Journal des débats 1986-janv-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

In 1985-86, a new capital conservation program was created for the express purpose of encouraging repairs and renovations to existing facilities such as arenas and community centres. This program was designed to encourage communities to modify their facilities so that the changing recreation needs of special groups, such as disabled individuals and older adults, might be accommodated.

During the 1985-86 fiscal year, my ministry committed $3.4 million to the capital conservation program. Today I am happy to inform members this government has allocated $10 million to the 1986-87 capital conservation program. Because the applications for funding requested under the previous government's program exceeded the funds available, I am also pleased to report that our government has decided that $5 million from the 1986-87 capital conservation allocation will be used for applications already filed this fiscal year. These applications will be reviewed immediately.

This initiative demonstrates our government's responsiveness to the needs identified by client groups such as municipalities and community groups. Many people applied for grants under the 1985-86 capital conservation program but could not be assisted because of the funding limits set by the previous government. We have corrected this.

I am also pleased to announce a second initiative, a new capital grants program for new recreation facilities. My government has committed $15 million to the capital grants for a new recreation facilities program in 1986-87. Municipalities and community groups can apply for assistance in the construction of new recreation projects such as community centres and sports facilities.

Many members may be aware that, sadly, this program has not been open for new applications since 1983. I am especially pleased this government has recognized and responded to needs that have gone unanswered for the past two years.

Both of these capital programs address the changing patterns of work and leisure, the increasing average age of the population, special recreation needs and the much greater importance of recreation in general. The economic activity these programs will generate through construction and jobs is also very significant.

Information on program guidelines and application deadlines will be made available in the next few weeks through the ministry's regional offices.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Because the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has made this statement, I would like to bring to your attention an advertisement containing job descriptions for Ontario Place that appeared in the Mount Forest Confederate last week. It said the deadline for receipt of applications is January 31 and that students interested in applying for the positions could contact the constituency office of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) in Markdale.

No information was provided to me or other Conservative members; yet the Liberal members, and likely the New Democrats also, were advised of this ahead of time and received application forms. Does this mean jobs are available only for Liberal young people?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The honourable member can ask that question during question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DRUG SUBSTITUTES

Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Health has now had to retreat from his suggestion that we were scaring senior citizens on the questions we raised with regard to drug substitution. He has now had to change his position and call the emergency meeting of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee we asked for and he refused for several days. Is the minister now prepared to retreat from his position that all this drug substitution depends upon federal government testing, or is he prepared to agree today that the federal bureau of human prescription drugs does not test for interchangeability?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think I have to retreat on that issue because, as the honourable gentleman knows, our Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee does make rulings on the interchangeability of products.

Mr. Grossman: Exactly. Therefore, the suggestion the minister was making last week, two weeks ago and three weeks ago that this all depends upon the federal government is, with respect, wrong. The ultimate burden lies with the ministry to make decisions with regard to interchangeability. Is the minister prepared to admit today that thousands of pills were on the shelves from December 2 to the day he finally took action last week? Is the minister prepared to admit that from January 14, when we first raised the issue and he refused to do anything, until last week thousands of potentially dangerous pills were on the shelves for an extended period of time?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the safety of medication is under federal jurisdiction. He knows that and I know that.

Mr. Grossman: Interchangeability is the question.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member raised the question of safety, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal authorities.

The question of interchangeability is under the jurisdiction of our group, the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. With respect, the member knows and I confirm that we have been waiting for the federal authorities to provide updated information. We have also been waiting for information from the drug company with respect to the material to be tested.

At the meeting that was called, the material the committee used to make its decision was the most conclusive available at the time. Questions were raised about whether more information was coming from the federal authorities. We have attempted to get more information, and that was the basis on which the meeting was finally held.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Could the Minister of Health explain why it took the Ontario Medical Association six months after the question was raised in the Legislature to report to the ministry on the one drug that was declared to be interchangeable? Does that not indicate there is a problem in the system? If patients are feeling side-effects, why is there not a system in place that allows the ministry to become aware of the problem immediately?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot tell why the submission of the material to our ministry took six months. I think the honourable gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) know the OMA committee to which the information was originally referred is a joint federal-OMA committee. That is what I understand, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. That may indicate why it took longer to provide the Ministry of Health with information about this drug. I do not know exactly how else to explain the tardiness of recommending to us that other steps be taken.

Mr. Grossman: The minister suggests information was needed from the federal government. I put it to him that the federal government tests for safety and efficacy. It does not test for interchangeability. The questions raised by the Ontario Medical Association were not with regard to safety or efficacy. They were about safe interchangeability, which has nothing to do with the federal government and everything to do with his ministry.

On that issue, the minister said he would be appointing new people to the DQTC, including the OMA nominee, an item which had been outstanding from July 1985 to January 1986. He said last week he would be appointing the people by the end of that week. Can he tell us whom he had appointed by the end of last week and who the OMA nominee is?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There were several parts to that information just disseminated by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not have the exact names of the people at my disposal, but I would be pleased to report back to the House on all of them. I understand we accepted more than one person nominated or at least put forward by the OMA.

I also have to underline that the OMA per se does not have an official representative. I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that this is the case. When somebody resigns, as the individual physician who was seen to be the OMA's representative did when he left for Quebec to take up activities there, it would never have been the procedure in this province to make an appointment in mid-term. We have followed the regular procedure. I think the member will be pleased to know the suggestions of the OMA have been followed with respect to its recommendations, and I will provide the exact names.

Mr. Grossman: This has been done six months after they sent in the names.

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

For the sake of brevity, I invite the minister to indicate with a yes or no answer whether he agrees with the decision of the University of Toronto, which was talked about in this House last Friday, to close its faculty of architecture. Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition has given me an opportunity to answer yes or no. I do not think I am compelled to do that. I have met with President Connell and we have discussed his decision. He has given me background information on it. Additional background information appeared in the press over the weekend. I anticipate meeting with him further on it.

Mr. Grossman: Under the rules of the House, the minister is not compelled to say he agrees with the closing of the faculty of architecture, but as he is Minister of Colleges and Universities, one thinks he might have not just an opinion but a very strong one with regard to whether the closure of that facility was right or wrong. I invite him to stand up and say either the U of T was right or wrong, in which case he, as the minister, will do everything within his power to make sure the school stays open. I want to hear one or the other. The public compels him to answer.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is another either-or opportunity. Has the minister stopped beating his wife? The minister never beat his wife.

I expressed my sadness to President Connell when he advised me his administration was going to recommend the closure. We are all saddened by that. Nevertheless, I do not think it is appropriate for the minister simply to step in and say, "I disagree with it, so we are going to try and influence that decision of a governing council of an autonomous institution." In view of the announcement, we are simply not prepared to take immediate steps. We do not have enough information to make those sorts of decisions at this point.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister going to countenance the closure of the only professional architectural school in Ontario that provides graduate training and graduate degrees? Is he prepared to countenance the closing of a professional faculty of architecture in the city of Toronto, the largest metropolis in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not think the question is whether I countenance it. These problems have arisen over the past three or four months. The difficulties within that institution have existed for 10 years; that faculty has been in trouble for a very long time.

We are looking at the situation. We are going to monitor the hearings the committees of the governing council will have. I have already arranged to meet with the representative body of architects. At this point, I am not prepared to say whether we are prepared to step in. I do not think it is appropriate for a minister to step in and say salvation is at hand whenever a program is in trouble.

Mr. Grossman: One wonders why we need a minister at all if all he is going to do is report that he too is saddened by the decision. The minister says he will not interfere because of the autonomous nature and independence of the university system. Can he explain why, when it comes time to interfere and stop the closing of the faculty of architecture, the system is autonomous and independent, but when the Treasurer brings down his budget he tells the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education that it must be folded into the University of Toronto? Is it independent when that is convenient for the government or is it not independent? Will he explain the difference to us?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In recent history my friend was the Minister of Colleges and Universities. At that time he surely was aware of the difficulties at the faculty of architecture in the University of Toronto, yet he did not step in to improve that situation. That is an autonomous institution.

The union of OISE and the University of Toronto will take place arising out of an agreement we think will be negotiated between those two institutions.

DOMINION STORES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier, who I am sure will be aware that the most symbolic representative of bloated capitalism at its worst, Conrad Black, the owner of Dominion Stores, skimmed off $62 million from the pension fund under the open eyes and ears of the government's pension commission.

At the same time, Dominion Stores is refusing to pay severance pay to the 400 employees who were laid off as a result of a decision by Dominion Stores to shut down several stores. What does the Premier intend to do about that to assure the workers of this province that there is some industrial justice in Ontario in 1986?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has asked a very legitimate question. What has transpired in the last little while is most troubling, particularly the juxtaposition of taking $62 million from the pension fund -- I believe that was last week or the week before -- and the closing down of some of the operations at the same time. I have been canvassing opinion today to see what our legal remedies are and at the moment I am not sure.

I can tell the member the current state of how we see things. The member is quite right in that the company just withdrew $62 million from the pension fund. As I understand it, that was a decision agreed to by the union and management. The contract in that case and in other cases has to be agreed to by both parties. I could be wrong about that, but that is my understanding. Then it has to be agreed to by an independent group, the Pension Commission of Ontario. In that respect, it is not a government decision; it is made by an independent group, as set out by legislation. As the member knows, we are or shortly will be in the process of changing that legislation. We think some of our changes will deal with this kind of problem.

Second, there is a problem with respect to severance pay. A couple of questions, one to do with seniority and another to do with the size of the establishment, are before a referee under the Employment Standards Act. I understand that hearing will take place in May or perhaps later; we would like to see that accelerated. I agree with the member it is a troubling situation. I wish I could wave a magic wand and solve it today; I cannot, but we are pursuing all the remedies.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If I can stick with the issue of the pension fund for a moment, the Premier is aware that we have been raising this issue for some time. We began raising questions at the time of the CCM collapse, more than a year ago.

Even if the government had waited until we first asked questions, does the Premier agree it would have been possible for it to amend the legislation and regulations so no further withdrawals from funds could have taken place? What is he going to do, as of today, to stop further haemorrhaging of workers' pension funds, money being taken out by employers because they suspect the government is going to change the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is nothing illegal about it at present. I understand what the honourable member is saying. It is our view that the amendments the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has in mind with respect to a 50:50 contribution would go a very long way to solving the exact problem the member raises. Other questions have to be addressed as we approach the subject of pension reform, but we believe the Treasurer's view would solve a lot of these problems.

Mr. Grossman: The leader of the third party points out there may be a bit of a run on these things in anticipation of a government decision. Does the Premier not think it would be appropriate to set a clear date for a government decision in this regard, one way or another, and announce that right away? I suggest to the Premier, the earlier the date the better. When is he going to have a decision?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member had a lot of time to deal with these questions and now we are dealing with them. We have announced our program in that regard.

First, I do not see a major run, because employers will have to comply with the terms of the legislation, which presumably guarantees sufficient funds in that pension fund. I do not see that a run will occur. If there is any possibility of that happening we could have a discussion with the pension commission, even though it is an arm's-length, independent group.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Given the present failure of the severance pay legislation in Ontario, in that only 17 per cent or about 2,300 of the 14,000 laid-off people actually received severance pay in 1984, and given that the whole business of "establishment" is being so misused by Dominion Stores, is there nothing the Premier can do to correct these problems as soon as possible to protect the workers in this province?

For instance, the store in my riding, which was the most recent one to close, actually had more than 50 employees this month; it laid off six to bring the number down to 48 before it announced the store was going to close.

Finally, the Premier mentioned speeding up the process of the definition of "establishment." My understanding is that was done in April and that Dominion Stores is going to close --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is my understanding that we may be able to move it up for a quicker hearing, with the agreement of all parties. We will endeavour to get that agreement to make that determination with respect to "establishment." The honourable member is correct; there have been some abuses of the situation. We are in the process of discussing this with the Ministry of Labour and we hope to be able to come back with specific remedies for all cases, including the Dominion case.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the course of our exchange today, the Premier indicated he was not sure but he thought the trade union and the employees involved had been consulted. I was advised by the Pension Commission of Ontario at 2:45 p.m. that the commission approved the payout in the past two weeks, that the terms of the plan did not require consultation with the union as a condition of payout, that the commission did not contact the union and that the trust company had already paid the money out. I am sure the Premier would like to correct the record.

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I accept that the honourable member is probably correct, and I thank him for correcting the record. I will look into this matter immediately, and if I am wrong, I apologize to the member and to the House.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Rae: I have a new question to the Attorney General. On Thursday, talking about prosecutions under the Employment Standards Act, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) announced that "it would be clearly unfair to launch prosecutions for actions based on past government direction. Therefore, the branch will not initiate prosecutions for violations occurring before January 1 this year."

Section 59 of the Employment Standards Act is very clear and sets out as a basic fact that "every person who contravenes any provision of this act...is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable" and so on. If they are guilty of an offence for having breached the act, why are they not being prosecuted by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I did not hear the question and answer last week. I do not have at hand the material to which the honourable member is referring. I will have to consider it and advise him.

Mr. Rae: I am sorry, but the Attorney General is responsible for the administration of justice in the province. When his colleague the Minister of Labour states as a matter of fundamental government policy that the Employment Standards Act will not be in force up until January 1986 --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Rae: -- we are entitled to an answer from the Attorney General with respect to that government policy.

I ask him specifically, under what canon of law or what government direction is the Minister of Labour stating there will be a blanket amnesty for all those employers who have broken the law up to January 1, 1986?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is entitled to an answer, and he is going to get one, but he is not going to get it now just because he seeks to raise the question now. If he had given me notice half an hour ago I would have looked up the material and been prepared to give an answer. I undertake to do that as quickly as I can and let him know.

Mr. Rae: Is the Attorney General telling us he was not consulted when the Minister of Labour announced that as a matter of government policy there was going to be a blanket amnesty with respect to enforcement of the Employment Standards Act?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I was not consulted, but it does not follow that officials of my ministry who are authorized to give advice on these matters were not.

KAWARTHA DOWNS RACETRACK

Mr. Turner: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On Wednesday, January 22, an official of the Ontario Racing Commission called and informed the management of Kawartha Downs racetrack, which is in my constituency, it would be closed until further notice. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The matter of Kawartha Downs has been raised by the racing commission. I was in touch with the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) this morning. At present, all parties are trying to work out their differences. I do not think it is appropriate for me to interfere as the minister until I have had an official communication from the racing commission or any of the other parties involved.

