Journal des débats 1986-févr-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Grossman: There are only seven ministers in their places right now, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to insist that we proceed with just a skeleton ministry there, to use an appropriate word, then I ask you to delay the start of question period, stop the clock, go to other matters or stand down the leaders' questions.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Why does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) not just get on with questions of lesser import and save his full salvos for perhaps the next minute or two, when the other ministers will have arrived?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to stand down his first two questions, we are ready to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to stand down your two questions?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I ask your assistance in this ongoing problem. This is perhaps the third or fourth time we have had to rearrange the start of question period because of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and some of the senior ministers.

I see the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has joined us. That will now allow us to proceed.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Health arrived about three seconds before the rather sensitive Leader of the Opposition got on his usual tirade. We are quite prepared to respond to questions.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Health.

I know the minister would want to acknowledge to the House that in November the number of opted-out physicians reached an all-time low, dipping below 12 per cent for the first time. In view of that, in view of the fact that the government still has chosen to proceed with a ban on extra billing and in view of the statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that he is prepared to accept the reality that some specialists will leave Ontario, will the Minister of Health be more specific and tell us how many of the 26 opted-out specialists serving northern Ontario so effectively and only rarely charging their patients he is prepared to see leave Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is quite obvious none of those people is currently leaving Ontario. I do not understand what the former Minister of Health wants in answer to a question that is based on hypothetical assumptions.

It is quite clear that this government has continued to work in close co-operation with the physicians in northern Ontario to enhance the facilities up there to ensure that we can hold on to the specialists who have been attracted, not only during our tenure but also that of the former government. We are working very hard to ensure that the facilities are improved so those people will make decisions not to leave northern Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, the Ontario Medical Association has informed the minister about this, as have many specialists, who insist that if this legislation goes through he can expect to see a somewhat similar response to what happened in Quebec.

In Quebec, 287 specialists left when extra billing was banned. An excessively large number of those were orthopaedic surgeons. When that situation was raised with his leader last week he acknowledged, at least to the media, a number of doctors would likely leaving Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: In which areas is the minister prepared to say it does not matter if a number of doctors leave Ontario? Is it in orthopaedic or cardiovascular surgery? Is it in psychiatry, where there is a crushing shortfall? Geographically, is it in northern Ontario? Where is he prepared to accept those losses?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is quite clear to the people of the province that this government is not prepared to see the loss of those specialists. In fact, we are working very hard with the people in northern Ontario to upgrade facilities, an activity with which the member is unable to come to terms.

During the tenure of the Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer and otherwise, he did not provide enough funding to keep those facilities in a mode that would attract and continue to hold those people.

Mr. Grossman: That is not so.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is so. I have seen the results of the member's inadequate addressing of the problems up there. He does not like to listen to the facts. The people of this province can be well assured that this government is working very hard and in a co-operative manner to ensure that the facilities are put in place to attract and hold physicians in northern Ontario. We will continue to work very hard to ensure that the best quality service is available to all the people of this province.

Mr. Grossman: Now that we are past the motherhood issues and the platitudes about how hard the minister is prepared to work, and the rhetoric assuring the Speaker that the minister is working very hard to keep the specialists here, let us get back to the question.

The experience in other jurisdictions is that opted-out specialists leave that jurisdiction when extra billing is banned. The member's leader has acknowledged that is likely to happen in Ontario. As Minister of Health, he is quite properly trying to address the shortage of specialists in northern Ontario. He has not yet begun to address the problem of shortages of specialists in some areas such as orthopaedic surgery, plastic surgery, psychiatry and the like.

Given that empirical experience and the admission by his leader that he is prepared to accept the loss of some specialists, how many specialists does he believe we can afford to lose in the medical areas to which I have referred? Is he prepared to accept some, a number or none?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the member is certainly looking at a situation which has not occurred. One of the reasons people are attracted to practise in this province is that the facilities in general are very good and provide them with benefits with respect to practice that they cannot find in other jurisdictions.

Obviously, the member is well aware that no one has decided to leave at this point. If he has some indication there are, we will deal with that. He is asking, "What if?" I deal with the what, period; and right now we are working hard to ensure that the facilities in this province are kept in a manner in which people who are practising specialties will feel comfortable with practising in this province.

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Fish: I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that his colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) now feels some levels of dioxin in treated drinking water are acceptable, will the Minister of Health table in this House the results of all epidemiological studies undertaken in southwestern Ontario that have been completed in the last six months?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was distracted slightly there. I did not catch the entire question. I want to indicate I have never heard the Minister of the Environment make a statement that a certain level of dioxin is acceptable in drinking water. In her supplementary, the member should clarify what was intended.

Ms. Fish: Perhaps the minister should have been listening to his colleague when he made statements in the emergency debate and in responses to subsequent questions that indicated clearly he had established an interim level that was acceptable for dioxin in drinking water. My question dealt with the matter of tabling the epidemiological studies completed on southwestern Ontario. Since the minister did not hear it, I ask that question again.

I will also ask a supplementary question. Given the presence of dioxin in treated drinking water in at least four communities in southwestern Ontario, will the minister immediately initiate epidemiological studies to assess the pattern of disease, death and birth defects in those communities?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the question about in-depth studies, I am prepared to work in concert with the Minister of the Environment, who is the lead minister in matters such as this. We will be considering the mode in which to develop our studies with respect to these problems. I talked to him about it briefly before today's date.

With respect to the member's earlier interjection, I can tell her the reason I was interrupted was not because of my own member, but because of a note sent from across the way. I apologize for not listening more attentively, but when items come to my attention I like to review them.

I will check whether any studies are available to be tabled. We generally put these studies out for the general public whenever we receive them. I will get back to the member and to the House with respect to the matter.

Mrs. Grier: In the light of the discovery not only of dioxin but also of other organic chemicals in drinking water throughout this province, has the minister satisfied himself that the epidemiological data collected by his department are sufficient for the needs of society in 1986?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was a critic for the Ministry of the Environment at one stage in my political career, and I think it is fair to say the development of new information always overtakes the material that has been collected and generated previously. I can always see reasons for updating and upgrading the information we have. I will take a look at the material on hand at this point and see how we can better bring ourselves up to date, if that is required.

Ms. Fish: I cannot understand how the minister can stand in his place and say fundamental questions of human health are the prerogative of a minister other than the Minister of Health. For the first time in the history of this province dioxin has been discovered in treated drinking water. Will the minister immediately initiate epidemiological studies to track the presence of disease, death and birth defects in those four communities?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows the Minister of the Environment, whom the member once was, has carriage of the items dealing with materials in drinking water. What has happened in this case is what happened before. There is a close link between the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health. We are continuing that; in fact, we are upgrading our capabilities of addressing the concerns in the community. We have already had meetings with the medical officers of health. We will continue to be sure public safety is not affected.

All I am saying to the member is that we must put together our information, and if there is a need for further studies see where we can co-operate with the Minister of the Environment and his officials to ensure public health is safeguarded.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. One of the many disturbing facts in the St. Clair River report to the minister tabled last week relates to the contamination of sport fish, of which about 150,000 are taken from the St. Clair River annually and are shown in the minister's report to contain the same toxins as the drinking water.

The minister has downplayed the effects of the contaminated drinking water on human health. Can the minister tell the House what steps he is taking to protect people from the double jeopardy not only of drinking the water but also eating the contaminated fish?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As a result of the latest report -- and the honourable member knows there was one in November -- of the St. Clair River committee of federal and provincial ministry officials, I am now asking my officials, along with the Ministry of Natural Resources, to review the guidelines which will be placed on the fish that may or may not be consumed in this area.

The member aptly points out that a number of matters of great concern were addressed in this report and were brought to public attention. The purpose of commissioning this report was to make the public aware of these matters. One of the disturbing facts related to those fish which were close to the outfalls of the industries, but to be fair, the member is addressing fish beyond even that. As a result, we are currently reviewing those guidelines to ensure that they are appropriate, taking into consideration the new data which have been forthcoming.

Mrs. Grier: I welcome that comment from the minister, but I also point out to him that in his report the same kinds of chemicals were found in the sediment, in the water and in the fish. Many of these chemicals are unique to the processes used by Dow Chemical. In view of what he has said, will the minister use the Fisheries Act to charge Dow Chemical and seek significant fines for violations of that act?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If there is a piece of legislation under which the Ontario government can act, whether it is through the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Natural Resources, whichever ministry fisheries legislation comes under, or whether it is through a federal act, we will want to ensure that evidence is gathered. As I have indicated on every occasion, if there is any violation or a need for prosecution --

Mr. McClellan: What does the minister mean by "if"?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I say to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), soon to be the member for some other riding, and to the honourable member behind him, we have to ensure that evidence can be found in every case. As soon as we have gathered that evidence -- and we will aggressively seek it -- we will press any necessary charges. I give the member that commitment.

Mr. Brandt: Can the minister indicate the contaminant that was reported to be 370 times the standard, and will he comment on when that standard was put in place by the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I cannot comment but I will get the information for the member.

Mrs. Grier: The Fisheries Act forbids any person to deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish; so I am not sure what further evidence the minister requires to gather.

I am seeking some indication of specific action to clean up Dow Chemical. What is he going to do to force it to close the landfill, control the discharges and repair the sewer pipes? Without specific cabinet orders to do so or charges being laid, how does he expect that kind of cleanup to begin?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, it is not Dow Chemical alone that the Ministry of the Environment is looking at through its investigations and enforcement branch. It is important that the members recognize that we are looking at any possible emitters in this game.

If there is any evidence that any of the laws of the province have been violated by Dow or any other company or emitter, we are prepared to gather the evidence. If the evidence is there now, we will prosecute to the full extent of the law. The member has that commitment.

Regarding other matters raised, the St. Clair River report indicates a number of recommendations. We think they are good and we will proceed on that basis.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question to put to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I draw to his attention the press release he issued three days ago stating that the ministry's insurance information line can be contacted for assistance on any insurance matter.

2:20 p.m.

Given that statement, can the minister explain why this morning my assistant, in attempting to get information on that line from a business standards supervisor for a constituent of mine who is having trouble getting affordable insurance, was told that in order for her to receive any help from the hotline or insurance pool, she would have to have her broker verify by letter that a number of companies had been contacted and they all refused to offer her a quote. She was told it was unlikely the pool would help out someone who had been given a quote, even if that person could not afford to pay the premium.

Can the minister confirm or deny that the hotline service does not intervene with any companies on the affordability of the rates?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is addressing two separate issues. We have an information line to help people who are having problems with their insurance. I do not man it personally so I cannot respond to every single response, but in general it has been addressing that problem.

The other part of the member's question deals with the announcement I made on Friday which had to do with a new subscription arrangement. It works in very much the same way as the Facility Association for automobiles. If someone cannot get insurance, they have agreed to provide it. It is not meant to circumvent the marketplace. If people are not happy with the rate of insurance quoted, that does not mean they can call this group and ask for a better rate. They call if they cannot get insurance at all.

Mr. Swart: I am concerned about the minister's nonintervention on the matter of excessive rates. I am sure the minister must now be aware that Ron Cromwell, the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, has stated that the extreme level of liability insurance rates bears no relation to settlements in the Canadian courts, and Nigel Dunn of the Insurance Bureau of Canada has admitted that it is difficult to predict the size of a claim so insurers are being extra cautious.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Swart: If the minister has any concern about the individuals, businesses and municipalities that are being clobbered, why has he not instructed the Slater task force as its first order of business to investigate and issue an interim report on whether the horrendous rate increases can be justified or whether they should be capped or rolled back until the task force makes its final report?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The overall problem is going to be addressed by the task force. They have been given their mandate which covers a wide range of insurance problems and they are dealing with it as they see fit.

Mr. Andrewes: I understand that this could be a matter of some interest to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) who is going to Pembroke tomorrow. The minister said that the hotline is not to deal with costs of insurance; it is to deal with specific problems of getting insurance. Could he tell us specifically what his hotline will do for ABC Taxi in Pembroke, which has eliminated 22 full-time jobs and has taken seven of its 10 cars off the road? Last month, its liability insurance premiums increased to $3,500 from $1,600 per car. Can the minister tell us what the hotline is going to do for that company, so the Premier can help it when he goes to Pembroke?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: When we started discussing insurance there were two problems. One was availability and the other was affordability. When it came to availability, I had members in this House rise and ask, "What are you going to do about this person who had to close down because he could not get insurance?" In response to that we introduced the information line to tell people that we can put them on to sources where they can get insurance.

