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

June 19, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L035 - Thu 19 Jun 1986 / Jeu 19 jun 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SENIOR CITIZENS' PRIVILEGE CARD

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

ONTARIO SENIOR CITIZENS' PRIVILEGE CARD

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

AFTERNOON SITTING

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

EXTRA BILLING

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

EXTRA BILLING

FREE TRADE

EXTRA BILLING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EXTRA BILLING

SINGLE-INDUSTRY COMMUNITIES

CRIMINAL CODE

ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTRE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EXTRA BILLING

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

EXTRA BILLING

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

EXTRA BILLING

FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN

EXTRA BILLING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOOD PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS

MINIMUM WAGE

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS LEGISLATION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

EXTRA BILLING

ADULTS-ONLY APARTMENTS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT TIME

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SENIOR CITIZENS' PRIVILEGE CARD

Mr. Laughren moved resolution 25:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should extend the use of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card to all retired and disabled persons to allow them access to reduced or free admission to exhibitions, museums, theatres, provincial parks and other special services now available only to senior citizens 65 years of age and over.

Mr. Laughren: I shall reserve some time for windup because I know that at the end of all the members' remarks, I would like to spend some time thanking them all for their support of this resolution.

At present, all senior citizens aged 65 and older who are permanent residents of the province are eligible for the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card. There are two types of cards: numbered and unnumbered.

You get a numbered card if you are a senior who has lived in Ontario for 12 consecutive months. This entitles you to the Ontario drug benefit card as well as other privileges and discounts such as reduced rates at some hotels and restaurants; reduced admission on certain days or at certain times to theatres and movie houses; free admission to various shows, exhibitions, museums and art galleries; free personal cheques and other special services at some banks and trust companies, and other discounts offered by businesses.

The unnumbered card is issued to seniors who have not yet met the 12-month residency requirement. It does not qualify them for the drug benefit but serves as identification for access to the other privileges and special rates available to seniors. In other words, it identifies them as senior citizens but does not give them automatic access to the drug benefit plan which the numbered card gives to our senior citizens.

The numbered card is limited. The only guaranteed benefit is the Ontario drug benefit. The granting of the other benefits is at the whim of the companies and agencies involved. Our recent experience with the Canadian Pacific Railway and its attempt to take away the rail passes from its pensioners is a good example of how fickle that whim can be. I had some special involvement with the CP rail passes because the campaign to have those passes reinstated, which was successful, was led by some good friends of mine in the community of Chapleau, the Group of 55.

They fought and won a major battle against one of this country's largest corporations and a tribute should go to those people in Chapleau.

The card does not guarantee access to the type of privileges and discounts mentioned above, nor is the card necessarily needed for such access. Thus, to extend coverage of this card, as I am calling for in my private member's resolution, is largely a symbolic gesture, but it is an important act of symbolism. I am asking that the Ontario seniors' privilege card be extended to two constituencies: all retired persons and the disabled.

Let us deal first with extending the use of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card to all retired persons. I reiterate that it is now available to people 65 years of age and more. This would extend it to all retired persons.

There are fundamental changes occurring in our society which necessitate the extension of this card to all retired people. First and foremost is the changing nature of work brought about by the technological revolution, a major structural upheaval that is taking place in our economy. One of the most important elements in this ferment is the huge increase in early retirement, retirement before the age of 65. Early retirement is seen as a way of coping with work-force reductions.

Sudbury is a good example of this. In the last two years, hundreds have taken early retirement as Inco has halved its hourly-rated work force from 12,000 in 1978 to something in excess of 6,000 today. If I go back a little further to when I was first elected to this chamber in 1971, the hourly-rated work force at Inco was around 18,000. It is down to not much more than a third of that.

Since those early retirements have taken place, many through incentives by the company to take early retirement, a strange thing has happened to Sudbury. I say "strange" because people do not normally associate seniors with a release of energy in the community, but when all those people took early retirement, there was a new release of energy. These are not people who have physical problems, they are healthy and robust, but they have taken early retirement, which allows younger people to fill their jobs.

There is an enormous amount of pressure in the community to build workshops for these early retirees. They have an enormous amount to contribute in a volunteer way and in working in machine or woodworking workshops, for example. The whole question of what a community should offer its seniors is being raised in communities such as Sudbury. This resolution would go at least part-way towards making life a little better for those who retire early.

A couple of my friends retired early from Inco. One has passed away now. He was a miner and he singlehandedly built from scratch a large backhoe and front-end loader. He did all the hydraulics and electrical equipment in the machine. Obviously, this man had never achieved his potential on the job, and when he retired he basically became a mechanical engineer, although he had no formal training in that.

There is enormous potential among our retired persons. Another friend, Eddie Pitton, when he took early retirement, turned what was just an ordinary cottage into a beautifully landscaped, year-round home. These people could not do these things when they were working full-time in the mining industry. There is an enormous amount of creativity and energy that is being released as people take early retirement.

It is not only companies that have been resorting to early retirement. Employee groups have been incorporating this option into their deliberations and negotiations. For example, amendments to the Teachers' Superannuation Act which became law on February 12, 1986, allow teachers to retire at 55 if they meet the requirements, such as at least 10 years' credit in the teachers' Superannuation fund. They can retire without a penalty. Until this time, there was a five per cent penalty per year on the pension they would receive, I believe, which was an incredible discouragement to take early retirement. With declining enrolment, this has been a problem in the teaching profession.

Our legislative counterparts in Ottawa are cognizant of this change. There is now legislation before Parliament that would make Canada pension benefits available to those who retire at age 60 instead of the present 65. Closer to home, we are awaiting legislation from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) that will, among other things, make it mandatory for private companies to provide an early-retirement option beginning at age 55 for their employees.

This phenomenon of early retirement has significant ramifications in our vision of economic development and strategies for full employment, all of which are obviously beyond the scope of this resolution. However, what is important for us today is that we recognize there is a rapidly growing population of retirees who are less than 65 and are generally between the ages of 55 and 65. The term "senior citizen," meaning someone 65 or older, and "retiree" are no longer synonymous.

10:10 a.m.

This resolution aims to bring the senior citizens' privilege card in line with this reality. At the same time as more and more people will be retiring prior to age 65, the 55-to-64-year-old population is projected to grow at an accelerated rate. Figures published in August 1985 by the office of economic policy of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics project an increase of 44.7 per cent in the 55-to-64-year-old group between 1983 and 2006, 20 years from now. That is far above the average projected increase of 18.5 per cent for the population as a whole.

It is projected to grow at 18.5 per cent by 2006, and the population aged 55 to 64 is projected to grow at a 44.7 per cent rate. That will be the breakdown 20 years from now.

In absolute numbers, this group is expected to grow from 849,000 to 1,229,000 in these years. The population in this age group is only slightly smaller than those who are 65 and older. If one piggybacks the phenomenon of early retirement on this projected growth in population, it is clear that there will be many retirees who could benefit from the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card.

I would now like to deal with extending the use of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card to the disabled -- not only to those people who are under 65 and retired but also to those who are disabled, regardless of their age. As pointed out at the beginning, the only benefit the card guarantees in the present situation is the Ontario drug benefit. This benefit is already extended to residents of Ontario under age 65 if they are residents of an extended-care facility or a home for special care or are recipients of the home care services available from the Ministry of Health.

The Ontario drug benefit is also available to those on general welfare assistance or those who receive an allowance from family benefits. The disabled and the permanently unemployable are the largest group of recipients of family benefits.

What we are asking for in this resolution is not to limit the provision of this drug benefit to the disabled in the above-mentioned categories, but to extend it to all the disabled whose needed medications are not covered by other plans; for instance, to those who are in receipt of disability pensions from the Canada pension plan. As another example, in the case of those who have entitlements to workers' compensation, the Workers' Compensation Board pays for necessary drugs, although it does not pay for medication needed for an injury or disablement that did not occur at work.

Thus, an injured worker receiving workers' compensation would be able to get the Ontario drug benefit for noncompensable problems.

I know that sounds complicated. However, even a discussion of something such as medication for these people raises the whole question of the desperate need for a universal sickness-and-accident insurance plan. In such a system, the administrative and jurisdictional red tape that the disabled face would not be there.

While extending the drug benefit aspect of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card would not eliminate all this red tape, it would take a small step towards greater fairness and equity for the disabled. As part of this fairness and equity, the disabled should also have access to other discounts now available only to seniors.

When the new government appointed, for the first time, a minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, I was pleased. I am not so pleased that he is not here this morning, given the nature of this debate. However, it was a step in the right direction to appoint a minister responsible for seniors. I would issue a warning to the government that appointing a minister does not mean that thinking has changed very much. Earlier this year the Ministry of Natural Resources increased the cost for seniors to visit our provincial parks. The issue was turned around and the policy changed, but only after some rather fierce lobbying to have that change take place.

It still has not permeated the thinking of the government that times are changing out there; that early retirees and pensioners are going to be expecting more from the government. After all, they have paid their way for many years. They now expect to be treated with more dignity and respect in their retirement years.

I have resolutions from the disabled groups in northeastern Ontario, for example, calling for exemption for the disabled from the proposed fishing licences. Those are the kinds of issues to which the government is going to have to address itself.

One would hope that the minister responsible for seniors would be the watchdog and ensure that the government does not backslide and does not increase parks fees and suchlike for seniors when it should be moving in the opposite direction.

The minister responsible for seniors is going to have to get the message out to his cabinet colleagues, because they are not thinking in that way yet. I think they regard that ministry as being neither new nor particularly important and it is one with not very much in operating funds. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that ministry has any actual operating funds for its own programs. I believe it delves into other ministry funds for its programs. That is tokenism.

The ministry for senior citizens is simply going to have to become an operating ministry with its own funds that are voted on in proper estimates in this assembly. The situation has to change.

I would rename this card. In the resolution I have it as the senior citizen's privilege card. I think it should simply be called the Ontario privilege card, so that it does not mention pensioners but is a privilege card that is extended to people who are disabled and to earlier retirees as well as to those we traditionally regard as seniors, people over 65.

In conclusion, we should address the question of cost. There are no costing projections available. Moneys would have to be found to pay for the increased coverage of the Ontario drug benefit plan. However, relatively speaking, the totals needed should not be that great.

