5 NOVEMBRE 1991 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
CORNWALL AND DISTRICT SNOWSUIT FUND
I am proud to say that over 900 snowsuits were collected and distributed to needy children last year. The snowsuit fund is hopeful that it will be able to outfit 2,000 children this year.
The snowsuit fund is a recognized charitable organization with no operating cost, and is run by an enthusiastic volunteer executive and board of directors. Local business has been quite supportive of this effort, particularly Fantastic Cleaners of Cornwall, which has offered complimentary dry-cleaning services to the snowsuit fund.
The gala event took place this past Saturday night in Cornwall, and I am happy to report that I joined over 200 area residents who showed their support by attending.
Anyone interested in making a contribution to this fine cause should contact one of the local sponsors, who admit that only through energetic participation will this fund be able to surpass its 1991 goal.
LORNE MCCONNELL
I want to bring to the attention of this House a group of nine individuals who were honoured by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario this past Saturday evening. Each of these people has managed remarkable performance during a time that is somewhat hostile to innovation and the business community. As an engineer and a citizen of Ontario, I was extremely impressed with the accomplishments of all nine of these individuals and felt very proud both as a professional engineer and as a fellow Ontarian. However, today time permits me to mention only one in particular.
The professional engineers' gold medal is awarded to an engineer who has given outstanding public service to our country and who has made large sacrifices of time and effort for the public welfare. That special honour was bestowed upon Mr Lorne G. McConnell, PEng. Mr McConnell, a pioneer in nuclear power development, has dedicated 35 years to ensuring a safe, reliable electricity supply for Ontario and for the world. Since his retirement from Ontario Hydro in 1990, he has represented Canada in helping to develop international recommendations for electricity planning and the environment.
I would like the members of this House to join me in recognizing and congratulating Mr McConnell and his fellow engineers, those individuals who give us our competitive edge.
CITY OF BRANTFORD
Not only are the companies I mentioned last time -- Keeprite, Ben-A-Clamp, Go Vacations and Easton Coatings, for example -- preparing to do business and create jobs in Brantford, but today I have even more good news on the road to economic renewal.
Gates Canada Inc, a leading manufacturer of automotive and industrial belts and hoses, which has two plants in Brantford, will invest over $4 million to expand its belt manufacturing facilities, creating 15 new jobs. Strub Pickles will create 30 jobs as it moves its production and warehousing operations to Brantford from nearby Dundas. Canada Packers Poultry has consolidated its poultry and meat processing operations in Brantford and will create between 50 and 100 jobs in doing so. Finally, Sonoco Ltd, a major cardboard tube and paperboard maker, will be restructuring its operations and opening its second plant in Brantford in early 1992.
I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that this positive news about the economy of our city is a sign that investors have confidence in the people of Brantford and the province of Ontario. Just today, Mr Muzaffar ul Haq from Brant Community Futures informed me that a net increase of between 800 and 900 jobs has been created in Brantford since January of this year. This is good news indeed.
CONTRIBUTION OF CONSULTANTS
Off go the consultants and count the cash for their consultations. The consulted community, meanwhile, remains more confounded than ever. The consolidated communications from countless cabinet consultations and controversial caucus considerations leave us with nothing but contradictory configurations.
Without the help of costly consultants, I can confirm the sorry conclusion that the NDP government has been conquered by consultation confusion.
STUDENT SAFETY
Western foot patrol commenced operations in January 1989. Hundreds of students volunteer. Five distinct patrols comprise the foot patrol system at the university. They are provided on campus between 8 pm and 1 am four nights a week and between 8 pm and 2 am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The foot patrol promotes awareness of risk to persons and property on the campus, deters those who would commit crime on campus and provides safe walking escorts to anyone who requests this service.
On Friday evening I joined Elizabeth Lorenzin, assistant co-ordinator of the foot patrol; my colleague the member for London-Middlesex; Joe Fontana, MP for London East, and Monique Lefebvre and other student volunteers. Fortunately, it was an uneventful evening. These volunteer patrollers, who have agreed to give up their free time to assist fellow students and promote campus safety, are to be congratulated on their significant efforts in making people aware of the risks they take, not only at the campus but across our communities, by walking alone in the dark.
COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM
I would also like to thank the Premier, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Natural Resources and their staffs, the NDP government and the Liberal and Conservative caucuses for meeting with this group.
The Community Action Team appreciated the time and effort we as a government contributed. This team effort is an excellent example of co-operation and co-ordination between management, labour, government and the larger community. With this type of solidarity and the continued support of this government, our community will pull together and indeed there will be a better day.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION
Unfortunately, this new legislation is in conflict with many of Ontario's current laws. All stakeholders want Ontario to harmonize its regulations with these new federal regulations. The province has no position on this issue. Because the minister has been dragging his heels, there will be at least a two-year period during which federal financial institutions will be operating in conflict with Ontario's laws.
Because of the NDP's failure to act, the financial services industry and the economy will continue to suffer because of unnecessary duplication in regulatory control and costs, thus further eroding Ontario's competitive position. Such inaction is irresponsible and a slap in the face to the industry. This government is showing once again that it is out of step with the rest of the country at a time when our economy is crying for assistance. The minister should do everyone a favour and climb out of his shell-shocked auto insurance bunker to lend the economy a hand. The taxpayers of Ontario will not hold it against him.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
This announcement, which was to be made later this week but was leaked to the press, is yet another way for Ontario Hydro to spend its outrageous conservation budget. The Ontario Energy Board's review of Hydro's 1992 major rate increase concluded that Hydro "was likely to waste much of the extra conservation money through uneconomic programs." This government has ordered Hydro to pick up the pace of its conservation programs, but Hydro says it is already struggling to spend the $226 million allocated.
To listen to the Minister of Energy and the chairman of Ontario Hydro, you would think conservation is a new idea. Conservation has been part of Ontario Hydro and all users for over 30 years. I suggest we return to Ontario Hydro's mandate of generating and transmitting power at cost and let the private sector market its own products.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
I raise this issue in the House because I think it is incumbent upon us all, as leaders in our communities, to take this issue to the people. What I would suggest is that members could go into their ridings and have open forums on these issues, perhaps speak to students about these issues, if they have not already, and perhaps even share materials that have been brought forward by the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, the federal government or the provincial government to help people understand these issues.
In my own riding of Victoria-Haliburton in the first week of December we are going to begin a process of open forums where we can begin to discuss these issues, and invite the members of the constituency to come to those forums and also to express their views on the federal proposals that are being put forward. It is my hope that by going out into the community and sharing this information with people, we might draw a closer focus on the future of Ontario in Confederation.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Employment equity is about this province's most valuable resource, its people. It is about a new vision of Ontario where every workplace is an environment of fairness and justice for all people. People should be able to participate and contribute in workplaces to the best of their abilities.
We need the energy, creativity, knowledge and skills of all the people of Ontario to rebuild our economy. Our workforce can give us our competitive edge. Employment equity will ensure Ontario is well positioned for the economic challenges of the future.
This government is committed to ending systemic discrimination faced by aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, women and racial minorities. By the year 2000, 85% of all people entering the workforce will be members of these four groups. As a society, we no longer can afford to keep them underemployed or out of the workforce.
Ontario's NDP government is committed to mandatory employment equity legislation. The discussion paper provides a direction and a framework for the consultation. It is the intention of this government to advance legislation which will have four designated groups: aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, women and racial minorities. It will apply to public, broader public and private sectors, and the legislation will provide for mandatory employment equity.
To maximize the economic and social benefits of employment equity, we must ensure that the proposed legislation will be fair, practical and effective. The consultation is therefore crucial at this stage. We are determined that this will be an open and inclusive process. There are a lot of issues to consider in drafting legislation. We are committed to hearing from and listening to all groups about what will work best. We need the expertise and views of all Ontarians. Through these consultations, we will develop a partnership of government, business, labour, designated group members and other interested groups and individuals.
This government is committed to an agenda of justice and fairness. The release of this discussion paper and the launch of the formal consultation process is one major step forward. This government will provide the leadership to put Ontario back to work in a fair and equitable manner.
I would like to introduce the employment equity commissioner, who is with us today, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré.
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
Our government recognizes that factors driving economic growth are changing. Old answers are no longer sufficient. We need a new direction to revitalize the economy. I believe that long-term commitments to research and development are a key to economic growth in this province. Research and development is the backbone of high value added industries, those which create highly skilled, well-paying jobs. Such industries require leading-edge technology to operate efficiently. They need a stable base from which to develop this technology and put it into practice.
On behalf of my ministry, it gives me great pleasure to present to the House the details of an important new initiative. We have made a commitment to support the creation of a new industry-directed research centre. The Industrial Research and Development Institute, or IRDI, will be established in Midland with Ontario government funding of up to $4.2 million over a five-year period.
The centre will serve as a national institute for applied research and development for the tooling industry and related industries. Tool, die and mould making is the backbone of manufacturing in Ontario. It is critical to Ontario's auto and auto parts sectors, aerospace, plastics processing and other manufacturing industries. In fact, Ontario is currently home to 80% of Canada's tooling industry. The choice of Ontario as home for the IRDI is therefore ideal.
Many of the companies which will benefit most from IRDI lack the financial resources or staff to undertake research on their own. IRDI will give these companies access to new technologies and industrial materials as well as expert advice. IRDI services will improve tooling design and development in Ontario and in so doing will strengthen the competitive position of our manufacturers. The institute will act as a bridge between the academic community and industry and will network with similar institutes internationally.
Until now, Canada has been the only leading industrial nation without an institute of this kind. This has placed us at a great competitive disadvantage. IRDI also represents the kind of co-operation we need to see between the province, the private sector, communities and the federal government. Nearly $1 million will be provided by the province during the initial two-year period. An additional $3.2 million in provincial funding will be available over the subsequent three years following a review in IRDI's second year of operations.
Industry, Science and Technology Canada will provide $1.85 million towards the project. Plans call for the eventual construction of a building on lands donated by local industry. Site servicing will be provided by the town of Midland. Additional funding towards the building will come from the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.
Investment in our technological infrastructure, the network of people and institutions that gives us technological capability, is important to Ontario's future success. Let me conclude by repeating our commitment to work co-operatively with industry, the academic community, labour, community groups and the federal government. It is only through such co-operation that we will be able to create economic growth and the high value added products and services that will move Ontario to a healthier and more productive economy.
RESPONSES
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
I recall the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, introducing employment equity legislation in June 1990. This was done, he said, after very extensive consultation had been carried out. Comprehensive consultations were carried out, of course, by Justice Rosalie Abella's royal commission and also by the Ontario Advisory Council for Disabled Persons.
The minister now says that more consultation is needed because earlier consultations excluded some groups. My question to the Premier then is, which groups did he exclude from his consultation? Who did the Premier exclude? We would like to know.
The minister also made some comments this morning in which she seemed to suggest the opposition parties may try to stall the government's plan to introduce employment equity legislation. Who is stalling? I point out to the minister that Bill 172, the Premier's employment equity bill, was supported in principle by all members of the three parties and was referred to committee by the consensus of the Legislature. As members recall, I have also, on a number of occasions over the past year, asked for the reintroduction of this bill.
The minister speaks about partnership and consultation. Yet over and over again it appears from the consultation document that the government has already made up its mind on some very significant issues. For example, although francophones are considered a designated group for the purpose of employment equity in the Ontario public service, they are already quite specifically excluded on the very first page of the consultation document.
We have also heard the minister say over and over again that the legislation should be mandatory, but she has not been able to tell us what she means by mandatory -- mandatory process or mandatory results?
Last spring the Solicitor General made a statement that the government had no intention of legislating employment equity for fire services. This would seem to contradict what the Minister of Citizenship is saying. I asked the minister about this five months ago and she still has not been able to tell me what her government's position is.
In opposition that party was very specific about what it intended to do. They were going to introduce Bill 172. Suddenly, in government, they need to carry out more consultation. The Premier had the answer in 1990. He said it was Bill 172. What changed? Why has his government backed away from the specific plans set out in Bill 172?
Mr Speaker, you ask for decorum in this House. As you know, this was already announced at a press conference this morning. Therefore, again this government continues to make its show outside and then asks us to respond to it afterwards.
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
The other thing that really disturbs me is that it says, "Tool, die and mould making is the backbone of manufacturing in Ontario." That is true, as long as there is somewhere those skills can be practised. Unfortunately, under this government, the facts speak for themselves. It has a $10-billion deficit. It has spending habits that the Economic Council of Canada implied are out of step. It has an NDP tax commission charged with the job of finding the means by which to finance its appetite to spend. It has made amendments to the Labour Relations Act which will deter investment. It also has brought in legislation that will increase the cost of hydroelectric power, which again will deter investment and will make the application of any of these skills more and more difficult.