Affordability is a different problem, and that is something we are looking at with our task force to see if the rates are out of line. Everyone agrees that people are not happy with the rates, but that may be the only way we can go because that is where the marketplace is. The task force is looking at that.

Mr. Swart: Since the minister has refused to do a single thing about these excessive rates and has consistently defended the insurance companies instead of the consumers, will he accept the challenge I am now issuing to him to debate with me this insurance crisis, particularly his handling of it, and the alternative of public insurance plans such as those that Manitoba and other western provinces have, such debate to be in a public auditorium outside of this building with the public and media invited to attend? Will the minister accept that challenge?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The members of the third party continually try to confuse the issue. We are talking about third-party liability insurance. Every time they get up to debate that issue they beat their favourite drum on government car insurance. They are two separate things.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Grossman: I want to know about the debate. Out of those two, I am betting on whoever does not debate.

DRUG SUBSTITUTE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. He will remember when our party first raised questions in this House about a drug called apo-ibuprofen and suggested that doctors had expressed concern that it was not totally interchangeable. The minister first shrugged it off and suggested there was no hurry in resolving this and he did not hurry to resolve it. He took his time, and the pills were on the shelf for an extended period. Subsequently, he rose in the House and acknowledged that the concerns raised by this party and the Ontario Medical Association were right. He then agreed the drug was not perfectly interchangeable with Motrin, and moved to take it off the shelf. Subsequently, the courts have stepped in and said he could not do that.

On Friday, the manufacturer of the drug wrote all the pharmacists saying that the drug remains "fully interchangeable." Since the minister apparently disagrees with Apotex, and he is in charge, what is his next step?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have taken steps, as the honourable gentleman acknowledged, in trying to have the courts allow us to amend the January 1985 formulary. The courts have decided it is not an issue which should be dealt with quickly. They have decided it should be heard by a full panel, starting April 2, 1986.

We also have indicated quite clearly to members of the House that the concern about apo-ibuprofen is whether it is as quick as Motrin in getting into the system. We believe it does not get into the system as quickly as Motrin. That causes a concern where severe or acute pain is being treated. What has to be made clear to the people of this province is that there is no safety question related to apo-ibuprofen. The member opposite would want to indicate clearly that is not the problem. The problem occurs when it is being used to treat acute pain and there is a need for quick action by a drug. That is when there is concern.

Mr. Grossman: That is correct but, with respect, it does not answer the question. We have one drug, Motrin, a brand-name drug. Because of the Ministry of Health, and only because of it, the pharmacists throughout this province can pick another drug off the shelf, the drug in question, and say, "This one is the same as that one." The minister authorized that by putting it in the formulary --

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member did that. January 1985.

Mr. Grossman: That is right. The government did.

Now it has been discovered, and the minister responsible admits it, that the absorption rate is different for the two pills which doctors and pharmacists are substituting willy-nilly, based upon the formulary. Given that the absorption rates are different and we are talking about a drug used for heart cases, what steps is the minister taking to ensure the two are not dispensed as totally the same? They are different in absorption rate. What steps is he taking to make sure patients are not adversely affected?

Hon. Mr. Elston: My answer to the original question indicated very clearly that the problem with this interchangeable product is when it is used in cases where there is acute pain. That has been and is the problem.

2:30 p.m.

The honourable gentleman raises another possible use for the drug which I do not know about. I am not aware exactly how it is used as a heart drug. I can take a look at that and find out.

I know what is happening now. If there is a concern by pharmacists about whether they should use the drug, they should discuss this question with their physicians, as they would normally. They can do that at any time; they can check it out. They have acknowledged to me that part of their professional duties is to inquire about the appropriateness of a particular medication. As well, the physicians in this province are quite free to write that there will be no substitution for a brand name suggested. Certainly those steps are being taken.

I already have made a request that the reasons for a decision be reviewed with respect to not only our application to the court but also an application to the court by Apotex with respect to the two applications that were heard last week. Those things are being reviewed at the same time.

HOSPITAL BED DESIGNATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Health regarding the potential agreement between University Hospital in London and the Hospital Corp. of America. Is the minister not very concerned that if this type of deal goes through, a two-class health care system could develop in this province, one class for Americans and another for residents of Ontario, one class for teaching hospitals and another for community hospitals? What is the minister's position on this very important discussion that is emerging?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am concerned about the details that have come out to the public concerning this project. I am not aware of the details of it. I do not know the items that have been discussed between the hospital and the private corporation.

In this province only one set of dedicated beds is set aside for a particular group of people. Those dedicated beds are for the veterans of this country, and I think that is an appropriate designation because they have special needs. I would be extremely concerned that no other class of dedicated beds be made available to a particular group of people in this province, in this case the suggestion that they be made available to a group of people from outside Canada.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister realize that if this proposal goes through, we could see this type of idea develop in every border community in the province in an effort to attract foreign patients from the United States? Does he not also realize that the doctors can extra bill and can charge whatever fees they want? We can have our own little private health care system develop in order to generate revenue under the business-oriented new development program because of the underfunding of our health care system that has occurred over the years.

Why does not the minister just stand in his place today, put a stop to it and say it is not going to happen as long as this government is in power?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Let me bring some information to the honourable gentleman's attention. This facility, which is apparently thinking of entering into an agreement, is not doing it solely on the basis of underfunding. It is my understanding from a quick analysis of its net cash position for the last two years that it has run surpluses, so I am not sure this is the reason this discussion has been embarked upon.

I already have indicated I am quite concerned about dedicating beds for anyone other than the people of Ontario in a facility that is funded publicly by the taxpayers of this province. It would be fair to say that if this project is brought to my attention in a detailed manner, it will have a very difficult time in succeeding.

Mr. Grossman: The minister has to look into this a little further, because he will find out, as the Health critic for the New Democratic Party has said, that this approach was made to the American firm because the hospital wants to find ways to raise money to add to its facilities and equipment in the part that is used in the normal course of operations of the hospital. It is very much to raise money and to deal with the underfunding circumstance that they feel they face.

Given the fact that his leader has talked several times about an excellence fund to remunerate doctors who are going to be opted into the plan, and given the fact that the minister himself acknowledged that opting in dentists is going to cost some extra money out of the $50 million he is going to get back from the federal government, it is therefore going to cost money, not save money, to ban extra billing in this province. Why would the minister not deal with the problem of underfunding of those hospitals that are now looking at the American option rather than spend all that money to opt in doctors in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is way off the mark. As I have clearly indicated, I understand that there are net cash surpluses in this hospital. I am not particularly in favour of looking at beds in a public hospital in this province being designated for the exclusive use of American or other non-Ontario Canadian patients.

We are coming to grips with the question of the level of funding of our hospitals in our way. We shall not be spending a lot of extra money on this extra billing issue as the member would like to say. He is trying to say there is an underfunding problem and has acknowledged that we are addressing it. We are doing more things than he has ever done and will continue to work very hard at the system.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

On Tuesday last, this party asked the minister to outline the negotiations that he and his ministry had had with Hearst Forest Management Inc. regarding the forest management agreement they have signed. Despite repeated phone calls to his office and to the office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the House still has not been provided with this information. Is the minister prepared to make that information known to the House today?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Given adequate time, I am prepared to make any information known to this House. What I would like to share with the member is that we went into this in depth with the Premier and I am surprised the member is not satisfied with the answer. If he thinks I am going to stand here and contradict my Premier, he is way off base.

Mr. Gillies: I understand the minister's difficulty in this matter. He has the choice of either agreeing with the Premier or giving us the facts.

This forest management agreement with Hearst means for the province a 20-year agreement to supply wood. It calls for the construction of roads and development in northern Ontario, and for Hearst it means financial benefits to the order of $44 million. His deputy minister told the standing committee on public accounts last Thursday that she and officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources were well aware of his colleague's participation in Hearst Forest Management Inc. Will the minister now tell this House whether he was aware of his colleague's relationship with Hearst Forest Management?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The question has been answered and I will answer it again. Everyone knows what the involvement was. Any member in this Legislature who is asked to put any of his or her holdings in a trust, a blind trust, is well within the law on dealings in the future. I do not think there is any question here that was not answered before.

Mr. Gillies: That was six months ago and the minister knew about it. It was six months before he put it into a blind trust as a member of cabinet.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Relax.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear a response when everyone is trying to interfere. Does the minister have anything further?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. The FMAs are something that the previous government put in place. They are an excellent way to make certain of our forests and are the kind of involvement that is going to continue to keep trees planted. They did not go far enough and I shall do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no authority to tell anybody what to say in this House.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister assure the House that the schedule for signing of FMAs, which included the Hearst FMA, was not changed in any way after the change in government?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is a good question. The FMAs are not only good for 20 years, they are what is called an evergreen program to make certain that the forests --

Mr. Harris: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I will answer it in my way and not in the member's way. They should not get excited over there; they are all getting hyper.

The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) went to the committee and turned everything around so people would wonder about us tabling things in the Legislature. The fact is he was afraid it was going to show how he ran the thing before.

In response to the member's question, the forest management agreements are going to continue and we are going to address ourselves to them. Any FMAs that are assigned will be tabled, which is something the previous government did not see fit to do with the reports.

Mr. Grossman: Table the information.

Mr. Davis: Answer the question. Did you move the dates?

Mr. Gillies: Did you move it up?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I will answer the questions in the way I choose and I will not respond to those members in any other way.

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. After my exchange with the minister 10 days ago on the question of paying minimum wages in our sheltered workshops, I sent him a formal request and proposal from Amity Goodwill Industries in Hamilton, which provided him with a detailed scheme as to how he might do it at that sheltered workshop with little or no additional cost. Has he received the proposal? Will he comment with respect to whether and when he will respond?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have received the proposal. I am reviewing it personally and it is being reviewed by my staff. There are some good suggestions in it. I indicated to the member earlier that we are in the process of examining this, not just for Amity Goodwill Industries in Hamilton but also for all workshops across the province. We will respond to it.

Mr. Allen: Given the nature of the minister's last response, which referred to productivity, resources and what have you, I remind him that the Charter of Rights indicates that if we have a minimum wage law we must perform without respect to physical or mental disability. With respect, that does not preclude any affirmative action program or legislation relating to this disability --

Mr. Speaker: I hope you have a supplementary question.

Mr. Allen: If the minister cannot tell us exactly when he will respond, perhaps he can tell us whether he will respond at all to a single request from a workshop such as this, in as much as the program is clear, the cost is very small and the application can be done in a single instance.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I have indicated to the member previously, there is a natural connection between the wages received at the workshop and the benefits a number of the workers there get through family benefits. I am sure the member is well aware that family benefits are based on need. If they receive a higher wage at the workshop, that reduces their family benefits accordingly. One of the things we have discussed with the various advocacy associations is making sure that whatever changes we make do not leave the employees financially worse off. That has to be a concern of mine.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Hamilton West asked a good supplementary question. Will the minister answer it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I thought I had answered it. If there is another section to it, let the member raise the question again. I explained why we are going about the process in the way we are. It is important we protect each of the employees as well as the process.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Gillies: I will go back to the Minister of Natural Resources with my question. Will the minister tell this House, as his deputy minister told the public accounts committee last week, that officials of his ministry were fully aware of the situation with regard to the relationship of Hearst Forest Management Inc. with his colleague, and will he tell this House that he made no intervention and had no dealings at any time since his government took office which would in any way affect the successful award of that forest management agreement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the question was fairly answered. We knew who was involved, but in the tradition of doing what needs to be done to put one's holdings in a blind trust, that was up to the individual member. The fact we went on with the traditional way of dealing with an FMA is exactly what happened. I have no problem with that. I wonder why the member does.

Mr. Gillies: We and the New Democratic Party have some very serious concerns about this. The minister has not answered the question put by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) or the question put by me. I will ask the minister again whether he intervened in the awarding of this contract and whether the priority list established for FMAs to be signed by his ministry was altered during the period he was negotiating with Hearst.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The process of FMAs has not been altered one iota since the Conservatives set it up. It is a proper process, and it is ongoing. The member knows very well that the FMA has not been signed. Everything will be done in a proper fashion. I do not know what else I can say.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr. Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I humbly submit that it may not be necessary to turn the minister's microphone on when he stands in his place to answer the question.

