one of them, but they have hedged and stalled on the implementation of others. I cannot help but sense there is a great deal of confusion on the government side of this House. They cannot seem to decide whether it is more important to live up to their promises to the people of Ontario or to honour the terms of their agreement with the New Democratic Party.

I suppose that is somewhat understandable, since the Liberals were not elected by the citizens of this province to form this government. They undoubtedly do not feel as compelled to honour their election promises as might otherwise be the case. The people who did choose the government, namely, those few members sitting on my left, lose more and more of their bargaining position as every day passes.

It is obvious that this fact has sunk in on the members opposite. They are feeling less and less compelled to cater to the whims of the third party. The result of all this is that very few people can understand what the Liberals stand for and what they expect this government can accomplish.

During the last election, the Liberals made a number of promises regarding health care in Ontario, but I get no clear indication from this government whether it intends to follow through on these commitments. I believe they called for the establishment of a province-wide dental care program and the abolition of OHIP premiums altogether. That was one of their election promises, but I have seen no indication that they still intend to implement these programs.

I am sure the people of Ontario have no clear idea either, and I do not believe this is fair to the citizens of this province. They have a right to know what lies in store for them. Perhaps we will have a better idea after the Liberals have got together for their policy conference and have cleared up the confusion that actually lies among themselves.

None the less, at the moment my concerns remain. I am not convinced that the legislation before this House is the best way of using and directing our energies. There are other areas where improvements are needed which should have been given a much higher priority by the present government and are more deserving of our attention.

12:50 p.m.

I cannot see how this legislation will make any improvements to the present system. In many ways, enactment of this legislation could result in a deterioration of what we now have. I have always thought that Ontario had, overall, one of the best health care delivery systems and services in this country, and I must seriously question the wisdom of devoting our time and effort to this amendment. In my opinion, the people of Ontario would be better served if the government of the day clearly indicated it is prepared and willing to build upon the foundations we laid down rather than to try to break them up.

It is no accident that Ontario has such an advanced system of health care. Our previous government clearly placed the development of this system as one of its top priorities. From 1982 to 1985, the Progressive Conservative government increased funding for the Ministry of Health by 58 per cent. It was the Progressive Conservative government that enacted the Health Protection and Promotion Act, which placed an emphasis on preventive medicine. It was the Progressive Conservative government that made changes to the Mental Health Act, giving psychiatric patients a greater ability to defend their civil rights.

It was the Progressive Conservative government that worked to establish and expand health care services right across my area of the province, the vast area of northern Ontario. We sponsored the establishment of a first-class air ambulance service in northern Ontario. Since its inception in 1981, the service has flown more than 24,000 patients to various medical facilities throughout northern Ontario.

Since 1970, new or replacement hospitals have been built in Kirkland Lake, Hearst, Englehart, Red Lake, Atikokan, Marathon, Wawa, Chapleau, Sturgeon Falls, Kenora, Sudbury and Terrace Bay.

Mr. Cureatz: The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) said the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) had done nothing as Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Bernier: He would not say that.

It was even our government that brought in that very popular EldCap program, which the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) strongly supports, a program designed in northern Ontario by northerners that will see the establishment of 20 extended care beds in small, remote hospitals in the smaller communities, thereby keeping those senior citizens in the area where they were born and raised and have worked for so many years. It is a very popular program, which the members opposite have embraced. It is that kind of sensitivity and concern that the previous administration had.

Our government was also responsible for introducing the bursary program, which was designed to recruit health care professionals to northern communities. Unlike the present government, the previous Conservative government was committed to improving access to health services for all the residents of northern Ontario.

Our administration attempted in the longer term to reduce, not encourage, the travel of northerners to major centres in the south for medical treatment. While we recognized that in the short term, until our goals were reached, it would be necessary to assist northerners with their health-related travel costs to ensure equal access, our ultimate target remains the establishment of full services in northern Ontario. However, it appears that the new administration has abandoned the long-term commitments we made and has chosen instead to use a short-term solution for a long-term problem.

As part of our overall strategy to assist northern Ontario in becoming self-sufficient in the delivery of health care, we placed special emphasis on the development of five major cities -- namely, North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins and Thunder Bay -- as regional medical referral centres. These five cities represent 63 per cent of the population of northern Ontario.

