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

October 17, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L110 - Thu 17 Oct 1996 / Jeu 17 Oct 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CREDIT UNION DAY

TORONTO EAST DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

SANDBANKS PROVINCIAL PARK

SOEURS DE LA CHARITÉ D'OTTAWA

CREDIT UNION DAY

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

PREMIER'S VISIT TO TIMMINS

CREDIT UNION DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

OBSTETRICAL CARE

CHILD CARE CENTRES

VISITOR

HIGHWAY 407

CHILD POVERTY

SAFE COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

WATER QUALITY

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

NURSING STAFF

NORTHERN ONTARIO

CONSUMER PROTECTION

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

BROADCAST AND RECORDING SERVICE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SENIOR CITIZENS

BEAR HUNTING

RENT REGULATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

BEAR HUNTING

DEREGULATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

DRINKING AND DRIVING

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX EXEMPTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GOVERNMENT POLICY

SALE OF AMMUNITION

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

Mr Crozier moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act / Projet de loi 83, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm pleased today to rise to speak to Bill 83. I do this, asking for the support of my colleagues in the Legislature, because I feel this is a bill that is non-partisan in nature. It is intended to fill a gap that I feel exists in the present consumer protection legislation. The purpose of the bill is to extend the scope of protection provided to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act to include protection from the practice of negative option billing or negative option marketing with respect to provision of services.

As the members may know, the act is a relatively short one. It is intended that to the wording that is there at the present time we add the word "services," which means "personal property or services furnished to a person who did not request them and a request shall not be inferred from inaction or the passing of time alone, but does not include,

"(

a) personal property or services that the recipient knows or ought to know are intended for another person, or

"(

b) personal property or services supplied under a contract in writing to which the recipient is a party that provides for the periodic supply of personal property or services to the recipient without further solicitation."

Further, the bill includes two clauses, one being, "No action shall be brought by which to charge any person for payment in respect of unsolicited goods or services notwithstanding their use, misuse, loss, damage or theft," and, "Except as provided in this section, the recipient of unsolicited goods or services, or of a credit card that has not been requested or accepted in accordance with subsection (2), has no legal obligation in respect of their use or disposal."

This really is an issue of fairness. It's fairness to the consumer that I'm seeking here. People should opt for services they want and not opt out of services they don't want. It's also an issue of fairness to business. Bill 83 will help level the playing field for those businesses that play fair with their consumers. Businesses that provide consumers with informed choices win with this amendment.

I too, like many, believe that in many instances it is buyer beware, but there are those instances, in the case of negative option marketing, where the methods used may not always be the fairest. Certainly by far the majority of businesses in the province of Ontario act in a fair and level playing field manner. The real reason we have regulations and laws is not only for those who always abide by the rules but to provide some protection in those areas where some do not always abide by the rules.

Bill 83 puts consumers first. After all, the act it's amending is the Consumer Protection Act. We have felt in the past that there needed to be some protection for consumers when it comes to unsolicited credit and the receipt of unsolicited goods. In this business world today in the 1990s the service industry is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in business. Therefore, I felt that the act needed to be brought up to date and that services needed to be included with the receipt of credit and goods. If the service is confusing, then business should explain it and let the consumer decide. That's the free market action. That's people making choices. That's people making informed choices.

Complexity of a product or service is no excuse for failure to give consumers the opportunity for positive action as opposed to negative action. As just happened recently, and this is only an example, our household received a telephone call from a company that's in the business of consumer products and was offered a disability insurance plan for 60 days free. I have to say I didn't receive the call, although the policy is issued in my name. My wife received the call. She knows of my concern in this area, so in the normal course of events as to what might happen in many households she said, "Why sure, send it out." It's a $250,000 group insurance policy. The letter I received with it says:

"You don't pay a cent for the first 60 days. Your first 60 days of protection are provided at no cost to you. For your convenience, after the 60-day bonus period, your monthly premium will automatically be billed to your account."

You might say a prudent person should be able to understand that, but many people might not understand the implications of that, and this is only an example. What happens, I am told, in the industry is that 80% of those who are offered this kind of negative option then go on to pay the premium, or at least it's billed to their account or their bank account. It's only the 20% who then perhaps, after receiving the material, didn't understand it at the outset, don't want the coverage and therefore cancel it. The company then only has to work on that 20%, but I think it's interesting that 80% of the people who are offered options such as this continue to pay it.

We want those companies that take the time to explain, that perhaps take the time to interview the potential consumer, that take the time to get their signature on the dotted line, if you like. We think this bill will level the playing field with those companies that operate in perhaps a more open and understandable way. Clearly it's an issue of fairness to the consumer, but it's also, as I mentioned earlier, an issue of fairness to business by prohibiting what has been popularly called negative option marketing.

I don't want to confuse anybody with the term "negative option billing" as opposed to "negative option marketing." I've introduced that description of it so that you will understand that it covers a much broader area. Marketing is what it's all about. Marketing is what business is about today. We're in a highly competitive environment, and consumers in many cases are deluged with offers of various kinds of services.

I just hope, with the discussion that will ensue on this bill, and hopefully with the passage of the bill, that it will raise the level of awareness and that we can continue to advise the public of its responsibility in the area of purchases, but also the responsibility that business has to be fair, open, honest and do all it can to make sure consumers understand the product they're purchasing.

I'm hopeful that this bill will pass with the support of all sides of the Legislature and that we can act quickly to facilitate the passage of Bill 83. These changes, I suggest, clearly put the consumer first. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate? Normally we go from one party to the third party and then to the Conservatives. If there is unanimous consent obviously, would you -- no? Therefore, the member for Durham Centre.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I'm pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak to Bill 83. The bill raises once again the issue of consumers and unsolicited goods and services. The Consumer Protection Act now includes goods; it does not include the word "services."

As a matter of principle, this issue has been dealt with recently in a certain context. For example, in the auto insurance context the minister without portfolio with responsibility for privatization has written to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, urging the insurance industry to continue its efforts to explain to consumers the options open to them under the auto insurance legislation, which is Bill 59. His letter also states that the government will not tolerate negative option billing. That's dealing with the specific issue of auto insurance.

In addition, in December 1994 the Honourable Cam Jackson introduced a private member's bill, Bill 206, in the Legislature which did not pass during the majority government of the NDP. It dealt in a more sophisticated and detailed manner with the issue of services and products than does Bill 83, which is before us today.

Having said that, as a matter of principle this bill does address an important issue for consumers in the province. There are serious flaws with the bill that are matters of concern which arise out of the fact that the bill simply seeks to add a word, "services," to the various sections and subsections of the bill which were drafted with goods in mind.

For example, now we have a situation where "services" is not defined in Bill 83, which will lead to doubt and uncertainty. The fact that the same rules that apply to goods have been extended unaltered to services in the bill means that a certain mismatch of concepts occurs which may result in a lack of clarity, which in turn exacerbates the issue of what services are covered or meant to be covered by the sections' provisions.

The definition of "goods" in

section 1 of the act is limited to personal property, which tends to be tangible in nature. "Services," however, may be either tangible or intangible, and that's not dealt with in Bill 83. The current legislative language which has successfully prohibited providers of unsolicited goods from suing to recover payment, "notwithstanding their use, misuse, loss, damage or theft," may not provide the same level of protection to a recipient of unsolicited services which may not be capable of loss or damage although arguably capable of use, misuse or theft in certain circumstances.

The point is a lack of clarity and precision and a lack of matching of concepts and

definitions in this bill. The result is a rather clumsy effort to accomplish the goal. Having said that, the issue is one that is appropriately addressed in Bill 83. It also doesn't deal with many complaints the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations gets with respect to this type of issue. A great deal of work will have to be done to make Bill 83 into an appropriate, useful piece of legislation for consumers in Ontario.

Having said all that and expressed those quite serious concerns about the flawed nature of this bill before the House today, I certainly don't intend to urge my colleagues in this part of the House to vote against it simply because the NDP majority did not support Mr Jackson's private member's Bill 206 or because the Liberals, on the opposite side, chose to block my private member's Bill 33 and not even let it come to a vote in this Legislative Assembly.

I think it's incumbent on us, in dealing with private members' business, to try to support private members' bills that have a kernel of usefulness to consumers in the province. This bill would need a tremendous amount of work to bring it into a condition where it would be a useful and progressive piece of legislation.

For these reasons I intend to vote in principle in support of Bill 83 on second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'd like first of all to commend my colleague the member for Essex-South on his legislation. We know his great commitment and dedication to consumer protection. I'm sure all members of the House will want to take a very close look at what he's introduced here today.

We see this protection in a good number of provinces. It's protection against what the member has introduced as negative option marketing or negative option billing. I'm suggesting here that the member has done a good amount of research into what is going on in other provinces and I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel when we see that provinces such as Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Quebec have already introduced this type of legislation.

As the member for Essex South has indicated, this is a bill regarding fairness; that, of course, being fairness to the consumer. The people who are consuming the product should be able to opt for the services they want and they should not have to opt out of the services they don't want. In essence, this is what my colleague from Essex South is indicating in bringing forward Bill 83.

As well, we're talking about fairness to business, to businesses that operate throughout all of our communities. Bill 83 will help level that playing field where you have businesses that play fair with the consumer and some that actually don't. I am sure we all, as members, can come up with many examples where we've seen businesses that weren't quite as fair as they should have been with the consumer.

I know I have a good number of these cases that come through my door on a fairly regular basis and I think anything to do with the consumer and the protection of the consumer, such as what my friend has introduced here today, is something that everyone in the House should be looking at supporting.

I think what this bill does is to place the consumer first, and that is very important. I've indicated that they've already done this in other provinces and I think it's incumbent upon us as legislators here in the House to place that consumer as other provinces have already done. I think if there's any kind of service that is confusing to the consumer, it should be incumbent upon the business to explain that. Our consumers should be able to make informed choices on information that they should be able to get from businesses before they make their purchases.

There are often very complex rules and regulations or complex negotiations that come with many products. I think it has to be incumbent upon the business to make sure that the consumer is provided with the information that will allow them to make an informed choice when they go to purchase a product or a service. Again, I think that's very important.

The recent auto insurance billing issue is a real example of where the consumers, if they were informed, were able to take advantage of lower rates. Unfortunately, if they were not informed, the bill came in the mail, as it has always, and they weren't informed that there would be premiums that they could actually take advantage of. This where I talk about the uninformed consumer.