As the minister is aware, briefs were presented to the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario in November concerning crop insurance in this province, especially vis-à-vis northern Ontario. Last week, the minister was given a brief by northern Ontario farmers. After hearing these briefs and knowing the concern of the northern Ontario farmers, especially about individual insurance for spring grains, would the minister consider bringing in such a program and instructing the crop insurance commission to have an individual crop insurance program for this crop this year, as all the other provinces in this country have?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member may be aware that the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture are meeting this week to discuss the merits of having a review of the crop insurance program as it pertains to all Ontario, not just northern Ontario.

If they agree to establish a committee to review crop insurance per se, I will be quite supportive of such a committee. That will be the time when the submission of the northern Ontario farmers can be presented, to see if we can take out individual insurance for the various grain crops that are grown in the north. I have a feeling the whole crop insurance program is going to be reviewed.

Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate the answer. My concern is the timing. As the minister knows, the deadline for crop insurance in northern Ontario for spring grains is April 15. We have a 10 per cent participatory rate at the moment. The farmers up there are telling me it could be five per cent or less this year, and if we have a disaster, we are in trouble. If the OFA committee recommends it, would the minister introduce a program for this crop year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I sincerely hope I will be able to. The member can be assured I will expedite the review. I hope we will be in a position to announce any changes we are prepared to make to crop insurance in this province.

Mr. Lane: Can the minister tell me if the matter can be corrected without going to the arbitration board because there is a problem in the north, or will the farmers in northern Ontario have to go before that board to get the matter settled?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am not sure they are even approaching the arbitration board at this time. We had a committee looking at the conditions in northern Ontario as they pertain to the various crops, the grain crop and the forage crop. This committee made some recommendations, with which I understand the northern Ontario farmers were not too terribly happy. That is one of the reasons I hope we will have a complete review of the crop insurance program. I do not see any need for them to go to arbitration if my counterpart in Ottawa and I are prepared to announce dramatic changes to the crop insurance program. I hope it will be effective in time for farmers to insure their crops this year.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, it will be no surprise to you that my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I take it as a personal challenge to get an answer from that minister. I will ask him again and it will require only a yes or no answer.

Since this government took office, has he discussed at any time the awarding of the Hearst forest management agreement with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine)?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thought I had made that clear. No, I have never discussed it with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Mr. Gillies: Never?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Not at all; never. I am very pleased with the way this came about. The honourable member is laying in the weeds trying to make something out of something that is not true at all, and he knows it. No matter how he pursues it, he is not going to change the story because it is clear and precise: It has been done in an accepted and proper way.

Mr. Gillies: First, that is the first time the minister has come forward unequivocally and said that. Second, his deputy minister told the standing committee on public accounts last Thursday that this relationship was well known throughout the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gillies: I have no option but to take the minister at his word. I will ask again the question originally put by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), which the minister has still failed to answer. Was the established priority list for FMAs changed during the period of negotiation of the Hearst agreement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not think the member understands what an FMA is all about. How can one change the priority? We are talking about a whole area, with other companies involved in doing good for the people of that area. We never talked about changing the priority or anything else. It is going through due process, through an accepted process, and nothing has changed. I do not know what I can do to confirm that for the member if he does not want to accept it. He is trying to make an issue out of something that is a nonissue.

UAW LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Premier. Is he aware the president of General Motors of Canada has threatened our province with the closure of the trim plant in Windsor and the loss of 2,700 jobs, unless the United Auto Workers agree that production and shipments will continue in the event of a labour stoppage in Ontario when the UAW negotiates contracts some time in the future? What is he prepared to do to stop these threats from General Motors of Canada and the potential loss of 2,700 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not aware of any threats. If the honourable member gives me the details I will check them out. I will look into the situation, but I had no idea of that.

Mr. Hayes: Now that the member for Windsor-Riverside has made the Premier aware of it, is he prepared to seek an immediate meeting with GM officials, during which time he can point out that the workers in this country have a constitutional right to belong to a union? Associated with that, they have a right to withhold their labour when they are legally on strike. The Premier would expect the company to respect that right of the GM workers.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assume the president of General Motors knows those essential truths. If he does not, I would be happy to send him a copy of Hansard and make sure he does understand them.

I am frankly not aware of the spat that is going on at the moment -- this dispute or these threats -- but there have been so many threats and counterthreats flying from members of his caucus to others among the capitalists in our society lately that it seems I am just a passive observer of all these things that are going on. It is tough to sort out who is saying what about what these days.

We are the kind of people who try to bring peace and harmony and who try to bring people together. We do not encourage people to say these personal things about each other. If there is any way I can be of assistance in this matter I would be delighted, and I will look into it.

KAWARTHA DOWNS RACETRACK

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, as you may recall, on Monday, January 27, I asked a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I will address another question to him now.

If I may refer to the Hansard of that day, he said, "I am in communication with them about what is going on," and I assume he meant the Ontario Racing Commission.

I have had meetings during this past weekend with some of the principals involved. They tell me there have not been any communications and there have not been any meetings. Will the minister now give serious consideration to instructing the racing commission at least to issue a temporary licence so the racetrack facility at Kawartha Downs can continue to operate?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the honourable member for his question. After this question was raised in the House, and at that time I told him I was aware of the situation, I did contact the chairman of the racing commission, who was attending a meeting in Florida, and we discussed this at length.

On Friday I had a delegation from the purchasers of Kawartha Downs with a petition of 3,000 names that I have forwarded to the racing commission. I told them we had to get a resolution. They have taken it under advisement, and I am satisfied the racing commission can deal with it.

Mr. Turner: The minister is a lot more optimistic than I am. This affects the ridings of Victoria-Haliburton, Northumberland, Hastings-Peterborough, Durham East and Oshawa, not just the riding of Peterborough. There is a lot of concern. At least 162 jobs and 500 horsemen are involved.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Turner: Do not throw me off the track, Mr. Speaker. I am in full flight here.

The minister said in reply to the supplementary of last Monday, "I do not think it is appropriate for me to intervene until it has reached such an impasse that it requires the minister's intervention."

With all respect, I suggest this impasse has been reached. As the minister is probably aware, there is very serious consideration that this track, if it continues to be left closed, probably will not open again; and if it opens, it will take one hell of a long time to get its business built back up. Will the minister not now give consideration to taking action to get this track in operation again?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member should know that the decision not to allow the transfer of the racing dates was made unanimously by the racing commission. The racing commission, under Chairman Frank Drea, is made up of representatives of the industry. These are all people who are horsemen and who are deeply concerned about the industry. It is their decision that it is in the best interests of their industry to negotiate for another owner. They are working towards that end. I am monitoring the situation and I still say it would be inappropriate for me to intervene at this time.

3 p.m.

AIRPLANE CRASH

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I am surprised the minister did not have a statement today regarding the crash of the Dash-8 aircraft in Sault Ste. Marie this weekend.

Can the minister explain to the House what testing was being done on that aircraft and the reasons for the crash, as he understands them, and indicate to the House what progress is being made on the federal investigation of the crash.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Before I left the office, I was talking with Sault Ste. Marie. They are investigating it. People from Ottawa are there. I will wait until they report to me later today.

One thing I know is that the chief pilot and a training pilot were on board when the plane crashed near Sault Ste. Marie airport. Both men were unhurt. The aircraft was damaged to an extent not yet known, but it is considered repairable. We are investigating the incident and we will report.

Mr. Wildman: It is fortunate indeed that no one was injured and that it was a test run with no passengers aboard. However, in finding out this information, will the minister explain the exact extent of the damage, because this afternoon at Sault Ste. Marie airport the aircraft looked as if it had sustained a great deal of damage? Would he also indicate what testing was being done on this aircraft in its landing approach that would have led to this kind of disaster?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will report to the House when I have all the investigation reports.

CHURCH SITE

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will be aware that the Missionary Church in Markham has been looking for some two years for a new site in the northern, rural part of Markham town. With land values ranging up to $100,000 per acre, they are having great difficulty finding a site.

They have now found a farmer who will give them the necessary acreage at a very reasonable price. Is the minister going to approve that severance, or is he going to stop the tradition of allowing rural churches to be built on portions of farm land?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I met with a delegation from the church a few weeks ago and we discussed various alternatives. I asked whether they needed the full 10 acres or whether they could do with two acres of land. We are taking all that into consideration.

We have made our recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître). If they decide to go ahead and build the church on two acres of land rather than on 10 acres, I do not think they will get a lot of flak from me.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Brandt: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Thursday, January 30, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) indicated during the course of my remarks that I was in error when I indicated that the city of Windsor was discharging raw sewage into the St. Clair River. He is absolutely correct. I would like to state to the House that Windsor is in fact discharging raw sewage into the Detroit River, not the St. Clair River.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mr. Brandt: On a second point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) made comments to the effect that the former Minister of the Environment, the member for Sarnia -- namely, myself -- was aware of a so-called blob that was discovered some time ago and that I kept this information from the House.

I say to members of the House without any equivocation whatever that at no time was I aware of any blob on the floor of the St. Clair River and at no time was it ever brought to my attention by any of the ministry officials when I was minister.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member. We do on many occasions allow points of personal explanation. However, I believe --

Mr. Brandt: Points of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Or privilege, yes. Quite often we allow members to correct their own records, not necessarily the record of what someone else has said.

PETITIONS

CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARY

Mr. Pollock: I wish to table a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas both reports of the electoral boundaries commission have recommended that the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve be removed from the Hastings-Peterborough constituency;

"Whereas these municipalities are part of Hastings county and work with the provincial and county offices in the city of Belleville, the county seat, rather than offices located in other county seats;

"Whereas these four rural municipalities have a community of interest with other rural municipalities in Hastings-Peterborough;

"Now therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Ontario Legislature to leave the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve in the Hastings-Peterborough constituency."

It is signed by 43 members of the Lonsdale Women's Institute.

The second petition I have is the same as the above. It is signed by 27 members of the Cannifton-Corbyville Senior Citizens.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are quite a number of private conversations. The member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) had to strain his voice to be heard. I know members would not want him to have to strain it any more.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Barlow: I would like to make a few comments on the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the member starts, I remind all members again that they are having a number of private conversations. I am sure the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) would be happy if they would have those somewhere else.

Mr. Barlow: As the appointed spokesman for small business for our party, I would like to join in this debate and bring in a few pieces of information and concerns I have and I am sure the business community has about this bill.

This legislation is designed to solve first-contract labour disputes. This Legislature must give very serious consideration to the position of the business owners of this province. We cannot legislate new rights for workers without giving fair and serious consideration to those who provide the employment.

In talking to a number of employers, I am staggered by their stories of dedication to building their businesses in the very early and formative years. Often it almost equates to something out of Dickens novel. They even work on Christmas Day when they are building up their own businesses. It is certainly not a nine-to-five job. The only time they hear about nine-to-five is when Dolly Parton sings that wonderful song. They devote their entire day to working at their businesses and with their employees to build up their businesses.

It is their labour of love and dedication that finally bears fruit. Some critics who are not prepared to take the same risk of owning their own businesses are critical of their position, perceiving them to be uncaring fat cats.

3:10 p.m.

When a business has developed to a point where the owner feels he now has something comfortable, he often finds out, with no advance notice, that behind his back a group of his employees is striving to negotiate a union with other employees. When this group of employees sets out --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are many private conversations going on. This is most unfair to the member for Cambridge. It is as if the members think it is the time to have conversations. Will they please carry on their conversations elsewhere.

Mr. Barlow: If members start interrupting me again, I will draw that to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

Once an application for certification has been made, the employer has very little opportunity to discuss openly these matters for fear of being charged with a violation of the Labour Relations Act. An employer feels he could be charged with "undue influence or intimidation." Many business owners have expressed their fear that this proposed legislation, which provides for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration when the union feels collective bargaining has been frustrated, will severely limit management in as much as it would know the bargaining unit has been frustrated by the business agent and those in the union.

I have often been approached by business owners who have these justifiable fears, and I cannot believe the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and his colleague have not also been swamped by business owners who share these concerns. I am sure the Minister of Labour heard concerns of this nature from the chamber of commerce at its meeting last Wednesday.

All three parties in this Legislature are together in understanding that long-term strikes and lockouts are harmful to the affected parties, both management and labour. If this bill served to prevent either of these from happening as a result of negotiation for a first contract, I would be in favour of that. However, I do not for one moment believe this proposed legislation would have that effect. One has only to look at British Columbia, which enacted similar legislation in 1974, to realize it clearly failed. It did not lead to the development of a good long-term relationship, and BC has stopped using it altogether, my information tells me.

