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

January 13, 1986

33rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L085 - Mon 13 Jan 1986 / Lun 13 jan 1986

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CROWN EMPLOYEES

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

DRUG SUBSTITUTE

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

PENSION FUNDS

INSURANCE RATES

ROOMERS AND BOARDERS

INSURANCE RATES

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

TRADE OFFICE

MINIMUM WAGE

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

EMERGENCY FACILITY

VOTE RECOUNTS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CROWN EMPLOYEES

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today that I have referred to the Ontario Law Reform Commission for its consideration and report, to be completed by next July 1, several issues relating to political activity by crown employees.

The terms of reference of the commission's inquiry are as follows:

1. What restrictions on activities of crown employees are required to ensure their independence and impartiality and to satisfy the public of their independence and impartiality;

2. Whether and to what extent the existing law and practices governing crown employees restrict their activities beyond the extent necessary to ensure the existence and appearance of independence and impartiality;

3. Whether and to what extent changes to existing law and practices governing activities by crown employees are necessary or desirable, having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the laws and practices of other comparable jurisdictions;

4. Whether and to what extent changes should be made in the oath of secrecy or in the law relating to that oath in conjunction with any changes recommended; and

5. Whether and to what extent the common law in relation to an employee's duty of loyalty and confidentiality bears on the issues.

I have asked the commission in preparing its report to bear in mind that different considerations may apply to different groups of crown employees, such as civil servants and public servants, and to different classifications and job descriptions.

The government has been considering action in this area. In the course of our preliminary consideration of the issues involved, it became apparent to us that there are many difficult and complex issues of law and public policy that need to be addressed. The government is of the view that a review by an independent body, the Ontario Law Reform Commission, will provide the right degree of impartial and detached consideration of these difficult issues combined with thoroughgoing research and deliberation.

I am mindful of the urgency of proceeding with these issues. That is why I have directed the commission that it must report by next July 1. This will give the government the opportunity to consider the commission's recommendations, prepare the necessary legislation during the summer and present a bill to the Legislature in the session next fall.

While some of us might like to proceed more quickly, I believe that to do so would not do justice to the extremely important issues involved here. The government undertakes to deal promptly with the issue of political activity by crown employees as soon as the law reform commission's report is received.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the honourable members know, one of my first acts as Minister of Agriculture and Food was to establish a short-term program of emergency assistance to compensate farmers for the financial battering many had received earlier in this decade. We called this the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, or OFFIRR in short. There was a $50-million fund to ease some of the financial stress under which our farm families had been labouring in recent times.

OFFIRR has been enthusiastically endorsed by Ontario producers. We have received about 6,000 applications for assistance and have thus far paid out more than $12.5 million. In the past few weeks, applications have been flooding into my ministry's farm assistance programs branch at a rate of 100 to 200 a day, yet I have heard from many Ontario farm families that are concerned about missing out on this program. They are worried about putting together year-end cash flow figures, among the other documentation that goes with the application, in time to meet the deadline of this coming Wednesday, January 15.

Because of this high degree of interest and concern, I have decided to extend the deadline for applications for this program by two months. The new deadline will be March 15. I would not like to see anyone who rightfully qualifies for this program, and who could benefit from this assistance, miss the boat because of a simple matter of scheduling.

This extension will allow many more Ontario farm families with 10 to 17 per cent equity in their farms to take part. OFFIRR can mean as much as $14,000 per farm family through a reduction of interest rates by up to seven percentage points to as low as eight per cent. This reduction applies to as much as $200,000 of long-term farm debt.

January 15 was originally scheduled as the end of another ministry policy. As part of our farmers-in-transition program, I announced a temporary deferral of action against those in financial trouble under three provincial programs. This was to go along with a national moratorium on foreclosures initiated by the federal Farm Credit Corp. Ottawa had announced this moratorium pending the results of a thorough review of the mandate of the Farm Credit Corp.

As this situation is unlikely to be resolved immediately, and certainly not in the next 48 hours, I am also extending Ontario's deferral of action until March 15, 1986. While this deferral is in effect, collection calls will not be made and legal action will not be taken on arrears of Ontario Junior Farmer's Establishment Loan Corp. mortgages and lease-with-option-to-purchase agreements under the farm enlargement program.

In addition, provincial requirements for action on guarantees under option C of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program will remain temporarily lifted.

I feel these extensions are responsive to the needs of the people concerned and are in keeping with our long-term desire for a healthier agriculture and food industry in Ontario.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the members may recall, last November during the Ministry of Revenue's estimates I said I hoped to be able to announce certain improvements in the services offered by the Province of Ontario Savings Office to its clients, the citizens of Ontario.

It gives me great pleasure to tell the members that the first of these improvements begins today with the introduction of POSO's first daily interest savings-chequing account. It will come as no surprise to the members to learn that we are calling this the Trillium account, which will in part remind depositors that the government of Ontario fully guarantees every dollar of each deposit.

In addition to this security, the Trillium account will pay daily interest on every dollar in an account. There is no minimum balance required before interest starts accumulating. For deposits under $5,000 -- this is for the benefit of my colleagues -- the rate is currently six per cent, which compares favourably with those offered by other major financial institutions. This rate will increase to seven and a half per cent when the balance in the account is $5,000 or more.

As well, there will be no service charge for cheque processing when there is a minimum monthly balance of $1,000 and there will be no charge for deposits or cash withdrawals made over the counter.

2:10 p.m.

The Trillium account is the first major change since 1923 in the services offered by POSO and is thus a significant milestone in its 65-year history. I want to point out to the honourable members that my father was a strong supporter of POSO then, when he was Provincial Secretary of Ontario.

I have been provided with a ledger account for sheet number 1 of the Province of Ontario Savings Office, which is the account of Harry Corwin Nixon, showing a deposit of $100 on March 1, 1922. To be fair, I should add that the whole amount was withdrawn in June 1922, which may have been an indication of more prescience than I enjoy. However, he was a strong supporter, as I am now, of its chief aim

Mr. Rae: Why did he take the money out then?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If he had left it on deposit, perhaps I could pay some of my bills and those of the honourable member.

Its chief aim was to make low-cost loans to Ontario farmers. This provision was rescinded in 1923 by the government of the day, which followed the United Farmers of Ontario -- a Conservative government, I should add -- and it was never restored.

Since then, however, and for more than six decades, POSO has offered Ontario citizens a place to put their savings which is a little different from the average bank or trust company. As those who are fortunate enough to bank with POSO can attest, it is a place where personalized service comes first and foremost. Our staff know their depositors, and this makes for a tremendous client loyalty. In many branches we have accounts that have been current for more than 40 years, and we are dealing with the third generation in a family.

Let me assure the members that under the present government, POSO will continue not only to exist but to flourish as well. We believe we have a responsibility to offer our citizens a place to put their savings which is guaranteed absolutely by the government. I remind the members that there is a POSO office in the Macdonald Block and I encourage them to drop in, as I did, and open a Trillium account at their earliest convenience.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DRUG SUBSTITUTE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. There is currently in the Drug Benefit Formulary a drug known as apoibuprofen, which is treated as a substitute for a drug called Motrin, a brand-name drug.

I trust the minister is aware that this drug is treated as therapeutically interchangeable by the ministry. It is a very popular drug, which is used by seniors and others in controlling the acute pain of arthritis. Some time ago, a report was produced by the producers of Motrin indicating the generic drug is not interchangeable. The ministry's own Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee agreed early last year it was not interchangeable.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The previous government instructed the ministry officials to remove the drug from the formulary. The minister has not seen to it that this has happened.

Can he tell us why the current government has overruled the earlier government's decision to withdraw this generic drug from the market and why it is continuing to permit thousands of seniors every day to take a pill that is not therapeutically interchangeable?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As the honourable gentleman knows, the formulary in effect on January 1, 1985, continues to be in effect and cannot be changed as a result of litigation. There would have been a July 1 formulary in place had there not been difficulties with respect to quotations of prices on other items that had been submitted.

Two court cases were started, one to enjoin us from printing a formulary if we accepted certain submissions, and the other to enjoin us if we printed the book and did print those submissions. We were unable to do that. We hope to deal with the new formulary and the new needs as soon as we are able to get our legislation in place and, as a result of that, put in place regulations that will allow us to make changes in the formulary.

Mr. Grossman: With respect to the minister, the ministry always has had and continues to have the legal right to put out addenda to the formulary and to put out corrections at any time. It has not been enjoined from doing that at all by the court action.

Therefore, in view of the minister's first response, can he indicate why, since the court actions do not limit in any way whatsoever his right to correct the formulary, he is permitting thousands of senior citizens to take daily a drug that is not therapeutically interchangeable? He is not stopped from correcting the book. Why is he allowing it to happen?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That

interpretation is obviously one the honourable member holds. I can go further with my legal counsel and provide the House with an update of our

interpretation of the injunction that is now in effect. I will provide the House with a fuller, more complete answer with respect to this whole question at a later date.

Mr. Rae: Surely the minister can give us an answer to this very basic question: Is it the view of the Ministry of Health that the drug mentioned by the leader of the Conservative Party is interchangeable with Motrin or not? This is one question that is purely factual and can be answered.

If it is the view of the ministry that it is not interchangeable, is the minister really saying he is powerless to change any drug that is on the list until such time as litigation has been completed? We could be looking at a paralysis of the system for another six months or even a year.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The question is not one of paralysis which would I think continue after the legislation that is before us was passed. As the honourable member knows, we are now in the process of setting up a system whereby the Ontario drug benefit plan can be much better managed by the province.

On the issue of whether the item raised by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) is interchangeable, there are considerable amounts of legal activity even with respect to that drug. He would know, as would his colleagues who are former Health ministers, that several actions of litigation have questioned whether a particular drug is interchangeable. As I understand it, the issue of the interchangeability of the drug has not yet been resolved, and it continues to be put forward, particularly by its producer, as being completely interchangeable.

Mr. Grossman: I want to disagree with the minister in asking the final supplementary. First, his own drug quality committee has said it is not interchangeable. Second -- and the minister may not be aware of this, but he should be -- the federal government, through the health protection branch, has confirmed that the drug is not equivalent. Third, no action that has been brought with regard to this drug stops him from following the advice of his own committee or of the federal government.