I am in communication with them about what is going on. As soon as they have some sort of a proposal on which they want me to act, I will.

Mr. Turner: I am pleased the minister is aware of the situation. However, it is cold comfort to the 162 employees who work at this track. Will the minister assure this House, myself and my constituency that he will immediately intervene in this affair to reopen the raceway as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The information I have from my conversation with the member for Durham East this morning is that the chairman of the racing commission has made a proposal and it is being considered. I cannot give the member the assurance he asks, because I do not think it is appropriate for me to intervene until it has reached such an impasse that it requires a minister's intervention.

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. I wonder whether the long-awaited extension of benefits to part-time workers under the Civil Service Commission is finally happening, but obviously not without problems.

I have a question of the minister on the situation at the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital. One of the workers there, Mary, works from 10:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., five days a week, for a total of 20 hours. Jane works three days a week on a float schedule for 21.75 hours a week. Can the minister explain which of these two workers will qualify for part-time benefits and why there is discrimination?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: If the honourable member will give me the details of the individuals, I will look into the cases and come back with a clear definition so everyone will understand exactly how we will be providing these benefits, which have been applauded by an arbitrator as being very forward-thinking and fair to regular part-time people. It is important the details be made clear, and I will be pleased to do that. If the member will give me the specific details on the individuals, I will have a full answer in due course.

Mr. Mackenzie: If it is very fair, we have a problem. The schedules are made out at least 14 or 15 days in advance for both groups. The part-time workers at Whitby Psychiatric Hospital expected to start receiving benefits on January 1, but now have discovered that of the 130 they deemed to be eligible, only 28 will qualify under the formula being used. One of every five workers is eligible for basic benefits, and many of those not eligible are those with more time in. Can the minister explain this?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: A very full and complete answer is necessary, and I will make a statement in the House to that effect in the very near future.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services having to do with insurance, the subject we have been spending so much time on with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). It has to do with a little group home in the small community of Bridgenorth, near Peterborough, that is about to be closed because it cannot obtain liability insurance. If it does not obtain liability insurance --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but I have to give some background to it. Do you want me to start from the beginning? When you interrupt like that, I cannot get through it.

This group home is at Bridgenorth. If it does not get liability insurance by Friday, January 31, it will have to close. What is the minister prepared to do for the children in the group home?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: If this group home is financed in whole or in part by my ministry, we have given a clear statement that we will work with it either to get insurance from some other source or to assist it to deal with the problem in the short term. We have made clear that we do not intend to see any service whatsoever closed down. I remind the honourable member that just in the past week, my colleague who is responsible for the department of insurance has assisted two child care agencies in getting insurance in the short term while longer-term solutions are being met.

We are working with these groups and we have committed ourselves to continuing to work with them. If the member will identify the group home he is concerned about, my staff and the staff of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be in touch with it to see what we can do to help.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased with the minister's intent. I would like him to go one step further and give us a guarantee that he will do everything possible to make sure the group home is not closed. That is what is going to happen to a lot of group homes unless the province begins to do something to solve this problem. Can he give us a guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I will give a guarantee that we will do everything possible to assist them. However, that is not the question; I have given that kind of guarantee two or three times already. I point out to the member that to this point not a single agency associated with my ministry has had to reduce its services because of insurance.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Given the low-claim nature of the insurance for group homes and child care facilities in general, how does the minister explain the difficulty they are having in getting insurance? What are the avenues for these group homes and child care facilities around the province? Which insurance companies are picking them up? Very few claims are ever made against these institutions.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is quite correct in indicating that a number of our agencies have never had a single liability claim in their entire history. The only response we are getting from the insurance companies is that they are potentially liable. It is this uncertainty that seems to be creating the problem.

Let me repeat that we have already assisted a number of agencies and we will continue to assist them. To the best of my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected if any member knows otherwise, not a single agency has had to curtail its services because of this.

PSYCHIATRISTS' SALARIES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board with regard to the psychiatric hospitals and the negotiating dispute that is going on currently.

Now that the fact-finder has reported he also feels the process of negotiation is unfair and one-sided, I wonder whether the Chairman of Management Board is willing to take the recommendation of the psychiatrists and the Ontario Medical Association and put in place a fair negotiating process that recognizes psychiatrists as a bargaining unit and accepts the results of a fact-finder or any other third-party resolution of these kinds of labour disputes?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am particularly disappointed the representatives of the psychiatrists in the employ of the government decided to release the report of the fact-finder knowing the negotiating process in place at this time agrees clearly the parties will not release the report for seven days, and then only after giving the other party two days' notice of their intention to make the report public.

This calls into question the process that is in place. I would like very much to review that process, which obviously is not working.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister did not answer the question whatsoever. The fact that the fact-finder's report has been released may be important to her, but my concern and that of the members of the Legislature is that this dispute should be settled so the patients in the province who need help get the help they require.

Is the minister prepared to recognize the psychiatrists and other professional groups in this province as negotiating bodies and allow them to organize and negotiate fairly, instead of the existing one-sided process? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I believe the psychiatrists in the employ of the Ontario government are fairly paid when compared to other professionals in the public service or salaried physicians in other jurisdictions. I believe our salaries are higher than those of all but one other province and they are higher than those paid by the federal government.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is the minister sure it says that?

Mr. McClellan: She is reading tea leaves.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The physicians have indicated they are also concerned about working conditions, and it is my feeling this entire matter would be well served if the parties were able to sit down and discuss it amiably, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has offered to do.

EXPO 86 PAVILION

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I understand a $2.25-million film called A New Place to Stand will be shown in the Ontario pavilion at Expo 86, "featuring a spine-tingling, heart-stopping tour of the province," to quote from the brochure. What facilities are in place to ensure that tourists interested in specific areas of Ontario have access to detailed information?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the interest the honourable member is showing in Expo 86. I hope he is considering his travel plans accordingly. I am sure the film producers hired by his government will be very pleased to hear of his renewed interest.

It is being advertised constantly. I believe I heard Expo 86 commercials as recently as today. The media have shown a considerable degree of interest. As the next few weeks unfold, and as we have already done in some instances, we will be doing considerable programming in print and other media to get the Expo 86 message across, not only to the general public but also to the back-bench members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Rowe: My question did not deal with the quality of the film; it is an excellent film. Unfortunately, the minister did not listen. As of last Thursday evening no decisions had been made on counsellors or on which kiosks will be used to capitalize on a pavilion costing $27 million and growing. With fewer than 100 days to the opening, is anyone over there in charge of that project?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Yes. The minister, along with the board of directors, is in charge of the project, as the member well knows.

I am pleased to hear the member refer to the high quality of the film. I am not aware that he has seen it yet, but then neither has anyone else. It will be of a very high calibre and high quality and I will invite him at the very earliest opportunity to come and view it with us.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning the C. H. Lewis (Lucan) Ltd. landfill site near the village of Lucan.

As the minister is aware, that dump site has been operating in contravention of the conditions of approval set by his ministry, according to a certificate of approval issued in January 1972. Is the minister aware that the dump was registered to receive the waste from 5,000 people in three communities and it is now receiving the waste from some 16,000 people in many more communities, including London township, Lobo, the University of Western Ontario and the Ipperwash army base?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am aware that is the case. It was brought to my attention by individuals who reside in the area when I was at an environment conference late in November or early December. I reviewed the case with my officials and I am not satisfied the dump is operating appropriately. As a result, I have given the company six months to clean up its act. If it does not clean up its act, that is it.

Mrs. Grier: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you did not rule my question out of order because my question was an extract from Hansard.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the member to wait for a moment so the question can be heard.

Mrs. Grier: My original question is taken verbatim from Hansard on June 21, 1983, at which time it was asked by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

I am not satisfied by the fact that the present Minister of the Environment has allowed this dump, which has been continuing since 1972, to continue for another six months. Given that the Environmental Appeal Board ordered the dump closed in 1984 and expressed bewilderment at the fact that waste management regulations are ignored by the company and the Ministry of the Environment and that the applicant, through continuing appeals, has been frustrating this closure --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Grier: -- why has the minister not ordered this operation to obey his laws?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member is aware and has aptly stated -- and I do not want to hear any other interjections from over there -- it is an unsatisfactory situation. We run into this in many cases in Ontario and attempt to get these cleaned up as soon and as practically as possible. The period of six months will permit the company to come into compliance with the regulations of Ontario. If it is not in compliance at that time, then as I said, that is it.

RED MEAT PLAN

Mr. Stevenson: The Minister of Agriculture and Food will remember that as opposition critic he stated on a number of occasions that stabilization would just stabilize poverty. As minister, he has now made that a self-fulfilling prophecy. With more than $200 million in new programs in the past six months in Alberta and with payouts in excess of $200 per head in Saskatchewan and more new programs on the way, how is he going to help Ontario farmers compete, now that he has handcuffed himself as he has?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If I have handcuffed myself, I want to let the member know five other provinces have now signed the tripartite agreement.

I have said on many occasions the time has come for us to stop the balkanization of this country by every treasury trying to outdo other treasuries in subsidizing the farmers.

I felt the need to get a stabilization program in place, knowing full well that when I did, the other provinces would be very quick to react, because if they did not they would not receive a federal stabilization payment of any kind. As I said, five provinces have signed. Once again, Ontario took the lead. It will not be very long before all the other provinces are in the program.

Mr. Stevenson: The minister is correct in saying the other provinces have signed, but they have signed in areas where they have basically no programs. Any province with a rich program has not signed in those areas. Ontario farmers have fallen further behind in the war of the treasuries in the last six months than in any other six months in the history of agriculture in Ontario. In the light of the new programs the government continues to bring forward, what is the minister going to do to help the farmers of Ontario in 1986?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Nearly every day I receive letters and telephone calls from farmers saying the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program is the best program any government has introduced in this province. I happen to have some of those letters with me. I would be only too happy to read them, but I will not take the time.

The honourable member says it is only those provinces that have not subsidized their farmers to any great extent which have signed the agreement. Once again, the member is wrong. Alberta subsidizes its farmers to a greater extent than Ontario does, and Alberta has signed the red meat agreement as it pertains to beef, pork and sheep.

Mr. Swart: Recognizing the value of tripartite and some of the dangers involved if we do top up, why does the minister not make retroactive stabilization payments to the farmers of this province to make up for what the Conservative government did not do while other provinces were making their payments, and to make up for what he has not done since his government --

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

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It would cost not only millions of dollars but also billions of dollars if this government were to make up for the past neglect of the Conservative government. We simply do not have that kind of money, nor do we think we should be saddled with the responsibility of covering up for any kind of neglect by the previous administration over the past 42 years. Since we formed the government, we have introduced a number of programs which the farmers of Ontario say are the best programs they have seen any government introduce over the past 42 years.

CHEMICAL SPILL

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In response to questions last week regarding the mishap at the Chipman chemical plant in Stoney Creek, he stated quite clearly that some aspects of the governmental and ministry response to a crisis situation were unsatisfactory, especially the response of his own ministry. Can he detail for the House what steps he is taking to ensure responses in the future are much more acceptable than those we saw last week?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a fair question. We have done a number of things, which I have discussed very briefly with some of the members of the House.

First, the assistant deputy minister, who is the top person in the operations, is looking at the response time of the spills action centre to iron out any of the wrinkles there and streamline the system so it operates in an appropriate fashion. In this case, it is my belief it did not.

Second, we are aggressively seeking to pinpoint what specific problems existed in the plant. As the member knows, there have been problems on three occasions in the last year or year and a half. We want to pinpoint those problems and make any changes that are called for. That involves having officials of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Environment go into the plant, as I understand they are today, and go over it with a fine-tooth comb to see that the operations there are such that it is unlikely another occurrence is going to take place.

In addition, I will be meeting with the chairman of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, Mr. Sears, and with Mayor Napper of Stoney Creek, to discuss the problems from their perspectives. I have also chatted informally with some of the members from the area and indicated I would like to meet with them to get their perspectives on what did not go right and how it can be improved.

I do not know how long the Speaker will let me go on, but there are a number of things we would like to --

Mr. Speaker: Until now.

Mr. Charlton: The minister is obviously aware of a fairly broad range of public concerns that have been expressed since the incident. I think he is also aware of the Stoney Creek council's demand for a public inquiry into the whole matter. Is the minister prepared to support and commit himself to a public inquiry so all the input that is useful in this kind of situation is heard in the process of trying to fix the problems in the response system?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Many of the things I have mentioned are actions that will be very helpful in this regard. Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Ministry of the Environment officials and municipal officials will be meeting to see what problems we can iron out with regard to the total response that took place.

With regard to a mechanism to allow input from the public, I would like to develop that. I do not know whether a public inquiry is that mechanism. Through the political representatives in the area, officials and those in the public who have expressed concern, I invite people to pass those concerns along to me so I may address them. I think the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) raised some good issues the last time he raised this matter in the House.

Mr. Dean: Following up on the response of the minister, not only today but also on Thursday when this was first raised, I am still very much concerned. I hope he has had an opportunity to deal with the issue of having proper monitoring equipment available to assist the emergency people decide what concentration of impurities there is. What can the minister tell us about that this week?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the member identifies a problem that exists in a number of jurisdictions. The information I had when this matter occurred was that there is not a vehicle or machine in the world of the kind he and I anticipated there might be in existence that can actually do emergency monitoring. Nevertheless, I have had our officials make inquiries in North America, Europe and Asia to determine whether such a machine exists, even a modified form of machine, that could respond on what I would call an emergency basis.

People want to be assured there is such a machine. The one we have now has to be calibrated, it has to be set up, and it is the only one in existence at this time. It is normally used for routine monitoring of air quality.

The member identifies a concern I have. As a result, our ministry is looking around the world at major manufacturers and checking with other governments to determine whether there is a machine that is better. I think the cost of the one in existence now is $1.3 million and it is not what we would call an emergency machine. We are looking into that. I think the member has identified a real problem.

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Leluk: I would like to ask a question of the first Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Given the fact that her leader has said her party is the author of the philosophy of multiculturalism, will she please explain to the House why she organized to defeat a motion put forward by her auxiliary minister at this past weekend's Liberal convention in Windsor? Are we in this House to assume the Liberal Party is trying to jeopardize the importance of multiculturalism in this province?

Hon. Ms. Munro: Like many of the other ministers, I was part of the panel of representatives at certain policy workshop sessions. The discussions were very good with respect to the pros and cons, not only of whether we should have a separate ministry but also whether the government was doing things to revise the multiculturalism policy.