I had an example just yesterday where a 20-year-old purchasing insurance for his vehicle found that rates were enormous when he took a look at what he was going to pay here in Ontario. He moved to Manitoba to take a course at school and found out that his rates were one quarter the cost in Manitoba for more coverage on his vehicle. This was a 20-year-old constituent who found a great difference. I don't think the insurance company actually informed him of his choices and what he could have been looking at, so again, I think this is very important that the government help protect that particular consumer.

We take a look at Bill 83 and it recognizes that the Consumer Protection Act has to be updated to reflect the realities of our economy today, our new economy, one that is becoming increasingly based on the transaction of services and one that is changing on a daily basis. I think Bill 83 addresses a long overdue prohibition on the marketing technique that is a severe irritant to consumers.

Some people may argue that negative option marketing can increase efficiency and work to the benefit of consumers. While this could be the case with some businesses, I really don't see where it can actually benefit the consumer. I indicated that an unfair business would come to practise to the business's advantage, so again, I think it's very important that the consumer have the advantage of having informed choices and making those informed choices on information that should be incumbent upon the business to provide.

I would just like to congratulate the member for Essex South on his bill and commend him on all his hard work on behalf of Ontario consumers. I am sure that all members of the House will look at this as a way for us to help the consumer in terms of their purchasing.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to stand on behalf of my party, the New Democratic Party of Ontario, in support of this private member's resolution brought forward by Mr Crozier, Bill 83. I'd like, in the time that I have, to try to explain as well as I can what the bill is about and the rationale for supporting it.

Simply put, it's in order to try to deal with the problem we have in this province of negative option billing. Simply put, those are situations where a marketing firm of one type or another says, "I will send you goods through the mail," or, "I will sell you services through the mail," whatever they might be, and in the delivery of the goods or services a piece of paper comes to your door and says, "If you don't respond within a certain number of days, we're going to bill you for this," so you've got to send it back.

I have seen in my constituency, I'm sure as other members of this assembly have seen in the work that they do as constituency people in their own ridings, a number of people in my riding -- in particular, in the town of Iroquois Falls I remember one issue specifically where the person wasn't aware -- basically it was services that were being brought in in regard to lawn care. The person was sort of told that if they allowed that to happen it was a demonstration and they were going to show it to other people and she would be like the model for the neighbourhood.

She said, "Yes, sure, go ahead and do it," type of thing, and what she ended up doing was getting into a contract where the person who wanted to do the work did it over a longer period of time than she ever wanted to do it and she had a real problem trying to undo the damage that had been done.

The problem, quite frankly, is that in the Consumer Protection Act now services are not included in that negative option portion. You can, under the law of Ontario, return goods; that's fairly easy to do. As long as you turn the goods back, there's nothing that they can do. They can't force you to keep the goods or pay for them. But when it comes to services, it's a real problem.

I have another situation. Mr Crozier talks about insurance. Another constituent about a month ago contacted my office about a similar thing. This elderly couple received a letter in the mail saying basically they had this free insurance policy, the same thing that happened to Mr Crozier himself. They thought: "Geez, this is free. I don't have to do anything. If somebody's going to give me something for free, I may as well keep it," not knowing what was going to happen. A little bit later they got a bill. Again, we're trying to work through the process of undoing the damage that was done there.

It wasn't a huge amount of money. It was a monthly policy -- if I remember the numbers correctly, around $32 a month -- but none the less it's not something this particular couple wanted. They already had life insurance; they didn't need any other protection for funeral expenses; they didn't need extra protection for passing on any kind of money to their family.

They had taken care of those matters quite a long time before they ever got the letter from the insurance company, but none the less, because the constituent had received it and because the constituent hadn't sent it back, they were stuck with a bill that we're now trying to work our way through to make sure that particular constituent doesn't have to pay.

Unlike what the Conservative member for Durham Centre said, which is that the legislation is flawed, I don't think it's flawed. I think it's fairly clear. If you take a look at what the bill is saying, it's trying to deal with the question of services.

I'm just going to read for the members here, because I always think it's important that when we come in and debate bills we should take the time to read the bill. I am always amazed in debate how many times members of this assembly get up and speak on bills and they haven't even taken the time to read them. I just want to read very quickly in

section 1 of the bill what he's getting at. It deals with the definition of unsolicited goods, and the definition goes on to say "personal property or services supplied under a contract in writing to which the recipient is a party that provides for periodical supply of personal property or services to the recipient without further solicitation."

All right? I think it's fairly clear what they're trying to do here. We're trying to get to the question of how we deal with services themselves. I think it's a step in the right direction. I think it's something that quite frankly needs to be done. I think the government has the opportunity here to deal with one particular aspect of trying to protect consumers from unscrupulous business practices carried on by some of the companies in Ontario -- not all. I believe that most companies try to do business in an honest way; in some cases not. This is what this bill is trying to do.

For the member for Durham Centre from the Conservative side of the bench, who said, "I'm going to support this in principle but I want to tell you how flawed it is," listen, you're the government. You guys are the ones who have the ministers' offices. You control the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. If you are so concerned about all those other issues that you raised, the honourable member for Durham Centre, where's the action? When is the minister going to come forward with the legislation to deal with all those other issues that you tend to be concerned about this morning in debate?

You control the Cabinet Office, you control the minister's office, you control the legislation in the House; you have a huge majority in this House. So you have an opportunity to come forward and bring legislation to the table of this House, to the floor of this House, that will deal with your concerns.

What the member opposite from the Liberal Party, Mr Crozier, is trying to say is, "Here is but one aspect of a problem." As a concerned member, the member is saying, "I want to be able to try to advocate on behalf of my constituents and other constituents around the province of Ontario around a particular aspect of consumer protection." I urge the members on the Conservative side of the bench to support this legislation, but not only support it by voting for it at second reading and allowing it to get through the House at this particular point, but I urge you then to go back and to work with the member opposite to lobby your members in the cabinet and lobby your House leader to make sure that the bill doesn't die after second reading.

It's not a big deal; it is not a cumbersome bill, as the member opposite would say. I've dealt with legislation in this House for a number of years and I think this is pretty clear-cut. It was drawn up by legislative counsel. They're the people who write bills. That's what we pay these people for. So for the member opposite to say it's cumbersome I think doesn't bode well to your confidence in the people who work at legislative counsel. These are the same people who write bills for the government, I would add. The thing is, it is not a flawed piece of legislation, so I ask the members to support it.

Again I say go to your cabinet colleagues, go to the cabinet members and say: "Listen, this is a good piece of legislation. I can go back home and I can tell constituents I have dealt with in my riding who have problems like this that the government is doing something about this particular issue." Make sure that the bill not only goes through second reading but goes through the entire process of becoming law.

Then take it one step further. The member for Durham Centre makes a point, and I think it's a valid point. There are a number of issues when it comes to consumer protection legislation that need to be dealt with. As I said before, you're the government. You control this House. You have the majority. Please come forward with legislation in order to deal with that. I will tell you, we on the opposition side of the bench will support you, because I believe the job of an opposition member, as a government member, is to speak out on behalf of their constituents.

Where there are areas that we can agree on that are mutually beneficial for our constituents, I think it should transcend party politics.

I think it has to go, quite frankly, to the term you use, which is common sense. I will say now publicly here in the House, you come forward with consumer protection legislation that does some of the things the member for Durham Centre talked about in his speech today, and I will be there with you. I will vote for the bill. I will go out on the streets of the riding of Cochrane South and I will make sure the constituents know what it's about, and I will give you credit where credit is due.

But until you do so, I ain't going to do that, because quite frankly I think the member is trying to find some reason to tell the members on the Conservative side of the bench not to vote for this legislation. So you need to make sure that is done.

With that, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to debate this part of the bill and again I would urge members in this House to vote in support of the bill from the member for Essex South, because I think it goes a long way to addressing a lot of the issues that we talked about here this morning.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure this morning to rise and participate in the second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, and the comments made by the member for Essex South in opening this important debate on the subject of protecting consumers.

I want to draw to the members' attention that the previous speaker, the NDP member for Cochrane South, spent most of his time offering nothing but criticism about the government and its action. At the end of the day, it's this government that's really in the position to make the final decision and vote to support this bill.

I might point out that during his lengthy diatribe, the member did not at any point mention the private member's bill by a member at that time, Cam Jackson's Bill 206. What did the NDP government do at that time? They had the opportunity as government of the day to move forward with significant changes to consumer protection that were involved in Bill 206, a very comprehensive bill that Minister Jackson took the time to develop in 1994, and the government failed to act.

I want to support Mr Flaherty's comments, the member for Durham Centre, being a very distinguished lawyer from the Durham region, who has very significantly pointed out that the weakness in the bill is that it doesn't really in some areas go far enough. I'd like to suggest that this government really -- our effort is to work to help the people on the ground, the people who are working and struggling every day to make a living in their lives. Just think, for example, of the busy working family getting unsolicited mail and businesses offering services that perhaps requires them to read and take some sort of action.

Think of the senior citizen who perhaps is victimized by being uninformed in an unsolicited approach for a business or service; or the student. For example, my son just received an unsolicited card in the mail. He had his 18th birthday and, what do you know, he's got a Bell Calling Card and another card in the mail the very next day, unsolicited. Sometimes there's an action required not to pre-empt the service that's being offered.

Working on behalf of people, I think Mr Crozier's bill does add the word "service" to the

section of the bill. I think it's a very popular bill. At this time, we are all aware of the federal bill, C-216, which amended the Broadcasting Act, dealing with cable services. This wasn't dealing with consumer protection specifically but more under the regulations of the CRTC.

I'll be supporting this bill, but I am still listening to the full discussion, and I'm looking forward to other members' statements. I really want to leave the one impression, that in today's interactive, Internet world, where you're signing on a system, the buyer has every responsibility to beware of what they're really signing on to buy.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I want to congratulate my colleague for his bill. I think Bill 83 is about fairness. I think as a government we have a responsibility to protect consumers and I think this bill protects consumers. As pointed out by the previous speaker, we have to protect especially seniors, people who don't have access to all governmental information. I think this bill will do this.