Why has the minister not put out an addendum to the drug formulary to tell the thousands of seniors who are taking these pills every day that both his own ministry and the federal government have found they are not interchangeable? I remind the minister that when it came to an allegation with regard to wine, his government moved in 24 hours. When it comes to thousands of drugs for seniors, he does nothing for at least a year.

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

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to disagree with the honourable gentleman when he makes his analysis of this problem with respect to the wine and the fact that we have done nothing. If one wants to take it to the situation where he feels it should have been done on 24 hours' notice, he should have done it.

Mr. Grossman: We did.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, the member's party did not do it. He should be very careful about how he indicates his actions, because he always overestimates the impact of some decisions that were not completely taken on his part.

Let me tell the member that I will come back to this House and provide a more complete statement with respect to the controversy surrounding apo-ibuprofen as it reflects not only some of the indications the honourable gentleman has made but also with respect to some of the concerns that have been raised by both the producer of that product and the originator of the product Motrin, which was the original product.

Mr. Grossman: It will be thousands of pills later before the minister reports to this House. It if was wine, it would be off the shelves in an hour.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Wrong again.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: That is the record. The member should tell the seniors in Niagara Falls that it is okay.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In answering an earlier question from the Leader of the Opposition, I left the impression that I did not feel we could withdraw the drug ibuprofen from the Drug Benefit Formulary on a unilateral basis. In fact, I was mistaken. Having contacted my ministry officials, I wish to make it very clear that we could move to take ibuprofen from the formulary. Equally as mistaken was the opposition leader, inasmuch as the federal authorities have given a licence to the generic manufacturer to produce ibuprofen.

They have given a certificate of interchangeability to the manufacturer of that drug so it is now licensed by the feds as an interchangeable product. The Leader of the Opposition was mistaken.

In addition to that, the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee is awaiting information from the federal authorities so that we are looking after this request --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully. The member was within his rights in getting up to give a personal explanation of what he had said. He has done that, so we will go on with the next question.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. He was in his place earlier. Is he speaking with John Kruger?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Ask me.

Mr. Grossman: Okay, I will ask the Premier the question. I had the opportunity on Saturday to meet with members of the United Auto Workers local in Kingston to listen to what they had to say about their concerns over their jobs at the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

I talked to one worker who was in the process of moving his family from London but now has stopped that move because he feels his continued employment at UTDC is in jeopardy. He now sees his wife and children one weekend a month. This whole situation of human suffering has been caused by the uncertainties due to the government's decision to sell UTDC.

Can the Premier tell that worker and the hundreds of others I met with on Saturday at UTDC the exact state of the government's determination to sell UTDC out from under them and take away their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assume my colleague opposite told the worker, whose plight he mentioned in this House, that the insecurity with respect to the jobs is because his former government cancelled the intermediate capacity transit system. It was his government that did it and caused the job rationalization.

I assume the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was as honourable then, as he indicated on various other occasions; that he stood up and told him the facts surrounding the job rationalization that is currently going on at UTDC. I assume he did that because he would not want to leave any mistaken impression about what his government did and what we are trying to do to salvage the situation. I am sure he would not want that.

Let me go on. I will answer the question the Leader of the Opposition wanted to ask. We are, as I said before, discussing a potential sale with, at this point, three potentially interested parties, as well as groups of employees.

One employee came and had some discussions. He was not exactly an employee but someone who was associated with UTDC from the Kingston end of the operation. There were some representatives from the Thunder Bay end of the operation who had some concerns about jobs and were potentially interested in putting forward a bid. All those groups are being talked to.

Nothing has been signed at this moment, as the member is very well aware. I am sure he is aware and I am sure he told the employees that he talked to that if there is a sale, and that is by no means predetermined, then it would be done to protect jobs and not let this rationalization caused by the member's former government to continue until it was rationalized down to nothing.

Mr. Grossman: I was fair enough to tell them that the Premier was prepared to guarantee half of their jobs, as indicated in the letter he sent to the prospective purchasers. I shall also say they indicated to me there is a long list of companies in the area that are concerned about layoffs, not because of the project the Premier is talking about, not because of the 100 jobs that were affected by the GO advanced light rail transit situation, but because of the potential sale of UTDC.

If the Premier disagrees with that analysis, perhaps he might find some time to go not only to Vancouver and open the project there but also to visit with the UAW in Kingston. He may want to share with them his opinion as to why 79 firms in the Kingston area alone are facing layoffs, nine from the Belleville area and three from Napanee, all because of the fear over the potential sale of UTDC.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: Would the Premier be prepared to indicate to us, and table in this House, any and all studies done with regard to the potential impact of the sale of UTDC and the implications of guaranteeing only one of every two jobs currently in place at UTDC? What studies does he have?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend opposite continues to make wild and extravagant statements about this, and other things as well, that border on the irresponsible. He should read back in Hansard and ask himself whether he really wanted to say those things.

I have told him in a very forthright way what we know and what we are looking at in this situation. He tells me that 79 firms are going to close down or lay off people because we are contemplating a sale that is designed to enhance employment and to allow UTDC to grow. He and I know the assertions he has made in this House are rubbish.

Mr. Rae: The Premier will surely recognize that the length of time he and the government have allowed speculation to carry on has contributed to people's sense of insecurity and has affected the marketability of certain products. The Premier knows that is the way it works. That is the consequence of the government having let this thing hang out for so long with such a degree of fuzziness.

Specifically, is the Premier aware of a telegram, of which I have received a copy, that I understand has been sent by Mr. White, the president of the auto workers in Canada, on behalf of locals in Thunder Bay and Kingston asking for a meeting prior to any government decision with respect to a sale? Can the Premier give us a guarantee that the real travesty that has occurred with respect to de Havilland will not be allowed to recur with respect to UTDC and that everybody will be kept fully informed before and not after any decision is made with respect to UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member can see the inherent contradiction in his question. On the one hand he criticizes me for discussing these matters and the government's intentions in public; and on the other hand he says we should discuss everything and he wants to be fully informed of what is going on all the time, presumably he wants the deal negotiated in public. He cannot have it both ways.

One of the realities is that we are living with public scrutiny. We recognize that and we have been very forthcoming with the people of this province with respect to our views on privatization. In addition, we have taken the view of former Minister of Transportation and Communications James Snow; I believe he was trying to privatize it. The previous government was making moves along those lines. I have talked with the board and the management and there is a general consensus that is the way to go at this point to allow UTDC to grow and continue to create employment, with research and technology jobs here in Ontario. We are following that up.

When the member asks me a question in this House, as he has every right to do, I am prepared to tell him the status of and where we are in those discussions. As I have said, it appears that there are three serious bidders at the moment. Although that has not been formalized or signed, there have been some discussions with all of them. If a group of employees comes along that is interested and has a proposal that is better in the areas of securing jobs and research and development, is better with respect to the cash offer to the taxpayers of this province, and is going to help that company grow, we will be interested. That is the stage at which we are at the moment.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is standing in this House in the calm and deliberate way he has been schooled to do. Meanwhile, on Saturday afternoon there were workers who took the day to come to a meeting because they are frightened and scared about their futures. They have not seen their families in a long time. In some cases, they have bought homes depending on the future of UTDC and now see their life investment dwindling away.

If the Premier thinks some of the allegations we have made here, while factual, are in his view irresponsible, I tell him there is a bunch of frightened and scared people in Kingston, and not he, the local member or anyone from his office or UTDC has found his way to address those frightened and scared workers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Does he today give a complete and full undertaking, without being cute about the words, that all the information shared with Bombardier, which the Premier trusted it to keep confidential, will be shared with solicitors for the workers at UTDC, at VentureTrans, on a confidential basis to allow them to make an offer?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I forgot to answer a question earlier and I would like to do so. I have not received a telegram from Bob White. As far as I know, the staff is not aware of one. However, I will phone him this afternoon after question period, see if he has something in mind, and I should be very happy to meet with him and his representatives immediately.

To answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition, Bombardier has not received any confidential information and neither has anyone else at this point. As he knows, the process goes like this: there is a prequalification process in which serious buyers are separated from ones who are not. Then a deposit of some type or other will be put up and those serious people will be invited to look at the confidential information, which is engineering and that type of thing, confirming that what is held out to exist does exist.

Mr. Grossman: If the Premier has not given them any confidential information, why does he not give it to us? If it is not confidential, why does he not give it to us?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is because the member would not understand it.

Mr. Epp: The member had it for 42 years.

Mr. Rae: Forty-two years of arrogance does not justify another six months of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question with respect to private pensions. Is he aware that at the same time as his administration is refusing to consider the possibility of the indexation of private pensions for ordinary contributors, in 1984-85 his ministry approved the payout of $176 million to 70 currently active plans, to employers, which was money paid into the plans on a noncontributory basis on behalf of employees? Is he aware of those payouts and does he approve of them?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The payouts were made, and it does not make any difference whether I approve of them. However, I can tell the member the whole area of pensions is under review. We have the Pension Commission of Ontario doing it. We are working in conjunction with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). We are looking at that.

Mr. Rae: While the minister is looking at that, the ordinary person is being ripped off in spades and the minister is sitting there doing nothing about it. That is what is happening with respect to pension plans. How does the minister feel about the fact his government is refusing to index pensions at the same time as it is forking out $176 million to employers who have made those contributions on behalf of employees? Does the minister think money paid into a plan by an employer on behalf of an employee belongs to that employee or not?

Mr. Kwinter: Yes, I think it belongs to that employee and I am saying we are reviewing it.

Mr. Rae: If the minister thinks it belongs to them, why is he allowing the employers to take it out of their pockets legally? It is legalized theft and the minister is sitting there doing nothing about it. How can the minister sit there and justify refusing to allow indexation at the same time as he is allowing a ripoff of those surpluses which belong to the workers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I repeat that at present we are reviewing that situation and if it has some merit and justification, we shall adjust it.

Mr. Andrewes: That is a lesson in Economics 100.

Mr. Rae: The members of the Conservative Party sat there and did nothing about it for a generation so they have no right to speak on it at all. My God, they sat still and did nothing about it. We raised these matters with Dr. Elgie years ago and they did nothing about it.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question with respect to the insurance companies for which he has been such an avid advocate the last while. In his statement the other day he said, in addition to the excessive price competition that produced the so-called rate-cutting wars of the early 1980s, that I think most of us missed but nevertheless I am sure were of interest to those involved, the second cause of the crisis affecting the industry is what he described as low interest rates that have reduced insurance industry investment revenues.