At the life resources policy session, I said I thought the discussions were good. The motion put forward for a separate ministry of multiculturalism was voted down in the session I attended, and that was the voice of the people. After that session, I talked with many people about what we should be doing to recognize multiculturalism policy. I do not perceive any split between the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Ruprecht) and myself or this government on the importance of multiculturalism policy.

Mr. Leluk: Will the minister indicate to this House why the Liberal Party of Ontario this past weekend accepted the motion of her auxiliary minister to create a separate ministry of multiculturalism, which later in the same day was defeated by a motion brought forward by herself?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am not aware --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear. Did the minister say he had a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Test me.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I wish to address my point of order to the member for York West (Mr. Leluk).

Mr. Speaker: Order. An honourable member cannot address a point of order to another member. I am not sure what the point of order is.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: The point of order is about false information. The member has accused me of making a motion --

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

Hon. Ms. Munro: The Minister without Portfolio did not put forward the resolution. The resolution came from the ridings. The minister was present at that morning session, as I was. The way in which policy sessions are run in this government and for our Liberal policy caucus is to ensure that everyone carrying membership can attend more than one session.

I think what the member for York West saw happening at that convention was room for everyone to talk about and discuss how important multiculturalism is to this government. The question was fully discussed. It is clear that multiculturalism is very important to our membership and to the people. The question was whether there should be two separate ministries and that has not resulted.

Mr. Grande: Is the Minister of Citizenship and Culture of the opinion that a ministry of multiculturalism should be set up in Ontario?

3 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Munro: This government is in the process of looking at that question. What we are more interested in is whether this government reflects the true reality of the multicultural nature of the province. Setting up a separate ministry of multiculturalism that will respond to the kinds of questions of importance to multicultural people is not what we are looking at.

What we as a government are trying to do is to review the current policy and take a look at programs and services as they relate to the articulated needs of our multicultural and ethnic groups. Having also asked interministerial committees whether they are inputting into the reality of the multicultural question, we will make very slow and careful steps forward in policy reforms. Whether a separate ministry of multiculturalism fits this province is a decision that is way down the line. We are taking a look at whether --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is he aware that the township of Laird in my riding this year has no insurance for liability claims against the municipality related to pollution and yet, despite this new exclusion and lack of coverage, the premium for insurance for the municipality has increased by 95 per cent? Is the minister concerned about this type of exclusion of coverage for pollution claims against municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am very concerned about all the problems the municipalities are having. That is why I have appointed a task force to take a look at it.

Mr. Wildman: That is not good enough. The minister keeps saying there is insurance available. Will he now agree that, besides rate increases in this province, the major problem facing municipalities and other public bodies is the refusal of the insurance industry to provide certain types of significant and important coverage for liability claims?

Can the minister assure us he will investigate to determine how widespread this problem is and how many municipalities with landfill sites and others are not protected against possible claims related to pollution?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can give the honourable member my assurance I will investigate that. However, in conjunction with a question asked earlier, I should also say that to my knowledge there is insurance available for every risk, albeit at a higher cost.

Last week I said that, and I had one exclusion; I said there was a particular problem, and I can now tell the members that even that one has been looked after. Our market assistance program is working. We are finding insurance for anyone who requires it, albeit at higher rates, I say again, but we are addressing that as well.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder whether the minister had the opportunity to listen to Metro Morning today when Jack Lyndon, the spokesperson for the insurance industry, pointed out that all these problems were first flagged by the industry eight or nine months ago, I think he said.

In view of his suggestion that he told the minister and his people about it eight or nine months ago, can the minister explain why it was not until a couple of weeks ago that he appointed the task force to solve these kinds of problems?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is an interesting question. I discussed that exact question with my counterpart in Ottawa, the Honourable Barbara McDougall. Her response to me was that this question was flagged, not seven or eight months ago, but two or three years ago, that the industry had warned this was coming.

One of the big problems we have had is that, not withstanding the fact we knew it was coming we did not know in what magnitude. What has happened is that, unfortunately, there is a juxtaposition of the reinsurers' treaties coming due at the end of the year and the insurance policies of municipalities and other groups coming due at the end of the year. Now that we know the magnitude of the problem, we are dealing with it and we are solving it. I am quite confident we will solve it.

SMALL MARINA EXPANSION PROGRAM

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. The minister will be aware of the small marina expansion program, which was approved last spring. It was given initial startup funding of $1 million. The industry was invited to participate.

I am sure the minister will know the response to this exciting new program was tremendous, to the extent that ministry staff now estimate several million dollars will be required to fund pending and anticipated applications. Despite this response, not one cent of this funding has flowed to the small marina operators since the Liberal government assumed office. Can the minister explain why her government appears to have quietly killed this program?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Is it the small marina program? That was reviewed. As I understand it, the funding was made available. That program was under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I refer it to the minister.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps I can refresh the minister's memory. The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, as I understand it, either cut the program or cancelled the $1-million funding. The small marina expansion program was under the Ministry of Natural Resources. I am astounded the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has not brought this to the minister's attention, perhaps weekly if not daily.

Will the minister answer, by way of supplementary, whether the Minister of Natural Resources has ever brought it to her attention; and if he has, why has she cancelled the funding for this program for the thousands of small marina operators across Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I recall that this program was reviewed, and I will be pleased to report on the state of that program tomorrow.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You will notice that in the course of question period today, several ministers indicated they were going to take questions as notice, including the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). I seek your assistance to ensure that when the ministers do respond, given that they seem to be given to lengthy answers, they are in the form of ministerial statements and not taking up the time of a subsequent question period.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Don Mills knows the standing orders state that if it is a lengthy answer, it should be given at that time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to apologize for taking longer than I should have with my question. I wish I had heard you calling me to order more directly. You should be firmer with me.

Mr. Speaker: I will speak more like the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) after this.

PETITION

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Hennessy: I have a petition to the Premier of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Support Can-Car Employees.

"To support the protection of jobs of Can-Car Rail in Thunder Bay, I strongly protest the proposed sale of Urban Transportation Development Corp., Can-Car Rail, and would urge the provincial government to reconsider the proposed sale to Bombardier or others."

3:10 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Education Act.

M. Guindon: La tâche du député est parfois délicate et difficilé. Il y a d'autres moments, au contraire, où elle est, comme aujourd'hui, particulièrement agréable. Depuis neuf mois environ à maintes occasions j'ai eu l'honneur insigne de m'adresser en français dans l'enceinte de cette Assemblée législative. Chaque fois je ressentais une vive émotion devant la gentillesse de mes collègues anglophones, qui m'ont toujours prêté une attention délicate.

Il suffit de retourner quelques années pour se convaincre que la langue française à l'époque était soumise à la courtoisie, à la tolérance et à l'approbation du président de la Chambre et de ses députés. En d'autres termes, la langue française n'avait aucun droit de cité.

C'est donc avec une double émotion que je prends la parole aujourd'hui quand je constate les progrès accomplis durant les dernières années. Non seulement la langue française est-elle devenue langue officielle dans nos délibérations quotidiennes, mais elle devient un véhicule d'expression de tous les partis politiques.

Je veux aussi profiter de cette occasion pour féliciter le ministre de l'Éducation (M. Conway) pour s'être lui-même adressé à cette Législature dans la langue de Molière.

I am delighted to participate in this debate. I urge all members of the House to support Bill 75. I wish to record the gratitude of all Franco-Ontarians to the previous Minister of Education, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), and the present Minister of Education, for bringing this bill forward. I also congratulate members of the ministry and many others who I know have worked hard and diligently on this bill.

This government's ultimate objective, now within our grasp, is to assure every Franco-Ontarian student the opportunity to be educated in his mother tongue from kindergarten through university and beyond.

I must commend previous Premiers and governments of Ontario for having encouraged the use of French in the province by extending French-language services, through most of the ministries and other governmental services, in areas of the province where the use of French is substantial.

On behalf of the French-speaking minority of this province, I wish to commend the government of Ontario for programs and policies that enable French-speaking people to participate more fully than ever before in the growth and development of this great province of ours.

I know there are those within this province who are most unhappy with the measures I have just mentioned. Some are unhappy because they feel the program does not go far enough and others because they feel the government has already gone much too far. One cannot overemphasize the importance of moderation at this period in our history.

Legislation by itself cannot solve all the problems facing modern society. We cannot legislate away all the problems related to communication between races and cultures. As a Conservative, I understand and accept the pragmatic view that governmental action and legislation can increase understanding, tolerance and goodwill.

As an example, the Criminal Code demands that we respect the law, but it cannot abolish crime. The Ontario Human Rights Code can teach us tolerance towards our fellow man, but it cannot totally eliminate discrimination. However, governments can and should accept responsibility in the area of communication among its people.

Les progrès réalisés ces dernières années sont indéniables et ils laissent présager un dénouement heureux. Faut-il mentionner aussi la part plus large que l'on a faite à l'enseignement du français dans les écoles de l'Ontario. Faut-il rappeler dans les divers ministères le progrès des services en français, ce qui n'existait pas auparavant.

Loin de moi l'idée de prétendre qu'il ne reste plus de chemin à faire; bien au contraire. À peine a-t-on taillé une brèche dans la muraille et il faudra constamment préserver et donner à la culture et à la langue françaises la place qui leur revient au Canada et en Ontario.

La gestion scolaire, le projet de loi 75, ça donne nos droits. La bataille n'est pas terminée, mais l'article 23 garantit aux Franco-Ontariens la gestion dans leurs écoles.

Si je peux prendre quelques instants pour parler un peu de mon éducation et de ma chance lorsque j'étais plus jeune, je peux commencer à un petit village dans le comté de Glengarry dans le canton Kenyon qui s'appelle Apple Hill. C'est là où j'ai été élevé et j'ai fait mon école élémentaire jusqu'à la huitième année avec une demi-heure seulement de français par semaine pour commencer et une demi-heure par jour pour terminer.

On rira après ça que quand je suis arrivé à l'école secondaire, pensant que j'étais très capable de m'inscrire à un cours classique, il faut dire que ça n'a pas duré longtemps, le cours classique. Avec une demi-heure de français par semaine puis par jour, on n'a pas été bien loin avec ça. Donc, j'ai été obligé de suivre un cours secondaire à Montréal pour améliorer mon français.

Cela, c'est juste pour dire qu'aujourd'hui, ça ne devrait plus arriver. Avec l'article, et le projet de loi 75 en plus, je suis certain que tous les francophones de la province de l'Ontario vont avoir l'occasion d'avoir leur éducation en français de la maternelle jusqu'à la 13e année, sinon jusqu'à l'université.

Je dois aussi faire la remarque que lors de mon éducation secondaire à Cornwall on avait trois écoles secondaires françaises privées parce que le gouvernement de l'époque ne laissait pas aux francophones l'occasion d'avoir leurs écoles secondaires. Mais petit à petit, ces trois écoles-je dois les nommer: on avait le Couvent Ste-Croix, l'Académie St-Michel et le Collège classique-ont été obligées de fermer leurs portes tour à tour, premièrement parce que les fonds venaient des gens de la région en plus des taxes scolaires qu'ils payaient. Ils avaient leurs taxes séparées à payer en plus, et en plus ils ont essayé de supporter trois écoles secondaires francophones.

Avec le temps, une à une, elles ont disparu. La première raison est leur état financier. La deuxième raison est que les prêtres et les soeurs qui se dévouent à le faire ont été refusés d'être accrédités par le gouvernement. Peut-être qu'on peut dire qu'il avait raison à ce point-là, mais il n'a certainement pas aidé au plus haut degré.

Il faudra aussi demander au ministre et au ministère de bien voir à ce que l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario et aussi l'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens soient bien informées et qu'elles aient l'occasion de participer aux délibérations.

Aussi faudrait-il faire mention des universités francophones qu'on a eues, l'Université d'Ottawa et l'Université de Sudbury, qui ont travaillé d'arrache-pied pour venir à bout des quelques francophones qui pouvaient y aller.

Pour terminer, Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie de l'occasion que vous m'avez donnée aujourd'hui et j'aimerais en même temps féliciter le gouvernement du jour pour avoir déposé le projet de loi 75.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Reycraft: I am pleased to rise today to make these remarks on behalf of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway). The minister is not with us today because he is attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada in this city.

As I conclude debate on Bill 75, I would like to address some of the concerns that have been raised by my honourable colleagues during the debate. First, however, I will remind the House of some of the history of Bill 75, legislation guaranteeing minority language governance of education.

As the House will know, the previous administration introduced two governance bills, the most recent of which is Bill 28, introduced last June. This government withdrew that bill in July on the basis that it could be improved following further consultation with the francophone community and other interested groups.

We consulted widely. Before introducing this bill, we consulted the francophone community as well as our colleagues on the other side of this House. All the input we received proved to be very helpful.

Le projet de loi 75 démontre l'engagement de ce gouvernement au sujet de la gestion scolaire dans la langue de la minorité, généralement la langue française, de répondre à la décision prise par la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario au mois de juin 1984, qui accorde aux Franco-Ontariens le droit exclusif de gérer leurs écoles et leurs classes.

I am sure the last sentence would bring a smile to the face of a lady named Marion Wilson who laboured for a number of years at Glencoe District High School to try to equip me with some working knowledge of la langue française. I hope I have not disappointed her.

Bill 75 does a number of things. It provides interim and long-term measures; the interim to take effect in January 1987 and the long-term to take effect at the 1988 school board elections. Boards that buy minority language education will have advisory committees. Boards that operate schools and classes in the minority language will have education councils in the short term and French-language sections in the long term in 1988. In both cases, these bodies will have qualified trustees with proportional representation and exclusive jurisdiction.

In responding to some of the points raised during this debate, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their comments.

The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) was most generous with his commendations, which the government much appreciates. I would like to assure him further that he, his colleagues, the educational community and all other interested parties will have ample time to address this bill after second reading before the standing committee on social development. It has been the government's intention from the outset to provide that opportunity.

The member for Scarborough Centre raised several questions I would like to address specifically. He anticipates difficulties in enumerating the francophone community. We will be electing those with section 23 rights, so the challenge before us is to educate the public regarding that section of the charter. Preliminary discussions have already taken place with Ministry of Revenue staff concerning the implications Bill 75 will have for the enumeration process.

The member also raised questions about the role of the chairmen of French-language advisory committees in their expanded profile. While the government cannot endorse placement of the FLAC chairman on another board, there may be merit in the suggestion by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) that there be greater liaison between the FLAC of the board or boards purchasing education and the board offering the programs.

