role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

January 7, 1986

33rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L080 - Tue 7 Jan 1986 / Mar 7 jan 1986

RECESS OF HOUSE

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

FUTURES PROGRAM

INSURANCE RATES

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

HOLSTERED GUNS

HIGHWAY EXTENSION

JOB SECURITY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

LANDFILL SITE

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

RECESS OF HOUSE

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of very many ministers, I would ask you to adjourn the House for perhaps five or 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I do see a few ministers. I wonder whether the other members might like to stand down their questions. Are there any other members who would like to ask any questions?

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there are only five or six ministers in the House, and question period does begin at two o'clock. I know the government is learning the ropes, but that is not a hard thing to learn. I submit that the suggestion is a good one and that perhaps we should adjourn for five or 10 minutes so they can get here in their chauffeur-driven limousines from wherever they go at 12 o'clock. I do not know.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know you will want the views of the government expressed in this important matter. My colleagues and advisers tell me there are now close to 10 ministers present, and here is another one arriving even as I speak.

When one looks at the number of empty blue seats in the official opposition, one will understand that it must have something to do with the bright, sunny day that is perhaps keeping a lot of people over a lunch that is a little longer than it might have been.

You will be glad to know that I am gradually running down, Mr. Speaker, but as these seats rapidly fill up with cognoscenti, I suggest you ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) to do his best, or whatever else he has.

Mr. Speaker: A suggestion has been made that the Speaker consider recessing the House. However, I believe the standing orders allow the Speaker to recess only in a case of grave disorder. Everything seems to be so calm, cool and collected that the Leader of the Opposition may want to place his question now.

Mr. Grossman: I thank the Treasurer for ragging the puck as effectively as he did, but we on this side agree that he is running down.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister may be aware, although he may not be, that the best offer for insurance received by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board was $1 million worth of coverage, as opposed to its previous coverage of $10 million, and that, incredibly, the coverage it had to accept was $1 million worth of coverage, excluding coverage for sporting and other events voluntarily entered into by students.

In other words, because of the inactivity of this government, we have a circumstance where students were previously covered for any injuries incurred while playing sports at school and now in Metropolitan Toronto they are not.

I wonder whether the minister might have any advice today for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board about obtaining coverage for those students who are not covered or about providing protection for the ratepayers.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This is the sort of thing we are addressing with the committee I have put in place. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether I was aware of this situation, and I have to tell him I was not. However, as these problems are identified, we are addressing them. During the past two or three weeks we have had several instances where we have had problems, not necessarily in the school boards but in other jurisdictions and in other areas; we have addressed them and solved them.

It is a grave problem, and there are no easy answers. However, as these problems come up, each one is looked at on an individual basis; there is no magic formula that cuts across the total problem. As they are identified, we are looking at them, trying to facilitate the resolution and trying to solve them.

Mr. Grossman: With respect to the minister, at the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in August, his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) was present and spoke, I believe, to a resolution calling upon the government to address this problem.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations himself, in speaking to this problem in the Legislature on November 29, said: "I will assure the member that we are looking into the total problem with the insurance industry.... Before we do something, we have to identify the problems and see what alternatives there are. We are doing that."

It is now January, six months after this issue was raised with his colleague at the AMO, and he is here reporting that he has no answer for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board or for the young people who are playing in its playgrounds this afternoon without any insurance coverage whatsoever.

Will the minister outline for the House what specifically he is prepared to do for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and for others? Or will he admit that he has done, and is doing, nothing?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am prepared to give the Leader of the Opposition an undertaking that we will contact the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, find out exactly what its problem is and use all the facilities we have to resolve it.

Mr. Reville: It seems question period is helpful after all, because the minister is discovering a few things. Yesterday he thought municipalities were declining to accept insurance, when he should have known that in the case of the Metro group, it could get no underwriter to make a firm offer.

Is the minister going to wait until municipalities decide to withdraw services because of the risks to which they are exposed, or is he prepared to tell the House now what efficacious steps he is prepared to take to protect the municipalities and the citizens?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not know whether we are talking about two different boards. One was the school board; I think the honourable member is talking about Metropolitan Toronto as such. The board is coming in tomorrow, as a matter of fact, and we will discuss a reciprocal insurance program.

I cannot anticipate every single problem that is going to happen in every municipality or in every school board, but as they are identified, we are addressing them.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: The minister said yesterday: "At present, there is not a school board or municipality that is not covered. When we have that problem, we will address it." Quite clearly, we now have at least one school board that is not covered, and in fact many that are not. The minister was wrong yesterday.

If the minister is sending out the signal today that he will do nothing except respond when there is a major award given and then figure out what he is going to do to help out the school board or municipality, either he is going to have bankrupt municipalities or school boards or all the other school boards are going to be saying: "Cancel the insurance we have. Monty will come in with a cheque after the settlement." He cannot let it go that long.

Will he indicate to this House what he is prepared to do, not on a case-by-case basis after an accident, to remedy this problem? There are schoolchildren unprotected today.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: My information yesterday was that there were no schoolchildren who were unprotected. The school boards either had insurance or had made a decision to self-insure.

Mr. Grossman: They are not insured. That is not an insurance policy.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is insurance. I am saying to the honourable member that if there are problems out there that are brought to our attention, we will address them.

Mr. Grossman: The minister was told six months ago.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This was not told to us six months ago. We looked at the problem, and as of yesterday my information was that all school boards either had insurance or had made a decision to self-insure.

Mr. Grossman: He was told six months and he did nothing. Tomorrow he is calling them in to talk with them.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Skills Development. Yesterday he was suggesting that the Futures program has been, to use his words, "a marvellous success." There were 125,000 young people unemployed in Ontario in November. The Futures program, after three months, has placed 1,500 of the 125,000 unemployed young people in this province. Yet he has the nerve to come to this House and call it "an extremely successful program."

Can the minister share with this House his plans for the other 123,500 young people in this province whom he told during the election campaign he would have jobs for?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am honoured the Leader of the Opposition would direct one of his two questions to me. I regret a little that it was not one of the classic "either-or" questions, because those are a lot easier for a rookie like myself.

First of all, I point out that the figures the honourable member quotes are incorrect. Some 5,500 people have been involved in the Futures program in its first two months, not three months, of operation. We do have a number to go yet, and we anticipate we will reach our estimate of 56,000 young people before March 31, 1986.

One of the areas where we are deficient is our recording system. The figures we have in the ministry are not as up to date as I would like them to be, because new delivery agents and new mechanisms have been put in place in the community colleges and the reporting information is not getting to us as quickly as possible. Even the figure of 5,500 placements does not reflect an up-to-date situation.

Mr. Grossman: The minister may be honoured with more of our questions if he continues the way he has.

I want to tell him we got the figure of 1,500 from his officials. After question period and before he goes out into the hall, he may want to find out from his officials whether they were playing games when they told us there were 1,500 or whether they were playing with him when he asked for a figure he could use in question period today.

We would like to know whether it is 123,500 or 119,500 young people who have been ignored by him.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: In this election brochure his party put out, I see the following quote from his leader: "Half a million people, many of them young, are out of work. Others are uncertain about their future. David Peterson and the Ontario Liberals will guarantee young people a first job or training program of up to one year."

What he has done is to have a three-month program for 1,500 young people.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: What are his plans to honour this election commitment?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is getting a little closer to an "either-or" question, but it is not quite there yet.

Futures is a long-term program that we believe and feel confident will respond to that very grave problem. Its success will not be measured by two months of a new program that provides a one-year guarantee of employment, characterized not simply by work experience but also by work experience that provides on-the-job training. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to follow along; he will see that program being successful.

Mr. Grossman: We are getting more up-to-date information from the minister's officials than he is, although he may have it now. It appears there are 5,500 applicants, but only 1,500 jobs.

We have had some people calling the government's toll-free number, which I want to make available to the media and the public; it is 1-800-387-0777. We found it took two days to get anything but a busy signal. Sometimes one is put on hold for an extraordinary length of time, listening, I admit, to some rock music. That may explain why the minister had only 5,500 applicants out of 123,000 young people.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: With the enormous amount of money the ministry has been spending on advertising on posters and billboards, how many people does it have answering the phones?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to be able to answer that question now, but I cannot. I am sorry, but I do not know the precise number of people we have answering the phones. I will admit to the Leader of the Opposition that in the first month of operation we had some problems with the hotline.

When one is Leader of the Opposition, one's information is not quite as good. His figure of 5,500 applicants is wrong; it is just not the correct information.

I undertake here and now to provide him as soon as possible with the number of people we have answering the hotline.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about automobile insurance. I wonder whether the minister can clarify why he said in the Legislature yesterday that auto insurance premiums in Ontario "are a factor of the marketplace, and at this point we have no intention of interfering with that marketplace," but he was reported as saying a mere 50 minutes later in the scrum outside the Legislature, "If we find that insurance is just getting completely out of hand, where the consumer can't get affordable insurance, then we will have to look at alternatives." Is he going to bring in public auto insurance or not?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not planning to bring in public automobile insurance. Having said that, we are looking at the total problem involving the insurance industry. We are not turning down any alternative. This is strictly a hypothesis, but if we find that is an option, we will consider it. At this time, we are not considering it.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that the famous select committee on company law looked at auto insurance and at the insurance industry of this province for a long time and came out with a substantial report as long ago as 1977-78?

Is the minister aware that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself evidently indicated yesterday that the government is not interested in running an insurance scheme unless it is substantially cheaper than private operations?

Does the minister not agree that rates of $340 to $457 in cities on the Prairies, including the major metropolitan centre of Winnipeg, are substantially lower than the rates in seven Ontario cities, ranging from $501 to $804 in Windsor?

Mr. Speaker: Order; the minister.

Mr. Foulds: Does he not think they are substantially cheaper?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Does he not think it is about time he followed up on previous commitments and brought in public auto insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I want to repeat that we are looking into the total picture of the automotive industry in Ontario and we will be considering all options.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Could the minister clarify for us that among the options the government will look at is the option outlined by the Premier yesterday, of having a government-run, no-fault auto insurance scheme? Is that one of the options this government will now be looking into?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are all sorts of possibilities and we will be looking at them all.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister advise us how long he is going to delay by this "looking at them all" technique? How long is he going to delay the protection of the consumer in Ontario who already pays the highest premiums in Canada for auto insurance and is facing whopping increases of 15 per cent to 25 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We will be looking into it as soon as we can and we will come to a resolution as soon as we can.