I suggest to the minister that he come forward with a comprehensive industrial strategy, one that will take a look at what we are doing and where, by really coming to grips with some of the problems, we can make this a competitive environment and a place that will attract investment and create employment.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
However, having said that, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the government. I would also like to congratulate the employment equity commissioner. I would like to congratulate them on the consultation that has already taken place. This discussion paper indicates that she has listened to the concerns that have been expressed by individuals and groups throughout the province and that there has been consultation around the implementation models.
I approach this discussion paper with cautious optimism, since there are many, many areas that are open for discussion. I am very pleased to see that. It appears to me that the government has turned over a new leaf and is ready to consult with all the stakeholders, and for that I applaud it. However, I am concerned that within the minister's statement here she has not talked about the content of the document. She has not talked about when the legislation will be introduced or when she plans for this to become law. That is the information that I believe this House needs.
I appreciate very much the sensitivity she has given to the concerns of the small business community. She has indicated here that there are possible approaches for employers covered by proposed employment equity legislation. She has given five possible approaches and she has allowed for exemptions and modifications for firms with less than 100 employees. I hope this government seriously considers some of the compliance problems that will face small businesses and recognizes that these small firms simply do not have the human resources to meet some of the government regulations.
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
I wish the minister had done some of his own research, though. The fact is that we are looking at 226,000 jobs lost in this province, 75% in manufacturing. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high. Some 37% of the businesses in a recent survey said they will not be investing because of this government. Retail sales are down $2 billion. One million people are now collecting welfare.
When we look at them, the statistics speak for themselves. Some 86% of the firms say that as a result of some of the proposed labour changes they will not be investing. A total of 480,000 jobs are at stake as a result of this government's initiative. Some $20 billion will not be invested because of this government.
If we look at it, the business community is saying these are the reasons it will not be investing, and it lays it clearly at the door of the Premier and the NDP government. Fully 88% say the reason they will not be investing is the total tax burden. There is nothing about that in this statement.
Some 78% said they will not be investing as a result of the recent Ontario budget. There is nothing about that in this statement. In fact, almost 57% of the members said they will scale down their investment because of the budget, and 94% said it was a bad budget. There is nothing in here to change that.
For the Ontario government's apparent bias, 77% blame the government. There is nothing in here for that. Some 73% say the changes to the proposed labour amendments are going to scale down investment. There is nothing in here for that.
I met with members of a business group this morning and they said to me: "Is there really a Mr Pilkey? Is there somebody really called Mr Pilkey?" That is the consulting the members opposite did under this government in the first year after they took over. All this particular government has done in a year is worry about the mice in the basement. There are elephants on the roof and the business community is reeling. This does nothing for them today.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
BLUE-GREEN ALGAE
I will take it over. I thank you very much, Mr Speaker, but I cannot stand it. Maybe she will answer the question.
ORAL QUESTIONS
ONTARIO ECONOMY
Some 15 months ago the Premier's Council issued a report, a blueprint on developing skills in the new economy that I think could very well be a blueprint for the government. When will we see the economic plan the Premier promised the people on September 23?
My colleague the member for Hamilton West, the Minister for Skills Development, has negotiated a very dramatic increase in federal funding for training for this year, which we think is a good start. We are also determined to bring in legislation with respect to training in 1992. I say to the member we do have to get a stronger buy-in from the private sector for some of the ideas that are contained in the Premier's Council report that my predecessor was able to do, and that is something which we very much want to have happen through this fall and winter as we prepare for legislation in the spring, and that is exactly what we are going to be doing on the training front.
There is a fear among the workers in this province that there may very well be two economic plans, one for union workers and one for non-union workers. Can the Premier is assure all the workers of this province that they will be treated equally and that if he brings forward these economic plans, perhaps before the OFL convention, there will not be one economic plan for unionized workers and one economic plan for non-unionized workers?
We understand that on the training aspect, unions will have a veto right on much of the training. The fundamental objective of the labour relations program, if we read the documents correctly, was to increase union penetration. That is why the concerns have been raised. I am glad of the Premier's reassurance, but if all the workers are to have equal access, why is it that in the draft proposals we have seen there seems to be some discrimination between unionized and non-unionized workers in this province?
RETAIL STORE LEGISLATION
I wonder if the Solicitor General will agree with me that those jobs are important jobs to save and if he will commit himself to supporting a bill that I will introduce later today which is designed to save those particular jobs.
We have not done anything that has altered the previous situation. What we have done, on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and this government, is to respond to the people of Ontario on the promise we gave them, and that was a promise of a common pause day and a promise of worker protection. The moment these two parties allow us to get out of committee and into this House, we will have achieved that to the benefit of the people of this province.
If it is not within the ambit of Bill 115, perhaps the Solicitor General can undertake to support this as a separate piece of legislation to save the jobs of people like Marie Durand, who is supporting not only herself and who is not only about to support a husband who will lose his job at the end of this month, but also a single-parent daughter who is supporting her child. Since the Solicitor General knows what the amendment of the member for Oakville South would have done, can he tell us today why he cannot support that type of bill to save the job of Marie Durand and save her family the suffering he knows they will go through?
For the benefit of people like Monica McGregor, a single-parent family supporter who needs her job and who will lose her job under the current situation, will the Solicitor General support my bill, to be introduced later today, so he can save her job and the jobs of all these women and men who need to work and make money so they do not suffer at a time when recession is eating us up?
I will quit on this one further comment: If we are to bring further clarity to those and other retailers in this province and to the general public by way of the amendments we introduced on Sunday shopping in December, prior to Christmas, I would urge the opposition parties to allow us to get through clause-by-clause before they have a lot of other people's jobs in jeopardy as well at that time.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Last week the Premier agreed to consider New Directions: A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario, which was my economic plan for renewal and prosperity. I ask him today, will he agree to my call in New Directions for an immediate cancellation of any consideration of all the changes labour has put forward and wants in the labour law legislation in this province?
That in itself is sending out enough of a signal that he is prepared to meddle further with business in this province, and that signal is costing us jobs. It is tinkering with labour legislation. While thousands are losing their jobs, he is trying to decide whether they will be union ones or not. It is kind of like giving double Aeroplan points while the aircraft is going down; it really does not matter much. Will the Premier alleviate further hardship today and get on with the true consultation of bringing business and labour together? He can do that by cancelling his discussion paper altogether. Will he do that?
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Would the Premier not consider this to be inappropriate use of a constituency office paid for not only by the taxpayers, but the real rub here is that it is also paid for by Mr Faulkner himself?
What I do know is that this alleged incident took place some seven months before the last provincial election, so he is referring to something that he alleges may or may not have taken place in a constituency office of an opposition member about a year and a half ago. I think that is what he is talking about.
Having put that in that perspective, I can only say to the member that I look forward to seeing whatever documentary or other information he has with respect to any allegation he has. Otherwise, I have no intention today, a week before the municipal election on which he has conveniently asked the question, of interfering in that election in any way whatsoever.
I think what is important to point out is that what really strikes at the heart of this issue is, who do members think is now running against Mr Faulkner in Etobicoke-Lakeshore under the NDP banner? None other than the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore's own constituency assistant. Here we have a case of the Minister of the Environment's constituency office advising residents to join in campaigns --
HOSPITAL SERVICES
In the minister's October 29 letter to hospitals and district health councils she talked about "service changes," which are really code words for service cutbacks and that obviously there are more of these to come. Most of these cuts will result in nursing jobs being lost. How many more nurses will have to lose their jobs to pay for their hard-fought increases won on the bargaining tables of this province? How many more nurses will lose their jobs to pay for the pay equity plan which the minister has announced but which she has been unwilling to find the money to fund?
When I talk in the letters about the fact that there are service changes taking place, what is happening in the hospital sector is that with the kind of funding that has been put in place, hospitals are looking at whether or not they are able to meet their budget projections. Where there are deficit projections, we are working with them to try to address those situations.
May I suggest that in the majority of hospitals in this province, there are not deficit projections this year. The kind of suggestion we have made to the district health councils and hospitals that have worked together is to try and develop a rational plan to deal with areas where we think there may be deficits.
It is interesting to note in this October 29 letter that there are a whole series of great sentences and lines. One is, "Doctors and the government will work together to bring greater fiscal certainty to health care." Where is the role of nurses in talking about this, since it seems that the minister has targeted the layoff of nurses and support staff to pay for the cost of managing the system?
Further, why did the minister finish by saying the ministry's vision is and will continue to be "an affordable, high-quality, appropriate system that results in healthier Ontarians," when her whole letter refuses to address the one clear question we have been struggling with all along, which is accessibility? If there are no nurses to give the services, there ain't no services. Why will the minister not own up to that?
With respect to the question the member raises about the role of nurses and what role in fact they should be playing with respect to this consultation around the deficit in existing hospitals --
In fact, what we have asked, in the very letter the member refers to, is that hospitals meet with their employees. In the hospital funding review we have going on, we have invited representatives from hospital unions, including nurses, to be there and they are there as part of the process. I hope we will show the honourable member that the process is respectful of nurses, that we think they are important and that they have to be heard as we roll through these difficult times.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
The problem I had about a month ago when it was approved federally is that there were no dollars in the budget for expanding the program immediately. We are currently trying to find those dollars with respect to how the drug benefit plan and the catastrophic drugs are funded. I agree with the member that it is an important drug. It can be very helpful and actually can help to keep people out of hospitals and I am trying to find the way to fund that.
The mother of a constituent of mine whom I will refer to as John has contacted me in desperation as she fears for her son's life. Other drugs make him sleepy, lethargic and depressed. He is in and out of hospitals; he is called a revolving-door patient. In that many of these schizophrenic patients are wasting away and one in 10 commits suicide, how can the minister stall this decision any longer?
With respect to the individual case that he raises, I do not know if that person was in a hospital and on the drug. New patients are seeking access to that drug. We are trying to find a way of monitoring the use of it so that in fact it is an effective diversion from hospital beds, and we are trying to find the way to fund that within the context of the budget we face this year. There is, in our expectation, about a $12-million budget attached to that. I am hoping to find a way to be able to fund it, but in the month since the federal approval was given I have not been able to finish that review to this point in time.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Can the minister comment on these reports and assure the House that his ministry will make every effort to award this contract to a Canadian company?
I would also like to inform the member that, contrary to news reports, Patriot Paper was not involved in bidding for this contract at any point.
SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT
Tens of thousands of women across this province and over 110,000 children live below the poverty line because they do not get the family support payments to which they are entitled. The legislation to remedy this situation was passed five months ago. The NDP government has had lots of time to set up the necessary system. If the fight against child poverty is really a priority for this government, how does the Attorney General explain to these women and their children why he has delayed the program until March of next year and why he has cut almost $1 million from its budget?
The member asks, "Why will the program not be implemented until March of next year?" As I pointed out yesterday, we found as we worked on the implementation that some of the organizations and some of the groups that we need to work with are asking us to ensure that all the steps are taken; for example, meeting with business organizations that will have to make the payroll deduction to work through issues such as the trading back and forth of information and forms.
Second, we have looked at where the program has been implemented elsewhere, and where it has been implemented most successfully elsewhere has been following a concentrated public information program. Following, for example, the state of Florida, that is what we are doing. Over the next three months we will have a concentrated public information program that will hopefully increase public awareness of the magnitude of the problem and the steps we need to take to encounter it.
The only conclusion we can come to is that this minister and this government are having some second thoughts about the very basic principles of the legislation they put through this House last June. We would simply ask, without all the detailed explanations of why this legislation is delayed, why there has been $850,000 cut from the budget for implementing this program. What message is this government giving to the women and children who had reason to expect their support would be in place this fall?
Having dealt with the backlog, we are in a position to implement the family support plan. Part of implementing the family support plan is to go through all the steps we need to go through with organizations that will have to work with the program. The other part of it is to have a good public information program. Part of the policy and part of the plan is to make the public aware of how serious this problem is and in effect to increase the peer pressure on individuals who have not been paying their support to pay it.
TEACHERS' RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Retirement gratuities are an unfunded liability for school boards across this province that enable teachers to accumulate unused sick days and cash them in on retirement. This can amount to $30,000 per individual and will escalate with future salary increases. This board estimates that removing the grandfather clause for all board employees will cost local taxpayers about $4 million over the next five years.