The member raised another question that was echoed later by his colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) about the relationship between Bill 75 and French immersion classes. As we interpret the bill and the charter, there is no relationship because the bill deals with French as a first language and immersion offers French as a second language.

As for the member's concern that some trustees will see the French-language panels as an intrusion by the minority, I remind those trustees of the June 1984 court decision that stipulated Canadian citizens with section 23 rights have the right to manage and control their own French-language classes and their own facilities.

The member suggests that perhaps the minister and his staff have not adequately considered the combined impact of Bill 75 and Bill 30, the legislation to complete the public funding of the separate secondary school system. I would like to take issue with that statement because a great deal of consideration has been given to the combined effect of these bills. The relationship between the two bills and the combined impact of them was a subject of much discussion when the social development committee held hearings in Ottawa this past summer.

One of the reasons Bill 28 was withdrawn by the minister was his concern that it had not been considered in the context of extension. Throughout the development of both bills by this government, serious consideration was given to the relationship. Further study will be pursued when the standing committee's recommendations on both bills are received.

I note with interest the member's questions regarding Ottawa-Carleton and the government's intention to establish a French-language board in that region. He may be assured the committee established by the minister will thoroughly study and make recommendations on the matters he raises, including the impact on the region's existing boards.

It is also interesting to note his request, and that of other members who have contributed to this debate, that the government consider establishing French-language boards elsewhere in the province. I will repeat the government's policy on this matter. There is no intention to establish them in any region but Ottawa-Carleton, which is uniquely suited to the creation of such a board because of its population, character and community support of the concept.

Moving to the member's concern about Metropolitan Toronto, ministry staff and Metro school board officials have held discussions regarding alternative approaches for the provision of governance. All those involved have indicated a willingness to co-operate in finding a feasible approach. Further discussions will be held involving others in the educational community. In the future, the government will bring forward amendments to Bill 75 to implement the legislation's principles within the Metro school system.

In response to the comments of my colleague the member for Hamilton West, I would like to thank him for his kind words and his support of Bill 75. As I have indicated, the government is prepared to consider his suggestion that there be liaison between the French-language advisory committees and the sections of the boards providing French-language programs. As for the member's concern that Bill 75 does not address the financial operations of boards, the ministry is exploring the practical applications of the budgeting and revenue allocation provisions of the bill.

Moving to the concerns expressed by the member for Cochrane South, I would like to clear up his confusion over the where-numbers-warrant provision that is not part of this bill. While section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes this proviso, it is not in this bill because it also does not apply to the section of Ontario's Education Act which gives the right of an education in the French language to every child whose parents have section 23 rights. If it does not apply to the right to an education in the French language, it is logical it should not apply to governance.

To my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), who rightly pointed out this bill was introduced in English, I offer by way of explanation that, because the Education Act was adopted in English by this Legislature, amendments to it are introduced in English. However, a French translation of the bill is available and steps have been taken to ensure all French-speaking members of the Legislature receive a copy of the bilingual version of Bill 75. I am not sure whether that has been executed. I trust those members have received the bilingual copies.

I would also like to thank the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) for his remarks. I understand his concern regarding the establishment of French-language boards in other areas of the province. I refer him to my earlier comment that it is not the goverment's intention to proceed in this manner at this time.

In closing, I would again like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate, including the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon). I will read his comments very carefully on another day. Due to the fact his speech is faster than my translation, I am not prepared to comment on those remarks at this time.

This very important bill represents a strong beginning in guaranteeing Ontario francophones the governance of education in which they are entitled. On behalf of the minister and the government, I thank members for their input and look forward to their further support and contribution as the bill proceeds to committee. Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: before the member's motion gets on the record, was it the general government committee or the social development committee? I understood it was general government.

The Deputy Speaker: I believe the parliamentary assistant said the social development committee.

Mr. Reycraft: That was the advice I received from officials within the Ministry of Education.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you in concurrence or otherwise?

Mr. Reycraft: I am getting a confused response.

Mr. Timbrell: When the House leaders last met we were looking at the distribution of work among the various committees, trying to relieve some of the pressure on social development. I thought we had agreed this bill would go to the general government committee. If I may suggest, in a similar situation last week it was left until the House leaders could chat later in the day.

The Deputy Speaker: It can be changed later, but the House leaders' agreement is really not binding upon the Legislature at all. Since the parliamentary assistant has the right to indicate to which what committee it will go, we will leave it that way unless there is an agreement to change later.

Mr. Reycraft: I have received some further advice that indicates that indeed was the agreement. I am prepared to change the motion if that is acceptable at this point.

The Deputy Speaker: It is not a motion. If you wish to indicate the general government committee, that is fine. Is that correct?

Mr. Reycraft: I would like to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

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. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this debate. I did speak for about 15 minutes on Friday. I will try not to be repetitious, although the members in the House to my left and opposite are different from the members present on Friday, so perhaps I should repeat what I said to make sure they do not miss it.

Interjection.

Mr. Gregory: The member will not walk out on me as some of his members did the other day. I want to make the point I made on Friday because it bears repeating. It is important that our doctors be regarded as self-employed professionals as opposed to being civil servants, which they would virtually become under this new system. That is not in the best interest of the doctors and I am not convinced it is in the best interest of their patients. Patients' regard for their doctors, their relationship with their doctors has been on a similar basis as that with a priest or minister or any other close adviser; and in many cases a school teacher.

I shudder to think what is going to happen by doing things such as this, when we ease towards the system as we know it in Britain. That has been largely a shambles. We have heard many horror stories, including the excerpt from the Toronto Sun about a lady and her son that I mentioned and that some people thought was a joke, but I will not go into that again. It was no joke. Things such as that are happening. The waiting lists for people to see their doctors and specialists are horrific.

We know many doctors left Britain to come to Canada expecting better things and, lo and behold, they are going to be treated to a little of the same. A doctor is not going to be allowed to charge the extra to which he feels entitled because of his professional skills and services. He is no longer going to be able to do that.

I found interesting today's discussion on the closing of the faculty of architecture at the University of Toronto. The first thing that crossed my mind was that it does not matter anyway, because after the students graduate as architects, the next thing they will find is that my friends across the way will be telling them how much they can earn. That may sound far-fetched, but I think we are on the slippery slope of starting to control the incomes of professional people. I find that unsavoury.

I am not suggesting for one minute that gouging should be allowed to take place. There has been no evidence it has taken place, no evidence whatever that doctors in Ontario have been gouging their patients. They have been extra billing and have been required to notify their patients that they will be extra billing. Patients can choose to accept that or to go to another doctor. Mind you, there are some exceptions. In certain remote communities that choice may not be there, but one does not kill a fly with a sledgehammer, as we seem to be doing here.

The way in which the Ontario health insurance plan works makes sense to me. We are going overboard to deal with the small number of doctors who have opted out and the even smaller number who extra bill. We are doing something it is not necessary to do. It has been said we are focusing all our attention on this matter of extra billing by physicians while totally ignoring the plight of hospitals.

It has been pointed out that the problem with health care is lack of funding for the hospitals. That may or may not be true; we faced the same sort of question when we were the government. If it is true, however, or until we find out whether it is true, why are we doing this? Why are we hitting at this one aspect of health care?

The doctors are quite pleased with the present system. That is not to say they are all making more money because of it, but they did agree to join our health plan because they had the right to opt out and that is now going to be taken away from them. That right to extra bill is going to be taken away. Despite his years of service or the skills a physician or specialist has, he will be one of a number of doctors. In other words, everybody will be paid the same thing.

If we take away the right doctors now have, then we are going to see a series of change rooms in every doctor's office. The doctor will probably increase the number of change rooms when he can get the space. He will channel people in and out of there as in a stockyard, filling up the rooms and making a quick visit. After all, I guess a doctor can earn -- how much is it they earn? Is it $7.50 a visit? I do not know. It is such a wonderful system, I have never seen a bill. They are automatically paid. I do not have a doctor who overbills or extra bills.

3:40 p.m.

They are going to have a series of change rooms. They will put people in and say: "Take your clothes off. I will be back to see you in a minute." They will come back for two minutes and will have earned their fee. That is not the kind of system we should have.

The system as it is now is one in which a person can visit a doctor to be examined and the doctor has the time to sit down with him and chat about his problems. We are inviting doctors to do away with that system by telling them they cannot afford to do it; they have to see twice or three times as many patients to make the money they made before.

We are not talking about a group of people who are making millions. I do not know whether these figures are true, but I understand the net income of doctors in Ontario, after expenses and before taxes, is about $60,000 a year. I do not know how accurate that is, but on the average it could well be right on. I do not think that average for that professional class, when we compare it with what we unskilled people in the Legislature make, is very far out. Perhaps it is a little low and it should be more.

Another argument is that the doctors are not taking advantage of the public under this system. The number of doctors who are opted out is decreasing and has been decreasing steadily, from 18 per cent in 1979 to 13 per cent in 1984. This does not sound to me like a runaway situation in which the doctors are clamouring out the door and opting out of the system. They are not doing it; it is decreasing. They are learning to live within the system.

Fewer than five per cent of the total claims processed by the Ontario health insurance plan are for services performed on an opted-out basis. It does not seem like the crashing problem it is being made out to be. It is more political in its nature; it is being done for political reasons. It looks good to say, "We, the new open government under Premier Peterson, are ready to do right by the people of Ontario." They are making it look marvellous, a great big piece of legislation, because it is sexy, very attractive and will get votes.

Mr. Villeneuve: Confrontation.

Mr. Gregory: Confrontation, right. Actually, they do not care over there about declaring war on the doctors. They know there are fewer doctors than there are voters. They would rather tackle them than stand up and tell the people --

Mr. Callahan: I thought it had broad support before. I thought everybody was in favour of it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: I am surprised I have not heard from the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) before now. I thought perhaps he had had a stroke; his eyes were closed.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps you will address the chair and we will not hear from him with interruptions again.

Mr. Gregory: I will address you then, Mr. Speaker. I thought the member for Brampton had gone to sleep, because he had not said anything up to now and it is unlike him.

Mr. Baetz: He was talking in his sleep.

Mr. Gregory: I guess that is what he was doing, because he made about as much sense as if he had been asleep.

I will get back to the principle of the bill. Many doctors have opted out of OHIP and have not charged extra. They opt out of it on principle. They have a principle. The doctors are a very principled group, and they do not agree that they should be told they cannot charge a certain amount. I can understand that.

Again I find it hard to believe that the great Liberal Party of Ontario has turned its back on free enterprise. I find that too difficult to believe. To think that the people over there, whom I think a great deal of, were once free enterprisers; but, of course, when one has to live by an accord --

Mr. Epp: Tell us about free enterprise and Suncor.

Mr. Gregory: The member for Waterloo North is reaching way back. If his government does not like it, why does it not sell it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga East should carry on with his discussion on Bill 94.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, they are picking on me over there.

The Deputy Speaker: Please disregard the interjections.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga East has the floor.

Mr. Gregory: That is right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am so glad you are able to get things under control when the rabble persist in interrupting when I am speaking. l do not appreciate being picked on like this.

Mr. Warner: Why would anyone pick on the member?

Mr. Gregory: I do not know. At any rate, where was I? I am having trouble getting back to my point. I will have to start from the first because I have lost my place.

Mr. Lane: Start over again.

Mr. Warner: Don't start over; I give up.

Mr. Gregory: I think I will.

We were talking about principles. That is something the members opposite do not know a great deal about. At any rate, the doctors take their position on the basis of principle. Historically, they have been used to making arrangements with their patients without having to be told what they must charge for their services. It is unfortunate. After the many bad experiences we have seen in some countries that have done this sort of thing, we in Ontario should have been a little more enlightened than to fall into the same mess.

Mr. McGuigan: The government should.

Mr. Gregory: The present government should have. We obviously were aware of those situations when we were in government.

Mr. Villeneuve: Nobody cares for the patients.

Mr. Gregory: Nobody cares for the patients. All they care for are bureaucrats and votes. Votes are more important in their minds than patients. To be able to say, "We are the party that eliminated extra billing" is a very good issue, but it is a lot of smoke and mirrors because there is not that much in it.

There are horror stories, and we have all heard them. We have heard about the patient who goes in and on the operating table is informed by the anaesthetist that it is going to cost extra. We know that happens, and in such cases that the doctor should be charged when it happens.

Mr. Callahan: What about the guy on the table?

Mr. Gregory: I dare say that at that point any anaesthetist -- I do not care who he is -- would perform his duties like the professional he is. I am talking about the settlement of the bill. If that actually occurs and he is on the operating table, it is in front of witnesses. A doctor should be prosecuted if he does that. Why does the government not do it the right way by prosecuting doctors who do such things? They are few and far between. We always hear about the ones that happen. Will the member grant that?

Mr. Callahan: I agree with that.

Mr. Gregory: As a lawyer, will the member tell me whether doctors should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Is that fair, or has that system changed over there too?

Mr. Callahan: I agree with that.

Mr. Gregory: I like to think the doctors are innocent and are professional in their approach to these things. They are not deliberately gouging anyone. We hear stories where they do, but we do not hear much about the doctor who, when approached by a patient who says he cannot afford to pay that much, says he will do it anyway. There is a lot of that too, more than there is gouging.

What are we doing here? We are firing off a cannon and we are going to get them all. The government is going to get everybody with its big cannon blast. That is not a responsible way of approaching this very serious subject. I think the member for Brampton totally agrees with what I am saying. I think I have him convinced.

The option of opting out also gives a physician a way to deal with the problems of the OHIP schedule without withdrawing his services. OHIP cannot keep up, as quickly as they come up, with the new procedures that take place every day. If a physician is using a new procedure that because of extreme difficulties or whatever would warrant additional fees, but it is not covered under the OHIP schedule --

Mr. Callahan: That is the crux of the problem.

Mr. Gregory: That might be the crux of the problem, but the problem is not the physician's fault.

Mr. Callahan: It is the fault of the OMA. They do not recognize expertise.

Mr. Gregory: It could well be OHIP, because it is a few months or years behind in recognizing these problems.

Where is the minister today, by the way? Is he away?

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Ward: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The pharmacy bills are in the standing committee on social development at this moment as well as Bill 94 being before the Legislature. The minister is in the social development committee and he has asked me to monitor the debate. I will convey these remarks to him.