Is the minister aware that in 1982, according to the latest Statistics Canada figures -- and these are third-quarter figures I am comparing -- total investment income was $279.5 million, in 1983 it was $292.8 million, in 1984 it was $325.3 million and in 1985 it was $343.8 million? I ask the minister, is $343.8 million more than $279.5 million or not?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member of the third party is using broad, overall insurance figures to justify his argument. He should be aware that of the approximately 150 insurance companies that are in business, only 20 are in the liability field and they are the ones having the major problems.

Mr. Rae: These figures I am giving the minister are from property and casualty insurers. Is he telling us that $343.8 million is less than or more than $279.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have already answered that it was more. I am saying that the people who are in the property and liability insurance business cover the whole spectrum of the insurance field. There is no problem at present with insuring one's home, articles or things of that kind. The problem is in liability insurance. That is the area that is a problem.

Mr. Grossman: When the minister is expressing concern about overall figures, does he not agree that one of the problems here is that the insurance companies may be overreacting to a couple of large settlements and projecting from those one or two large settlements the implications right across the board? Has he taken the opportunity to sit down with the insurance companies and ask them to moderate their increase because they may be overreacting to those two or three individual cases?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I met with the representatives of the Insurance Bureau of Canada this morning and we discussed exactly that problem. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) should know that when we are talking about these large awards, they represent fewer than one per cent of the awards. The big problem is that under the Family Law Reform Act and some of these other things, the basic awards are increasing dramatically. Those things are happening and they are creating some problems.

I have asked the task force and the insurance industry to take a look at what they are doing. They are going to examine it to see if that is the problem.

Mr. Swart: In view of the fact that there has been a substantial increase in interest income for the insurance companies and a substantial increase in net income -- their third-quarter net income this year is $137 million, up 30 per cent from the same period in the previous year and up 22 per cent from the previous quarter -- if the minister's intent is to go ahead with the silly task force that is only going to provide information he ought to already know, why does he not impose a freeze on the rates until that task force reports?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Under the existing legislation, the only control we have over insurance rates is on the Facility Association. Before we can impose any kind of freeze we have to bring in some legislation, and we are going to look at the task force recommendations and act on them.

2:40 p.m.

ROOMERS AND BOARDERS

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. The minister will be aware that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) undertook on December 11, 1985, at a meeting of the Rumours Group, which is a group of roomers and boarders in Toronto, to fight for the inclusion of roomers and lodgers under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Can the minister tell this House what steps he has taken in response to that commitment by the Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member will be aware that we expressed a concern about the protection of roomers and boarders in that respect. I am setting up a task force immediately to look into the problems that roomers and boarders face. It is not easy to bring in legislation unless we understand fully the implications of the problems they face.

Mr. O'Connor: The minister will understand that there are buildings in downtown Toronto containing apartments subject to the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, side-by-side with those containing rooms lodging roomers and lodgers that are not subject to the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act. These roomers can be thrown out on a moment's notice, without the usual notice, and their rents can be increased by more than the four per cent permitted for apartments.

The Attorney General gave a commitment that he would include those people under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Has the minister acted on that commitment? When does he intend to do so?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, we are concerned about roomers and boarders. We would love to have included them in our policy. We realize how serious the problem is and that it is not an easy one.

The task force will be looking at all the implications of that. I am not in a position to give an answer concerning the legal implications the member is asking about. If he wants to ask the Attorney General, he may do so.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure one of the reasons the minister was reluctant to include roomers and boarders under the tenant protection legislation was he was afraid of the historic opposition the Conservative Party has had to it. However, now this opposition has been lifted and the Conservatives are on side, and it is obvious all three parties agree that roomers and boarders are entitled to the same kind of tenant protection as any other tenants, may I ask the minister simply to prepare amendments that can be brought forward and passed ever so quickly -- unanimously, in fact?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can give the honourable member the assurance we will prepare legislation to include roomers and boarders. I take a view different from that of my honourable friend. I will include the members over there. They are very learned and very informed about what not to do, and I will ask them to give me that information.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have another question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In preface, I will say that after last week even he must have come to realize that the insurance problems I started to raise with him last August 26 and that he has ignored since then were very real.

Today I want to ask him about this horrendous problem as it pertains to the trucking industry. He will meet very soon with the Ontario Trucking Association, and it will ask for a loan guarantee either to purchase the United Canada Insurance Co. or to set up its own nonprofit co-operative scheme. Will the minister give, and I use these words advisedly, a favourable response to that request?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have told members in the past that the United Canada Insurance Co. is under negotiation. I had expected to meet with the truckers this afternoon at four o'clock. I have just been informed they have cancelled the meeting pending further information.

To answer the honourable member's question, I cannot tell him what I am going to do for them because they have not asked yet. I will give them every consideration, and when I meet with them I will do everything I can to help them.

Mr. Swart: The minister is just as vague on this today as he has been on a hundred other questions that have been asked of him in the last six months.

Is it not true that the minister has a letter from a Raymond Cope, the general manager of OTA, dated December 4, in which he made it very clear that they will approach him for a guaranteed loan? if so, will he now give this House the assurance that he will look with favour on that request?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I just said I would look with favour at their request. They have not asked for it yet. When they do, I will look with favour at it.

Mr. Gregory: I heard the minister's answer last week when I asked him a similar question in regard to United Canada. The member to our left seems to have got much the same answer I got, which was no answer at all.

Is the minister telling me his course of action for insurance for truckers is to depend entirely on the consummation of the sale of that insurance company? Does he not feel he has a responsibility to investigate other insurance companies handling this type of product, rather than depending on just one?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: At present there are three companies that provide insurance for truckers, the largest of which is United Canada.

In the meantime, we have made arrangements with the Facility Association to cover any trucker who requires it. We do not know what the resolution of United Canada will be. On Saturday, I spoke to Barbara McDougall, who is working on it, and we hope to have a resolution. Everybody agrees that if United Canada can be saved and can become a viable insurer, it will solve the problem. That is the area we are looking at.

In the meantime, when the people who are trying to buy it approach me, not only the truckers but also another group that is trying to buy it, we will look at their requests with favour and try to help them out. I cannot anticipate what I will do for them before they ask me for that help.

MULTICULTURAL GRANTS

Hon. Ms. Munro: In response to question of the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) regarding the amount by which requests for multicultural service program grants exceeded the available funds, the program was oversubscribed by $916,000. At the same time, I would like to point out that historically, requests have always exceeded the allocation. I am pleased that we have been able to serve, through this program alone, 76 organizations this year, as compared to 58 organizations last year.

TRADE OFFICE

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Muskoka.

[Applause]

Mr. F. S. Miller: My retirement is over.

In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), I would like to ask a question of the Premier. He received a letter from the mayor of Philadelphia and a letter from a senior representative of the House of the state of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Pilkey received a letter from the AFL-CIO, about the closure of the ministry's trade office in Philadelphia a scant year after it opened.

In view of the fact the budget of that office was about C$220,000 and in its first year it had $27 million in assigned-for sales in a state where we do $3.5 billion worth of mutual trade, why did the government close the office?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Would my honourable friend like the job? I might reopen it.

The member will be aware we have had several changes in the orientation of our trade offices. We closed the office in Brussels and the office in San Francisco, which was redundant with respect to the Los Angeles office, and we felt the Philadelphia office could easily be handled through New York and Boston.

We believe the limited resources for trade development should be put into new areas, particularly the Pacific Rim and some of the areas of the emerging world, where in the long term the taxpayers of this province will get a much better yield. That is why we made the judgement we made. We felt all the things being accomplished through that trade office could be accomplished through New York and Boston.

We have a number of offices in the United States, as the member knows. We will not miss anything. We will save money and be able to expand in other areas that will yield a much higher return over a long period of time.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. F. S. Miller: In a case where one has a market of $3.5 billion, $220,000 is not a big issue. I do not think it is either-or with the other eastern rim issues. If we look at the government's own policy of opposing free trade with the United States and the alternatives, we see one of the alternatives has to be to work to reduce nontariff barriers and gain access for Ontario and Canadian goods to the American market. That is the only viable alternative.

As the Premier knows, that office had been successful in seeing a Buy American act changed to a Buy North American act and easing problems with the steel industry. How can the government have two such contradictory programs, close an office and still oppose free trade?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, I think my honourable friend is oversimplifying this thing quite dramatically.

Part of our strategy is to put more emphasis on a multinational round. We believe one of the structural problems we have in Ontario, indeed our country has, is we are too dependent as a country on trade with the United States. Of course that speaks to the problems we have right now; that is why we are looking to some of the emerging areas of the world today.

Believe me, I am mindful of the responsibilities we have in Washington to put our case forward. I have been there, as has the member, to put forward the case eloquently. I am mindful of the problems in the steel area he speaks to, but I think we can accomplish all of that. With respect to the member's figure of $220,000, I take that seriously. I think we have an obligation to treat every penny of taxpayers' money with great respect.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier tell us the logic of closing that office at a time when we are not only attempting to deal with the problem which has been described by the member for Muskoka, but also when we are also attempting to convince midwestern American states, of which Pennsylvania is certainly an important component, to move with us not only with respect to trade issues but also on the environment, particularly as it affects the Great Lakes and as it affects acid rain?

What is the logic of that cut? Was the cut the consequence of some considered approach that came up with respect to advice that was given to him, or was it simply done as a whim at the very end of the budget process because the government felt it had to show it was being tough with respect to cuts and it took one here and took one there, because that is exactly what it looks like?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure the honourable member that is not the case. It was part of an overall strategy with respect to trade that I articulated a moment earlier in response to the member for Muskoka, because we do feel we have to put our resources into the areas that have the greatest potential over the long term.

Let me just mention another point. The leader of the third party suggested we should be lobbying on acid rain and other things. This was not a lobbying office. This was a trade office. If he is suggesting an Ontario House in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh or somewhere else to do that kind of thing, then so be it. These offices are essentially responsible for trade and unless we considerably increase the resources and turn them into lobbying operations, it is not going to happen that way. That is what our New York and Washington operations are for.

