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

June 18, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L034 - Wed 18 Jun 1986 / Mer 18 jun 1986

ROLE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISASTER RELIEF

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

DISASTER RELIEF

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMAN'S ISSUES

VENDING MACHINES

EXTRA BILLING

VISITOR

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DECADE OF DISABLED PERSONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MULTICULTURALISM AND CITIZENSHIP

EXTRA BILLING

ABORTION CLINICS

TECHNOLOGY FUND

ILLITERACY

RENT REVIEW

EXTRA BILLING

FOOD LAND PRESERVATION POLICY

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

EXTRA BILLING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

INSURED SERVICES UNDER OHIP ACT

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT

RENFREW VICTORIA HOSPITAL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

EXTRA BILLING

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ROLE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: An

article appearing this morning in the London Free Press makes this the first opportunity for me to raise this point of privilege. The

article says in part at the beginning:

"Oxford Tory MPP Dick Treleaven will be fired as the Legislature's Deputy Speaker if he filibusters defending extra billing, NDP House Leader Ross McClellan (Bellwoods) warned Tuesday.

"McClellan said the New Democrats and Liberals will team up to oust Treleaven if he delays the proposed Bill 94 to ban extra billing by doctors by filibustering for two days...."

This is a classic point of privilege, an occurrence of contempt for the Legislature. An attempt is being made to stop me, the member for Oxford, from debating in the Legislature on behalf of my constituents. The said newspaper

article and previous and other comments of the government House leader and the House leader of the New Democratic Party, with threats of strong sanctions being taken against me if I debate Bill 94 in this chamber, constitute an attempt to intimidate me and deprive me of my rights in this Legislature and deprive my constituents of their rights to have a free and unfettered member of the Legislature represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest you find either (

a) that this is a prima facie point of privilege and refer this entire matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly or (

b) that this constitutes a point of privilege and that the two said House leaders are in contempt of parliament and that they be brought in front of the bar of this Legislature forthwith and dealt with by this Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: Before I am brought to the bar of the House and presumably hung, drawn and quartered thereafter, I want to speak to the point that has been made by -- and I stress this -- the Deputy Speaker of this Legislature.

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Oxford made that statement from his place in this Legislature, and at that point he is not the Deputy Speaker. That fact seems to have escaped the NDP House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) has illustrated the nature of the dilemma that is before all of us in this House. As the member for Oxford, my friend is perfectly entitled to do whatever he feels he must do to represent his constituents. If that includes filibustering on Bill 94, and I believe he was the one who indicated to the media that he intended to speak at length on Bill 94 and on other matters in order to make points that were important to him and his constituency, he is entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to do that as long as he is the Deputy Speaker of this Legislature. It is as simple as that.

The member for Oxford is going to have to choose whether he is prepared to set aside some of his partisan concerns to serve this House as its Deputy Speaker. If he is not able to do that, then he has no choice. If he insists on representing his partisan concerns in a vigorous way, he has no choice but to resign his office as Deputy Speaker. If he does not understand that, then I have indicated, as far as our party is concerned, we will insist that he stand down.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very concerned at the point the member for Oxford has raised. Concern has been expressed by a number of members after the news report that the honourable member was prepared to hold up legislation on the basis of his strongly held views on a matter of important controversy in this House. I would be the last to deny him the right to speak or even to hold up the business. Any private member of a political party has to use whatever capabilities he has in that regard. But I bring to his attention page 240 of Erskine May, which sets out the special responsibilities for a person who has the responsibility of Deputy Speaker.

In Erskine May, dealing with the Parliament at Westminister, the Deputy Speaker is referred to as the Chairman of Ways and Means. It says as follows on that page: "Impartiality. The Chairman of Ways and Means during his occupation of that office follows the same tradition of abstention from party controversy as the Speaker."

There are other things to be said there. I would be the last and no other member in this House would want to deny the honourable member every right that is his and that of every other member to take

part in the debates and discussions. But if it is his decision to use whatever abilities he has to hold up legislation or perhaps to use the threat of that to change legislation, in my view, it is not consonant with his duties as Deputy Speaker. I do not see how he can do both. The choice is with him. It is completely unfair to make a choice like that the responsibility of the other members of the House.

Mr. Treleaven: I would like to reply --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I suspect what we are debating here is a lot of "what ifs" --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are not debating.

Mr. Harris: We are not debating? Okay. Could I enter in and offer some comments on whatever we are doing?

We are into an area of "what ifs." There are many "what ifs." The member in question has an obligation to his riding and an obligation as an MPP when he is not performing his duties as Deputy Speaker. As Deputy Speaker, he also assumes the role of Chairman of committees of the whole House. In that role, he has refrained from entering into any discussion during the committee stage.

If the members want to enter into "what ifs" -- and when I conclude I suggest we do not, but since others have perhaps I should -- there are many precedents throughout democracies and parliamentary systems, in Canada, in the United Kingdom and here in Ontario, where Deputy Speakers have on second reading, on readings other than in the committee of the whole House, entered into the debate and offered comments in their role as representatives of ridings. I suggest there are ample precedents for that, and if the "what if" comes about, obviously we will be pointing that out.

A lot of the discussion right now is in a realm we have not yet addressed. As I understand it, the member's point of privilege dealt with some discussions of a member of this Legislature with the media, and I suggest we stay within that, if indeed that is a point of privilege.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has had an opportunity to raise the so-called point of privilege. I have listened very carefully to all the comments, and all members are certainly aware that we operate here according to the standing orders and the usages and precedents of parliamentary democracy here and throughout the Commonwealth.

As the member for Oxford has stated, this is a matter in reference to another member of this House. I believe such a matter could be dealt with internally within this House, and if any member is not satisfied with the way any presiding officer, myself included, operates, any member has the opportunity to present a substantive motion by way of want of confidence in that individual. It would be my view that is the way this matter should be dealt with.

I do not feel I can consider it a point of privilege at the moment with the information I have before me.

2:11 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Wiseman: As all members are aware, a tornado lashed through the province Monday evening, leaving in its wake an estimated $4 million of devastation in eastern Ontario. Just over a year ago, a storm of a similar nature destroyed a

section of the city of Barrie. At that time, the previous government responded quickly and compassionately to aid the victims of that tragedy. Once again, disaster has struck. Although the magnitude of the destruction may not be as severe, the very real loss and human suffering are equally as great. The efforts of the cleanup and the individual cost of reconstruction remain the same.

I have already received pleas for help from residents of my riding, and I know there are countless others, including those from areas held by members of cabinet, who are relying on our support. I urge the present government, through the cabinet, to move as quickly as possible to give serious consideration to once again assisting nature's victims.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Charlton: It has been a year since the Liberals took office, a year of loud Liberal silence on the future of Darlington. Before the election, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said on numerous occasions that Darlington was a colossal mistake and should be cancelled.

In April, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) told the select committee on energy he would be making a statement on Darlington soon. It is our understanding the government's decision on the future of Darlington has been made, but that statement has never been made in the House because of the unfortunate incident at Chernobyl making the statement politically unwise.

Instead, it would seem the government would prefer to wait for the committee to recommend a continuation of Darlington so that the decision, which has already been made, will be made first by the committee. Since the Liberals hold the balance of power on the committee, the decision will be made according to government direction. The government has made a de facto decision to continue Darlington but refuses to have it disclosed publicly.

Since they assumed office almost a year ago, almost $2 billion has been spent on Darlington. In fact, rather than slowing Darlington, in many respects it can be seen that Darlington has been speeded up over the course of the past year. At a time when almost every country in the world is reviewing its nuclear program, particularly questions of nuclear safety, it would appear we are proceeding to head for 70 per cent reliance on nuclear energy in Ontario. This is not a balanced energy future.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Mancini: I want to inform the members of the House of the immediate assistance offered by the Ontario government to the people of Jamaica as a result of the severe damage caused by a tropical storm that hit the island two weeks ago. This is in keeping with this province's tradition of providing relief assistance in cases of disaster.

We responded extremely quickly in this instance. In fact, 110 cases of canned goods accompanied Prime Minister Seaga on his return trip to Jamaica on June 7, following his private visit to Ontario. It was during this visit that the Prime Minister of Jamaica informed the Ontario government, through a conversation between himself and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), of the disaster that took place in Jamaica.

Members will be pleased to know that additional foodstuffs and supplies went to the island on Thursday, June 12. Antibiotics were shipped on Tuesday, June 17, and more clothing and goods donated by the private sector will be leaving as soon as transport service can be arranged.

On June 16, it was noted in the House by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) that we should act; that was 10 days after we had already provided assistance to the government of Jamaica.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: For clarification, is a statement by a parliamentary assistant not better addressed to this assembly through ministers' statements?

Mr. Speaker: It is a point of order. However, the standing orders do say that any member, other than leaders of opposition parties and ministers, can make statements.

M. Guindons: Généralement, lorsqu'on parle de Cornwall, on pense automatiquement au chômage, aux fermetures d'usines et à la pollution.

Mais il arrive parfois et même plus souvent qu'on ne le pense que des bonnes nouvelles proviennent de chez nous.

Il ne faut également pas oublier que cette fête qui se tient du 14 au 24 juin attire chez nous des visiteurs de plusieurs régions frontalières, ce qui contribue en un sens à mousser notre économie touristique.

Leurs efforts sont grands et méritent d'être soulignés, voire même encouragés, non seulement par le gouvernement mais aussi par tous les résidents de cette province.

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMAN'S ISSUES

Ms. Gigantes: In the past year, the minister responsible for women's issues, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), has proven to be an underachiever. He did see to family law reform by following through on a Conservative bill, but has left widowed spouses on their own to fight insurance companies for pension benefits under the bill. He did fight to remove discrimination by sports associations against women, but he has not committed the government to affirmative funding of women's sports.

He did continue the Conservative advertising of assistance to battered women, but he has not provided for adequate programs for women who respond to the ads. Neither has he persuaded his cabinet of the urgent need for decent child care; nor has he crusaded for affirmative action employment and training programs; nor has he secured government funding of rape crisis centres.