I do not think one has to be a specialist in human dynamics and behaviour to know that an agreement which has been reached between two parties will be easier to live with than one which has been imposed by a third party, in this case the arbitrator. The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), who has just stepped out, told us during the recent strike of the teachers in Wellington county that it was better to let them work our their arrangements themselves. If this legislation is passed, it will take that right away from the two parties.

Another province we might want to look at is Manitoba. It has often been cited as a good example of what such legislation can do for people. It has been pointed out what a difference was made by first-contract legislation being in place to allow the Brandon Manitoba Eaton's employees to put a contract in place without a strike, compared to the Toronto situation where the workers were on strike for many months.

Newspaper reports, perhaps two weeks ago, tell us the Manitoba Eaton's employees are not happy with the end result of unionizing and the arbitrated first-contract agreement. There was an article in the paper recently about that. There is a real concern about it.

Even where contract intervention puts an end to a bitter and lengthy labour dispute, history shows that the legislation's long-range objective of arranging a trial marriage usually fails to facilitate the maturation of a collective bargaining relationship. Many imposed agreements are not renewed and decertification often follows.

Ironically, the conditions that necessitate first-contract arbitration often determine its utility. Bargaining units are small, employees are often low-skilled or medium-skilled and the turnover is often quite high; so the union must work continuously to retain its members and their support.

Ultimately, it can be argued that all that first-contract arbitration or imposition achieves is delayed union busting, without the attendant glare of publicity that is present during the initial "recognition" strike.

Just for a moment, let us give some attention to the Ontario economy, whose reputation is already suffering in depicting Ontario as a good place for foreign and domestic manufacturers to invest. While it is all very nice to introduce legislation that will enshrine rights for workers, we must consider whether there will be any work for the workers if we do not protect the business environment in our province. We must be careful that we do not vote for legislation designed for short-term political gain rather than for long-term and sensible management of our economy. If the legislation does not foster Ontario's ability to compete in Canadian and foreign markets, then in the end we have failed both the workers and the business owners.

This legislation will hurt us economically because Ontario's manufacturing-based economy, unlike other jurisdictions' resource-based economies, depends so much on capital, which can flee from our grasp. Capital will undoubtedly flee if our national government relaxes the trade barriers while Ontario is busy expanding workers' rights.

The government will not expect me or my party to support this bill when we consider what this legislation could do to damage our somewhat fragile economy, which is dominated by small-sized and medium-sized business; when we consider that the legislation is displeasing to businesses and when, as I understand from talking to many workers, it will not totally satisfy workers either; when we consider that the desire to avoid the economic loss of a strike or a lockout is the best catalyst to resolve difficulties in collective agreements; when we consider that compulsory arbitration is a serious infringement on the freedom to contract, which is what labour relations is all about; when we consider that the term "collective bargaining being frustrated" has not been tested and could easily end up being just another hurdle for unions to contend with, as opposed to bad-faith bargaining, which already has a well-established legal test; and, finally, when we consider that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has shown it can handle a situation in which an employer has refused to bargain or has bargained in bad faith.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to speak on this bill. First, I will explain that my good friend and colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) is unavoidably away on very personal and tragic business today. There was a death in the family, not in his immediate family, and he cannot be here.

I am honoured to speak on his behalf. As a person who has been around this Legislature for 15 years, I do not think there is any single person in the Legislature who has done more to advance the cause of working men and women and the cause of the labour movement in this province than my colleague the member for Hamilton East.

On almost every single issue that concerns working men and women in this province he has raised questions in the Legislature time and again during the last 10 years of his tenure. He has also put forward positive suggestions about remedying some of the injustices that are visited upon the working men and women of this province.

I consider it a great honour to be speaking in his place and I hope I can do the subject we face this afternoon the same justice that he would. I know I cannot bring the direct passion and personal concern that the member for Hamilton East has, but I hope I can represent him and my party adequately in this debate.

We rise to support the legislation, although we do so with some reluctance because we recognize the weaknesses in the legislation. It is not the kind of first-contract legislation we would have drafted. After we get it through second reading, we will be proposing amendments at the committee stage that we think will simplify the legislation and meet a number of concerns that have been raised about it by the labour movement.

I find the position of the official opposition on this matter very interesting. If I may say so, it warms the cockles of my heart to find that the official opposition has settled into the role of opposition so nicely, so permanently and so negatively. They have opposed every single progressive piece of legislation that has been brought forward.

They are opposed to the extra billing legislation, although how they are going to vote on it we have not yet found out. I was interested to watch the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) on Provincial Affairs on Saturday night, saying he was opposed to government legislation on that matter without giving any positive alternative. They also are opposed to the legislation that would bring some order into the Ontario drug benefit plan and they are opposed to this legislation. I take those three examples because they are fairly controversial.

There is no question that they are all difficult topics, but the Conservative Party has not offered any positive alternatives. They have not made any suggestions about how the legislation should be brought in that would remedy the problems in these three instances and get on with the job. I think there is a certain amount of ambivalence and divisiveness, if not hypocrisy, on the part of the official opposition on these three issues.

In the speech from the throne we had on June 4 -- was it that recently, or that long ago? A week is a long time in politics and there has been a lot of water under the wooden bridges of Muskoka and elsewhere since that time. If I recall correctly, in the speech from the throne read on behalf of the government by the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), then the Premier, a commitment was made to bring in first-contract legislation. They indicated that they would be moving forward. I know they would not be moving forward with the kind of legislation we would be introducing. When the Liberal government will not do that, I sure as heck know that the Tory government would not be bringing in legislation that would give the direct right to arbitration; so what kinds of games are we having played here?

We heard a good deal of talk about the need to be fair, and I agree with that. It is important to be fair to both employees and employers in this province, and first-contract legislation does that. The reason I think first-contract legislation does that is because it achieves what the preamble to the Labour Relations Act -- which is one of the few acts in this province that actually does have a preamble -- says it is supposed to do: promote harmonious relations between employers and employees.

Those of us who have been around this Legislature for 10 years or more know the need for this kind of legislation. We have seen too many acrimonious and bitter disputes about and surrounding negotiations. The bitterest and most acrimonious of those disputes have inevitably been around first contracts. The Eaton's strike, the Fleck strike and, if I may say so, on a federal level the Visa strike. Even recently, the steps taken by the employer in that instance to try to get it referred to, I believe, the Supreme Court, indicate that there still is a need for some employers in this province to be brought into the 20th century.

By and large, it is not the small business employers who are opposed to first-contract legislation as my friend to the right tries to say; it is the gigantic employers who are opposed to first-contract legislation. It is people such as the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce -- people who run the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; I would then be grammatically correct -- and it is people such as those who run Eaton's, those who run Kresge who are opposed to first-contract legislation.

There has been in this province, and often in this Legislature from the Conservative Party and from the Liberal Party, a lot of criticism of the labour movement. The criticism of the labour movement basically boils down to this. They have said to the labour movement, "Why do you people not go and help the unorganized?" One of the major criticisms made of the labour movement in our society and by politicians who like to bash the labour movement, one of the criticisms that they have engaged in is this: "You look after your own members and you do not go out and organize the unorganized. You do not go out and help those people who are earning minimum wage and marginal wage."

3:30 p.m.

If one knows anything about union organizing, labour relations and collective bargaining, one knows how difficult it is to organize. In the first place, it is difficult to sign up the members, because often the workers are scattered. They may be at the work place, but they live in all kinds of different locations. But even after one has signed up and got a certification in this province, does that mean one can settle right down to harmonious bargaining? In this province, I am afraid, in many instances the answer to that question has been no.

One of the reasons it is so important that the labour movement be given the tool of tough and good first-contract legislation is so that it can organize the unorganized and can represent those people in our society who now do not have the protection of a collective agreement.

I am the Treasury critic for our party and I look at the statistics of where the work force is growing and diminishing. I know very well that basically the only growth area in job creation is the service sector, and often in part-time jobs. That area is where the labour movement needs the clout of first-contract legislation so it can get collective agreements to cover those employees. It is going to be increasingly important that employees, and part-time employees who are unionized, be covered by collective agreements.

We in the New Democratic Party have pushed for first-contract arbitration as a democratic right, and this is where I want to get into some criticism of the legislation. We do not believe the amendments to the Labour Relations Act introduced by the Minister of Labour, which require proof an employer has adopted a noncomprising position "without reasonable justification" or has failed to make "reasonable efforts" to reach an agreement before binding arbitration will apply, are the route to go.

The legislation as currently drafted gives too much discretion to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to interpret employer behaviour. What it does in a kind of cute way is to have the Ontario Labour Relations Board make a finding of bad-faith bargaining for a party to be able to appeal and get binding arbitration. We all know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to get a finding of bad-faith bargaining.

I refer specifically to the S. S. Kresge strike in my riding. In that strike, which was settled just before the deadline by some adroit work on the part of the bargaining agent for the Kresge workers in Thunder Bay, the company in effect failed to talk to the union for five months. They opened negotiations in February, and by the end of August they had talked and bargained once. If that is not bad-faith bargaining, it is such a total disregard of what is involved in the collective bargaining process and such an obvious desire to get around the bargaining process that it amounts to bad-faith bargaining.

What strikes me about this legislation is that the hurdles put in the way of the workers are too great to make this legislation effective. With the number of cases increasingly being referred to the labour relations board, there would be such a backup in the cases to be heard that one could not use the mechanism effectively. In other words, the Liberals just could not do it right. They had to put hurdles in the way of the workers.

There is a fundamental problem with this proposed legislation. The fight around first contracts is about whether arbitration is offered as a right or a remedy. The labour movement has argued that a union should not be forced to jump through hoops to get to arbitration and should not have to prove the employer has bargained in bad faith to get a remedy from the board. We agree with that view.

Basically, the Liberals have rejected the perspective of the labour movement. They have rejected compromise positions. Subsection 40a(2) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill as it now stands, establishes the preconditions to first-contract arbitration and gives the board the authority to decide whether those preconditions have been met. If I might quote it, the subsection reads:

"(2) The board shall consider and make its decision on an application under subsection (1) within 30 days of receiving the application and it shall direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration where it appears to the board that collective bargaining has been frustrated because of,

"(a) the refusal of the employer to recognize the bargaining authority of the trade union;

"(b) the uncompromising nature of any bargaining position adopted by the respondent without reasonable justification;

"(c) the failure of the respondent to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement; or

"(d) any other reason the board considers relevant."

We say that is not good enough. What is an uncompromising bargaining position that has a reasonable justification? Can the minister explain that to me? I cannot. How can one justify the uncompromising nature of any bargaining position? It is a contradiction in terms, and yet it is in the legislation and it will be the loophole that companies and the Ontario Labour Relations Board will use in order not to impose a contract. The mind boggles at the idea that one would give that kind of legal loophole to an uncompromising employer to drive his union-busting truck through.

We in this party say that the workers must have the right to go directly to arbitration if negotiations drag out. Frankly, we will attempt to amend the bill in committee to achieve it.

Mr. Martel: The Tories will hope to make it tougher, even more miserable.

Mr. Foulds: I suspect the Conservative Party will support us on that. I am sure that in committee stage they will see the light of progress and the light of inspiration to support us on that.

I want to conclude by saying this. I know from direct and personal experience that first-contract legislation is absolutely essential to bring harmonious labour relations to this province. I know from my experience in the Port Arthur Clinic strike in the community of Thunder Bay, a first-contract dispute that occurred more than 11 years ago and caused scars and disruption that are still felt in that community, that legislation imposing a first contract is absolutely essential.

I know that legislation which gives workers the right to appeal directly for the arbitration mechanism when they choose is essential. That strike, in which the medical doctors, as the employers, would not give their employees the right to bargain, was a bitter dispute. It tore our community apart. It pitted family against family and it was one of the saddest days in Ontario's labour relations history.

3:40 p.m.

If we had had first-contract legislation, good, tough, sensible first-contract legislation, we could have saved not only a lot of anguish but also a lot of destruction to a community. I see first-contract legislation as a healing mechanism; I see it as a progressive mechanism. For that reason, we in this party, and I personally, will be supporting this legislation and we will be doing our damnedest to amend the offending clauses in committee.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will try to be relatively brief because I know the House wishes to return very quickly to Bill 94 and resume that debate so we can hear the new items and issues.

Let me first deal with the remarks of the official opposition, particularly the Labour critic, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). I want to indicate my surprise that the official opposition has apparently indicated it is not prepared to support the legislation.