We have a lot more work to do in Washington than we have done in the past. There is no question about that, but I think the member will see that our strategy is relevant to the long term and the real opportunities of this province. We are concentrating on dealing with those fundamental problems rather than just patching it up here and there.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last July, the minister said that prior to the 1984 increases in the minimum wage the Tories had done nothing for three years, that this had put Ontario behind most other provinces and that it had also hurt those at the minimum wage because they did not get a retroactive settlement when there was an increase. As another 15 months have gone by since the last increase and we are again falling behind the other provinces, will the minister tell us what happened to his July commitment to bring an increase before cabinet before or by this past fall?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not sure my honourable friend is correct that we have fallen substantially behind a number of provinces. The only two provinces that are ahead of Ontario are Saskatchewan, which I believe is at $4.50 an hour; and Manitoba, which is at $4.30 or $4.35 an hour. The Quebec government has indicated it is reviewing its $4 an hour minimum wage and the federal government has recently moved to $4; I believe that was at the beginning of this month.

The matter of the minimum wage and its appropriate level is under review. In a number of meetings I have held with business and labour, the government found that one of the things requested, particularly by the tourism industry. was that we give industry some lead time. l am sure the member is aware that many tourist operations post rates for the coming tourist season well in advance, and we did not feel it was an inappropriate or unreasonable request.

Our review of the minimum wage is ongoing and is very active. I agree with his sense that more regular increases in the minimum wage would be appropriate, particularly as there is no retroactivity. Business agrees that more regular and smaller increases would be more useful to the small business community.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware that workers in Ontario would today need $4.35 an hour just to match what they were getting in 1981? As they are earning less than $8,400 a year, is he prepared to assist them with an appropriate increase and by indexation to ensure there is a small measure of fairness in the future?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend provides an interesting figure by going back to 1981. One can choose, as I am sure he knows, any appropriate date one wishes.

The matter of an increase is under review. I think the time frame for a review ought to be shortened to annually or thereabouts because there is no retroactivity. Obviously, these reviews would have to take place in the economic climate that prevails. As I am sure my friend knows, an increase that was inappropriately large or in a time of economic downturn could have a serious effect on jobs, particularly jobs for students, who in many cases are the main recipients of the minimum wage, and jobs for women, who represent two thirds of the minimum wage force.

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to hear the minister take into consideration the requests made of him by certain industries, including the tourism industry, about the question of lead time. It is a change from the position he took in the ministry estimates. When does the minister propose an increase and how much lead time does he propose to give those industries?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I suggested to the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that the matter is under active review. I believe the industry knows that. As recently as this morning, I met with representatives from Canada's Wonderland. When they arrived at my office at 9 a.m., they were well aware that the minister and the government had taken the view that a review of the minimum wage ought to yield some change at an appropriate point. Their view is that the change ought to take place in the fall.

I noted for them that the last time the previous government made a change, it made it in March 1984, to the tune of 35 cents, approximately a 10 per cent increase, followed by another 15-cent increase in October 1984. So there is no magic to the time of year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: However, the fall appears to be the one that is most favourable.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I am very pleased to see the minister has extended the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program; however, I would like to ask him a question. More than five months ago, he heralded the announcement of the OFFIRR program and stated it would help some 15,000 farmers immediately. The program has received a phenomenal amount of advertising and publicity from many different sources during that period. How does he account for the very poor uptake, the disappointing response from farmers to date?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Benefiting from my schooling in being calm, cool and collected, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the honourable member back to the Legislature. If indeed he was ill, I sincerely hope he has had a complete recovery. We did miss him, though.

In answer to his question, I will tell him that one of the reasons the farmers have not taken up the program to the extent we thought they would was the distrust farmers have for government programs because of option C of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, which the previous government introduced and which got many farmers into trouble.

I want the member to know the program has been far more accepted than any program the previous administration ever introduced. They never had 6,000 people apply for any program they introduced; we have had 6,000 people in five months apply for OFFIRR.

There are a number of other reasons the farmers have not taken up the program. One of them was a late harvest. As the member well knows, a lot of farmers were having difficulty getting their crops harvested, and when they are out with their combines they are not going to be spending a whole lot of time filling out forms, some of which are complicated. There is no question about that; some of the forms they have to complete are very complicated. We must have complete forms to ascertain how much money these farmers qualify for.

Those are the reasons the farmers have not been as quick to take up the program as I had hoped.

Mr. Stevenson: I am glad to be back in the Legislature this week. One cannot always plan the dates of deaths in one's family. If the minister was trying to be funny about it, believe me, it was not very funny.

It is quite true that the uptake so far is exactly 40 per cent of what the minister had hoped for five months ago. Would he not agree that if he had increased the staff in the local agricultural offices to work with farmers at a time of severe agricultural stress and assist with the completion of these forms, the number of applications would have been substantially higher than it is today?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, we do not feel we are that far behind in processing these applications. They are coming in, as I say, at a rate of 100 to 200 a day and we are expediting the process. I do not think we are the cause of the farmers not receiving their money to this point.

I have to correct the figure the member used. Never did I get up and say 15,000 farmers were going to be helped by this program. The figure has been 10,000 farmers. We have received applications from 6,000 over five months. That is not a bad average.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He will recall Bill 39, providing for the general election of the regional chairman of Hamilton West and for a majority of regional appointees on the police board, was passed on November 7 by this House without a dissenting vote and ordered for committee of the whole.

Will the minister tell us whether he will be proceeding in this session with the bill, as instructed by the House; and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I assure the honourable member that Bill 39 will be back before the House.

Mr. Allen: I thank the minister for that answer and for his assurance. I remind him and the House that in the regional vote on the referendum on that subject last fall, overall support for that measure was 77,259 to 13,836. The minister will certainly gain the plaudits of our region if he brings that back to the House, and I ask him only whether he can be a bit more precise about the date.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have spoken to the regional chairperson and I can tell the member only that Bill 39 will be back before the House. I cannot give him an exact date, but I hope it will be within the next six weeks.

Mr. Dean: I would like to be a little more precise about the intentions of the minister. I presume he fully realizes there are some downsides to what looks like a good, democratic suggestion. Has he actually considered fully the implications that such a move would have, not only in Hamilton-Wentworth but also in other regions of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can assure the honourable member that I have spoken to other regional chairpersons and that my ministry is open to any option or to any new mode of election or representation for regional governments. The responsibility rests with the regional municipality, and it should not be dictated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

EMERGENCY FACILITY

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Health. This party would like to try for the third time to get some answers from the minister about the situation at the Willett Hospital in Paris. Quite apart from the history of this issue, of which the minister is aware, he now has a letter endorsed by 34 doctors in Brant county that reads in part: "The situation at the Willett Hospital is now at total breakdown point and patient care is suffering."

I would ask the minister which of the following three courses of action he is going to take. Is he going to act on the recommendations of the Noonan report? Is he going to carry through with a public inquiry, as he promised to do when he was in Paris in October? Or is he going to do nothing and allow the situation to continue to deteriorate?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As the honourable member has said, I was at the Willett Hospital in October, at which time I indicated there would be a public inquiry. After I had visited that institution, it was brought to my attention that the local people wanted to work through and try to settle their differences in the community. I said I was very pleased they wanted to do so.

I have allowed them an opportunity. In fact, I have met not only with the past mayor of the town of Paris but also with the new mayor of Paris, both of whom requested that I allow the council an opportunity to work in concert with the board and with new board members to try to come up with a workable solution.

The problem that has arisen, I understand, is that I will be in receipt very shortly of a resolution of the council indicating it cannot come up with a local solution and urging me to go ahead with the inquiry. I am prepared to do that.

The letter the member speaks about comments on several things, including the fact that they disagree with the appointment of the head of the medical staff at Willett, and a number of other items have to be addressed that do not alone comment directly on the operation of the hospital.

Let me be very clear, however, that as soon as I receive word from the council -- and I understand it is coming -- that it has been unable to find a local solution, I will be prepared to move ahead with a public inquiry and to work along with the community under the auspices of that public inquiry to try to work out solutions to the difficulties in Paris.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: I thank the minister for his answer and I am very encouraged that he is prepared to look at a public inquiry. However, I would like to pursue the concern expressed by members of the Brant County Medical Association about the new chief of staff at that hospital. As best we can determine, the sole criterion for his selection was that he is a former candidate for the Liberal Party. Will the minister undertake to consult with the doctors on staff at the Paris Willett Hospital to ensure that a doctor is placed in charge of that hospital in whom the other physicians in the county have confidence, and not just some Liberal hack?

Mr. Andrewes: Patronage, the pork barrel; here it comes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The choice of medical staff was not made by this minister or by anyone from this government. It was not made by anybody connected with the Ministry of Health. It was made at the local level. I do not know how it was arrived at. I know there is some concern expressed about that person. I did not know that person was a former Liberal candidate. If he was, he showed obvious good sense.

I can tell the gentlemen who are concerned about politics in this matter that there are no politics being played with this. I have found, in consultation with the local member and with others, that one of the best people to work with to try to come up with a local solution to this problem is the former mayor of the town of Paris. I endorsed his promotion and appointment as a member of the board to help work in a reasonable, sensible and very community-oriented way to find a solution to that situation. I do not think anyone would use that appointment as an example of political patronage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to dismiss out of hand any indication that member would make that I am playing politics. I categorically deny that I had anything to do with the choice for that position.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: For the record, I would like the minister to be aware that another former Liberal candidate is telling people in Paris that he will be the new provincial appointee --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Andrewes: The barrel grows.

Mr. Bennett: Without any staves.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure we consider all members honourable. I challenge the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) to step outside the House and make the comments he made about the director of the Paris hospital outside the House.

Mr. Davis: Why does the member not sit over there and put a red tie on? The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is going to be leaving pretty soon.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VOTE RECOUNTS

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am sure the minister is aware that since the municipal elections in November, a number of recounts have resulted in changes in incumbency, have shown gross inaccuracies in the counting and have undermined public confidence in the municipal counting process.

Does the minister agree that where this has occurred, a municipal council should have the authority to do additional recounts where the outcome of the original votes is very close and where the municipal council deems it in the public interest to clarify the situation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am quite aware not only of the problems that were initiated in the past election but also of those that have been going on for a number of years. I have spoken to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to help me in improving the Election Act and I hope a task force including AMO will be presenting a full report on it very shortly.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet in the evening of Thursday, January 16, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. D. S. Cooke be substituted for Mr. Lupusella in the private members' debate on January 16, 1986, and that Mr. Lupusella be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence.