Mr. Reville: Surprisingly enough, my question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware that skyrocketing liability insurance costs are creating crises for municipalities, school boards, hospitals, commercial vehicle operators, motorists and perhaps even the minister himself. He will also realize that the other side of liability insurance is disability for individuals from injury or other causes.

Given the minister's concern, which he has stated over and over in the House, about the global nature of the problems and how he wants to address them, and given the present irrational and inadequate system of disability income protection, will the minister tell the House whether the government is prepared to consider a universal system of sickness, accident and disability insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The whole area of insurance is going to be addressed in a global context. We will be looking at every aspect of it.

Mr. Reville: The minister is aware that the whole area has already been addressed by the Legislature's select committee on company law, and by distinguished legal experts Edward Belobaba of Osgoode Hall Law School and Paul Weiler of Harvard University Law School, among others. They have concluded that universal sickness, accident and disability insurance is desirable, affordable and workable. What is keeping the minister from committing himself and his government to establishing such a system now?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I repeat, we are looking at the overall problem of insurance and we will address it as soon as we can.

Mr. Runciman: In response to all the questions related to the insurance field today, the minister is saying he is going to look at everything. There was a committee appointed some months ago, prior to this government taking office, which was looking at the insurance industry. Why is the minister being so uncertain about when he may arrive at some conclusions with respect to the variety of concerns about this industry? Can he not set a deadline for his officials and say: "I want some answers. I want some solutions. I want some proposals"?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be taking any proposals to my cabinet colleagues and I expect to be making a major statement about the problem on Thursday. However, I cannot give the member a final date as to when we are going to resolve it.

Mr. Reville: The minister is expressing his concern with the efficacy of government and he is showing some apparent willingness to intervene to protect consumers from the vagaries of the insurance industry-

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would express a question?

Mr. Reville: I will express the question now because it is an excellent one. Members will want to hear it.

Will the minister act now on the recommendation of the select committee on company law; to wit: to establish an interministerial committee "to examine the problems and possible solutions to the introduction of a comprehensive disability income protection plan for the residents of Ontario"? It is recommendation 34.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be happy to take the member's question into consideration.

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) if he is within earshot of my voice.

Mr. Speaker: The minister is not here. You might want to address your question to someone else.

Ms. Fish: I will put my question to the Premier.

The Premier will be aware that about a year ago the federal government issued a working paper on water quality entitled Currents of Change. This paper requested provincial response, particularly concerning policies on water diversion.

Will the Premier confirm that his government's policy will continue the previous government's policy of allowing no water diversion from Ontario to other jurisdictions in the absence of the specific approval of the Ontario government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is interesting. I have been in discussion on that very issue with a number of the Great Lakes states' governors. I was on the phone with Governor Blanchard not very long ago.

We share the honourable member's personal view, and I gather the view of the previous government, on that matter. I have also discussed it with the former Premier, Mr. Davis, and it is the intention of this government to carry on with the same policy. In other words, we will not favour any diversion.

Like the member, I read with some concern suggestions of the great Grand Canal and other massive diversions down into the Midwest. I am very concerned when I read of some who would trade off our water as part of the free trade agreement. She will understand, of course, that we have stood very firm in defence of Ontario's interests and against diversions.

Ms. Fish: I am gratified indeed by the Premier's firm commitment in this regard.

In consideration of the water study currently under way in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area-where current predictions are that by 1991, if not earlier, existing water capacity will have expired and there may be a need to divert water from surrounding rural areas-will the Premier similarly give an undertaking that no waters will be pumped or diverted from the communities of Puslinch or North Dumfries in the absence of the specific approval by the local municipal councils of such pumping or diversions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar at all with the problem the member raises. I am willing to inform myself or to ask the minister to give her an answer on it. I am sorry, I do not know, and I would prefer not to make any firm commitment on anything in the absence of knowing the facts.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I understand the Premier is meeting with Simon Reisman this week. Is he prepared to tell Mr. Reisman in that meeting, or in any other discussions he may have with him, that the Grand Canal project and any other similar major water diversion project will be totally off the table in any trade discussions with the United States, now or at any time in the future?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not meeting with Mr. Reisman this week, to the best of my knowledge, although one never knows whom one will meet in my business, because I am so happy to meet with anyone, anywhere, any time. If he wants to come, I will be delighted to meet him. That being said, as far as I know, I have no plans to meet him.

With respect to the honourable member's question, I am sure Mr. Reisman knows my very strong views on this subject. I cannot imagine that Mr. Reisman would have the temerity even to raise that subject in any discussions with the United States. If he did, I can assure the member he would receive short shrift from this government.

2:30 p.m.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Premier. Now that we are into the fifth or sixth month since the report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment was made public, can the Premier give us a time frame by which we will know when this government is going to have an official response to the recommendations of that commission, keeping in mind that the new Deputy Minister of Northern Development and Mines indicated in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal in November that the government did not want to make knee-jerk responses to the report's recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member is aware, there are a great number of recommendations in that report that require implementation, scrutiny or rejection by the government. The government has taken that report seriously. There is an interministerial group chaired by my colleague the minister that is examining the proposals in detail.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the member will see a formal response to every one of those proposals, but he will be seeing them dealt with over a period of time. As I understand it, some already have been. That will be the approach this government will take.

I assure the member that we take it seriously. After all, we invested $10 million in that report and we do not like to squander money. Any value we can extract therefrom, we will attempt to do.

Mr. Wildman: In the December edition of Northern Ontario Business, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) indicated that there were some good things in the report, that the government was studying it, and that "all the ministries are looking at it."

Can the Premier give us some indication as to when this "looking at it" process will be completed and when or whether there will be an official response on the part of the government to the overall thrust of the report and to specific recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister was right, as usual, when he said there was some good in the report. We in this party like to find good wherever we can find it. We look across the hall and in the corridor and we find good. We are delighted to find it. It is not easy, but where we can find it, we acknowledge it and we will continue to do so.

With respect to the member's question, as I said, I do not think he will see a major formal report in response to all the recommendations. Rather, the ministers are dealing with the questions as they pertain to their ministries under the capable leadership of the minister, who is forcing the other ministers to deal with these issues.

He is a very strong and articulate spokesman for northern Ontario-I am sure the member would agree-and we hope to deal with all the suggestions that are easy to implement or that can be implemented in as short a space of time as possible. I wish I could give the member a specific date; I cannot, but I assure him we take it seriously and we are moving on it.

Mr. Bernier: I was most interested in the Premier's response about dealing with the specific recommendations and not having a blanket, overall response to the 129 recommendations of Mr. Fahlgren. I am sure the Premier is aware of what is happening in the Red Lake-Ear Falls area with the closing down of the Griffith mine. Some 250 jobs will be wiped out as of April 1 and the municipal taxes of the town of Ear Falls will be reduced by some 50 per cent; a devastating effect will take place in that area.

It is important that this government get on with those recommendations and comment on them, particularly as they relate to the forest resources in the 19,000 square miles of the area lying east of Red Lake, to free up those resources so that some forest activity can take place and provide the needed economic drive. When will we hear about the freeing up of that vast area of forest resources commented on by Mr. Fahlgren?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very much aware of the problem in Red Lake and the Griffith mine. The honourable member will recall that not long ago we were in exactly opposite positions. He was the minister trying to defend that closing and I was in the opposition trying to speak to the people of that area. I am sure he will recall the situation not long ago, as I do.

We do take the report seriously. I do not have a specific time frame. I appreciate the suggestion of the urgency in that matter and I will take the specifics of the matter the member raised in the House today to the minister. He is listening now and I am sure we can get back to the member as quickly as possible about that particular case.

HOLSTERED GUNS

Mr. Sterling: My question is for the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, last week two Brink's guards were gunned down during a robbery in Ottawa. One of them happens to be a constituent of mine. Ontario's policy is that guards' guns cannot be held or drawn unless there is a life-threatening situation, so these men's weapons were holstered when the robbers fired on them.

Will the Solicitor General give us his commitment to review this existing policy with a view to changing it to make our guards safe from being targets?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am prepared at any time to review any legislation enacted by the former government and still on the books, but I am not prepared to give anyone a commitment that review automatically means change. As I have said to the media, that is totally false, and to the honourable member, a review means to assure oneself that the legislation is in the best interest of the client group one serves.

In the matter referred to in Ottawa, we will gladly review the policy. We have already looked at it briefly since that occasion, but we will want to be sure we are providing the best security for the citizens of Ontario and the guards who work in those positions.

Mr. Sterling: The minister knows it is well known by the criminal element of Quebec that the policy in Ontario is more advantageous to them in coming across the Ottawa River and carrying out their robberies in our province rather than in their own. In Quebec, the security guards, the Brink's guards, can have their guns drawn when they are making a pickup of cash from grocery stores, as in this case.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sterling: The minister has argued in the press that this policy he is defending is safer for the customers of the bank. I want him to justify that to me today.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am not sure where the member gets his information about the criminal element in Quebec, that it is-

Mr. Breaugh: The minister does not know the member very well.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I shall not challenge his source of information. In our opinion on this matter-

Mr. Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The evidence comes from a coroner's inquest some six months ago.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Thanks very much for the clarification; it is nice to have the clarification.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister, with a reply. Does the minister wish to make any further comment?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I would be happy to make one but it appears there is no interest in listening to a reply.

Simply, the matter of guards and the drawing of guns has been reviewed on many occasions. The element of surprise is always with the criminal element. A guard carrying a gun when going into a grocery store or wherever to make a pickup is more of a hazard in our opinion than if he left the gun in his holster. People working as guards are always subject to danger and they know that when they take on that role. We feel that in our role of protecting the citizens and the guards, the current policy is reasonable. We are, however, definitely reviewing it.

HIGHWAY EXTENSION

Mr. Laughren: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning proposals by his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) to extend Highway 89 through the Keswick marsh south of Lake Simcoe.