The way some business people operate today in this province leaves us unsatisfied with some of the ways that are being used to entice people to sign contracts or to buy products without seeing them and also what we call the "fine print." I don't think every one of us in this House does read the fine print. I think Bill 83 protects the consumers.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There's too much noise. I can't hear the speaker even though he's right close to me.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Oh, sorry, Ben.

Mr Grandmaître: It's okay, you're welcome, David.

As I pointed out, I think these people are all talking together because they want to support this bill, and I congratulate them. I think it's a great piece of legislation and it's about time the government protects our consumers. Again, let's hope that the government members, as the previous speaker pointed out -- that not only he but the rest of the Tory members or the Conservative members will support this bill.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to congratulate the member for Essex South for bringing this bill forward and remind folks out there that this is the time, in the very complicated and sophisticated workings of this place, when members of this House, on their own initiative, separated from their party affiliation or most political considerations, bring forward to all of us for consideration issues that sometimes come from constituents who come to their office and share some concern about some regulation or rule that's in place that isn't working for them.

Sometimes it's a group of people that come forward and lay on the table of a member an issue that needs to be addressed, that just cries out for address.

That member spends a lot of time researching, working with counsel down here and putting the pieces together so that a piece of legislation can be brought before this House for the full consideration of all the members, and as I said, separated from their normal role of either protecting government or hammering government, to consider something that's in the interest of all of the people of a particular jurisdiction. I would suggest that this morning we have before us just such a bill.

The member has obviously heard from his constituents, I'm sure has heard from others of his colleagues in this place re this question, has seen in the press over the last number of years actually some concern raised about this issue as various and sundry companies and enterprises across Ontario and Canada look for newer and more creative ways to bilk people out of the money they work so hard to earn for products they see, on first blush, as perhaps quite attractive and something that might be helpful to them, but in the end, when they've had some time to think about it, find it's not exactly what it was presented to be.

So this morning as we consider this bill, first of all, it's important that all of the members of the House realize that this is in the interest of the common good of consumers out there and will lay the groundwork as well re a level playing field for business and industry as it works within a set of guidelines and rules that are hopefully fair to everybody.

We know in the world we live in how creative new businesses can be and how sometimes they will stretch the envelope to hook somebody into buying a product or entering into a contract that has all kinds of long-term ramifications a person doesn't consider in the initial accepting of and using of, or even sometimes signing for, a particular service or good. I believe today the member is talking about expanding a set of regulations to consider the purchase of or entering into agreement around services as opposed to goods.

We know there are some very good players out there in the business community who are not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people, who are not trying to foist something on people that they don't necessarily want, but all of us at one point in time or another have probably been stung or have had the potential to be stung by some corporation or company or fly-by-night outfit that will sometimes send you something in the mail with a whole lot of very attractive language and packaging.

If you're not on your toes, if you're not somebody who reads a lot of that stuff, who has the time to read that, you can find yourself stuck in something you didn't intend to be stuck in. If we, as legislators in this jurisdiction, can put in place some framework within which all that happens, it will be helpful to everybody.

I also want to make the point that today in our society we have a lot of people out there who are still not as educated as perhaps they would like to be around how this kind of service offer works. We have, for example, a lot of senior citizens out there who, presented with an opportunity by a good salesman at the door, or a package that comes in the mail that looks particularly attractive, want to be cooperative, want to be seen to be helpful or can be convinced very easily that something would be particularly helpful to them.

Then when they have a chance to sit down and have a look at that, or talk it over with their family members, or get the first bill in the mail re something they never expected to get billed for, they find that there is no way out, that they're stuck and that they're now having to pay money they sometimes don't have or can't afford.

The fact that the member for Windsor-Essex is bringing this forward for our consideration this morning is certainly a very positive and good opportunity for all of us to try to collectively get our heads around something that doesn't have any political consideration, doesn't have any consideration re whether we're protecting the government or fighting the government, but is doing something in the interest of the common good.

I'm certainly going to be supporting it. I'm going to be listening intently to comments from others who will stand and speak on this. I want to again say thanks to the member for Windsor-Essex for bringing this forward and suggest that other members of the House give it full and due consideration because it is indeed in the best interests of all of us, our family members and our neighbours to do that.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to enter into the debate on the bill introduced by the member for Essex South. I think all of us in this House support the protection of the consumer. I assume this bill is similar to the private member's bill in the federal House of Commons, which I believe is close to proclamation, that was designed to protect people from the cable television services that were foisted on innocent people. People ended up paying for services they didn't even know they were getting. That was the design of that, and there may be other areas of services that we will need clarification on.

I hope this bill passes and goes to committee. I think it's worthwhile spending some more time on it in committee and listening to some expert authority on the legal implications of what's federal and what's provincial, because the federal bill may be designed to apply to some of the services the member for Essex South is speaking of.

I compliment him for bringing it forward. We all appreciate the 48-hour rule. Not to downplay door-to-door salesmen, but some of them are pretty good, particularly with seniors, in selling services and goods that people may not necessarily want or need. We all have members of our families or friends with whom that has taken place. The 48-hour rule and the current

section 36 provide the protection with respect to goods but not services, which is essentially what this

section is doing.

As the member for Essex South has pointed out, Bill 83 adds to

section 36 the word "services" so that if a supplier provides to any person -- and that's not limited to consumers -- unsolicited services without a contractual agreement permitting such an arrangement, the recipient of the unsolicited services cannot be sued by the supplier, nor does the recipient have any legal obligation to pay for said services. I think all the speakers who have spoken today agree generally with that principle, and I hope the bill carries.

I'm not going to repeat the comments made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Durham Centre, Mr Flaherty. He outlined some of the legal pitfalls, and we want to make sure that if this legislation carries on to the future we're not going to be creating more legal problems. I took the time this morning, as a matter of fact, to look up in the Ontario Citator what sort of cases had reported decisions on this section.

There aren't very many with respect to the Consumer Protection Act, but listening to the gist of the legal argument put forward by Mr Flaherty, the member for Durham Centre, there are some concerns that this legislation may result in unwanted litigation.

The issue of insurance has been mentioned, by the member for Essex South and others. I don't know whether that's option marketing or not. I do know that one has to be cautious about making this amendment. For example, it is my understanding that if one purchases insurance of any sort and you fail to pay the insurance premiums, the insurance coverage continues for a period of time. I would want to make sure, in listening to the legal counsel who come to the committee, that it's not the intent that the minute the policy expires that's the end of the policy.

I hope that's not the intent of the member for Essex South, because it's going to cause problems. Certainly consumers in that particular case benefit from automatic contract renewal by not allowing policies to accidentally lapse. I would want to hear more comments from the legal people whether or not this amendment will cause problems with that situation.

We hear stories where insurance companies add unsolicited coverage, whether it be travel or medical insurance, to a homeowner's policy without discussing it with the client and I believe the member's amendment would cover that situation, because clearly that hasn't been explained, that has not been solicited; it's just unilaterally put in the policy by the insurance company.

We have now got into all the services that are provided by cable television. You'll be able to press a menu and find out you can order goods from the store through television. There is the whole issue of telemarketing via computers. I assume all of that is covered by the federal legislation, but if there are other areas, as I say, we'll need more expert comments to determine that in which case I fully support in principle what Mr Crozier, the member for Essex South, is trying to do.

I too hope this piece of legislation will go to committee, to further protect the consumer. I hope that in the time remaining the member for Essex South will give us some more examples of what he means by services. He gave the one which came to his family, although I think I knew about it, but I'd like to know some more examples about what the intent of his bill is.

The only hesitation I have is that this may overlap with federal jurisdiction and we're going to get into more litigation as to what's constitutional and what isn't constitutional. I hope that in the time remaining he would get into specifically what services the bill is intended to apply to provincially.

I echo the comments of all the members of this House. I believe this bill should go to committee because the intent of the bill clearly is to protect the innocent consumer of this province and I too intend to support the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Applause.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I don't know, David, whether that applause was for me or for your speech. I'll say it's for the speech by the member for Dufferin-Peel who, I think, makes some good points. I'm pleased to see he's supporting the bill. I think he's right when he says it should go to committee so we can have the appropriate input as it progresses through the system.

This is the issue that probably brings people from all political parties together. I want to pay tribute to Bruce Crozier, the member for Essex South, for taking the initiative to bring it forward as a bill this morning as his private member's public business, because it's something that has arisen as a result of our constituents talking to us. Often people are frustrated. They will say to those who are in government or in opposition, to those of us who are in elected office: "We feel concern because we don't see our views reflected in legislation.

We have certain issues that we think are important and parliaments or councils never tend to deal with those." That's not an accurate statement, but that's a feeling or an expression which is put forward.

This is one example. There isn't anybody here who doesn't recall the furore when the cable television industry got into this, where they were sending bills to people and people really hadn't asked for the services that were being provided. There was a groundswell of negative comment about this to such an extent that the president or vice-president of one of the major companies got up and had a press conference. I must say that as an example of a person admitting his company was wrong in what he had done, I thought it was an excellent press conference.

I thought the person put forward a rather good argument for what the company had intended, but also indicated that he was going to respond on behalf of his company to the consumer complaints that were out there. I think the public felt somewhat empowered by this, and justifiably so, because they saw it as someone imposing services on them that they didn't want.

Mr Crozier, the Liberal member for Essex South, has also raised the issue of insurance in this House, automobile insurance in this case. There's a debate out there of whether that is negative option billing. He has raised the concern he has heard from constituents and others in the province that people have to indicate they don't want a certain service or a certain component of an insurance policy or they end up getting it.

I think the consumer out there is an educated consumer, is an informed consumer today, with all the material and all the choices available to consumers, and I think the consumer would like to make that choice. If the company trying to put forward a product or service has a good product and service, one that's popular, one that's desired, one that's wanted by the consumer, then I think the consumer will make that purchase of that service or product, but to impose it on the person, to have the person go through the procedure of having to say no rather than say yes is a backwards way of doing things.

We must look at some of the situations that face people. People in their lives have a lot of things going on. They may have a personal crisis, there may be a health crisis, a person may be away for a period of time in another province or another country, and an invoice shows up at the house saying that they are going to get the following services. Those people often aren't able to act upon that.

Even the people who are able to act upon it get annoyed because they have to take the step of saying they don't want the product or service, but if they are incapable of doing so because they're ill, because there's a crisis of some kind they're facing, because they happen to be very busy at work or, as I've mentioned, in another location, that can cost the person money and a lot of inconvenience.