I want to put on the record the remarks of the former Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable John Black Aird, in reading the speech from the throne prepared by the former government on June 4, 1985:

"Amendments will be introduced to enhance collective bargaining rights. A procedure will be proposed to enable first agreement arbitration to be requested when the normal processes of negotiation, conciliation and mediation have failed to produce a collective agreement following the acquisition of bargaining rights."

That is a direct quote from the throne speech. That was June 4, 1985, and obviously the position of the Conservative Party has changed, and changed for the worse. The change of the Conservative Party is to a position that is totally unacceptable to the government. As I understand it, the member for Brantford would want to tie first contract arbitration to some perceived need to modify the certification process.

There is an underlying assumption I want to put on the record that the member has suggested in terms of wishing to modify the certification process, and that is that there is either a failure of honesty or a failure of understanding on the part of workers who have voted to form a union.

Mr. Martel: Or both.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Or both, says the member for Sudbury East.

The government believes it is neither. The government believes that certification is neither a dishonest nor incomprehensible act. Workers understand what they are doing, and there is no need to modify the certification process.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of privilege: The minister seems to be suggesting I implied there was something dishonest about people coming together to represent themselves to their employers. I would suggest the minister is misrepresenting my remarks and misleading the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister in his comments gave several alternatives, one of which was a lack of understanding, another was a lack of honesty and another was a lack of both; and on the latter he deferred to the member for Sudbury East. Therefore, he was not accusing the member for Brantford of anything in particular.

Mr. Martel: They were selling the manufacturers' association blind last week, all afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will deal briefly with the certification process. The government believes the certification of a union without a vote is justified only where there is clear evidence of majority support or where the misconduct of employers is such that a vote would not reveal the true desires of employees. It seems to me that is the proper balance.

The honourable member also suggested there is a problem employers would have in terms of the certification process and continuing the fight beyond the certification process. I suggest the honourable member read the bill. The ability of a trade union to get access is certainly allowed for exactly that kind of matter.

The member for Brantford also indicated the time limits for the arbitration process and for the determination on access are too short. I am prepared to hear, and I am sure I am going to hear some arguments in committee, that perhaps this is one issue where both business and labour will be in agreement, but the time limits are short. They are meant to be stringent. The government believes that once a party has gone through the certification and bargaining and believes it is necessary to use the mechanism of first contract arbitration a decision ought to be made quickly. After all, we often have a situation where workers will already be on the picket line, losing wages day in and day out.

It is going to demand of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, of arbitrators and of those in the legal profession who will represent both sides, that they get their act together quickly. The only group that stands to be hurt by the failure of the process to move forward quickly is the legal profession, and the government is more concerned that the process move to a speedy resolution.

The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), who is the only other speaker for the official opposition, indicated that the legislation does not seriously consider the position of the small business owner. I suggest, in the light of the remarks made of my friends in the third party, that the legislation does represent a very balanced approach.

The member for Cambridge is a good friend of mine and I do not want to misquote him, but he said something about the concern that the businessman might have when behind his back is a group of employees striving to negotiate a union. I can only say to him and to the members of the official opposition who apparently agree with that point of view that it is the right of workers to form a union. It is not being done behind anyone's back. They have the right to attempt to form a union in order to bargain collectively. I do not think our society has moved to the point where we want to throw that out.

The member for Cambridge also suggested that this legislation is taking away the rights of the parties to work out their own arrangements. I will use that as a link to my comments on the remarks of the third party, that we wish to have, and I think all members of the Legislature wish to have, agreements reached between the parties. It is a given that agreements reached between the parties are preferable to those that are imposed through arbitration.

This legislation does not take away the rights of the parties to negotiate their first agreement. I believe it enhances the opportunity to negotiate agreement, understanding that what we on the government side and as a Legislature ultimately want is not only to have a first agreement but also to have a second and a third and a fourth, a collective bargaining relationship that continues well into the future.

There were a number of speeches from my friends in the New Democratic Party which raised a common theme, that the level of restrictiveness of the access would lengthen the proceedings and that the access level was too restrictive. I look forward to hearing from my friends in the third party, and indeed from the leadership of the trade union movement, during the committee hearings.

Without prolonging this, I think the will of the government is very clear. We wish to have either party able to access this arbitration without a finding of bad faith. We believe we have gone beyond the bad faith test. That view is not entirely shared by all in the Legislature, including the leader of the third party, but we will have an opportunity in committee to debate section 2 of the bill in great detail. I welcome that and invite the members to bring forward their comments.

3:50 p.m.

I have already been served notice in these speeches of some amendments that will come forward. In terms of the length of legal proceedings, the legislation attempts in effect to fast-track the matter to where it ought to be. My friends in the third party and all members of the Legislature, viewing as we have the matters in Manitoba and the recent announced challenge to the Canadian Labour Relations Board ruling which is not even out yet, understand that in 1986 there is apparently no way to fast-track anything. Those who wish to slow down a process legally, whether the access is automatic, as it is in Manitoba, or whether the access is at a minister's office in the first stage and then with the board, as it is federally, or whether the access is at the board level, as is proposed in this legislation, may do so. No matter where that kind of power lies, the power of those who wish to legally challenge these matters apparently goes on.

The leader of the third party expressed a concern about the open-ended nature of the minister's right to extend time periods. I understand that. I hope we can discuss this more in committee. We intend the time limits to be followed. One needs an "out" in cases where illnesses arise, in situations where extensions are needed. Clearly, we mean to have the time limits followed and not extended on a whim.

My friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) did an admirable job of pinch-hitting for the very knowledgeable member for Hamilton East. He spoke mainly of the level needed to gain access to arbitration. The government disagrees. We believe the appropriate balance has been found that, I hope, will lead to fewer matters going to arbitration and will allow first contracts to be reached in virtually all cases.

I look forward to the committee discussions and to carefully monitoring the real findings afterwards, as the legislation goes forward as it has in Manitoba and other jurisdictions. As the member for Port Arthur suggested in asking what a certain clause means, those clauses can only be completely understood after they are interpreted using individual cases.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Hon. Mr. Wrye has moved second reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

4:12 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Wrye's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bossy, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fontaine, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grandmaître, Grier, Haggerty, Hayes, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter, Laughren, Mancini;

McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. L, Morin, Morin-Strom, Munro, Newman, Nixon, Offer, O'Neil, Polsinelli, Ramsay, Reville, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., South, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Ward, Wildman, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Baetz, Barlow, Cousens, Davis, Eves, Gillies, Grossman, Guindon, Harris, Johnson, J. M. , Lane, Leluk, McCague, McFadden, McLean, Pollock, Rowe, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve.

Ayes 59; nays 24.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

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. Andrewes: For the House leader's benefit, I would like to capsulize some of the comments I made earlier in case he missed the important issues to which I was alluding. I was anxious to locate in Hansard some comments made earlier by the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), but I have not had time to do that so I will not be distracted from the substance at hand.

When we adjourned on Friday, I was in the midst of enumerating a number of concerns, particularly for the Niagara region, that are prevalent regarding health care and the whole question of accessibility to health care. Since this is the subject of the bill and of this debate, I think it is appropriate we restrict our comments to this question of accessibility, although some of my colleagues have on occasion perhaps wandered a touch off course. I have been on the subject in some detail and perhaps at some length, but I have stuck to my subject since the beginning of my turn in the debate.

I want to continue to discuss with the members of the House the whole question of accessibility and the problems in the health care system that I began to enumerate on Friday with respect to accessibility.

In most regions of the province, the government has instituted what it calls health councils. Health councils are advisory groups. There are representatives of the communities, elected people and appointed people, in some cases representative of the disciplines and the profession. For the most part, health councils are charged with the responsibility of setting priorities for health care within a region.

The Niagara District Health Council sets the health priorities for six provincial ridings and makes recommendations with respect to its activities to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and bodies that are deliverers of health care in the region.

4:20 p.m.

I mentioned that the health councils' role is to identify priorities, and certainly when it comes to health care priorities are very difficult to identify. Nevertheless, the health councils are charged with making recommendations on the allocation of scarce resources. I do not think any member in this chamber would dispute that.

Those scarce resources, of course, are the resources of dollars to buy the necessary equipment, to replace existing institutions, to expand existing institutions and to build new ones -- in fact, to enhance the health care programs throughout a particular region of the province.

Each region has its anomalies; each region has its specific needs; each region has its specific goals. Health councils are designed to determine those needs and ambitions and to act as bodies that can bring them to the surface.

As I deal with the various needs within the Niagara region and with the various problems of accessibility, I cannot help mentioning the health councils, because it is through them that some of these priorities are identified and through them that some of these needs are brought forward.

At the end of Friday's debate, I was halfway through my list of the needs in the Niagara region. I had reached the point where we were discussing the question of home care, particularly home care for seniors.

This is a very necessary direction for the health care system to go. There are a number of senior citizens in this province who find themselves in some cases alone, in other cases unable to look after their husband, wife or partner in their current living conditions, and who resort, after a great deal of anxiety in many cases, to moving to a seniors' home, a nursing home or a home for the aged.

The balance in that lifestyle and the warmth of their own home setting, where in some cases they have been for 30, 40 or 50 years, are disrupted; indeed, their whole life is disrupted. Some go willingly to another location; others would be much happier and much better off if they could remain in their home. That is why these programs of home care were instituted.

It was my privilege last spring to be able to make some announcements, along with my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), that were directed specifically towards expanding the home care services that are now delivered to many parts of the province.

Again, there are needs. The need is always greater than the resource. As we look at the needs within the Niagara region, home care is one to which we must direct ourselves and our attention.

I mentioned very briefly on Friday the whole question of community-based health care programs, programs that are offered perhaps through the local health unit or by a provincial organization such as the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation; however, the programs that in many cases are run by volunteers who draw resources from the province or from some fund-raising effort in order to maintain themselves, are the programs that are most important at the community level.

Their importance cannot be stressed enough, because they are attempts to rehabilitate, in a community setting, an individual who finds himself or herself ill as a result of an addiction, without the disruption of a long-term stay in a hospital or in some institution, so he can return to his normal lifestyle and can align the rehabilitation activities with his day-to-day life.

About two years ago I was made aware of a situation in the Niagara region. A program was being offered by a psychiatrist operating out of the St. Catharines General Hospital. He was concerned that there was no ongoing care for psychiatric patients after they were discharged. He was proposing to utilize the resources and skills of the health unit, particularly of the public health nurses, to maintain an ongoing treatment base for individuals after they were discharged, to make sure they were adjusting to community life and were making an attempt to return to a normal life, and to assist them in problems of housing, employment and readjustment to community life.

To my knowledge, that program still awaits funding, still represents a blockage in our total health care system, still sits there as something yet to be done and can be described in terms of accessibility as negative. It is a problem one can add to the list, and I want to do that.

I do not want to contribute to this debate without alluding to the needs of abused women and the need to provide shelter and an opportunity to move out of the home environment, if that is necessary, and to be able to make a life and adjust to a different situation.

On Friday I mentioned the problems in the Niagara region with respect to the associations for the mentally retarded, their constant requirements for day care and residential care, and the problems of integrating mentally handicapped youngsters into a normal school environment.

I also want to draw attention to concerns in the Niagara region about cancer treatment. The centres, particularly in Hamilton, remain as the sole source of cancer treatment for the Niagara region. Facilities are in drastic need of updating. Last spring it was a rather pleasant duty for me to write to a hospital that it could begin planning for rehabilitation. That was welcome news to the entire Niagara region.

The Hotel Dieu Hospital in St. Catharines has on record a very innovative, competently planned program for cancer rehabilitation that would provide greater access for people, particularly outpatients requiring daily treatment, without their having to travel the distances involved -- in some cases 30, 40 or 50 miles one way -- in travelling to Hamilton for the necessary treatment.

4:30 p.m.

We have also heard about the concerns of the more famous institutions such as Princess Margaret Hospital. I have a figure I think is current. Perhaps the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) would like to check it. In my recollection, the cost of the renovations necessary to bring Princess Margaret Hospital up to the standards of a hospital competently operated for cancer treatment in the mid-1980s is in excess of $50 million. If that figure sounds familiar, it is because it is often used as the amount the government is allegedly losing in grants from the federal government.

I want to illustrate another problem related to accessibility. It relates well to the question of home care, the ongoing innovativeness of the health care system and the need for us to be innovative in designing a system that is not only effective but also efficient.

I draw to the minister's attention a news article that appeared on September 10 in the Hamilton Spectator. I will not begin to cast aspersions on that journal, as some might suggest I did with respect to other newspapers. This article, complete with a picture, cites the case of a young couple who live in the Thorold area, whose son was born prematurely more than 17 months ago.