Is the minister aware that to save approximately 13 minutes of driving time, his colleague is prepared to destroy one of the most important wetland areas in southern Ontario, and one, I might add, that the Ministry of Natural Resources has spent 44 years protecting? Would the minister assure us that he will not allow the Minister of Transportation and Communications to extend Highway 89 through the Keswick marsh?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member is aware we are having a study of the wetlands throughout Ontario that will be presented here in the very near future, so I do have a very responsible position relating to the wetlands. I am certain that if the Minister of Transportation and Communications is anticipating building a highway, it will be put to the proper environmental assessment. That is the process accepted here and on all sides. I have to accept the fact that the process will be adhered to and that the minister will do what is in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: I am glad the minister reveals he does not know what he is talking about because it makes my supplementary a little easier. Does the minister not understand that the Minister of Transportation and Communications has already had a ministry environmental assessment? The ministry investigated seven possible routes for the highway and all seven of them went right through the marsh.

Will the minister now say without any further delay, without going through a further environmental assessment, that he will require the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to investigate routes that do not go through the Keswick marsh, which by everyone's agreement is one of the most important wetland areas in the province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In response to the question, I am certain the honourable member understands that the minister has gone through the proper process and has done everything necessary to comply with the best interests of that particular area. If the member had any commitment to doing the right thing, he could have appeared at those hearings and put his position forward at that time. We had the necessary hearing in place. It was done, and the minister very properly is doing his job in the way he sees fit to do it.

Mr. Gregory: The minister has mentioned that the Minister of Transportation and Communications would normally have gone through the process of hearings on the Environmental Assessment Act. Can the minister assure me this has been done?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure the honourable member was here during the time that a former Minister of Transportation and Communications was charged because he did not do that very thing. I am absolutely certain, without even talking to the minister, that he has done the right thing, that he knows what he is doing and that he is running that ministry in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Timbrell: If he has not, he will be

charged. is that right?

Mr. Gillies: Somebody cut the minister down; he is choking.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been dealt with.

JOB SECURITY

Mr. Bennett: Some weeks ago I asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I would place it to him again today. I indicated to him at that time that Petro-Canada was changing or transferring some 250 head office jobs from this province and this community to Calgary. I made it very clear to the minister that we were rather disgusted with the action that was being taken. I asked the minister what process he had gone through to secure the information as to why these jobs were being transferred to Calgary.

The information came from the minister that he would inquire and investigate the situation and report back to this House. It is now some four or five weeks later and we still have not heard.

Would the minister like to report to the House today his findings from the investigations with the executive of Petro-Canada?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes. We have been looking at that along with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). It is hoped that as many jobs as possible can be retained here in the city and in Ontario. Some of them will be lost through attrition and some of them will be forced to move out west.

Mr. Bennett: I am listening, and trying to take from the minister's answer whether he did or did not speak to the executive of the company and whether, when he says there will be some replacement of jobs, he is referring to Petro-Canada or referring just to somebody else who is going to come in and replace these jobs. The minister's answer did not come to the point of whether he spoke with the executive of Petro-Canada, reviewed why these jobs were going to the west and whether there was a reason for not retaining them here in eastern Canada.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have said to the honourable member, we are interested in keeping as many jobs as we possibly can in Ontario. It was the same during the previous government's time; it lost jobs when Shell made many moves out west. Those things happen from time to time. We hate to lose any jobs out of the province.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday I asked him a question at the end of question period about the signs out there that the safety net for the poor in this province is in severe trouble and needs to have a major public review.

At the beginning of question period, I sent him an open letter, with a copy to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), suggesting that a task force of some kind, or a select committee, be established by February this year to report before the end of the coming year.

Will he please give me his response to my suggestions and tell me whether I will hear from him shortly about whether he and his colleagues think this is an appropriate thing to do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, let me congratulate the honourable member for moving with such haste. He brought this question to my attention yesterday. I appreciate it; it was a thoughtful question. Today he sent me a letter saying, "I apologize for the delay, but here are a few ideas." I would like to congratulate the member.

Interestingly enough, I was discussing this morning with a person whose name I cannot share with the member at the moment, though it is someone who is highly respected in this province-

Mr. Yakabuski: Kruger.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Him, too.

This person is highly respected in this province and is concerned greatly about this issue. I was talking to him about the possibility of looking at some kind of approach to trying to get a better handle on it, trying to put some definition on what kind of inquiry or approach we could take to the whole matter. I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with my cabinet colleagues or with the minister, as I will be doing in the not too distant future. However, I am not in a position to respond to the member's specific request today.

I will continue to discuss it, as I said. I have certainly not dismissed it from my mind. It is an important issue; it is a big question. The cabinet will have to decide whether it can be approached and substantial results gleaned in this way. It is not as if we have any difference of opinion with respect to the seriousness or the reality of the problem; it is a question only of approach. Perhaps the member will give me the liberty of discussing it with my colleagues.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I appreciate that. Will the Premier take very seriously the element of my proposal that calls for the involvement of the poor themselves in part of this process; that this not be a bureaucratic decision-making process between the municipalities, for instance, and the province, but rather that it ensure participation by the poor? Will he therefore please take very seriously into consideration the idea that grants should be made to organizations of the clients of social assistance in this province so they can participate in this process in an active way and have their say about what is the reality of being poor in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will take all the suggestions of the member very seriously, as I always do.

Mr. Cousens: May I take it then that the Premier will include the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) in his deliberations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That again is a useful suggestion. I must say that if the member for Scarborough West had a shave he would not look the way he looks today, he would not even look as though he qualified.

However, I always take his views under consideration and I will take the honourable member's new-found concerns into consideration as well. If he has anyone else over there who cares about these issues, then I will be delighted to have his ideas as well.

Mr. Runciman: It is interesting to know that anyone with a beard apparently looks like a candidate for social services.

2:50 p.m.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I want to give the minister a break and not ask him a question about insurance. Perhaps he can be more forthcoming.

As I indicated yesterday in the House, seven members of the Ontario Film Review Board were denied reappointment in a very unceremonious manner on or about New Year's Eve. Will the minister be good enough to explain to the House today why they were not reappointed and why the failure to reappoint them was handled in such a shabby manner?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I said yesterday that the member was misinformed and I will say it again. Of the seven people he referred to in his news release, three vice-chairmen had their terms extended from August 31 to December 31; three appointments expired on August 31 and one on November 9. These are normal, regular appointments. The decision to reappoint people is made by the cabinet. That is all there was to it.

Mr. Gillies: Bring in the Grits. Everybody gets a red tie.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Everybody gets a chance now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are just wasting the members' time.

Mr. Runciman: I do not really believe the minister expects anyone to swallow that line. For his information, members are appointed to the board for one-year terms. They are usually and traditionally renewed at least twice and due notice is given for termination. These members learned of their fate at the last minute. One, Mr. Guy Upjohn, reported to work yesterday only to be sent home. If that is not shabby, I do not know what is.

Will the minister confirm today that the intent of this purge of well-qualified and experienced board members is a blatant move to install individuals yearning for a spot at the trough of Liberal patronage? Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. Maybe you do not want to hear the answer, but I do.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In the case of Mr. Upjohn, his term of office expired November 9; strange that he just found out on January 6 that his term had expired. With respect to the three vice-chairmen, we have not addressed that as yet and there is nothing that says they will not be reappointed. We are not saying they will be, but there is nothing to say they will not be. This is the normal course.

To suggest that appointments are automatically renewed is silly. Every time an appointment is made, the person is given due consideration and is looked at as far as his qualifications are concerned. A great deal of investigation goes on. That is how an appointment is made, so that everybody in the province can have a chance to participate.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier concerning the landfill site known as Salford in Oxford county, with which he is very familiar. Before last May, the Premier called the decision of the previous government to allow that landfill to proceed a travesty of the system. After taking office, he promised to review it. On October 31, in response to questions from me, he promised an announcement shortly and said he would be back to me as soon as he could. In view of the personal concern he has expressed about this problem and the fact he himself made it an issue last spring, why has there been no announcement or decision?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will be aware that it is not an easy issue. She is quite right her recollection of history is absolutely correct. I disagreed with the way the former government handled the issue. However, she is aware that with that issue, as with many others, things have gone wrong. A lot of work has been done. I think more than $1 million, perhaps almost $2 million, has been expended-I could be wrong in my facts-on site preparation. There have been some new engineering studies and that kind of thing.

If we were at the same position we were two years ago, obviously I would have made the decision that I said publicly I would make; but now we have the embarrassing situation where things have transpired that make it infinitely more complicated than it was then. That being said, after our last discussion, I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to review the situation and it is in his hands at the moment.

Mrs. Grier: Would the Premier not agree that there are three options facing him and his government on this situation? He can stop development of the site and call for a new hearing; he can confirm the previous government's decision, which overruled the consolidated hearings board; or by inaction and failure to make a decision, he can de facto allow an unsuitable landfill site to continue to be used. Will the Premier tell us which of those options he favours?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to thank the honourable member for her multiple-choice question. They are becoming very fashionable in this House. We chose the route of looking at the situation, given the new engineering and the new realities of how much has been expended on that issue. As I said, the honourable minister is reviewing the matter and I expect a decision very shortly. Now that the member has reminded me again today, I will bring it to his attention. I am sure he will be very forthcoming in his deliberations.

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

Mr. Leluk: My question is to the first Minister of Citizenship and Culture; there are not too many ministries that have two ministers, so I have to designate between the two. Will the minister tell this House how much money over and above the current available funds have been requested by nongovernmental organizations under the multicultural service program grants in the fiscal year 1985-86?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I will take that question under advisement and get back to the honourable member at the earliest opportunity, so that I will not be accused of being inaccurate. I thank him for the question.

Mr. Leluk: If I could ask the auxiliary minister, possibly he would have an answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Leluk: I would like to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I presume you want some additional information.

Mr. Leluk: Yes. As the minister is no doubt aware, funding requests for multiculturalism and citizenship base program grants exceed the existing budget. Under the Progressive Conservative government, the 1984-85 base grants increased by 22 per cent from 1983-84 and the 1985-86 base grants increased by 72 per cent over 1984-85. Given these facts, will the minister assure this House that these base program grants will be increased under the Liberal government in order to alleviate any reduction in individual grants being awarded to nongovernmental organizations?

Hon. Ms. Munro: To the best of my knowledge, the grants awarded in 1985-86 have not seen any decrease; they have been increased.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am sorry, I do not know where these other questions are coming from. Have I answered your question?

3 p.m.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I raised the concerns of the shoreline residents in Essex county with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) as to the inadequacies of the shoreline property assistance program. Those concerns were supported by the Essex Region Conservation Authority on behalf of the shoreline municipalities. I have now been informed that the responsibility for the funding is in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Will the minister assure this House that the program will be extended beyond March 1986?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: We are currently looking at the extension of the program until March 31, 1986. If there are any possibilities, we will extend it beyond that date.