The minister should be aware that in the third report of the select committee on education, one which his House leader was party to over some very serious deliberations, recommendation number 26 states, "Unfunded retirement gratuities should be included in school boards' auditing functions and financial statements." Will the minister refer that issue to the Fair Tax Commission for its deliberation?
The Premier campaigned last summer on tax fairness. He was particularly concerned about rising education and property taxes, because property taxes are not based on ability to pay. I think retirement gratuities are a fair tax issue. They are also, according to the report of the select committee on education, a local governance accountability issue. In this light, will the minister refer the issue of retirement gratuities to the Fair Tax Commission so that we can have a meaningful discussion for the boards and the teachers as to how to handle this sensitive issue, so we do not have young children being deprived of their education on this issue?
It is for that reason also that I would say to her, as I have said in answer to the first question, that I will take her suggestion under advisement and will look into whether this issue is something that should be referred to the Fair Tax Commission. But again, whether I do or not, the Fair Tax Commission is able under its mandate to look at this kind of issue, as indeed it can look at any other issue dealing with the financing of education.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
LONG-TERM CARE
Let me summarize: 12 years of extensive lobbying to show the need. It is obviously there. The study is in. It justifies the need. Will the minister make this a priority? The residents of Dryden would like to know.
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
The Minister of Financial Institutions, I am sure, will remember his words of December 20, 1990, in the debate over the member for Leeds-Grenville's bill regarding the restoration of the right to sue. The member stated at that time, "I am going to support this piece of legislation because it deals with the most offensive part of Bill 68: the threshold." It is very clear that the minister's auto insurance legislation will involve the threshold test. For some reason, the threshold test no longer bothers him. Why is the minister going to break his promise to restore the right to sue when 78% of the Ontario population want him to honour his original position?
Our commitment has not changed at all. We are determined to proceed to introduce a system that balances benefits with costs, that ensures a fair distribution of benefits to accident victims, that implements the right to sue for pain and suffering for innocent accident victims and that ensures overall that the system is affordable and fair in its delivery of adequate accident benefits to the auto accident victims in this province.
Under the present auto insurance legislation, a small percentage of people who have been seriously injured are able to sue for loss of past, present and future income. It is clear that under the minister's new, elusive piece of legislation we are patiently waiting for, the government will add insult to injury by not only breaking its promise to all Ontarians to restore the right to sue but by taking away the right to sue for economic loss. By taking away this right, the minister will be hurting the most vulnerable people of the province, the people who have been seriously injured, possibly for life.
The minister is conning the people of Ontario. By lowering the threshold, he is giving the impression that he is extending the right to sue, when in reality he is taking away one of the only rights that was maintained in the present no-fault package, the right to sue for economic loss. Why is the minister removing the right to sue for economic loss?
ONTARIO HYDRO RATES
The fact of the matter is that Hydro rates will not be increasing 44% over the next three years. The increases in fact will be much lower than that. I think it would be pure speculation on anybody's part as to what the increases would be in the next two to three years.
NATURAL GAS
The government has held itself out as being committed not only to consultation but to a fair consultative process which genuinely works towards obtaining the views of all parties affected by government initiatives, including those that stand against it. By refusing to allow our committee to visit our rural population and those parts of the north that are not serviced by gas, this government is deliberately preventing our committee from hearing from those communities which stand to lose a great deal from Bill 118.
Will the minister here and now undertake to provide instructions to his committee whip to permit our committee to visit communities that are not supplied by gas and, more particularly, to ensure that one half of the communities we visit are not serviced by natural gas?
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
PETITIONS
CHRONIC FATIGUE AND IMMUNE DYSFUNCTION SYNDROME
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas chronic fatigue and immune deficiency syndrome...is a chronic, debilitating disease currently affecting over two million adults and children in North America; and
"Whereas diagnosis is difficult and the direct costs to our health care system are enormous, there is a drain on the social services and tax revenues are severely affected because affected people cannot work;
"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the establishment of a task force to study the most appropriate method of establishing an information centre and clinic to provide both information and care to persons with CFME, their families, physicians, educators and others."
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds; and
"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;
"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."
That is signed by a number of people from Nottawasaga township, Stayner and Sunnidale township. I too have affixed my name to this petition.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
HEALTH CARE WORKERS' PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS DE LA SANTÉ
Mr Morrow moved first reading of Bill 147, An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
M. Morrow propose la première lecture du projet de loi 147, Loi visant à protéger les travailleurs de la santé contre la transmission du virus de l'immunodéficience humaine.
This bill guarantees that no worker will lose his or her job as a result of having contacted the virus. The bill further ensures the employers assign duties and responsibilities that are similar to regular duties and responsibilities to a worker who has contacted the virus if the continuation of these regular duties and responsibilities would endanger the safety of the public and certain workers.
RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL
Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill 148, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.
M. Elston propose la première lecture du projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
To conclude, if the government will allow us to go ahead and pass this bill, we can deal with it very quickly. We can save 3,000 jobs. We can assist people in coming to grips with the harsh economic reality that they need to work when work is offered. Let's allow those people to work. Here is the option the Solicitor General needs. He can do it either in committee or by supporting this private bill.
DISTRICT OF NIPISSING AND PARRY SOUND ACT, 1991
Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill 149, An Act respecting the Amalgamation of Municipalities in the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound.
I think it is very important that the elected representatives in those municipalities, where they are organized and have councils, or local services boards and unorganized municipalities where they have them, or failing that, that majority of residents in unorganized municipalities, have their say and agree to such amalgamation. Otherwise, I do not think it should take place. That is the purpose of the bill.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
FRAUDULENT DEBTORS ARREST REPEAL ACT 1991 / LOI DE 1991 ABROGEANT LA LOI SUR L'ARRESTATION DES DÉBITEURS EN FUITE
Mr Hampton moved second reading of Bill 76, An Act to repeal the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act.
M. Hampton propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 76, Loi portant abrogation de la Loi sur l'arrestation des débiteurs en fuite.
Fortunately, the existing act is rarely used now that numerous modern legal remedies that focus on the assets rather than on the person of the debtor are available. Of course, where spouses are in default of their family support obligations, the remedies provided in other legislation including the use of imprisonment in appropriate cases will continue to be available.
The arbitrary arrest and imprisonment provisions provided in the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act can no longer be tolerated. I am pleased therefore to put before the House a bill calling for its repeal. I am anxious to hear the contributions of members from the opposition on this bill and I understand that at least one of them has some remarks he would like to make. I will listen now to the contributions of the opposition.
I think it is important the Attorney General look at the whole area of imprisonment for minor infractions and minor offences, particularly those relating to debts. But what this bill does is put in perspective that the Attorney General has no overall agenda. We see here this afternoon in the Legislature three bills being presented, Bills 76, 75 and 42. I cannot make any sense out of where the Attorney General wants to bring the province on the issue of administration of justice.
When one looks at this particular bill, Bill 76, it is being dealt with on what I think we can call an ad hoc basis. There are hundreds of bills in Ontario that need repealing and amending to refine the system of justice, but this Attorney General has no stated policy for dealing with it. All of a sudden, up pops a bill that has no context.
When we look at the three bills that are presented here today, there is no context in which we in opposition or the people of Ontario can place them in terms of the initiatives of the Attorney General. We see a little ad hockery here and a little ad hockery there and it does not make any sense whatsoever. There are fundamental reforms that are required in this province for the administration of justice and all we see is this Attorney General reacting to issues that happen to end up on his desk, and who is very passive when it comes to any significant reform.
I defy anybody in this province to look at the actions of the Attorney General and his ministry and be able to come up with any general sense of where he wants the administration of justice to go. There is simply nothing on the ground. There is nothing in the mail. We have what amounts to an ad hoc bill.
Even when we look at this ad hoc bill, we find it does not even address the question of people who have not paid parking tickets being put in jail. If the Attorney General is going to look at the issue of jailing people for debts, he should put it in some context, look at reforming the justice system instead of dealing with a bit of ad hockery. I urge the Attorney General to do that.
I am supporting this bill. I am going to be very brief. It is a bill that is finally going to rid this province of the concept and notion of debtors' prisons. But I do not understand why the bill was brought for first reading on April 23, 1991, and is still with us, and why it is one of the three bills the Attorney General is going to deal with in this particular session of the Legislature. I saw the wish list of the government House leader. There are only three Attorney General's bills on it, and I reiterate what my Liberal colleague just said: Where is this Attorney General going in terms of the administration of justice in this province?
This is a piece of Liberal legislation. The next bill we are going to deal with is the Law Society Amendment Act. It is a piece of Liberal legislation. The next bill is the Arbitration Act. It is a piece of Liberal legislation. That is it for this whole session of the Legislature.
I do not know what the Attorney General is doing. These little housekeeping items should have been finished last April when they were introduced. I do not know why they are hanging around so long. I do not know why the Attorney General does not bring us some bills dealing with access to justice, as he promised. I do not know why he does not take steps to improve the justice system in this province, and I do not know why we are wasting our time with things like this that remain on the order paper a year after they have been introduced.
When the honourable member can assure us that we will have the co-operation of his colleagues, we will be very happy to oblige him with more legislation. In fact, I am still waiting to have from the Conservative critic his comments on the draft Limitations Act we have brought forward. I would have thought he would have jumped at that and been only too happy to provide us with his comments.
The member for Ottawa West asked -- or made comments to the effect -- what are we doing to deal with issues of incarceration with respect to minor offences like municipal bylaws and the Highway Traffic Act, etc. I am happy to tell him that we have been working on this issue since early this year and we will be bringing forward some legislation, I hope, this fall, if the schedule permits. That should interest him a great deal.
Otherwise, I repeat, I thank the two opposition critics for their very kind and supportive comments.
Bill ordered for third reading.
Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.
LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (TEMPORARY MEMBERS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU BARREAU (MEMBRES PROVISOIRES)
Mr Hampton moved second reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Law Society Act.
M. Hampton propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 75, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur la Société du barreau.
The bill permits the Law Society of Upper Canada, upon the request of the Attorney General, to admit to the practice of law in Ontario lawyers who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents. This temporary membership carries with it all the rights and responsibilities accorded to lawyers save the right to vote in law society elections.
The essence of the bill is this: We have a number of very qualified, capable and experienced crown attorneys and crown counsel within the Ministry of the Attorney General. In order that they may broaden their careers and obtain experience elsewhere, we would like to be able to engage in exchange programs with other jurisdictions. However, legislation such as this is needed to further the exchange program.
I understand both of the opposition critics are again in support of this legislation, but they may have other comments they wish to offer.
The bill itself raises more questions than it answers, because it is so narrow. First of all, why would the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Ministry of the Solicitor General be given the favouritism to import legal practitioners on a temporary basis?
We know the ministries have various exchange programs and from time to time have special needs, but I ask the Attorney General, what about large corporations, for example, with in-house counsel? From time to time, large corporations may have special needs for counsel from outside the jurisdiction. This bill will give to the Attorney General the right to say: "I, as a person who has to hire lawyers, will be given an exemption. I will be able to bring in a temporarily approved or qualified practitioner." But the large corporation that may have special needs on a temporary basis does not have the same rights. I say the same thing of a large law firm practising in Ontario which may have special needs. It does not have the same rights to the exemption the Attorney General is giving himself and the Solicitor General.
I simply ask, why? If the Attorney General was going to introduce this bill and provide for temporary qualification, why does he give himself and the Solicitor General special treatment? Does he not think that perhaps a large corporation might have need of temporary counsel from another province to satisfy certain specific expert needs? What about a large law firm? I raise the question and say to the Attorney General that although we are going to vote for this legislation at this time, I think it is incumbent upon him and his ministry to look into the answer to that question.
The other question it raises and does not address is why the Attorney General feels we cannot satisfy this particular need from within the province. All who are familiar with legal practice in Ontario know that these are pretty tough economic times for a lot of firms and a lot of practitioners, and yet the Attorney General is passing special legislation for himself and the Solicitor General to permit practitioners to come in and take jobs in our public service.
I ask the Attorney General, why is he doing it at this time? We know there has been an absolute flood of people coming into this government from Manitoba, particularly with NDP credentials. I wonder if the Attorney General and the Solicitor General might not be looking to some NDP practitioners from Manitoba or some other NDP province to give an NDP slant to the administration we are seeing through this whole government. I am raising the question.
This bill, when it is passed, will give the Attorney General and the Solicitor General the right to raid Manitoba for NDP practitioners and, believe me, Mr Speaker, you and I both know there are very few NDP practitioners in the legal profession in Ontario. If he wants to fill his ministry and the Ministry of the Solicitor General with NDP advice and NDP practitioners, this gives him a big opening to do it. He can just open the floodgates to Manitoba and fill his ministry, as we have seen this government do in a number of ministries over the last 14 or 15 months.