His most outstanding noncontributions are on equal pay for work of equal value and access to abortion service. The minister responsible for women's issues has been responsible for excesses of creativity when it comes to schemes to delay equal pay for work of equal value. The minister has laboured mightily in speeches but has brought forward a legislative mouse: equal pay protection for 1.5 per cent of our paid women's work force.

On access to abortion service, the minister's score is not even 1.5 per cent; it is in the negative value range. He is using a bad law to punish desperate women and the doctors who provide them with service. He plays a prosecutor when he should be the advocate.

In sum, this minister has not been responsible and he should resign.

VENDING MACHINES

Mr. Pollock: On June 8, a 17-year-old lost his life while working. The accident occurred when a young man went to a vending machine to get a drink. After several minutes, his friends went to see why he had not returned. They discovered him pinned under the machine. Attempts to revive him failed, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.

There have been two similar accidents in Peterborough and one in Toronto in which others have died. One of these happened at the Holiday Inn and an inquest is pending. The government seems to have no guidelines on how to stabilize these machines. It is clear that if there had been stipulations governing the setup of the machines, these people would not have died so needlessly.

EXTRA BILLING

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for statements by the ministry, I would like to inform the members of the Legislature that we have today in the Speaker's gallery Mrs. Marsha Coggs, who has been a member of the Wisconsin Legislature for 10 years. She is also vice-chairman of the Wisconsin health care committee. Please welcome, with me, Mrs. Coggs.

2:23 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DECADE OF DISABLED PERSONS

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: In 1981, the International Year of Disabled Persons awakened people around the world to the rights, needs and capabilities of persons with disabilities. The government of Ontario, reflecting an ongoing commitment, actively participated in this worldwide event through such measures as the "Label us able" public awareness campaign.

Today, to sustain this progress, it is my pleasure to announce that the government of Ontario will proclaim the Decade of Disabled Persons within its jurisdiction. This action formally expresses the determination of the government of Ontario to promote the fullest possible integration of disabled persons in the mainstream of society. We recognize that both individuals and the community as a whole benefit when all persons participate in every area of social, economic and political life.

In Ontario, the commitment to respect the dignity and independence of disabled persons is one that all three political parties share. Our government has signalled its intentions very clearly by creating a new cabinet position specifically to address the concerns of this community. My role as minister is to co-ordinate internal government policies for individuals with disabilities. I am also responsible for the provision of information to disabled individuals and their families, public awareness initiatives to heighten understanding of their abilities and liaison with community and advocacy groups representing their interests.

Our government is determined to accelerate progress towards a better life for persons with disabilities. In the past few months, we have demonstrated our resolve through several key initiatives.

Also, to strengthen the right of access, my cabinet colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) announced our intention to repeal clause 16(1)(

a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. This provision currently bars any remedy for a disabled person who is denied employment, services or accommodation because of a physical barrier. Our proposed amendment would give the Ontario Human Rights Commission the power to order the person responsible for the premises to provide access if the alterations would not entail undue financial hardship.

In a second thrust to promote the independence and integration of persons with disabilities, we have enhanced the province's network of community support services. For example, my colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) recently announced the phasing in of a new homemaker services program so more persons with disabilities may have the option of living at home with their families.

The government is also expanding the assistive devices program, which helps disabled persons with the cost of medically necessary equipment, aids and supplies. As of January 1, 1986, we extended the assistive devices program to disabled people 21 years of age and under. Beginning July 1, 22-year-olds will be included. In addition, prostheses such as artificial limbs will be covered for all age groups effective July 1. Respiratory equipment will be covered for all effective September 1. The government has made a commitment to expand the program further to include all remaining categories for all age groups.

We have also announced plans to ensure the fair treatment of disabled persons in sheltered workshops and other work-related rehabilitation settings. In a statement to the Legislature recently, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) announced we will guarantee that those in a true employment relationship receive the minimum wage. We will ensure that individuals in these settings are protected by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as are other workers in the province.

The strength of our commitment can be gauged by measures announced in the provincial budget by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). We have pledged $10 million to promote greater participation of the disabled in the mainstream of social and economic activity. We have dedicated an additional $5 million to expand and enhance housing programs to meet their needs better. We will spend $17 million over the next two years to further the integration of the developmentally disabled into our communities.

In proclaiming the Decade of Disabled Persons, we challenge Ontarians to join in creating a society where all individuals have a fair chance to reach their potential.

As an immediate step to translate these ideals into action, the government will establish a community action fund for disabled persons. We will dedicate $500,000 to this fund in the current fiscal year to support community initiatives to equalize opportunities. We will focus on projects that will help them achieve self-sufficiency or that build public understanding of their needs and abilities. Funding will be provided on a one-time basis rather than on an ongoing basis to encourage innovative ideas and help new initiatives get off the ground. Our overriding aim is to help special-needs groups gain control of their own lives.

The secretariat for disabled persons will manage the community action fund and implement a public awareness program in co-operation with other ministries.

Ontario is pleased to join in this concerted effort by the community of nations to promote equality for all human beings. We in government invite the disabled persons of Ontario to continue to work with us to open up opportunities and expand participation in the life of our province.

Mr. Baetz: When I began to read this voluminous statement that was handed over to us by the Minister without Portfolio, I anticipated something extraordinary to be announced today. Instead, what we have is a statement by the minister responsible for tooting his horn. He is the horn tooter of the party.

He has done nothing here. It sounds like a Greek chorus to me. Repetition, repetition. There is absolutely nothing in this statement except $500,000. Can members imagine? Every disabled person in the province today will jump for joy that the minister has announced $500,000 to be matched by community organizations. The rest is all old stuff; statements we have heard from the Minister of Labour, the Attorney General and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Treasurer.

Frankly, this is a rather dismal exercise on the part of the Minister without Portfolio. All I can say is, at least he has recognized the tremendous foundation the previous administration laid in truly helping the disabled in this province. More than that I cannot say. I cannot compliment him for anything. It is a sad day and a disappointment. Quite frankly, I think the Minister without Portfolio ought to occupy himself with something else, because he is contributing nothing to the disabled.

Mr. Rae: I want to express my profound agreement with the member for Ottawa West. Indeed, the Liberals are building on the foundations of the Tory party with respect to policies on the disabled. That is precisely the problem with this bafflegab statement we have from the Minister without Portfolio and without a great many other things as well.

For the minister to state with pride that the Liberal Party's achievement with respect to prosthetic devices has been to include those people who are 22 years old as opposed to those people who are 21 years old is a crying disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a big step forward.

Mr. Rae: The Minister of the Environment, who is heckling me at this moment, will have difficulty looking in his mirror this evening as he goes back to his constituency and talks to those people who are 30, 35, 40 and 45 years old and who are paying out of their own pockets for things that ought to be part of a universal health care system in this province.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a step forward.

Mr. Rae: The minister knows it and he is embarrassed. Every member of the Liberal Party with any degree of honesty in his or her soul knows full well that the failure to act with respect to prosthetic devices is a crying disgrace in Ontario in 1986. It breaks its election promises. It breaks everything it stated.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Moving forward.

Mr. Rae: Let me tell the minister this, since he has appointed himself a one-man heckling show over there, it is simply not good enough at the pace of adding on a year every year. We will be well into the 21st century before we finally do justice.

I am reminded that the Liberal Party adopted medicare as part of its official program in 1919. We are not prepared to wait and the people of Ontario are not prepared to wait for decency and justice for disabled and handicapped people in the province. Maybe the member is prepared to wait, but I do not think the people of the province are prepared to wait for that basic justice.

The minister got up today and said nothing, not a word about affirmative action, a government program with respect to employment, or the commitments, even the ones the Attorney General and the Treasurer signed in the accord with respect to an affirmative action program for the disabled. The Minister without Portfolio responsible for the disabled stands up a year later and shows how hollow is the Liberal Party's commitment. When it comes to spending money and actually investing in the future, they are not prepared to do it. The $500,000 will hardly pay for the plaques that the Minister without Portfolio and minister for plaques has been handing out around this province.

It is an insult to the disabled to have a Minister without Portfolio who has no real responsibilities, no real clout in cabinet, no co-ordinating role, no authority with respect to employment and no authority with respect to housing. It is a mere tokenistic kind of appointment. This statement should never have been made. The fact that it has been made gives us on this side of the House an opportunity to say that the record this government has established with the disabled is no record at all.

They and the Tories may think they are building on the foundations that were laid by the Tories. That is precisely the problem. Those foundations were rejected May 2 last year. When it comes to programs for the disabled, the Liberal Party has betrayed the promise of that election and the negotiations that followed and the change that was supposed to come with the change of government.

Mr. Warner: I find the announcement of the Minister without Portfolio quite strange and curious in professing some concern about providing better services for the disabled when his government decided yesterday that it would not be appropriate for MPPs to make sure that their offices were accessible to the disabled. That is a strange contradiction. In passing, I also find it a little strange watching the Conservatives jump on the bandwagon of social issues. No matter how one paints a dinosaur, one cannot hide it.

2:37 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is my telephone.

Mr. Martel: The phone is back. Off with the glasses today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Send it over one more time.

Mr. Grossman: Not only can we not trust the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) with patients, we cannot trust him with telephones. Anyway, his leader does not know how to use one.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: We have a series of very crucial questions for the Premier (Mr. Peterson). We were notified that he would be in the House at 2:35 p.m. Is there some information from the government?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is anticipated that the Premier will be here at approximately three o'clock. He is presiding at the opening of the Margaret Birch wing of Scarborough Centenary Hospital.

Mr. Grossman: Mount Sinai Hospital cancelled an opening the Premier was supposed to attend yesterday because it knew his presence would cause a great deal of difficulty.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: In view of the absence of the Premier of Ontario on this crucial day for the health care system, I have a question that I will ask of the Minister of Health. The minister has told us day after day that basically all we are seeing in the system is inconvenience. He has also assured us that he is looking after matters as best he can.