Mr. Hayes: When can the municipalities expect to hear answers to their questions that were raised with ministry officials at the meeting prior to Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: My staff is still looking at it. I am discussing it with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. An answer will be provided before the termination of the present deadline.

Ms. Fish: Now that the Minister of the Environment has been back in his seat for some time, I wonder whether he could give me a reply to my question on Puslinch and North Dumfries.

Mr. Speaker: That will be a new question.

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

Ms. Fish: In view of the Premier's commitment earlier in question period, is the Minister of the Environment prepared to afford the same commitment that no diversion or pumping of water will occur from any one municipal jurisdiction in this province to any other municipal jurisdiction without the express approval of the donor community? I am thinking particularly of no pumping or diversion from the communities of Puslinch or North Dumfries without the specific approval of those communities.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member knows, this government wants to engage in consultation with those who will be directly affected by this policy. I can assure the member there will be full consultation with them so that the best possible policy can be brought forward. That policy, as the Premier indicated in an earlier answer, is one that is not appropriate to diversion.

I assure the member that I will consult not only with the municipalities but also with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), because he always reflects the viewpoints of the people of the constituency, which he represents very well.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I once again remind the House that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and that this matter will be debated tonight at 10:30.

PETITION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 258 constituents in Sault Ste. Marie asking that the government of Ontario take steps to preserve public education in the province.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions presented the committee's 11th report on agencies, boards and commissions and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: This is the 11th agency review that has been conducted by the committee and it is a very interesting part of our work as a committee. In this review, we have covered the James Bay Education Centre, Old Fort William advisory committee, Minaki Lodge Resort Ltd., Minaki Development Co. Ltd., the Ontario Stock Yards board, the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp. board of directors, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Economic Council, the Toronto Stock Exchange board of directors, the board of management of the Guild Inn and the Canadian National Exhibition Association.

Briefly, we were of a collective opinion that we had tried to do too much and that we would have liked to have seen some of these reviewed in a somewhat different way, but I do look forward to the opportunity of debating the recommendations that are in here.

One of the things the committee did in the course of looking at these agencies was to travel throughout northern Ontario. It is a practice I commend to many members who do not have the opportunity to travel the north quite as often as others. It opens one's eyes to go to a place like the James Bay Education Centre, for example, a facility much needed in a northern community but virtually unfunded, and then to travel across the north to a place like Minaki Lodge where, as best we could determine, the government of Ontario has spent upwards of $50 million for a luxury resort that is unsaleable or virtually so.

When we have our formal debate on this report, other members of the committee and myself will wish to make some extensive comments about what we saw in the north and the other agencies we reviewed.

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

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the following substitutions be made: on the select committee on economic affairs, Mr. Barlow for Mr. McCague, Mr. Andrewes for Mr. Taylor; on the select committee on energy, Mr. Jackson for Mr. McLean; on the select committee on the environment, Mr. Baetz for Mr. Brandt on the select committee on health, Mr. Pope for Mr. Pierce; on the standing committee on the administration of justice, Mr. Villeneuve for Mr. McFadden;

On the standing committee on general government, Mr. Guindon for Mr. Villeneuve; on the standing committee on members' services, Mr. Gregory for Mr. Mitchell; on the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, Mr. Turner for Mrs. Marland;

On the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr. Sheppard for Mr. Turner, Mrs. Marland for Mr. Yakabuski; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Taylor for Mr. Barlow, Mr. Pierce for Mr. Rowe; and on the standing committee on social development, Miss Stephenson for Mr. Guindon.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 54,

An Act to Authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specified Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs.

Mr. Leluk: I would like to carry on from where I left off last evening with my remarks on Bill 54. I want to point out to the minister that subsection 4(1) brings about a significant change from the current agreement in that it opts in every pharmacy in Ontario. I mentioned that last evening. There is no option for opting out.

What this means is that if this bill becomes law, direct billing to the patient will be prohibited and will constitute an illegal act. This will force the patient, for example, to accept substitute drugs at the lowest cost even though he may be willing to pay the difference in the costs of the two drugs. There are some patients who may opt for a brand-name medication because they have been getting that drug in the past. Their physicians may have more confidence in that medication because they have more faith in the innovative or brand-name drugs than in some drugs from generic houses. There are those who say this is unconstitutional and against human rights.

3:10 p.m.

Subsection 5(2) of the bill would allow the minister unilaterally to set different fees for different pharmacies as well as possibly different fees for the same pharmacy. This has some potential for possible abuse and could create bureaucratic chaos. When we consider there are 1,900 pharmacies in Ontario, there could be numerous dispensing fees throughout this province that the Ministry of Health would have to keep track of.

Section 11 would enable the minister to set fees unilaterally, again eliminating meaningful negotiations on the fees between the professional body representing pharmacy, the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, and the Ministry of Health. There is a feeling on the part of pharmacists that this

section should be eliminated if the ministry intends to bargain in good faith for dispensing fees as well as for drug prices.

There are those who view this legislation as discriminating against the profession of pharmacy. The Ontario Pharmacists' Association has objected strenuously to the government arbitrarily establishing maximum dispensing fees without negotiation with members of the profession. It has stated that in the event of an impasse or deadlock in negotiations, the fairest approach would be to refer the fee

schedule to binding arbitration, something I am sure members of the New Democratic Party would support.

Bill 54 nowhere mentions the Ontario Pharmacists' Association with respect to the negotiating of fees. The discrimination comes in when we look at Bill 94, which deals with extra billing; it specifically mentions the Ontario Medical Association in the negotiating of fees. I ask the minister why the pharmacists in this province are being treated differently from the medical profession. That smacks of discrimination.

I further understand that members of the medical profession were invited by the minister to participate in drafting the legislation with respect to extra billing and subsequently refused that invitation. As one physician said to me, "Why should we attend our own execution when the only decision we would be making would be whether the government uses AC or DC current to carry out that execution?"

The pharmacists in this province were not accorded the same courtesy. They were not asked by the Ministry of Health to participate in the drafting of Bill 54. Even though they have been on record for years as expressing a desire to be involved in the process of negotiating fees, they were not invited to do so. To me, that is the worst form of discrimination.

The bill is discriminatory in other ways as well. I have tried to contain my remarks specifically to this bill, but I know later today we will probably be dealing with Bill 55, which has not been introduced for second reading at this point. Bill 55 also discriminates against pharmacists in that it requires them to post dispensing fees. No other profession in this province that I am aware of is required to post professional fees. I do know, and my good friend the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), who is a lawyer, will know, that at one time the legal profession requested of the government of the day to be able to post their fees and the request was not granted.

Since the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has arbitrarily decided to set a maximum dispensing fee for pharmacists, is he going to request his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), for example, to establish a maximum professional fee for lawyers in this province? For their services, many lawyers charge fees ranging from $50 an hour to $75, $100 and $150 an hour, and possibly even beyond that. Is he going to ask his colleagues in government to set maximum fees for architects, engineers or other professionals? If this legislation is enacted in its present form, it will have a drastic effect.

It will drastically change the course of the provision of pharmaceutical services in this province. Unfortunately, the direction of the proposed legislation is based purely on the supply of the lowest-cost drug available. There is no concern by the minister for how this will affect service to the general public. If pharmacists are not going to receive fair remuneration for their services, we know the services to the public will be cut back. This will take place because they will have to take more time to explain the new legislation.

There are the interchangeable drugs in Bill 55. The pharmacists are going to have to talk to each and every consumer who comes in with a prescription and tell them they carry generic equivalent drugs. The decision as to what is best for him is going to be left with the consumer, and not with the pharmacist, who is a professionally trained individual with the knowledge and background to make these decisions. The decision will not be left with the physician, who is also a professionally trained person; it is going to be left to the consumer.

3:20 p.m.

The pharmacists' time is going to be taken up trying to explain all these things to the people who come into the pharmacies. They will not have time to consult with patients on drug use or to monitor drug use, particularly with people who are elderly, who may be taking four or five different medications and who are not in a position to monitor their own drug use. From time to time, they tend to forget what and how much they are taking, whether they have adequate supplies at home or whether they need refills of their prescriptions.

Pharmacists may be required to cut back on delivery service. They have fairly sizeable overheads; they employ fairly large staffs in most stores. These services may be cut back. I have talked to pharmacists in many small, independent pharmacies who have said to me, "If this legislation goes through, many of us may have to close our doors."

There are many marginal stores in this province, stores whose incomes are somewhat less than those of others, and it is not unusual to see pharmacies close their doors. As I said last evening, I was an inspector with the Ontario College of Pharmacists between 1961 and 1969 and it was not unusual to see as many as 150 stores close their doors in one year. I witnessed that. I know that recently this has not been the case. It may be that 20 or so are forced to close up for whatever reason in one year. However, that is a very real possibility.

This would mean that in remote areas of the province people would have to travel longer distances in order to get their prescription drugs. If they had been frequenting a pharmacy located some 30 miles away and it had to close its doors, they might find they would have to travel an extra 50 miles or so in order to get that service. That is a likelihood with this present legislation.

I would like to refer for a moment to the penalty

section in Bill 54. It says that if convicted for contraventions of the bill, "any director, officer, employee or agent of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation" would be subject to a $10,000 fine upon conviction. The maximum penalty to be imposed upon a corporation is recommended in the legislation as $50,000.

I personally feel these penalties are excessive and totally unrealistic on the basis of the income of the average pharmacy owner, and particularly those who are employees. We have some 5,800 pharmacist-employees in this province whose average salary ranges in the neighbourhood of $38,000 to 39,000 per annum. When one looks at a possible $10,000 fine, this is not only excessive, it is also totally unrealistic in view of the magnitude of the offence.

I happen to be a pharmacist, a nonpractising one, one who chose politics as a career. In my years with the college of pharmacists, which numbered close to nine, I travelled this province. I have been in every nook and cranny in every pharmacy. Pharmacists are law-abiding citizens. We are not dealing here with criminal elements, and I cannot understand why the minister would propose such excessive penalties in this bill.

I want to say further that if spread pricing of drugs provided the need for this present legislation before the House, the issue of spread pricing could have been addressed by amending existing legislation and there was no need to introduce two bills.