The access to other privileges and discounts offered by some businesses, schools, cultural institutions, etc., would probably be at no cost to the system in that such discounts would encourage the disabled and all those who are retired to take advantage of services and the like where they are not currently doing so.

I thank the members for their attendance and I look forward to their contribution to the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the last three minutes and 45 seconds?

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Ms. Hart: I am pleased to rise today and speak to this very important resolution. I am confident that all members share the desire to improve services for the disabled and to assist disabled persons in their full and active participation in this province.

Let me begin by congratulating my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) on bringing this resolution forward for our consideration. I share his concerns that our ageing and disabled citizens require special consideration by this House. Their interests have been too long neglected.

Approximately 3.5 million Canadians have disabilities ranging from loss of hearing, sight and mobility, to emotional or developmental handicaps. In Ontario, more than 10 per cent of the population is disabled, and in Metropolitan Toronto more than 33,000 people suffer from a disability.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to do all we can to assist disabled people by removing the social, physical and financial barriers with which they are confronted daily. This resolution with which we are presented today would be an acceptance of our responsibility.

10:20 a.m.

If I may be permitted a personal observation, constituents in my riding of York East have never been able to visit their member in a facility that is accessible to either the many seniors in York East or the physically handicapped. It is because I have been endeavouring to rectify that problem that it has taken me so long to open a constituency office. Unbelievably, the only place I can find that is fully accessible is not available until December 1986. That signifies to me that our whole way of thinking about and planning our communities must undergo drastic revision.

I am pleased to say that this government has addressed many of these issues that affect our disabled community. To illustrate the high priority our government places on the disabled community, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) appointed a Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Ruprecht). We have expanded the assistive devices program to include all prostheses and respiratory devices for people of all ages. As well, the remainder of the program was extended to all persons 22 years of age and under. We have moved to strengthen many community support services which directly affect the disabled, including the integrated homemaker program for adult handicapped persons.

Most recently, we indicated our intention to provide fairer treatment of disabled people in sheltered workshops and other rehabilitation settings. One initiative includes an amendment to Bill 7 which will repeal

section 24 of the Employment Standards Act. This will permit handicapped persons to be paid the minimum wage for the first time.

The second initiative will include an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act which will give disabled persons the same legal protection as all workers under the act. In the recent budget, this government allocated an additional $5 million to expand and enhance housing programs to better meet the needs of our disabled. To assist in integrating the developmentally handicapped into our communities, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has provided $17 million over the next two years. This is not enough; I merely bring it to the attention of the House as a beginning.

Moreover, as I am sure all members are aware, the period 1983 to 1992 has been declared by the United Nations as the Decade of Disabled Persons. To demonstrate our commitment to the disabled, this government has allocated $10 million to permit greater participation and involvement of the disabled. I am sure we all wish to ensure that disabled people have the opportunity to actively contribute to the livelihood of our respective communities across this province.

Our government is committed to assisting the disabled in any way it can. The spirit of this resolution is consistent with that of this government's initiatives over the past year. For these reasons, I am pleased to give my support to this resolution. I am in favour of any program that serves to reduce the barriers that often face our disabled community. However, although I support the spirit and principle of the resolution, I have three concerns I wish to offer for consideration.

First, we must consider the definition of disability. Which definition would be used for the purposes of the card? Currently, the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled program is the only consistent identification mechanism. However, for those who would make an application for privileges, this would not necessarily suffice.

Second, I would want to encourage full and constructive participation of our disabled community in the debate to ensure that such a program would be consistent with its goals. Should we be concerned with privileges or should we be emphasizing access?

Finally, any program would have to be cost-efficient and cost-effective. Would other initiatives be more appropriate to fund? I am sure that we would not want to erode our block of funding and leave other desirable programs wanting. For example, the 1985-86 annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped outlined a series of priorities affecting the disabled. These include issuing of special licence plates for the disabled, barrier-free-design housing, a further expansion of the assistive devices program and employment opportunities. We may wish to consider these priorities first.

These are just a few concerns that we must consider if we pursue the extension of senior citizens' privilege cards. However, the presence of this resolution will encourage us on all sides of the House to begin dealing with many of these questions and decisions of priority.

Again, let me thank the member for bringing forward this resolution. I am happy to support him in his endeavour.

Mr. Hennessy: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and I support the resolution. I would like to congratulate the member for Nickel Belt for putting this motion on the Orders and Notices paper. It is very worth while. It is something on which we as members of the provincial parliament should focus.

When my party was in government it established the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card. It has been a great success in providing residents of Ontario with special rates on a variety of attractions and services. As the present government is learning, there comes a time when programs must be modified to meet the constantly changing needs of citizens.

The idea of extending the use of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card to all disabled and retired persons in Ontario is commendable. The provision of this card to these citizens would enable them to get free admission or special rates to attractions, events, transportation, tours and films, and services from travel agents. Ontario abounds in organizations that would be interested in offering such special rates to the needy and deserving in our society.

The government must extend its efforts to ensure that these resources are tapped so that these people can take advantage of them. For the disabled, this card would encourage them further to lead the most full and productive lives possible. Providing the handicapped with these cards would ease the financial strain they face.

Ontario's disabled persons incur many financial hardships that are due in part to the extraordinarily high rate of unemployment among the disabled, who have the highest unemployment rate among Canadians who are able to work.

Furthermore, a disabled person can incur significant extra costs which result from disability. Clothes wear out more quickly, taxis must be taken more often, and attendant care may be required. There are also the costs of aids and devices which are not covered by existing programs. It is the government's duty to recognize the additional costs associated with handicaps and provide some degree of financial relief.

This card would also provide an incentive for the disabled to get involved in the mainstream of society. Because of the physical and psychological barriers faced by Ontario's disabled, they need a helping hand to move forward into areas of shared interest. By making access to these institutions easier financially, disabled persons would be afforded more of the opportunities enjoyed by other people in Ontario.

For instance, benefits of the card include waived tuition fees at many Ontario universities, colleges and vocational schools, and free or reduced admission to theatres, movie houses, shows, exhibitions, museums and art galleries. The privilege card also offers cheaper rates to many recreational facilities. Recreation has much to offer the disabled person. It can be a vital link in the community. It provides an opportunity for the development of social skills, motor skills, self-expression and creativity. It offers fun, satisfaction, success, decision-making, community involvement and a chance to make new friends.

These are all opportunities from which disabled people have been sheltered or largely excluded. The government must recognize this in response to the fact that disabled persons are constantly adjusting to difficulties that many people face only in crisis. We, as their representatives, have the responsibility to minimize these difficulties. We can do so only by providing them with opportunities to lead more full and satisfying lives.

10:30 a.m.

We also have the responsibility to enhance the quality of life for Ontario's retired persons. The retirement years should be enjoyable ones in which one may reflect on the fruits of many years of labour, but retirees face a variety of changes when they leave the work force. Unfortunately, this can be a period of crisis for many people who find it difficult to adjust. Those who are just retiring must make major changes in their lifestyles. About 60 per cent of their waking hours now have to be filled. This can cause as much or even more stress than the working world.

The key to adjusting properly is to ensure that those retiring have the opportunity to lead active, independent lives. For many seniors, particularly those who are elderly but well, being self-sufficient sometimes requires a helping hand.

The privilege card provides a massive opportunity to the retired that would enable them to gain access to benefits, bonuses and discounts made available in Ontario. This would make it easier for retired persons to nurture interest in the large amount of free time they have. Furthermore, use of these cards saves the bearer money. This is a significant motive for retirees who face the financial pressures of a drop in income.

This card offers benefits, bonuses and discounts that make financial planning less painful when employment income is drying up. For instance, banks, trust companies and other financial institutions can offer special services packages to the retired. Such packages include no-charge chequing, reduced fees for safety deposit boxes, no commission on travellers' cheques, no service charge on the payment of utility bills, free transfers between accounts and bonus interest rates on savings accounts.

Most important, however, it is essential to give something to the people who have given so much to us throughout their working lives. Provision of this care to all retired citizens offers a wonderful opportunity to do so.

From browsing through the Ontario-Canada Senior Citizens Attraction Guide, published by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, I noticed literally hundreds of attractions available to senior citizens at discount rates. It is a very informative book and it helps senior citizens to spend their leisure time. Air, train and bus lines offer regular discounts with impressive savings for seniors. Hotels, shopping and recreational and cultural facilities also offer substantial bonuses to seniors.

These types of attractions should be extended to all disabled and retired persons in Ontario. Such an extension would promote awareness of contributions to our society made by disabled and retired persons, men or women, and would encourage their community participation. The extension of the privilege card would substantiate the government's strong commitment to these Ontarians.

The resolution moved by the member says "the government should extend the use of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege cards to all retired and disabled persons." I support that 100 per cent.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I, too, want to congratulate my colleague for introducing this resolution. We all understand the changing demographics of our province, with an ageing population. At some time, all of us are going to be retiring, some sooner than others. One of the problems we have had is a lack of adequate planning, service and income provided for people so that this option truly becomes available to them.

All we need to do is look at some of the changes that are occurring in industry right now to understand how radically things are going to change and have changed over the past 10 years for many of our citizens. I look at the auto industry and see that one company in my community, Chrysler Canada, before the recession had 14,000 employees working there. After the recession, they are producing more cars but there are now only 9,000 working there. The reality is that technological change and changes in our economy have meant fewer job opportunities. Many individuals, through that recession period, took early retirement.

Another example is Champion Spark Plug Co., also in my riding, which demonstrates even more clearly the changes in the economy. Before the recession, they had 450 employees. After the recession, they have 150 employees. It results from two things in this case: changes in technology of how spark plugs are produced and the fact that we have moved away from eight-cylinder to four-cylinder cars with the demand for spark plugs dropping drastically. As well, we now import about 12 million spark plugs from Japan,

whereas before the recession we imported virtually none.

Many of these workers have been displaced from the economy and have been forced to take early retirement. Their retirement income is considerably less in most instances than it would have been if they had been able to work until the normal retirement age. That is why moving some of the considerations that senior citizens were given with the traditional description of age 65 to a lower age would simply recognize the new realities of our province and should have been done some time ago.

As I understand it, the original purpose of these cards was to recognize that income upon retirement does drop; therefore, there should be some things provided at a lower cost for seniors so they can access these programs. That has not happened. The extension has not happened and therefore we have a program that has not changed to reflect the new realities of our province.