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

Mr. Gregory: I appreciate the comment of the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward). Of course, if I had not brought it up nobody would have said anything. However, I do appreciate the fact that he is here to monitor this debate. I know he is a much more co-operative person than the minister anyway; perhaps when I have convinced him of the justice of my case, he will take it back to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and convince him.

Mr. Breaugh: The left-wingers have started to gang up on us.

Mr. Warner: The member is starting to be nice. We are disappointed.

Mr. Gregory: I am always nice. I would like to make a point. If the members of the little red rump would listen every once in a while they would know I am nice. I would not have to tell them.

Mr. Warner: I was listening.

Mr. Gregory: But the member is surprised that I am nice.

Mr. Warner: The member surprised me.

Mr. Gregory: My wife and kids think I am nice. I turned over a new leaf when I ceased being a whip. We all know that whips are naturally nasty; it is part of the job.

Mr. Villeneuve: Do they need doctors?

Mr. Gregory: They do, and they do not mind being extra billed either. They suffer a lot; the verbal darts from the left wing here can be very damaging sometimes.

They keep disturbing me, Mr. Speaker. I keep losing my place; so I will have to go back and start again.

Mr. Lane: Start over again.

Mr. Gregory: No, no. The fact is that these new medical procedures do happen. They happen --

Mr. Villeneuve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is a most important debate; it is casting the fate of the future of the medical profession. I would like to know if we have a quorum in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

3:56 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum present. The member for Mississauga East may continue.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you. I am delighted to have the large numbers in the House to hear these very important remarks. I am particularly delighted to see the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) decided to come and listen to my excellent speech.

Mr. Grande: The member will drive him away.

Mr. Offer: One should not assume that.

Mr. Gregory: I was just going to start talking about lawyers.

It is interesting we were talking about architects a little while ago; the next target could well be architects. Even more important, or worse, at least from the standpoint of the member for Mississauga North, it could be lawyers. Maybe the government should start talking about limiting the amount lawyers can charge in fees.

Mr. Villeneuve: Let us start with the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson).

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: Perhaps we can make it so lawyers cannot opt out, set a fee schedule for them and no lawyer, no matter how important or serious the case, can opt out.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga North is not in his seat.

Mr. Gregory: There is more justification for limiting the earnings of lawyers. I was saying before what a close relationship there is between a family and its doctor. Certainly lawyers do not enjoy that same close relationship.

It is very important that a doctor have this opportunity to have some flexibility on the OHIP schedule. Even the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has quite often said extra billing is a safety valve. Those are his words, not mine.

Mr. Ferraro: It is a ripoff.

Mr. Villeneuve: The member said it is a ripoff. Let us make sure Hansard records that.

Mr. Gregory: My friend the member says "ripoff." I think he is indicating that the doctors are ripping off the public. Is that what he meant? What is the riding?

Mr. Ferraro: Wellington South.

Mr. Gregory: Yes. The member for Wellington South thinks the doctors are ripping off patients.

Mr. Villeneuve: Blackballing every single doctor.

Mr. Gregory: I am quite sure that member is going to hear from a few of them on that one. I understand why the member says it; he can count. He knows there are more voters than doctors; so he does not mind insulting the doctors. He does not mind accusing them of ripping off the public. They are not ripping off the public, but I guess some people will do or say anything for a vote.

4 p.m.

I did not hear the same kind of rhetoric from that member when we were talking about the Wellington school strike. He was a little softer in his approach at that point. He was not accusing the teachers of ripping off the public. He was very strong in his criticism of the strike, but I did not hear any talk about anybody ripping anybody off. I guess in numbers there are more teachers than there are doctors. Is that how it goes? It gets reported in accordance with the number they have.

Mr. Ferraro: More doctors contribute to the Tories than do patients.

Mr. Gregory: If they do, they are as clever as I think they are. It shows that doctors are very discerning and are happy to support the best party and the best representative. I remind the member for Wellington South that since there are more Conservatives elected in Ontario than there are Liberals --

Mr. Callahan: Yes, but only five of them are in the House.

Mr. Gregory: There are only five of us in the House at present. That is correct, but the member for Brampton forgets that it is the Liberal Party's bill.

Mr. Callahan: That is fine, but only five Conservative members are here and it is important to the Conservatives.

Mr. Gregory: That is correct. They have all heard my speech before.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: However, I am glad we now have three ministers with us. That is very nice. I am happy to see it. They keep losing my place on me. I will have to go back and start again because I have lost my place. Shall I start where I was on Friday? Is that okay?

We have to be very conscious of the fact that the doctors who are extra billing are, for the most part, the specialists, who are usually the top doctors as opposed to the general practitioners. At least that is the way it seems in the eyes of the doctors. I do not know; maybe that is not correct. One of the members over there is a doctor who agrees with us. I cannot remember who it is.

At any rate, I am very nervous and concerned about what will happen when we ban extra billing. We can argue this all we want, but one fact is that doctors will leave Ontario and will probably go to the United States.

Mr. Cordiano: There is no room for them.

Mr. Gregory: I question the judgement of the member for Downsview on that one. He has not analysed the situation if he says that. There is great demand for them. Many of them have been approached already.

Mr. Villeneuve: Has the member ever had a problem getting into a hospital or a doctor's office?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: Somewhere I have lost the floor. In my opinion, since it is my time to have the floor, and in the opinion of many doctors whom I have talked to, they would either go or would consider going. Will the member for Downsview grant me that? Given that limitation, a great many doctors might very seriously think about going.

In his mind, is he of the opinion that no one will even think of going? I question his logic, because if I were a doctor put in that position, I would seriously think about going. Whether my attachment to my home or my country would overcome that desire for fairness, I do not know. I would at least consider it and I would examine all those options, especially if some hospital or town in the United States or somewhere made me an offer of two or three times what I am able to make here. There are many cases such as that. A doctor would have to be awfully stupid at least not to listen to it.

Mr. Callahan: There are many cases of seniors down there who cannot afford the system. If one does not have a plastic card, one cannot even get one's body out of the hospital.

Mr. Gregory: I might go back again. The member for Brampton did not quite understand what I said. I will have to repeat it a little more slowly so he will understand.

The fact of the matter is that doctors will leave. Let us suppose that the same 13 per cent of the doctors leave as are opted out of OHIP. Can one imagine the chaos in Ontario? Imagine the chaos if 13 per cent of our doctors, most of whom were the best doctors, decided to leave us. That is the negative side, the downside; it is the worst thing that could happen. Why are we putting ourselves in jeopardy of this happening just to satisfy the wild idea of someone across the way or someone who did a poll in his riding or something like that?

It is interesting to note that they think they have the public all on their side. I have seen surveys in which people are asked two questions. The first is, "Is OHIP delivering medical service to you and your family satisfactorily?" The answer is a resounding 80 to 85 per cent yes. The next question is, "Do you think doctors should be allowed to extra bill?" They say no. It is the reverse numbers.

Mr. Villeneuve: The same gang.

Mr. Gregory: It is the same gang. They are satisfied; they think it is doing a service for them and that everything is wonderful. Suddenly the government hits them with the idea, "Do you think doctors should be allowed to extra bill?" They answer no. I guess nobody wants to see anybody earning any more money than he does, and the thought of doctors as a professional class being able to charge a little more than the norm gets people excited.

Members over there, with their great judgement, recognize that. It is a sexy political issue with a lot of votes. That is where it is coming from on that side of the House, particularly since it is history that the Premier agreed many times that it was a necessary safety valve for doctors. Suddenly the picture has changed and there is political mileage to be made. We tend to forget our principles when political mileage is to be made. That seems to be what is happening.

It does not make much sense to try to end extra billing by negotiating some sort of complicated fee for everybody, which is probably going to cost a great deal more. My leader asked the Minister of Health the other day how much more than the $50 million we get back from the federal government will we have to pay out in additional fees to all doctors by raising the overall medical fee.

Mr. Callahan: That maintains universality for the seniors.

Mr. Gregory: Does the member recall that we were the ones who brought in universality? It was before he even became a member, let alone part of the government party. We brought it in many years ago -- 18 years ago. We brought it in on a universal basis. He knows as well as I do that seniors do not pay anyway. People on welfare do not pay. Anybody who cannot afford to pay does not pay. He knows as well as I that if anyone else could not afford it he would not be cut off. How much closer can one come to universality?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Is that not federal law now?

Mr. Gregory: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Speaker: A discussion seems to be taking place here. The honourable member has the floor to discuss the legislation. I ask the other members to refrain from asking questions because question period ended some time ago.

Mr. Gregory: I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say the same thing to the minister, whom I admire very much. I am surprised at his taking the head-in-the-sand attitude he is taking now.

It does not make sense to do what we are doing. By eliminating extra billing, we are going to have to negotiate with the doctors. The doctors wanted to negotiate, but the government would not negotiate because it was "not negotiable;" those were the very words. It does not make any sense to eliminate extra billing and then have to raise the fees for all doctors.

Mr. Villeneuve: It will cost $100 million in fees.

Mr. Gregory: We are doing that so we can get $50 million back from the feds. That is the kind of Mickey Mouse money management these people will find more and more --

Mr. Ferraro: Suncor and Minaki made a lot of sense. It was only three quarters of a billion dollars. What difference does it make? What does it matter?

Mr. Gregory: They are also very repetitive. They are limited to a couple of responses, either, "What about Suncor?" or, "What did your government do when it was in?" That is about it. Those are about the only answers we get from that side of the House.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is the best health care system.

Mr. Gregory: It is the best system; it is renowned worldwide. I dare say there is nobody on that side of the House who would not say it is the best health care system in the world.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Cordiano: Yes, but it is in jeopardy.

Mr. Gregory: In jeopardy, my great Aunt Sarah! It is not in jeopardy at all. It has been working very successfully for 18 years. It has never been in jeopardy and my friend knows it.

I can hardly wait till they get to the lawyers. When they tell the member opposite he can charge only a certain amount, I would love to hear his bleeding then. He will really be bleeding.

Talking about fairness, just try to get a lawyer to take legal aid cases. They do not want them. They try to make nice guys out of themselves by taking one or two so they look good in the community.

Mr. Callahan: That is a tragedy.

Mr. Gregory: Do not give me that stuff about the doctors ripping people off, because if anybody is ripping us off it is the lawyers; and the member knows it. Maybe if the government did bring in a bill whereby we limited the fees of lawyers it would get unanimous support in the House, except for the lawyers of course.

Mr. Guindon: They will not do that. There are too many lawyers on that side.

Mr. Gregory: The government should think about that. I would recommend it to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). He should perhaps bring in a bill like that.

Mr. Speaker: That pertains to this bill, does it?

Mr. Gregory: I was doing a comparison of the lawyers and the doctors. It is difficult to compare them, because the lawyers are ripping off the system and the doctors are not, in my opinion. I do not get many votes from lawyers, anyway. The people who vote for me know that the chance of my remarks being interpreted to convince that bunch of donkeys to put in a bill like that is so remote that it is not going to hurt me at all, so I can say things like that.

The people in Brampton just move from lawyer to lawyer when they elect people. They have not wised up yet there. However, they have been going downhill lately.

To get back to where I was, if I can find it again without going right back to the start --

Mr. Ferraro: Start over.

Mr. Gregory: Shall I start over?

Mr. Ward: The member was just finishing up.

Mr. Gregory: Am I just finishing?

Many people have raised the point that the patient can get caught if a doctor has opted out and extra bills him. There is the famous case where the anaesthetist tells him just as he is going under and that sort of thing. In fact, there is a province-wide telephone system whereby people can locate doctors ahead of time who are opted in.

Mr. Callahan: An anaesthetist? The member should try to find one.

Mr. Gregory: I have not needed one recently, but by the behaviour of the member for Brampton, it looks as if --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, maybe the member would address his remarks to the chair and disregard the interjections. As I said, question period is over.

Mr. Gregory: I have been disregarding that member for years, but it has not done me any good.

That protection is there for people. They can locate doctors. The member mentioned anaesthetists. If we are making our whole case on the basis of anaesthetists, then it is a pretty hollow case. We are just using one exception. I have not heard anybody else mention surgeons, brain surgeons or whatever; it all comes down to anaesthetists. Those people should know more about brain surgeons than most, but I have not heard that example used.

In my opinion, medicare was designed as a floor plan to ensure that everyone could afford adequate health care, and he can. If he cannot afford the premiums, he is subsidized; we all know that. Very few people pay their entire premium themselves.

Mr. Ferraro: The member had better spruce this up. He is losing his caucus.

Mr. Gregory: It is a good job he is the next speaker or he would be gone too.

It just indicates to me that my caucus feels the same way I do. They feel sure of what I am going to say. Having this many members in the party to my left and in the party across the way obviously means I am making some progress. Some of the members are coming out of their foggy delusions of doing something for the public when they are really doing something to them. They have not realized that yet. They are really doing it to them by doing this, and they are taking the doctors down with them. That is unfortunate.

The system as it now stands accomplishes the goal of providing medical security for the people of Ontario. We do not need further tinkering, which is what this government is doing. It is doing so because it has been pulled into this, partially by an election promise but more so by the accord. It is unfortunate it is allowing this to happen because we know it is contrary to the government's deep-down feelings to do what it is doing. It is going to regret it and I hope it does.

It is unfortunate that one of the best systems in the world has to be partially destroyed because of a political tinkering that seems popular and will get a few votes. That is unfortunate, but that is the gist of the whole matter. If the minister or his parliamentary assistant, the member for Wentworth North, persists; if there is one message, if the government is going ahead with this; then for heaven's sake when is the minister going to sit down with the doctors and talk to them about it? He is getting into a confrontation here and medical services might well be withdrawn.

I do not think the doctors will do that because they are conscientious and concerned with the public welfare, more so than any other group. They live by their oath. One does not find too many doctors who are gouging or are ready not to do the best job they can for patients, because that is their main concern. It is nearly time somebody on that side got away from this rigid stance the government has had of saying it wants to negotiate, but this part is not negotiable. I do not think it is possible to negotiate if one suddenly sets down rules and says he cannot negotiate this part or that part.

I will vote against this bill because I do not agree with what is being done. I want to see universal health care. I think we have it. We are going one step too far. Perhaps the government is doing it with the best intentions, but I prefer to think it is not. I believe it is strictly a political manoeuvre. Unfortunately, political manoeuvres sometimes backfire. I sincerely hope that happens.