This raises the other issue of a non-agenda for this ministry: There is no indication of any kind of reform agenda whatsoever.
The last government, through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Wilson Heights, and through the Premier, made special efforts to try to open up free trade among the provinces, professions and tradespeople, and very strong initiatives were taken. Here we see one little piece of legislation which addresses bringing in professionals from other provinces and perhaps other jurisdictions.
This bill raises the greater question as to what the Attorney General is doing to open up free trade of the legal profession across this country. We know there are interprovincial barriers in every area of our economy and basically in every profession. We know it exists in the legal profession; we know it exists in the accounting profession. We have certified general accountants in British Columbia who are qualified to do the same work as chartered accountants. They can issue opinions on financial statements of public companies, but they cannot do that in Ontario. That is a responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
We see no greater dealing with issues; we see ad hockery. We see little slivers of legislation being put forward. Again, these three bills here today underline that the Attorney General cannot make any kind of statement to this province or the legal profession as to what direction the administration of justice will be going.
The ad hockery is so total, so complete, that it borders on the irresponsible. We see a little support and custody orders enforcement here; we see a little bit of Law Society Act amendment there, we see a little debtors arrest act over there, and what does it say to the people of Ontario? It says: "We need a little filler from the Attorney General. Let's throw it in."
But when we look substantively at court reform, reform of the judicial system, where are we going in the 1990s and into the year 2000 with the system of justice we have in Ontario? These three bills today say absolutely nothing. They simply raise questions. As I said, we will reluctantly support this bill, but I hope the questions being raised here now will be addressed in a serious way by the Attorney General and by the ministry.
It took one year for this bill to come back and what really worries me is that if the Attorney General runs out of initiatives initiated by the former Attorney General, we might not have any more bills presented to this House by the Attorney General.
Getting back to the bill, it is a very straightforward bill. As I say, everybody on the government side of the House has to understand what this bill means. I am going to support it. It is an initiative of the former Attorney General and it is a good piece of legislation. It promotes learning on behalf of crown attorneys. I think they will be pleased with this bill, as I am, and I will be supporting it.
I think he has hit the nail on the head. We look across this chamber and see the Attorney General squirming in his seat; he knows exactly what we are talking about. He knows he has no agenda that has been put through his cabinet, and that he has been dealing on a totally ad hoc basis with his ministry.
The minister responsible for native affairs stated that the old Tory approach was benign neglect. If benign neglect is what worked, the key is benign, and benign means good. It means positive. It means helpful. I hope that the use of the word "benign" by the minister will send a shock wave through the government benches and turn them around so that the efforts they take in future will be benign efforts, as this piece of legislation is.
I want to point out to the member for Ottawa West that all this legislation gives us is the capacity to request the Law Society of Upper Canada to admit someone. The Law Society of Upper Canada in fact could say no in a given situation. So in terms of this creating some very special situation for government lawyers, the situation is not all that incredibly special, since the law society will continue to have its authority with respect to who may or may not practise.
The member for Ottawa West made some rather disparaging and, I think, unfortunate remarks about the fact that this type of legislation might be used for some type of political patronage, recruiting, for example, lawyers who worked in a province that was formerly governed by the New Democratic Party or is now governed by the New Democratic Party. The member should know that the New Democratic Party just won elections in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and all of the so-called NDP lawyers across the country, if they are scrambling to go anywhere, will go there since, no doubt, there will be some job openings. I wish he would keep current history in his mind when he makes these remarks.
Finally, I want to point out that with the permission of the Law Society of Upper Canada, someone who comes to Ontario to work within the government on an exchange basis is only granted temporary status. In other words, it is not permanent status or permanent authority to practise; it is only temporary. The law society will specify, when it gives that permission, the time limits during which someone may practise and the scope of his practice.
I regret that the member for Ottawa West made those comments. They are the only unhelpful comments he has made today and I am really sorry he made them.
Both the member for Willowdale and the member for Ottawa West say, "What has the Ministry of the Attorney General been doing over the last year?" I want to recite for them some brief history. Eighteen days after we became the government we discovered that the former government in this province had not been looking after the administration of justice very well, especially in our criminal courts. We found by way of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that the criminal courts in the province were in such terrible shape that we had to make a number of sacrifices and a number of changes to deal with the legacy that was left us.
I want to say to the member for Willowdale that I remember quite well that he was sitting in committee on the family support plan. He was so busy there and so interested in that legislation that he actually asked me to consider some of his amendments. So I do not think it is altogether true for the member for Willowdale to say he has had nothing to do in the last little while. As I remember it, he has been very busy. He has taken great interest in the legislation we have brought forward, such as the family support plan. In fact, he has gone out there and lobbied against parts of it.
I say that just to answer and respond to the very helpful remarks made by my two colleagues in the opposition.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.
ARBITRATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ARBITRAGE
Mr Hampton moved second reading of Bill 42, An Act to revise the Arbitrations Act.
M. Hampton propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 42, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur l'arbitrage.
Bill 42 grew out of a lengthy and thorough process of consultation in Ontario, Alberta and across the country through the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. This bill is essentially the same as the Uniform Arbitration Act adopted by the Uniform Law Conference in 1990.
The purpose of the Arbitration Act, 1991, is to provide a framework for the private settlement of disputes that will be as clear as possible for those who use it, while preserving the fairness of the process. The ability of an unwilling party to delay or derail an arbitration has been reduced to a minimum. The parties are generally free to set their own rules for arbitrations -- that is, to override the act -- so they have a great deal of flexibility. However, the law and the courts will ensure that the parties stick to their agreement to arbitrate, do not proceed unfairly,and abide by the result when it is given.
We believe Bill 42 will make it easier for people to use arbitration to resolve their disputes and thus make arbitration more attractive than litigation in many cases. This must help both the spirit of the relationships that have given rise to the disputes and the speed and cost at which a resolution is reached.
Bill 42 is supported by the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Ontario and by the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario. I therefore ask the House to support the amendments I will be introducing in committee of the whole and to join me in enacting this very useful legislation.
The bill was formulated by the previous government, by the previous Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, and he is to be complimented for preparing an excellent bill. I want to compliment the Attorney General for proceeding with it, although, as has been indicated by the Conservative critic the member for Willowdale, it is hard to understand why the Attorney General has not used a bit more dispatch and speed in coming forward with this bill.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about the issue of arbitration in the context of alternative dispute resolution, because I think it is important for the members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario to understand that arbitration is only one small dimension of a whole developing area of alternative dispute resolution. I want to define alternative dispute resolution as it was defined by the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature when it presented a report to this House in June 1990.
The report says: "What is ADR? Very simply, alternative dispute resolution refers to the 'myriad of non-judicial processes for resolving conflicts.' These non-judicial processes may include negotiation, mediation, arbitration, conciliation, private judging, neutral expert fact-finding, mini-trial, summary jury trial and moderated settlement conferences."
The point I am making is that the Attorney General has still not moved at all on the recommendations of the standing committee on administration of justice which presented this report last June. The recommendations of the justice committee go way beyond the issue of arbitration. Once again what the Attorney General has done is take a bill that was on the shelf and bring it forward in an overdue manner without putting it in any context.
I mentioned earlier in my comments on the previous two bills that there is no general agenda, there is no context for where we are going in Ontario with the administration of justice. Just dealing with the Arbitration Act underlines that particular point.
As I indicated, the whole area of ADR deals with a range of issues, including mediation, non-judicial processes of various types, conciliation, private judging, etc. I want to take some time to put the Arbitration Act in the context of what was recommended to this Legislature last June. I also want to point out how this item came to be before the justice committee in late 1989 and into 1990.
Under the new rules which were adopted in 1989, I believe standing order 123, it is possible for subcommittees of the standing committees of this Legislature to place items to be dealt with on the agenda of a committee, and so many hours will be allocated to deal with a number of issues.
The standing committee on administration of justice in the last Parliament had such a subcommittee meeting and in a totally non-partisan manner decided it wanted to do a review of alternative dispute resolution techniques, including the question of arbitration. The members of that committee -- the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP -- thought this was an issue that needed attention by the Ministry of the Attorney General and by the whole judicial process.
We had a process that I was very proud of and I think members of all parties were very proud of. Using the new rules of this House in a very non-partisan way, we looked at a very significant dimension and a very significant element of the administration of justice in Ontario and were able to come up with a very major report which, I am told by the current chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, is still in very large demand. There are many people across the province who are still asking for papers that were presented before the committee dealing with this question of alternative dispute resolution.
Just to indicate what types of witnesses came before that committee, I want to go back to one of the appendices in the report from last June and indicate to the House some of the renowned members of the legal fraternity in Canada who came before our committee to talk about alternative dispute resolution and to urge this government and the then Ministry of the Attorney General to move forward with significant initiatives in the area of ADR.
Some of the people who came before our committee, who volunteered to come before our committee when they were asked to, included Dr Gary Austin, co-ordinator of the London Custody and Access Project and psychologist with the London Family Court Clinic. He teaches in the department of psychology, University of Western Ontario, has published widely and was a member of the Attorney General's advisory committee on family mediation. Mr Robert A. Blair, QC, is chair of the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario subcommittee on alternative dispute resolution, a partner in Stockwood, Blair, Spies and Ashby of Toronto and founder of the Private Court, a service providing experienced counsel as adjudicators in largely commercial disputes.
I will not indicate all the witnesses who came. I want to highlight some of those who I think may be more well known across the country, not only in Ontario.
Paul Emond, a professor at Osgoode Hall law school, wrote very extensively and recently edited Commercial Dispute Resolution (Canada Law Book, 1989). He is an expert in commercial and environmental resource development and public and native dispute resolution, and is editor of Canadian Environmental Mediation Newsletter, published by Conflict Management Resources, a joint enterprise of York University's environmental studies faculty and Osgoode Hall law school.
Other well-known people who came before the committee to recommend major initiatives in ADR included Brian Gardiner, from Canadian Dispute Resolution Corp; Gordon Henderson, QC and Order of Canada, who is a senior partner at Gowling, Strathy and Henderson of Ottawa. Among his many other affiliations he is chairman of the Board of governors, Foundation of the Arbitrators' Institute of Canada, and a member of the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution. I might add that Mr Henderson, who is closely connected with the issue of arbitration and welcomes this new Arbitration Act, also was very high on other forms of alternative dispute resolution and presented a very well thought out brief before our committee.
Other people were Shin Imai, who was counsel with the court reform task force from the Ministry of the Attorney General; Roberta Jamieson, who was Ontario's Ombudsman; Harry LaForme, who was a commissioner of the Indian Commission of Ontario, and Jack R. Miller, who came from a major law firm in Montreal to make submissions to our committee and had much to say about moving into the whole area of alternative dispute resolution. Another person who came before our committee and who is known to many members of this Legislature is Dean Peachey, co-ordinator of Network: Interaction for Conflict Resolution, Kitchener, a clearinghouse for dispute resolution programs across Canada.
Many others came who are very experienced in this major initiative of law reform across Canada, people such as Ernest Tannis of the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution, one of the most significant experts in Canada and North America, and Bonita J. Thompson, a partner from a major law firm in British Columbia who chaired the Canadian Bar Association task force on alternative dispute resolution.
We had, in a non-partisan way, the best legal minds in the country coming before the standing committee on administration of justice to make major recommendations on alternative dispute resolution, so it is with some disappointment that I see the Attorney General bringing forward the arbitrations bill in what amounts to a vacuum. The Attorney General did not indicate any major thrust, any new direction for alternative dispute resolution techniques or initiatives for Ontario. He picked up a bill that existed from the previous administration which had been introduced by the then Attorney General and simply brought it forward.
I have seen no action whatsoever from the Ministry of the Attorney General that indicates it intends to do anything with the recommendations of the standing committee on administration of justice dealing with alternative dispute resolution. There is one particular recommendation of a number that were made that I want to refer to, because it sort of sets a framework for legislating for governments. As I said, this recommendation was made before the last election and in a non-partisan context. It was intended for whatever government happened to be there at a particular time, whether it be an NDP government, a Liberal government or a Conservative government.
I will quote verbatim recommendation 3 of the standing committee on the administration of justice report because I think it is important. It will put in context one of the key initiatives with respect to ADR:
"The committee recommends that the government review present and future legislation and that it build in ADR procedures where they would lead to a less costly and more expeditious resolution of disputes that could arise under the statute. The committee further recommends that ADR techniques be put at the disposal of agencies, boards and commissions in the ways proposed by the Macaulay report."