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. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to add my comments to the many that have been heard so far on Bill 54. Let me be very quick to admit that I do not have a full understanding of the pharmaceutical business, the chemical business or anything else; however, I do have a fair understanding of the relationship between my constituents in Mississauga East and their local pharmacists. This is where we seem to be --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the honourable member, but there are very large numbers of private conversations that seem quite firm and noisy. I do not know whether they are all necessary, but I ask the members to refrain from their private conversations and listen to the member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You should have spoken more slowly and the Liberals on the other side would have understood.

In any community, and mine is no exception, the relationship between a citizen and his pharmacist is not unlike the relationship between a citizen and his doctor. It is based on a feeling of trust between the citizen and the pharmacist. Otherwise, people could not go to pharmacists to get prescriptions and feel they were not receiving something that might be harmful. There has to be the basic trust that the pharmacist has the knowledge to prepare drugs. The citizen must have confidence in him.

I see this bill as being somewhat insulting to pharmacists in that it insinuates that they have been getting rich at the expense of the government and citizens. I do not think that is the case -- we do not meet too many millionaire pharmacists; there are a lot more millionaire realtors, I suppose -- but that seems to be what is coming out of this.

The most important thing that has come out of this debate is the realization that many pharmacists want nothing more than an opportunity to present their case to a standing committee of this Legislature. That has been the outstanding request I have received from all the pharmacists I have talked to in my riding. Many of my caucus colleagues have expressed the same thing, that the pharmacists want an opportunity to bring their concerns to the Legislature by way of standing committee, so they will know at first hand that somebody at least has heard those concerns.

Mr. Haggerty: The member was not listening. That is what the minister indicated in his speech.

Mr. Gregory: The member for Erie should know I have heard that.

3:20 p.m.

I have a letter from the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) in front of me which includes a list of the groups he sees as satisfactory to come before this committee. He goes on to say, "A total of six sittings would probably satisfy the time requirements of these groups in order for their comments to be heard and taken into consideration." That is fine and that is what the minister has suggested to his House leader. However, I am suggesting to the member for Erie that I do not see anywhere in this where an individual pharmacist is going to be included and allowed to come forward. I see many of the associations.

Mr. Haggerty: They said in the House it would revert to a standing committee of the Legislature for public debate.

Mr. Gregory: My argument is not with the member for Erie. My argument is not an argument at all. I simply request of the Minister of Health that he reconsider his rather rigid position and grant the same consideration to pharmacists that his government was ready to grant to the various boards of education on another bill.

I am not suggesting for one minute that the debate on the hearings on this bill should go on for ever or even for months. I am merely suggesting that the minister compile a list from each member of this House of the number of pharmacists who have requested to come forward on an individual basis or as a group of five or 10 -- who cares? -- and allow them to come forward and be heard before the standing committee. That is what is being requested.

Simply because the bill states that certain things are just and fair for the community, and supposedly for the pharmacists, the drug companies and everybody else, does not necessarily mean that is entirely so. Things were pointed out in the brief submitted by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. It came up with many questions and irregularities. I assume the member for Erie has read that. I hope he has. I read it with some interest and recognize that these people --

Mr. Haggerty: I am waiting for second reading to be completed so it can go to the standing committee.

Mr. Gregory: I am glad the member is filling in for the minister. Obviously, the minister does not feel it is worth while to listen to this debate. It is wonderful that he has the member for Erie to make his comments for him. Perhaps the member understands it better than the minister does; I do not know.

The brief from the Ontario Pharmacists' Association points out many concerns. Are we going to say: "You have concerns, but so what? We are not going to listen to you. We are not going to give you the opportunity to present them directly to a standing committee." Perhaps the minister and the House leader between them could agree to be a little less stringent and a little more open. I keep hearing about open government from that side of the House. It is some open government when they will not allow a very upstanding and reputable profession to come in and comment on a bill that affects its income.

Mr. Haggerty: No; the member is wrong about that.

Mr. Gregory: He says I am wrong. All I have is a letter --

Mr. Haggerty: The minister has indicated that as soon as there is second reading it will go to a standing committee of the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Erie will have his chance to speak.

Mr. Gregory: The member is proving a little difficult, but that is not unusual. I understand what he is telling me, that all we have to do is give it second reading and it will be referred to a standing committee. I was not born yesterday. I know that. It says that. However, it also says that the minister wants to limit those hearings to a total of six sittings. That could not be any more clear. It is over his signature. I assume it is the same Murray J. Elston who is the minister. He says. "A total of six sittings would probably satisfy the time requirements of these groups in order for their comments to be heard and taken into consideration."

To the member, in the absence of the minister --

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am here and I am listening.

Mr. Gregory: The minister is here now; very good. I will not repeat what I said. I am sure he was outside in the lobby listening carefully to my words. All that we on this side of the House are asking is that he be a little more open-minded and realize that the pharmacists are interested in making their case.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows that the reason the letter was written was because his people asked me to give a list of people I thought might be interested in being there.

Mr. Gregory: Can I assume from that --

Hon. Mr. Elston: He is absolutely misconstruing the whole content of the letter.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member might address his remarks to the chair and ignore the interjections --

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows the committee will be ruling on them in the manner it usually does.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: The minister is developing some very bad habits. One of them is that he refuses to listen to what anybody else has to say. This is not unusual from that side of the House. This so-called open government refuses even to listen to what a member is saying, never mind the pharmacists out there. They could not care less.

If the minister is listening at all -- and I rather doubt he is -- he would have heard me suggest to him that all that is required is for him to stand up in this House and say he will not limit the number of sittings of that standing committee on this bill. If he stood up and said that, he might find a little difference in the attitude over here. However, he is not ready to do it because he has made up his mind, notwithstanding this one letter listing the groups that will come to him, that six sittings will be enough. Those are not our words; they are his.

Obviously, I am not going to get any reaction from that minister on this. He is not going to budge from his position. That is fine. He is going to have to answer to the pharmacists, I expect.

The whole thrust of this bill, as I see it, is to discuss the value of medication in terms of costs only and not in terms of the therapeutic value of these drugs. I suppose that in health care some limits have to be put on the cost of any program. I can understand that and I am not suggesting for one moment that the present legislation is adequate in respect of what is being paid to the pharmacists. Maybe they are making too much; maybe they are not making enough. However, it bothers me when the only consideration the minister is ready to look at is the cost factor.

He is very quick to suggest that generic drugs are fine, even though I do not think any doctor or any pharmacist would guarantee that one so-called generic drug is identical in content to the original drug the physician wished to prescribe. There might be subtle differences.

I do not know and I am darned sure a patient does not know, particularly if he is elderly and, like me, has no training in pharmaceutical matters, chemistry or anything else. I do not know that the patient has the ability to judge that. He is totally dependent, but not on the pharmacist, because the pharmacist does not get a chance to state his preference. He reads the prescription from the doctor and then is bound, according to this act, to submit the lowest-cost drug. Never mind the drug that is going to benefit the person the most; cost is the only consideration.

I think the pharmacists individually or in small groups would like to comment on this to a standing committee; they would like to be heard. We give this opportunity to many other people. I keep hearing about the open Liberal government over there, where everybody is going to be heard. However, inherent in one of the most major pieces of legislation it brings in is the fact that they will not be heard unless they happen to belong to one of the select groups that I see in this letter. I guess if you belong to one of those groups you will be heard, or someone will speak for you.

3:30 p.m.

However, on this list I do not see any pharmacists whom I know from Mississauga, if in fact there are any from any other community. There are not. I will address the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) because he is probably the only minister in the room at the moment. What is so wrong with allowing people whose professions are now being attacked to come before a standing committee to state their case? Is there anything wrong with that? Not a darned thing. The minister agrees with me, I assume, and will use his vast influence with the Minister of Health to convince him he should say that. The minister is in agreement, is he not? He is not. He is not listening. He is off somewhere else.

Hon. Mr. Curling: No, I am listening.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The member should speak to the Speaker.

Mr. Gregory: I am speaking to the Speaker, but through him to the Minister of Housing, who is one of the few ministers in the House at the moment. The Minister of Health is there, in the back row.

Interjection.

Mr. Gregory: Why does the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) not go ride in his limo?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the member the member for Essex South is not in his seat. There should be no comments when a member is not in his seat.

Mr. Gregory: I am a little disappointed to note there is not one member of the New Democratic Party in the House. I can understand, in a way, that they are not listening to me speak, but it also takes away from the quorum. With the New Democrats not here, we probably do not have a quorum. There is not one, but I will not ask the clerk to look. They have trouble understanding anything at that end of the House anyway, so it is probably just as well they are not here.

Another point on the bill which disturbs me somewhat is that pharmacists are protected from any liability arising from a drug that is substituted. I do not wish pharmacists any ill will, and I agree they should be protected, but who is liable, whether by a misunderstanding of the prescription or whatever, if a pharmacist substitutes a drug and it does not do quite what the other drug was supposed to do; or, worse still, it does some things to the patient which should not be done? Who becomes liable then? I do not understand that. I guess the person who gets very sick or dies because of this happening becomes liable

Mr. Cousens: Or both.

Mr. Gregory: That is right. There is a tide of members flowing in.

That bothers me somewhat. If a person does not pick up the drug himself, and an elderly person might not always be able to get to a drug store by himself, he might have to send a messenger, a child, a son or daughter or whatever. Does that messenger become liable? I do not know. It does not explain it very well in the bill. If one has gone to a pharmacy for a drug for an elderly person and some drastic result follows, one could find oneself, as the delivery boy, liable for that. It is difficult for me, and it must be difficult for many other members in the House, to understand why that is so.

Is the minister convinced the inspection methods used with pharmaceutical manufacturers is such that the quality is so accurately inspected that we know every generic drug is exactly the same as the one prescribed by the physician? It would require some rather sophisticated inspections to guarantee that. After all, Star Kist has trouble inspecting its tuna cans, and it is hard for me to understand how one could analyse drugs so accurately.

It bothers me that nobody seems to be liable if somebody makes a mistake. Whether it was an honest mistake or not, there does not seem to be anybody responsible.

Another thing that bothers me is the clause about pharmacists having to fill the prescriptions as written. There is certain merit in that in many cases. A senior should not be subjected to a trip to the pharmacy every week to have a prescription filled, and I am not suggesting he should.

Some care should have to be exercised by a pharmacist filling prescriptions for six months at a time. There should be some guarantee that the patients being prescribed for are fully aware of what is required. We all know elderly people who feel good after taking a pill and think they will feel that much better if they take three pills at a time instead of one. I know someone who is capable of doing that.