What is at issue here, as the member for Essex South has pointed out, is the issue of fairness. I think this transcends partisan considerations, and that's always good on the Thursday morning, because we try to look at members bringing forward their favourite issues in a relatively non-partisan fashion, and I want to commend the member for doing that.

It's also fairness to businesses. I remember I made this argument in the Ministry of the Environment, that when you start cutting back on the requirements for companies, what happens is the good companies that have made the purchase of equipment, that have trained the employees, that are being good corporate citizens, are penalized when you weaken the system for somebody else. I think it's applicable in this case. There are companies that use positive advertising to try to persuade people to buy their product and then they invite people to say yes rather than to cancel a particular service.

That's as it should be, and those businesses are placed at a disadvantage when others use the negative option billing system.

Bill 83 puts consumers first. It's up to business to market their product positively and many people do that very well and have people within their organizations who do it well. The complexity of a product or service is no excuse for a failure to give consumers a positive option. I think when that argument is made, it's rather condescending to consumers, whether in our jurisdiction or other jurisdictions.

Bill 83 recognizes that the Consumer Protection Act must be updated to reflect the realities of the new economy -- we accept that -- an economy that is becoming increasingly based on a transaction of services as well as goods. It addresses a long overdue prohibition on a marketing technique that I think it's safe to say is a severe irritant to consumers in this province.

Bill 83 is not going to break new ground. Other provinces have already moved on this: British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are also considering such consumer protection amendments.

In concluding my remarks, one of the issues I received the most on in the way of mail and telephone calls was certainly the issue of negative option billing. We as a Legislature, as legislators, have an opportunity to rectify that situation and I urge people to support the member for Essex South and his legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Essex South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Crozier: I appreciate very much the comments of my colleagues. The debate has enlightened even me on this subject, particularly from the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham Centre. I say in a lighter vein, the amendments I'm proposing were drawn up by a lawyer and I'm just a bean counter, an accountant, so I appreciate his comments and I would appreciate his input, quite frankly.

Mr Flaherty: In a lighter vein.

Mr Crozier: In a lighter vein; I said that.

To the member for Dufferin-Peel, you asked for some examples. If this bill passes and goes to committee, we could certainly discuss these in more detail as they may be applicable to our act and to amendments that are required, but in the case of alarm companies, for example, some companies had introduced new charges as part of an ongoing contract for alarm services without having first alerted subscribers to the charges or obtained their consent. In some areas, a service is defined to include the delivery or provision of access to even electricity, gas and water and other telecommunications. So that, I agree, has to be clarified as to the extent that it's a federal and/or provincial matter.

In the area of insurance: adding travel insurance coverage to homeowners' policies without express authorization of the consumer and without having first advised the consumer of the details of the coverage. There have been examples in the area of home care, window cleaning, chimney services. The list does go on. I think it needs some discussion.

I certainly appreciate the criticism and I think, as any bill that's put before us, it certainly could use the discussion of the Legislature and I would hope that you support it and that it will go to committee for discussion.

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

Ms Martel moved private member's notice of motion number 27:

That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Health should reject the current Sudbury Health Services Restructuring Report as it imposes a solution not reflective of the local solution agreed to by the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council; cuts over 200 acute beds from the Sudbury hospital system; puts Sudbury's ability to act as a regional medical referral centre at risk; will result in significant job losses of front-line health care staff, which will negatively affect hospital services; and does not guarantee 100% reinvestment of savings in the Sudbury community as promised by the previous Minister of Health.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): On your resolution, would you like to lead off debate?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Yes, I would, Mr Speaker. I am moving this resolution today because I am firmly convinced that we are heading for a health care crisis in my community. We're heading for a crisis for three reasons: firstly and most importantly because this Conservative government has broken a significant promise that it made to the electorate, both in the Common Sense Revolution and then again during the election campaign, and that was that there would be no cuts to health care.

But the fact of the matter is, in his effort to try and help finance the tax cut that's going to make those people who have the most in Ontario get even more, this Minister of Health has already announced $1.3-billion worth of cuts to hospitals in this province over the next three years. Those cuts -- the cuts in beds, the cuts in staff and the cuts in services -- are going to have a tremendously negative impact in my community.

The second reason we're heading for a crisis is that the person who should be responsible for this restructuring is so busy trying to hide behind his Conservative-appointed restructuring commission and trying to let them do the dirty work for him that no one in our community is quite sure who at the end of the day is going to make this important decision in our community.

When the Minister of Health sat on this side, he always condemned our ministers of health, made sure that they were responsible for everything that went on in the system, blamed them on occasion even for the deaths that occurred in the health care system.

Now we have a minister who spends his time trying to say that the commission that he has appointed is arm's length, even though it is completely unaccountable to anyone in this assembly, completely unaccountable to our community, and it should be he and he alone who accepts responsibility for the cuts and the impact those cuts are having, not only in my community but in many others across the province.

The third reason we're heading for a crisis is because the decision that has been made by this non-elected, non-accountable commission in my community is going to result in much poorer health care in my community. Members in this assembly should know that under our government the restructuring committee that was established worked for two and a half years to put together a local solution. That committee was made up of people who live and work in my community, not people who were flown in from Toronto to impose a solution on our community.

The minister rejected that solution, a solution that had been agreed to by the district health council, and instead he sends in his folks from Toronto who meet with 15 pre-selected groups behind closed doors and then scuttle off to Toronto and make a decision that does not reflect the work that was done for two and a half years by people who live and work in our community. That's shameful. That's wrong. Now we're going to have imposed upon us a made-in-Toronto solution, which will not make things better in my community.

What has this Conservative-appointed commission left us? They've decided to close 206 acute care beds in our community. That decision stems directly from the decision made by this minister to cut $1.3 billion out of the hospital system. The former restructuring committee that worked under our minister worked with a bed count that was 200 beds higher than what this commission has come forward with. This commission, when they came to town and met behind closed doors, told the groups that the bed configuration was now much smaller, and it's much smaller because this minister has made a $1.3-billion cut.

We already know that one of the hospitals has taken a good hard look at the numbers and disagrees with the commission fundamentally. One of the hospitals makes it clear that just in order to continue to provide the services that are now provided in our community we need at least 80 more beds. So the commission has it all wrong. We already have people calling us who can't get in or who had their surgery cancelled because there are not enough beds. Someone from the government has to tell me how, by cutting 206 more acute care beds in our community, things are going to improve.

The commission has left us in a vulnerable position. I think it's going to be impossible for Sudbury to continue to operate as a regional medical referral centre. Eighteen percent of the people who use the hospitals in our community come from outside the regional municipality of Sudbury. They come to our community for cancer and cardiac care.

If these patients cannot come to our community any longer because there are not enough acute care beds, because there are not enough staff and because we can't provide the same level of service as we do now, the choice for those people is to be referred to somewhere in southern Ontario. This is not acceptable. People in our community from all walks of life have worked long and hard to make sure that Sudbury had the services necessary to help our neighbours elsewhere in northeastern Ontario.

We will not accept having northerners flown to southern Ontario to get the care they need because this minister is gutting the system in our community.

The commission has also left us with a significant loss of front-line workers, and that's going to impact on services. I read through the report that the commission put out and it's full of graphs and data and charts and statistics on every conceivable item except probably the most important one, and that is, how many front-line workers are going to lose their jobs.

It is inconceivable to me that the commission could put all this kind of information in the report, could close two out of the three hospitals, could cut 206 acute care beds, and could not tell the public in our community how many front-line workers are going to lose their jobs. That is unacceptable, and it shows just how ridiculous the whole process is and how much this process is driven, not to protect health care or make it better, but to cut costs to finance the tax cut of this government.

When you close two of the three hospitals in my community, when you cut 206 acute care beds, you are going to send hundreds and hundreds of front-line health care workers out the door, and that will have an impact on patient care, that will have an impact on the services that we're going to be able to continue to deliver, and that will have a tremendously negative impact on the local economy of Sudbury, because we have tried for many years now to balance public sector employment with our traditional dependence on the mining sector.

It is unacceptable that this commission, which works and operates on behalf of this government, cannot tell the people in my community how many front-line hospital workers are going to lose their jobs.

The fourth point: The commission has recommended that only one third of the savings it thinks might be achieved is to be returned to our community. That's about $13.4 million. It's interesting to note that the minister says all the closures that are recommended by the commission are binding on communities, but he will make the decision of how much money will be reinvested in communities. It's interesting when he assumes responsibility under this process.

Compare a recommendation to return one third of the savings to our community with the guarantee that was made by our Minister of Health, Ruth Grier, that 100% of the savings to be achieved through restructuring in Sudbury would be returned to our community, to be invested in the community-based care and supports that we need in our community. There is no commitment by this minister to reinvestment in our community. We have asked in this House what the level of that reinvestment will be. He has not answered. My fear is that this minister will take $42 million out of our community on an annual basis.

It will not be returned to this community. It will be used instead to help finance the big tax cut that's going to make those who have the most in our society get even more. That is completely unacceptable to the people in our community.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that I believe my community is heading for a crisis in health care. We are heading there because of the cuts this government has made, contrary to all the promises made during the election campaign and in the Common Sense Revolution that there would be no cuts to health care.

We're heading for a crisis because the Minister of Health tries to hide behind his Conservative-appointed commission and let it do the dirty work of closing hospitals while he throws up his hands and says: "They operate at arm's length. I have nothing to do with it. I'm not going to interfere in this process." At the same time he says that he, however, will have responsibility to determine how much of the saving will return to the community.

We are heading for a crisis in our community because the decision that has come down from this Conservative-appointed commission leaves us with 206 fewer acute care beds, two of our three hospitals closed, hundreds of front-line health care workers going out the door and services that will not be delivered, which will put at risk our ability to act as a regional medical centre.

I call on this government today to urge the Minister of Health not to accept the current proposal that is put out by the restructuring commission, because it will leave health care in Sudbury much worse than it is now.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It's a pleasure to join in the debate today. It's much the same debate we had yesterday on opposition day, as you're aware. I'd like to talk for a few minutes about some of the comments the member opposite made.

As she is well aware, the health care budget in Ontario has not been cut by this government. I don't know how many times and in what different ways we have to say it, but when we came into power, the budget in health care was $17.4 billion. After our first year the amount of money we had spent on health care was $17.7 billion, an increase of $300 million. I think it's very important for the opposition to at least speak within the facts of the case, which are proven by the financial statements. We have not cut health care spending. We have restructured within the system and reallocated dollars back into the system.