Why was it necessary to introduce Bill 55? We know the present legislation addresses issues that go far beyond the issue of spread pricing. We know there is an intervention now into the cash marketplace with Bill 55 and this is going to have a drastic effect on the innovative drug manufacturers or brand-name drug manufacturers, as we call them, whose drug costs go far beyond the raw drug materials and the manufacturing costs of the drug in question. They have been totally cut out of the Ontario drug benefit program because they cannot compete on the basis of drug costs or prices with the generic drug houses.

The brand-name manufacturers are involved as innovative manufacturers in researching new drugs. Considerable moneys are spent on research and development and on initiating new drug applications, clinical trials for those drugs, the marketing of those drugs, the hiring of staff, promotion through conducting seminars and the like. Therefore, they just cannot compete on price alone. On the other hand, the generic houses do not involve themselves in these areas; they are basically the copiers of drugs that have already been placed on the market by the innovative drug manufacturers.

This creates a difficulty when the innovative drug manufacturers cannot compete on price and therefore, as I say, are excluded from participating in the Ontario drug benefit program.

I want to go back to another area of concern I have in dealing with the penalty sections. The proposed legislation prohibits the operator of a pharmacy from refusing "to supply a listed drug for an eligible person in order to avoid the operation of a provision of this act." A person contravening this

section is guilty of an offence, as I mentioned, and on conviction liable to these excessive penalties. I believe it is important to emphasize-

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My colleague's comments are most illuminating and it might be appropriate if there were a quorum present to hear them.

Mr. Leluk: They are not interested in hearing what we have to say. That is open government on that side.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

3:34 p.m.

Mr. Leluk: I am glad to see that the Minister of Health has rejoined us to hear what we have to say. Had he seen fit to consult and discuss this with the members of the pharmacy profession before the legislation was introduced, we would not be going through all this at the moment.

To get back to my remarks, I was saying it must be emphasized that there are situations where pharmacists may, for whatever reason, through their own professional discretion choose not to fill a prescription.

One of those reasons might be, as I mentioned yesterday, that there are forgeries. There are people who try to obtain drugs they need to substantiate their habits through forged prescriptions. This is not an uncommon practice, particularly for narcotic drugs.

Mr. Grande: The member is repeating himself.

Mr. Leluk: We are getting into something else that I did not mention.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the members in the Progressive Conservative Party along the back row please take their conversations elsewhere.

Mr. Leluk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are prescriptions in which the drugs that are being prescribed are contra-indicated for patients who may be on other medications.

I did mention that there is a practice called double-doctoring. The headline of a Toronto Star

article in November 1985 read, "1,500 Charges Laid as Police Tackle Pill-Buying Racket."

The

article states: "Fifteen hundred charges of double-doctoring have been laid against some 225 people for allegedly obtaining prescription drugs illegally in Metro. People who double-doctor get narcotic prescriptions from more than one physician within a 30-day period without informing the physicians of the other prescriptions."

Pharmacists receive prescriptions of this nature. As members can see, with 1,500 charges laid and 225 people involved, this is a common practice, and pharmacists are trained to look out for these types of practices. What we are doing in this legislation is taking away the pharmacist's professional discretion not to fill a prescription and not be a party to some criminal offence. That is what this legislation says.

I do not know who advised the Minister of Health when this legislation was put together, but I say again that it is ill-conceived legislation, it is not well-thought-out legislation. I hope that when this legislation goes to committee the minister will take stock of some of the remarks that have been made here in this House, not only by members on this side but also by members of the profession, who no doubt have written to him, and by others, including consumers who may have expressed their concerns to him.

3:40 p.m.

I want to go back for a minute to the openness of this government in its methods of consulting and discussing. I would ask the minister what he was doing in the months of July, August, September and October. He did not introduce his legislation in this House until November 7, knowing full well that he was going to have to come up with a new drug formulary which was supposed to be ready by January 1 of this year.

He talks about having spoken to the pharmacists, the drug manufacturers, the drug wholesalers, the consumers and the dentists. Yet when I speak to these various groups, organizations or professional associations, they say there was no consultation and no discussion.

I mentioned yesterday that a member of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada presented me with a flow chart, a timetable, of how the minister and his staff consulted. A letter from the minister, dated November 6, was received by the PMAC asking it to consult on the new legislation and, lo and behold, the very next day, November 7, Bills 54 and 55 were introduced for first reading in this House.

The PMAC met with ministry officials to exchange documents that same day, focusing on the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, Bill 54. It was not aware that Bill 55 was going to be introduced or was introduced. On November 13, the PMAC called a general meeting to discuss the impact of this legislation on its association and on some 43 brand-name drug manufacturers in this province.

There was a Conservative convention on November 14, which ended on November 17. Thursday, November 21, was originally planned for second reading of the legislation. A letter, dated November 27, from the Ministry of Health was received by the drug manufacturers asking for unprecedented competitive sales information.

On December 3, the ministry called a liaison meeting with the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, etc., and on December 5, we had second reading. That was the timetable the members of the PMAC received.

Can the minister tell us where was the consultation with the drug manufacturers during that time? Again, there was none. The letter sent from the Ministry of Health, dated November 27, was headed, "Urgently Needed Pricing Information for the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, January 1986."

This was further to a letter, dated November 7, 1985, that was sent to all drug manufacturers by the Minister of Health. Included with that letter was an information package concerning two new pieces of legislation, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, 1985, and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, 1985, which were introduced in the Legislature on November 7, as I mentioned.

This letter states: "You are also informed that the government of Ontario plans to have the legislation in place by January 1986. In order to compile listings of drug products under the new acts and a price listing for Ontario's drug benefit, and in order to have this in place by January 1986, the ministry requires the urgent cooperation of your company. Pricing information for the ODB formulary plus sales data on average selling prices for all drug products listed or proposed for listings are required.

"Listing as a benefit in the formulary is contingent upon the manufacturer providing the required sales data. The ministry reserves the right to delist drug products or to establish alternative reimbursement amounts for drug products considered to be essential therapeutic benefits."

"These forms must be completed and returned before 4:30 p.m., Monday, December 9, 1985."

The drug manufacturers felt this was a threatening letter, that if the information was not provided, their products would be delisted from the formulary. Is this the form of openness and the method by which the Minister of Health proceeds to have discussion and consultation with the members of the drug distribution system in Ontario? Is it by sending out threatening letters requesting information and saying if they do not provide it by such and such a date, there is a possibility their products will be delisted and the ministry will decide whose products are listed? That does not sound to me like consultation and discussion.

It is my personal feeling that the minister procrastinated, doing nothing for a four-month period between July and October, and then brought forward his legislation in haste on November 7, hoping to railroad the legislation through the House before the Christmas recess. However that was not the case. This legislation is much too important to be railroaded through the House without going to a committee for a full and open discussion by all parties concerned.

It took this party on this side of the House to make that commitment to the pharmacists of the province. It certainly was not the Ministry of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Wrong again.

Mr. Gillies: And to the people of the province.

Mr. Leluk: That is right, to the people of this province.

Mr. Gillies: We had to stand up for the people yet again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Leluk: Someone has to stand up for the people, because that government is not doing its job.

Mr. Mancini: How can the member say that with a straight face?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Gillies: You cannot ramrod everything through.

Mr. Leluk: That is right. The minister has stated that his legislation would lower drug costs for the government and for the consumers of Ontario. The Ontario Pharmacists' Association is of the view that this is not so. The proposed legislation will more than likely lead to higher drug prices in Ontario, maybe not initially but within a 12- to 18-month period. Pharmacists know that is going to be the case.

Mr. Callahan: How?

Mr. Leluk: They have had battlefield experience. They know.

The government talks about actual acquisition costs.

Mr. Callahan: I am listening. Explain it.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Leluk: We will explain it.

Mr. Davis: He could not understand it anyhow.

Mr. Leluk: That is right. The member is too busy calling pharmacists peanut vendors. He is not interested in what they do as a professional group anyway.

The Acting Speaker: Order. This is not a question period. Address your remarks to the chair.

Mr. Leluk: No, it is not. It is an education period, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to educate the government.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is stretching it.

Mr. Leluk: Stretching?

Hon. Mr. Elston: He is running short on a few facts. He had better go back and check.

Mr. Leluk: I think we have the facts. I want to read into the record a letter I received from a pharmacist in London, Ontario, who spent a number of years on the council of the Ontario College of Pharmacists. This gentleman was also a pharmacist in one of the largest hospitals in Canada. He expressed serious concerns about both bills. I have already discussed many of them, so I am not going to repeat them.

However, he did have a footnote. This is a copy of the letter he sent to the minister.

"It is interesting, with all due respect to you, the new Health minister who has no previous medical or pharmacy education, that after a few short months in power you are now an expert on patient health care in this province. I certainly wish I were as proficient in law as you are in pharmacy matters.

"When you, Mr. Elston, attain the age of 65, and it may be necessary to take medication with no choice of quality of that medication, you may have to take the same kind of generic garbage that you are forcing down the throats of the senior citizens now. Should this eventuality occur, it will serve you right if you do not respond to treatment.

"During my years of employment, I was engaged in the area of retail pharmacy and latterly as a director of pharmacy in one of the largest hospitals in Canada. I am aware what generic drugs will or will not do for patients.

"There were very few generic drugs in the hospitals where I worked. Both the pharmaceutical and the therapeutic committees in that hospital would not put them in the formulary.

"When I voted in the last provincial election, I must have been demented because I voted for a change for the better, not for a socialistic state. I will, however, examine my priorities before voting in another election, for it seems that politicians only have time for their own ego trips and not for the concerns of the public and their welfare."

There is a remark here for the New Democratic Party that I will mention.

"The NDP is a party who are supposed to be for the working man and his welfare, but I cannot understand why they are supporting this type of legislation, which is oppressive and discriminatory against freedom of choice and patients' desire for better health care in this province."

An hon. member: Shame. Shame.

Mr. Gillies: Beating up the old people.

Mr. Breaugh: What can I say? I stand accused and I would like to defend myself.

Mr. Leluk: You have been tried and found guilty. You stand convicted.

I have another letter here from a pharmacist in Kingston, in the eastern part of the province. "We urge you to vote against the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act presently before the House of Parliament. These bills are socialistic to an extreme not before seen in the province of Ontario. They strip away the professional rights of pharmacists and remove the powers of the Ontario College of Pharmacists to regulate the profession.