I think one specific example that is probably the best is the drug benefit program. We have many examples of a couple who have been married for many years. When the husband retires at age 65 and his spouse is age 60, she does not qualify for the drug benefit program and he does.

The result is that even though we know the drug benefit program was brought in to recognize the increased demand for prescription drugs as one becomes older and that retired people cannot afford them, and even though there is only the one income between two spouses, one has the privilege of being able to get those through the Ontario drug benefit program and the other cannot access that program. It seems to me that is just a silly reality that has to be changed.

There are other examples. I gather that if one is on the disability benefits program through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which is a means-tested program, one can qualify for the Ontario drug benefit program; but if one is on a disability through employment where one worked, or on the Canada pension plan disability, one's income, if one is single, is just high enough that one does not qualify for the drug benefit program.

I have had many cases in my office, as I am sure other members have, of individuals who must buy $30, $40, $50 worth of prescription drugs per month because they are disabled, and therefore they have certain health ramifications from that and prescriptions are one of them; and they cut into their food budget because of that or they end up living in housing that is simply unacceptable.

We have extended housing to disabled people and we have some housing available in the province but the waiting lists are so substantial that in many cases extending housing is meaningless if a person is going to go on a waiting list for three, four, five or six years.

I think the Ontario drug benefit program, if we cannot get it to be a universal program accessible to everyone in the province regardless of age, which is our preference, should be changed to recognize the realities of people on very low incomes and recognize that our retirement age has changed over the last number of years.

I would like to refer briefly to a couple of comments the member for York East (Ms. Hart) made, one of them being about the assistive devices program.

I recognize that is a very valuable program for many disabled people in our province. However, the reality is that right now it affects only those people up to age 22. It was age 18 when this government took over, and it has changed it to age 22. Now there are some other benefits that are going to be available in July.

I would remind the member for York East that in the last provincial election campaign, her leader the Premier answered a questionnaire from the Ontario March of Dimes and he criticized the Tory government for staging the increases in the assistive devices program. He called for an immediate extension, making it a universal program available to everyone in the province, which is what we support. The Liberal government has now gone totally against what it promised the disabled people in this province and it is staging the extension. That action is very unacceptable and it has been regretted by the disabled organizations in Ontario.

10:40 a.m.

One of the points made by this resolution is that we have to start taking a totally different approach to retirement in this province. We have to understand that retirement is not going to be at any magic age. It may be at the age of 70, 65, 55 or even 50; who knows? It will depend upon the benefits that individual is entitled to, his or her circumstances and the changing economics within our province. There should not be any magic age. Retirement should be available to an individual and pensions should be such that the decision is his or hers to make.

The other important thing we have to look at is pre-retirement planning. We all try to improve pensions and improve the financial aspects of retirement but very little is done to improve the quality of life. The way the quality of life for retired people in this province is going to be improved, in addition to financial considerations, has to be through proper planning. I think pre-retirement planning starts not when one is at the age of 50 or 60; pre-retirement planning starts at the elementary school level.

We should be teaching people how to plan over their lives, what the different stages of life are and what types of things one has to do during one's younger years to plan for retirement so that when retirement comes it is not seen as being the end of something but rather as the beginning of a new stage of life.

I am sure all of us have had many friends and neighbours who have worked 30 or 40 years of their lives. He or she has a decent pension coming in but when the individual has been retired for a few months, he dies. He has had no opportunity to enjoy that retirement. I am convinced that in many of those cases it is because of the lack of planning, the lack of any real opportunity to feel that he or she is continuing to contribute to our province.

The whole area of retirement planning is very important. We in the Legislature can do some things financially to try to make retirement better but those other aspects have to be considered and planned for as well.

Mr. South: It is with pleasure that I support the resolution of the member for Nickel Belt. I support it, though, with a note of caution, with regard to what has been discussed previously, that we need better

definitions of retired persons and disabled persons.

Does a person retire because he is not working? I know of teenagers who do not want to work. I do not think we would want them to fall into this classification and end up cheapening these cards. The acceptance of these cards by the private sector is going to determine the degree of benefit they will be to the holders, especially to the seniors who hold them now.

With regard to the disabled, I am sure we all agree that there are some members of society who are quick to claim a complete inability to perform any physical task and it is mostly because of a lack of motivation. I want to emphasize the necessity of having good

definitions of retired persons and disabled persons.

I also think it is very important that there be full discussion with the disabled groups about their acceptance of this proposal and the conditions under which they would like to have it go forward.

As a society, we are much judged on how we look after our seniors and the degree of compassion we have for the disadvantaged members of society. We all profit by any measures we can take, as a government, which will lessen their burden and give them better opportunities to take full advantage and use their competence and resources to the benefit of our society.

It is with pleasure that I support this motion, with those cautions which I have indicated.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am delighted to participate in this debate and support the motion that is before the House. I congratulate the member for Nickel Belt for bringing it forward. The proposed extension of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card opens the door to a wide range of discounts for the handicapped and senior citizens of this province.

Many men, women and children are deprived of good health or have disabilities that deprive them of using their limbs, voices, eyes, ears and minds in a way that other Ontarians take for granted. These people are entitled to government support that will enable them to participate more fully in our society. By extending the use of Ontario senior citizens' privilege cards to Ontario's disabled, we will be helping them to live a more productive and rewarding life.

Currently, many disabled persons need to be enticed to take advantage of community resources available in Ontario. Because the handicapped are constantly plagued with barriers to equity, participation and integration, it is natural that they want to safeguard themselves by recoiling from the mainstream of society.

The disabled are up against an attitude problem of society as a whole. The image of physical perfection portrayed by the media, society's emphasis on the work ethic as a criterion for usefulness to society and the public's concentration on disability rather than on ability are destructive. To overcome this attitude problem, the disabled must participate more fully in society and barriers have to be removed so that this will be easier.

With increased participation, the general public will become more aware that many disabled persons are self-sufficient and are contributing members of society. Once people realize this, they will focus their attention on ability rather than on disability. Handicapped people do not want to be consigned to the role of observers. All Ontarians have the right to play as full a

part in life as they can, and we, as their representatives, must uphold this right.

The extension of the Ontario senior citizens' privilege card is one step towards increasing the integration of disabled persons into society. The provision of this card would go even further to assist the disabled in that it would relieve some of the financial pressures they are facing.

As my colleague has just addressed this specific point, I will not belabour it. However, I emphasize that these people are not in the same position as other Ontarians to acquire funds, but they are in a position where they incur costly expenses relating to their disabilities. The extension of the privilege card would assist the disabled as a cost-cutting mechanism.

It could also help retired Ontarians in the same regard, because their financial resources are also limited. In today's society, the retirement age is not standardized at 65 any longer. Many people are being encouraged to accept early retirement, and the use of the privilege card should be extended to retired citizens below the age of 65. I can think of many members in this House who could take advantage of this card in a few years' time.

10:50 a.m.

A lower age limit should be set that ties into recent federal and provincial pension initiatives. Not too long ago, the federal government announced plans to extend Canada pension plan benefits to people who are 60 years of age, down from the current starting age of 65. In addition, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) proposed changes to the Ontario pension law whereby private companies could allow employees to retire on a pension as early as age 55. I believe the age of retirees who are entitled to a privilege card should be in line with these proposals for early retirement.

Although access to a privilege card would be only a small enticement to retire early, we cannot ignore the benefits of early retirement. Encouraging early retirement could open up some opportunities for the baby-boom generation. These people, the demographic bulge currently in their 20s and 30s, are looking for advancement. Many have not been able to get it because of the entrenchment of older people in higher-level jobs.

Early retirement helps to move younger people into the work force. Young workers bring in new ideas and are tomorrow's brain power. Unless employers get them into the work force and train them, Ontario risks not having the skills it needs. The extension of this card to all retired Ontarians presents them with a multitude of opportunities to take advantage of decreased costs during the period of life when they find themselves with much extra time on their hands.

Retirement replaces the cares and the troubles of the working world with other concerns. It is not unusual to find someone who has just retired sitting in front of the television set all day. It is difficult to adjust to this period of life. By taking advantage of the proposed motion, we can make easier the transition from the working world to the retirement world. We can help retirees with this adjustment by offering them the opportunity to keep busy in worthwhile environments. Extending the use of the privilege card to all retired Ontarians is the least we can do for those who have spent a large part of their lives contributing to the economic growth and prosperity of Ontario.

Another benefit provided by the extended use of this card is that the market the senior citizens' privilege card now covers would be enlarged and Ontario industries would be given the opportunity to cater to this larger market. The advantage to commercial outlets is additional trade brought in by these cards. The government should encourage merchants in all areas to participate in offering bonuses to these groups. There are obvious benefits for all those who are involved. This is the perfect opportunity for government and business to collaborate in assisting needy and deserving citizens of our province.

I urge all members to support this excellent resolution brought forward by my good friend and colleague the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: I would like to thank all honourable members who participated in the debate and supported my resolution. I am impressed by the arguments put forth in support of it. It shows that when one does a resolution oneself, one does not think of all the benefits, and contributions from other members are helpful.

I would like to refer specifically to some of them. The member for York East talked about three concerns she had, and they are appropriate. One is the question of the definition of disability and the need to have input from the disabled community. That is very important and would have to be pursued before the privilege card is put in place.

She suggested a cost-benefit study or analysis to determine cost-effectiveness. I have no problem with that. The benefits speak for themselves, and I do not think the costs are that substantial.

The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) appropriately emphasized the increased participation this card would encourage in the lives of our early retirees and pensioners with the discounts that would become available to them, and the fact that people who retire or are disabled almost invariably have reduced incomes and therefore this kind of benefit is of assistance to them.

My colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) brought in a note of the harsh reality of this place when he talked about the assistive devices program and the promise made by the Premier during the recent election campaign. Since then, he has reneged on that promise. I am glad the parliamentary assistant to the Premier is here. He will remind his leader of that promise. It is not an extravagant one and it is something we owe to disabled people in this province.

The member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) also stressed the need for full discussion with the disabled and early retirees, and I agree with that. On the other hand, I must take issue with him in that I have yet to meet a disabled person or early retiree who is in that position because of lack of motivation. I do not know where the member gets that idea.