That is a very significant recommendation. It is a recommendation that was adopted and implemented when the previous government enacted the Ontario motorist protection plan. As members know, what that legislation did was to create a very significant alternative dispute resolution process of mediation and arbitration with respect to disputes in the area of motor vehicle accidents.
All the reports coming from the insurance commission indicate that this process is working tremendously well. There are no complaints. People who have used the system are happy with the system. It is an example of what this committee's recommendation is intended to do to take disputes out of the contradictory dispute arena and put them in an arena where there is mediation and discussion and arbitration if necessary.
We have an example of the government of the day not following this recommendation when we look at Bill 115, the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, and how it deals with resulting disputes. Rather than following the advice of the justice committee and the advice of all parties of the day, the Solicitor General has basically, carte blanche, provided widespread appeals to Sunday shopping bylaws to the Ontario Municipal Board, which we know is backlogged 12 or 13 months. There will be hundreds and hundreds of appeals going to the Ontario Municipal Board, which can hardly handle them.
When we look at the context of the legislation this government brings forward, there is no context. This arbitration bill is being brought forward in a vacuum. The Sunday shopping amendments for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board are being brought forward in a vacuum.
I just want to refer to a transcript of John Kruger, chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board, before the standing committee on government agencies. In January of this year, only a few months ago, he talked about alternative dispute resolution and basically said: "The workload on the board is enormous, and we have to find better ways of handling this internally and administratively. We have to look at things like alternative dispute resolution. We have to look at things like mediation and all of these methods rather than just put on more members. That's what we are going to have to attempt to do."
In conclusion, I want to say that the arbitration legislation which is being presented here today is a good bill, but again, it is presented on an ad hoc basis and it is presented in a vacuum. This government has demonstrated on a number of pieces of legislation -- such as the arbitration bill, the amendments to Bill 115, appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board -- that it really does not have a philosophy of managing disputes in Ontario. Not only does it not have a philosophy, but it is not listening to the best legal advice that was assembled by the justice committee over a period of 8 or 10 months to deal with alternative dispute resolution.
I would really encourage the Attorney General to look at the whole area of alternative dispute resolution in a major, significant way so that we can bring the system of justice and the system of resolving disputes in Ontario into the 1990s and into the next century.
There is no indication that the Attorney General or the Ministry of the Attorney General has any intention of following the excellent recommendations of this report from the justice committee. I certainly urge him to consider doing so.
As I indicated with the previous two bills I have had the opportunity to talk about this afternoon, I note this bill was delivered for first reading on March 27, 1991, so we have got to this relatively quickly for second reading. It is now eight months away. I can appreciate that the wheels of justice move slowly, and it is true that the wheels of justice in the courts move slowly. They get their cue from the way the wheels of justice move within the Attorney General's department, where these ideas are born.
At any rate, I believe I have some positive things to say about this bill. The effect of the bill will be that it will take private disputes, civil actions, out of the court system. I think that will offer litigants a faster and less costly solution to their problems, it will free up the courts to do the work the courts must do and it will give the courts the opportunity to engage in matters that are not conducive to arbitration.
One of the very great difficulties -- and I come at this from a practising lawyer's point of view -- is that lawyers are unfamiliar with arbitration procedures and are reluctant to try these systems because they do not know how the systems are going to work; they do not know what they are going to lead to. I think this bill in essence provides a bit of a framework so that lawyers can engage in an arbitration process and not worry about being caught and not being able to do a job for their clients and about being really confused by the procedural wrangles that they perceive this kind of system may have.
I think the bill is important in that it establishes a framework within which arbitration can take place. I hope that lawyers can feel comfortable about this system, because if they do, it will be of great benefit to civil litigants and to the courts.
The one caveat that I see -- and I see it in the amendments that the Attorney General has been kind enough to provide me with and that I believe we will be discussing in committee of the whole -- is some concern about the idea of the arbitrator becoming a mediator, a conciliator or some similar type of individual within the arbitration procedure. What the act essentially says is that someone who engages in mediation or conciliation cannot also engage in the process as the arbitrator.
I can understand the Attorney General's logic for wanting that, but at the same time I think that to be too hard and too fast in this particular area is to really take away from the arbitration procedure the flexibility that it might need to operate in a successful manner. I do not know -- and I merely point this out to the Attorney General, who is here and is listening -- where the fine line is that permits the flexibility but does not destroy the process because someone has changed hats in midstream. I just do not know where that fine line is. I think it will be incumbent upon the Attorney General, whatever route he takes, to watch the procedure and to see how it works, because I am sure that once this act is passed and becomes implemented and people are using it, there are going to have to be some adjustments, some fine-tuning.
I hope the Attorney General does not merely pass this act and ignore it afterwards, because I think this area dealing with the changing of hats in midstream, if it might facilitate a settlement, does not really destroy the process if you have to return to the arbitration. I think that if somebody starts on a process of arbitration and sees there is room to mediate and attempts to do that within the process and then finds that a settlement is not possible, it may be impossible for the person to go back to being an arbitrator, to carry on with the arbitration. If that is the case, it may prove to be an impediment for the arbitrator, who may see a golden opportunity to settle a dispute by becoming a mediator in midprocess.
I do not know the answer and, with respect, I do not think the Attorney General knows the answer to that particular problem, but I do think it is incumbent upon the Attorney General to be vigilant once this act is passed, because it may well need fine-tuning in this particular area. I hope he will continue to be vigilant.
As I have indicated, my party will be supporting this piece of legislation. I think it is a good piece of legislation. It will help litigants, it will help the court process, and I think it certainly deserves our attention. I will be supporting this piece of legislation.
I had the privilege in the previous Parliament, with the member for Ottawa West, to sit on the committee that dealt with the whole philosophy of the change in alternative dispute resolution models and amendments to the Arbitrations Act. Frankly, I came away with a feeling that if Ontario really wished to improve its relations in disputes that can be avoided in a court setting, that certainly this bill has not achieved much of those lofty goals that all three political parties aspired to almost a year and a half ago.
In particular, I am concerned that there are implications to these amendments which will touch upon matters involving domestic disputes where we have legislation -- rather offensive legislation -- dealing with joint custody, mandatory mediation and arbitration, yet we see now in this bill certain matters that are in dispute in a family situation, in a marital breakup, where matters of real estate, property and other assets can be arbitrated. The concern obviously is that in contemporary society women are unfortunately very much put in a bad situation, an unequal situation, in these discussions. When the state, this government, formalizes the process, there are going to be some obviously negative repercussions.
In particular, it is well known that the practice of trading off the custody of the children for a better position in assets is something which occurs rather routinely. I see no evidence that this situation is being addressed or that the potential for the abuse that is occurring in our current arbitration processes, whether before the courts or in these informal processes, will be improved.
I am concerned that we have lacked the will, or this government at least has lacked the will, to proceed to seek out other forms of alternative dispute resolution to improve the situation for our citizens in other areas. We know that the minister and I have locked horns and disagree on the need for a victims' bill of rights, but clearly there are victims' matters in this province that should be subject to arbitration rather than forcing victims to go to civil court, where they do not succeed very well under the current set of laws that they face when they enter a courtroom.
I would simply suggest as well that with the current violence in our schools, we are not looking at dispute resolution models in that context, teaching students more responsible behaviour in our schools and in our community settings. Matters of community-based arbitration and mediation are being done routinely in jurisdictions in the United States and in some progressive jurisdictions in Canada, but we are seeing no support, no encouragement from this government to expand the concept and the access to alternative dispute resolution models. In that sense, this bill is very limiting in its scope, although its reforms are cast from a period of five to seven years ago when most of these concerns were first identified.
My colleague the member for Willowdale raised the issue of the narrowing and the lack of flexibility in moving from mediation to arbitration. I want only to remind the minister that this is routinely done and is permissible in certain labour situations in this province, both under the labour act and the teachers' bargaining act, the only two pieces of labour legislation for bargaining.
I personally have participated in this process at both the Education Relations Commission and the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and I have a lot of confidence in the pool of talent in this province to be able to move from mediation and arbitration with the consent of all parties. I certainly would not wish to support a bill that had those inhibiting factors in it. Rather we should be looking at the experts in this province and trusting them to look at a more flexible model.
Having said all that, I will be supporting the bill. I wish to thank, as I have on the record, Mr Harold Wilkinson for his many years of work in talking to three different governments on reforms, and Mr Ernie Tannis from Ottawa, who enlightened our committee with respect to alternative dispute resolution models and a variety of opportunities for Ontario citizens. I had only hoped this legislation would have gone farther in a more progressive way.
"The committee also recommends that research be done...to investigate concerns expressed about the process, particularly those involving power imbalance, domestic violence, mediator bias and its ability to ensure that the best interests of the child are met. The committee further recommends that funding be provided to establish new and support existing court-affiliated mediation services to further research on mediation and family law."
To the extent that the arbitration legislation being passed today deals in any way with family law issues, I really fully endorse the comments that were made, and also bring to the Attorney General the recommendations of the justice committee with respect to family violence and mediation issues.
I wish to reiterate that our school systems could benefit immensely from alternative dispute resolution models. This is where our future arbitrators will come from in this province. This is where we will be teaching the life skills to our students so that when they have marital problems and family disputes and community-based problems, they will have the skills to deal with those in a very lockstep way, how to deal with and mediate through their own problems. We do not teach this, and on this the labour community agrees and the business community agrees: We build better students, better citizens if we teach alternative dispute resolution models to our young people. That is really what my appeal is today. I had hoped that kind of vision was shared by the government and that we can see some progress in this area very soon.
The member for Carleton wanted to know if the bill is modelled on the uniform code, and I can tell him that, yes, it is, and that it dates from 1990. I can also indicate that the bill we have presented does not differ in any substantive way from the uniform code.
The member for Burlington South made a number of comments and while I cannot respond to all of them at this time, I simply want to make him aware of the fact that the government does have an alternative dispute resolution fund, which is available for pilot projects and is available to fund and assist with various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including peer mediation in the schools. I want him to be aware of that, because that is something that happens in this province and that is assisted.
Some comments were directed to the issue of mediation and arbitration. I simply want to say that the bill as it stands now does not prohibit the movement from arbitration to mediation; it simply provides a caution for the arbitrator that the arbitrator does not put himself or herself in a position whereby his or her decision can be overturned on judicial review.
I also want to point out again to members opposite that the bill is flexible enough that it essentially allows parties to an arbitration to write their own rules. In other words, it sets out a code, but it is flexible enough that if the parties to the arbitration want to set their own rules, it provides a framework within which they can do that. It is very flexible legislation and it is not hard and fast in any sense of the word.
To the member for Ottawa West, I appreciate his comments and I can indicate to him that I hope he will be very supportive when we have the opportunity, hopefully soon, to bring forward some other legislation dealing with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and dealing with some of the initiatives he mentioned he would like to see.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.
LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (TEMPORARY MEMBERS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU BARREAU (MEMBRES PROVISOIRES)
Bill ordered for third reading.
Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.
ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DUES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES COTISATIONS DE L'ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Ms Lankin moved second reading of Bill 135, An Act to provide for the Payment of Physicians' Dues and Other Amounts to the Ontario Medical Association.
Mme Lankin propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 135, Loi prévoyant le paiement des cotisations des médecins et d'autres montants à l'Ontario Medical Association.
The government of Ontario and the OMA have formed a joint management committee to help identify areas of our physicians' services system that can be improved and we will then work to implement those improvements. I have confidence that the results of the committee's work will help maintain the principles of medicare, including universality and accessibility, and that it will ensure effective management of physicians' service expenditures across the province.
In recognizing the OMA's status as a partner in the management of the physicians' services system, the government agreed to develop a method for collecting membership dues or their equivalent from physicians practising medicine or involved in medical research in Ontario. If adopted by this House, Bill 135 would create a straightforward mechanism for ensuring that dues or their equivalents are paid.
This legislation represents another important part of our collaborative relationship with the physicians of Ontario. The government is committed to a comprehensive reform and effective fiscal management of our physicians' services system. I hope members of the House will see fit to move immediately to third reading of Bill 135.
More than that, the agreement did two other things: It provided for binding arbitration and it gave the doctors union status through the Ontario Medical Association.
I think that in giving union powers to the OMA, what we see is a very unique relationship in determining the future of the health care system. In fact we are seeing a new hierarchy where the doctors have a place that is different and perhaps superior. In terms of agreements that have been made and announced to date, it is certainly superior to that of hospitals, to that of nurses, and indeed it may turn out to be a veto right by doctors on future necessary health care planning decisions.