"The bills are the result of unilateral action by the Liberal government without any input from the profession of pharmacy.

"This is especially evident in some of the clauses which make the act unworkable in its present form."

Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would not want this member to think I am playing favourites as between him and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), but I refer you to rule 19(d)(4) of the standing orders on which the Speaker ruled against the member for Cochrane South unnecessarily reading from verbatim reports or any other document. I suggest this is out of order.

The Acting Speaker: I recall vividly that I did bring the member for Cochrane South to order on that point, but he was reading at great length. The member is not doing that in this case. He talks, reads his letter and then talks again. Please continue.

Mr. Leluk: I am delighted the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) can read-

Mr. Gillies: He may read, but he cannot understand.

Mr. Leluk: -but he does not understand much of what he reads.

Some of this information contained in these letters is very pertinent to the bill before the House.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: With regard to the comments made by the member, he has no proof I cannot read.

Mr. Leluk: No comment.

Mr. Gillies: There may be no proof, but there is a lot of evidence.

Mr. Leluk: Yes.

This pharmacist is expressing a concern that many pharmacists throughout this province have been expressing with regard to Bills 54 and 55 before the House. He says the net result will be higher costs to the retail pharmacists and a loss of professional image because of the posting of fees and the emphasis on the price this will create.

I said earlier that the whole thrust of the legislation is on the lowest drug cost. The minister was out of the House when I said there was little concern expressed for the protection of the consumer and the quality of service the consumer would receive if this legislation were enacted. The concern is one of drug costs, and that is very wrong.

We have seen what has happened in Britain with socialized medicine. What has happened is that the person who pays the price in the end is the consumer, but he does not receive the service.

The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), a medical doctor, mentioned in this House that it is an assembly-line operation where people line up to see a physician. There may be 75 patients that physician has to see in one day. They walk in, stick out their tongues and say, "Ah." He hands them a prescription and says, "Come back in 30 days."

That is the kind of service one gets with socialized medicine. In the long run, the consumers as patients will pay the price because they will not get the quality of service.

Mr. Mancini: Does the member want to abolish the Ontario health insurance plan?

Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) knows that what the member is saying is true.

Mr. Leluk: Yes. The member was in England recently. I know he was ill.

This is a legitimate concern. The minister has not expressed any of these concerns for consumer protection.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not right.

Mr. Leluk: It is true.

4 p.m.

In Bill 55, for example, the consumer who has no professional training is going to be making the professional judgement on the medication he accepts from the pharmacist-not the physician, who has the professional training, and not the pharmacist, who has been trained.

The onus is going to be on the consumer to decide what medication he is going to take. Naturally, he is going to opt for the lowest-cost drug. That is natural. If it is cheaper, it has got to be better because it does not cost as much. However, that is not necessarily the case. What might be cheaper may not be as good in quality as brand-name medication or some other medication.

What protection is that consumer going to have under Bill 55? No protection. The pharmacist and the physician are going to be exempt from any lawsuits if anything goes wrong, if the patient should suffer an illness, end up in the hospital or pass away, unfortunately, because of the medication. It is the consumer who is not protected under the legislation. What consideration did the minister and his staff give to consumer protection, and why is the cost of the drug the only thing that seems to concern this minister?

There is another area of concern, and that is the one-month supply. The minister will recall that it was his deputy minister who in 1974, I believe-I am not sure of the exact date-brought in this business of the 30-day supply of drugs as a cost-saving device to the government. This legislation is going to open that up even further and pharmacists are going to dispense three-month or four-month supplies-whatever the prescription calls for. They are going to have to fill the total quantity of medication or drug that is asked for.

As someone who has been involved with the college as an inspector and who has travelled this province and seen cases of drug abuse and the potential for drug abuse, I have to tell members it is not unusual to see people who have accumulated fruit jars full of drugs that have potentially addictive properties. Drugs tend to be shared by people with neighbours and friends when they have large quantities. Someone comes along and says, "I have an ache here or there," describing a symptom that resembles something the patient has, and the next thing you know, there is a sharing of medication.

There are accumulations of large quantities of drugs, which are going to be very costly to this government. When we look at the fact that Ontario has an ageing population and that elderly people may be taking as many as four, five or six different medications-and those drugs are free, because the government pays for them-it is not uncommon to see large quantities of drugs accumulated by patients. The potential for abuse is great.

It would be much cheaper to pay the pharmacist an additional dispensing fee to fill a second or third prescription than to go about it in the manner the minister has put forward in Bill 55.

I would like to refer to another letter, one that was received from a retail pharmacist in Petawawa, who expresses concern about the remuneration system. He says:

"There is a finely tuned balance of restrictions and latitudes which has been adjusted over the years to provide fair compensation to the pharmacist, fair value to the taxpayer and consumer and enough leeway to enable the pharmacist to be competitive."

That is what our system is based on: competitiveness in the free marketplace.

"The new legislation proposes to keep the old restrictions, throw out the compensating devices and permit the minister to set prescription fees without any negotiation. With this kind of power, the minister could for political gain regulate pharmacists right out of any compensation at all."

That is why I posed the question last night. Bill 54 does not mention the word "pharmacist" anywhere. It talks about the operator of a pharmacy like the operator of a garage or something of that nature. Does this mean in effect that the Ministry of Health is looking down the road to opening a central depot for drug distribution in this province and doing away with the profession of pharmacy altogether? Maybe they could get a couple of mechanics from some garage to go in and do the dispensing for them.

There is a total disregard for the professional training and knowledge of people who spent four years at a university and a year of internship and who over the years have been providing a very valuable service to the people of this province.

Mr. Breaugh: I cannot stand listening to my friend's speech, but the pause is even worse.

Mr. Leluk: I am sorry. It is the pause that refreshes.

Anyway, this pharmacist says: "In fact, the ministry seems to have acted in bad faith on this issue and has adopted a Hitleristic stance"-my gosh-"possibly in revenge over the shenanigans of some generic drug companies, a matter over which the community pharmacists have no control."

I guess the pharmacist is referring to the lawsuit brought against the Ministry of Health by one generic drug house. What he is saying is that the 7,000 pharmacists in this province are going to pay the price because of the shenanigans of one generic drug company.

In closing my remarks on this bill-

[Applause]

Mr. Leluk: I will be back for Bill 55. The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) is applauding. He is not throwing peanuts; he is just applauding.

Much of the confrontation that currently exists between the government and the members of the pharmaceutical profession could have been avoided very readily had the minister gone about introducing this legislation in the House in a proper manner. Had he chosen, prior to bringing it forward, to consult and discuss the legislation with members of the pharmacy profession, the drug manufacturers' association, the drug wholesalers and the consumers, this kind of confrontation could have been avoided.

4:10 p.m.

I have said before and I will say again that the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, which is the professional body for pharmacists in this province, is on record as having stated time and time again its willingness to sit down and take

part in negotiations. If the negotiations break down, they have suggested the matter should go to arbitration. I know my friends here to the left would support that.

Mr. Breaugh: The member has no friends over here.

Mr. Leluk: Oh. Pardon me.

I repeat: Why was it necessary to go about it in the manner in which it was done? Legislation was brought forward that had been put together in haste and was ill conceived and ill thought out. It is doomed to failure if it passes this House in its current form. There is just no way this legislation will work.

The legislation will not protect the consumers, as I am sure it was intended to do. They will be paying higher drug prices in the longer term. There will be no protection for them as far as services and what have you are concerned. I have gone through those things before and I do not want to be repetitive.

It is not good legislation, and I hope the minister and his senior staff are going to take a good, long, hard look at what they have put before the House, come to their senses and make the amendments that are required for good legislation.

Mr. Breaugh: I have one little question before I begin this afternoon. Exactly who over there is carrying this bill through the House at this moment?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Breaugh: There we are. Okay. It is helpful if there is somebody with whom we can identify.

We do support this bill and its companion bill, and it is worth spending a little time this afternoon to say why.

First, concerning the bills themselves, although I read in my newspaper and in letters from pharmacists around Ontario that these are very evil things, it strikes me that they are not. In fact, it strikes me that this is an issue the previous government knew about for some time and had wrestled with in various forms. It seems to me, as someone who used to be a Health critic of that government, that it simply said: "There is too much pain involved in this for the government. We know there is a little ripping off going on in the system, but it is not worth bothering with. Just pay these people all the money they want and leave it alone."

The previous government did not want to stir up the pharmacists. That has some credibility, given that the pharmacists have been very busy stirring things up themselves. The previous government seemed to have adopted the attitude that if things were wrong in this program-and it knew there were-it would simply rather not deal with them, and so it left them alone.

I recall that about a decade ago, when I was the Health critic, we raised instances where pharmacists were obviously charging too much and where there were problems. We appreciated that in the industry the problem was not necessarily the pharmacists; the problem was often the drug companies themselves and the way they sold their products through the pharmacies.

There were problems in the area, and even pharmacists to whom I have talked in my own constituency start by saying that. They knew things were wrong; they knew there were problems that ought to have been corrected. The fact that the previous government chose not to do so made them a little happy, I suppose, in the sense that they got a little extra money. However, everybody who worked with the previous program knew there were flaws in it that should nave been corrected. They just never were.

Maybe it is an unusual idea for a government to look at a program such as this one, which has some flaws in it, and actually decide to try to correct them. Maybe this government should be criticized for being a little courageous.

There is an aura of strangeness around this too because the antagonists here, the government of Ontario and the pharmacists themselves, start by agreeing that the system is flawed and that they ought to correct it. Both sides agree on that. From that point on they seem to tale completely divergent points of view about how it can be corrected and how nasty the other side is. Then they come back together and say, "If we have full public hearings on this, we will be able to work it out."

Something is screwy. If everybody agrees there are flaws in the system, and that is what I hear, and everybody agrees there ought to be full public hearings to work it out, why are we not doing that? Why is there this long delay? Why are these bills not sent to a committee? Why do we not bend over backwards to get them there quickly? I believe it costs us about $1 million a month or so while we dilly-dally around and place advertisements in newspapers and delay the bill. Why do they not just go there and let everybody get together? If heads need to be knocked, let them be knocked. It seems to be a straightforward process.