That would happen more often if unlimited supplies of medication, narcotics and what have you are given, simply to save on prescribing fees. This seems to be a rather ridiculous way of saving money. We can save $4 if we double the prescription. My heavens, if we triple or quadruple it, we can save a lot more money. We can save $8, $12 and so on. It seems a little silly and a little dangerous.

I do not know whether my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) agrees that prescribing unlimited large quantities of pills is a dangerous practice.

Miss Stephenson: Yes, unlimited is dangerous, but thoughtful flexibility is useful.

Mr. Gregory: Okay.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister is not in his seat.

Mr. Gregory: That has been noticed.

Many senior citizens do go to doctors on a fairly regular basis. It is not unusual --

Mr. Cousens: Does the member go? He is at that age himself now.

Mr. Gregory: Not quite.

It is not unusual for a doctor to examine seniors and determine that a new prescription is in order. If they go often enough, they can get a lot of new prescriptions but they are not always very careful about getting rid of the old ones. There are cases where seniors are prescribed something to be taken three times a day and they go back to the doctor for something else and he says, "I will put you on this other prescription." The new drug has to be taken three times a day, but they continue taking the other one three times a day. In such situations senior citizens may be taking far too much in the way of drugs.

I do not think that is anybody's fault. It is just a case of the seniors not understanding that they should not duplicate unless specifically ordered to do so by the doctor. It adds to the confusion and to the problem if we have unlimited drugs, or filling the prescription as written, unless the doctor uses some care. I assume most doctors would and would not be giving unlimited supplies, but they might be giving larger amounts than are healthy for senior citizens.

There is a small problem with the bill, in that it seems to indicate the pharmacist can no longer take requests for prescriptions over the telephone. Seniors on the Ontario drug benefit plan would be required to see their doctor pretty well every time they had to have a renewal of their prescription. This does provide a hardship for seniors, depending on the state of their health. It could mean that many of them are put to some serious inconvenience if they do not have someone to help them or to go their messages for them.

3:40 p.m.

A lot of small points bother me about the bill. I am not suggesting for one minute that it is not in order to examine the situation of prescription drugs and the Ontario drug benefit plan, but I do think it is a little like swatting a flea with a mallet in this case. Perhaps we are going too far.

Let us find out -- not from me, a complete novice as far as pharmacy is concerned. I admit that. Would members not agree with me that I am a novice? I do not pretend to know anything about pharmacy, drugs or pharmaceutical companies, but there are people who do, and outstanding among them are the pharmacists of Ontario.

We all remember visiting the local pharmacy when we were kids. We went down there and he was a friend of the community. He was like the doctor. He was a little like the barber, whom I do not visit much any more.

The pharmacists are asking for nothing else, really, than the opportunity to make their case before the standing committee of this Legislature. That does not seem to me to be too unreasonable a request. I would agree that the minister has gone part of the way in suggesting it should be done. When we vote on second reading, it will go to standing committee. It is understood; I am not questioning that it has been done. What I am questioning is that we seem to be putting an arbitrary limit on it.

I know of 10 pharmacists in my own community who have requested an opportunity to appear before this committee. I am not suggesting for one minute that every pharmacist should have an individual hearing. However, these are intelligent people and I think they would have the good common sense, if given the right, to decide that the 10 pharmacists in Mississauga East -- or, in fact, all the pharmacists in Mississauga -- might well determine, say, three people who could represent them at the standing committee.

I do not think every pharmacist in Ontario is going to want that or that he should be given it; there is only so much time to do these things. However, to be arbitrary and say that only those organizations representing pharmacy, pharmaceutical companies or senior citizens shall be represented, and only by their spokesmen, is a little unfair. Some organizations do not always speak in total agreement with the majority of their members.

I am not suggesting this is true in any of these cases, but surely we owe it to ourselves in this House to hear what they have to say before we go ahead and ram through a bill with a very short public hearing period. We are being unfair to them, we are being unfair to the citizens and we are certainly being unfair to the spirit of free enterprise as we know it in Ontario.

I do not know if a vote is ever taken by the membership at large of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association to elect their spokesmen; maybe there is. However, it seems to me it is probably done by mail or by paper. One does not hear about very many pharmacists' conventions around. Maybe they do have them; I do not know.

What I do know is that when I go in to talk to an individual pharmacist, to pick up a prescription or to buy a package of cigarettes, he tells me he wants to be heard and he is asking for nothing else but that. He is not even suggesting that the minister should listen to him and make the changes according to his wishes. All he is asking is to have the chance to tell the minister the way he feels about certain things from a grass-roots perspective rather than on an organizational basis.

I do not think that is too unfair, and perhaps the minister, in thinking this over and in realizing that in order to live up to what has been expressed as the new open concept in government that we keep hearing about, should in that open concept grant this request --

Mr. Haggerty: The member is being repetitious now. He has said that three or four times.

Mr. Gregory: The last interjections by the member for Erie were repetitious, too. He has said the same --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member can carry on.

Mr. Gregory: The member does not listen hardly at all, never mind very often. The member says I am being repetitious and perhaps I am, because I think it is extremely important. It is probably one of the most important things that has happened in this House in these periods of sittings we have had ever since the new open government took over. I am hoping this new open government will start to see a little sense and realize that being open means that it listens to people. It cannot argue with that. Right? The member has agreed to listen to me. I am asking that member, through you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the pharmacists and give them a chance to tell him what they have on their minds.

Mr. Haggerty: Is that a question'? Should I answer it?

Mr. Gregory: No, it is not a question. I am asking him to use his good offices and his influence, and I know he is very influential over there in the front row. He must have a great deal of influence with the minister, so perhaps he will convince him to be a little less stringent, to be a little open-minded, to listen to these pharmacists and give them an opportunity to speak to him. I hope the member will do that.

I am quite sure the minister, in thinking about it, will come to that conclusion. He is going to realize that the only way he is going to get the bill through is if he agrees to listen to some people instead of being so rigid.

Having said all those intelligent things and having enjoyed the attention of the vast audience in the House or as the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) would say, "the half-vast audience in the House," I am sure my comments will be considered by the minister. I am quite sure he is going to stand up on his feet immediately after I sit down and grant that we will have hearings required by the pharmacists without any severe limitations being put on them. I suggest to him that would be the commonsense thing to do.

If I was involved in that open government over there as the Minister of Health, I would want to be open, as I always was. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) will say that as minister I was always open and ready to hear delegations. I did not put a limitation on them.

If the government members want this open concept of government to work, perhaps they should all encourage the Minister of Health to not be so rigid and to grant a little lenience to the pharmacists, who are doing nothing more than trying to act in the best interests of the citizens and trying to protect their profession from the undermining that is apparently taking place under this bill.

I have reached the end of my very interesting speech. I will now sit down and let somebody stand up who is going to continue on in much the same vein, I hope, or be even more interesting than I have been. I know that is hard to imagine. I do thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this time. While I am on my feet, I will congratulate the Minister of Health, in his absence, on his appointment as Minister of Health. I wish him well and I hope his version of open government changes a bit.

Mr. Cousens: I am following in this important debate on Bill 54. Before I begin my formal words, I want to compliment the Minister of Health for the support he has continued to give to the great riding of York Centre in the continuation of two important projects that have been close to my heart since I became an elected member in 1981.

Most recently, he was able to come into a very important situation in Richmond Hill in which there was a lack of funds to meet the ongoing costs of the hospital. It would have meant some 40 people would have been laid off had he not been able to find the money to balance the budget so the hospital could continue to provide the service. He was able to do that, and that is one of the important things he did. I have not had a chance to put it on the record that I appreciated his coming to the rescue of those people in Richmond Hill.

3:50 p.m.

It is unfortunate he had to do it under the duress of the press and through people such as myself bringing the issue to the fore so he had to do it under that kind of pressure, rather than having a system that would respond to the need when it was supposed to be done.

The second thing is that the Markham Stouffville Hospital is continuing, and the approval originally given by cabinet in June by the then Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), with the support of the then Chairman of Management Board, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), and those who saw this need to be a recognized, an important one for south York region, has also continued.

Mr. Haggerty: That was a lot better than closing hospitals, which your government did there.

Mr. Cousens: However, the approval for the Markham Stouffville Hospital was further ratified and supported by the member's government, and I am saying thanks.

I think it is important that we continue to have health care as one of the very fundamental needs of our society and we do not want to undermine this quality health-care system in this province.

It is not something that just happened overnight. It has taken years to build this system and make it what it is today. There are people in this province who take a great deal for granted. They know that when they call upon a pharmacist or their doctors, or when they need some kind of support mechanism for their health, it is there, and not only there but also in a quality way and one they can afford. That is why over the years we have developed in this great province a system of support for all our people that allows us to go ahead with confidence, knowing the mechanisms are there.

Some of the things that are missing have to do with the lack of preventive aids so people will take better care of themselves and be looking for ways to maintain their health and be vigorous and strong, through exercise, self-discipline, proper diet, etc. One of the groups within our whole province that has made this possible is our local pharmacists, a small group of health specialists who care about the people who come in and out of their pharmacies and who provide the kind of assistance and support that goes far beyond dispensing pills, serums and medicines.

It goes to the very heart of the needs of the people who come there, so a friendship and rapport develops that allows a person to know that his pharmacist, like his doctor, is one in whom he can confide, in whom he can trust and one whose advice is worth taking.

It is with great alarm that I stand here in support of pharmacists and others who are saying, "Is this part of our health care threatened by the decisions that are being taken by this House in the form of Bill 54, which could in the future affect the relationship that exists between patient and pharmacist?" Anyone who is going to do anything negatively or in any way hurt the health-care system should stop and make sure all concerns and considerations the public are raising have been aired and understood.

One of the reasons this debate is continuing is we want that full airing and a full understanding of all the ramifications of Bill 54 laid out so the discussion, even if it takes a little while, will at least mean no one will be surprised at the outcome. It will have been tabled in a proper and true way. This has been the process in the past in this House.

Perhaps the member for York Mills might be able to help me on this one, but I can think back a few years ago when there was a bill Dr. Elgie brought in that had to do with human rights. I think it was Bill 7. It was 1982 or 1983. There was a long debate about the effects that would have. When the bill was first tabled in this House, there was an outcry such as I had never heard, as a new member of this Legislature, because people said: "The province is being arbitrary. It is going to do things that are going to take away a person's rights." In his wisdom, Dr. Elgie said: "Put it in committee.