As a result of that agreement we also see binding arbitration entering into the health care field. I would like to speak a little bit to that later on. No other group in health care enjoys that, and indeed what we may find is that there can be a stripping of funding as a result of that agreement that is quite serious in terms of long-term options and actions.
The basis of this Bill 135 really goes back to 1945, and I think many members will be familiar with the dispute at Ford Motor Co in Windsor in a strike called by the United Auto Workers. The strike ended the following December when what was then the Dominion of Canada and the province of Ontario joined together and guaranteed arbitration by a Supreme Court judge.
Mr Justice Rand was named arbitrator and his award was rendered in 1946. That decision has had a significant impact on labour-management relations since that day and is considered one of the bases of modern labour legislation. His award denied the union shop to Ford workers at the time but provided for a new form of union security. In many ways that is what we are talking about in Bill 135, union security.
The checkoff of union dues from the wages of all members under the agreement, whether they were union members or not, was a significant part of Mr Justice Rand's decision. In his decision, he spoke to the increase in power that came to the union as a result of his decision. He indicated that, first of all, there would be a tendency to increase membership for the union and also a promotion of wider control within the union relating to issues that would be discussed.
I would like to read a couple of things that Mr Justice Rand had to say in his award, because I think they are important. He said:
"It is, in my opinion, essential to the larger concern of the industry that there be mass treatment in the relation of employees to that organization that is necessary to the primary protection of their interests. I consider it entirely equitable then that all employees should be required to shoulder their portion of the burden of expense for administering the law of their employment, the union contract; that they must take the burden along with the benefit."
"It may be argued that it is unjust to compel non-members of a union to contribute to funds over the expenditure of which they have no direct voice; and even that it is dangerous to place such money power in the control of an unregulated union. But the dues are only those which members are satisfied to pay for substantially the same benefits, and as any employee can join the union and still retain his independence in employment, I see no serious objection in this circumstance."
When Mr Justice Rand was rendering that decision, he was speaking very much about a labour issue rather than a health care issue. I think there are some differences, because he also noted in his decision -- and I would like to read this quote from his decision because I think it is significant. He was talking specifically about the employees at Ford at the time in 1945, members will recall. He said about them:
"The employees are co-ordinated with mechanical functions which in large measure require only semiskilled operators. No long apprenticeship is necessary to acquire those skills; some operations can be taken on at once, and there is a general rise in complexity. But it is essentially the utilization of concentrated manpower in a framework of machines in which the initiative and artistry of the individual is either non-existent or becomes stereotyped."
As we think about that, we should think about the position of doctors in our society today and as their profession has evolved. They are professionally trained. They are a self-regulating profession. They are delivering a professional health care service. They are not semiskilled labourers as were the labourers who contributed to the significant decision that Mr Justice Rand made. They are highly skilled, highly trained professionals, and the expectation is that their primary work will be as advocates for their patients, delivering the professional skills in which they have been trained.
I am the first to say that Mr Justice Rand's decision was a singularly important one in all of our labour negotiations. I am saying that he was not addressing the specific needs and requirements of professionals in the health care field in a professional self-regulating body.
One of the things that concerns me, therefore, because of the expectation that physicians will be primarily advocates for their patients, is that the bill brings with it the sense that the doctor's advocacy has shifted from the patient to self-interest. That is of grave concern and it is something that is being brought to my attention by doctors as well as by patients.
The Ontario Medical Association then of course becomes the advocate for the self-interest of physicians. I think that worry is something that is not to be taken lightly; it is something that people are very concerned about. The minister may laugh, but frankly it has come to my attention on more than one occasion.
The purpose of Bill 135 is of course to bring the Rand formula into the payment of dues and fees for all physicians who practise medicine in Ontario and who do health research. Those who are members and those who are not members of the OMA must now comply with the legislation, and if they do not, there is provision that their fees can be treated as a debt which is collected through the courts. With Bill 135 the Ontario Medical Association becomes the doctors' union. The OMA has gained the right to be a trade union, and all doctors, even those who might aspire or who have aspired in the past to be Deputy Minister of Health, must now pay union dues.
I was quite interested to learn recently that this bill will affect not only doctors in doctors' offices who have in the past been represented by the OMA, but those doctors who are compensated on a different basis: those doctors in health service organizations, in comprehensive health organizations, in academic settings where they may be paid by contract, doctors who are on salary, doctors at the Workers' Compensation Board and doctors who may be employed by an insurance company in a private sector environment. They all have a new union and that union is the OMA.
One of the things that I found interesting is that discussions relating to the implementation and bringing them into this union arrangement are only beginning now. Meetings are only now under way, for example, with the OMA and doctors who are employed at the Workers' Compensation Board. There may be substantive and substantial issues that have to be ironed out in those circumstances.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the introduction of the agreement met with some considerable controversy at the time, although it was certainly welcomed in some quarters, particularly by the OMA and by the Minister of Health at the time. One of the things I would like to raise relates to some of the press attention that was provided at the time of the agreement.
The Globe and Mail, on May 23, suggested that the OMA, which was supposed to be on the side of the patients, "voted to accept an agreement that makes the doctors comrades in arms in the great socialist enterprise of managing and controlling, right down to the simplest pinprick, every aspect of the medical needs of nine million people."
The Globe and Mail also said, "The OMA has stripped individual doctors of control over their earnings, their right to secret ballots, their rights of free association and ultimately their ability to determine how they practise medicine."
Ten days earlier the Globe and Mail had said, "While the government says that fiscal management is at the heart of the deal with the doctors, taxpayers remain to be convinced."
Additionally, there were comments from some doctors reported in the Globe and Mail, where they said, "Instead of continuing the fight against a system that nationalizes the means of production of health care, the OMA joined the power grab. The OMA executive has assumed powers that no trade union executive should enjoy and effectively turned the association into a trade union -- the Ontario medical workers' union -- in which members do not have union membership rights."
I understand about 2,000 to 2,500 -- the Minister of Health may be able to provide further information on that -- doctors who are not fee-for-service doctors are affected by this legislation directly. But all doctors in the province are in fact affected by the new powers that have been given to the OMA under the agreement. All health care deliverers have been affected by that agreement through which the OMA supersedes other health professions in the hierarchy, because the agreement changes the way the system works now, and the way the system will work in the future.
A substantive part of that agreement is binding arbitration affecting a $5-billion budget through which the Treasurer has no control -- if indeed the union camp comes to terms with the government -- and therefore the taxpayer has no control. That means someone from outside the government, from outside the system, can make a decision that will have a significant effect on the development of health services, the prioritization of health services and the cost of health services. But more important than that the arbitrator, if the government and the union cannot come to terms, does not have to take into account other issues outside the health care field or how the government will prioritize those issues.
Money can be sapped from environmental issues, from education, child care and other services that are high on the priority list of the government of the day. That is a singularly difficult and controversial part of the legislation, and one that I think was irresponsible, frankly, when it was negotiated.
We know that today in Ontario we spend more money per capita on physician compensation than any other province and we have more doctors per population than any other province. We are increasing our physician population by about 5% a year. Something like 1,000 to 1,200 new doctors were added last year to the system, and just the inclusion of that number of doctors adds a significant amount to our health care budget, I think about $450 million if you add 1,000 new doctors per year.
This bill is an integral part of the agreement made with the OMA last May about which there is some concern. In totality the agreement is something that can shift the burden not only of health priorities but of entire governmental priorities and social spending, not only in the short term but in the long period of time.
One of the issues that has also been raised in some fields suggests that in contrast to ordinary labour-management relations -- in fact this bill is a labour bill under the guise of a health bill -- the government cannot control the total cost of physician services because it will not control the number of doctors or the number of services doctors provide.
"If the government was really acting the part of the employer," the report to the board of health on the payment of Ontario physicians said in February 1991, "it would raise the payment for services it wanted, and reduce payments for services it felt were provided too frequently. With binding arbitration and the Rand formula, the OMA has gained the rights of a trade union without the government gaining the rights of the employer to set hours and conditions of work."
That report summarizes my view of the import of the place of this piece of legislation in the context of the entire agreement.
The legislation makes the payment of amounts to the Ontario Medical Association's dues and assessments compulsory for all practising physicians, whether or not they are members of the association. The legislation sets out to implement the Rand formula. I do not have any particular problem with that and I want to say from the beginning that I will support this piece of legislation although I have some concerns that perhaps the minister could respond to. I am sure she will respond; she is a very capable minister. I will tell the government that a number of my colleagues will be speaking later this afternoon and perhaps tomorrow and they have some very serious reservations about this legislation. I think what will be seen in our caucus is some voting for and some opposed.
I will raise some concerns here. The bill was initiated as a result of the agreement between the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario government signed in May of this year. It still makes it voluntary for physicians to be members of the OMA and that is good. Interns and residents are excluded from the fee checkoff, as it were, and the OMA may waive payment for specific physicians if it decides collecting the dues would bring financial hardship to a physician. It is hard to imagine a case where a physician might be in financial hardship, but I suppose it does happen and that is why it is in the agreement.
The bill also allows the general manager of OHIP to collect OMA dues from the billings of fee-for-service physicians prior to January 1 each year and will pay the deducted amount to the OMA. Where applicable, other governances that compensate physicians will collect dues for the OMA and the OMA will have the right to use the courts to collect unpaid dues.
I have a question for the minister in that area in the sense that it has been raised by some of my colleagues and members of the public who I had an opportunity to discuss this bill with. It is really setting a precedent in collecting, being the collector of dues for the OMA, and they are collecting at source. Is the government going to be compensated in some way by the OMA for the administrative costs incurred as a result of collecting those dues?
I think that is important for taxpayers because generally my experience with physicians and medical doctors is that they make a good wage and can probably afford to offset that administrative cost for the government. So I ask that question. I do not know what the answer is. Perhaps the minister could let me know.
Going back to the agreement signed in May of this year between the OMA and the government of Ontario, I do not have any particular problem, as I said, with the Rand formula. It recognizes the principle in society that a professional association that represents and negotiates benefits for a particular group should be supported financially by all individuals in that group. As I say, some of my colleagues will speak on that later. They have some real problems with that.
I note that the current full membership dues of the OMA are about $1,050 a year. I would ask the government not only about the administrative costs associated with collecting dues on behalf of the OMA, but I would really like the reason behind the government agreeing, as part of the wage settlement and setting up the joint management committee, as part of the agreement earlier this year, to be the collecting agency for the OMA. That needs to be clearly stated on the record because I believe it is setting a precedent.
The agreement between the government and the OMA has been sold to the public partly on the basis that it contains a number of cost containment measures, and I am kind of sceptical about some of the cost containment measures in there.
Just to go over what the agreement is, the government and the OMA will share financial responsibility if the volume of OHIP billings goes over a certain amount.
Some of the financial aspects for the next three fiscal years: "The government will pay for all increases in overall system utilization resulting from demographic changes. Example: for increases in population, in the number of older people plus a 1.5% cushion. In the current fiscal year it is expected the government will be solely responsible for utilization increases in the OHIP globe up to approximately 3.5%" -- I will put this into English in a minute, Mr Speaker -- "and the government and the OMA will share financial responsibility if the volume of OHIP billing goes over 3.5%."
The ministry has estimated that a 3.95% increase will cost about $250 million. Doctors were given a 2% retroactive payment of their gross OHIP billings, gross fee for services, from the time they last got a raise, which was 1988 or 1989, I believe, and it was a lump sum. That is going to cost the taxpayers $140 million.
I do not have much problem with that because doctors had gone quite a while without a fee increase. I wish the government had the same sympathy for MPPs, because we are now going to go quite a while without a fee increase. None the less, some would argue that doctors are somewhat more important in society. I am not one who would necessarily argue that, but the Minister of Health may agree with me that we would not necessarily argue that.
It seems to me that when people go to their doctors, they are generally happy about the level of service and the treatment they receive from their doctors. They are usually very grateful to their medical doctors. But if we talk to the public about physicians' wages, I think the general consensus in my riding of Simcoe West would be that doctors are pretty well paid for what they do.
I happen to believe that society should award excellence; society should pay doctors what they are worth. I guess the debate that members will introduce this afternoon is whether doctors are really worth all this money. As I say, I do not have any real problem with that part of the agreement.