Let me make a comment or two about the minister. As long as I have known him, which is since he has been a member, he has never shown any signs to me of being as evil as the current ads in the newspapers portray him. I have always found the Minister of Health to be a very conscientious, hardworking person-a little too serious for my taste, but to each his own. It seems to me the minister got bushwhacked by his staff. I believe there was a commonly and reasonably well understood problem here and the minister probably said, "Give me something I can do that is my own initiative and is not part of the accord-some wrong that should be righted."

I know several of the minister's senior staff people, and I would accuse them of being on occasion a little on the arrogant side, of being a little hardnosed, of being not quite as consultative as I would like them to be and of not always being as open, warm and loving as senior bureaucrats ought to be. They are a little tough around the edges, and I believe what they did was to use that toughness on the pharmacists. I believe we are being treated to a lot of hurt feelings.

I got a letter from a pharmacist in Sturgeon Falls last week. Essentially, the gist of his argument is that fascism is just around the corner, that every facet of his life will be controlled and regulated by government, that his total income will be regulated by government, that everything he says and does will be influenced in some way by government. I was feeling sorry for him until I realized that is what my life is all about too. My total income is controlled by the Legislature. Everything I do at work is controlled by the Legislature. It is not that bad.

I have had a lot of talks with pharmacists over the phone, in person and in correspondence, and I think something is badly out of kilter.

I read the major ads they have been putting in the newspapers. There is not a whole lot of truth in those ads. I appreciate they are in a disagreement with the government, but I do not for a moment believe that a sensitive pharmacist is not going to take the time to explain the differences in these drugs to a client. The people I deal with in pharmacies in Oshawa are going to do that.

I appreciate that they have not done a lot of that with me over the years. I believe the longest consultation period I have had with a pharmacist was, "Will that be cash or Chargex?" That is about the end of the consultation. I have not experienced a lot of explanations about these drugs. They take a bunch of pills out of a big bottle, put them into a little plastic bottle, tape on a message from my doctor, hand it to me and I pay the bill. End of consultation.

I know that it is different from the experience of other people. I know they explain to senior citizens, who use drugs more than I do, what the pills are all about and when one should take them. They offer more consultation. However, as a member of the paying public, I have never had a lot of explanation from a pharmacist. Perhaps it is because I do not need it; it is pretty straightforward stuff.

One thing that bothers me a little is that the Ontario Pharmacists' Association had the time, money and effort to go out and hire an ad agency in Toronto to run this campaign. I want to say for the record that I believe they did themselves a disservice when they did that. As one member of the House, I have a lot of empathy for my local pharmacists. I would take the time and effort to listen to them about their problems. I would be more than happy to go to committee and defend them if I thought somebody was doing something wrong to them.

4:20 p.m.

If this was a big campaign to get me to oppose this bill, it failed miserably. I want to tell the members why it failed, because I think it is important. I happened to go to pick up a prescription for my wife at my local pharmacy. Attached to the little bag of medicine was a little memo from my pharmacist, from a pile of about 200 or 300 memos that were there. In essence, it said, "Vote against Bill 54 and Bill 55 because they are bad." It did not tell me why they were bad. It did not tell me what the bills were all about. It did not even give me a clue as to what the argument was about.

It simply said, "The government of Ontario is evil and doing dirty things to your local pharmacist. Boo, hiss."

That is not much in the way of information. I read their newspaper ads. I have to say there is a lot of hyperbole in the newspaper ads. That is being polite about it. I could give a more accurate description but you would not let me get away with it in here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to go through the ad because I think it is worth mentioning. It says, "Another Dose of Government Intervention." That is true; it is. But when the government intervention consisted of a cheque the pharmacist did not complain. The cheques have been rolling out to them in fairly large numbers for a long time and I did not hear one word that they objected to receiving government cheques. They liked that part.

The hard truth is, if one is going to get paid for services by the government of Ontario, the government has-dare I say it-the right to have a little bit of say on what one gets paid. I do not think that is unreasonable.

The second little headline here is, "As of January 1, your personal pharmaceutical records are no longer a secret." Aside from being untrue, it is unfortunate to put it in those terms. I do not believe either one of these bills does that. I do not for one minute believe there will be gross publication of pharmaceutical records anywhere in Ontario, and it is unfortunate that someone would be paid to run an advertising campaign that puts out wrong images, wrong facts and wrong information.

If the pharmacists' association wanted to run a public relations campaign which said, "We are being treated unfairly in these negotiations by the government of Ontario," I would say: "You are probably right. Some of you probably are. Let us try to get that unfairness out of the system."

But to put out a public advertisement that purports to say that as of January 1 all of your personal pharmaceutical records will be public knowledge, is not right. That is wrong. It bothers me that someone actually paid an advertising company to put out that wrong message.

The ad says, "The government creates a future where pharmacists can no longer give you advice and personal service." I suppose that is an opinion. Again, I think it is a wrong opinion. The pharmacists I know, no matter what government program is running, will provide advice, care and consultation to people who need it. I know these people. They are not hard, cruel people. Many of them think of themselves as business and professional people combined and that is the way they see their role in life, but they are not uncaring.

If a person comes into their store to get a prescription filled or needs some assistance, I believe they will provide them with that assistance no matter what government program is running.

The sad thing is that in my community, like many other communities in Ontario, the little corner drug store is fast disappearing and being replaced very rapidly with huge supermarket drug stores-cum-grocery stores-cum-clothing stores. Huge warehouse operations are the trend and the corner drug store is having a little difficulty competing in that marketplace. Most of mine are doing quite nicely, frankly, because of the government-sponsored health care program that provides seniors with drugs. I believe that program is worth preserving. My dad is 87. He does not use this program very much, but when he does, he needs it. He needs a little bit of help and the government program delivers that.

I believe this ought to now go to committee where that public hearing process can occur. I would hope, frankly, that when the pharmacists' association comes to Queen's Park during the course of those hearings it does not use the public relations firm which designed this ad campaign. I would counsel them, although they probably do not want it and do not need it, to come honestly and squarely before the committee and tell it what their problems are as pharmacists, not as real estate people designing some wonderful ad campaign against the government. That is patently ridiculous.

It has absolutely no credibility with me. If pharmacists have a problem, let them tell us what it is and help us to work out a solution.

I believe that could have been done long ago. I wish this had been done four or five years ago when we first became aware that there was a problem of some magnitude. That would have been a better service. I believe this is the kind of problem which did not get better by being ignored; it got worse. We now have an opportunity to correct those problems and to provide the pharmacists with their day in court, so to speak, their chance to appear before a committee of the Legislature and resolve the differences.

First and foremost, the differences can be resolved. The pharmacists will get their day before the committee and their chance to put their arguments fairly and squarely to the members of the Legislature. It is a minority government so there will be the opportunity for the fairest solution to be the final solution. It will not necessarily be what the government is proposing, it will not necessarily be what one political party wants, but one which is fair and just and is seen to be so by all three parties. They will never get a better opportunity for a kind of open court, so to speak, or a chance to state their case and have the resolution put forward.

To get there, these bills have to pass second reading. I hope we are not going to be treated to a long, disjointed dialogue on them. It will not hurt my feelings a whole lot if that happens so long as we get a chance to provide a solution to this problem.

On that basis, the bills are worthy of support in principle. First of all, all one has to do to support them is to recognize there is a problem. At one time or another all three parties in this Legislature have admitted publicly that there are problems with the drug plan. We know that. We know the previous Conservative government said so publicly. It said there were some difficulties. We know that the new government says, "Yes, there are not only difficulties, but we have to move to correct them." We certainly do.

Let us spruce up the bills. Let us get them through second reading debate and let us get them out to committee.

In closing, I would make a little plea. I believe there are many pharmacists who have a legitimate complaint about the bills. That is not to say every one of them does. That is not to say that evil things are about to happen to them. In all of this there has been some unfairness. There has been some unfairness since the inception of the program, not the least of which is the unfairness to citizens of Ontario who have not been eligible for the drug plan at all. There is an unfairness in that, not the least of which is the fact that there is some unfairness even to those citizens who are and have been eligible under the plan.

They have lived with the unfairness for quite some time now. If we are not perfect, and there is always a chance the bill may not be perfect when it goes to committee, or we are unable to resolve all of the pharmacists' problems, they will simply have to rely on the fact that no matter how the drug plan is set up or administered, at least they are reasonably sure they are going to get paid. They may have to live with some level of unfairness in that.

When we go to committee, I would imagine we will all be very concerned to see there is absolutely no unfairness. If we fail to achieve that, then I suppose the next best bet is to get something that is at least workable and on balance is okay by everybody. That would be the challenge of the committee when it gets the bills. I would hope it gets a chance to deal with this matter sooner rather than later.

Mr. Callahan: At the outset, I would like to correct something, perhaps a lesson in what is known as short one-liners.

When I made the comment about peanuts and razors, I was referring to the large chain stores where they carry everything from razors right on down the line. I never meant to cast aspersions on the small pharmacist. I have a number of them in my riding and I know many of them on a personal basis. It was not an indication of anything uncomplimentary to them.

I think it is a bit sad, though, in a way, that --

Mr. Gillies: Cut-rate; you will not get it back.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Callahan: That sounds like Mr. Gillies.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brantford.

Mr. Callahan: That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to approach it from a different aspect. As I understand the situation, it arose because manufacturers listed with the government in a formulary, the prices purportedly at which the drugs were being sold to the pharmacy. That price was significantly higher, I suppose, than the acquisition price.

4:30 p.m.

As a result of that, it put in danger a very significant fact that this entire legislation is trying to approach. This legislation deals with people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to pay or who need assistance in paying for their drugs. An essential commodity of any civilized society is a decent health care system for senior citizens and for those people who cannot afford it.

What was happening as a result of the history of this entire situation was that we were putting in jeopardy the very safety net that we as caring Ontarians and caring Canadians attempt to put in place to provide for people who are less fortunate than we are. Every time games are played with the safety net, the taxpayer out there-and I think quite justifiably-wonders when governments allow that to happen, "Why should I continue to pay for that service for those people when it is being abused?"

That is the very fact this Minister of Health had the guts to address. As I understand it, over the years of the Tory dynasty there were six Ministers of Health who over a period of 11 years knew there was a problem and did nothing to address it. As I understand it, and I may be mistaken, it was not until the Auditor General in 1984 brought it to the attention of that party as a public matter.