I appreciate the comments of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) as well, in particular his concerns about the attitude of society towards the perfect body -- although he did not use that term -- to those who are physically fit. I have often used the expression that we have built a society for the young and swift, mentally and physically. That is what the member was saying in different words. I agree with him 100 per cent. That is the kind of society we have built. We have built a society for those who need the assistance least but who get the most.

I also agree with him that if we encourage people to retire early, we open up opportunities for those who are considerably younger and are seeking employment.

I am grateful for the input by all members of this assembly and for their support of my resolution.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Mancini moved resolution 43:

That in the opinion of this House, the federal government's decision to reduce, by two percentage points, the annual growth in per capita established programs financing transfers, resulting in a cumulative loss of $2 billion to Ontario's health care and post-secondary education systems by 1990-91, be condemned as an unfair transfer of the federal deficit to the provinces.

Mr. Laughren: Does the member want to talk about the assistive devices program?

The critical importance of established programs financing to the maintenance of quality health care and post-secondary education in Ontario is undisputed. Last year, federal transfers contributed 43 per cent of the total cost of health care and post-secondary education in Ontario.

11 a.m.

It should come as no surprise that the federal government's decision to reduce the growth rate of the transfer payment by two percentage points annually is of grave concern. For Ontario it will mean a revenue loss of $114 million this year, escalating to an annual loss of $750 million in 1990-91. At stake is the province's ability to maintain our network of hospitals, universities and colleges and to pay our physicians and teachers.

At the same time, we recognize that we are in an era when fiscal responsibility is also important. Ontario supports the federal government's efforts to restrain the growth of its expenditures and to reduce the federal deficit, yet I question whether the programs and services of such fundamental importance to all Canadians are the place to begin.

The federal obligation to the maintenance of the health and post-secondary education systems is now in question. I am also concerned that this federal decision is going to limit Ontario's ability to adapt to the changing needs of our population, such as the ongoing need for continuing adult education to ensure that Ontarians are prepared for technological change and the need for a health care system that can adapt to the requirements of an ageing population.

A brief review of the history and circumstances surrounding the introduction of established programs financing and subsequent alterations to the program may be useful at this point in the debate.

The history of the EPF: Prior to 1977, when EPF was brought in, there were three major shared-cost programs: hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education financing. These were 50-50 cost-sharing arrangements, with the federal government reimbursing half of the eligible provincial health expenditures and half of the institutional spending on postsecondary education on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

Compounding these problems was the fact that both levels of government were frustrated with the red tape involved in cost sharing. I understand that at one point the final settlement of a post-secondary education spending claim was as much as 10 years late.

To address these problems, the established programs financing system of transfer payments was introduced in 1977. The basic compromise of the arrangement was that the provinces accepted the risk of having transfer payments grow by the rates of gross national product, expected to be less than the cost of escalation of the health and post-secondary education programs, in exchange for federal funding being provided on a completely unconditional basis. This provided both levels of government with greater flexibility and predictability in planning their expenditures.

Five principles were put forward at a first ministers' meeting in 1976 and formed the basis of the federal-provincial approach to established programs financing.

1. There should be provision for continuing federal participation in the development of policies of national significance in health and post-secondary education.

2. The federal government should continue to pay a substantial share of the program costs.

3. The federal payments should be calculated independently of provincial program expenditures.

4. There should be greater equality in per capita terms in federal contributions to the provinces.

5. The arrangements for the mature programs should be placed on a more permanent footing.

We as Canadians generally support the federal government in its efforts to reduce its sizeable deficit, but Canadians also believe, as the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) stated in his budget, "It is false economy to try to balance budgets by ignoring society's real needs." We know society's real needs are changing.

It is projected that the part of the population aged 65 and over will grow by 18 per cent by 1990, significantly faster than the five per cent growth rate of the general population during the same time. According to both the Canadian Medical Association and the Conference Board of Canada, the ageing trend will add at least one per cent per year in real growth in health care costs. New technology is estimated to add a further three per cent per year to the health care budgets.

Despite the diminishing growth rate of our younger population, we continue to see post-secondary enrolment remain constant. We are also witnessing a growing number of adults returning to colleges and universities to ensure they remain up to date in their chosen fields.

It is also far from clear that transfers to the provinces are the real cause of the federal government's deficit problems. From 1977 to 1984, total federal spending grew at an annual rate of 12 per cent. In contrast, transfers to the provinces grew at an annual rate of 10.5 per cent.

I recognize that the federal government has adopted an approach that packages issues into manageable components to make them easier to resolve. This is evident in Ottawa's deficit reduction strategy: higher taxes for the ordinary citizens and the elimination of transfer payments to the provinces.

I believe, as do many other members of this Legislature, that the reduction of transfer payments to the provinces will have no real direct impact on the federal government's deficit unless it evaluates its other spending priorities. More important, I am concerned that in dealing with the short-term, pressing issues of the day, such as deficit reduction, we are losing sight of the broader issues facing Canada.

11:10 a.m.

However, this does not mean the federal and provincial governments should not work together towards solutions that will restore some measure of fiscal balance to our national books. To do this, we will require more than piecemeal decisions taken unilaterally by one level of government against the provinces. It may require that fundamental decisions about the assignment of responsibilities between levels of government be addressed. It may require that the distribution of taxing powers between the federal and provincial governments be reassessed.

The members will agree that such issues cannot be addressed adequately in a confrontational, ad hoc manner. They require meaningful consultation between our respective levels of government, something the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada promised after he was sworn into office.

Governments must also address the emerging problems of the 1980s and 1990s. Issues such as child care and worker retraining promise to take on even more importance in the coming years. They must be addressed in a comprehensive and meaningful manner, ensuring that full consultation amongst all relevant governments and parties is achieved.

The federal government's decision to limit the growth of the EPF transfers to the provinces is not the approach necessary to resolve this nation's problems. Shifting the problem from one level of government to another is quite meaningless, for those who suffer are the same people.

I am confident this government is not shying away from the problems facing us. Ontario has indicated its desire to discuss in a meaningful manner the problems arising from the difficult fiscal circumstances in which we find ourselves as a nation.

I urge all members to support this government in continuing to oppose any measures that are unfair and may limit our ability to maintain such essential services as quality health care and post-secondary education. Such initiatives serve neither level of government and are contrary to the fundamental premises on which this government has been founded.

I thank the members for their attention. I would like to withhold the remaining time so I can comment after the members have spoken.

Mr. McFadden: If someone had entered Ontario from an atoll in the Pacific, isolated from civilization and without any news media, he might take this resolution seriously.

The issues and concerns that have been raised this morning relate directly to the financial mess in which the federal Liberal Party left Canada when it went out of power in 1984. It is absolutely remarkable that a Liberal member would introduce this resolution with a straight face in view of what was left with regard to the financial operation of this country when the change of government took place in Ottawa in September 1984.

I would like to outline the legacy that was left to this country during the period from 1975 to 1984.

In 1975, the Canadian government showed a manageable annual deficit of $3.8 billion. By 1984-85, that deficit had jumped to $37 billion, more than a 10-fold increase. The accumulated federal public debt stood at $100 billion in 1982, and that number has approximately doubled since then. Indeed, the total national public debt today represents in excess of 30 per cent of the gross national product.

When Mr. Turner left office, the interest payments on the federal debt totalled some $20 billion per year. Today, as a consequence of the debts that had accumulated during the Liberal years at a steady rate of increase year after year, one third of all federal expenditures goes to debt service. It has been only in the past year that some effort has been made to reduce the debt that is being incurred annually. The federal deficit today is slowly but gradually on its way down. Nevertheless, about one third of the total amount of federal expenditure is now committed to the service of debt charges.

This is the genesis of the current difficulties concerning all funding in the federal government.

The honourable member's resolution leaves the impression, unless one reads it carefully, that somehow the federal government is cutting established programs financing grants. Of course, this is not true, and a careful reading will indicate it is not true. EPF funding is increasing, and the increase from the fiscal year 1985-86 to 1986-87 came to about $20 million per annum in the area of post-secondary education funding. Indeed, the federal government is not reducing the base level of post-secondary education EPF transfers. What we are seeing here is to some extent a reduction in the rate of growth.

According to the figures we have been able to secure, EPF cash and tax transfers for postsecondary education from the federal government will increase in the next year by 6.5 per cent. That is about 2.5 per cent in excess of the rate of inflation. I would point out that this amount is in excess of the increase that the provincial government is providing to the universities for operating grants. In the last budget, provision was made for an increase in operating grants to the universities of only some four per cent. Juxtapose that with the 6.5 per cent in transfers from the federal government.

I know some additional funds have been allocated for certain special funds, but anybody who talks to the universities and to the students about the current policy in regard to operating grants for the universities will recognize it would be far better for the provincial government and for the long-term strength of the university system to increase operating grants by 6.5 per cent, in line with the increases in EPF funding, rather than by four per cent, as the province is currently doing.

This resolution seems to try to use a relatively flimsy excuse to transfer blame to the federal government for the failure of the provincial government to provide the additional funding the universities need. We have had two budgets in this House since the current government came to power one year ago. What we have found is minimal increases in operating grants for the universities.

11:20 a.m.

During that period as well, we have seen no response at all from the provincial government with regard to the Bovey commission report. The Bovey commission was appointed while the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was Minister of Colleges and Universities, to look at the whole area of the funding of our province's universities and colleges, because she recognized that we had to look at the whole funding of post-secondary education.

The Bovey commission set out a number of first-class recommendations with regard to how future financing of universities could be dealt with. Not every recommendation of the Bovey commission may be acceptable, but it sets out an interesting, informed and useful blueprint in terms of the future of university funding. What has been the response? The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) has not even talked about Bovey. We have no response whatsoever from the ministry. We have no response at all from this government with respect to long-term financing requirements of universities.

After months of study by Bovey into the problems of universities, and after the work the commission did to submit its report with its excellent recommendations, it is a shame we are sitting here today with no response from the government and effectively no action on the recommendations except in a most piecemeal fashion. Instead of the presentation of this resolution, it would be far more valuable to have a resolution presented to this Legislature urging the government to get on with the Bovey report and to get on with enacting the types of financial arrangements that are recommended which would give the universities the flexibility and additional funding they really need.