This afternoon I want to raise with the minister a case that concerns a constituent of the Speaker, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer). The father of a 20-year-old woman in Listowel is today desperately trying to save his daughter's life. She is in hospital suffering from anorexia nervosa. She has dropped from 150 pounds to 82 pounds. She has had nothing to eat and only juice to drink for the last 16 days.

Her doctor is quite concerned that she may collapse without proper psychiatric and medical treatment. That treatment is not available at the Listowel Memorial Hospital, where the minister attended a short time ago. For several months, the doctor has been trying to get the young woman into a major medical centre such as the University Hospital in London or Toronto General Hospital.

The family has been told for two months it must wait for space to be available in one of the treatment programs. Now that the strike is on, however, the doctor reports that the possibility of obtaining this treatment is nonexistent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: This young woman is not going to get treatment.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, your constituent phoned our office this morning because he has called you on five occasions asking for help. The member for Perth has diligently and loyally tried to serve his constituent by speaking to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and taking the case up with him.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The caller called back this morning to say that despite all the calls to the Minister of Health by his member, the Speaker, nothing has come of it, and the member for Perth has had to say, "There is nothing the Minister of Health can do about it." Can he tell us --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot comment on why the physician was unable to get help for several months. I do not know which people have refused to see the girl during those several months. I will look into why people have refused to see or to treat her. I cannot comment on medical decisions that have been made by other people. The system is under the care of the physicians. That general practitioner must surely have been trying his very best during the past several months to get that help. I cannot explain why people have not been able to reply to his request for help. I will look into the matter much further and report back to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

Mr. Grossman: I remind the minister that by legislation he is ultimately responsible for the care and safety of the health care system. This case has been raised with him by the member for Perth on four or five occasions. The member for Perth ultimately called his constituent back on four or five occasions.

Mr. Laughren: Is this your supplementary statement?

Mr. Grossman: If this is not important enough for his party, let the member for Nickel Belt stand up and say so.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: After having assured this House he is looking into all cases raised by members and finding out what can be done, can the minister explain why, when the member for Perth has raised this case with him and his office on four or five occasions, only this afternoon he has promised to look into it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is not providing all the details. It is very difficult when there are no names attached. If he would provide me with the name, I would be able to check on the information. The difficulty is, with somebody standing up and describing those details without names, dates and places, how can I comment without risking being inaccurate?

In one case, and I am not sure that this is the one, we were in touch with two or three people in that town. I presume it is the same one. Several weeks ago, we advised that there should be a visit to a hospital facility where there is an emergency department that has an anorexia facility on site. I am not sure that is the right case. I am sorry, I have to know the details so I can respond in a reasonable way with a degree of certainty about the facts. That is the best I can do without enough information to be confident the information I am providing is right. I will tender that as the information I can make available to the member at this point, guessing about the details.

Mr. Grossman: The family has indicated we can make all the information available because it is so desperate.

I want to emphasize that the question is not whether the minister has an answer to this matter this afternoon, the question is, how can he assure the public of this province, through this House, that cases raised with him will be resolved by him and that he will look after them so they do not have to worry, when the Speaker, the member for Perth, has been trying to help in this desperate situation for several weeks?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I told the Leader of the Opposition that I can respond with a degree of certainty only when I have been given the details of the case. He has provided a very minimal set of facts. I do not like to guess. I have done that in my answer to the second part of his question.

However, we did suggest a means of responding to the need. I guess it was not acted upon in that one case. The member is not right. We do take our activities extremely seriously, but when he stands in the House and does not provide the details, I cannot answer with any degree of accuracy.

One thing the member can do to help us to move forward in the development of the health care field is to help us pass the bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. Grossman: The member for Perth has to desperately report to his constituent that the Minister of Health can do nothing to help a seriously sick young woman.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat? Does he have a new question?

Mr. Grossman: I have a second question of the Premier but we will stand it down until he arrives, or we will see what happens if he does not arrive.

Mr. Speaker: Is the House agreeable to stand down the question?

Agreed.

Mr. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister knows that the House spent 13 days on second reading of this bill. We spent 19 days in committee and we have now spent 10 days in committee of the whole House, including today.

Does the minister not agree with me that, first, we need back-to-work legislation as far as the Tory opposition in the Legislature is concerned to get Bill 94 through? Can he tell us what steps he intends to take to see that Bill 94 is passed by this Legislature so that a clear signal can be sent to the Ontario Medical Association with respect to our position on extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I agree that I would like to see the bill move somewhat more quickly than it is moving. We have spent whole afternoons to do one

section at a time. I cannot control the activities of the official opposition. I am not sure that anybody can control that membership. That is a concern that must be expressed by the public at large, that there is no control in the manner in which this bill is being currently debated.

I would like to see it move along much more quickly. I would like to see this afternoon's debate proceed, and assess at that time what is required.

Mr. Rae: In this province there is a strike which is seriously affecting the ability of citizens to get access to health care. At the same time as the strike is going on, we have had a systematic filibuster, holding up legislation which expresses the view of this Legislature and the people of this province with respect to extra billing.

We are now entitled to ask the minister, as spokesman for the government, what he intends to do. What steps does he intend to take to see that this debate, this filibuster, is brought to a conclusion and the bill voted on, and to see that a clear message is sent to the OMA from this Legislature with respect to the end of extra billing? There can then be no illusion as to what the majority view of this Legislature is and the majority view of the public of Ontario is with respect to extra billing in Ontario.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no misunderstanding in the public as to the view of the majority of this Legislative Assembly with respect to this bill. It knows that this bill is going to pass. We know that the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly are committed to ensuring that extra billing in this province ends. It will be brought to an end. We will process the bill and we will debate the bill. I am in a position to call for an extra sitting this evening if that is required to complete the clause-by-clause discussion and I am prepared to sit here all evening, if that is appropriate to finish this bill.

Mr. Rae: As I indicated earlier, we are happy to sit as long as it takes to get this legislation through. We challenge the Tory party today to stay in this House until such time as the legislation is through and until such time as Bill 94 is passed. That is the challenge we issue to the Tories. They are the ones who are sending out the wrong message to those physicians and those strikers who are denying the patients of this province the health care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: In the event that the Tory party indicates it is not prepared to sit, not prepared to deal with this legislation and not prepared to get it through, is the minister prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that we allocate time in this Legislature to bring the debate on Bill 94 to a conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have debated this bill at length. I know the public has seen us debating and making sure we can come up with the best bill possible. My opinion is that we should take extra time, if that is required this afternoon, to sit and deal with the clause-by-clause. I am prepared to do that and the members here ought to be prepared to take that step to ensure that Bill 94 is passed. With that in mind, we look to progress this afternoon and I will assess the situation later in the afternoon.

Mr. Rae: I have a new question to the same minister. Does he consider that as minister he is responsible for ensuring access of patients to the health care system, or does he regard that as the sole prerogative of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will know that in terms of access a number of people have worked together to ensure that there is access. We have worked in the past and will continue to work at ensuring access to the health care system on the part of the patients of the province.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not answered the question. He will be aware of a number of statements today in the press by members of the college of physicians and surgeons indicating that they agree with the actions of the OMA, that they support the strike action by doctors and that they do not agree with the steps that were taken in 1982.

Given that clear endorsation of strike activity and the denial of access to health care by members of the college, which is supposed to be responsible for disciplining members of the profession who deprive patients of health care, what does the minister intend to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to answer that question in the past tense. I have already done something about it. I have been in touch with the college and found out, for instance, that the registrar to whom some quotations were attributed has received an apology from the reporter indicating that the quotations were incorrectly attributed.

I know the college is concerned about quotations that are attributed to two other members of the college. They are looking at that very question this afternoon at their extraordinary meeting.

Mr. Rae: Dr. Shelley McLean, president of the medical staff at the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital, was on television last night. I am sure the minister will be aware that Dr. McLean said on The National on CBC, in a report by reporter Claude Adams, "If one patient dies now, we may be preventing 100 patients dying in five years because of lack of access to health care." Has the minister referred Dr. McLean's outrageous and thoroughly unprofessional comments to the college of physicians and surgeons, and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: First, the only reason this matter was not brought up in my earlier discussions with the college was that I did not know the name of the physician. I had only heard about the reports. I was not in a position to do much media gazing or watching these last few days, but I find the honourable gentleman's description of that statement to be an accurate one and I intend to refer that matter to the college.

I do not think there is any physician in this province who, as part of his or her training, would follow seriously what the member has reported as a quotation. Even those people who are in emergency rooms that are on restricted service are assessing people as they come in the door. They are delivering medical decisions, rendering judgements, and in my opinion that statement is not indicative of the medical profession in this province.

Mr. Pope: I have a question --

Interjections.

Mr. Pope: The member is with them, so do not worry about it.

Mr. Breaugh: Is there a lawyer's strike too?

Mr. Pope: The member should ask his leader.

My question is to the Minister of Health arising out of a question I raised with him yesterday and a conversation we had after question period. Can the minister explain in detail to me and to the people of this province what monitoring and what medical assessments are going on with respect to referral patients to Toronto, whether they be from Listowel or northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yesterday the honourable gentleman asked the question of the Premier in the House. We had a concern expressed yesterday about those referral patients who were unable to get information from their physicians. In a situation where people have a concern about whether a referral from northern Ontario or any other facility to another physician is in question, we would advise they contact our hotline so that we can make further inquiries on their behalf.

In my conversation with the honourable gentleman yesterday, I expressed concern that there was difficulty for patients in getting information when the patients' physicians were not able to provide those answers. I still have that concern. First and foremost, the patients must make extraordinary efforts to get their own general practitioner, or whoever they have been referred by, to give that information to them about the success of a referral, as to whether somebody is or is not working.

Mr. Pope: Under law, the minister has a responsibility to the people of this province for the delivery of health care. The fact is that when one calls the ministry hotline, as our party did over the last two days, one is told to get in touch with the emergency department of a local hospital. The people who are being referred to Toronto hospitals have nowhere to call to get an answer. The minister said two nights ago that the situation was in hand. Dr. Railton said the situation was in hand; there was only minor inconvenience. That is not true. There is no control. There are no medical assessments.