The article suggests that since he was born his parents have spent every hour of every day fighting for their son's life. The child has a lung condition called bronchial pulmonary dysplasia. He must remain attached to an umbilical cord of sorts, a plastic hose carrying warm, moist, oxygen-enriched air through an opening in his throat to his damaged lung. He has had a tracheotomy and there is a tube going to his lungs which allows him to breathe.

It said the fight is an exhausting one for the couple involved, Mark Bakker and his wife Kelly, whose requests for nursing assistance have been turned down by the Ministry of Health. Jordan was born three months premature on July 30, 1984, at McMaster University Medical Centre in Hamilton and since then has spent more than a year hooked to life-support systems.

The issue that is important here is the fact that this young child has had the best care, probably some of the best doctors, certainly the best in this area, and has been in one of the best hospitals in the province since he was born. He weighed 1.04 kilograms, just over two pounds, at birth, and his lungs were not developed enough to allow him to breathe on his own. He had to be hooked to a respirator and had a tube down his airway.

Although the respirator helped him survive the ordeal, it took its toll because it damaged the young boy's lungs, creating scar tissue in the trachea. After about four months and several attempts to remove the respirator tube, the doctors discovered the scar tissue was swelling and closing the airway. At seven months, a tracheotomy was performed and a tube inserted. He was moved from the McMaster University Medical Centre to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, where an operation was performed involving lasers to try to reduce the scar tissue. To maintain life, Jordan had to remain attached to an oxygen supply.

During the baby's first year, which included several more close calls, the anxious young parents travelled almost daily to hospitals in either Hamilton or Toronto. Because they showed such an interest in their child's welfare, the doctors and staff at the Hospital for Sick Children took the time to train the couple in the detailed care of their son. They became so expert at operating and regulating the oxygen tubes required to sustain his life, operating the oxygen tanks and sterilizing equipment and clearing Jordan's lungs of mucous with suction equipment, that they were allowed to take him home on the day of his first birthday. The parents were thrilled.

When he was 16 months old in December he weighed 7.7 kilograms, about 17 pounds. He cannot sit up on his own. This is at a stage when most children are walking. He learned to eat only three months ago and since then has started to grow, a phenomenon that doctors hope will include further development of his lungs, which one day might allow him to breathe on his own.

His parents believe his progress is directly related to the love and devotion they have shown for their son. Mrs. Bakker said: "When he was in hospital he used to lie there, but now, at home, he smiles a lot."

The hospital encouraged the move. The article goes on to state that at the hospital doctors encouraged the move home, assuring the parents they could administer medication and operate the complicated respiratory and monitoring equipment, receiving assistance from a home-care program.

Mr. Bakker said: "It did not take long before we realized we were the only ones in the Niagara region capable of caring for Jordan."

Ironically, when the couple applied for handicapped children's benefits so they could hire overnight nursing care, they were turned down because Mr. Bakker's income last year was too high.

Again, it is the problem of accessibility. Here is a child who responded to being released from hospital and in his parents' 24-hour care; yet the parents were unable to supplement some of their own time by hiring a nurse so they could even catch up on their sleep because of a glitch in the system that says one cannot receive this kind of care and assistance if one's income level is above a certain figure.

They applied to the Ministry of Health for a qualified registered nurse three nights a week so they could sleep and still take proper care of Jordan. Ministry spokesman Doug Enright told the Hamilton Spectator: "There is now provision for such a service, but through the Niagara Region Health Unit. The ministry has offered up to four one-hour visits a day from the Victorian Order of Nurses and 40 hours of homemaking a month."

Mrs. Bakker said the family tried the VON visits, but found the nurses did not have the expertise and experience to deal with Jordan's life or death situation.

The article goes on to talk about the constant care that Mrs. Bakker has to provide her son:

"`Jordan is a 24-hour job and requires constant care,' said her husband. `Right now Kelly is running on empty because at best she is getting three or four hours broken sleep, getting up through the night every hour to check on Jordan.'" The only alternative is to send Jordan back to the hospital and the parents cannot accept that.

4:40 p.m.

Everyone in this chamber can understand that. Having seen the response, having seen a child come back from a situation that was critical and drastic a year ago, it is only natural that the parents cannot accept sending that child back to a hospital. They estimate that for three nights a week a nurse would cost the ministry approximately $300. This would compare to a cost of $800 daily, or $3,500 weekly, if Jordan returns to the intensive care tracheotomy ward at the Hospital for Sick Children. Perhaps that illustrates my point as well as anything. Let us not get distracted when we talk about Bill 94 and health accessibility. Let us not get distracted from the fundamental problems of our health care system, which has built-in accessibility problems.

I could go on and briefly allude to other comments which might be more objective than mine. This is an article by Derek Nelson of the Queen's Park Bureau, Thomson News Service, which appeared in the Oshawa Times on January 7. I will excerpt a little from this article. This is with respect to extra billing.

"This is a step beyond a simple ban on extra billing. In Quebec, for example, doctors in medicare may not extra bill. But doctors have the option of being outside the government system. They charge what they want and the patient receives no reimbursement from medicare."

Mr. Nelson also said: "What the doctors should also grasp is that the Liberals, in fact, went a step further: they nationalized the profession.

"The mark of any professional has long been the ability to charge for a service based upon a person's skills as recognized in the marketplace. This is no longer possible for doctors" -- under this legislation. That is an objective observation by a Queen's Park correspondent.

Here are some other comments from Dr. Kenneth Walker, who members may suggest is not terribly objective. Dr. Walker is a Toronto gynaecologist who writes a syndicated medical column called The Doctor Game, under the pseudonym of W. Gifford-Jones. Members know well his crusade in support of providing cancer victims with heroin to alleviate their pain. The headline of Dr. Walker's column in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, December 19, is "Opted-out Ontario Doctors Not Really Medicare Victims." The text says:

"What would happen if government forced all United Auto Workers to accept the same rate of pay regardless of their skills? Their president, Robert White, would probably publish a statement that would reverberate across the country, and woe to any politician who voted for such an unjust scheme.

"But today, Murray Elston, Ontario's Minister of Health, will introduce comparable legislation for Ontario's physicians who charge more than the government fee schedule. But are the opted-out doctors the real villains? And what about politicians who preach equality for all -- how do some of them handle their own medical care?"

The article is quite extensive and I will not read the whole thing into the record. It is important that I deal with a few excerpts.

"Mr. Elston also knows it is a political fairy-tale that opted-out doctors are a drain on the medical budget. Rather, they are the physicians who have done the most to keep the system honest, as their patients know what they charge. But for some opted-in doctors, the government plan is simply a licence to steal when there are so few controls." That is a quote from a medical practitioner.

"Mr. Elston also charges Ontario will lose $53 million in payments from the federal government unless it bans extra billing. But if the minister is so concerned about economics and our health, why did the government grant $130 million to tobacco farmers? Isn't there enough lung cancer in Canada without subsidizing this disease? Besides, $53 million represents about $6 a year for every Ontario resident -- less than the price of a haircut."

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, I will have to call for a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin) ordered the bells rung.

4:49 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: We now have a quorum.

Mr. Andrewes: I appreciate the fact that, in spite of the quorum call, so many members were in the precinct to respond so quickly.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Who called for the quorum? Did all the people who did not vote on the last bill show up?

Mr. Andrewes: The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) is interjecting. I think he missed the part of the debate that was relevant to his riding in particular. I hope he will read Hansard in some detail. I spoke at length about the health care needs in the city of St. Catharines and about his intervention on behalf of that community to meet some of those needs.

I hope he will support me in the position I have taken with respect to the needs of that community. I have a lot of friends there and I want them to be well looked after, especially those who may stumble coming out of the door of a particular social establishment on Friday afternoons. They may bump their heads and need that new chronic care unit at the St. Catharines General Hospital, the new cancer care unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital and all the various and sundry needs that

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: All the things that waited so long to come to fruition.

Mr. Andrewes: I will not engage the member in debate. I will continue with my own observations.

Those were observations made by Dr. Kenneth Walker whom the member for St. Catharines may have known in past days. I believe Dr. Walker actually started his practice in the St. Catharines community. He is now a well-known Toronto gynaecologist who writes a syndicated column under the name of W. Gifford-Jones.

I will complete my remarks with respect to this article by reading the last paragraph, which says simply: "If faced with similar problems, I am sure the UAW would label such hostile legislation unconstitutional and contrary to the Charter of Rights. And the minister would be fortunate if all it did was burn his effigy on every street corner."

That may be a little more extensive demonstration than we would call for on this legislation, but it indicates the frustration and concern of a medical practitioner who cares very deeply for the system in which he was educated, in which he operates and which he wants preserved.

This is another very brief excerpt from an editorial in the London Free Press of December 14:

"A ban on extra billing would be expensive to the province, which is already coping with a budget deficit of $2.213 billion, up almost 30 per cent over last year." It is strange how deficits can rise at a time when the economy seems to be pushing ahead. I think that is the appropriate time to pay off the bills; however, this government has not seen fit to do that. In addition, it could poison government relations with doctors in a way that would undermine morale and efficiency within the entire health care system.

"As Premier, Peterson would do well" -- that is the member for London Centre; I know, Mr. Speaker, you do not want me to refer to members by their names, but I am quoting now -- "to reconsider and reject an outright extra billing ban. Instead, he should try to work out an arrangement with the OMA to ensure that there are enough opted-in doctors in every region of the province so that no patient is required to pay anything more than OHIP premiums in order to get a necessary medical service."

That is the London Free Press. Here is a brief excerpt from an editorial in the Toronto Sun of January 21, 1986; which is a very objective opinion, no doubt.

Mr. Ferraro: Toronto who?

Mr. Andrewes: The member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) laughs.

Mr. Ferraro: The member buys it for the girls. I only buy it for the girls; same reason.

Mr. Andrewes: The member is more used to the objectivity of the Guelph Mercury, which is not my favourite. The Guardian was my favourite, but I understand the Guardian does not print any more.

Mr. Ferraro: The member is showing his age.

Mr. Andrewes: I am sure I am.

This is the objective view of the Toronto Sun on January 21, 1986. It is headed "Rebel Yell;" and it says, "Doctors resent politicians regulating them for narrow political ends. We side with them."

It says further, "And the Grits are kowtowing to the tinkerers at a time when the main concern in Ontario health care should be how much public aid the hospitals need."

A further quote is: "Hypocrisy is out of control when the government pays the freelancer $110 an hour to write speeches defending it but says a psychiatrist may charge only $81 an hour. We should put the government on the couch for such waste."

There is an interesting, objective point of view from the notorious Toronto Sun.

Finally, I refer to another objective point of view from the North Bay Nugget on January 15, 1986. If my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) were here, he would no doubt be able to enlighten us about the political views of the North Bay Nugget. Nevertheless, the North Bay Nugget talks about the doctors' revolt. It says:

"The NDP and its union allies strenuously object to wage controls and rarely look kindly upon forced arbitration of labour disputes. The professional people who play a large role in the Liberal government want to be free to set their own fees and working conditions."

Another quote is, "It is nothing but wage control."

A final quote is: "The doctors want freedom within a government-run system. The government wants to curtail their freedom and preserve the system.

"Yet the system itself is rapidly becoming an economic impossibility, something that neither side seems willing to admit."

I indicated to the Speaker at the outset that my remarks would be brief, concise and to the point. I hope he has found them that way.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. Breaugh: Now we will hear the real right wing. No more of this wimpish stuff.

Mr. Taylor: Members will hear the temperate side of things; the member knows that. I am always temperate and, I hope, as pointed as the previous member, to whom I have listened so cautiously and patiently for two or three days.

I am reminded of Parkinson's law. To paraphrase Parkinson, he enunciated a principle to the effect that work expands to fill the time available for its completion. I was wondering at the seeming interminability of this debate. All things surely must come to an end some time and, with the patience of members on all sides of the House, one day this debate will be terminated. I do not know that this says very much, because probably most of the points that are to be made have been made. Accordingly, I will certainly be as brief as I can. The fact that so many members have spoken is an indication of their sincerity and of their conviction that this legislation is really not fitting of this government or of this province.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will bring to your attention several letters that are brief in form and that will bring out the gist of the concerns, certainly in my area and probably in other parts of the province.

5 p.m.