Mr. Grande: I do not think I am going to be taking too much time to debate or discuss this bill to end extra billing in Ontario. I just want to point out it has been in the works now for a decade. It has been debated in Ontario since the late 1970s, and 10 years later we have this bill before the Legislature.

Some members of the Conservative Party are talking about this bill as if it is something that just came down yesterday. The debate has been going on for 10 years. I think it is about time the debate winds down and extra billing ends in this province. It is about time to fight to safeguard and protect the medicare system that has taken years to build in the North American continent and Canada as a whole.

4:20 p.m.

I want to express some pride, and I do not mean it as any kind of self-congratulation or patting ourselves on the back in any way, shape or form. I want to put it in an historical perspective. It has been this party, the NDP and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation before it, which advocated, promoted and gave birth to our medicare system in the North American continent. It has been this party that has been directly responsible, as in the case of Saskatchewan under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, who is considered the father of medicare in Canada and who had the vision, ability and courage to make medicare a reality in that province and then began putting pressure on the federal government to institute a national medicare program.

I am extremely proud of my association with this political party, which has provided the political will to improve the health care system for our seniors, our chronic care patients and patients in nursing homes, mental hospitals and other institutions. I am proud of my party, which has fought the chronic underfunding of our health care system and which successfully fought the closure of such hospitals as the Doctors Hospital in 1976 and hospitals in many smaller communities in Ontario.

My party fought the Conservative government when it moved to close Ontario hospitals. My party fought the regression analysis of the Conservative government back in the 1970s that cut active treatment beds without making the necessary provisions to deliver the chronic care beds that were badly needed in Ontario. We all know the courts decided the government was wrong in 1976 and ordered the hospitals be kept open.

I am proud of the New Democratic Party, which successfully raised the issue of extra billing in this Legislature in the late 1970s, providing example after example of hardship; people were paying 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent and in some cases 50 per cent more than the Ontario health insurance plan rates.

Back in 1979, this party canvassed the people of Ontario and introduced in this Legislature a petition signed by more than 250,000 people. The petition addressed the underfunding of our health care system and hospitals, as well as the extra billing by medical doctors. I want to quote from that petition, which read:

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

"We protest the government's restraint program for health care. The quality of health care in Ontario is now threatened by deterioration of services in hospitals and lack of access to doctors billing at OHIP rates.

"We are opposed to any form of extra billing by doctors, to extra fees being charged to chronic and other patients, and to the unfair OHIP premiums. We already pay a lot in taxes and we insist that the government acts to provide needed hospitals and health services and to ensure that everyone has full health insurance coverage."

That was back in 1979 when 274,856 residents of Ontario signed the petition protesting the health cutbacks and extra billing by medical doctors.

I want to stress that I am proud of this party, which campaigned in the May election calling for a ban on extra billing. Finally, I am proud of the party that provided the political will and the political strength to the present government party to introduce legislation that bans extra billing. After proper democratic debate, that legislation should soon pass.

This legislation will finally end the threat to the accessibility of health care services faced by the people of the riding of Oakwood in particular, and generally by the people in Ontario.

Now that I have placed in historical context what this party has done during the past 10 years in regard to ending extra billing, I want to speak for a few minutes to what the present government party was doing during this period in Ontario.

I do not mean this in a pejorative way, I just want to be historical for the record, but one may classify the governing party, the Liberals, as being all over the map in the past seven, eight or 10 years.

In 1979, when the New Democratic Party was petitioning the Conservatives to end extra billing, Stuart Smith, the then Liberal leader, made a speech to the Ontario Medical Association, and this is a quote from that speech:

"If both sides bargain in good faith" -- both sides meaning the OMA and the government of Ontario -- "both must be prepared to live with the results of their negotiations. We cannot have a repetition of the situation where the OMA negotiated with the government and subsequently announced its own fee structure, which was 30 per cent to 40 per cent higher than OHIP rates."

That was stated in 1979 by Stuart Smith, leader of the Liberal Party, then the official opposition in the Legislature.

However, in 1982, when the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who now is the Premier, was elected to the position of leader of the Liberal Party, he declared that opting out by medical doctors for the sole purpose of extra billing patients was, as he put it, a safety valve in the medicare system. In other words, it was allowed. Doctors have a right to opt out; once they opt out, they obviously can extra bill and that was the safety valve.

It was not until the federal government brought in the Canada Health Act that the Liberal opposition in Ontario began to take a serious look at the position it had maintained prior to that time and basically reversed its position. At that time, and I will continue to say it, "Welcome aboard."

Mr. Epp: Circumstances change.

Mr. Callahan: We are not etched in stone like some of the parties.

Mr. Grande: The member for Brampton should not take it personally. It is an historical account. That is what I am putting forth, and as a lawyer I assume he is used to historical accounts.

The introduction of the Canada Health Act is when the Liberal Party of Ontario adopted a different position. It had finally come to terms with extra billing as a menace to the accessibility of health services in Ontario and as a threat to the universality of the medicare system.

The Conservative Party in Ottawa, the official opposition at that time, was in agreement with the Liberal Party of Canada, which was the government of Canada at that time. Therefore, finally, the governments of the provinces were allowed to do whatever was necessary, if they considered it important, to end extra billing. Ontario did not act. That is why we went into the April election with those issues on the platform of both the Liberal and New Democratic parties.

4:30 p.m.

Therefore, for the Ontario Medical Association now to say it thought this would never come about, indicates that perhaps it has misread the sentiments of the majority of the people of this province or its representatives in this Legislature.

The Canada Health Act states that if a province chooses not to end extra billing, the federal government will retain that amount of money the medical profession bills patients on top of the OHIP rates. That has been bandied about as around $50 million.

I want to say to the Conservative Party that while that party was in power it was willing to let the people of this province be taxed $50 million on top of what they had already been taxed so it would not have to end extra billing. I am happy now that will come to an end and the people of this province will be getting the transfer payments that properly should be coming to Ontario for our health care services.

We cannot speak about the underfunding of the system on the one hand, as Conservatives often do, and at the same time say, "We do not need $50 million put into our health care system in the province today." That is speaking from both sides of one's mouth, and in the process one can get terribly confused.

I want to say one more thing with respect to the Conservatives. They know that prior to this bill being introduced in this Legislature, only about 12 per cent of the doctors had opted out of the system and supposedly could extra bill their patients. Since then, that figure has not changed drastically or perhaps at all.

The Conservative Party is willing to lend its total support to 12 per cent of the 17,000 medical doctors in this province, a few more than 1,000 doctors who have decided to opt out of the system because in effect they felt they were worth more than that for which they bargained collectively with the government and the Ontario Medical Association.

Obviously, anybody in this Legislature can decide whom he or she supports and what the reasons for doing so are; however, at the same time the Conservatives are supporting about 1,000 medical doctors in this province who want to extra bill and basically want to gouge patients, 400,000 senior citizens in this province have said to them in a very direct way: "We want the practice of extra billing ended in Ontario."

Politically, I guess the party can side with one or the other in making its choice, but it should not try to tell anybody that while it is protecting the 1,000 doctors who have opted out of the system and are extra billing it is also protecting the 400,000 seniors in the province, because that does not wash. Those seniors have decided, and they took a stand, that extra billing has to end because they cannot afford to pay that extra money to medical doctors. People on fixed incomes cannot afford to pay 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent higher fees to medical doctors in this province.

The Conservatives made their judgement. They stated their position. They decided in caucus with whom to side. They made their bed and now they must lie in it. I am extremely happy this bill is before us, and I am extremely happy to support it. Shame on the Conservatives for opposing it. I welcome the Liberals aboard; it is about time.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to speak about the Health Care Accessibility Act, 1985, an act that has a very misleading title, an act that may have very devastating consequences for our fine system of health care in Ontario, an act that will provide less accessibility to medical services, not more, and an act that states it regulates the amounts persons may charge for rendering services that are insured services under the Health Insurance Act.

The present health care system in Ontario is one of the finest in the world. It is not a perfect system -- few things are -- but in an effort to improve this system this government will be introducing assembly-line medicine, where excellence will decline and good health care can no longer be expected. I will be opposing this bill because I care for the people of Ontario who will have less accessibility and less quality health care if this bill is passed.

The Minister of Health, the Premier and the whole Peterson-Rae government had best pay heed to an old Basuto proverb that states, "If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them."

In doing away with the doctors' right to extra bill, the Premier is throwing away doctors' independence and professionalism. He is throwing away freedom for both patients and doctors; the freedom that enables a patient to choose his or her personal physician without losing the benefits of prepaid medical insurance.

If this government deems the present accessibility to health care to be inadequate, if there is a threat of high-quality health care being unavailable to the citizens of Ontario now and in the future, that threat comes not from extra billing but from a myriad of shortcomings in the health care system.

As was indicated previously, approximately 12 per cent of doctors in Ontario extra bill. However, they do not extra bill all the time; rather, they extra bill 25 per cent of the time. Most physicians who apply this extra bill for their services do it only in some cases. In the majority of cases, the opted-out doctors do not extra bill. Less than five per cent of the physician fees in a year are extra billed.

4:40 p.m.

Laura Sabia, a former resident of Brock and a distinguished citizen of this province and this country, in an article in the Toronto Sun, December 24, 1985 --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Was she not a Conservative candidate at one time?

Mr. Partington: She was a very fine Conservative candidate a few years ago; I remember that well. That shows an excellent memory.

Mrs. Sabia stated, "Last week our obscure and unknown Minister of Health, one Murray Elston ...introduced legislation to ban `extra billing' by `opted-out' doctors, arrogantly declaring that patients are being denied access to medical care because of `extra billing.' What a distortion of the truth! It has nothing to do with `accessibility.'"

She said it was untrue that "`extra billing' represents a threat to the publicly administered health care system...The doctors in Ontario are being used as scapegoats to cover up a lack of adequate hospital funding, lack of beds, equipment, etc. It's as simple as that."

That is a fact.

Mr. Epp: The $50 million.

Mr. Partington: Yes, there is the $50 million Monique Bégin introduced under the former Liberal government, but that is a small amount compared to what it is going to cost the citizens of Ontario if this bill is passed. It is $6 a person for the people of this province. It is a lot of money and we would like to have it, but this government is going about getting that money in the wrong way.

The Lincoln County Academy of Medicine is an organization in the Niagara Peninsula of approximately 250 doctors and represents the --

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am enjoying this speech so much, but unfortunately there are only two Liberals, three Tories and five New Democrats here, and I am getting a little upset about it. Is there a quorum here?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa is correct. There is no quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

4:46 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brock (Mr. Partington) will be glad to learn there is a quorum.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can we not find more than four Tory members to come in to listen to this?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question period concluded some time ago.

Mr. Cousens: Four of us are worth 20 of them.

Mr. Martel: We will all walk out and see whether there is a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a quorum.

Mr. Partington: As I was saying before we were interrupted by the quorum call, in February 1984 the Lincoln County Academy of Medicine submitted a report to a federal health committee outlining various concerns and issues in the Niagara Peninsula with respect to shortcomings in the health care system.

I would like to introduce the members to the Lincoln County Academy of Medicine. It is an organization composed of approximately 250 doctors who reside and practise medicine in the Niagara Peninsula and who represent the interests of the citizens of Niagara on a variety of health care issues. These doctors are actively involved in organizing a continuing medical education program, not only for physicians but also for nurses and paramedical personnel. They are dedicated to improving the quality of health in the Niagara region. They are active in many regional groups and committees, from the Niagara District Health Council on down. They have been involved in numerous charitable fund-raising activities and in community affairs. In many cases they have taken the lead in public service organizations.

This academy and the doctors who belong to it support the concepts of accessibility, portability, universality and comprehensiveness in health care. They do not believe such concepts are achieved by the draconian legislation the government members are intending to introduce with the support of their third-party ally. As I have indicated before, this draconian legislation, as it has been referred to by the member for Humber, will impair health care in Ontario, not improve it.

In its 42-page report, the Lincoln County Academy of Medicine outlined what it believed to be the major health care issues and developed an overview of health care in the Niagara Peninsula, documenting the existing lack of accessibility, comprehensiveness and universality to high-quality medical care. They focus on health care services provided at our local hospital, the St. Catharines General Hospital, with which they are most familiar. They contrast the major impediment to the delivery of high-quality health care with the alleged but fictitious barrier to health care presented by the opting out of extra billing proposed by the current government.

There are many recommendations in the report ranging from a comprehensive paramedic program to a regional psychogeriatric facility, to universal access to community support services such as day care and Meals on Wheels. Some of their recommendations have been implemented and some programs have been established in the Niagara region, such as the cardio-pulmonary resuscitation program and a regional emergency prehospital care committee, which has been staffed on a totally volunteer basis by physicians and other concerned individuals.

The citizens of Niagara recognized another urgent health need and they did something about it. I am referring to the computerized axial tomography scanner. A spontaneous effort was commenced by citizens in our area to start a campaign to raise the required money privately, it not being available through public funds. This campaign was expected to take up to two years to raise the $1.8 million. In fact, the campaign was stopped after six months because the goal had been surpassed. These funds were raised primarily by ordinary citizens and not by large corporate donations. They were mostly small donations coming from bake sales, walkathons, car washes, rummage sales, etc. Never has there been such a community effort in our area, and never such a successful one.

We are proud that our CAT scanner is operational, is saving lives and is decreasing patient mortality, morbidity and anxiety. This has been made possible entirely by private money, money that was given cheerfully and with compassion in an effort to upgrade health care in our area. The citizens in the Niagara region have demonstrated that they are more than willing to contribute their own money if they believe it will improve the level of health care in our area. Our citizens have demonstrated that they were not satisfied with the level of health care and were willing to spend more money to ensure better health care for their families.

A citizen in the free country of Canada has the right to spend his money in any way he sees fit on holidays, expensive cars, lottery tickets and so on. However, there will be one notable exception if the proposed government legislation is introduced: he will no longer be allowed to spend extra money to achieve a higher level of health care for his family than the government arbitrarily sets, whether or not he agrees that this is an adequate level of health care.

The report goes on to discuss a variety of health care deficiencies in the Niagara area, including a critical shortage of acute and chronic care hospital beds, an oversupply of outdated, inefficient and undersized hospital facilities, a deficiency of new technology, unacceptable waiting lists for urgent diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and understaffing of nurses and paramedical personnel.

For example, in 1984 -- and I believe the problem continues to date -- there was a waiting list to get into an acute care hospital, and elective surgery frequently had to be cancelled or patients discharged prematurely. The reason was that a large fraction of acute care beds was being filled by patients who required only chronic care but were being kept in acute care beds simply because there were no chronic care beds available in chronic care facilities.