There is no monitoring going on of referral patients from other parts of the province to Toronto hospitals. How can the minister still claim the situation is in control?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: In situations where there is a concern expressed such as that, particularly if people are being referred for surgery and cannot reach their family physician, a good piece of advice is to go to an emergency facility if it is of an emergent or critical nature. If it is in the member's home town, for instance, what about going to that one, because one may find the family physician is on duty in that emergency room?

The concern the honourable gentleman raised with me yesterday after question period is a real one for me, because in that situation extra steps have to be taken to contact the family physicians or the specialists to whom the person may have been referred.

In this case, that is the best piece of advice, but if a medical assessment is required, obviously people are going to have to contact the emergency room to find out whether a further assessment can be made there. I still have concerns when it is difficult to reach the physicians but, generally speaking, physicians are available to make those medical assessments.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Charlton: I have a question to the Minister of Energy. The minister is aware that since the government was formed last June, an additional $1.9 billion has either been spent or committed on the Darlington nuclear power project. Each day that passes means millions of dollars in terms of Darlington.

The minister promised in April there would be a statement very soon on the Darlington question. Can the minister confirm for this House that the government has made its decision on the future of Darlington, and can he explain why that position has not been put in the House as he promised?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think it has been made very plain that this government has not made a decision on the completion of Darlington. The honourable member should know better than anyone else that this government reconstituted the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, which was disbanded by the previous government when it formed a majority. We are placing a very high priority on the select committee on energy.

We certainly have not made a decision, and such a decision will be shared here in the House before it is shared anywhere else.

Mr. Charlton: The minister referred to the select committee. He should realize the kinds of problems he is causing for that select committee. The select committee made its interim report last December, but the government has not yet responded to that interim report. The Liberal members on the committee are unsure and divided to the extent that one of them has withdrawn from the committee over the Darlington question.

The select committee requires the minister's response. When will he respond at very least to the December interim report of the select committee?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is obvious many other things have transpired since the first report from the select committee. There are other initiatives that this government is looking at very diligently. They have to do with conservation, the use of power in an economical way, load management, cogeneration and small hydraulic sites.

We are going to go forward with a plan to guarantee the people of Ontario a demand-supply situation that will meet the requirements of the residents and the manufacturing base, which happens to be the heart of this whole process in Ontario. That is the program this government has. It will be done in a most responsible way, and the decision on whether we should finish Darlington will be made in this forum.

Mr. Grossman: We are in a conundrum here because the Premier's driver has been seen in the environs, his press aide is here and we are told the Premier himself has been in the building for five minutes. I wonder --

Mr. Speaker: The House agreed to stand down the second question until the Premier arrived. Maybe we could go on with another question.

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MULTICULTURALISM AND CITIZENSHIP

Mr. Shymko: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I see she is going to her seat. On April 25, the minister claimed that her government was committed to multiculturalism, that it was a priority with her ministry and that she had an excellent working relationship with the president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

I do not want to accuse the minister of misleading this House, but can she explain why she slashed the budget of that council from $323,000 last year to $252,000, which is less than the budget of two years ago, and refused to increase that budget? Why has she failed to reappoint half of the council members, thus paralysing the council? The president of that council sent two memos on June 6, saying the following --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. Now you are making further comments on your question.

Mr. Shymko: I had to get up and sit down because the minister was not in her seat.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that.

Mr. Shymko: With your permission, may I complete my question? I seem to have problems.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the help of everyone, but I have heard the question.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The reduction in the budget between last year and this year is occasioned by the fact that the previous president was on a full-term salary of $70,000. Mr. Frolick is on a different arrangement. We have been taking a look at his work plan and are in constant contact with him to indicate the basis on which he is asking for additional assistance, secretarial, research or otherwise.

In regard to the member's concern about the appointments to the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, we have been getting in representatives from various regions and from various multicultural groups. Those appointments are now being considered.

Mr. Shymko: The president is saying the entire council is going to resign. There is a crisis in that council. How come the minister found $570,000 to build a garage for the Royal Botanical Gardens and $70,000 of that council's budget to redecorate the deputy minister's office?

I would like to know what her priorities are. If a garage and the decor of her deputy minister's office are more important, she should resign, as should her sidekick the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I believe our ministry is treating the requests of Mr. Frolick in a sensitive way. We have asked for a work plan. He gave it to us after the estimates for this year went in.

Any of the member's other comments relating to the Royal Botanical Gardens, the garages or resignations are clearly not connected to anything, at least from what I am able to see right now.

We are having an ongoing dialogue with Mr. Frolick, and his advisory counsel is most supportive. I am having ongoing think-tanks with various members of the multicultural group at the moment. They turn up. I cannot see the kind of antagonism the member is talking about, but I am very much supportive of his concerns.

I do not know what the paper is that the member is holding up. Why does he not send it over?

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. A couple of minutes ago, the Ontario Medical Association indicated the resolution of its council meeting. The first resolution indicates the president of the OMA is authorized to escalate, at his discretion, the sanctions being carried out in protest of Bill 94. Item 3 goes on to say the medical profession will continue to withdraw its services, if Bill 94 is passed, to tell the government and the public that the OMA will not work under conditions of tyranny.

Mr. Foulds: Has the member ever heard of the tyranny of the minority?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Given the clear indication by the OMA this afternoon that this already difficult situation is likely to escalate into a dangerous situation, if we are not already there now, might I ask the Premier whether he agrees that nothing is to be lost and much is to be gained, particularly in view of the thousands of patients who are being more than inconvenienced? Why not simply call a halt today for a short time and bring in a mediator?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, may I apologize to the honourable member opposite and my colleagues. I was at the opening of the Margaret Birch wing in the Scarborough Centenary Hospital, where we honoured one of our former colleagues. It was a glorious occasion in honour of Margaret Birch.

I was not aware of the resolution passed by the OMA just a minute or so ago, but this government has set its course very clearly. I do not believe it is tyranny at all. The federal Conservative Party, the federal New Democratic Party and the federal Liberal Party all agreed two or three years ago that extra billing was going to go. We are complying with the Canada Health Act in that regard. I do not see it in terms of tyranny.

We have gone on for almost a year discussing this in a variety of ways. It has been in this House now for at least three weeks. My own view is that the most constructive thing all of us, including the member, could do would be to pass the bill and not drag it out unnecessarily.

Mr. Grossman: Several months ago, the OMA warned the Premier there would be job action and he again presumed there would not be. As he got closer to getting this bill passed, the OMA warned him there would be a closure of emergency wards. He did not believe them, and we have a closure of emergency wards. He now has been cautioned by the OMA that it is going to escalate, not stop, the job action, should Bill 94 be pushed through. He continues not to believe them.

Mr. Foulds: Yes. You gave in to blackmail in 1982, did you not?

Mr. Grossman: We solved the strike in 1982.

So far, in the 38 hospitals we have checked, 3,295 elective surgical procedures have been cancelled. Surely it is now the time for all of us -- the Premier, the leader of the third party, our party and the OMA -- to back off for a time. Surely it is time for everyone to back off a bit. No one loses face. No one gains or loses political points here. Surely it would be appropriate now.

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: His second question is the same as his first. I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that if there is a holdup on this situation, it will be any different three months from now or any other time.

There is a principle at stake here, and the member has seen the will of the majority of the House here. I think it is quite obvious where the majority is. Obviously, in a democratically elected Legislature, we all have certain rights. The member's party has the right to express its point of view, and it is doing that. We all understand what is happening here, and the government and the NDP are committed to passing this bill.

It has been going on almost a year now. There has been thorough discussion. We have spent an awful lot of time ringing bells in this House for an hour at a time for minor votes. When we are supposed to be discussing the legislation, we have seen history lessons on the College of Physicians of Surgeons of Ontario, not discussion focused on the bill. It is our view, and I think the view of the majority of the members of this House, although I cannot speak for the third party, that we should be proceeding on this matter. We are prepared to do so and think that would go a long way.

Sometimes in life we cannot just postpone these problems. We cannot postpone it to next week or next month or whatever. That is why we are proceeding on the basis we are. We are going to keep the lines of communications with the OMA on any subject it wants to talk about, but we are moving on the question of extra billing.

Mr. Grossman: I believe the Premier should abandon his determination to get Bill 94 passed. I accept that he is not today going to do that, but there are thousands of patients who are no longer just being inconvenienced; their health care is being endangered by this bill. Whether or not he believes might is right, whether or not he believes putting in a mediator would be bending to the breeze, all that patients, parents, young children and cancer patients want today is their doctors back at work tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Those patients want this question asked of the Premier: Will he please put in a mediator to solve this problem and get their doctors back to work? They do not want a game of brinkmanship or a game of chicken played between the Premier and the OMA; they want their doctors back at work. Will the Premier do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The very simple answer to my friend opposite is that one cannot mediate the Canada Health Act. It is that simple. One is either for or against it. Many discussions and formal meetings have gone on for a long period. I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) we are prepared to sit down and discuss any issues the profession wants to talk about, because there are problems we have to address. However, if the member is asking me to back off on moving this bill forward, the answer is no.

I repeat: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks things are so serious, why does he not assist? He just admitted the bill was going through. Why delay it more than he has already? Having just admitted in this House that the bill is going forward, he has some responsibilities too.

ABORTION CLINICS

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please show a little respect for other members. I say that to all members.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister must be aware that women who have run the procedural gamut and been booked for abortions at Scarborough Centenary Hospital are having their appointments postponed, and some have been cancelled. Yesterday, one woman who went to the hospital for an appointment was told right then and there that it was not on. Is the minister not glad that doctors at the Scott and Morgentaler clinics are prepared to help women who are desperately looking for help right now?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not hear any question there.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister responsible for women's issues does not seem to care what happens to women in these circumstances. Is it not the height of cynicism for this government to depend now on services performed at the Morgentaler and Scott clinics and then to turn around at a later date and perhaps raid them and charge people at those clinics?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The record will show that, while a comment has been made, no question has been asked of me. What is the question?