Let committee deal with it and go over all the facets that are bothering people. Let the people come and lay their concerns on the table."

They did, and the legislators of this House sat through many long days in the summer to hear the people of Ontario before finally coming up with a number of amendments.

The process is not to say, "We will listen"; but it is if one listens and then does something with what has been heard to change the law to make sure it truly reflects what the people of this province want. That is the process, a process that allows for dialogue and allows all points of views to be tabled. Then, with the wisdom of all the combined research people have been able to deliver, we as legislators are able to arrive at a consensus and are able to accept a point of view that allows us at least to arrive at a compromise that meets the needs of our whole community.

Why would the government be afraid of such a process now? Why are the Minister of Health, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and those on the opposite side of the House not prepared to have that dialogue? That is a fundamental and historic precedent the previous government ensured and guaranteed through its actions, a tradition that allows for participation by the people of this province in the important and ongoing changes of legislation, so there is no arbitrary dictatorship that allows a single-minded purpose to be pushed through. It allowed for true participation.

Mr. McGuigan: It was studied to death.

Mr. Cousens: No. The bill I am referring to, the one brought in by Dr. Elgie, was not studied to death. It was studied for three to five months, brought back to the House and the amendments carried. The initial outcry that was raised was addressed and resolved through that discussion and dialogue. Out of that came a bill that now is history and people do not remember it. I am one of them. However, I remember the process. I remember that when people had a concern, they knew their concern would be listened to.

I am at the point where I do not have a point of view on Bill 54. I am not a pharmacist. A number of pharmacists in my riding have expressed to me their concern that the government is going to railroad this legislation through. I believe in railroads if it is a matter of getting somewhere, but the kind of railroad we are talking about is one that is going to take us into a stone wall; it is going to take us nowhere.

This has ramifications that have not been fully explored and discussed. Because of that, I would like to see more dialogue and discussion. I am reflecting the kind of concern that comes from Daniel Kohn, a pharmacist who sent me a telegram. He says: "Proposals on Bills 82 and 83 will affect all aspects of pharmacy. Serious public study is required immediately. These bills must not be railroaded through Legislature, but must go to standing committee."

He has discussed this further with me. He is asking me, "Please see what you can do to allow our concerns to be aired, and not to be aired through the way the minister is about to do it."

Another pharmacist, Larry Blumenfeld, says: "We must insist that no bill be arbitrarily enacted. Entire drug benefit program in jeopardy. OPA has our support and are willing to negotiate a fair settlement. The choice is yours."

The choice is the government's. It could do something about the concerns people are talking about. Please discuss it and allow it to be aired. This is not a dictatorship, or is it? Is this open government, as open as it says it is, or is it a government that is going to say, "Do it my way or not at all"? The pharmacists are saying: "Do not do that. We are prepared to negotiate."

The history of the former government was one of negotiation, and those negotiations sometimes took longer than what we are talking about today.

Mr. Haggerty: It took quite a length of time and you fellows did not settle it. That is the problem.

Mr. Cousens: I wish things could be settled more quickly. The same thing happened with the Wellington teachers not long ago. The negotiating process has to be taken to the nth degree before one arbitrarily enforces a settlement. I think the same thing is true with the professional body of the pharmacists. One does not arbitrarily try to solve a problem. One negotiates, talks, has dialogue, listens to them, gives and takes, and through that a compromise develops.

4 p.m.

The one thing that comes through in this debate is that some people would paint our side, or one side, as being good guys or bad guys. That is wrong. All 124 members of this Legislature are here to serve the people of Ontario. The most important people out there are the men, women and children who know we are here to serve their needs. They know that we in the Legislature are not just concerned with pushing things through; we are pushing things through that are in their best interests. That is why we are here.

When we look around, we see people who carry heavy burdens of responsibility for their constituents. They are doing it out of a sense of dedication and love for the people of Ontario. As we face up to Bill 54, we are not taking sides with anyone. We are saying, "Let us make sure that all the concerns that are obviously still being felt by the people who are writing to us have been faced up to."

I have a telex from Mr. Jelski, who owns Mackenzie Pharmacy in Richmond Hill and who is a very outstanding citizen in our community. He has written to me, "Pharmacy legislation cannot proceed as written." I am sorry he said "cannot proceed." He does not know that what can happen right now with the minister's bill is that it can go as written. I think what he means to say is it should not proceed as written. "Major flaws. Massive study and consultation needed. Halt passage of this ill-conceived injustice to all concerned."

He is someone whose business has been to serve the people of Richmond Hill in my riding on Yonge Street just north of Major Mackenzie Drive, a street named after a legislator who sat in this House representing the same riding I do, Lex Mackenzie, and who walked that street and talked to the people of Richmond Hill. People still have a trust that their member is going to serve their needs, as did Don Deacon and Alf Stong after him. They are good people. I am sure if they were here they would be sharing in the concern that Jelski raises in his telegram: "Halt passage of this ill-conceived injustice to all concerned."

He is concerned, not only for himself as a pharmacist but also about the people who come to him and trust him. He is concerned about the long-term effects the legislation can have on pharmacists across the province. He does not know that unless this House begins to rethink its position through an open, public debate that allows all the concerns to be expressed, the major flaws will stay in the bill. They will haunt this government and all legislators if we do not do something to face up to them.

How can anyone come into this House and not want to do a proper and good job? We will not be doing that job for the people of this province if we allow the legislation expressed in Bill 54. When I get to Bill 54, I will go through it

section by

section to expose the flaws I see inherent in it, which are the flaws that are causing us to be continually concerned. We will not rest until they have been solved.

I have a telegram from Fenton Drug Mart, dated November 20, addressed to "Mr. Donald Cousens, Room 472." He does not realize they have moved us around since we had our offices in this building. We are now over in the Whitney Block, but that is another matter I would like to address some day. He says: "The proposed legislation is unnecessary, unfair and unacceptable. Must consider OPA and individual pharmacists' input. Legislation will be devastating to all aspects of pharmacy."

Do people come along and write telegrams to people just to till in their time, to relax and do nothing? Eddie could answer that question. The answer is no. They are doing it out of a sense of concern and compassion, not only for their own interests but also for the interests of the people they are trying to serve.

The proposed legislation is unnecessary. Do members know why it is unnecessary? It is because there is another way to deal with the people in this province than through the arbitrary push tactics that we have in Bill 54. It can be done through continuing dialogue and continuing discussion. That is why it is unnecessary, and Mr. Fenton is right when he says so.

It is unfair because it does not consider all the aspects and all the ramifications of this bill for all the people of the province and for all of the industry that is involved in it. It is unacceptable for a variety of reasons that we will get to as we continue to discuss this bill in this House today.

I have a telegram from two other local pharmacists, Safin Bandali and Rebecca Ho: "We ask you not to pass any legislation regarding pharmacy without any communication with the pharmacists." They too are saying: "Here it is. Someone is making a decision again that is going to affect our livelihood and our business, and we have not been consulted."

It seems that in our world today, in this democracy in Ontario as we now have it, more confidence is being placed by some people in what the government can do than in what the free enterprise system can do. That is an inherent flaw in the thinking behind a bill like this. Where is the balance that once existed that made for an environment in which business could prosper at the same time as government made the rules and regulations?

Go back to the days of our forefathers, who came here for freedom. The freedoms that once made this land so great are being eroded gradually as government intrudes further and further into the enterprise that business is all about. The freedoms we once took for granted are being placed in the hands of government officials and of regulators; government then imposes regulations upon the free enterprise system. The day when I and many of the people on this side of the House sit back and accept that is a day when this House will cease to represent all the people of Ontario.

Many of the people of this province like to have dialogue and communication. That is why we are presenting the view that there is still time for Safin Bandali and Rebecca Ho to know that their communication to me through their telegram not only has been read but also has been listened to, understood and acted upon. That time is now. A nod from the honourable minister in the right way -- I like the nod I just got, but I would like a little bit more -- and I will know, either by the sound of the rattle or by the emphasis he is giving, that he is truly behind us.

I have another 150 telegrams I would like to read, but I am going to touch on just a few more so members can get a feel for the flavour of some of them. This one was sent to the Minister of Health; it is from R. Huebel, pharmacist-manager of the Olde Towne Pharmacy in Thornhill. However, because not everybody has received it -- the minister received it, but the House has not necessarily had the opportunity to review these comments -- I would like to take the few moments it will take to read the few words he has sent along:

"I am writing this letter in regards to the two bills in the Legislature:

"1. The Ontario Drug Benefit Act, 1985;

"2. The Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, 1985.

"These bills as presented are totally unfair to the pharmacy profession and are a serious threat to the continued standard of health care in Ontario. A responsible and competent attitude must be adopted by all parties concerned before any further development takes place in this regard.

"Yours truly, R. Huebel."

4:10 p.m.

The standard of health care is the point that this telegram is raising. The pride the people of this province have enjoyed for a long time, for at least the past 42 years, that there was someone who cared honestly and wholly and completely about their needs, has allowed us to develop a quality standard for health care in Ontario. Now these very people are alarmed that those standards might disappear and that it is not important that we have that quality still in place.

Let us talk about it. Let us allow ourselves to continue to think about the ramifications this bill could have. Bill 54 has upset them. Pharmacists know about it because they are part of an association that shares information and they are dispensing drugs every day. Their livelihood is wrapped up in it; so their association is able to communicate with them.

The tragedy is that many people in the province do not begin to understand the problem because of the media. It may not be an important issue to the media, so it is not covered and discussed as fairly as one might expect it to be. People know, however, that if we in the Legislature are aware, something can be done about it; they trust us to do that. They take for granted that the system may not have informed them of everything that is going on, but they trust the fact the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), the member for York Mills, the member for St. George (Ms.

Fish) and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), who are all sitting in this House now, are going to be responsive to the immediate concerns that exist within their ridings and within every dimension of the province and will speak up accordingly.

I have a telegram from another constituent, again written in the latter part of 1985, sent to the place I used to be. I liked it when I was in this main Legislative Building, before we had to move across the street, but none the less they will continue to send mail here for quite a while.

Miss Stephenson: Just as long as we get roller skates.

Mr. Cousens: We need roller skates, and we need to get our mail on time. Half the time it takes me a few more extra days before I get my mail.