I suggest, as has been said by other speakers, the major concern here is to look after the people in our society who are unable to look after themselves. We are fortunate people in being able to obtain our health care system on our own. Every time we play around with that and do not deal with it directly, I suggest we as legislators are not fulfilling our sworn responsibility to make certain that those safety nets are kept in place.

We have seen it with the unemployment insurance situation and we have seen it with other pieces of social legislation. Every time we tinker with it or we do not do anything about it-and I suggest that is what was happening over those years-we put it in jeopardy.

The Ontario drug benefit plan is paid for by all of the taxpayers of this province. As a result, I suggest the minister has a sworn duty to make certain that those tax dollars are being maximized, at the same time providing relief and care for those people who need it. That was not done, so the minister has brought this legislation before us.

I get a kick out of the ads being run by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. They say: "`Proposed drug pricing legislation is not in the public interest,' an advertising campaign launched by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association says." We have the president of the Consumers' Association of Canada quoted in the Globe and Mail of October 12, 1985, as follows:

"That practice developed because government officials accepted the inflated prices cited to them by drug manufacturers and published the prices in the province's formulary, the handbook of drug prices for the drug benefit plan which also sets the basis for retail prices. With inflated listings, manufacturers compete with each other to woo pharmacists to stock their product by maximizing the spread, the difference between the inflated price and the actual selling price to pharmacies.

"The Gordon commission report submitted to the province in August 1984 said the prescription drug delivery system in Ontario has been used to the benefit of all except the consumer and taxpayer. As a result, consumers have been paying millions of dollars too much each year for drugs."

That flies in the face of the very fancy and articulate advertising that has been going on in an attempt to scare people in this situation. The pharmacists have almost led one to believe that this bill is not going to committee and that they are not going to have an opportunity to have their say. They have actually placed people in the position where they are frightened. They feel that their pharmacies are being ill done by.

I suggest that every time a speech is made over there to enhance that position, all it does is stir up Ontarians. It does not give them the full facts. It does not tell them we are trying to address a problem that is going to be to their benefit, that is going to protect them, protect that safety net that is in place and make certain it is not lost as a result of the taxpayers who pay for this getting fed up with it and saying: "The government did nothing about it for 11 years. They let the system rip us off.

We as taxpayers are paying the bill." I suggest that is a very dangerous situation in any social legislation which is required for the benefit of those who are not quite as lucky as we are.

I fail to understand how the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) can actually stand up and quote, I presume, from an Ontario Pharmacists' Association document that says, "A pricing system based on the actual acquisition cost is more likely to increase drug costs because there will no longer be any market incentive for manufacturers to offer or pharmacists to seek the most competitive and advantageous prices."

I ask them to explain that. If the explanation is that if they were left doing what they were doing, listing the prices on the formulary at an inflated price, they had this opportunity to fiddle around with pharmacies of various sizes, particularly the larger pharmacies, to get a volume discount and offer a lower price to enhance it, I do not understand how this is going to increase the price. I truly want to know whether the member for York West can explain that to me. It makes absolutely no sense to me. It has no factual basis and if someone can explain it, I would dearly love to hear the explanation.

That is something that is put out to the members of the public and it frightens them, particularly the cash-paying customers.

Clearly, that is not in the best interest of the people of Ontario. I am a firm believer in a parliamentary system wherein we each have an opportunity to have a say. Surely to heaven when the say is being made by the opposition it is one that recognizes the benefits from this. Having lived with it for 11 years, the official opposition had to recognize there was a problem that had to be solved.

When I listened to the speeches from the members of the official opposition, they were totally negative. They attacked the minister as though he was some evil person. They should praise the minister for having the courage to do what six previous Ministers of Health of the former government did not have the guts to do. They left the taxpayer hanging out to dry for 11 years, letting him pay more than he should have through this program and putting that system in jeopardy for the senior citizens and the people who are unable to pay for benefits.

That is what they have done. They have let down the people who voted for them in the last election as well as the people who voted for them in elections over the past 11 years. They have allowed an interest group-and I am not suggesting the small pharmacists, who are small businessmen attempting to operate with a reasonable profit to make a reasonable living. They have allowed taxpayers' dollars to pay for these programs when they were not warranted.

Perhaps when this piece of legislation goes to committee there will be some suggestions made by people coming forward and putting accurate facts before the committee. In addition, there will be an opportunity for the public to attend and actually understand, perhaps for the first time because of the ad campaigns that have gone on, the true facts behind the program and the fact that it is being done for their best interest.

Along with members opposite, I look forward to the matter being referred to committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Sheppard: As are some of the other speakers, I am anxious to see this go to committee. I want to say a few words on behalf of the Pine Ridge Pharmacists Association in the great riding of Northumberland. A couple of the pharmacists who are very concerned about this bill live in the Quinte riding.

Mr. Andrewes: They do not have a spokesman. Their spokesman is silent.

Mr. Sheppard: He is very quiet down there at times and he had a week's rest. I understand he went to Florida or someplace.

The government says it wants openness; to open the doors and windows. By trying to get this bill passed before we recessed for Christmas, it was keeping the doors closed. The sooner this bill gets to committee, the better. I have received hundreds of letters from the pharmacists' places of business in the past three or four weeks.

4:40 p.m.

I have been inundated with correspondence from pharmacists in my riding expressing their objections to the proposed bills as presented in the House on Thursday, November 7, 1985, namely, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act.

To begin with, under the new regulations the pharmacist must dispense the entire quantity of the drug prescribed at one time. Serious problems could arise from this practice because currently, when someone wants a refill, the pharmacist checks it against older and more recent prescriptions for incompatibility. He checks the patient's condition-for example, whether a woman patient is pregnant-and checks other potential dangers.

Let us say a doctor prescribes a drug for six months but needs to see the patient after one month's use in order to check reaction. After consultation, the doctor and the patient agree that this drug is not suitable. The patient is left with five month's worth of drugs that he cannot use but has paid for. What if a woman patient is prescribed a drug for six months but becomes pregnant after three months? She may not see her doctor for another two months, and perhaps various dangers may exist by then.

Dispensing the entire quantity of a prescription for a drug such as Valium could have serious implications and could even cause death to a depressed person or a drug abuser, to mention only two possibilities. With dispensing as proposed, there is less protection against overuse, abuse, misuse or the misunderstanding of directions. There could be less availability of advice on subsequent refills. In delivering drugs to participants in the Ontario drug benefit plan, the pharmacist already provides endless free services. There should be reasonable remuneration for these services.

There will be much more waste as a result of dispensing entire prescriptions, not to mention self-diagnosis and the sharing of drugs, as well as greater street usage in sales. Waste will occur owing to allergies and required changes in medication or doses.

With this system in use, there will be greater discontent in general. The pharmacist will have less time to spend with the patient. Pharmacists will face shortages in drug stock, and poorer monitoring of doses will occur. For the physician to maintain control for the patient's benefit, he will have to write prescriptions for shorter periods of time with no refills. This, in turn, will force the patient to return to see the doctor more frequently, which will cause further problems.

The patient will most likely have to wait in the physician's office longer, and the physician will actually have less time for the truly ill. Having to go to the doctor's office more frequently will, in turn, affect the Ontario health insurance plan, as the doctor's visits will have to be paid for.

Most pharmacists object to the required posting of fees. It is not required for other professions, such as doctors and lawyers. The free enterprise system is done away with for pharmacists only. As well, a higher fee does not necessarily mean a higher prescription cost. For example, if a pharmacist charges a $5 fee and if the actual acquired cost of the drug is $10 per 100, the total is $15. If the pharmacist down the street charges $6 in dispensing fees but the cost of the drug is $8 per 100, the total is $14. Thus, the fee is higher but the total cost is less.

Currently, most pharmacists maintain an adequate inventory with minimal shortages and have a steady usage of most items. With the new legislation, dispense as written would result in sporadic usage and drug shortages.

With respect to stating both the drug cost and the fee on the prescription label, this could be very confusing for the patient. As well, if two members of the same family are on the same drug and if one is covered under the ODB plan and the other is not, they would have two labels, each showing different drug costs for the same drug and possibly two different fees.

Therefore, I urge the Minister of Health to refer this matter to a committee of the Legislature for further study and for full public discussion before these bills are passed because the Pine Ridge Pharmacists Association in the great riding of Northumberland wants to make a presentation.

Mr. Pierce: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this issue. The government has tried to lump Bills 54 and 55 together. The Minister of Health has said these two pieces of legislation deal with the same issue. I have to disagree with that. Bill 54 looks at what drugs are supplied to the Ontario drug benefit program. Bill 55 governs the dispensing of drugs in the cash-payment market. These are essential to two different programs and they require two separate bills. Superficially, they seem similar, but they are not. The fact this government is trying to link the two together reflects on its kind of management style. This is a subject I want to leave until later.

I want to talk about what this legislation does to the pharmacists in Ontario. The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party pioneered the drug benefit program. It was set up to ensure that the elderly and needy would be able to get drugs if they needed them. This program has worked, but as with any program, problems have arisen. The method for establishing the price of drugs made available under the program has created some problems.

When we were in government, we felt it was only proper to commission a report on the situation to analyse the system and recommend improvements. This report, the Gordon report, provided the basis for negotiations with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association on changes to the drug benefit program. These negotiations were well under way in June 1985 when the government changed hands. What has happened since?

The new Liberal government has refused to negotiate. It has turned its back on the pharmacists of Ontario and the pharmaceutical manufacturers. It has drawn up Bill 54 in a vacuum. With the arrogance that Ontarians have grown to associate with the Liberal Party, it has gone off on its own course without any consideration of what effect its actions will have on the community. That may appear to be a joke to some people-

Mr. Wildman: Considering how arrogant the member's government was.

Mr. Pierce: I am talking about the government of today.

I make reference to the letters from local pharmacists and a letter from a little pharmacy in Fort Frances, Gagnes Pharmacy, addressed to the Minister of Health. It says:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"The pharmacists of Ontario are frustrated. As integral members of the health professional team, our very future is being threatened by you and your government. The Gordon commission almost brought about a somewhat reasonable settlement for us, but with the fall of the Miller government, everything was dissolved.

"Your government, Mr. Elston, does not seem to grasp the entire concept of how we make our living. The ground rules for establishing our professional fee have been tossed out the window. Also, the fee is only a part of the way a prescription has traditionally been priced. The drug acquisition price, return on investment, discounts for quantity and early payment are all related to provide a fair return on investment and professional services.

"It is extremely difficult to