As a result of our efforts, specialty medicine, surgical services and diagnostic services were fully rationalized among Sudbury's four hospitals. This city now has tertiary care services in many disciplines, including cardiovascular surgery, neurosurgery, nuclear cardiology, burn treatment, life support and ophthalmology. If the Liberals continue our commitment, this city will also have a cancer treatment centre.

As we saw in the House yesterday, when the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) was trying to get some answers and some commitment from this government and had to be ejected, unfortunately, we were given no commitment and no positive statement with respect to that needed cancer treatment centre in Sudbury. We hope it will not be very long before they come with a commitment on this very important requirement.

In Sault Ste. Marie, our endeavours resulted in the opening of a cancer treatment centre at the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital. This enables patients with highly complex treatment requirements to be cared for locally. As well, under our administration, new obstetrical, prenatal and psychiatric services were established in Sault St. Marie.

In Timmins, we initiated a new district hospital with expanded programs of psychiatry, chronic care, general rehabilitation, ambulatory medicine and nuclear medicine.

Our commitment resulted in the establishment of tertiary services in Thunder Bay, including neurosurgery, nuclear cardiology, children's treatment, burn treatment, ophthalmology, pacemakers, dialysis and a cancer clinic. We are also planning major improvements for the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in Kenora.

Admissions of residents from smaller communities to the facilities in these five northern cities have increased by more than 16 per cent as a consequence of these improved services the former administration built on.

There was no necessity for these people to travel to Toronto to receive the care they needed, as the former Progressive Conservative government took steps to strengthen health services and facilities right across northern Ontario. That was our ultimate goal for the people of northern Ontario.

I could go on at great length.

Mr. Cureatz: Please do.

Mr. Bernier: I will. I could go on at great length describing the accomplishments and advances made by our government in building a solid foundation of health care in northern Ontario. There are items I have not mentioned, such as the native healer program, the northeastern Ontario telehealth network, the establishment of local boards of health in northern Ontario and an ambulance radio system.

However, I will spare the details as I hope I have been able to get the message across; that is, that the former government worked towards improving access to health care services for all those in the north and we viewed the funding of health-related travel as an interim measure until our work was complete.

I firmly believe that access to health care is a basic right. There is no question in my mind that we must have equal access to appropriate care for all Ontarians.

Mr. Callahan: How can we have equal access if people are charging more?

Mr. Bernier: We will have it. Go to Britain and see what happened there.

We on this side of the House no longer have the opportunity to continue the work that we started, and since it appears the present government is abandoning our long-term commitment for the time being, equal access does mean that the people of the north must travel to receive the care they deserve and are entitled to.

The most fundamental principle must surely be to provide more and expanded services in northern Ontario. The objective must be to overcome the problems of distance, not by sending people hundreds of miles to the south, but rather by establishing the necessary services right across northern Ontario.

This was the approach of the Progressive Conservative government. We created what is perhaps the finest health care system in the world right in this very province. Please do not misunderstand me; I realize it is not perfect and that we left much undone. None the less, comparatively speaking, we have a great deal of which to be proud. Unfortunately I am not convinced that the present Liberal-socialist coalition government is capable of preserving our health care system, which was created only at great sacrifice by the people of this province and by the dedication of our health care professionals.

The other hypocrisy of the legislation before us today is that the so-called Health Care Accessibility Act is a misnomer if I ever heard one. It is demonstrative proof that this government is concerned with anything but accessibility. Until the Liberals came to power with the aid of the socialists, we had one of the most accessible health care systems in the world. In my mind, no service in this province was more accessible than that of health care. The introduction of this legislation at this time threatens to decrease that level of accessibility that we have all worked so hard to attain.

In my mind, this is because Liberal-Democrats have failed to realize some very basic facts. They have failed to realize that government is in the health care business to stay. They have failed to realize that doctors are also in the health care business to stay. Prior to the Liberal-Democrat coalition and ascent to power, a mood of co-operation existed between the government of Ontario and the medical profession.

The Deputy Speaker: I draw the member's attention to the clock.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to everyone's attention that the member's speech is very indicative of the kind of commitment we have against this legislation. As a result, I would like unanimous consent to allow the member to continue with his speech.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

Mr. Polsinelli: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would be prepared to give my consent if the member would indicate how he is going to vote on the bill.

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

On motion by Mr. Bernier, the debate was adjourned.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

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

Bill 1, An Act to revise the Family Law Reform Act;

Bill 95, An Act respecting Science North;

Bill 97, An Act respecting Amusement Devices.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

17 janvier 1986