On January 28, there was printed in the Kingston Whig-Standard two letters, one from Mrs. Irene Backholm from Amherstview, a member of the Ernestown council, a very dedicated Liberal supporter and worker whom I respect very much. Also, she is very community-minded. I quote what she has to say:

"I am surprised and disappointed at the reaction of the Ontario medical profession to the banning of extra-billing. Whatever is happening to the Hippocratic oath? Are doctors so poorly paid?

"Yes, we do have a health care system second to none. We don't have to look very far to see how well off we Canadians are. And I feel our doctors have been well-served by OHIP also.

"On one side you have the United States, where a large number of people have inadequate or no health insurance at all and doctors pay astronomical sums (tens of thousands of dollars annually) for insurance against lawsuits; where families live in fear because a medical problem can lead to financial ruin; where a person's access to medical care depends almost solely on ability to pay. I am sure many of us have seen the exposés on the TV program, 60 Minutes.

"On the other side you have Britain, where the end result of extra billing and all that is bad about socialized medicine is very much in evidence. You have a state-supported system and a private system side by side. The best doctors are not available to people who depend on the state system except as charity cases. It is not charity, the state insurance pays the doctor!

"I am old enough to remember the days before health insurance-private or government. I do not want to go back to those days when the fear of illness was compounded by the fear of financial disaster. Ordinary working people like my parents thought long and hard before ever consulting a doctor. And the doctors worked themselves to early graves and carried heavy burdens of uncollectable accounts receivable. So our system of socialized medicine has been good for doctors also. Now there are no bad debts, and instead of sending out hundreds of individual bills each month they send only one, which is always paid.

"I will not comment upon the inflammatory, and in my view irresponsible, statements made by some spokesmen for the Ontario Medical Association.

"It seems to me that while the system we have now may not be perfect, the inadequacies are not weighted for or against any of the partners in the health care system: our doctors, their patients and the general taxpayer. We all benefit. To suggest that what is best for the doctors is best for the total health care system is equal to that old saying of Al Capp's: `What's best for General Motors is best for the country.' We all know it ain't so."

That was a published letter written by Mrs. Backholm. What she is really saying is we have an excellent health care system in Ontario. She compares it with her experience in the British Isles and the system there. She refers to the problems in the United States. The crux of the issue is that we must maintain the high quality system we have.

On the same day, in the same paper, there was a very short letter from Hubert W. Hogle from Napanee. He is not known to me as an avid Tory supporter. In his two-paragraph letter he states:

"Our new Ontario government seems determined to turn all our doctors into civil servants. Great Britain tried that several years ago. Their residents now face a three-year waiting list for most elective surgery.

"If our legislators really want health care delivered by the same people who deliver the mail, I suggest that they include a provision in the new law that no one in Ontario is allowed to get sick on weekends, statutory holidays, after 3:35 p.m. or before 10 a.m., during lunch hour, or during coffee breaks. Canada's present health care system is the best in the world. Why fix something that isn't broken?"

Again this is an expression of wonderment, bewilderment and frustration from an ordinary person in the town of Napanee. Why are we tinkering with something that works so well and where there is reasonable harmony?

On January 29 I received a letter from a constituent, Hugh P. Godard, who is 71 years of age. He lives at R. R. 3, Bath, Ontario. This is what he said:

"As one of your constituents I wish to express my strongly held views on provincial government regulation of money received by physicians for their services.

"At the moment, the Peterson government is attempting to force the physicians into a straitjacket by prescribing the amounts they can charge the public for their services, and to prohibit by law any additional charges by the physicians.

"I reject the right of the state to completely control the financial return of one class of professionals in our society. No such effort is being made to control the incomes of other high earners -- for example, dentists, architects, engineers, real estate agents, etc.

"I realize the control of physicians' incomes is `popular' with the voting public and is thus a good political ploy. The public sees the doctors making a lot of money -- too much indeed, so they should be limited by law. I hope you do not share this fallacious view. The proposed limitations go against the whole idea of `freedom' in our democracy -- the freedom of which we are so proud.

"I am sending a copy of this letter to my federal MP, Bill Vankoughnet, as part of the present provincial government pogrom is a result of federal transfer of funds penalties for those provinces which do not prohibit extra billing.

"I recommend to both of you that the governments of Canada should stop trying to prescribe the fees that physicians are allowed to earn. Your present course can only hurt the medical profession and, in due course, the public who rely on its services. The better doctors will migrate elsewhere. Those who remain will develop a `what-the-hell' nonprofessional attitude and the quality of our health care will suffer. Unfortunately, the deterioration will occur in small steps that will not be noticed until the effects are so bad that it will be most difficult to restore the good health care system we now enjoy.

"I would like to make clear that this letter is not the result of any conversation with my physician, or of any material I have received from him."

It is signed, as I mentioned, "Hugh P. Godard, age 71."

Again, the message is crystal clear. We have an excellent health care system in Ontario. Why damage it?

5:10 p.m.

We have heard a letter that, I think, has touched the hearts of many of us. It was a letter of conscience, of strong feeling, of dedication, a letter by a physician who serves individuals of the public in a very human way. He looks at the patient as a human being, as a whole person. He does not look at that patient as just another object of his medical skills, not just someone for whom he will treat a disease or solve a medical problem, but as someone with whom to work in a true human, doctor-patient relationship.

This letter has been quoted before. I had a conversation with Dr. Brennan from Kingston. It is a letter addressed to the Premier, and I hope the Premier takes the time to read it.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will fit it in with the few other letters I have mentioned because it is very compelling in its message.

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member that it has been the practice to read excerpts from letters, but not whole letters.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that. That is the reason I brought this to your attention. I did not want to unduly delay the work of the Legislature. All the information we have received and all the words that have flowed from the mouths of many members have been novel and unique in nature and not repetitive. However, I am suffering some concern that this letter might have been heard before by some members, and I do not want to unduly tax their patience. If it does, I will go on to the next letter to the Premier. This is only one of two letters to the Premier that I wanted to read.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps excerpts from the letter will suffice.

Mr. Taylor: Excerpts are not all that good because there is a very keen message here. I want members to know that Dr. James Brennan practises medicine in Kingston, and he expresses some grievous feelings about the Health Care Accessibility Act. He says:

"In the 10 years that I have been in practice in Ontario, following six years of medical school and eight years of post-graduate training. I have attempted to furnish to as many patients as I could handle, 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. It is possible to deal adequately with only a limited number of patients in a given period 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."

We can see the message there. If we are talking about accessibility of medical care, this physician epitomizes it. He is wondering why the government has to legislate accessibility. Within his experience, his fellow practitioners are accessible in an equal way.

He goes on to say that he has always accepted the Ontario health insurance plan rates. As a matter of fact, payments outside a certain amount go to Queen's University, where he is engaged as well. Members are aware of that because this letter has been read into the record before. He says:

"I infer, therefore, that in terms of accessibility and fees charged, my patients have been satisfied with the service I have provided. You and your government state, however, that there is 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."

I mentioned the doctor-patient relationship, the sensitivity of this physician, his duty and concern for the individual and the freedom of the individual. He goes on: "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. Heretofore I have always felt free to choose whether or not to accept the OHIP benefit as payment for my services. If working within OHIP is like being in prison, being able to opt out and extra bill is like possessing a key to the prison door. Freedom is available to me and therefore I am free. Without it, I am a slave."

Those are very potent words and I do not think the members of the assembly truly appreciate what it means to be free in the delivery of a service, whether in a profession, a trade or a calling; that freedom to get into our marketplace and give, trade or sell the special skills and abilities one has for what one may get in return.

If I can be personal for a moment, during my career as a lawyer and advocate I dedicated a lot of my time and professional expertise to the community. I incorporated many charitable organizations, a medical-surgical research foundation, a trust honouring a distinguished member of the medical profession which financed visiting lecturers, hockey clubs, underwater clubs, football clubs, senior citizen associations. I never billed. I was free to charge or not. No one told me that I should bill or what I should bill. In some instances I donated my disbursements as well because I felt I was making some kind of contribution to the community.

Surely it is important to get some satisfaction from being a member of a community; to feel that one is making some contribution and not being dictated to about whether one should charge or how much one should charge, and then put it in a large corporate machine, a government bureaucracy, to churn out cheques at the other end, we hope.

I have watched the institutionalization of so much around here: the province, the country, the world. We seem to think government is the solution to everything.

Mr. McGuigan: Is there a better place to stand?

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry. Right now I have the freedom to stand in this assembly and I cherish that very much. I want members to know there is an insatiable desire on the part of so many people to turn charity into a crown corporation, turn the good Samaritan into a civil servant and put everyone on the payroll. I wonder if next we are going to issue quotas for the milk of human kindness.

We have to understand the precious nature of choice, of freedom to choose. We are now arriving at the crux of what Dr. Brennan is saying.

I want members to listen -- I do not want to tax the patience of the House -- to the last letter I will quote from today. I just received this letter addressed to the Premier. It is from Dr. Brant E. Bergstrome of Napanee, who has suffered medical problems himself. He has worked hard and is a very diligent, caring doctor. The letter is dated January 27, 1986.

"Dear Mr. Peterson:

"I am writing this letter on a personal level because of the gathering disquiet which I hear expressed daily by my colleagues, which I sense in my patient's unaccustomed unease and which I see and hear via the media in increasingly strident and incomprehensible terms.

"Yesterday on television, persons allegedly speaking for senior citizens in Ontario castigated physicians and some of their pernicious practices, specifically extra billing. This evening on the news I saw you, Mr. Premier, at the leadership ratification, assuring your auditors, not only at the convention but throughout the province, that your government was, through the Health Care Accessibility Act, only fulfilling its commitment, reaffirmed throughout the election campaign, to abolish the practice of extra billing.

"I feel as if being cast in a role in your coming spectacular, for which neither I nor my profession have any demonstrable talent. I have practised family medicine in this community since 1953, and along with all my colleagues here have reason to be grateful for that privilege. Not one of us has ever been guilty of extra billing, nor have we found it necessary prior to this to consider the option of leaving OHIP in order to maintain our professional identity and the freedom historically implicit in that profession.

"Nor have we ever been accused of denying any patient free access to our care. We have, to the best of our abilities and in obedience to our professional ethnics and dictates, placed our community's interests well above our own. Like the vast majority of our colleagues in Ontario, we work long hours in our offices, homes and institutions.

"We have not always enjoyed tranquil relations with the Ministry of Health, but have always resolved these disputes with the full awareness that our disputes must never be allowed to contribute to the public's disadvantage.

"I am neither a politician nor lawyer, but as a citizen physician, I do understand the simple, absolute necessity of communication and co-operation if we are seriously to seek improvement of a health care system already acknowledged to be sans pareil.

"This then is the source of our community disquiet: that your government and our profession, both undeniably essential to our people, have become set, but not by us, upon a course of inevitable collision from which there can emerge no victors and only one permanent victim, the people of Ontario.

"I cannot believe that you or your government wish this to happen, and yet only you can prevent it.

"In deepest apprehension,

"Yours sincerely, Brant E. Bergstrome."

That touched me as well, because I know the doctors of Napanee and of Picton, and I do not know one single doctor who has opted out of OHIP or who is not concerned about the liberty of the citizens in this province. It is an issue that is not hitting the public.

As I mentioned earlier, we have problems in communication and in generalizations; institutionalization and the perception of the institution. We talk about the doctors and the medical profession. I do not see that institution in my mind's eye; I see the flesh and blood of the medical practitioners in my community and in the part of Ontario I represent. I see the people who work so hard for their community; who do not argue fees, who do not worry about their incomes as being paramount, whose salaries are well below the average salary of doctors.

We have some knowledge of the circumstances of other people in smaller communities. We know how they serve the public on the hospital boards, in the charity clubs and in so many other ways. They are not looking for money. They are making a contribution.

One has to differentiate between small-town Ontario, the ordinary people of this province, and the intemperate remarks made on occasion by people in the medical profession who should know better, remarks that polarize prejudice and foster confrontation. One has to distinguish between the ordinary medical practitioner and the image, the stereotype that is projected -- and at times with reason -- of the profession as a whole.

The issue in the public's mind is that doctors want more money and it is the public's view they are making enough. They ask, "What do you want more for?" That is not the issue as I know it in the communities I know so well. I do not think it is the issue with the medical profession if one talks to doctor after doctor after doctor.

The issue, and it may seem strange to some here who are so used to freedom, is freedom of choice. I suppose there are some who have a true appreciation of what the element of choice means in a free society; probably those who have suffered oppression, who have capitulated to state control and direction. However, force breeds force. Once one starts to force a profession in one direction; and once one turns it against its collective will one is begging for force in return.