Mr. Gillies: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) should get his hearing checked.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier. Since I asked him to table the documentation surrounding the rather unusual award of a grant to the Exploracom project, 13 days have passed. He has said publicly he is happy for us to have access to any information, but on repeated checks with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology this morning, we were told, "Nobody knows what we are supposed to show you," and "Nobody knows who is supposed to be getting this together." If the Premier is so happy to share this information with the House, where is it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. I have asked them to gather it up. The member put a question in Orders and Notices, and he is welcome to it; no problem. It is all being gathered up, I assume. I asked my staff to gather it up. I cannot tell the member the name of the person.

The member should just keep phoning, because they are enjoying his phone calls to all over the place. We are hearing from him quite regularly. We hear he is turning up blind alleys and culs-de-sac everywhere he turns, but he should keep searching. We are very happy to give it to him. There is no problem. It is a marvellous project. We are gathering it up, and we will get it to him in due course.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: Nobody is leaving this cloud over his government but the Premier. He is making public statements that he wants to share this information, and it appears he is stonewalling and trying to wait it out until the House adjourns.

Will the Premier give clear and unequivocal instructions to the staff of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) to table that information in the House today or tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have told the member we will table it when we are ready. Good Lord, there is a procedure for having questions in Orders and Notices, as the member knows. There are a lot of questions in Orders and Notices. We are answering them all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is one question in Orders and Notices about the postal charges for bulk mail. That is the quality of the questions that members are asking in Orders and Notices.

It is all being gathered up, and he will get it. He can ask me every single day, but my friend opposite, who demonstrates his immaturity on many occasions, is again going to find that there is nothing there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing. Would the Premier take his seat?

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Premier indicated there was a question in Orders and Notices. We have 65 questions in Orders and Notices that he refuses to follow procedure and answer. They are more than two weeks old. That will not wash.

ILLITERACY

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. More than 1.4 million adults in Ontario cannot read road maps or street signs, cannot read the directions on their medicine prescriptions, cannot read telephone books, cannot fill out job applications and so on.

Rumours abound in the literacy network of this province that the literacy leadership in this government is being transferred to the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Does the minister not agree this would give the mistaken impression that this is a problem essentially of immigrants, ethnic groups and the like and is not an education problem as such, which it is, given the high drop-out rates, the low streaming of so many of the children of low-income families and so on and given the inattention to general-level student programs?

Is it true the minister is abandoning the leadership in this question and running away from the issue?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Might I respond to the honourable member by saying that we in the Ministry of Education certainly accept our responsibility in this very important area. The government made it clear in its recent speech from the throne that new efforts and energies were going to be applied in the area of literacy, which is a concern shared by all honourable members. My colleagues in cabinet are now working to give a specific form to some of this new effort, and the honourable member will not have to wait long to see the fruits of that labour.

Mr. Allen: I trust we will not have to wait long, and the movement is going to have to be pretty great, because the government of which that minister is a member at this date spends only $5 per functionally illiterate adult in the province. His own ministry spends only $1.40 per functionally illiterate adult.

Why does the minister not seize the leadership in this question, get his own vision into his ministry and have it attack this problem in a very significant and aggressive fashion?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have found in this minority parliament that sometimes my leadership is not responded to favourably by my colleagues in the third party --

Mr. Foulds: Or by the minister's own colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to think I have demonstrated leadership where leadership is required. We have said as a government that the area of literacy is a matter of real concern. More has to be done. The Ministry of Education will certainly discharge its responsibility, but my colleagues the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and other ministers of this government do have important mandates that they will continue to discharge as well.

I invite my honourable friend, who brings a keen and sensitive understanding to this and to so many other areas of education, to stand by and await the results of some of the internal work we are doing.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister will recall that last week I pointed out to him that 40 per cent of the tenants living in apartments where there are what we call chronically depressed rents cannot afford to pay more in rent, according to a report of his ministry. In reply to my question, the minister said:

"It is a chronic complaint of those landlords that they are not able to make enough return on their investment. In the meantime, there are also tenants in those units who would have difficulty if the rents were to rise drastically. The Rent Review Advisory Committee has come up with a formula by which we can address the difficulties of those units' landlords and be sensitive to the tenants living in those units without a drastic increase. That formula will take care of the balance between the landlords and tenants concerned."

Will the minister tell us what the formula is and how it will work?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for the question. If he has read the legislation, he knows it explains the formula. As he also knows, our new proposal, Bill 51, addresses many issues. What the member has done is to recognize the brilliance of that bill which has that balance, brilliance that has clearly identified the concerns of the landlords and the concerns of the tenants. I remind the honourable member how anxious I and my government are to put Bill 51 into place to show where we will strike that balance.

Mr. Gordon: How can the tenants of Ontario believe that the minister has their best interests at heart when all they have to do is to refer to the brochure he was talking about a minute ago and they will see there is no formula protecting them? He had the nerve to get up in this House last week and say there is a formula. He has the nerve to get up in this House today and give us a lot of mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with the question that was asked. Will he now explain to this House what the formula is?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I advise the member to read the legislation. He is reading the guide. When it was produced, it was hoped it would help the member to understand the legislation. He has taken a shortcut to understanding the legislation. He should read the legislation. The ideas of those members were bankrupt. They had no housing policy and no relevant guideline. He stands there to criticize. The honourable member is right over there.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am very reluctant to accuse the minister of misleading the House, but this borders on misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the honourable member that he is coming close very close to unparliamentary language.

Mr. Rae: There are a lot of borderline cases in the House.

3:30 p.m.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I would like to address a question to the Premier. At the press conference today, I understand that Dr. Railton said he could not rule out the closure of intensive care units. He said: "All emergency room closures are grass roots. They are not centrally co-ordinated." He admitted that.

The official resolution which was apparently passed today -- and I do not have the advantage of the hotline which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has to the Ontario Medical Association -- said, "The president of the OMA has complete support to escalate sanctions at his discretion."

Does the Premier not feel it is time the government looked hard at the legislative framework ensuring access to necessary services in this province and time the government said that if the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario cannot and will not, and dithers, at least the government of Ontario will ensure that patients are not held to ransom by this kind of irresponsible action by the OMA and its leadership?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry but I have not seen the resolution. I arrived late in the House and I returned the telephone yesterday, so I was not able to find out directly from the horse's mouth what the resolution was.

I am aware of the honourable member's point of view and frustrations, should I call them, and I do not mean that in any pejorative way. It is a very difficult situation for everyone. My direct response to his question is that I think it would be most injudicious at this moment to start looking at changes in legislation in that regard. We are in the middle of a supercharged situation and it has been inflamed by a number of people, some for legitimate reasons, some for other reasons.

I believe that kind of discussion should not take place at the present time. Who knows? Everything should be discussed at some point or other in the future, but I do not believe it will solve any of the situations right now, at this moment, today, tomorrow or the next day. As I said, everything that is under our jurisdiction could be discussed at some point in the future.

Mr. Rae: The Premier was quoted in the Toronto Star yesterday as saying in response to a question with respect to back-to-work legislation, "We are not planning to bring it in." He was asked, "What if they do not go back to work?"

Is he seriously suggesting that his government would refuse or fail to take the necessary steps to ensure necessary services for the patients of this province because it is afraid of the power of the OMA? He would not do it for nurses. He would not do it for nurses' aides. He would not do it for anybody working in the public sector. He would not do it for a worker in a nursing home. He would not do it for somebody operating in an operating room who was not a doctor.

Why is there one rule in this province for the doctors, for the upper-middle-class group of professionals who are denying access to their services but who are partners in the health care system and who should be partners in the health care system, and a completely different set of rules for everybody else who has ever worked in the health care system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Since this discussion with the doctors started almost a year ago, both myself and the minister have been asked many questions, the vast majority of them hypothetical, starting, "What would you do if?" or "What about in these circumstances?" I and the minister have resisted all temptations to deal in the hypothetical because the honourable member can see how misquotes or responses to hypothetical questions or speculations about what may or may not happen only inflame an already very tender situation.

I am not surprised at the speech the honourable member makes. I am not happy about the conflict we are in at the present time. I would beg to differ with my honourable colleague about courage being shown in this situation. I believe the minister has shown unbelievable courage and judgement.

We are responsible. We do not have the luxury of just standing up and yelling. We are charged with carriage of this situation. We bear the responsibility for that and we take that on our shoulders. I believe the minister and the judgements he has made -- and the member is perfectly entitled to second-guess any one of them -- are being second-guessed by both parties opposite on both sides of the issue. But, ultimately, the judgements are made by a minister who has shown remarkable integrity, judgement and sensitivity in the circumstances. I cannot second-guess him.

FOOD LAND PRESERVATION POLICY

Mr. Ward: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Several months ago, in a statement to the Legislature, the minister indicated some draft proposals for changes to the Ontario Foodland Guidelines. These proposed changes would have a significant impact on municipal severance policies throughout Ontario, and for the past several weeks many farm organizations, individuals and communities have contacted me expressing their concerns.

Can the minister indicate to the Legislature what the status of these proposals is and what efforts his ministry is undertaking to gather the input of those who may be affected by them?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is obvious that the official opposition does not realize the seriousness of the amount of good agricultural land we are losing in this province through erosion and through the development uses of this agricultural land.

I have to tell the honourable member who posed the question that after I made the statement in the House, I distributed the policy statement widely to all the municipalities, to all the farm organizations and to other individuals and groups, and I asked that we receive their comments by a certain date. I extended that date to the end of June.

We will look at all the comments that have come to us at the end of June and we will then be in a position to draft a statement that I will be making in the House some time in the fall session.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today I pointed out to you that there were 65 questions in Orders and Notices that were in violation of standing order 88(d). Some of them are more than six months old.

I ask you, as Speaker of the Legislature, whether you intend to uphold standing order 88(d), whether you intend to do anything about it and whether you intend to direct the government to bring itself in compliance with standing order 88(d). Where is this matter going to end?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The standing orders are quite clear. I hope the government House leader is listening and will make certain the responses will come forth appropriately.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Cordiano: I have a petition on behalf of interested citizens:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Jackson: I have several hundred petitions signed by constituents from Burlington South: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We strongly oppose the unilateral actions of the Liberal government of Ontario which have created an atmosphere of adversarial confrontation with the health care providers of this province.