While this resolution sets out some concerns that we all have about a reduction in federal transfer payments to the provinces, it fails to recognize the serious problems the federal government was left with when it came to power in 1984. It also fails to reflect the failure of the government to act in a meaningful way in terms of the additional funding that Ontario universities require.

I do not think there is a member of this House who would not want to see unlimited federal funding to deal with the health care issues we have spent weeks debating in this House, as well as post-secondary education, but I do not feel this resolution adds anything to the debate. It has been a red herring in the past, and it appears to me to be an attempt by the Liberal Party to get out of the commitments it made in the last election to enhance funding for post-secondary education.

Mr. Grande: I rise to speak to the resolution of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and to say that anyone in this Legislature cannot help but support this motion. However, anyone can support this motion on the surface. When the federal Liberal Party started the reductions and cutbacks in the established programs financing, we on this side of the House condemned it for doing that. Now that the federal Tories are continuing down the same path the Liberals started for them, we in the New Democratic Party condemn the federal Tories. This party has always protected the interests of the people of Ontario. We have done so from the very beginning when cutbacks occurred.

I do not want to get into and leave the debate at bashing the federal government. I hear from the member for Essex South that he is more interested in bashing the federal Conservatives. Then I hear from the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) his kind of protectionist urge to protect the federal Conservatives. He brought his information and his statistics to the fore to show that the reduction is required as a result of the federal deficit prior to the Conservatives taking power.

Whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives in Ottawa who are perpetrating the underfunding, the problem remains in our universities. Prior to this new administration taking power in Ontario in 1985, we had a decade of underfunding in our post-secondary institutions. At the same time, prior to 1977, as the member for Essex South has said, there was a 50-50 split for post-secondary education and health purposes. In 1977, the negotiations changed and a new deal or a new compromise was established -- by the way, it was at the urging of the provinces, as I recall -- and we got into the block funding.

In essence, for 10 years, the block funding allowed the provincial Tories not to pass on the money that came from the federal government to the university sector. They continuously underfunded it to the point that in 1981, we had a report by the committee on the future role of universities in Ontario. At that time, the member for York Mills, who was then the Minister of Colleges and Universities, said, "We will not be able to implement this report on the future role of universities in Ontario simply because the federal government is cutting back on its funding."

In effect, they did what the report said they should not do. They muddled through between 1981 and 1984, and once again the postsecondary institutions were underfunded. As a matter of fact, the provincial share of the operating costs of post-secondary institutions up to 1985 decreased to the tune of 15 per cent. In other words, the province held back federal money intended for post-secondary education and used it for other purposes.

The present Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) condemned this in the estimates in 1981. I want to quote a brief line. He said:

"To put it in another way, the management of the Ontario post-secondary system in terms of financial arrangement has been a three-legged affair. Students who have had in the past a small leg of some 15 per cent of the cost of the system have upheld their part of the bargain. The federal government, with a much larger leg, 40 per cent in 1977, finds itself with a much greater responsibility today.

"What is the conclusion we can draw? The natural conclusion, it seems to me, ought to be that what is needed to restore the system to its proper balance, to help return it to its former pre-eminence, is for Ontario to uphold its share in the bargain and put its share of the money back into the system, the money that it has taken out over the last five years."

11:30 a.m.

That has been the story. The Conservatives in Ontario have said of the established programs financing, "The federal Liberals have cut that program, have cut the money, and therefore we will not be able to support the secondary institutions the way we would have liked to support them." At the same time, they cut back to the point that the system was and is breaking up at the seams.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) is not doing any better. The present minister is underfunding the college and the university systems and continuing to underfund, just as the Tories did in 1982, in 1983, and in 1984. During last year's election, there was a promise for much more for the college and university systems. As a matter of fact, an editorial in the Toronto Star puts it this way, "Operating funding has been increased by four per cent a year and that is less than generous, particularly for a government that has promised more."

Then the Minister of Colleges and Universities talks about an excellence fund and talks about putting some money into that and saying to the universities, "Here is a pool of money; go ahead and hire new blood into the universities." The universities are asking, "What are we going to do next year and the year after, once we have hired these people?"

Up to two or three years ago, the University of Toronto had 28 work orders in order to make that plant safe for the students. It is a shame to this province when that occurs. While I am more than happy and prepared to rise in this Legislature and condemn the federal Tories for their cutbacks to the established programs financing, at the same time I say to the government that it should pick up the challenge where the Tories were unwilling and provide the necessary funding to our post-secondary institutions, because, if we do not, the future economic recovery of this province in terms of producing expertise will not come about.

The Tories have left their trail of underfunding in the last 10 years and I would not want to see the Liberal government leaving exactly the same trail.

Mr. Reycraft: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this morning in support of my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and his resolution expressing concern about changes in the established programs financing arrangements for this province. The cloth that binds this country together is one that has a very complex weave. The established programs financing arrangements are an essential element within the weave of that cloth. They assure Canadians that no matter where they live, no matter what province or territory they are in, they will have accessible, quality health care and post-secondary education guaranteed to them.

For a provincial government or the federal government to accept anything less is an abrogation of our responsibilities. It is true, as the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) has pointed out, that we are at a difficult point in our fiscal and economic responsibilities in this country. In carrying out our responsibilities, we are all faced with the need to limit the growth of spending and to do our best to bring deficits under control. That responsibility is shared, whether our area of responsibility is at the provincial level, the federal level or the municipal level.

However, we also have to respond to the serious economic problems that are being experienced in some sectors and regions of our country, including parts of Ontario. The economic resurgence we are enjoying here in southern Ontario is not being shared by all parts of Canada or even by all parts of Ontario. In dealing with the pressing matters of the day, we must make sure we do not lose sight of the bigger picture. We must not consider our decisions out of context with the total issues.

The issues we face involve some basic questions that relate to what level of government should collect what revenues and what level of government is responsible for spending in particular program areas. With the decisions that are made in such forums as the finance ministers' and treasurers' meetings or a first ministers' conference, and the decisions made by the federal government on its own, the economic and fiscal framework of this country is being remade. I suggest it is not being done in a co-ordinated manner. Indeed, it is being done in an ad hoc, piecemeal fashion.

Members of this Legislature should be concerned that the results of those reconsiderations are going to be disjointed, irrational and unfair, as I suggest they are in the case of the established programs financing reductions.

It also strikes me that the federal government's priorities are beginning to take on a surprising shape. On the one hand, you have that old government that is reducing its commitment for core health care and post-secondary education. On the other hand, and I refer to yesterday's Toronto Star, we have a Prime Minister who spends more than $800,000 on three short trips outside this country, and I read about a hotel suite that costs $1,200 a night, in which he stayed for four nights. I read of $13,000 being spent in three days for the rental of motor vehicles, and I suggest that we need to be concerned about the priorities these facts suggest.

How can the federal government justify spending more that $520,000 for one week in Paris, while at the same time trimming back Canadian social benefits in the name of saving money? The federal government should review these financial priorities and it should do so quickly. The kinds of priorities that these facts illustrate are not acceptable to the people of this country. Mr. Mulroney is going to find that out when they next get an opportunity to express their opinion of those priorities to him, whether that comes in 1988 or 1989.

From the provincial perspective, the federal legislation to reduce the growth rate of the established programs financing transfer is indicative of our most immediate worry, that the federal government is shifting its deficit to the provinces. At the same time, revenue flexibility is being limited as the federal government intrudes into traditional provincial revenue fields such as the business transfer tax, which we hear people speaking of and which we expect to occur.

11:40 a.m.

If the economic agenda is driven entirely by narrow objectives such as deficit reduction, then it is unlikely it will remain sensitive to the basic traditions and aspirations all Canadians have come to share. It is our concern that the federal approach to cutbacks and the transfers of core health and post-secondary education is going to impact on us most negatively. Both of these are effectively in the provincial jurisdiction, but they are of such basic national significance that the federal government has used its taxing power to help finance these programs for some time.

Our government is more than aware of the problems caused by budget reductions in health and post-secondary education. The situation of inadequate hospital facilities and starving universities is not one that has developed in just the last 12 months, as some have tried to suggest. As the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) pointed out, it developed over a longer period.

Just as we are trying to rectify the underfunding that health and post-secondary education have experienced, the federal government has announced its plans to remove some $2 billion over a very short period from the established programs financing.

Ontario should continue to stand by the principle of equality of opportunity for all Canadians. The federal legislation to reduce the growth rates of the EPF transfer contravenes this principle and in this light it is unfair.

Miss Stephenson: I rise to participate in this debate of a resolution relatively briefly and from the perspective of historical reference, if I might call it that. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) has just suggested that the reduction over time of $2 billion from EPF was in fact initiated by the current federal government. I remind the honourable member that this process was initiated in 1981 by the budget of one Allan MacEachen when he was the Treasurer of the federal Liberal government and the reduction of $2 billion was announced at that time.

I would suggest to the honourable members that we were in not nearly as buoyant economic circumstances in the province in 1982 as we were this year, when the members opposite were handed an economy that was growing rather dramatically, significantly better than in any other part of the country, as a result of good budgetary practices.

As a matter of fact, in April 1982 there was a debate in this House on EPF transfers. I will refresh the memory of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), because he was here at that time. None of the rest of the members was, but he was and he should remember. I will quote from page 1089 of Hansard for April 22, 1982, the statement of Albert Roy, the former part-time member for Ottawa East, who for 12 years spent two days a week in this Legislature as a member of the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Foulds: Sort of like the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

Miss Stephenson: Do not talk to me about the member for Cochrane South or anybody else; the example was set by Albert Roy. This is what he had to say:

"We have had a succession of Treasurers," in Ontario, "who kept saying to the feds: `Cut your deficit. Do like us. Cut your deficit down. Cut your spending.' At the moment the federal government is doing exactly that on transfer payments and now the Tories are bitching. Now they are saying it is not fair. They are saying: `Do not cut your deficit on our back. We can cut it on the backs of the municipalities. Do not do that to us.' What irony, what hypocrisy on the part of the people on the other side of the House."

It sounds exactly like the member for Essex South.

I would also quote a further statement made by Albert Roy. He said: "In closing, I am not here to defend the federal programs" --

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not understand who the member for York Mills is quoting. She is throwing out names of members who are in the House today and of members no longer serving in this House. I would like to know exactly who she is quoting.

Mr. Speaker: I believe Hansard will show who the member is quoting.