In 1981, the Niagara District Health Council's figures show that 10 per cent of all acute care beds in Niagara were filled with chronic care patients. In 1982, of 1,172 acute care beds in the region, 226 or 19.2 per cent were filled by chronic care patients. One out of every five acute care beds in the Niagara region was being needlessly lost from use by a patient who needed it.

Mr. Callahan: Who created that problem?

Mr. Partington: The member for Brampton refers to a problem, but the government in power today is the one that is supposed to solve them. The message it has chosen is one that is not going to work. That is what I am about to point out.

Mr. Callahan: We are addressing the problem.

Mr. Cousens: Absolutely. When the member listens, he will find out why.

Mr. Partington: The government is camouflaging. The health council's projections then indicated a deficiency of 335 chronic care beds in 1985-86 and in years to come; in the next two or three years a deficiency of 750 chronic care beds in the Niagara region.

The emergency department of the general hospital in St. Catharines faced a similar problem in 1984. A team of government consultants conducted a thorough and independent review of facilities in April 1982 and stated, "Although the scope of services provided is more than adequate, the major problem is overcrowding." The consultants stated the existing facilities were inadequate and recommended the addition of two resuscitation rooms, 11 treatment rooms, six general examination rooms, one gynaecological examination room and so on.

Many lives have been needlessly lost each year due to a lack of necessary facilities. These are the problems the government of this day should be addressing.

Mr. Villeneuve: Instead it is compounding them.

Mr. Partington: As my friend has said, it is compounding them. The bill, erroneously named the Health Care Accessibility Act, is basically designed only to ensure that a doctor in one community, regardless of his skill, experience, commitment and dedication, receives nothing more in earnings than a doctor anywhere else with less ability, experience, concern and dedication.

It is the lack of facilities in the health care system that needs addressing now. Opting out of extra billing is a smokescreen by this government. It is easy to do. The government brings it in and, as one of the members mentioned earlier --

Mr. Martel: What was he dragged out of?

Mr. Partington: The member for Sudbury East should be concerned about accessibility too because it is very important, especially in later years of our lives.

Mr. Martel: Especially when one does not have an anaesthetist in one's whole community who does not extra bill.

5 p.m.

Mr. Partington: That is an interesting problem. The member says there may be certain areas where people cannot get proper medical treatment. I guess he is implying that is without making some extra payment. That may have occurred from time to time. It may occur in certain areas. The best way of approaching this would be for the government to try to work out a reasonable means of dealing with it.

In this province, 88 per cent of the doctors do not extra bill. The 12 per cent who do extra bill do it only a quarter of the time. I am sure the Ontario Medical Association and the government, if they have the will, could sit down and work out a reasonable compromise that would maintain our health care system.

Imposing this draconian legislation, as the member for Humber has referred to it, is certainly not the solution to this problem. It will create serious problems. The issue that has been created -- that the answer to our health care problems is to keep the doctors from opting out -- is really a myth. Opting out is not currently a barrier to accessibility to health care.

The Lincoln County Academy of Medicine serves as a complaint centre and annually receives numerous complaints from patients in all matters relating to health care. In 1984, when this report was written, not a single complaint was lodged in the area about extra billing. There was not a single documented case of a patient being denied service or being rendered a lesser service because of user fees or opting out. There may be isolated cases that the academy may not be aware of, but those isolated cases would not be a barrier to the availability of health care in the Niagara region.

Mr. Callahan: Those isolated cases are not important? We should just forget about those people?

Mr. Partington: All cases are important. Say that again.

Mr. Callahan: Just forget about those isolated cases; they do not matter.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton should stop interrupting. The member for Brock will carry on.

Mr. Partington: I would not be surprised if the member for Brampton were sympathetic with the general need to serve the public by opposing this bill. His caucus is divided on it.

As I said before, in 1984 in the Niagara area there was not a single complaint about a doctor requesting a fee in advance of service, nor was there a single complaint about a doctor demanding payment from a patient who could not afford it.

It seems to me that the government and the third party have sensed a political issue here that may to some degree have been created by certain interest groups.

Mr. Martel: We voted against it for that reason since 1969. I want the member to get the facts. He is a new boy.

Mr. Partington: I am well aware of the fact that the third party has been on record for many years in favour of an increased degree of state control and an increased degree of nationalization of certain industries and businesses. Therefore, I am not surprised they have been in favour of this legislation since 1969. Bureaucrats, bureaucrats, bureaucrats.

Mr. Martel: I would like the member to produce the papers. Why does he not produce the papers on this state intervention?

Mr. Partington: A poll was taken by the Progressive Conservative Party in the fall of 1984 asking people across Ontario whether any aspects of health care in Ontario needed to be changed, fixed or given special attention. Although 41 per cent said there were no changes they would make, seven per cent said they would ban extra billing or opting out. The other 52 per cent named things such as I have just been relating to members: more hospital beds and equipment, better preventive medicine and matters of that nature. What this really tells us is that the people of Ontario are generally satisfied with the high standard of health care we have.

Yes, there are people who mentioned extra billing. In those areas where there are problems, and I acknowledge that there can be areas that need looking at, the government should deal with them by using some imaginative, creative thought processes. It can get together with the medical association and work them out without destroying the system.

One does not destroy the traditional base of Ontario society without replacing those good traditions with something of value. To bring in legislation that will treat all doctors the same regardless of their approach to the practice of medicine, regardless of their dedication and regardless of the time they take or their experience, is not a good substitute for what we now have.

It is interesting, and it has been stated, that 85 per cent of the people of this province have indicated they are opposed to extra billing by doctors. If one asks an individual what problems he has with the food supply system in Ontario, one probably would not get anybody saying: "The price of milk is too high. We have to reduce it by 30 cents or 35 cents a litre." However, if the same individual were asked, "Are you in favour of reducing milk by 35 cents a litre," one is definitely going to get a yes answer.

This issue must be properly explained to the people of Ontario. There must be ample discussion and review of its implications before it is introduced, so the government and the people do not find out shortly after its introduction that instead of providing more accessibility, they have weakened, undermined and threatened the fine standard of health care we have enjoyed for so long.

I acknowledge there are people, and their organization has been alluded to, who are against the banning of extra billing. I have a letter before me dated October 21, 1985, signed by Nancy and Ian Bongard of Niagara-on-the-Lake. I assume it was written by Mrs. Bongard. It says: "Ian and I strongly oppose the proposed ban on extra billing and feel it would have a very devastating effect on medical services in Ontario. We urge you to oppose this legislation. Thank you."

Dr. David Nicholson of the city of Niagara Falls, who resides in Bevan Heights in Brock riding, sent me a letter on January 16 saying: "I am writing to express my opposition to the health care accessibility bill. I feel strongly that the restrictions proposed by this bill are so utterly foreign to the Ontario scene that I am prepared to resist it at a considerable cost to myself. I hope you will oppose it with vigour."

As the doctor has stated, it is utterly foreign to the Ontario scene. It is not making a slight amendment to an existing practice; it is changing the practice completely. I believe it will be to the detriment of the people of this province. The government should consider its action seriously before it makes such an irreversible trend in the Ontario health system.

Mr. Callahan: Is the United States system of privatization better?

Mr. Partington: We now have the best system. We hear the member for Brampton asking whether we would prefer the American system. We want the Ontario system as it exists now, with some refinements. We are always after a better system in anything we do, and that is an admirable position to take. No, we do not want the American system. We want the Ontario system as it is, because we believe it is the best system of medicine in the world. It certainly is compared to the British system, which at one point was brought in as a universal, government-funded system, but because the service deteriorated private health plans were allowed to grow.

5:10 p.m.

There now are large sectors of that community, including large union groups, that are asking for coverage under private care because they know that system of medicine is better. I say to the member for Brampton that we do not want the American system, the British system or any European or Asian system. We want the system that has been in existence in Ontario for some time. Let us refine it to improve it, but let us keep it substantially as it is.

There have been numerous testimonials -- and I will produce a letter or two -- by patients about doctors who have repeatedly declined to charge them more than the OHIP rates or have waived their fees entirely where no OHIP coverage existed.

Another real fear the doctors have reported is that our health care system is quickly heading into a system of state medicine. They are afraid doctors will become civil servants, responsible to the state and not to their patients.

As far as the historical concept of Hippocratic medicine, the doctor is responsible only to his patient. They fear this system will be replaced. They fear the doctor will be responsible to the payer of his services -- the state. The doctor would not have a conflict of interest and would not be able to serve as successfully as his patient's advocate, lest he be disciplined by his new boss -- the state.

There are some fairly obvious results of this legislation which will be detrimental to the people of Ontario if it is implemented in this form. The member for Mississauga East mentioned the question of doctors leaving the jurisdiction. Someone from the government party indicated that that is not likely to happen. It may not happen in great numbers, but the experience we have before us is that when Quebec brought in its health care legislation, which effectively prevented doctors from opting out, about 235 or 240 specialists from that province came to Ontario.

One of the members opposite said they cannot go to the United States because there is no room. I do not think the doctors are suggesting they would do that in masses. As a matter of fact, some doctors have suggested that not many doctors would leave this jurisdiction.

I have a letter from Dr. D. M. Fraser of 145 Queenston Street, Suite 87, St. Catharines. It is addressed to the Honourable Murray Elston. Dr. Fraser is a long-time resident of St. Catharines and lives in Brock riding. He is a very dedicated physician and is very active in public affairs and very concerned about the people of his community and their health care.

Dr. Fraser's address, as I mentioned, is 145 Queenston Street, St. Catharines. His address is also 5147 Lewiston Road, Lewiston, New York, and also the University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, New York. Dr. Fraser writes:

"Dear Sir:

"If this act is passed, it will be immoral and likely illegal under the Charter of Rights. It makes us de facto civil servants without the benefits, pensions, paid holidays as such.... Economics is what unites us. It is time for us to say, `No more nice guys.' Only MDs can practise medicine by law. This act must be withdrawn or senior men will vote with their feet."

I am afraid Dr. Fraser might be one doctor who votes with his feet. If Dr. Fraser were to do so, we would lose one of the best physicians and most public-spirited citizens in this province. That is something that should not happen.

There are other possible bad effects of the government's proposal to introduce its deceptively named Health Care Accessibility Act. I have a memorandum from Dr. Bruce Lennox, who is a ophthalmologist in St. Catharines. Dr. Lennox suggests that if this legislation is introduced there could be revolving-door medicine and frequent patient recalls may become commonplace. He is suggesting possible consequences; he is not saying he will do it.

In introducing this legislation, the government is in effect going to be rewarding the doctor who sees the most patients. The doctor who wishes to take his time, who needs to take his time and wants to commit substantial extra time, expertise and dedication to a patient will definitely be hampered or certainly treated, from an economic point of view, in a lesser degree than the doctor who tries to see more patients and gives them less time. Again, I am not suggesting that will happen, but it could happen. The fee schedule will reward physicians for volume, not for quality.

Difficult cases may be referred out of town to university centres. If that happens, accessibility will obviously be reduced. For a complex procedure, a person in Brock or Niagara or Barrie or wherever will go to Toronto or London, be treated there and visited in Toronto or London by his family. The opportunity for inconvenience is substantial.

I believe a sense of despair may grow in the minds of the doctors. They have a high sense of duty to their patients and to the public and I believe they always will have, but if they are told by the government how much they can charge and they can do nothing about it, then the frustration at not being able to carry out their jobs as well as they would like to and with the freedom they need will limit their enthusiasm.

5:20 p.m.

In saying that, I again emphasize that 88 per cent of doctors do not extra bill, and the 12 per cent who do extra bill only one quarter of the time. The government and the members of the third party have been treating this legislation as extra-billing legislation. They are alleging the doctors are greedy and are trying to earn too much money and the government will put a stop to that. Obviously, that is not the case at all. The facts speak for themselves. Most doctors are honourable, faithful, dedicated physicians whose first concern is the welfare of their patients.

I will read a letter addressed to the Premier and dated January 9, 1986, signed by F. James Brennan, MD:

"In the 10 years that I have been in practice in Ontario...I have attempted to furnish to as many patients as I could...the best medical care I was able to provide. Accessibility of patients to me by appointment has been limited only by the constraints of time.... Accessibility to me in medically urgent situations when I have been on call (an average of 100 hours per week, 52 weeks per year) has been absolutely unrestricted. No patient has ever complained that I have been unavailable when needed or that I was too highly paid for my services."

He goes on to say he has always accepted the OHIP rates for his services as payment in full. He continues:

"I infer...that in terms of accessibility and fees charged, my patients have been satisfied with the service I have provided. You and your government state...that there is a widespread dissatisfaction among the people of Ontario over the way in which doctors are paid, and that excessive fees are hindering access to good medical care. If my patients truly support your position, then I feel betrayed and emotionally unrewarded for the services I have rendered.

"In my practice I attempt to establish a doctor-patient relationship based on mutual trust and confidence. If I am to believe that you are carrying out the wishes of my patients in order to remedy a fault in my practice of which no patient has complained to me, then obviously I have lost that trust and confidence. Without it my only rewards for looking after a sick patient are the fee I receive and the intellectual satisfaction of solving a medical problem....

"As concerned as I am about the above issue, as a citizen of a free society I attach much more importance to the effects of the proposed legislation on my personal freedom.... Freedom is available to me and, therefore, I am free. Without it, I am a slave. I find particularly galling your public pronouncements to the effect that most doctors, because they do not opt out of OHIP, do not care about the abolition of opting out. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Do you really believe that any doctor, or any other responsible citizen of a free society for that matter, could be apathetic to legislation which imposes a form of slavery upon him?"

The issue from a doctors' point of view is their freedom to operate without the shackles of government control. This doctor says he has three options: he can retire from the practice of medicine and find a different job, he can move to a different province or a different country, or he can continue to practise medicine in Ontario providing care to citizens "who I feel have betrayed and abandoned me and who therefore have no right to expect me to regard them as anything other than organisms harbouring diseases which I am required to treat by a master whose primary concerns about medical care are that everyone gets the same and it does not cost very much....

"Regardless of which path each individual doctor chooses, however, medical care in Ontario will be in a much sourer state than it is now. This will be your responsibility and your legacy to the people of Ontario."

Dr. Brennan, who does not extra bill but who would like the privilege of doing so if he decided to, indicates he may not quit medicine or leave the country, but his enthusiasm for the job will deteriorate if this bill is passed.