She then went on to speak about cuts to hospitals. I would like to remind the members of the House that the Ontario Hospital Association in the past has been daunted every year by cuts to the system. When we came into power, they asked us to go out three years so they would be able to plan and manage the system better than they had in the past, that they were short of strategic planning that was only one year long.

So we went out three years and said, "These will be the cuts over the next three years." We have talked about the first year and we're looking at the second and third years for specific differences based on geographic size. But in effect we have said there will be changes in the budget and we have given them an ability to manage their system within that period.

Yesterday I went through the restructuring commission because both opposition parties talk about the restructuring commission as if these people have no expertise. "They're out to destroy the health care system and they don't give a darn about what's going to happen."

If we look at the restructuring commission, we see that each of those individuals is highly qualified in the area of health care. We have the dean of a medical school at Queen's University; we have the president of the Ontario Nurses' Association; we have people who have worked their entire lives in health care and are concerned about the health care costs. They are not all from Toronto. They are from across Ontario and are all highly qualified individuals who can help us to provide the people and patients in Ontario with the best health care system we can get.

As the member well knows, restructuring is important because in the long run we need to make reinvestments into the health care system. It is truly just not working at this point. We have long waiting lists that affect the quality of health care for people in Ontario. We have people who want to make significant contributions to health care and are unable to as a result of the way the system works now. We have to change the system to make it better for the people in Ontario.

Everybody, all three parties, recognize that. They're all on record as saying that. The Ontario Hospital Association recognizes it. David Martin, in his speech to the Empire Club, which I quoted yesterday, said: "Some look at our system and see how much has been accomplished in terms of restructuring in the past few years. I look at it, and I see how much more" needs to be accomplished.

The nurses are on record, in their vision statement, saying there needs to be change to the health care system. We need a far better integrated health care system which takes into effect the community, which deals with all the things from birth to death, within the system. They say that system has to be much more integrated.

David Naylor, who is the head of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences of Ontario and a special adviser to the restructuring commission, has said: "The winners must be our fellow citizens, both as patients and taxpayers. If action isn't quick, the losers will be the next generation." You can see that a number of people, both inside and outside the House, believe that restructuring has to happen.

I'm the first to admit it's difficult in every area that the restructuring comes about, but Ontario is the last province to enter restructuring. In Saskatchewan the NDP government, I might add, has closed approximately half their hospitals. In Manitoba, studies have shown that there is no evidence that there's been a reduction in services with bed closures. There were more patients being cared for in Winnipeg in 1993 than in 1990, despite considerable reductions in beds. Days that patients spend in the hospital are decreasing. The days per 1,000 residents dropped by 9%.

There was no noticeable decrease in access to hospitals for paediatric patients, nor Winnipeg patients, nor patients in the outlying area, which is what the member opposite was talking about. We service such a wider area. In Manitoba there was no decrease in access to hospitals for people outside the urban area. There is no evidence to support what the member said.

She talks very highly of Ruth Grier, the Minister of Health at that time, saying that she would have put all the investments back into the community. I happen to have the quote from her speech delivered in Windsor on June 11, 1993, which says: "Let me address the crucial matter of what happens to the savings achieved in hospital reconfiguration...If the savings from your system reconfiguration exceed the needs identified in your community-based plan; that is, if" --

Ms Martel: What did she say in Sudbury? I am not talking about Windsor; I am talking about Sudbury.

Mrs Johns: If you'll just give me a minute, I'd be happy to tell you what she said -- "that is, if your savings compounded to the extent that Windsor has an integrated spectrum of community-based services and still has savings over and above its plan needs, of course the taxpayers of Ontario will then also get a return on their investment in Windsor, to be used" --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): We are talking about Sudbury. Someone give that woman a wakeup call.

The Acting Speaker: There's too much noise in here. Everyone will have their chance to debate. Set it up with your House leader and we'll do it in an organized way, please.

Mrs Johns: As Minister Grier was saying, these reinvestments will go into "other communities who are far behind." So even in your government you were saying that this was going to happen. I am sure that Ruth Grier would not treat one community differently from another community in Ontario. We're elected to rule equally and fairly throughout the province of Ontario.

I would like to end by saying that restructuring is a difficult process; we're aware of that. What is important is that we have quality health care in the province of Ontario. To do that we have to put more money into a number of areas that my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is going to speak about.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It's a privilege to get up and respond to the resolution. I will be supporting the resolution as it is in

part very similar to what was presented yesterday in debate, and as I supported it yesterday I will support today.

But let me tell you, I don't want to talk about Manitoba, I don't want to talk about a former Minister of Health, I don't want to talk about anything except Sudbury and the effects of this report on the community of Sudbury. I wish the members across the way would understand that when this restructuring commission visits your community it is talking solely about your community. To base it on the Manitoba model or the Alberta model or the British Columbia model or what happened 10 years ago is all gobbledegook. It is a devastation of the health care services in the region of Sudbury and in northeastern Ontario.

If you simply look at the size of the system we're left with -- and I want the members across the way to understand the seriousness and the significance of the size of our system -- we're left with an acute care bed size that numbers 365, down from 571. If you look at Sudbury as a northeastern referral centre, it is impossible for us to fulfil the mandate that's given to the region of Sudbury as a referral centre. If you look at only 100 chronic care beds, that's not enough to fulfil the mandate as a referral centre for northeastern Ontario.

If you look at only 31 mental health beds, you're looking at a system that's not big enough to act as a referral centre for northeastern Ontario. If you're looking at 31 rehab beds, you're looking at a system that isn't big enough to suit the needs of northeastern Ontario. There's no provision for transitional or repatriated beds that will make the system big enough to be the referral centre for northeastern Ontario.

Statistics prove -- and these statistics were given to the Health Services Restructuring Commission -- that last year 35,556 patient days were designated as repatriated bed days, which were designated as referral centre days. That amounts to 100 transitional or repatriated beds. The amount of money they're pouring into the new system is only $3.2 million, which will only allow for between 16 and 20 repatriated beds. Clearly, that statistic alone should tell you that the system isn't big enough.

The model that the community had agreed upon was a two-site acute care system: a hot site and a warm site. That took place after two and a half years of pretty intense negotiation, discussion, give and take on both sides. The entire community was involved in the process. Do you know what? Although it wasn't pleasing to everyone, it was a local solution that everybody bought into. The community was concerned that there be an option that everybody could buy into. We got it. Not everyone was happy, but it was a local solution to our local health care services.

This commission came in, didn't give that report the time of day, didn't listen to what the Minister of Health said when on January 17, in a letter to health care providers, he indicated his support by saying: "My ministry has already accepted the DHC recommendations regarding clinical programs, support services and sitings, as identified in the hospital services review report. Consideration of any other siting model is not acceptable." They didn't even listen to the minister.

They didn't listen to the Premier when the Premier made a commitment to the Catholic community that he would protect the denominational religious factors of hospital health care. They didn't listen to that. More importantly, the commission obviously didn't listen to the community because 83% of the community say that there's going to be a deterioration of the system.

It's not only people who are politicians or teachers or lawyers. We're talking about doctors, nurses, lab technicians. We're talking about those providers of the services saying the system is too small. I ask you, in all honesty and in all good conscience, to support the resolution of the member for Sudbury East. It makes perfect sense.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the House for my friend the member for Nickel Belt to explain why he closed 8,400 hospital beds in the last government.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Further debate?

Mr Laughren: It is certainly true that our government, between 1990 and 1995, for the first time brought health care spending under control. We did it in a rational, humane way, not the way this government is attempting to do it.

I must tell you that when I hear the Tory backbenchers saying that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing in health care, I wonder if they've talked to the member for Bruce. The member for Bruce could tell you a few stories about concern about health care in her riding. How many people were out to a meeting in Wiarton? Was it 3,000 people expressing concern about what you're doing to health care in that part of the province?

I mean, for the member for Huron to get up and say to the member for Sudbury East that our government did not make a commitment to Sudbury to reinvest savings is a complete fabrication, a complete and absolute fabrication, and then to say, "Here's what she said about Windsor," either the member for Huron doesn't know where Windsor and Sudbury are in the province or she's deliberately trying to mislead the House and the rest of the province who are watching into believing that --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to withdraw that remark about misleading the House, please.

Mr Laughren: I'll withdraw it even though it's not out of order the way I put it. I will withdraw in respect for the Chair.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: It's not out of order. You can rule all you like; it's not out of order. But I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. I did not rule that it was a point of order; I said that it was unparliamentary. I asked you to, and that's my reason. Thank you.

Mr Laughren: You are not going to cut into my time any more, Mr Speaker. I've had it with you.

I must say that for the member for Huron to say or to imply that no such commitment was made to Sudbury is fundamentally wrong. It's a fabrication. We have it in writing. We know. We were there and the Minister of Health assured the people in Sudbury that any savings achieved would be reinvested in the community. That's not what the present Minister of Health is saying.

That's not what the commission has the power to enforce. The commission only has the power to enforce the closures, not any kind of reinvestment in the community, not any kind of labour adjustment for people who will lose their jobs who work in those hospitals now. No such thing was forthcoming from the commission.

For the member for Huron to stand in her place and say that all the members of the commission were experts in the health care field is a joke, an absolute joke. People are laughing at you when you make statements like that. Don't try to kid the troops any more that you're not dismantling the health care system in this province, because you surely are, and your backbenchers are hearing about it from their constituents. Ask the member for Bruce what she's hearing from her constituents in her constituency about what your intentions are. Talk to some of your backbenchers over there; they'll tell you.

And do you know what? For the first time since you were elected in June 1995, your policies are starting to hit the ground and hit people, and it's starting to come back and get at you. For the first time, that's what's happening.

The people in this province did not believe that they voted for a reform agenda in health care. They thought, when they heard Mike Harris say he would not cut a nickel from health care spending, that he was telling the truth. That's what the people of the province thought. They thought Mike Harris was telling the truth when he said there would not be a nickel cut from health care spending. Well, the people of this province are thinking that one through, I can tell you that, because they see what's happening all across this province in health care and they know you are dismantling the health care system as we've known it.