"We deplore the disruption of our world-renowned system of private and public health care by the imposition of a state-controlled health care system.

"We, therefore, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to begin immediate and meaningful consultations with the health care providers of this province in a manner that will sustain the quality and excellence of health care for the people of Ontario."

3:40 p.m.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Haggerty from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Pamaglenn Investments Limited;

Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting Sherrydale Investments Limited;

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive Mylake Mines Limited; and

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 81,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: It is to clean out the swamp, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you.

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to work more than five consecutive days without a day of rest.

Mr. Barlow: That will help them.

Mr. Martel: That is correct. The Tories insisted on working 10 days in a row.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of the bill is to authorize the apportionment of the school rates between public and secondary school cases in the case of rateable property jointly owned or leased.

INSURED SERVICES UNDER OHIP ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 89,

An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of this bill is to declare that surgical procedures for breast reconstruction are insured services under the Ontario health insurance plan.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I would like to table the 1985 annual report of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Gillies, moved second reading of Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the Brantford General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT

Mr. Epp moved second reading of Bill Pr42,

An Act respecting the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

RENFREW VICTORIA HOSPITAL

Ms. Fish, on behalf of Mr. Yakabuski, moved second reading Bill Pr50,

An Act respecting Renfrew Victoria Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

3:50 p.m.

Consideration of Bill 94,

An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. Chairman: When we left off yesterday, we were in the middle of an amendment to

section 5 proposed by the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes).

Mr. Brandt: It is my pleasure to participate in this debate and also very specifically to discuss the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Lincoln with respect to a very logical and reasonable recommendation by our party to have the government call at this time for the type of measure that has worked in so many other instances, that being mediation. That, specifically, is what the member's amendment has requested.

This province has a long and successful history in the use of mediation as a measure or means to end this type of dispute. On a number of occasions we have used it in municipal government, as the members are probably well aware. The most recent application of mediation in the municipal field is with respect to boundary disputes where two sides are extremely hostile and very hardened, firm and definite positions have been maintained. In many instances, as a result of bringing in a mediator, a third party, who can very calmly, coolly and quite professionally discuss the various issues and lay them out in an unemotional manner, they have been able to resolve some of the issues.

I suggest, and I strongly recommend to the government, that when we have a situation as chaotic and as desperate as the one we are faced with at present, the whole question of mediation may be one of the answers that should be entertained very seriously by the government.

I can recall when I served as Minister of the Environment -- and I see the present minister is here -- I provided in that ministry a mechanism, known as environmental mediation, for the current minister to resolve disputes. I remind the minister who is here with us this afternoon that was used with some degree of success in a very difficult situation that has been somewhat affectionately referred to as the Pauzé matter in Perkinsfield. While the minister is signing his autograph -- he need not sign one for me; I have his autograph on a number of documents already --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: The member raised the Pauzé matter, and I want to inform him that his leader appears to want to undo the mediation he initiated in that area now by suggesting that one of the sites --

Mr. Chairman: Order. That is not a proper point of privilege.

Mr. Brandt: I can understand your ruling on that, Mr. Chairman. I only reminded the minister that in connection with the Pauzé site a number of very positive steps were taken. I am speaking to mediation.

Mr. Chairman: The Pauzé site, with regard to mediation of medical matters?

Mr. Brandt: Yes. I am using that only as an example of how mediation works. It is important that all members of this House recognize that mediation is a mechanism that can be used to resolve the current dispute related to Bill 94. I am going to draw reference only in a very limited way to the Pauzé site in Perkinsfield to suggest in the presence of the minister that a new water system was put into that municipality and that measures were taken to secure that landfill site.

A whole host of things was done as a direct result of bringing in a mediator who sat down with a dozen and a half groups. I believe there were 15 or 16 interest groups, each of which had a position it wanted to take in that matter. It was extremely complicated, but it was resolved as a result of a mediator being introduced into the process.

When we have a dispute such as we have under Bill 94, with the doctors suggesting they are going to take certain actions and with the government very adamantly maintaining its position and its resolve, with the concurrence of the shadow cabinet over here, the third party which is going to support the government on Bill 94, it is vitally important that we recognize we do have a very polarized position on the part of two bodies which can be resolved if some common sense enters into the debate. The government has refused --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Does the member have any suggestions?

Mr. Brandt: Let me give the Attorney General some suggestions. I am glad he asked for some, because I have a whole series of suggestions to make during the course of my brief address this afternoon. I do hope the minister will spend a little bit of his very important and valuable time with us, because I want to make a number of suggestions as an individual who has been a conciliator all his life, who has tried to reach for compromise and who has tried to reach out and find a process by which to bring people together. Yes, I do have some suggestions to make.

One of my suggestions is that the government stand back from its present position, which is one of refusal to negotiate. On two days now, the government has refused to accept the phone offered by the leader of my party. We have provided him with a portable phone and the number of the Ontario Medical Association, which has indicated that it is prepared, on receiving a phone call, to bring the strike to a halt immediately if the government will delay passage of Bill 94 and look for some compromise issues in the context of that bill.

Has the government agreed to negotiate? Under no circumstances. It is taking a hard-and-fast line and playing fast and loose with the health services of the people of this province by not agreeing to negotiate, by not agreeing to even pick up the telephone to make a call. It is doing something even more dramatic and of even more concern to me when it refuses to make that phone call or make any contact whatever with the OMA.

It sends out a very clear signal to that profession. It is going to be treated differently than other professions. It is going to be treated differently than other trade groups. It is going to be treated differently than virtually anyone else in this province when an 11th hour attempt to resolve an issue does not include the offer of some form of mediation. That is why I say the government is dealing in a very heavy-handed way with this very serious issue, in a manner that I and my party find totally unacceptable. The future of the health system of this province is at stake.

What has happened in other jurisdictions is a matter of some concern to me. If the members of the government will recall for a moment what happened in Quebec with the passage of similar legislation, there were hundreds of physicians, and of even more concern, specialists, who fled that province to get away from the very draconian legislation that was introduced. They came to a province that offered them the freedom and the right to practise their profession without intervention on the part of government.

That province is Ontario. We welcomed those specialists and physicians with open arms for one reason only. Any jurisdiction in the world would be pleased to have them.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member must get back to the amendment that is in front of us, which basically discusses mediators.

Mr. Brandt: In the context of that, I do not want to take issue with the comment you just made, Mr. Chairman, but let me remind you that the lack of a mediator in this process is causing some difficulties within the system. One of those has led to the situation in Quebec that I am attempting to describe.

You allowed me to go ahead with the earlier description I gave in connection with the Pauzé landfill site in Perkinsfield, where a mediator was called in. I think you have to allow some reasonable degree of flexibility so that I can prove the case I want to put forward to the government. I hope to shift their position even ever so slightly during the course of this debate this afternoon. That is all I am asking for. I will attempt to be somewhat more judicious in keeping to the point.

I want to relate to the government that in Quebec, as a result of passing a bill that is very close to Bill 94 and where a mediator -- see, I am on to it now, Mr. Chairman -- was not called in, a great number of physicians and specialists left that province to come to Ontario.

I suggest that in all probability a similar problem developed in the British health care system. Again, no mediator was called in to resolve that issue. What we have in Britain at present are long waiting lines for health services and a flight of doctors, particularly to Canada, as a direct result of having legislation like Bill 94, legislation we are trying to amend, change or make somewhat more livable as a result of the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague the member for Lincoln.

4 p.m.

The government will not accept the argument we have put forward justifying the role of a mediator. It wants to ram through legislation. It wants no debate on this issue; it wants no mediation on this issue. Yet what it is bringing about is the most fundamental change in the health care system in the history of this province; let there be no mistake about that. I know if you were allowed to speak on this question today, Mr. Chairman, you might even sympathize with some of the comments I am making. It is the most fundamental change that has ever occurred in the health care system in Ontario.

The doctors are obviously very angry. Under Bill 94, we are taking away their rights and privileges. Where previously they were independent professionals allowed to serve the people and their patients in a manner they saw best, they are now having some of those rights and privileges removed and there is the threat of further rights and privileges being taken away from them. Yet the government still will not sit down with a third party, namely, a mediator, in an attempt to arbitrate this process in a fashion that makes some sense.

Some doctors have expressed the opinion that they are very disappointed with the actions taken by some of their colleagues. Other doctors have become very militant over the way in which this issue has transpired up until this time. Some of the political spokesmen who have talked about this issue to this time have expressed an opinion that simple passage of Bill 94 without the introduction of mediation as a preliminary step to whatever ultimately occurs with respect to Bill 94 is going to solve the problem. They are sadly mistaken.

We have word today, as you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the House have heard, that if Bill 94 passes without a mediator -- do you notice I am staying on the mediator? I want to comply with your instructions, sir.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What is the Chairman nodding his head for? Is he participating?

Mr. Brandt: Oh no, I just want to make sure I have the concurrence of the chair with respect to the basic thrust of my remarks.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) should know the member for Sarnia was saying, "You will notice, Mr. Chairman, I am staying on point." I was nodding my head that he was staying on point at that moment.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) that I need that kind of assurance from time to time, since on two occasions the Chairman has pointed out, with some degree of appropriateness, that I have strayed, only slightly, off point. I quickly brought it back as soon as I realized there was some problem with regard to some of the comments I was making.

To get back to mediation and to Bill 94, which is part of this process, I hope the government will agree the hostility that is going to develop as a direct result of the government not agreeing to any form of mediation and the government hammering home Bill 94 in the fashion it intends at present is going to cause further frustration for the medical profession. It is going to cause further anger and is going to cause further hostility in their bitterness. We have been told today of the very distinct possibility of an escalation of some of the disruption of services we have experienced during the past few days.

This issue is reaching crisis proportions. The matter is not in hand, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has assured us on a number of occasions in this House. He does not have control of the situation, and we have a very serious and a very critical situation that is going to have to be addressed by the government.