Miss Stephenson: I did make it extremely clear that the speaker I am quoting at this point is Monsieur Albert Roy, a long-time member --

Mr. Mancini: The member did not say that.

Miss Stephenson: I said it three times. Is the member deaf? Pardon me. I am sorry. I should have said it much more precisely than I did.

I would like to quote another paragraph from his long and somewhat rambling participation in the debate of April 22, 1982. Mr. Roy said:

"In closing, I am not here to defend the federal programs. All I am here to say is, before they start throwing rocks they should get out of their own glass houses. The government should not start blaming the federal government for cutting back on the payments when it is not a cutback on the payments but a cutback on the increase."

It was a cutback on the increase and not a cutback on the overall funding, and that is exactly what is going on today.

Unhappily, the federal government in Ottawa, as my colleague the member for Eglinton pointed out to the House, inherited a very difficult financial situation; a financial situation which ensures that 33 cents out of every dollar collected by the federal government goes to fund the debt for which the government of the Trudeau era was entirely responsible.

Having to do that, there is some need to be rational about the way in which expenditures will grow. In spite of an agreement by the 10 provincial finance ministers in 1983 that they would not accept Allan MacEachen's budgetary activity related to established programs financing, the federal government went right ahead and did it anyway. There was unanimous agreement by all the finance ministers of all the provinces that this should not be done, and yet the federal Liberals went ahead and did it. They did not care. It is just like the provincial government in Bill 94. It does not care. It is just going to go ahead and ruin everything.

At any rate, in addition, the colleague who sits next to the member for Essex South, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) had this to say on that evening:

"The government has to take a fair look at overall financing and realize the position we have been forced into. No longer can we," as a province, "take 12.5, 15 and 25 per cent increases; we have to be realistic. We also have to co-operate. I am a strong federalist myself. I think we need a strong federal government and a strong provincial government. But we have to be realistic and, when the federal government says we have to accept the cut, we have to be responsible" and accept it.

The tune has changed since 1982. Simply because there is a government of another stripe in Ottawa and a government of a different stripe in Ontario, there is some increased tension surrounding this subject about which the Liberals were blithely supportive of the federal government in 1982.

The situation has changed since 1982, as I have said. The provincial government here enjoys the fruits of a very good economy. It has had a windfall this year unheard of in the 11 years that I have been in this Legislature. I should have thought it would have been able to do much better than to raise the operating grant to the universities by a mere four per cent. That is barely, just barely, skinnily, above the rate of inflation, if it is at all.

I remind the House that for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984, the universities' budgetary allocation for operating grants was significantly above the rate of inflation by at least half a per cent, and on some occasions by one and a half per cent, even in those very difficult years when we were already being cut off at the knees by Allan MacEachen's budget.

The rate of inflation increase in Ottawa during those years was fairly significant, and the transfers which came to Ontario increased at barely the rate of inflation during those years. We managed to keep the allocation to the universities above the rate of inflation.

However, what is happening this year? The federal transfer is increasing at twice the rate of inflation and all the government has managed to do is to increase it at the rate of inflation.

11:50 a.m.

Interjection.

Miss Stephenson: What is the member talking about? He should not be such a hypocrite. Pardon me. He should not let his words sound so hypocritical, because they are, in fact when compared with those uttered by the members of his caucus.

I would like to give one final quotation. I will do it rapidly. This is significant. I quote from a member of the Liberal caucus. "I do feel that this whole approach towards blaming the federal government for all of our provincial difficulties, our economic inadequacies, is a serious attempt to mislead the electorate into removing the pressures from the government of Ontario for the problems it is going to be facing in the next few weeks when it is forced to bring down a budget."

Mr. Breaugh: Who would say a thing like that?

Miss Stephenson: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who is now Treasurer of Ontario. The shoes may have changed, the mindset obviously has changed with the shoes, but reality remains exactly the same. To bring this resolution in is indeed specious, spurious and absolutely inconsequential.

Mr. Breaugh: That was a little wishy-washy, but it is okay.

Miss Stephenson: Sorry.

Mr. Foulds: In the two minutes and 30 seconds left to me I feel it is my job to introduce, as the New Democratic Party always does, the voice of reason and facts to this debate. I want to start in the most calm, rational way by saying to both the Liberal and the Conservative parties, a pox on both your houses.

By the way, we are supporting this wishy-washy, politically motivated resolution because it does have a kernel of truth in it and because the speakers from the Conservative Party have been so wishy-washy in defending their position. I want to point out the facts very briefly.

In 1976-77, the last time before the system of EPF grants was established, there was a 50-50 split. Under the Liberals in 1977-78, the federal government picked up 48.7 per cent. Under the Liberals in 1978-79, it picked up 49.6 per cent. In 1979-80 -- and remember that was when the Liberal government was defeated by the Conservatives and there was a Conservative federal government for nine months -- it was 49.9 per cent. It was almost back up to 50 per cent.

With the Liberals in 1980-81, it was 48.9 per cent, but in 1981-82 it dropped dramatically to 46.7 per cent. With the Liberals in 1982-83, it dropped even more dramatically to 42.6 per cent, and in 1983-84 again it was 42.6 per cent. So the Liberals have nothing to be proud of.

During that whole time, where were the voices of the Premier and the member for Essex South? They were silent on condemning the federal Liberal government.

The federal Tories have been trying that even more draconianly. Where is the voice of the Premier? It is through the squeaky voice of his parliamentary assistant. Similarly, the Premier gets headlines on free trade but he has never said "No" to Mr. Mulroney on free trade. The Liberals and Conservatives are as weak on this issue as they are on the issue of free trade.

Mr. Mancini: I may be accused of many things but this is the first time I have ever been accused of having a squeaky voice.

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) was very original, as always. Who has ever heard the saying, "A pox on both your houses," before today? I do not think we have ever heard that before today.

I want to make comments to the members who had an opportunity to make some relevant comments on the matter of the established programs financing, such as the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) and the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden).

First, to the member for Oakwood, while he condemned the excellence fund, he did not even know how much money is in it. He was unaware that it was $50 million last year. He was unaware that it is $80 million this year. In fact, he thought it was for only one year. There is $130 million in the excellence fund over a period of two years, of which he was unaware and upon which he completely failed to comment.

Furthermore, it appeared he was unaware of the improvements we had made in the Ontario student assistance program of upwards of eight per cent.

I want to turn my attention to the member for Eglinton. He was very original also. He took the time to blame all of Canada's problem on a government that has now been out of office for nearly three years. He did make a point about the Bovey commission, although while he was talking about it, he forgot to mention the tremendous increase in tuition fees it suggested. He also forgot to mention that places for potential students in our university system were going to be drastically reduced by the Bovey commission. I want the member to think about that for a while as he takes this opportunity to talk about the Bovey commission.

The member for York Mills was entertaining, as always. She still harks back to the days of Allan MacEachen, when it was still fashionable for Conservative governments to win majorities in Ontario on the backs of federal Liberals. It is unfortunate that those days are gone. I think what bothers her most is that under the new regime in Ottawa, under Conservative leader Brian Mulroney, we have been able to compare the leadership of this government to the governments that preceded him. The Canadian people, through the opinions they have expressed in the Gallup polls, have shown the member for York Mills just what they think of the government that is now starting its third year in office.

She attacked a member who is no longer a member of this House and is unable to stand and defend himself. All of us who served with Mr. Roy know that if he were here, he would have been very able to defend himself, even against the very impressive member for York Mills.

She forgot to mention a very important point. The criticism that came from Ottawa against the Tory government at that time was that it was not using the money that was being transferred to it for health care and education for those respective purposes; it was using the money for other purposes.

We know that Ontario is going to have a difficult problem maintaining the quality of our health care system and our post-secondary education system if the Conservatives in Ottawa continue to proceed with the cutbacks they have announced. It may not seem like a lot to the member for York Mills or to the member for Eglinton, but I say to the Tories across the floor, this year we will be losing $114 million, next year $250 million, the year after $390 million, the year after that $560 million, and in 1991 we will be losing $740 million, for a grand total of $2 billion which will be removed from the Ontario Treasury by their Conservative friends in Ottawa.

They have shown their colours by the support they have given them here today. They have shown they are more interested in saving the pants of Brian Mulroney than in providing better health care for the citizens of Ontario and by providing better post-secondary education for the students and adults who need to use these systems.

I did not expect anything different from the Conservative Party.

ONTARIO SENIOR CITIZENS' PRIVILEGE CARD

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Laughren has moved resolution 25.

Motion agreed to.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mancini has moved resolution 43.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the members of the wish of the House as of yesterday that we resume sitting at 1 p.m.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: We have all tried to co-operate in making unusual arrangements for today. I see only three ministers present. Oh, here is the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is of the Premier. Given the events of the past two days, can he tell us whether he still believes that all that is happening out there is an inconvenience for the patients of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do know that the ministry has emergency plans in place. There is no question that there is inconvenience. There have been specific cases reported, as the member knows, from a variety of sources, from members of the House, the media and others. I can assure the member that each one of those is being followed up in substantial detail. I know the minister is on top of the individual circumstances of the vast majority of them.

I caution my honourable friend not to create the impression that there is an emergency or a situation that is in any way out of control. That is not the situation at all. There are physicians in the hospitals, people are being attended to and physicians are fulfilling their professional responsibilities. As the member says, however, it is very inconvenient to a number of people.

Mr. Grossman: I want to go further. I believe that to each individual, to the parents with a child who needs urgent attention, at least in the parents' view, and to the patients themselves who have anything from heart to cancer difficulties, it is more than an inconvenience. They see it as a frightening circumstance. As an average citizen of Ontario, I am worried, scared and, on occasion, maybe even frightened about what is happening.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: My question to the Premier at this 11th hour is this: Does he not agree that, setting all other considerations aside, now is the time, with no loss of reputation or face, to buy some time and send everyone back to work tomorrow morning by asking for a mediator?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have had this discussion in the House on a number of occasions. I am very much aware of the member's point of view on the matter. I presume he thinks we should withdraw the bill and mediate, negotiate or do something else.

This has been going on for almost a year now. The bottom line of the many discussions and meetings, formal and informal, is that there is a difference of opinion. The Ontario Medical Association does not want to end extra billing, and I believe it is the will of this Legislature and of the people of this province that they do want to end extra billing.