Nobody disagrees that there needs to be restructuring of the hospital system. Everyone agrees to that. I personally support some of the restructuring that's going on, but the way you're doing it really is grossly unfair. It is lacking in courage, because the minister won't stand up and say, "This is what we're doing." He looks at these appointed Tories on his commission and says, "Well, they decided to close the hospital, not me." What kind of joke is that?

Surely as political people in this province, you've got to have the courage of your convictions and stand up and say, "I've decided to close two hospitals in Sudbury," or "I've decided to close so many hospitals in Ottawa or in Toronto." No, no, that's not what you're doing. For heaven's sake, most of you are proud of your ideology. Why don't you stand up and wear it then? Instead of that, you hide behind a commission that you give authority to close hospitals. Why don't you do it yourself? Don't you have the courage of your own convictions? That's one thing I always thought Tories had.

I might have some disagreements with you from time to time, but I always thought you had the courage of your convictions to stand up and state what you believed in and carried through on it. In this case, you're hiding behind a Tory-appointed commission.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the member for Sudbury East. This motion deals directly with the recently released Sudbury Health Services Restructuring Report. As the member will know, there is still a 30-day response period for public feedback on the report.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission is an arm's-length body, and in my opinion it would not be appropriate to discuss the specific recommendations for Sudbury. However, I would like to speak to the larger issue of restructuring within the health services field in the province of Ontario.

The resolution put forward by the member questions the government's commitment to health care services and promised reinvestments. As my colleagues have clearly stated both yesterday and today -- but it bears repeating -- there have been no provincial cuts to health care funding. Our government has committed to a level of health care spending that will not fall below $17.4 billion. With this year's health care budget at $17.7 billion, we've exceeded our commitment by some $300 million.

The resolution would have us believe that restructuring cannot possibly increase the quality of health care in the province, but we've heard over and over again that restructuring is necessary. The Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others are in agreement that restructuring is needed to ensure high-quality patient care.

This resolution is a call for maintaining the status quo, but we know the status quo is unacceptable. Under previous governments, approximately 8,400 beds were eliminated. That is the equivalent of 33 midsized hospitals. However, no wings or buildings were ever closed. We're still paying for the heat and hydro for those empty wings and buildings. As a result, high administration costs are not allowing dollars to flow directly to patient care.

With the introduction of the arm's-length Health Services Restructuring Commission, we've taken the politics out of health care. In the past, previous governments have recognized politics as an impediment to any restructuring efforts. In order to address this barrier to change, we appointed the Health Services Restructuring Commission to ensure that all aspects of health care in the regions are taken into account before any recommendations are made. In Sudbury, the consultation process is ongoing.

Only after reviewing all relevant material did the commission issue a set of recommendations regarding the restructuring of local services. These recommendations pertain to the closure or creation of facilities, the need for reinvestments and anything else the commission deems will improve the quality of health care. As is currently under way in Sudbury, after the report is released, there's a 30-day period during which any member of the community or any organization, including affected hospitals, can forward their comments to the commission for consideration.

Following this 30-day period, the commission considers all the feedback it's received and issues its final directives. At the end of the day, this is clearly a comprehensive, apolitical and productive process.

The resolution expresses concern for the impact restructuring will have on jobs, but ministry reinvestments in long-term care and community mental health are expected to create more than 4,400 new jobs for health professionals, including nurses.

This morning's resolution also criticizes the government for not reinvesting all the dollars saved from restructuring into the community on a dollar-for-dollar basis. If our goal is to create a province-wide health care system that provides seamless levels of care across all communities, then all communities must be able to share in the savings achieved.

The province's larger hospitals frequently serve patients who do not live in the surrounding community. For example, it's not unusual for patients from my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay to travel to Sudbury or other large centres for various sorts of special treatments. As a result, I have a direct interest in ensuring patients in my community will continue to enjoy the services provided by the current health care network.

Through this critical restructuring effort and numerous front-line reinvestments, my constituents are discovering that access to some lifesaving services is being brought closer to home. As an example, two weeks ago I had the pleasure to join with the member for Parry Sound to launch a new dialysis unit in my riding at the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital. The hospital will receive $429,000 annually for operating costs and $244,000 in a one-time fund for startup and training costs.

In my community, this reinvestment means patients in the Muskoka-Parry Sound area will no longer have to make long trips to receive this life-giving treatment. Province-wide, the health minister has announced $25 million in expansion of dialysis services.

Earlier this week, the Premier and the Minister of Health also announced another reinvestment in the expansion of breast screening services in the province. In my riding, South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge was chosen as one of 11 new sites which will begin participating in the program for detecting breast cancer. For women in my area, this means improved access. It means doctors will be able to identify and treat breast cancer more quickly.

This $24.3-million reinvestment will mean an estimated 30 new screening programs for Ontario over the next four years. This reinvestment will see 325,000 more Ontario women being screened for breast cancer by the year 2000. That's an increase of 400% over the current capacity.

By restructuring, we're taking funding out of needless administration and costly overhead and reinvesting those resources into direct patient care. The dialysis and breast screening reinvestments are just two examples of expanded programs which are targeting health care funding into front-line, community-based patient care.

When we talk about restructuring, we're really talking about setting priorities. We're talking about providing the health services the people of the province feel they need and set as priorities. At the end of the day, restructuring is what is best for the health care of Ontarians. Restructuring will enhance patients' access to quality health care services and it will save and rejuvenate our system.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to participate in this debate today, although I must say that I really wish it wasn't necessary to have this motion before the House.

Health care is probably the most important item on the agenda of at least the people I represent. One of the things that I think all of us are asking in Algoma-Manitoulin, along the North Shore and in the rural north, is, where will we get services? Will the waiting lists be shorter? Will we be able to access quality health care in a timely fashion? As we look at this report, we're being asked to believe that 200 fewer acute care beds in Sudbury will be available for people who need them; 37% fewer. That is just totally unbelievable. No one could believe that a quality system can be maintained with 37% fewer beds.

To put it into perspective, that means we're going from 20 operating rooms presently in the city to 12. It means that the number of beds set aside for people from outside of Sudbury for procedures in Sudbury hospitals is dropping from about 100 to somewhere between 16 and 20, an 80% decrease in available beds for a population that needs to come to Sudbury for specialized services. How stupid does this government believe us to be? This cannot possibly happen.

The most offensive statement that we're hearing is: "This is not political. We're taking the politics out of health care." I want to tell you, I had the privilege of being down in health estimates and Mr Kells, the member from Etobicoke something or other, said to the minister, "but I did bring up the point that when you say you take the politics out of something, it's not enough to say you take it out when, after all, it is there." Mr Kells says it is there.

We all know it's there. We look at the commission, look at what's happening. We know that politics is in health care. We know that the Conservative government has broken every commitment it has made to the people of Ontario with respect to health care and it is partisan. You can't hide behind a commission that comes into Sudbury and other communities and says, "No, no, it's not us; it's somebody else." You just won't be believed. You might as well own up to it and say, "It's our plan; we're going to do it." Don't hide behind the commission.

I also wanted to bring out that I think for the rural north, in fact, for Sault Ste Marie and Timmins and North Bay and other large centres, there's something in this report that I think should cause us all concern. It is a recommendation hidden away on page -- it's recommendation number 14, advice to the Minister of Health. It says the minister will "Establish, in conjunction with the HSRC, by December 31, 1996, a planning committee comprised of representatives of the northeastern region of the province to do the following," listen to this:

"(

a) Examine the options for integrated delivery system(

s) in northeastern Ontario including a single governance model;

"(

b) Evaluate the options and make recommendations by...June 30."

In other words, what this government wants to do is impose a regional health care system with one governance which affects every community in northeastern Ontario. It's found in a Sudbury report, not a Sault report, not a Timmins report, not a North Bay report, not a report about Manitoulin Island. It's found in a Sudbury report, hidden away on a back page. What they are going to do is bring the National Health Service of Great Britain to northern Ontario in the guise of a report from the commission that is only to deal with Sudbury. It is offensive. It is offensive to the people I represent. It will be offensive to everyone in northeastern Ontario that this is being snuck through.

The people I serve do not believe that this restructuring taking 37% out of the system is at all possible in order to achieve quality health care.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to say these few words.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the time that I've got, I just want to go through this quickly and talk about how it relates to the city of Timmins and to the good people of Cochrane South.

I first want to remind people of something. In the last election, the government ran on something that was called the Common Sense Revolution. We remember it well. I want to take a look at specifically what page 7 had to say in the Common Sense Revolution. "We will not cut health care spending. It's far too important. And frankly, as we get older, we are going to need it more and more." They have failed on that promise. What have they done since they've come to office?

They have cut funding to doctors, they've cut funding to hospitals, they've cut funding to long-term care, health care as a continuum has been cut day after day by the government, and they stand in this House and say they've got a commitment. They broke their most fundamental promise in the Common Sense Revolution.

Then they go on to say in the same document, "Every dollar we save by cutting overhead or by bringing in the best new management techniques and thinking, will be reinvested in health care." That's not what they're doing in Sudbury; that's not what they're going to be doing in Toronto; that's not what they're doing anywhere. They're taking the money that they cut in health care and they're doing what? They're using it to pay for their phoney tax scheme. That's what they're doing with the money they're taking from health care. It's to pay for the phoney tax scheme.

I want to tell you what it means to the people of Cochrane South. Here in Timmins, in Iroquois Falls and in Matheson, the people in that part of the province depend on Sudbury to refer patients who need assistance medically on to the Sudbury regional hospital system. Without that system, it means to say quite frankly that people are not going to be able to get in. We know that what you want to do in Sudbury is go from the current system of three hospitals, drop it down to one and cut 206 acute-care beds out of the system. What does that mean?

It means to say that if you're in Schumacher, if you're in South Porcupine, if you're in Timmins, Matheson or Iroquois Falls and you need to get referred into Sudbury Memorial for a heart bypass, the list will get longer and longer and longer, to the point that you're not going to get in.

I listened to the debate earlier, and the members across the way said nothing happens, don't worry about it, everything's fine. I'm here to tell you not. We already have problems in the system.

People up in my part of the province who are trying to get referred into Sudbury as it is are having a difficult time with what your government has done up to now, because of a number of issues concerning what's happening with doctors in this province, because of what's happening to hospitals in regard to their budgets last year with the 6% cut that you did, and in addition to other issues, it is getting more difficult for the people of my community to get referred into Sudbury Memorial for a heart bypass.