The introduction of mediation has worked in so many other instances, such as labour disputes, municipal disputes and environmental matters; why will it not work with respect to Bill 94? The answer is that it has a very good chance of working, but the government wants to take a very rigid and very inflexible approach to this whole thing and is not prepared to back down even one little bit to attempt to adjudicate this issue with the doctors in a reasonable and intelligent fashion.

It has reached a point where not only can we not get mediation but also a situation occurred yesterday which I found particularly displeasing and which angered me a great deal. I am glad my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was on hand and able to resolve, at least in part, the problem that developed as a direct result of the government not bending one inch to reach a compromise with the doctors through a measure such as mediation. Some of the medical fraternity came to this building yesterday and were denied entry. Thankfully, the member for York Mills was able to step in.

Miss Stephenson: It was on Monday.

Mr. Brandt: I apologize for misleading the House. It occurred on Monday, not on Tuesday. This is something of which the government should not be too proud. This is the first time I can recall in the history of this province that any group, however hostile, militant, upset or angry, was denied entry to this building. The government should be ashamed of itself. Not only will it not introduce mediation but also it will not allow into the building some of the very people it is expecting to deliver health and medical services to the people of this province. That will hang over the heads of the Liberals for a long time to come.

Mr. Chairman: Please stay with mediation.

Mr. Brandt: This is mediation. It is as a direct result of not introducing mediation that all these things have occurred.

The doctors have agreed that if a mediator is introduced, they will restore services immediately. As the Minister of Health well knows, the minute there is an indication the government has agreed to that one small step in the direction of negotiating a settlement, namely, mediation, the doctors have agreed they will call off the disruption of services that is occurring at this time.

The doctors have gone even further with respect to their position. They have already mediated their position -- notice I am staying on the point -- by moving towards the correction of some of the problems the government has identified in part. They have mediated their position by indicating they would not extra bill seniors, emergency cases or welfare recipients.

We recognize that only about 10 per cent of the doctors in this province extra bill. That amounts to about three per cent of all billings in this province. The doctors have pulled back even farther from that position in an attempt to find some negotiated settlement with this firmly fixed government. We are now talking about perhaps one per cent or 1.5 per cent of all the billings in Ontario that would be affected.

How can this government possibly attempt to negotiate with the doctors at any time in the future when it is not prepared to take one small step and agree to mediation? I find it absolutely astounding that the government would not do that.

When we talk about the question of mediation, I have to remind the government that a year ago, when this whole process started, there was not a problem with respect to the delivery of health services in Ontario. Our system of health care was looked upon and proudly identified as being probably the best health care system in the entire world, absolutely second to none.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Is the honourable gentleman reading from a text? There is a rule about that.

Mr. Brandt: The member knows full well I am not.

We have now angered the doctors, we have refused mediation and we are now pushing it to the point where there has been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a very serious and critical breakdown in the finest health care system that can be found anywhere in the world.

4:10 p.m.

If the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and I were talking on an informal basis, I am sure he would say to me: "At least in part, the member for Sarnia makes some sense. I have to agree with some of the comments being made by the member for Sarnia because he is correct when he states to this assembly that we did have a fine health care system." I am sure the minister would agree with that.

When we look at the chaos and breakdown of the system today because the government has refused to introduce mediation or any form of negotiation, the fault for that lies squarely in the minister's lap. The government is the author of its own fate. It has brought about the disruption of services, the breakdown in the health system and the anger the doctors are sensing and feeling. All those things have occurred because the government has been totally inflexible.

The Minister of Health is an individual whom I respect very highly. I have said that on most occasions he is a rather flexible individual; he is the type of individual who will give and take a little bit to find some common ground upon which to land this issue, some compromise on Bill 94. I do not know what has happened to him. Maybe it is the water he anticipates drinking in Tiverton shortly -- maybe that has something to do with it; I do not know -- but something has caused him to change his personality. It has changed very substantially as it relates to this bill as a result of his failure even to consider the introduction of some form of mediation.

We have been in committee on Bill 94 for 19 days. We have talked in committee of the whole House for about 10 days now. There have been some slight compromises made by the government in connection with this bill, one of which was the fine that was reduced from $10,000 to $250 through an amendment by the government. That was a brilliant stroke on the part of the government, because the $10,000 created even more hostility and anger among the doctors than one could even imagine, but the government did compromise on that.

I plead with the government that if it wants to open hospitals, get doctors back to work and do something responsible for a change, then one of its members should simply pick up the phone and agree to bring in a mediator. That is all it will take. It may fail; it may not be successful. That is the chance the government will take when it calls in a mediator, but at least it will send out a signal to the doctors and the health practitioners of this province that the government is going to make one last effort to resolve the matter and that it is not simply going to press on through with Bill 94 at all costs.

We have had 10 days with respect to this bill in committee of the whole House. We are speaking to a matter --

Mr. Grande: How many more months do you want?

Mr. Brandt: I am going to get to that. I am going to get to the matter of mediation as it relates to the third party very shortly, because the people in the third party ought to be ashamed of themselves. There is no other group in this province with respect to mediation whose rights the New Democratic Party would not stand up for and say that matter should be resolved through negotiation. The NDP members stood up time and time again when it came to transit workers, the recent disruption of service with respect to those --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What did your party do?

Mr. Brandt: At least we are consistent, which is far more than my friend can say for his party. We are consistent in that we are calling for a mediated settlement of this issue. What the third party is calling for and what it spoke about in connection with the remarks made by the leader of the third party today is the introduction of back-to-work legislation in some fashion.

The third party is saying we should press on quickly and not hear any further debate on the merits of mediation or on the merits of some of the amendments -- we have a whole host of amendments -- we are going to continue to bring forward and we want considered. We want those amendments to be placed before this House in an attempt to resolve this issue in an intelligent and humane fashion.

We do not want to move the process quickly to the passage of Bill 94, as the third party has been suggesting, because it has been warned that the matter is going to be escalated, the hostility is going to increase and the anger is going to become more intense. It has been told that. Immediately after that, for the first time in my recollection -- and I have been here for only five years -- I can see the third party standing up in the House and talking about back-to-work legislation. It is funny that this is the only group they are going to talk about that requires that kind of heavy-handedness. I find it very difficult to accept.

Why does the third party not talk about calling the doctors? Why do they not discuss the issue with the OMA? Why do they not attempt, as they have accused us of doing, to develop a pipeline with the OMA so they can find out what it is the medical association is really concerned about? All they can think about at present, and this perception may well be shared by the government, is that they may have a popular issue and may pick up some political points.

Some surveys have indicated to the government that perhaps the people of Ontario think they are going to get free, no-cost health care if Bill 94 is brought in, that there will be no further extra billing and no additional charges. In speaking to the amendment on the introduction of a mediator, I have to say there is no free lunch. In some way, shape or form, you pay for everything you get in this world. The free lunch theory, so closely grasped to the hearts of the members of the third party, is nothing more than a fallacy.

They could talk to the doctors and the OMA and suggest mediation. They could say: "We are into a very sticky wicket here, a very serious problem. We want to get the doctors back to work and open the emergency wards in our hospitals. We want to get health services back to the good level they were at about a year ago when another government was in charge and responsible for health care. We want to do some of these things. What is it the OMA would like us to do with respect to the position of our third party?"

They have not even talked to them. Have they picked up the phone and talked to the OMA? No, they have not. They do not even know the phone number. If it were any other group, any other average citizen of this province, they would be out there carrying picket signs. They would be demonstrating with them and doing all the things I have seen them do so frequently in the past, but to them the doctors do not deserve the same consideration.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, there are some interventions coming from the third party. I am trying not to be --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Why does the member not speak to the amendment?

Mr. Brandt: I am. I say to the Minister of Labour, I am speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the other members will not interrupt the member for Sarnia. If the member for Sarnia were to face the chair, perhaps they would not distract him.

Mr. Brandt: The lack of introduction of mediation in this process is going to do nothing but humiliate the doctors even further, which the government has already tried to do with some of its uncalled-for comments. They are going to try to frustrate the doctors even further in connection with what the doctors would like to see in terms of a compromise on this measure. They are going to anger the doctors even further, which is something we do not need when we are attempting to deliver a first-class system of health care in this province.

I am surprised by someone who knows as much about labour as the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the current Minister of Labour. He recognizes how effective mediation has been in some very difficult cases that I am sure have come to the attention of his ministry. When I served as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour some years ago, I felt comfortable about suggesting to the two sides that a mediator or negotiator be brought into the process in an attempt to resolve it.

4:20 p.m.

The minister knows full well that one's batting average is never 100 per cent in these things, but the rate of success is good enough that it is at least worth a try. It would send a signal to the doctors that the government was willing to give it a chance, that it was willing to give some indication that its position is not so totally hardened and so totally fixed on this issue that it is inflexible. That is all we are asking for with this amendment.

Let me read a definition of the verb "mediate" from Webster's dictionary: "to interpose between parties in order to reconcile them; to reconcile differences." Also, "to effect by action as an intermediary," and perhaps more important, and I underline this, "to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary."

I suggest that both the government and the third party have a well-known fondness for accord or for accords, although I agree the third party's enthusiasm for accords has faded somewhat in the past months. However, I ask both the government and the third party to agree with our party to work towards an accord that would have real meaning and would serve to defuse the present crisis.

This dispute begs for a mediator. We already know the OMA has agreed to suspend all work stoppages if the government will agree to suspend Bill 94 until such time as a negotiator can sit down in an attempt to find some common ground in this dispute. There is no doubt that our party would welcome such a farsighted move on the government's part. It would be the first indication that it was prepared to be flexible on this issue. We would welcome that and would work along with the government in an attempt to resolve this issue if it were to introduce a mediator.

I suggest to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Labour that at the very least it would end, even if temporarily, the threat of a tragedy which we have on our hands at present. It might not end it permanently, but it might temporarily. There is the obvious possibility that we are going to have a further breakdown in the health care system of this province, which is critical enough now. We could put a halt to that. We could stop that. We could give a pause and perhaps a little breathing space to all parties to sit down and review their positions.