These strong clashes of opinions bring me no joy as Premier, but on the other hand, I do not think we can walk away from these problems or postpone them for ever. There is a judgement call when one does the various things that have been done. In my view, the minister has handled this situation with exemplary judgement and fairness.

It is a difficult situation, and I acknowledge that, but I do not think one can always buy peace. I do not think one can walk away from every single problem one has in life or in politics. That is why we are moving on this bill. We think we are obeying the law of the land, the Canada Health Act. We are conforming, as a lot of other provinces are.

It is too bad this confrontation had to come about. Our very strong preference was to have negotiated this. We have used our very best efforts to negotiate a solution. We were not able to do that, and that is why we are proceeding as we are today.

I ask again for the co-operation of the honourable member and his party to pass this bill. We all know what is going to happen with this bill. It is going to pass through this Legislature. I ask the member and his colleagues for their co-operation in passing this bill so we can get all get on together and pick up the pieces and address --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: I believe the Premier has misjudged and underestimated the anger and resentment out across the medical profession on every single turn over the past several months. He has to acknowledge at least that he is as worried as I and others are that there may be very many doctors out there who are going to take action, not at the direction of the OMA but out of anger over what has happened.

Given that circumstance and given the indication by the OMA yesterday that passage of the bill will not deter its members from their activities, does the Premier not agree that the kind of co-operation he should be seeking now is the kind of co-operation that a mediator can bring to the circumstance?

In asking that question, I indicate to the Premier that if he wants to propose any solution whatsoever in terms of the speed of passage of this bill or anything else, any solution that involves the appointment of a mediator, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario will give him the co-operation he requested.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Our judgement at this point is that we cannot mediate the basic principle. Walking away from that and withdrawing is just running away from the inevitable in this situation. It is a good theory, but in the circumstances, in my view, it will not work.

As the member points out in his question, I recognize the anger of a number of members of the profession, but I believe they are mature professionals. As much as they dislike the vast majority of what we are doing, we will be able to sit down, I hope not too long from now, and sort out and work out together some of the problems that face not only the professionals but also all the people of this province in the health care delivery system.

My sense is that the vast majority will fulfil their professional responsibilities in that regard. We are prepared to sit down with them and address their concerns about freedom and some of the things that have been raised over the long term.

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Premier as well. Given what he has just said, and because of the harsh words that he, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) have used over a period of months, it will be difficult for a mediator -- I acknowledge that -- but I want to appeal to the Premier at this 11th hour.

If a mediator has one chance in 10, or one chance in 100, before inconvenience, to use the Premier's word, turns to tragedy, it is worth the one chance in 10 or 100 to bring in a mediator to try to get the doctors back to work. Why will he not take that small chance that mediation will work and get everyone back to work tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I disagree with my honourable friend on two points.

First, I do not believe the Attorney General, the Minister of Health and I have used so-called harsh words in this discussion. The member has seen a minister carry an extremely difficult situation with great temperance and great judgement as harsh voices were flying all about in this debate. There were very strong reactions on both sides in this House, and I do not need to quote back the things that have been said in this House previously. The minister, who is charged with the responsibility of carrying a very difficult load, has shown exemplary leadership, great self-discipline and patience in the circumstances.

1:10 p.m.

Second, to go back to the suggestion that there is one chance in 10 or one chance in 100, or whatever, of a mediator solving this problem, I do not share my honourable friend's view of that situation. We have had many meetings with these people; they are in favour of extra billing, and the government is against extra billing. That is not to say there are not many common concerns we do have; those were discussed and will continue to be discussed in the long term.

It is not as if we are mediating between a four per cent raise and a six per cent raise, where we can compromise at five per cent and everybody wins and loses equally. It is not that kind of situation. It is a situation where there are two strong differences of opinion and they are polarized; they are strongly felt on both sides.

Ultimately, as I am sure my friend will agree, the will of the Legislature and of the elected people has to predominate in this discussion. I ask the member again for his co-operation in moving ahead and not delaying this any more than necessary.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier cannot today, could not yesterday and will never be able to get away from the reality that his blind determination to push this legislation and have it all his way has been the single determining factor in the withdrawal of services we have today. He will never get away from that, because that is the reality. If the Premier wishes co-operation from this party and, more important, from the doctors of this province, there is only one way to get it: The OMA has told him clearly to put in a mediator.

Given the fact that more than just short-term damage has been created, and more than harsh words and rhetoric -- and the Premier is right that they are not words used by the Minister of Health, but words used consistently throughout this piece by the Premier -- have so dramatically alienated the OMA that he will never be able to do anything in the health care system, will the Premier consider supporting the reasonable amendment we have put through this afternoon? It is his last chance. Will he support the appointment of a mediator? He can have everything else his way, as he is determined to have, but will he give us a mediator this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with the honourable member's characterization of my words as harsh. I recognize in a difficult situation such as this that he will be attacked personally. The minister has been attacked; he has been attacked more in this House, personally and every other way, than I have seen in a long time. When one takes on a responsibility, one has to accept that.

On the one hand, some people think the government has been too slow; on the other hand, some think we have been too fast. These are judgements that have to be made. I think exemplary leadership has been demonstrated on this issue in a fair-minded way. I do not feel the Conservative amendment will do anything except defer problems. One of the functions of leadership is to face problems squarely and not to defer them. In my judgement, the ministry has done that.

Mr. Grossman: The true test of leadership is not to prove the Premier has power. Everybody knows that. The true test of leadership is not to show he can beat a group or have his way. Everyone knows he has and everyone knows that, one way or another, he will have his way. That is not the true test of leadership. The true test of leadership is not how tough he can be, but how fair he can be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: The true test of leadership is not whether he can change the system; it is whether he can change the system and keep people together.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please, a supplementary immediately.

Mr. Grossman: Does the Premier not agree that the ultimate test of leadership is the degree to which a leader can see through his way and his goals while keeping the majority of the population united and the key people who make our society work, not agreeing but understanding and working together with him? The Premier has failed in that, and that is why we have --

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to get into an academic or philosophical debate with my honourable colleague opposite with respect to the nature and definition of leadership. If one of his criteria is fairness, that has been demonstrated at all turns in the situation.

One of the things we try to do in this party and in this government is not to speak for special interests. Our responsibility is to speak for the broad population. The member knows, as I do, the will of this Legislature and, I suspect, the will of the majority of people. I suspect when judgement is rendered on this situation, as difficult as it is, the vast majority will say the government handled it in a fair-minded and even way.

Mr. Grossman: Absolutely no one would say that. Only the Premier's foot soldiers would say that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the member opposite disagrees, and I know his colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) disagrees; that is fair enough. Some time in the not-too-distant future this matter will be put to the people of this province. I will be very happy to explain how we have handled the situation and how the minister has handled it, because I have the utmost confidence in his judgement and in the way he has done it.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. It concerns various events and statements that have been made by members of the medical profession in the past 24 hours.

I will quote to the Premier a statement that is on the front page of the Oshawa Times, dated Wednesday, June 18, 1986. This is the president of the Durham Medical Society talking: "`What that means to me is sitting on the curb and watching ambulances pull in the front door and watching the funeral directors pulling out the back door,' said Dr. Joan Atkinson, president of the society."

That is a statement made by a supposedly reputable and elected official of the Durham Medical Society with respect to the withdrawal of services. We all know what effect that withdrawal of services has had at the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital in the past 24 hours.

What does the Premier intend to do about the complete collapse of discipline within the profession? What does he intend to do with respect to the withdrawal of services, in many instances depriving patients of care they are legally entitled to get in Ontario? What does he intend to do to stop this kind of absolutely unacceptable and preposterous threat being made to the people of this province?

Health care does not belong to the profession. It does not belong to the doctors. It belongs to all the people. What is the Premier going to do to stop this outrageous misconduct?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I share my honourable friend's distaste for statements such as that, because I do not believe they are representative of the profession. Sometimes in highly charged emotional situations people make remarks they later regret. If they have not, I surely have in my own circumstances.

One has to view this matter evenhandedly. There have been a great number of statements, charges and countercharges, many in this House, that, if I were a censor, I would view to be a little extreme. But I am not. It is still a free country, and people have the right to express themselves as they see fit.

That being said, she, like all other doctors, has professional responsibilities, and they are being monitored on a daily basis by the college and by the ministry. In spite of the difficulties, it is working. As we are coming, I hope, closer and closer to a conclusion on this matter, I ask my honourable friend not to inflame the situation more than it already is.

Mr. Rae: I did not say this; it is this doctor who said it. The public is entitled to know the kind of outrageous and completely unacceptable remarks that are being made almost as a matter of course after an organized political meeting.

1:20 p.m.

Let me quote further: "Asked specifically, `Will people die?' `I hope not, but they may have to,' said Dr. Atkinson." This was said by a professional licensed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to practise medicine, a trust that is given under the laws of this province. She is saying quite openly that patients may have to die for the cause of the doctors continuing to extra bill and continuing to take actions against the government of the province.

Further to statements made yesterday, Dr. Gary Willard, the former chief of surgery at the Etobicoke General Hospital -- that is the hospital where a doctor who tried to practise had his office Krazy-Glued by some of his colleagues -- said, "If one doctor is disciplined" -- presumably by the college of physicians and surgeons -- "then hospitals will close, because there would not be any doctors prepared to work at them."

I would like to ask the Premier what plans he has, not to deal with some hypothetical situation but to deal with very real threats and statements that are being made by doctors who have occupied positions of authority within our public hospital system and within our health care system? What plans does he have to ensure that we will return the health care system to the people whom it really belongs to -- the people of this province, not these extremists who are making self-serving comments?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the honourable member's point was that the Krazy Glue would better be applied to some people's mouths than to door locks, I probably would not disagree with him in the circumstances.

It is a country where people say what they want to say. The responsibility of the college is with respect to how they conduct themselves professionally in fulfilling their professional responsibility. I do not think it would be constructive for me or the minister to threaten them or anyone else.

We are watching the provision of medical services. It is still going on in very strained circumstances, but I cannot help my friend any more than that.

Mr. Rae: It is not simply what doctors are saying in instances such as this; it is what doctors are doing and what they are not doing. That is what is at stake here. It is not simply the idle comments that are made; it is what is being done for patients.