Mr. Guindon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether a quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

5:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oshawa on a point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: Is it in order to proceed with only six Tories present?

The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum of 20 present, so it is in order to proceed.

Mr. Partington: I would like to let the member for Oshawa know it is a matter of quality, not of volume.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) is not in his seat. He will not interrupt again unless he is in his seat.

Mr. Partington: That member should not interrupt unless he has something constructive to say. I would like to continue as I was before.

Mr. Martel: We have been listening to the member for half an hour now and we are still waiting for him to say something constructive.

Mr. Partington: It is starting to show.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Brock please carry on with his speech?

Mr. Partington: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) should take the advice of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), which I recently heard in the House. He said he should watch for the next bus out of town and make sure he is under it.

Interjections.

Mr. Partington: If I can seriously get back to what I was saying before, there definitely is a need in the health care system to improve certain aspects of it. The current bill is not one of those ways.

I might say, as I said before, the public is more than willing to help provide some funds for additional services. In St. Catharines right now a very successful, highly visible campaign is under way at the Hotel Dieu Hospital to raise funds for an oncology clinic. On November 1, there was a very successful fund-raising dinner at the Shaw Festival in Niagara Falls, where Rich Little and Shirley Jones were featured and 600 people paid $100 a seat, not only to watch a good show but also to make a substantial contribution to the oncology clinic which we hope will open soon at the Hotel Dieu Hospital.

As I indicated a little earlier, the doctors' main concern in opposition to extra billing, and I believe it should be a concern of the government, is state control. The doctors have been providing their services to the public of Ontario in an admirable manner. Accessibility is not an issue. As I indicated earlier, although they call the act the Health Care Accessibility Act, in fact it is described correctly as An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

The bill is not concerned about accessibility but about some individuals charging more than the OHIP rate. As the act states, under section 2, "A physician or an optometrist who does not submit accounts directly to the plan...shall not charge more or accept payment for more than the amount payable under the plan for rendering an insured service to an insured person." The penalty for that, according to section 4, is "a fine of not more than $10,000."

I believe that is one of the most burdensome penalties in any act of this Legislature. Not only is it a penalty of overwhelming proportion, pointing almost to criminality of doctors, but it also encourages patients to report doctors to the government. I presume that is the method used in the Soviet Union.

Laura Sabia said it well in her article of December 24, 1985:

"The government, run by a nonelected NDP" -- I give them more credit than that; I am sure they are at least equal partners in this act -- "is hell-bent on turning this haven of free enterprise, this province of wealth dedicated to excellence, into a socialist state where the lazy, the incompetent and the irresponsible are lionized and subsidized while the hard workers, the shakers and creators of wealth are shackled and hogtied by oppressive legislation."

That might be a little heavy, but the fact is there is a growing importance of and reliance on state intervention; and not only for the medical profession, which is what this bill is about. It should be a warning sign to the rest of our society, because if it can be applied to the medical society it can be applied to every other segment of our society.

Dr. J. M. Clark, in a letter to the Toronto Sun this morning, Sunday, January 26 --

Mr. Breaugh: That was yesterday.

Mr. Partington: Was it yesterday? That is right; I brought it with me today. I appreciate the member's help.

He indicates that this is the beginning, that the government has gone after the doctors first and is suggesting the answer to our health care system is to control them, their earnings and in effect their price. He says:

"What will be next?

"Well, let's start off with the principle that `every Canadian has a right to adequate nutrition.' No one would dare deny that! So let us campaign on the promise that for a small monthly premium the government will pick up the tab every time you check out of the supermarket. Why not? Everybody has a basic right to be adequately fed. Farmers would be told to produce more for less, while public greed would be attributed to too many farmers producing too much produce, and an excess of supermarkets."

The doctor goes on to say: "I am a doctor. I work hard. At the moment, government rewards me adequately for what I do." He is not interested in making more because of the right he has to extra bill. He is satisfied with the system.

He states: "I am proud to belong to the best health care system in the world. Out of that pride comes my anger. Anger because the system is being exploited for political power."

I will not go on much longer --

[Applause]

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Partington: I appreciate that applause. The message that the right of a doctor to extra bill is not important comes through loud and clear in various articles and newspapers as well as in the messages from doctors and consumers. I do not think the doctors are after that.

I think the doctors are concerned about the state control of their practices. As I said, I believe state control of their practices will hurt the consumers who are the patients of this province. This bill, designated the Health Care Accessibility Act, clearly goes the other way.

The bill is a misnomer. It will impair the health care system. It will deny to many members of our society the high level of accessibility they now have. The public must see this bill is against the public interest. If this bill is passed, we will get health care, but we will get it at a very diminished rate and quality.

It is more than health care that will be attacked if this bill is passed; it will be the liberty and freedom of all people in Ontario. If the government puts the shackles totally on the doctors of this province, it then has the ability to do that to other sectors of the economy.

In the best interests of the people, the consumers of this province, I urge this government to rethink its position, to consider the bill carefully and to not pass it into law.

Mr. Guindon: l am rising to speak on Bill 94. Even though the House has heard from many of my colleagues on this matter, I will give honourable members a look at what this bill means to the people of my riding.

Cornwall and Cornwall township are situated on the banks of the St. Lawrence River. Cornwall is the most easterly city on Highway 401. The unemployment picture is grim, to say the least. When one considers all the figures, our unemployment rate hovers around the 20 per cent mark. Our welfare rolls are full. As members are already aware, the housing situation is at an emergency level. Cornwall is an economically depressed area.

When a doctor decides to locate in our city, he has already decided to opt into the Ontario health insurance plan. He has decided to come to Cornwall not because of the amount of money he will make, but because he senses the need of the community.

Cornwall does not have much to offer a doctor fresh from internship. We do not have the luxury of an O'Keefe Centre, a National Arts Centre or even a car plant. What we do offer a doctor is a place to raise a family, a place to become a well-respected member of the community and a place where he can practise medicine without the distractions of a large urban centre. When a doctor comes to work in Cornwall, it is because of a long, hard look at where Cornwall is and what it has to offer. A doctor who has decided to extra bill patients does not come to Cornwall to earn a living because people there simply cannot afford to pay.

Cornwall-and-area doctors do not extra bill their patients because they are serious professional men and women who are sensitive to the special financial needs of their patients. Dr. Ghaffar Khan of the Cornwall Academy of Medicine says he and his colleagues have no problem with extra billing because they simply do not do it. There is no problem with extra billing in Cornwall.

Why then are all doctors in Cornwall upset over Bill 94? Why have they agreed to start charging for services for which they have never charged before? Why are they angry with the Liberal government of the Premier and his allies, the New Democratic Party?

Doctors in Cornwall care about their work place, their community, and most of all their patients. How does the community react to doctors? It honours them. Doctors in Cornwall have been given many awards. Just last year, Dr. Nat Shaw was given the honour of being citizen of the year because of his dedication to the community. Doctors have received bicentennial and heritage awards and citizens have held many banquets and dinners to honour members of the local medical profession.

While Cornwall doctors have always been conscious of their responsibilities to their patients' care and convenience, they have done their best to reduce accelerating health costs. At the same time, they expend their time and energy to improve the quality of life in their community. There is hardly an organizational activity in Cornwall in which doctors have not taken an active role.

If doctors in Cornwall have no problem with extra billing, why are they upset? They are upset because this government is tampering with the system, because the medical profession was not asked to sit down and discuss what might be done to improve it, because of the way things were handled. I would like to know what the Liberal government is going to do next.

What would happen if other sectors of the free enterprise system we enjoy in Ontario were to be legislated into line as this profession is? Would the Premier bring forth legislation to limit the fees charged by his colleagues in the law profession? I do not believe that for a second. What would happen if this bill were applied to lawyers? I shudder to think of the response. Ontario has always been known for its free enterprise system and I question what is happening to it. Cornwall doctors are upset over this matter.

There is the title of the bill, for example, the Health Care Accessibility Act, 1985. What a lot of rabbit raisins this is. There is no profession more accessible to the people of Ontario than this one. I do not know of a single case in which a doctor has denied anyone treatment because of inability to pay. To refer to this by using the title the Health Care Accessibility Act is like saying God is an atheist.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word "accessibility." The root word is "access," which is a noun and means "an approach...or means of approaching or reaching." "Accessible," according to the same dictionary, is an adjective meaning "able to be reached, entered, influenced, or understood." Let us look at each of these for a moment.

"Accessible," meaning "able to be reached:" doctors in this province are already covered by this definition; they are accessible. "Entered:" doctors in Cornwall are covered in this one too because they have entered into the Ontario health insurance plan. "Influenced:" doctors are certainly being influenced by this bill which is An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act. "Understood:" it appears to me and my colleagues in opposition that doctors have not been understood by the Liberals or the third party.

There is another word in the same dictionary which takes its root from the word "access" and that is "accessory." Accessory is a noun and an adjective and, according to the dictionary, it is someone who "helps in or is privy to any act, especially a crime;" and in the sense of either before or after the fact, "helping to plan or conceal it." The Liberal and New Democratic parties fit this definition, as they are directly responsible for the introduction of this act and privy to it.

If there were doctors in Ontario who would break the law and accept under-the-table payments for services, I wonder whether the Liberal and New Democratic parties might be considered accessories to the crime for having introduced the legislation in the first place. A defence lawyer for the doctor involved might take the attitude that the doctor was forced into the crime by the government, or that the government was privy to the crime by passage of this legislation. I am not a lawyer -- I have not even attempted to theorize the legality of this -- but I wonder whether patients themselves might be found accessories to the crime by paying the doctor under the table.

5:50 p.m.

Last Tuesday evening, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) expressed his concerns about Cornwall and its doctors. He stated that doctors in the riding of Cornwall and in the SD and G area were going to begin charging for the services they normally provided free, to protest this bill which would ban them from extra billing.

This puzzles me greatly, because the doctors have told me over and over that they have no problem with extra billing. I cannot help but feel the medical profession in eastern Ontario and the province as a whole is angry because, as professional men and women, they now find themselves being treated with little or no respect for their integrity or professionalism.

Doctors are not civil servants, but the passage of this bill will change that. We should not forget that when medicare was introduced 18 years ago, the medical profession agreed to it provided they could retain the right to opt out. This is a social contract that we have a responsibility to honour. Doctors in the Cornwall area are upset because the government is tampering with a system and is bent on confrontation, rather than trying another route.

There is a challenge to be taken by the Liberals, a question of principle. Who, in the free enterprise system, has the right to arbitrarily decide how much money someone should charge for his or her services?

I come back to lawyers. Think of the outcry we would hear if this bill were called the Ontario BS Accessibility Act. BS stands for barristers and solicitors. Think of the reaction across the province.

The challenge before the Liberal government is to restore the mood of co-operation between it and the Ontario Medical Association. Sure, there were differences of opinions in the past, but at least the Progressive Conservative government always tried to avoid direct confrontation. If this government insists upon using the title of Health Care Accessibility Act, then it should broaden the scope of the bill to satisfy doctors and patients alike.

When I hear the words "access," "accessible" or "accessibility," I do not think of extra billing, nor do most of the people in this province. What comes to mind is an improved health care system. In other words, Cornwall citizens should have more access to hospital beds, sophisticated medical equipment and the latest in surgical techniques.

The member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) said it well on Tuesday night when she stated how she regretted that the matter before us could not have been resolved by means of reasonable discussion between reasonable people.

We, of the Progressive Conservative Party, also regret the introduction of Bill 94.

I said before that Cornwall doctors do not have a problem with extra billing; they simply do not do it. Patients in Cornwall are very satisfied with the current system and do not like it when the government tampers with it and gets the doctors upset. Would the Speaker consider getting on a city bus, knowing that the bus driver, being upset, went out, had a few drinks and got drunk? Would he get on his bus and go for a ride?

I wonder how a patient feels going under the knife, knowing that his doctor is upset with the province over this piece of legislation. It is not a comforting situation.

Under the current system, where a doctor has the ability to opt out of the plan and is permitted to extra bill, Cornwall still has a problem attracting specialists. For example, the Cornwall Academy of Medicine spent $5,000 recently to try to attract a psychiatrist. The academy paid the money to a Montreal firm to find the right man. The Montreal firm wrote to every psychiatrist in North America and did not get a single reply. This was under the current system, where a specialist can extra bill his patient. What hope does Cornwall have in attracting a badly needed ear, nose and throat specialist if he does not at least have the option of extra billing? It will not get the calibre of doctors it needs.

At this point I would like to read an editorial that was published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder on Wednesday, January 15. The headline reads "Second Look Needed."

"Members of the Cornwall Academy of Medicine made it abundantly clear over the weekend that they are extremely upset and angry over the Ontario Liberal government's decision to ban the practice of extra billing.

"Considering that Cornwall doctors do not extra bill their patients, that reaction might at first glance seem strange. But it is very apparent that the doctors believe the banning of extra billing downgrades their professional standing while being only a government ploy to win favour with voters.

"Professionalism is a matter of great pride with the medical fraternity. And we think the Peterson government may be underestimating that factor.

"What the doctors have apparently convinced themselves of is that if the government bans extra billing, it is turning them into civil servants working at fixed rates rather than a profession which has been highly respected, almost revered, down through the ages.

"We think the government should take a closer look at the situation. The doctors aren't arguing money here. With the very odd exception, they seem quite satisfied to bill their patients at going OHIP rates and to leave things at that. But they want to remain independent professionals, setting rules and standards to govern themselves rather than being governed by the government or the bureaucracy. They do not want to be government rubber stamps.

"Surely a compromise answer is possible, one that will permit the doctors to retain their dignity and professional standing while at the same time assuring the public of good health care service at a reasonable cost.

"The doctors say the government plan has left them humiliated, bewildered and angry. Clearly, they are upset because of concern over how they view themselves within the framework of our social structure. Self-esteem is important to any group. Their own sense of professionalism serves an important function. It helps them maintain standards which are high and meet the challenges of the community.

"We fully endorse the concept of having affordable medical service available to all Canadians. But we would not like to see ethics or standards lowered just to satisfy government's political needs. Let's look at this situation again."

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member can find an appropriate time to interrupt his remarks and continue this evening.

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, or it may be a point of information: Some derogatory remarks were made this afternoon because our benches were fairly empty. Half of our caucus is on the other side --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Cornwall has further remarks.

Mr. Guindon: Yes, I do.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

27 janvier 1986