5:30 p.m.

We have a province that is going through growing pains and will continue to do so. We have a province that will have a need for more medical services: more services in hospitals, more services in homes for the aged, more nursing home services and more services delivered to the homes of the elderly. The demographics dictate that we are going to have to adjust somehow to the expanding needs for medical care in old age. I can see the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) winding up. He is getting older too. I have watched him year after year. He is no less vibrant, but older and I hope mellower, wiser and more influential in terms of the legislation that pours forth from this assembly.

We should be looking at the total spectrum of services. When we look at that spectrum, we should look at the financial means that will be essential to fund those services. One day we will have to recognize that government cannot do it alone. I am convinced the individual, the family and the private sector all have to join hands in assisting in the financing and delivery of health services in this province.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Labour unions.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that interjection by the Treasurer, but I do not want to get on the subject of labour unions. There, too, is an institutionalization that does not necessarily work the best for its membership.

The topic today is our health care system and the possible impact of this legislation on it. I will do my best to ignore the interjections, which were nil until the Treasurer descended upon the scene to churn trouble, as this legislation is doing throughout the province. I hope he does not start quoting Shakespeare, "Double, double, toil and trouble."

Just as a caution, I have watched the Treasurer and his colleagues. They are great guys, apart from the institution of government and the assumption of power. With regard to the power structure, however, I see nothing but little men in lofty places who cast long shadows because the sun is setting.

I have a message for this assembly and this government, if it is listening. To ensure it has the co-operation of all segments of society, whether it is big business, small business, the family, friends, a charitable institution, the medical practitioners or whoever, it should try to achieve a better understanding of the gigantic problems that face us in the health care system. There is a need to talk and to communicate, not to confront. This legislation is causing a confrontation that will undermine not only the character but also the delivery and quality of health care services in this province.

Simplistically, the government has projected the problem as one of extra billing, of money. The issue is not money.

I admire the remarks of the Liberal member for Humber (Mr. Henderson), who had the intestinal fortitude, the character and the political will to stand up in this assembly to say what he believed and not to be ashamed of it.

Mr. Breaugh: That is something we have not seen for 42 years.

Mr. Baetz: They have sold out to the socialists.

Mr. Taylor: I think this province needs a man like that.

Mrs. Grier: Considering whom he defeated, that is certainly true.

Mr. Taylor: We are fortunate to have someone in this assembly who has a mind of his own, regardless of whom he may have replaced. It is important to have people of character and goodwill. Goodwill is not being demonstrated in legislation which draws in doctors, optometrists and dentists, probably in a move to destroy further the independence and professionalism of the professions because it seems to be part and parcel of a socialist doctrine.

Mr. Shymko: The government is making them scapegoats.

Mr. Taylor: Just watch and see.

I hate to see that whittling away of the independence and professionalism of professions. If a professional wants to send out a bill, he should be able to do so. If he wants to charge less than what government dictates, he should be able to do so. If he wants to charge the same, he can do that; but at least there is that freedom.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He cannot charge more.

Mr. Taylor: He cannot charge more now because the government has made a sham of the whole system. What it is saying is that doctors have the freedom to opt out of the plan, but if they do they will suffer all the inconvenience of opting out with respect to extra billing, that is having to process their own claims and gambling about whether they will get paid, but their bills will have to be the same as though they were opted in.

Mr. Haggerty: It is just like legal aid. It is the same program your party had for lawyers.

Mr. Taylor: That is something, is it not? With legal aid there is a free profession. It is different. The member does not understand what he has now.

Mr. Baetz: Are all the lawyers in legal aid? Of course not.

Mr. Taylor: Of course they are not.

What this is doing is saying to the 12 per cent of doctors who have opted out and do not charge more, "You have abdicated any sense of independence or freedom to practise your profession in Ontario." Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? When one is not the part of any government plan as a professional the government says, "You shall not deliver that service unless you charge only in accordance with that government plan, even though you are not part of it." What is a professional going to do? We have heard of the exodus of specialists from Quebec to Ontario.

Mr. Villeneuve: They knew a good system when they saw one.

Mr. Taylor: This is where it is. The expertise is here in Ontario. Why do members think people come from around the world? They come to the system we have here, where we have the professionals and expertise. Are we going to gamble on the disappearance of that expertise? Are we going to encourage the flight of those specialists to other provinces? There are no other provinces where they could practise. They will be leaving for the United States and some of them are already going there.

Mr. Haggerty: Let the member tell us how we are going to get that $50 million or $60 million from Ottawa. His government supported not getting those transfers. If we want to have them, we have to take this route.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Erie may want to speak later.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: The member is attributing a motive to the government legislation, namely to recoup the $50 million the federal government is withholding, which it estimates to be the amount of fees that were extra billed. The real danger is in the legislation. It is going to take the government more than $50 million to try to buy peace within the profession by upping the general scale of fees agreed upon by the government in order to maintain some semblance of order and service in Ontario within this profession. I think that is short-term and short-sighted.

We have an excellent system in Ontario. I am afraid some parts of the medical profession, and I am speaking now in a general sense, have been strident. They have been confrontational in some of their remarks. There is out there a threat, and no one likes to be threatened, of civil disobedience. I am very saddened to hear that proposition because I do not believe in it, whether it is the medical profession, trade unions or whatever.

It is important to obey the law, regardless of what that is, and in a democratic society to bring about a change in a democratic way. I hope that some of the doctors' remarks which are highlighted and amplified do not truly project the will of the ordinary medical practitioner in this province. It is a sad day when the image of the medical profession is one of avarice, greed, confrontation and civil disobedience.

I hope we can look at the doctors as individuals, what they mean to us and their worth in society. We all need them, and as we grow older we will need them even more. I hope they will look upon us as individuals, that they will be dedicated to our welfare and not be technicians simply treating a disease, chalking up successes or failures.

At the risk of repetition, I cannot impress too strongly the vital and fundamental issue that if a profession is no part of a government-sponsored plan, then the members of that profession who are not a part of that government-sponsored plan should not be coerced into the rules and regulations of that plan. I find it truly repugnant to my sense of what is fair and to the belief that we should be able to freely practise and freely work in society.

I urge the Treasurer and his colleagues to extract from this legislation, which is deceitful in long title and in short title when one reads them, extra billing on the one hand and accessibility on the other, the mandate that the medical profession is restricted even outside the government plan to the rules of the government plan. If they could do that, if they could communicate and dialogue, it would be much more beneficial to us all.

When people are talking they are not fighting. It is important to be able to sit down and negotiate freely, honestly and with a sense of fairness and pride. What this legislation will do is to vitiate any honest, true and sincere relationship between government and the profession.

As a citizen, I dislike the idea of coercion on either side. I dislike anyone threatening me. I read indications of threats from the medical profession in terms of what they may do. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that the doctors in my community, and if you will search your conscience and memory the doctors in your community, are truly good people. Their image is not what it used to be, but they are truly concerned about the welfare of the medical system in Ontario. They are sensitive to the health of the people and they are caring. We have to look at them as individuals in a personal relationship as opposed to the stereotype of the medical profession as an institution. We must deal, as people, with people.

I truly beseech the government to look at this. It can achieve what it wants to achieve if it is concerned about the federal government's holdback of $50 million. That may mount; I do not know. If that is the motive, the price we are paying is too high because freedom does not have a price. It may sound corny to some of the members when they hear the doctors talking about freedom, but the more one thinks about it, it is important. No money can buy freedom.

I again urge the government to look at that and see whether we can accomplish the full transfer of funds. Regarding funding, probably the lion's share of it comes from Ontario anyway with respect to funding the federal operation and the transfer of funds. I think the lion's share is raised domestically, within the province. If the government does not spend it, that is a saving for everyone. Perhaps it is not as big a problem as some of us perceive it to be. I do not think that holdback is as big an issue as is projected by some because of another motivation.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could persuade your colleagues about this. I know you have independence of mind and the trust and confidence of the people in government. I know you are fair and true. On occasion you have probably been sick. I urge you to do a little lobbying to open the minds, to plumb the depths of the minds and souls of your colleagues in government, and to rescue the freedom that is essential in any profession or in any society in a democratic system.

I may have taken too long to impress upon members the true concern I have, and it is a sincere concern. The more I examine it and the way it may spread, the way it seems to be not only a notion in this case but a policy in the broader sense, the more concern I have. I am thinking now of the legislation affecting the pharmacists, but there is other legislation to which I see the same principle applying.

Without overstating the case, I really did want to ask the members to sit back and truly think about that issue. It is really not a financial issue but an issue of the worth and dignity of the human being, the medical practitioner, that this person have the choice so essential in a free society.

It is something we cannot put money on. I am convinced we have a great system that everybody believes in. We have it; we have a tremendous medical fraternity in this province. Look at Toronto. Look at the flights bringing people in daily to this centre for specialized treatment. Look at the technology, the skills. And we going to gamble that? We are possibly going to sacrifice it. To what?

I do not understand why. We have people who are expert in negotiations, skilled in collective bargaining, personable, who can perceive the issues. Why does the government not sit down and work it out?

In closing, I have one last letter that is dated January 21 of this year. It is addressed to the Premier and it is from E. D. Myers, MD, president of the Ontario Medical Association. It reads:

"Representatives of the Ontario Medical Association, including myself, met with you on several occasions this past fall to discuss problems in the health care system. We agreed with you that the dilemma presented by increasing needs and scarce resources required urgent attention. We were pleased to hear that you recognized the public purse cannot support the full cost of health care for much longer if we are to maintain our current high standards of care.

"We expressed great eagerness to participate in a fundamental reconsideration of how health care is delivered to the people of Ontario and how it is funded. We further agreed that in the context of such a study, physicians' billing practices should be a part of the exercise. We suggested further that while a study was under way we would assist you in ensuring that the financially disadvantaged were exempt from any direct charges by physicians.

"In the final analysis, you refused to hold back legislation on the opt-out question pending such a study. In short, it was you, not we, who refused to negotiate."

Do members want me to repeat that? I have been talking about negotiations. All reasonable men of goodwill can sit down and negotiate.

Mrs. Grier: What about women?

Mr. Taylor: I am not going to get carried away with sexist talk. The next thing you know, we will be calling the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) Mr. Grossperson. I do not want that to happen in our party.

Carrying on with the last paragraph of the letter:

"The OMA now publicly presents you with the offer we made in private. The people of Ontario cannot afford a war between physicians and government. The stakes are too high. The current excellence we enjoy in health care is the fruit of a long-standing, collaborative relationship. We plead with you to put away your legislative hammer and join with us in finding a better way. The people expect no less of us.

"Sincerely, E. D. Meyers, MD, President."

I would interpret that as conciliatory in tone. I do not think the medical profession is looking for conflict. I think it is looking for a way to ensure its independence, its integrity and its freedom; I do not think it wants to get drawn into action that is confrontationist in nature, that is intemperate. I do not think the medical professional can afford to encourage an image that is any worse than it may be now.

When I read this and I see the situation out there, I am convinced that government can work this out. I am convinced we can maintain the system we have, that we are not going to be overtaxed with extra bills from doctors, and I will not give those arguments. They have been made before: the percentages of those who have opted out, whether or not it is 12 per cent; or the percentage of those who have opted out and who actually bill.

I know doctors who bill five cents more than the Ontario health insurance plan rate just to have the freedom to bill themselves because they do not want to be in the plan. They have opted out and they charge five cents per bill more -- one seventh of the price of a postage stamp -- just to illustrate their independence, to confirm that they are not civil servants. They are not responsible to the state; they are responsible to their patients. Their concern and their care is for the patient, and that must not change. That is the crux of it.

Mr. Speaker I beseech you to influence your colleagues as much as you can. The Treasurer has always been a man of goodwill, compromise and good sense. I hesitate to go further because he is still a member of the Liberal Party. Nevertheless, I urge him and his colleagues to try to work out something before the war escalates and the public is damaged.

The issue right now is the integrity of the health care system. This party is supporting the present health care system. It wants to maintain the integrity and high standards of that system. As members, we have spoken for the system. We are not carrying cudgels for the doctors, nor are we their apologists. We are public servants and we are afraid the medical system will be put in jeopardy because of this legislation.

That is our position in a nutshell. I emphasize that if we are going to settle this issue, if we are going to negotiate, there must be an element of freedom. I do not think it is an insurmountable problem for the Premier and his colleagues to work out.

With that, I want to thank members for the opportunity to enter this debate.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

3 février 1986