I would like to ask the Premier again, because I do not think he has answered the question. What plans does he have to address the denial of services to people who have come to expect those services in this province and who need those services? They are not merely being inconvenienced but in many cases they are being put into situations that are threatening and excessively risky. At least the Premier will agree with that.

Yesterday we all received a warning with respect to events at one hospital in this province. For God's sake, let that be a warning and not the precursor of something else that might and could happen unless the government is prepared to act and take the steps that will ensure that the health care system is returned to the people, who are the real beneficiaries of the system and not any one self-interested party who works in that system.

What plans does the Premier have to ensure that doctors stop holding patients to ransom in this province?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend knows my concern is to get this bill passed as quickly as possible in this House. We are going to need the co-operation of all members to do so; then my concern obviously is to try to pick up the pieces from a very difficult situation. The doctors have raised some concerns. We are going to try to address those. At the same time, they have to recognize their professional responsibilities.

I say to my friend, if he is asking me to issue threats or to speculate on what we may or may not do in some situations where he feels someone is violating his professional responsibilities, I do not think that is constructive towards the two goals I have just shared with him. I am not prepared to speculate about that. I am not prepared to threaten. It is the responsibility of all of us to try to pick up the pieces. We will be working on that in the long term.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the Premier some questions again about Ontario's and Canada's relationship to South Africa, and the government's relationship to South Africa.

I am sure he will have been advised of this morning's press reports with respect to South African liquor and the intention of the Canadian agent for South African Paarl wines, Sainsbury and Co., to organize a large shipment of these wines for sale in Ontario by placing a private order through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Does the Premier intend to allow this private order to be placed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was not aware of the situation until I read that

article today. I checked the situation. In the past, I gather, people were piggybacking private orders on the large LCBO orders being placed; that was the previous way the system worked. I looked at the situation. It looks as if somebody, whoever it is, is trying to exploit a loophole. There will be no loopholes; that will not be allowed. We will prevent it. Whoever did issue the instructions this morning, that fiddling around will not be allowed.

Mr. Rae: I am delighted to hear that.

Can the Premier tell us what plans the government has to deal with the five Ontario-based corporations specifically named by Commissioner Hart yesterday in his first report to the Parliament of Canada? The Premier will be aware that those five companies have been named; they are Bata, Massey-Ferguson, Dominion Textile, Moore Corp. and Falconbridge. They were all named specifically because they were paying lower wages than was regarded as fair even according to South African standards.

Bata has a contract with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Dominion Textile has a large contract with the Ministry of Correctional Services. Moore Corp., as a supplier of business forms, has many different contracts, at least one of them with the Ministry of the Attorney General. Does the Premier intend to sit down and discuss with these companies their basic choice: either clean up their act or no longer deal with the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have not had a chance to see that report of Commissioner Hart's, but I was generally aware of it. The member could have added in his question that the taxpayers of this province are shareholders in Massey-Ferguson. We have conveyed our views, as shareholders and as the government, to the management of Massey-Ferguson in this regard, and those views will be brought up at the shareholders' meeting.

I will certainly analyse the facts brought forward by my honourable friend. We will look at the companies named and what business they are doing and see where we can exert our influence. We are looking now at canvassing ways to make sure that the will and views of this government are reflected in its transfer agencies and other groups it deals with.

Mr. Laughren: Let me help the Premier in his deliberations. Since Falconbridge is one of the companies and since Falconbridge now receives from his cabinet an exemption from the processing requirements of the Mining Act, will the Premier make a commitment to end those processing exemptions to Falconbridge so that, rather than shipping its ores to Norway, it simply must process them at source here in Ontario and thus put some teeth into the sanctions against apartheid in South Africa?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have sat in this House with my honourable friend for more than 10 years now, and he makes that point about Falconbridge and the processing allowance regularly each week or two. He put a new twist on it today, and it is an interesting new wrinkle on the suggestions he has made in the past. As I told the member's esteemed leader, we will look at how we are dealing with the situation and at how we can bring our moral influence to bear on the situation.

1:30 p.m.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Pope: The Premier today three times has used the phrase "pick up the pieces" and in so doing has admitted the health care system has been torn apart to the detriment of the people of Ontario by this dispute. Can the Premier tell me and my constituents in the riding of Cochrane South why he will not appoint a mediator when he knows the appointment of a mediator will end this tragic strike?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We both recognize that there are some people of strong views who are upset about what we are doing; that is quite obvious. Our intention is to work with the medical profession, because we have so much in common with it, in a determination to solve our problems in the long term. The member has asked a question that was asked by his leader three or four times today, yesterday and the day before. There is not much I can add to the answer I gave him.

Mr. Pope: The people of my riding of Cochrane South do not believe the passage of Bill 94 will end the strike. They are worried. They feel the strike will escalate. Does the Premier not understand that his refusal to appoint a mediator is not acceptable to the people of Cochrane South, whom I represent, who are no longer receiving adequate medical care?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate my honourable friend's assessment of the view of the people of Cochrane South. There is no better person to interpret their feelings than he. I know a number of people from Cochrane South who have a different view from that of the member, so he does not speak for everyone when he puts that view to the House. I admit there is a difference of opinion about this. I have expressed my views to my friend very clearly.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Foulds: I would like to put a question to the Premier about South Africa and Ontario's relations with it. The Premier stood in his place on May 30 and told Bishop Desmond Tutu that the problem of South Africa is "one of the most troubling issues of our time."

Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives passed a very strong bill advocating sanctions against South Africa. Yesterday, the federal government released a report indicating that three companies with which the government of Ontario does direct business by purchasing from them violate even Canada's weak code of conduct. Yesterday, at great risk to himself, from inside South Africa, Bishop Tutu called for sanctions by the international community. When will the Premier live up to his words given to Bishop Desmond Tutu in this House on May 30?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the honourable member's deep belief in what he is putting to me, because I share a number of his views and his very passionate commitment. I want to remind the member that this government moved way ahead of a lot of other governments. It is becoming very fashionable now, but we made the moves when they were tough. We provided leadership to a lot of the people who now are starting to recognize that leadership. It is all very well for the member to stand up and say that, but we were there at a far more critical time than now, when it was less popular to do what this government did and had the courage to do. My friend should stand up and acknowledge that.

I have discussed some of the additional moves we are taking with the member's leader. I have not had a chance to analyse yesterday's report, but we take it seriously. We will be looking at our relationship with those people and asking ourselves what we can do to make our view felt, not just there, but with our transfer agents as well.

Mr. Foulds: When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and the going is very tough in South Africa today. The Premier is doing absolutely nothing to help the cause in South Africa today. Last September, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) told the Brantford Kiwanis Club that the government earns more than $9 million on South African products and that this "kind of markup would bring a smile to any businessman's face." When will the Premier stop smiling about the blood money the Liquor Control Board of Ontario earns and put that money into a fund to help the cause of anti-apartheid in this province and throughout the world?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate my friend's view, but his rhetoric is getting a little overblown. It was this government that invited Bishop Tutu to speak here. The bishop told me that one of the most important things we could do was to give him the legitimacy of speaking in our Legislature. He was very grateful and appreciated that. We provided leadership long before the member brought these matters up in this House. I am not questioning his sincerity. The member is quite entitled to make all the speeches he wants. We are moving on these matters and we have been moving on them for a long time.

There are many objective observers around the world who have a great deal of respect for the leadership this government has provided in this matter.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier, who is having a busy day.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad I came today.

Mr. Brandt: We reset the time just to make sure he was going to be here today.

Surely the Premier is aware that the level of anger, hostility and bitterness in the medical community is the highest it has ever been in the history of this province. Recognizing that one phone call from him to indicate he will appoint a mediator will end this strike virtually instantaneously, will the Premier agree to our appeal to appoint a mediator to resolve this issue today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have answered this question many times. I wish the honourable member would use the phone to make his point a little more poignantly. Why does he not send the phone over to me? I will keep it for sure this time.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier will not send it back; that is why.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We sent it back because it had to be returned that night to Motorola. That is why. He said, "Oh, it is not my phone. Please give it back to me so I can give it back to my friends," so we sent it back to him. I am glad to see it here every day. It reminds me I should have kept it.

I have answered that question to the member's leader, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and many others. My honourable friend may not agree with me or may not understand the point, but if he really thinks this is a matter of one phone call, he has sorely misjudged a very complicated discussion that has gone on for a year.

Mr. Leluk: Appoint a mediator.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He should stand up and ask me to back off. If he is asking me to back off, the answer to my friend is no.

Mr. Brandt: I suggest the Premier has sorely misjudged this issue. If he thinks that by pressing on with Bill 94, all is going to be well the day after that bill is passed -- if, in fact, it is passed -- he is sorely misjudging the people of this province.

Will the Premier indicate to my constituents in the community of Sarnia why he will not appoint a mediator, recognizing that the day this mediator is appointed, health services in this province will again be restored to a level somewhat in line with what we have come to expect in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am answering the same question again, but I will happily answer it again to my honourable friend. It is because one cannot mediate the situation that has presented itself. It is that simple.

Mr. Brandt: How does the Premier know if he does not try?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me tell the member the situation. One cannot mediate the Canada Health Act. It is that simple.

The member has characterized the Tory view for 42 years: because there is a little resistance, back off and avoid the problem. That is his view and I respect that. The Tories did reasonably well for 42 years in avoiding these kinds of things. We have told the people of this province where we stand; it should come as no surprise to the member. We are doing what we said we would do. We are conforming with the law of the land. That is what we are doing.

I am sure my honourable friend, like myself, has had a number of difficulties in life; we have had lots of people who disagreed with us. But I am sure my honourable friend has not achieved his high status in life just by blowing like a reed with every little breeze that comes along.

He knows where we stand. It has happened in almost every other province. Surely he is not surprised about this situation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) would discontinue their discussion.

Once again, I will remind the members that you are wasting the time of other members who wish to ask questions.

1:40 p.m.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier. Can he tell the House which wing of the Liberal Party he belongs to, the Lloyd Axworthy-John Turner wing, which is increasingly concerned about the free trade talks going on, or the Donald Johnston-Michel Robert-Donald Macdonald wing, which seems to favour such talks?

Why did his provincial government give away access to the security industry to the Americans without anything in return? This is a move comparable to the Tories giving away the Foreign Inves