We join with the Minister of Health in that we do not want to see a further breakdown in the system. As a result of his not introducing a mediator, we do not want to see further difficulties develop for people in this province who require health care and need either to see a medical practitioner or to get into a hospital or an emergency ward. I truly believe that for us as parliamentarians, serving different constituencies, our first and foremost thought must be for the people we so proudly represent. I do not want the people of Sarnia and Lambton to live in fear of what the present bill means because of the lack of any mediation process in the bill.

It is also important to recognize that the doctors of the province have already indicated they will not stop their strike activities if the bill is passed. We have had that warning already, and let me reinforce it. Passing Bill 94 is no solution at all. The government has heard this from the OMA today and has heard it previously from my colleague the member for York Mills. All it will do is cause further hostility and further breakdown.

The minister may well not have seen anything yet. I say that to him in the hope that he will see the correctness of both the proposition we have put before him and the intermediate step of introducing a mediator into this process in an attempt to stop what could be an increasingly chaotic situation. We must find a solution and we must find it soon to protect the people of this province. I suggest that the first step in that process is to introduce a mediator.

Mr. Callahan: Did the member stop? Is it over?

Mr. Brandt: No, it is not. I have a few other words I want to share with members. I was just collecting my thoughts for a moment and I want to stay on the bill. It is important.

The Deputy Chairman: And on the amendment.

Mr. Brandt: I am staying on the amendment, which is part of the bill. We are amending the bill, so I am staying on the amendment related to the bill.

The reason I want to see a halt brought to the present chaos, speaking very directly to the amendment and the need for a mediator, is that in my community, as is the case in many other communities, the health care system has already broken down. We can stop all that.

As an example, in the city of Sarnia, one of the two emergency wards is already closed. Sarnia General Hospital does not have emergency services at the moment. Those emergency services are being transferred to St. Joseph's Hospital. It is delivering services and attempting to meet its responsibility as it relates to health care in my community, but it is having great difficulty. The numbers are doubling and tripling because some doctors' offices are closed and because we have an emergency ward that is closed in the only other hospital in the city.

All this can stop today if the Minister of Health, with the support and concurrence of his Premier (Mr. Peterson), will pick up the phone and say he is prepared to introduce a mediator. If the government will do at least that, we can stop the chaos we are faced with.

It is not only in my community. The other evening I was in the great community of Cornwall; the same problem exists there. Health services are breaking down on a very serious and critical basis right across the province. It is happening right here in Metropolitan Toronto.

The hospitals are attempting to cope. They are attempting to cope with the breakdown in services by doing whatever they can. From having spoken to the administrators of those hospitals, I know it would encourage and compliment the government if it would bring in mediation. From speaking to the administrators of those hospitals, I can tell the members they are frightened at present. They do not know whether they can cope with the increased case load that is being pushed on them at this time.

They do not know whether some situation, some slipup, something beyond human control is going to occur as a result of the very fixed position of the current government as it relates to this matter and the insensitivity of the government as it relates to the complete disregard for the need of mediation.

The complete disregard for the need to bring in a negotiator is absolutely baffling. Time and again, during the life of this current government, it will use third-party mediation; it will use a negotiator to solve other disputes. I will remind it of what I have said during the course of this debate on this occasion. I will remind it that it is introducing a mediator to solve the problem related to some other matter but that it adamantly refused to bring in a negotiator or a mediator to solve one of the most critical problems that has ever faced a government in the history of Ontario.

This is not a small matter. What we have seen over the course of the past few days is not something that is resolving the issue. It is not getting better; it is not healing itself. The issue is becoming worse; it is deteriorating. The government has a system that is collapsing in front of its very eyes. It has a system that is not going to be healed with the passage of Bill 94.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: While I am speaking, I have to remind the member --

Mr. Callahan: The Conservatives have caused everything that has happened thus far.

Mr. Pope: It is the government's bill.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Brandt: I believe some voices here in the assembly have now quietened down; so I will attempt to resume the debate. I was about to say that mediation would put a halt to the critical situation we are faced with at present. It is one that concerns me a great deal as it relates to my own community and the communities represented by my colleagues on all sides of this House. The lack of mediator and a mediation process, which could be introduced with the stroke of a pen by the government as part of Bill 94, has resulted in the kind of breakdown we have in medical services in this province at present.

To have the naïveté to suggest that the simple passage of Bill 94 is going to see all these problems fade away is absolutely absurd. To suggest that our party is not concerned about sick individuals, senior citizens and those requiring health services, I consider to be not only an insult but also beneath the dignity of this House. It is not the truth, and the member well knows it. We are fighting for the rights of individual professionals to practise their profession. We are fighting for the right of those professionals to have a mediation process as part of the process that we hope will resolve the very problem that has been created by the actions of the current government.

Even if the minister had a mediation process that he introduced today in an attempt to resolve Bill 94 and if he made that part of Bill 94, if it were to pass at some future point, that would still not resolve all the problems. I understand that. There are some very strong feelings -- and that is an understatement -- with respect to what Bill 94 stands for.

Without that mediation process, without moving towards that now, without making at least that gesture, without at least sending out the signal that he is prepared to negotiate, that he has not got his mind and his position so fixed and so inflexible that he is not prepared to even talk about it, he is sending out a very dangerous signal to the health practitioners of this province that is going to come back and haunt this government time and again in the future. That is what concerns me.

I do not take any great joy in saying that, but with the level of hostility that is out there -- and I am sure the Minister of Health has sensed at least some of it during the course of his travels -- I fear for the future of the health care system in this province.

We may think there is a small problem related to extra billing, but in all the time I served in government and all the time I have served in this assembly, I have yet to receive my first phone call from somebody complaining about extra billing. That is just some indication that the government a year ago created a problem where there was not a problem. It has created chaos where there was order, and it has created a breakdown where there was a smooth-running health care delivery system in this province, second to none anywhere.

We have to live with it, but I think they can resolve it in a spirit of compromise, in the hope that at least some semblance of intelligence will permeate across the floor and reach the minister and the Premier. All the minister has to do is pick up the phone and say to the OMA, "We are prepared to sit down and negotiate with you." If he is prepared to go that far -- and the government does not have to lose face in doing that -- he still has every opportunity to bring through Bill 94. It will not come as any surprise to the government that we will probably not support it in that effort.

It still has every opportunity, if the mediation process breaks down, to move right back on the fast track it is on at present, which will lead to the final passage of Bill 94.

I too am capable of reading the numbers in this House, and I know the ultimate fate as it relates to Bill 94.

When the day comes that we vote on it, I can tell where I am going to stand and where my party is going to stand, but we can reach that fateful day, that particular point, with a position that is at least somewhat more comfortable for the members of this House where all members of this House feel they have made every effort to resolve this issue in a manner that is at least reasonably acceptable to the medical practitioners in this province and to the people who require those services, namely, the patients who are going to need doctors in the future, as they need them so desperately at present.

I say in all sincerity that the kind of confrontational environment we have at present has been created by a government that is unwilling to compromise, negotiate or mediate.

We have a very simple amendment, which I am sure has been read by most if not all members of this House. It simply calls for the government to sit down and bring in a third party. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why is it so difficult for the government to say: "We are prepared at least to try this as a mechanism to resolve the issue. We are prepared to move" --

Mr. Callahan: What was going on before?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the member for Brampton that he does not have the floor.

Mr. Brandt: The government has not moved at all. That is the problem. They have not moved one inch over there. The minister thinks he is on a hot streak politically with respect to this issue, but I can tell him he is not, because the chaos that is breaking this system down will come back to lie on the shoulders of that government for a long time to come.

The people who are going to suffer are the people who are going to need health services in this province, because failing to bring in mediation or a form of arbitration in this process is now --

Mr. Swart: He is good for another 20 minutes now.

Mr. Brandt: I am glad the member for Welland-Thorold is here, because I have some points to make with respect to the participation of the third party in this whole process.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Ignore the interjections.

Mr. Brandt: I wanted to welcome the member. I will get back on the point.

Mr. Swart: I was sure he would have, but we have had useful participation without attempting to filibuster, haven't we?

Mr. Brandt: The word "filibuster" is entirely foreign to the Canadian parliamentary system. I am not aware that we have anything like that. What we have here is an attempt on the part of our party to convince the government that mediation is right and proper and that it will be helpful in this instance. That is all we are asking for. That is a reasonable position.

What is so difficult about the government moving even ever so slightly on this matter? I realize they have been discussing Bill 94 as a point of principle as it relates to their party. I question the principle certainly, but they think it is a point of principle. I realize they are going to continue to move unswervingly towards the completion of Bill 94, but at the very least they could say: "Let us hold back just a touch here. Let us take the time to rethink this position just a little bit."

The member for Lincoln, who has proposed a partial compromise on the part of our party, has an intelligent amendment, which should be supported and which could bring a little bit of peace to the current chaotic situation. That is all we are asking for. We are asking for a pause in the confrontation. We are asking for a truce in the war that is going on.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) accused me and other of my colleagues of something called a filibuster, but this is a long way from any kind of unnecessary delay. What we want, I say to the member and his party colleagues, is a thorough and complete review of this bill and of the amendments we are proposing as they relate to the bill. We want to make absolutely certain we bring in the most sensitive, most intelligent and most workable type of legislation that is possible.

I recognize we are not getting very far with respect to a great number of our amendments, but a great number of those amendments would have strengthened Bill 94 very considerably. They would have made it a more workable and more operative kind of bill, which would have delivered a high level of health services to the people of this province. Because of the lack of sensitivity on the part of the members of the third party and on the part of the members of the government, there has been no compromise whatsoever as it relates to this piece of legislation.

What we want to do --

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: With all respect to the current Chairman, I have been here for a long time, almost 25 years, and I have never seen such terrible harm to a system as we have had today. Every one of the speakers across this House in the opposition party has said the same thing. Every one of them has used the same speech.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Miss Stephenson: Was it a point of opinion? Do I have an opportunity --

Mr. Sargent: The member for York Mills said the same thing yesterday that the member for Sarnia is saying now.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) should have heard the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) for four weeks two years ago.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Sarnia has the fl