I want to tell you about one case alone: Richard Adams, a man who worked in Timmins for many years in the assessment office in the riding in Timiskaming. He started developing problems last spring. As of last spring, his doctor was trying to refer him in for bypass surgery at Sudbury Memorial. Normally, in cases like that, if you're acute and you need to get in, they find you a bed and you get your bypass. Sometimes it's difficult, even when we were government. In this case, June went by, July went by, August went by, he couldn't get in. Do you know where he is now? He's buried in a cemetery, because he died.

He couldn't get into Sudbury because a bed wasn't available and now Beverley is a widow, sitting in Cobalt without her husband.

Why? Because this Conservative government is more intent on driving home a phoney tax scheme and funding it through cuts in the health care system, and they have the gall to come into this House and to say that somehow we're trying to play politics with the health care system. It ain't politics. This is real people. I'll tell you, there are more and more cases in my community where people are coming to my constituency office who are saying: "Gilles, I need to get referred into Sudbury. My family doctor or my specialist in Timmins wants to get me down for bypass surgery and I can't get in."

I have another case that I'm dealing with. The man's been waiting for three months and he can't get in. He's now been told it'll take another three months for him to get his bypass. Why? Because you as a government have seen fit to try to fund a phoney tax scheme on the backs of the hardworking men and women in this province so that you're going in and you're cutting the health care system. I say to you, shame, because what you're doing, you are destroying our health care system and quite frankly we've had it with you.

You have to get to doing what you're supposed to do, which is to govern for the people of this province to make sure that we have access to universal, accessible health care. If you were to follow the report that Ruth had put through the district health council, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity as well this morning to put some thoughts on the record about this very, very serious and important situation that's evolving in northern Ontario. Anybody who understands the north knows that we up there depend very much on an integrated system of health care, as in everything else.

We can't, each community, provide to each other all that is necessary to make sure that the people who live and work in our areas have the best of health care, the health care they need, so we depend on places like Sudbury, Thunder Bay, the Sault and Timmins to have those services available when we need them so we can share with each other in times of crisis.

When budgets are cut there's sometimes a redistribution of resources and previous governments have been involved in that. But this present approach to health care in the north is just absolutely unbelievable and in the long run is going to wind up with some real calamities at the front door of this place, by way of example, and it will be squarely on the shoulders of Mike Harris and the Minister of Health when that happens.

In Sault Ste Marie, we have example after example of people, as the member for Cochrane South said, who are in need of the kind of services we access at the regional centre in Sudbury. The member for Sudbury suggested that 18% of the cases seen, particularly in cancer and cardiac, in the hospitals of Sudbury come from outside Sudbury and that is absolutely right. In Sault Ste Marie we are absolutely dependent on some of the services that are provided in Sudbury.

Health care in the north is one of the fundamentals to any future we are going to have in that part of Ontario that's so important to the whole of the province. If we don't have first-class health care, if we don't have access in a timely and efficient fashion, people are going to die and we're not going to be able to attract people up to our neck of the woods to do business or set up industry or work with us in the so many ways in which we're dependent on people to make sure our communities are viable and alive and well.

We have to look at this decision that's been made by this government in the context of that overall question of how we can maintain and improve the health of northern Ontario, of the people who live there. The decision that was made by this government, to reduce the number of beds in Sudbury from a level that was already difficult for us to access to the number we see today, is absolutely unworkable and will in the long haul result in longer and longer waiting lists and more and more people not getting the services they need, and probably in the long run our having to look at the possibility of having to send patients from northern Ontario to southern Ontario.

We still don't know what the decisions are going to be around what hospitals are going to be left after this restructuring committee comes through with its big swath and scythe in southern Ontario and cuts hospitals down here. We don't know yet what kind of impact that's going to have on the north and I don't know in particular what's going to happen in Sault Ste Marie.

I just want to share with you in closing an example of what in fact will happen. We had a man in Sault Ste Marie just recently, and there's a story in the Sault Star this week. It goes: "Waiting Lists for Heart Patients Grow Longer and Longer," and, "Widow Blames Health Cuts for Her Husband's Death."

"Norman Kuczenski died at the Plummer hospital after waiting almost 10 days for bypass surgery at Sudbury's Memorial Hospital....

"Mr Kuczenski's cardiologist, Dr David Gould, sees him as an example of what happens when a system is inadequately funded....

"Gould predicted that waiting lists will get even worse when Memorial closes and merges with Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury. That merger will see operating room times and beds become even more scarce."

So people are dying and more people are going to die.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion today in regard to the Sudbury hospital restructuring. As members know, two weeks ago I brought up a question about a case, which was also referred to here in a previous speech from the member for Cochrane South, to the Minister of Health about a constituent of mine who died because he was not able to access heart surgery in a timely manner.

Quite frankly, I don't want to live in an Ontario where people are dying needlessly because they cannot access services. With the wealth we generate in this province, especially the wealth we generate in northern Ontario, there is no reason why citizens of northern Ontario are going to have to die because they're caught in lineups because they cannot access the medical care they need in a timely fashion. Richard Adams was one of many people who find themselves in this situation. Right now our cardiac heart surgery waiting list in northeastern Ontario at the Sudbury Memorial Hospital is 197 people.

The Minister of Health is saying that we are now going to close hundreds of beds in Sudbury and somehow the service is going to be better. I say to the minister and the parliamentary assistant, why don't you make the service better now? I'm not against restructuring, but show me how the service is going to be better.

It's not a funny matter, I say to some of the members who are laughing here. I'm talking about a constituent of mine who died. This man died at 46 years of age. That's not needed in Ontario, and it shouldn't be needed in Ontario. It's wrong, and this government should be doing something about it.

Get the services in place. We talk about community-based services; we talk about bricks and mortar; we talk about rationalization of service and restructuring. These are all wonderful catchwords that ministers and parliamentary assistants bandy about, but I've had a resident who has died because he could not access surgery in a timely manner.

On April 23 of this year, the doctor made the decision that Richard Adams should be put on the waiting list for heart surgery. He didn't get that until late in September, after a second heart attack, and died a day later. That should not happen in Ontario. I know it doesn't happen in Toronto. We've got to make sure that we have access to medical services in a timely manner.

The member for Sault Ste Marie just mentioned another of his constituents who was caught in the same situation. So we're saying to you, let's fix it, let's get the system fixed so that we don't have these waiting lists. Then we can start talking about how we can rationalize these services. But if we're not getting the people in a timely manner -- and let's face it, when you've had cardiac surgery, you don't kick the person out after 24 hours.

You need to have an acute-care bed there so that the person can heal properly before they have to be sent home, remembering that being sent home might involve travel of at least 300 to 400 miles across northern Ontario. That person has to be in very good shape before you discharge them from the hospital.

We've got to take a close look at this. This isn't like rationalizing hospitals on University Avenue, when you've got five within three or four city blocks of each other. We've got 650,000 people right across northeastern Ontario who depend on the Sudbury hospital system for their services. Now to cut those beds allocated to those people outside the Sudbury region from 100 to about 16 or 18, an 82% decrease, is ludicrous.

I predict, unfortunately, that waiting list is going to grow. I predict, unfortunately, that we're going to have more deaths in northeastern Ontario because you're not doing a proper job, you're not restructuring properly and you're denying people timely access to the health care system. It's going to cost lives. I ask you today to re-examine that and make sure this doesn't happen, because the blood of those people is going to be on your head.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Sudbury East has two minutes to respond.

Ms Martel: I want to thank all the members for participating in the debate, but I want to focus my remarks upon the responses that were made by the member for Huron and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

I say to the member for Huron, with all due respect, I was the local member in Sudbury East at the time Minister Grier made a commitment that 100% of the savings that would come from restructuring in Sudbury would return to our community. I know the debate. I know the issue. I was the member and I still am. I really resent that in this House today you tried to portray that as not a commitment, not a promise, by making some kind of obscure reference to Windsor. Windsor is a 10-hour drive from Sudbury. I don't care what happened in Windsor. I care about the commitment that was made in my community by a former health minister, a commitment that your minister now does not want to guarantee.

The second point I want to make, with all due respect, to the people who are on the commission, who have been appointed by the minister, who are Conservatives, is that in my community there was a local process. People who work and live in my community, who understand the needs in my community, after two and a half years put together a compromise solution. It was accepted by the district health council. It went to your minister and it sat on his desk from October on. Now we have a solution that's going to be imposed by the handpicked commission and it does not reflect what came to be the compromise in my community. That's a shameful process.

With all due respect to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, you didn't promise in the Common Sense Revolution that health care spending would be maintained at $17.4 billion. You promised no cuts to health care. That's what people voted on. In my community, you have already cut $10 million from the hospital system this fiscal year. That comes directly as a result of the announcement made by this minister to cut $1.3 billion. There have been cuts, they're affecting people, the situation in Sudbury is going to get worse because of this solution that's being imposed and I encourage all of you to reject what the commission is going to do.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 41, standing in the name of Mr Crozier. If there are any members opposed to balloting on this, they will please rise.

Mr Crozier has moved second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will deal with this after the next ballot item.

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal now with ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Ms Martel. If there are any members opposed to balloting on this item now, they will please rise.

All those in favour of the resolution please say "aye."

Those opposed to the resolution please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would the members please take their seats. Ballot item number 41, second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, standing in the name of Mr Crozier. All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Arnott, Ted

Galt, Doug

Parker, John L.

Baird, John R.

Gerretsen, John

Pettit, Trevor

Barrett, Toby

Gilchrist, Steve

Pouliot, Gilles

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Pupatello, Sandra

Bassett, Isabel

Gravelle, Michael

Ramsay, David

Beaubien, Marcel

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Bisson, Gilles

Hardeman, Ernie

Ross, Lillian

Boyd, Marion

Hodgson, Chris

Runciman, Robert W.

Bradley, James J.

Hoy, Pat

Ruprecht, Tony

Brown, Michael A.

Johns, Helen

Saunderson, William

Caplan, Elinor

Johnson, Ron

Sergio, Mario

Carroll, Jack

Kells, Morley

Shea, Derwyn

Christopherson, David

Kennedy, Gerard

Sheehan, Frank

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Skarica, Toni

Clement, Tony

Lankin, Frances

Smith, Bruce

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

Snobelen, John

Cordiano, Joseph

Leach, Al

Sterling, Norman W.