I do have a problem with -- and I will ask the minister to explain -- why the taxpayers are paying $84 million this fiscal year and the past two years. The government has agreed to pay the malpractice insurance for doctors and it is going to cost the taxpayers over that time about $84 million. I ask the ministry and the minister why there is an agreement to pay the malpractice insurance when I think doctors probably could afford to pay their own malpractice insurance. During a depression, $84 million is a lot of money, especially when you are giving that type of bonus, as it were, to a group in society that is currently well paid, much better paid than most people I know. In fact the richest people I know are doctors and dentists. Even some of the kings of industry do not make what doctors and dentists do.
I also have concerns about binding arbitration, which the previous speaker, the member for Halton Centre, also touched upon. I think binding arbitration in the long run will be extremely expensive for the Ontario taxpayers. Negotiations on an increase in the 1992 OHIP schedule of benefits will be subject to binding arbitration, I understand. In the latter three years of the agreement signed by the government, negotiations on the utilization formula as well as on fee increases in the OHIP schedule of benefits and billing thresholds will be subject to binding arbitration.
My limited experience with binding arbitration in the past is that it tends to be very expensive for taxpayers and the government, but I gather the ministry is budgeting for this. They have signed the agreement and must know where the money is going to come from.
The agreement signed by the government and the OMA sets up a joint management committee. It has been expressed to me by the Ontario Hospital Association, by nurses and by other health care practitioners, providers and administrators that they very much wish they were part of the joint management committee. I would ask the minister to explain why we now have a joint management committee which has been established under the agreement with only representatives of the Ontario Medical Association and the government.
The joint management committee apparently has the mandate to enhance the quality and effectiveness of medical care, including the pursuit of more value for existing spending. I am really of two minds on the joint management committee. I think it is a good idea if we can finally get the doctors to sit down with the government and come up with some cost savings in the system. No matter how much wishful thinking one may have when in government about how it is going to cut back some parts of the system and reallocate resources and try to make the system more efficient, I know that anything it does is not effective unless the doctors are on side. I gather the joint management committee is to work these things through together. That is a good thing.
I ask the minister, though, has she given thought to the concerns expressed by the Ontario Hospital Association? They very much feared, or did when I last spoke to them a couple of weeks ago, anyway, that the joint management committee will be the government's major committee and major set of advisers -- and it just has OMA members -- in giving advice to the government on the direction that health care will go. The Ontario Hospital Association, of course, would very much like to be a member of the joint management committee, or it wants it clarified that the joint management committee will not be the be-all and end-all of government decision-making for the future. Maybe the minister could make a few more comments about that.
Finally, I want to say one thing about the $400,000 gross fee-for-service threshold that has been established in the agreement. I am of two minds on that one too. We have had a number of specialists call my office -- as Health critic for the Ontario PCs, I get a lot of calls from practitioners weekly -- and quite a few specialists tell me in all seriousness that the $400,000 threshold on gross billings is too low. In a couple of cases I can think of off the top of my head, they reach that threshold at six months and they are closing their offices for the next six months of the year, or threatening to do that anyway. One actually has done it. They are going away or, in one particular case, going to Florida for six months. That particular specialist, who is badly needed in the area he is serving, reaches the threshold fairly early, because other people are on his billing number or a number of reasons he has given, and he finds it really is not worth his while to continue to practise after he has reached the $400,000 threshold.
I hope the public understand that this is not a $400,000 salary for the doctor. This is his gross billings to OHIP. I do not know what his take would be after expenses, but I imagine most specialists make a good buck. Society normally tells us they should. People complain, on the one hand, about doctors' salaries but, on the other hand, most of them are pretty happy after they have been dealt with by a doctor. We certainly know, and the minister would agree, that people want to see a doctor when they want to see a doctor. They do not like to wait six months to see a specialist in particular. We are a little worried about the brain drain to the south and specialists threatening to leave or at least close down their offices.
I have some general practitioners in my family who tell me -- and they are going to shoot me when I say this -- that $400,000 is a new threshold they never dreamed of aiming for before, but now it is a new one to aim for. Maybe the minister could comment on that. I have heard it directly from a couple of people I know very well, saying, "Gee, I never thought of billing that much but if I work hard enough, maybe I can get there."
So I am a little dubious about what the saving will be out of this agreement for the taxpayers of Ontario, given that the government has given a pretty good increase to doctors in a retroactive lump sum, that now taxpayers are paying the malpractice insurance retroactively and over the next little while that will be $84 million, that the joint management committee does not include everyone in the health care system or is not more representative of those people in the health care system. I am dubious but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the government because I like to see the fact that there is an agreement. But they will find that other caucus colleagues certainly do not agree with a number of things I have just spoken about.
I also would take a final parting shot at the OMA. I would suggest to them that they do a little better job of listening to the specialists who are part of their association. I understand that 86% or 87% of the doctors who voted were in favour of the agreement with the government. But there is a very important 13% or 14% who did not agree. It is my understanding that those were mainly specialists, people who are very much needed in the health care system.
In some areas we tend to get shortages from time to time of certain specialists. I would suggest the Ontario Medical Association do a better job of listening to that sort of minority group and its membership, because the comment has often been made that the OMA really just represents general practitioners and is made up of general practitioners, and that this agreement is a sweetheart deal for general practitioners but not necessarily for specialists and other important medical doctors.
With those words I reiterate that I will be supporting the bill, but I think there will be some lively debate later this afternoon and tomorrow with members of caucus who will not be supporting the bill.
I want to clarify a couple of things that have been raised by both the member for Halton Centre and the member for Simcoe West when they speak with respect to the overall cost of the package. It is a bit outside of the legislation in front of us today, but it is part of the overall agreement.
I correct the member for Halton Centre, as she indicated that the budget with respect to physicians' services was $5 billion --
It has been referred to that no other group in the health care system has binding arbitration and that there are potential problems with binding arbitration. I would point out that in fact in hospitals, nurses, nursing assistants and medical laboratory technologists all have binding arbitration. That is a feature of the system.
I guess, bottom line, what has been said with respect to the issue of Rand is that this is creating a union out of the OMA. In fact we are not dealing with a situation of a union; we are not dealing with employees. It is a very different situation, but the principle is that people are receiving service and that they should pay for the service that is provided.
I would just like to comment briefly on the member for Simcoe West's statement about what he calls malpractice insurance. I think it is probably fair to call it liability insurance because, as the member knows, the premiums go up considerably in riskier specialties like obstetrics and neurosurgery, and I think it is most unfair to say these people are guilty of malpractice. I think it may be liability because these are more risky ventures that they are into.
The member asks why physicians should get this as a benefit, and I think he might acknowledge that with the capping it is perhaps bringing in some equity, that those amounts are paid separate from the capped income. I assume that in his area, where I am sure there are difficulties getting highly specialized physicians, it probably does help to bring in some of those specialists and perhaps will counteract the brain drain he referred to. I think, in addition, it brings in an element of risk management and avoiding defensive mechanism, that there is a contribution both by the government and by the profession.
I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker. I know he is a physician and well respected in his community. I will note, though, that I would like a good explanation why we are paying so much money, why the taxpayers are being asked to pay so much money for physicians' malpractice insurance.
I mention it because the previous speaker was trying to respond to it. It seems to me that is a dangerous precedent too. I mean, not only is this bill going to be collecting OMA dues for the OMA; the agreement the government signed with the OMA costs a lot of money to taxpayers, and the particular point there is the malpractice insurance.
I would think that as a practitioner I would be responsible for my own overhead and for my own insurance, and it is one aspect of the agreement I do not like, because I think it was sort of a giveaway to the medical profession to make sure it plays ball in future on the joint management committee.
Certainly that is the suspicion that is out there and that has been expressed to me by a number of sceptical people. Some people are more sceptical than I. In the final analysis, I will be voting for the bill, as I said, but some of my caucus colleagues will be raising some very serious concerns.
The same can be said of whatever makes belonging to a group a mandatory thing, although in passing I have to say this bill, in lessening the distinction between physician members and physician non-members of their professional association, does do away, I hope, with dividing the province's doctors into two groups.
I can speak with some fervour on this subject of mandatory groups, because many of my colleagues and friends will know I am not by nature an especially groupy kind of person. I become quite nervous about the phenomenon of groupthink.
I think I have a fairly good understanding of much of what is known about human psychology, both the good and the bad of it, and politics, like love and war, is a theatre wherein both the good and the bad come to be seen with good frequency. But there is also a psychology of people in groups, a psychology of large groups, so to speak, and somehow the balance of the good and the bad always seems to me to be tilted a little towards the latter when it is the behaviour of groups that is in question, as opposed to the behaviour of individuals acting for themselves and on their own behalf with good personal conscience.
I am not by nature a fan of whatever makes group belonging and group support a mandatory thing. This bill makes the payment of OMA dues but not, I believe, OMA membership mandatory for physicians. I feel a kind of stirring of distaste in my gut for such a measure, but I believe that on balance it may be a necessary step and one that in principle at least I would want to think of supporting. I think the government showed some wisdom in acceding to the Ontario Medical Association's long-standing insistence on such a measure.
This point can be argued from many points of view. First of all, there is the Rand formula, which seems to uphold the principle that a group that is actively lobbying in support of individuals by virtue of their role or position in society in turn deserves their support. This principle has been applied to unions and to other representational and negotiating bodies. Perhaps considerations of common sense and symmetry suggest, a priori, that this principle should apply as well to the official body that represents practising physicians in the province.
Certainly that will be to the advantage of physicians, and I will say a few words about that, but members should not misunderstand where I am coming from. The worth of Bill 135 is not that it is good for physicians, clearly, but that it may be good for the people of Ontario, for the consumers of health care services. More about that in a moment, but let me just say in passing that I think Bill 135 is good for physicians and will, I suspect, in general, enjoy their support. It is good for physicians because doctors have, as a profession, a way of putting their worst foot forward when it comes to lobbying in a way that reflects their own enlightened self-interest.
Doctors do many things very well. The level of technical sophistication and skill that doctors bring to their science and art is truly remarkable. I say that not from any chauvinistic position, because in speaking of the incredible advances and successes of medical practice in recent decades, I am not thinking so much of psychotherapy and psychiatry. Those are fields that have in general a little catching up to do, in my opinion. But physicians generally practise with enormous knowledge, skill and sheer gut determination and commitment, for which they often receive far too little thanks and recognition.
It is sad that this very dedicated and skilled group in society often seems to sell itself so short when it comes to taking an enlightened and principled position in favour of its own professional need, indeed very often on behalf of what is best not only for the practitioners but also for the recipients of service and care. That leads to demoralization, and demoralized practitioners do not do their best work. It is in the interests of the government, the consumers of health care services -- that means just about everybody -- and the profession as well that the legitimate interests and needs of physicians be understood and respected if the profession, the health care system and medicare generally are to thrive in Ontario.
For this pursuit of enlightened self-interest to occur in a way that is of benefit to the consumers, the providers and the government requires that physicians be represented by vigorous, articulate, principled and persuasive associations and representational bodies. For the Ontario Medical Association to satisfy those criteria, it must enjoy the strong fiscal and hopefully moral and experiential support of those for whom it purports to act. It is for that reason that the providers of medical care in Ontario should support this bill.
However, others may want to support it as well. The only main reason for supporting the principles of this bill would devolve from it being good for the people of Ontario, the consumers of health care services. I will argue that point, taking as my position of departure that demoralized physicians are not doing their best work. Clearly the consumers of health care services would wish for something better than that. A system wherein health care providers feel fairly remunerated, vigorously represented and well supplied and serviced in their offices and facilities would be a good system for the consumers of care. Surely medicare demands no less.
Not all physicians feel these conditions are met right now. Physicians have had little in the way of substantive fee increases for several years, at a time when living costs increased steadily and practice costs increased sometimes logarithmically. I keep reading about physician incomes on the order of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. The member for Simcoe West made reference to that. I do not know where those figures are coming from, because doctors working conscientiously, even in busy practices, are just not making the kind of money that is attributed to them.
It is true that a figure of $600,000 or $700,000 may show up beside some doctor's name in OHIP records. However, on closer examination one might find that a group of physicians are doing their billing under the name of the leader of a clinic, that the clinic employs up to two dozen or more staff, that they have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of sophisticated equipment that is being amortized over several years and that the physicians themselves are earning incomes in the five-digit or low six-digit range. These are not bad incomes perhaps, but not extravagant in an era when some lawyers, accountants and architects are earning several hundreds or up to a $1,000 or more an hour. Physicians, whose training, experience, expertise and mental stamina must be equal, and upon whom human lives depend, are earning as little as a tenth of that.