Here is a telegram from T. Garden, who has a bachelor of science degree in pharmacology: "I strongly urge that serious public study of proposed bill be undertaken. Do not rush through without proper consideration." If only we could live up to his expectations.

In the past, when constituents came to me and asked for assistance, I said, "Yes, I will do my best," and I had the inner feeling that I would be able to do something for them with my best. Now I have a fear that nothing will happen, in spite of my genuine and deep concern about the needs of the people in my riding, because the railroad across the way is going to push through legislation that does not have, within it, time for due and proper consideration.

It is not unlike a person who is head of a family or household. When teenagers or young people want to do something different from what we want them to do, the old-fashioned way might have been to be very arbitrary and say, "No, you do it my way." In the household I am part of and share with my wife, we like to sit down with our young people and review with them the options and possibilities. Through that it is sometimes necessary to force a decision, but I like the fact that we are able to discuss things with them, go through all the various pros and cons and then when we are finished, arrive at a conclusion in which at least we all understand all the facts.

That is what I call a good process. It shows respect for others, an understanding on the part of one to hear the others out and to know all their thinking and concerns; then we are able to do what is right, having considered their point of view, which is important as well. Why not have the same kind of luxury for pharmacists in Ontario who are asking for nothing more than that chance to be listened to so their industry can be understood?

I hope we are successful for Mr. Garden. I hope the Legislature will pause and consider his concerns. When the minister is reviewing his notes for his speech when this bill is fully debated, I hope he will acquiesce to their concerns and allow that consideration to be held.

I have another telegram, from Russell Cohen, a pharmacist who lives in Thornhill. He has sent this message to the Minister of Health, who will maintain his honour as long as he does something with the full public hearing of this bill. Mr. Cohen says: "A serious public study should be undertaken of proposed Bills 54 and 55. It is critical to postpone the January I implementation date." I am not sure how that got settled, but he is at least searching and hoping someone like myself will be able to assist in that continuing dialogue.

I have another telegram, from Howard Borden, a resident of my riding whose practice of pharmacy is in Metropolitan Toronto: "I as a pharmacist insist Bills 54 and 55 not be pushed through the Legislature. They require serious public study and negotiation with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. The level of service by the pharmacist to the public must be upheld. Do not act without consultation."

They continue. I do not know whether I should continue to read the great number of telegrams I have. I am concerned that in so doing I am taking up valuable time in the House. I do not desire to do that because of the amount of time that has to be spent on this larger issue. I would like to continue to go through the bill and allow us to consider some of its different effects. I will go through it

section by

section so we will be in a position to be apprised of the concerns I am trying to raise.

Many people are not as aware as are the members of this House of what the explanatory notes describe.; they give an indication of where the government is going to go with this bill. The bill's explanatory notes state in part:

"This act provides a legislative framework for the Ontario drug benefit plan" -- I see it as a framework that will be made of steel and iron, with no chance for any movement on the boundaries; it will lock in all the pharmacists "under which the minister pays operators of pharmacies, physicians and suppliers of substances for supplying prescription drugs and substances free of charge for certain classes of persons, including senior citizens and welfare recipients."

4:20 p.m.

Under this legislation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council will have tremendously large powers in making regulations. He might start exempting, including or changing some of the guidelines that were part of the original legislation this bill was to amend.

What we are seeing is the danger zone for senior citizens, who were one of the primary concerns of our government when we were the government, and for welfare recipients, who were being looked after properly, fairly and fully and their rights not being abrogated. I believe that and know it to be a fact. This legislation can come along and tamper with the important safeguards our government brought about in times past.

What we see in the explanatory notes is, "The act gives broad discretion to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations." What are we here for as legislators if we go and give all the decision-making power to the Lieutenant Governor in Council? What are we doing here if we do not ask and search for the opportunity to participate in what is going to happen to that important component of the health care system of this province?

It is not our desire to give up that responsibility easily, especially when this bill will take away and erode an important part of the fabric of the health care system this province has come to enjoy. The Lieutenant Governor in Council will "make regulations concerning, (

a) what prescription drugs and substances are to be listed under the act" -- I think that is similar to what we have now -- "(

b) who is to be eligible for the benefits under the act; (

c) how much the minister will pay for the supplying of drugs and substances under the act; and (

d) what charges, if any, may be made directly to eligible persons." I am going to deal in some detail with the concerns I have about these parts of the regulations.

It also says: "The act provides that subject to the regulations, operators of pharmacies and physicians may charge the minister, but no one else, when they supply listed drugs for eligible persons. There is provision for the minister to agree in writing with an operator to pay an amount different from that in the regulations." Can the House believe he will do that? I see the members chuckling. We know he will not.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is no different from what we had before.

Mr. Cousens: At least there was trust in who we had before compared to who is there now. There is a new degree of distrust.

"The minister is given discretion, if a physician says it is necessary, to allow a nonlisted drug supplied for a particular eligible person to be treated as if it were a listed drug."

That is one of the fundamental flaws of this legislation. Who are we, as nonmedical practitioners, to make decisions that can have a life-or-death effect on the recipients of these products? I would not want that power. I would not want to be in a position to say that I have hurt someone through the decision we are making here.

We come to the last part of the explanatory notes. "Offences are created for contravening a provision of the act or regulations and maximum penalties of $10,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a corporation are imposed."

It could become a police state. If they are going to have every pharmacist who does not follow every rule and every regulation -- do members realize what is happening? A regulation is not developed in the Legislature specifically to deal with a law or an enactment. It is something that someone across the street comes up with. They develop the idea of what a regulation is going to be. Someone in the civil service, in the Ministry of Health, says: "There is a regulation I like. It is a new one.

Let us put it in." Penalties such as $10,000 for an individual or $50,000 for a corporation can become a new source of revenue for the government. The concerns of the people of this province are substantial and should be addressed by this House.

I have no trouble with

section 1, although when we talk about what an inspector is, I wonder how many inspectors we are going to have. Are we going to have thousands of inspectors? With the new police state that is going to have the right to charge so much in penalties, there might be all kinds of inspectors.

Maybe we should spend some time talking about what is a listed drug and not a listed substance. " `Listed drug' means a drug designated as a listed drug," and " `listed substance' means a substance, other than a drug, designated as a listed substance." Who does the listing? That is the concern. The listing is not done by the association or the health care field; it is done by the bureaucracy.

So the bill comes forward and, like many of the bills that have become the history of government in Ontario for the last number of years, it talks about regulations made under the act. I worry about the number of regulations we will soon see in the health care field and about the number of people who are going to be coming out with more and more government enforcement, government ideas of changing the culture, the environment and the world that the province has come to take for granted.

Yes, we are living in a regulated world. We regulate the rents of people, we regulate the amount of income a landlord can make, we regulate the amount of increase he comes across with; and out of that regulation we have a cutback in the number of units being built and we start having intrusion in the free enterprise system.

I oppose the proposal being brought in by the minister because I see it as an expansion of government intervention, control and regulation, which undermine the free enterprise system that I think can make this province, and has made this province, a very strong, economically viable unit in the Dominion of Canada and in North America.

There is regulation at all levels. We are seeing regulation of the fishing industry. We see regulation of every area.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We are going to regulate all the Tories.

Mr. Cousens: They are hard to regulate. The Conservatives are about as hard to regulate as any group the minister would ever find, but that is the strength of the Conservative Party in that there is open discussion and dialogue on all issues. Then when it is over, once a consensus has been arrived at within our caucus, we accept it; we work together to achieve it. Why can we not do the same thing in this House again? It was done before and it worked. It was a way of allowing the whole community to be involved in the lawmaking process.

Mr. Runciman: Back in the days of good government.

Mr. Cousens: Back in the days of good government. They can come back even now and the word "Honourable" in front of the name of the Minister of Health will mean something.

I am going to skip to

section 4 of the bill, because

section 4 of Bill 54 prohibits pharmacists from charging or accepting payment from an Ontario drug benefit customer. While welfare recipients cannot afford to pay extra for their drugs, many senior citizens can. However, even if these individuals would prefer a more expensive brand of drug than the one covered by the ODB and if they could afford to pay the price difference or all of the cost, this

section would prohibit it. The pharmacist must either refuse to grant the request or lose money in providing the customer with his preference.

If a drug is not listed in the Ontario drug benefit plan and if a physician wishes to prescribe the product to a patient, he must get the minister's approval. The minister is not even in the House right now. How are physicians going to get his approval if they cannot reach him, cannot phone him and cannot touch him?

How soon do members think that is going to happen, especially if something happens where a drug is going to make a difference? A decision has to be made. How quickly will it be made? How fast can they be? This could prove to be a somewhat onerous procedure if the patient were seriously ill. We have to put the people of the province first, not legislation and not regulations. Those laws are to uphold the very fabric and being and purpose of our province.

Subsection 4(1) of the bill says: "No operator of a pharmacy shall charge, or accept payment from, a person other than the minister in respect of supplying a listed drug for an eligible person pursuant to a prescription, unless a charge or payment is authorized by the regulations."

Those regulations will give him all kinds of loopholes. He can go in any direction because he has someone writing a regulation to protect him.

When it comes to our health care, which comes first: the person who needs the care or the regulation? I think we are going to end up having the regulations supersede the importance of the needs and rights of people in this province.

It says, "No physician shall charge, or accept payment from, a person other than the minister in respect of supplying a listed drug for an eligible person...unless the charge or payment is authorized by the regulations."

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, coming from the Ombudsman's office, you would have a greater appreciation of what a socialized state is all about as we move into this government control over everything, or this other system that allowed for a balance of government to prepare the environment for business to prosper. What we are moving towards here is government domination. There will not be an area in this province that is not controlled, or moved, or motivated except by government regulation or government money.

The bureaucracy, instead of getting smaller and more efficient as it did over the past several years, will end up burgeoning and growing. The money it will spend will increase and the level of service will go down.

That has to be alarming. It has already alarmed enough pharmacists and people who are starting to ask: "Can we do something to stop it? Can we not at least have a chance to review its effect on our industry?" There is still time that the minister could respond to our request.

I want to refer to

section 6 of the bill. If a drug is not listed in the Ontario drug benefit plan and a physician wishes to prescribe the product to a patient, he must again get the minister's approval. Since

section 6 --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I call for a quorum. We do not have a quorum.

Mr. Cousens: I am prepared to go without a quorum because those three members are not listening anyway.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin) or