Crozier, Bruce

Marland, Margaret

Stewart, R. Gary

Danford, Harry

Martel, Shelley

Tascona, Joseph N.

DeFaria, Carl

Martin, Tony

Tilson, David

Doyle, Ed

Martiniuk, Gerry

Turnbull, David

Ecker, Janet

Maves, Bart

Wildman, Bud

Elliott, Brenda

McGuinty, Dalton

Wilson, Jim

Eves, Ernie L.

McLeod, Lyn

Witmer, Elizabeth

Fisher, Barbara

Miclash, Frank

Wood, Bob

Flaherty, Jim

Morin, Gilles E.

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Hastings, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 84; the nays are 1.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the bill carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to -- Mr Crozier.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I would respectfully ask that Bill 83 be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Is there a majority in favour? Those in favour of having this referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, please rise and remain standing.

There is a majority in favour. This bill will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Ms Martel. All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Crozier, Bruce

McGuinty, Dalton

Bartolucci, Rick

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Bisson, Gilles

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

Boyd, Marion

Gravelle, Michael

Morin, Gilles E.

Bradley, James J.

Hoy, Pat

Pouliot, Gilles

Brown, Michael A.

Kennedy, Gerard

Pupatello, Sandra

Caplan, Elinor

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ramsay, David

Christopherson, David

Lankin, Frances

Ruprecht, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Laughren, Floyd

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Martel, Shelley

Silipo, Tony

Cordiano, Joseph

Martin, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Gilchrist, Steve

Runciman, Robert W.

Baird, John R.

Grimmett, Bill

Saunderson, William

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Shea, Derwyn

Bassett, Isabel

Hastings, John

Sheehan, Frank

Beaubien, Marcel

Hodgson, Chris

Skarica, Toni

Carroll, Jack

Johns, Helen

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Johnson, Ron

Snobelen, John

Clement, Tony

Kells, Morley

Sterling, Norman W.

Danford, Harry

Klees, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Leach, Al

Tascona, Joseph N.

Doyle, Ed

Marland, Margaret

Tilson, David

Ecker, Janet

Martiniuk, Gerry

Turnbull, David

Elliott, Brenda

Maves, Bart

Wilson, Jim

Eves, Ernie L.

O'Toole, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Fisher, Barbara

Parker, John L.

Wood, Bob

Flaherty, Jim

Pettit, Trevor

Young, Terence H.

Froese, Tom

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Galt, Doug

Ross, Lillian

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 52.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution lost. It being a quarter after 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1216 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CREDIT UNION DAY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today to recognize the Ontario credit union system. Credit unions are financial service cooperatives owned and controlled in the community by the people they serve. Credit unions are community-based and community-focused. They play an integral role in local development by channelling members' savings back into the communities in which they operate as personal and business loans, mortgages and dividends paid on members' shares.

Ontario's credit unions and caisses populaires have accumulated $13.2 billion in assets and serve some 1.7 million members. Nationally the credit union and caisse populaire systems have $100.4 billion in assets and over 10 million members.

More than 3,000 Ontarians participate as volunteers on credit union boards and committees in communities across the province. Member credit unions of Credit Union Central of Ontario provide employment for about 4,000 people across the province.

Ontario's first credit union was established in 1908 in Ottawa. Most credit unions were established during the 1940s and 1950s in response to the need to provide affordable consumer credit.

To those members and volunteers of Ontario's credit unions, we applaud your effort and service.

TORONTO EAST DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have in my hand a report entitled Healing the Community, the report of the Jobs Ontario Community Action program and the Toronto East Downtown Residents' Association. Some 25,000 JOCA dollars have empowered and organized this community by giving it the tools to change its future, but this government cut the JOCA program, another action taken for ideological rather than logical reasons.

The Jobs Ontario Community Action grant allowed residents to develop a comprehensive database of their community. There's now a record of all community buildings, their uses, the businesses in the community as well as demographics and spending habits of the residents. This database is invaluable and will continue to be as it becomes updated in the future.

With these data in hand the Toronto East Downtown Residents' Association has been able to approach developers and make the case that their neighbourhood in downtown Toronto is worth investing in. The Toronto East Downtown Residents' Association is, in my view, to be complimented for the exceptional quality of the work it has done over the long year or two it has been in the process of working on this. It's unfortunate that I cannot say the same for the present government, which has cut the Jobs Ontario Community Action program.

SANDBANKS PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today to acknowledge the end of another successful tourist season at Sandbanks Provincial Park near Picton. Many of you may have visited Sandbanks, as 415,000 Ontarians did this summer. That represents a 2% increase in visitors over last year and a 9% revenue increase.

Most people come to enjoy the many kilometres of great beaches. Others come to climb North America's largest freshwater sand dunes, which were left behind by a retreat of the glaciers in 12,500 years of subsequent wind and erosion. Still others come to hike along the world's greatest freshwater bay mouth barrier.

I wish to congratulate employees of the park for another successful season of maintenance and preservation of the delicate ecosystem. The Sandbanks Provincial Park is a resource worthy of a visit by all Ontarians.

SOEURS DE LA CHARITÉ D'OTTAWA

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Dimanche dernier, j'ai assisté aux célébrations du 100 e anniversaire d'arrivée à Rockland des soeurs de la Charité d'Ottawa. Ce fut pour moi et pour plusieurs une excellente opportunité pour revoir des gens que je n'avais pas eu le plaisir de rencontrer depuis un certain temps.

Je veux profiter des quelques minutes à ma disposition pour offrir mes plus sincères félicitations et remerciements aux soeurs de la Charité d'Ottawa qui ont oeuvré au cours des 100 dernières années et qui sont toujours présentes au sein de la communauté de Rockland. Comme tous les autres citoyens de Rockland, j'ai été témoin au fil des ans du travail que les soeurs de la Charité ont accompli.

Au nom des citoyens de Rockland et de Prescott et Russell, je vous dis merci pour les bonnes oeuvres que vous avez réalisées et le bonheur que vous avez propagé au sein de la communauté de Rockland. Votre présence chez nous a marqué notre existence et nos vies spirituelles et j'espère que vous serez encore présentes parmi nous durant de longues années afin de poursuivre votre mission d'amour, de paix et de bienfaisance.

CREDIT UNION DAY

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I wish to join my distinguished colleague the member for Essex South in expressing my pleasure indeed in informing the House that today is Credit Union Day in Ontario. Today across Ontario and Canada, credit union members, volunteers and staff are joining together to celebrate the credit union movement and the cooperative philosophy upon which it is based. This year, tying in with National Co-op Week and its team, picture the possibilities.

Credit unions can reflect on their past accomplishments and can look forward to a bright future in the highly competitive financial services industry. You will recall that new legislation introduced last year, 1995, by the previous government, that of the New Democratic Party, allowed the credit unions to level the playing field to give them a competitive equivalent in the marketplace.

Today most credit unions offer their members a full range of financial services, from personal accounts to mortgages and small business loans. We're talking in terms of 1.7 million members across Ontario and no less than $13.5 billion. Therefore I would extend our best wishes and also convey the best wishes of all the members present.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I am pleased to inform the House that Commercial Alcohols Inc has begun construction on a world-class ethanol plant in Chatham. This $153-million plant, which will be fully operational next winter, will produce about 150 million litres of ethanol and industrial alcohol per year. Operating around the clock, 365 days a year, this facility will have an annual economic impact of approximately $100 million.

In addition to the hundreds of jobs generated during the construction phase, about 400 full-time direct and indirect jobs will be created when the plant becomes operational. As well as ethanol, a substantial amount of compressed carbon dioxide will be produced and handled by Praxair at a companion facility. In addition, 127,000 tonnes a year of high-protein animal feed will also be produced.

The completion of this facility in Chatham will provide a much-needed source of a renewable fuel and an expanded market for 15 million bushels of corn grown in Kent county and other parts of Ontario.

This is a great example of community, government and business working together. Construction of the Commercial Alcohols plant is further indication that all of Ontario, and especially Kent county, is open for business.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO TIMMINS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Premier Harris and his Minister of Northern Development and Mines will be travelling to Timmins tomorrow for what can be termed, at best, a public relations exercise. For more than a year, the members of the Liberal northern caucus have been calling upon the Premier and the minister to stop the dismantling of northern communities. Premier Harris and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines have much to answer for when they take their public relations trip to Timmins tomorrow.

Northern residents want to know why this government has cut education and health care funding in the north, this resulting in the closure of five of our northern hospitals. They want to know why the Harris government has destroyed both the Ministry of Northern Development and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Northern residents want to know why this government continues to download its responsibilities to northern municipalities and why the Harris revolutionaries have closed family support offices throughout the north, and again, why they have reduced our winter road maintenance.

Mr Premier, as you will know, the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce have called upon you and your Minister of Northern Development to establish an office for a Deputy Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Natural Resources in northwestern Ontario. I do hope that these members do not have to pay $150 a plate just to come and see you when you travel to Timmins tomorrow.

I say to you that your record in northern Ontario, to say the least, is dismal. You and your government have much to answer for in the north and this public relations trip tomorrow just won't cut it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yet again we see the Tory caucus machine, the Tory Party machine working in full splendour. While people in northern Ontario have been trying to get the ear of the Premier and also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for months now, we find that mayors such as Steve Butland and Vic Power are having a hard time trying to get access to the Premier. What are they doing? How do they get access to the Premier in northern Ontario? They've got to pay $150 to get to a Tory fund-raiser to get the ear of the Premier.

To the Tories, I say shame. The job of the Premier is supposed to be a job where you are accessible to the mayors across Ontario, to the citizens across Ontario, so people can have their say with the Premier and make sure their views can be heard. While this fund-raiser is going on, there will be literally hundreds of people outside the Senator hotel in Timmins today who will be saying to the Premier: "We don't like what you're doing in northern Ontario. In fact, we oppose what you're doing in northern Ontario because we believe that in the end this agenda will do nothing but harm not only the north but Ontario in general."

I would like to read just one excerpt from an editorial that appeared in the Timmins Daily Press today, the fine newspaper that it is. It says: "Those on the `corporatist' side will pay $150 to dine with the provincial Premier in completely friendly surroundings and those opposed can stand with their peers" and be left feeling --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

CREDIT UNION DAY

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to join my colleagues from Essex South