I am not crying poverty on behalf of physicians by any means. I am simply questioning the myth that all doctors are earning fat incomes at the taxpayer's expense. The ones I know who practise good medicine -- I know quite a lot -- are living modest though comfortable lives and struggling to make ends meet the same as most others in society. Beyond that, the growing frequency of lawsuits, expanding networks of bureaucratic regulation, the sometimes undermining of prestige and honour of conscientious doctors and the growing militancy of patient advocacy groups -- the leaders of which sometimes seem to take a rather adversarial position vis-à-vis the providers of health care -- augur badly for the morale of Ontario's physicians.
I am not lamenting all of these developments -- some of them are called for and even overdue -- but they have an effect on the morale of an important group of practitioners in our health care system, and we should worry about that morale because it bears directly on the quality of care that Ontarians receive.
For all these reasons, I believe this bill, in principle, has merit and that we should consider it very carefully. To its credit -- I know it is not usual for the government to hear words of approval from this side of the House -- the government was able to correct a certain inherent bias and its partisan point of view in this legislation and to recognize that there are times when what is good for a profession is good for the people.
The government seems to have recognized that and recognized that a strong and vigorous representing body, acting firmly and passionately with enlightened self-interest, is at least a partial goal and is in this context a populist ideal and one that this assembly should consider and examine very closely.
I recognize, of course, that the government may have had some partisan reasons as well for wanting to heal its traditional sense of estrangement from the physicians of Ontario. I recognize also that politics, as nature, abhors a vacuum. The relationship between physicians and the previous government was not always as cordial as it might have been, and an opportunity was thus provided for another party to step into what I might call the potential space left open by its predecessors and to look good in so doing. That is in the nature of political life. It happens to all governments, and mark my words, it will happen to this one.
The only further comment on this bill would be to say that of course we would have done it much better and that there is lots of room for further growth, goodwill and colleagueship between government and health care practitioners that we will act on when we return to power very soon. For the moment, let us settle for limited gain and say that this bill is in principle worthy of very careful consideration.
This legislation does not compel from anyone membership in the Ontario Medical Association. It does not exclude the opportunity of individual physicians belonging to other professional associations as well, whether those be specialty-related associations or related to areas of work like the field of public health or the university setting and faculty associations. There is not an exclusive relationship in that sense. What it does do is recognize that the OMA has for a number of years played a role with respect to setting the level of compensation for payments for physicians and that this should be rewarded and returned by a payment of dues.
In general terms, the member spoke about the levels of income that are enjoyed and the liabilities that are being faced across the physician sector right now. I think the agreement we put in place, with its thresholds and its utilization clauses, tries to seek a balance on that. With respect to the liability the member raised, the issue of the $84 million that is being paid for with respect to malpractice insurance, I should indicate that a small portion of that is covered by a percentage of the physicians' fees. It is being deducted at source, where we do the billing and paying out, which is a normal procedure. The remainder of it is paid by the government and has been for a number of years.
In fact, this was a result of a recommendation from a fact-finder's report over five years ago, so this is not something that is just a result of this government looking at this issue. It is an attempt to blend the old with the new in terms of forging a new relationship with the doctors and trying to end the acrimony that has existed in this province between government and the physicians.
He made more than that, because of course on weekends and at night he would be covering emergency and his annual net income was up in the low 40s range. But those kinds of figures, which admittedly are on the low side but are representative of a certain group of very conscientious practitioners, never get talked about when we hear these figures of six-digit and multiples of six-digit incomes. Those practitioners need to be thought of as well and need to be remembered when it comes to matters of negotiation and the kinds of things we in government and even in opposition become involved in in our discussions.
I think it says a lot about this government's inability to prioritize in terms of human need. It certainly says a lot about its inability to prioritize in terms of what is going on in this province today. It just confirms that this government is so far out to lunch it does not have a clue what is going on in this province today. They think it is important to put this bill forward instead of other pieces of legislation they promised to the people of this province in their Agenda for People when they campaigned one year ago.
How ludicrous it is that the government is now saying, "We'll make a union out of the Ontario Medical Association, because we'll make sure that their membership fees, their membership dues, are collected."
I know the Minister of Health is going to respond that this is all in an agreement. I have a copy of the agreement. She is going to tell me that this is in the agreement that was reached between the government of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association on May 22 of this year, and so it is, but what we really should be spending time doing is looking behind this document, this agreement.
I also think it is worth while noting that we now have a new mode of operation with ministers who bring bills into this House. In the past, when a minister brought a bill to this Legislature, that minister would not comment after each speaker in the two-minute portion for questions and comments on the previous speaker's words. The minister would wait until his or her opportunity to speak, which is his or her prerogative as the last speaker before the bill receives the reading. We noticed that in the amendment to the Power Corporation Act the Minister of Energy used the two-minute time slots to rebut and correct the members who were speaking to his bill, and I see this afternoon that this minister is also jumping up after every speaker and using that two-minute portion to rebut the previous speaker.
I think this process is actually an abuse of what was established when the rules of the House established that members would have two minutes to speak. It was not two minutes to hear from the minister, the proponent of the bill; it was two minutes to hear from backbenchers in all three caucuses who wished to speak on the bill and would not at a future date have that opportunity.
The sad thing that is happening is that with this piece of legislation, the physicians in this province are automatically going to be billed for their dues to the Ontario Medical Association, although while they are going to be billed for those fees, they are going to be billed in a way that they obviously would have no control over, even if they wished to, because the dues are going to be taken from the OHIP billing of those physicians. This is very interesting in itself, because while this is happening, the bill says very clearly that actual membership in the association remains voluntary. This current year's membership is $1,050. At the same time a physician is having $1,050 taken out of his OHIP billing, it is not compulsory for him to be a member of his professional association.
What really is happening here is that we are unionizing doctors. I recognize that the Ontario Medical Association, or the executive of that association, and they have had some kind of vote of membership, has said this is okay. They do not mind. The thing is that since December 1986, when Bill 94 was passed by the then Liberal government of this province, doctors have been pushed further and further with their backs against the wall. Members may not care about doctors and any individual group of people who practise medicine in this province. That may not be members' responsibility.
Before somebody says, "Your husband is a doctor," I have to tell this new government that my husband isn't a doctor; he is a dentist. I always have to put this on record because usually somebody says, "You have a bias because your husband is a doctor." My husband is a dentist and my husband pays his own dues and fees to the Ontario Dental Association.
Those people who require malpractice insurance are quite happy to pay their own, but I see this as a little carrot that this socialist government has negotiated with the Ontario Medical Association. It is a little give and take to get the Ontario Medical Association on side. The minister said a few moments ago that this will put an end to the acrimony. I want to say that this will not put an end to the acrimony, because there are a lot of people in this province who understand very well why the physicians have succumbed to this document, of which this bill before us today is a part.
There are a lot of people who understand how physicians and specialists in this province have been made the scapegoat for the inflated cost of health care today in Ontario. I remember when the Liberal government brought in Bill 94 in December 1986. At that time, the discussion was about opted-out physicians and the loss of $50 million we were not receiving from Ottawa under the Canada Health Act if we allowed physicians to extra bill. The extra billing amount equated to a loss of this $50 million.
How ironic that in the first year of the enforcement of Bill 94, when physicians were forced to bill for everything they had not billed for before and were forced to practise turnstile medicine because they were told they could not opt out of being an employee of the provincial government, the increase in OHIP billing that year alone was in excess of $113 million. The irony is that the whole debate was over $50 million but it ended up costing an additional $63 million to the people of this province.
If we are saying it is the physicians who are driving the cost of health care in this province and we must control them, and the way we do that is to buy them off in an agreement with their professional association, and we cap their billing, if we think the people of this province are so short-sighted that they will not come to understand what this means to them in terms of their access to health care, then we insult the people of this province.
The people of this province understand what is going on. They understand why the best of the best have either left or are thinking of leaving this province. They understand what percentage of the cost of health care is actually under physicians' billing.
At the time we passed Bill 94 in this House, the physicians' billings were actually about 18% of the cost of health care. I do not know what the physicians' billings actually are as a percentage of health care today. I think it is somewhere around 23% or 25%.
But what an irony that now we are saying, "You cannot bill over $400,000 a year." That would have the people think that physicians earn $400,000 a year. Let's be very clear about this point, because physicians who may bill $400,000 or more a year are not earning that. That is their billing amount. It does not take into consideration what their overhead is.
A rough overhead in a general practice of medicine, I am told, is about 50%. That is not dealing with specialists who have very expensive equipment and specialized instruments such as specialists who do colostomies, for example, who use fibre optics which cost millions of dollars and who, at their own expense, invest in the capital cost of that equipment.
For example, let's say we have a physician who bills $400,000 a year and his overhead is 50%. There are not very many who do, but let's look at that example. That physician then earns perhaps $200,000 a year. Is this not the socialist government that felt the head of Ontario Hydro could be paid $400,000 a year and has now cut him back to $230,000 a year or whatever it is? Is it not ironic that this socialist government does not know how to weigh an argument on one side and the other? The thing is, the government cannot talk out of both sides of its mouth.
If we look at a specialist in this province who has invested 12 or 14 years in his education without any income whatsoever, then --
Is it not something to think that we expect people today to decide to go into the practice of medicine, to go to university to learn medicine, and we say to them: "Okay, you won't earn anything for the first 12 or 14 years because you're going to be in school learning to be a specialist" with all the combination of specialties that are needed when we go to hospital? If they ever doubt that, they should ask some time when they are talking to a specialist how many years he or she has spent in school. We say: "Okay. You can donate 12 or 14 years of your life and then we're going to cap your income. We're going to control you. We're going to unionize you." That is what this bill is doing. It is making physicians belong to a union. If it is not, why would the government be collecting those fees?
What an incredible issue it is anyway, if we are talking about 17,000, 18,000 or 19,000 physicians in this province and we are talking about $1,000 per physician. Is this government such a poor manager of our finances in this province that it will scrape and grovel and do whatever it can to get another $1,000 in and so decided to attack this particular professional group?
If we went out on the street today and asked the first 24 people we stopped, "Do you know that the only way a physician can practise medicine in this province is as an employee of the Ontario government?" I doubt if we would find two who know today that one cannot practise medicine except as an employee of the Ontario government. What other professions have we limited in such a way?
Even if members opposite think all of that is okay, I simply say, if they are looking at capping the income of a physician, if I were a physician who billed the maximum amount and when it got to that amount the government said, "You can't bill any more," what I would say to the government is: "Okay. If I get to my $400,000 limit by September, I am going to take the other four months off and I won't be here to render the professional services for those patients who need me, because from here on I am only going to get paid two thirds or a third," whatever figure the ratio works out to.
Here we say to these physicians: "Go ahead. Practise medicine. Look after our sick people. Invest in your education and we'll tell you how much you can earn." It is outrageous. The fact that the Ontario Medical Association has agreed with this and to the part of this which deals with collecting professional association dues is not an indication that it is what it really wants, but it is an indication of how this socialist government, on the heels of the previous Liberal government, has hammered the physicians, the health care providers in this province, into the ground.
If all those members who are sitting there shaking their heads are going to get sick, they had better get sick in the first half of the year if they want a complete physical and the consultation of the top specialists in this province. When they are sick I know they want to go to the best. They will be lucky if the best are still practising in this province.
Second, they will have to go before they have reached that magical figure at which they have capped doctors' income. They seem to think it is okay to say to a specialist, "Your income is going to be capped at this amount" even though the operating rooms may be empty, even though all the testing laboratories they need that are used by the referral of their patients are sitting there not being used, even though all this capital investment in physical plant and equipment for the protection of the people of Ontario is there. If the physicians who use those resources are at that magical figure of income, those facilities may well not be used.
If the members opposite think that is okay, that is fine. I pray they will not be sick, that they will not need specialists and physicians. What they get and the legacy they have driven the future of this province into in terms of relationships with their health care providers is on their heads, not on mine.
I stayed up all night when Bill 94 was passed in this House in December 1986, because it did not take very much common sense to recognize that what would be the outcome of that piece of legislation is what we have here, where we are now formally unionizing the medical people in this province.
At the same time, the government has decided it will collect the professional dues for the Ontario Medical Association membership and pay malpractice insurance. At the same time they are doing all that, is it not rather significant that we have had thousands of hospital beds closed in this province, that thousands of nurses are now going to be out of work because the government cannot pay their salaries and therefore the beds are empty?
On the one hand the members opposite are saying, "Okay, physicians, we are going to cap you at this level of income." On the other hand, they are saying it is okay to close hospital beds and allow nurses to be out of work. It is a total mismanagement of the health care system, and the members opposite are fortunate because they are healthy enough to be in this House today and not need the health care system. But when they do need the health care system --