Legislative Assembly of Ontario

L079 - Mon 6 Jan 1986 / Lun 6 jan 1986

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member who wishes to participate in the debate?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Dispense.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Be calm.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister see this document? It is the accord. I am tearing it up. He needled me at the wrong time. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) thought he was going to have an easy passage of this bill, but no, no.

I rise very briefly to speak in support of Bill 44. In normal terms, this is what some spokesmen for my party, including myself, would call a tax giveaway. It is a tax expenditure and it is one I think we should closely examine and see exactly what benefits we get from it.

I am supporting this bill for two reasons at the present time. First, there is a small reduction of a tax expenditure in general terms, while maintaining the principle which will provide an incentive for the development of small businesses. The second reason I support this, and my party is supporting it, is that it gives an added incentive and more lenient conditions to the development of small business in eastern and northern Ontario. We think that is crucial and extremely important, because one of the keys to diversification of enterprise, job creation and industry in northern and eastern Ontario will be through small businesses. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

I have a caveat, and we will forgive the Treasurer this time, but I note in passing it appears the only two initiatives in developing industrial infrastructure in northern and eastern Ontario that have been taken are the northern Ontario development fund introduced by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) -- who was sitting on this side of the House in our caucus just before six o'clock. He was talking to his good friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot). I am not sure that is indicative of developments, but I certainly hope so.

Seriously, though, the only two initiatives taken were the northern Ontario development fund and this one. if we are going to tackle the economic development of northern and eastern Ontario, we have to look at some more fundamental and additional initiatives. These are two that in one way or another are simply continuances of the previous administration's inadequate programs. Therefore, while giving approval of this, I would like to indicate that we in this party would certainly see small business as one very important aspect, but only one aspect, of what we hope will be the increasing industrialization of northern Ontario and job creation.

With regard to small business itself, I am indeed glad to see it is getting this kind of break. However, I would like to see a more thorough analysis presented in the next budget about what that costs us in lost revenues and what benefits we get from it. From our point of view, that is simply good businesslike procedure for government, for tax expenditures and for sound business and fiscal management for the taxpayers of the province.

Mr. Gregory: My remarks are going to be short as usual. I want to begin by paying tribute to the Treasurer for continuing an excellent program, one that was designed by the former Premier of Ontario, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). The program was a great success right from the word "go." It was such a success it was copied by other provinces. In my short sojourn as Minister of Revenue, I entertained delegations from other provinces in Canada that were hoping to adopt the same type of program. I do not know whether they did or not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, they did.

Mr. Gregory: Did they? Saskatchewan and Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Everybody did.

Mr. Gregory: I think even the Treasurer, much as he would be prone not to agree, will agree that it was a very good program initiated by a Conservative government. Notwithstanding the tax giveaway charge by my friends on the left, it is nice to see that the Treasurer has the foresight to continue a program that has been of such great benefit to small business in Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Do not slander me by calling me your friend.

Mr. Gregory: My goodness, did I say that? Did I say the member was my friend? I had better re-examine my notes. He is perfectly right. I am no friend. I am certainly a friend of the Treasurer, or at least I like to think I am. I always have been.

Much as the Treasurer has made such a hash of the overall budget, this is one area in which he has had the good sense to continue a very successful program. Having said that, I have trouble with some of his logic in making the small changes he has made.

The bill, in effect, is cosmetic. He wants to give the impression he is giving more to the north and the east than he is to anywhere else. In fact, what he did was take something away from the south. He did not take anything away from the north. There is no giveaway there. He has cut down on the promised contribution, and at the same time is attempting to take credit for being very benevolent to the north and the east.

Mr. Villeneuve: Not to the east; he forgot about the east.

Mr. Gregory: He forgot about the east.

Mr. Villeneuve: He does not know the east exists.

Mr. Gregory: He has never been in the east.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We gave more to the east by mistake than they ever gave on purpose.

Mr. Gregory: The member for the Niagara River is speaking now.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Like or lump it, you have to drink it.

Mr. Gregory: No, I think he has to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga East on Bill 44, please.

Mr. Gregory: I thought I was, Mr. Speaker. I hope you can exercise greater control over the members opposite. They keep heckling and interrupting me. They should be listening because I have something important to say. I cannot remember at the moment what it is, but there must be something.

The government seems to be the beneficiary of an improved economy, not through its own doing but because of a very competent previous administration. The government seems to be reaping the benefits of this new-found wealth in Ontario. I should have thought that under the present circumstances the Treasurer might have considered encouraging the beginning of more new businesses. Instead, he has not adjusted the budget at all but is only giving less to each individual, hoping thereby to encourage more new businesses into the fold. I do not think that is going to work.

8:10 p.m.

Most of the people who invested money in small business development corporations have done so for two reasons. They wanted an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a small business; and second, they liked the 30 per cent bonus they got. It made a good opportunity for them to get in while not sinking the whole bankroll.

When one takes something away, even though one does not intend to do this, one does tend to discourage certain people from investing. By giving, or retaining the same 30 per cent in the north, the government is not going to encourage that many more businesses than are considering investing in a small business in the south. I do not think they are suddenly going to invest in the north, particularly when one considers that all of the budget that was assigned to small business development corporations in the south was used up, and has been continually every year.

The only part of the budget that has not been used has been that which was specifically assigned to the north and to the east. I do not fault anything other than the fact there were not the business opportunities there that there were in the south.

I do not think we should be in the business of trying to penalize investors in the south simply because they are not interested in investing in the north. What I really am saying to the Treasurer is that he is doing a good thing by continuing with a very good program which has proved very successful, notwithstanding some of the charges we used to have thrown against us when we were on the government side and his party was in the opposition about mismanagement, all those great things such as the great lodge up north on which we were supposed to have taken such a shellacking. We got all our money out of it without any trouble.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Are you talking about Minaki?

Mr. Gregory: No, not Minaki. That is not a small business. This was lake something or other, or whatever. At any rate, it turned out to be very successful move from a provincial standpoint and we lost no money. It is a very good, a very successful program.

Interjections.

Mr. Gregory: I will wait.

Mr. Foulds: How long?

Mr. Gregory: Until the member stops talking, which will probably be a very long time.

However, to come back to Bill 44, notwithstanding that one small comment that I think the government is making a very bad mistake in reducing the 30 per cent to 25 per cent, I do pay credit to the Treasurer for continuing on a course that was preset for this government by a great Conservative government of a few years ago. I hope he will bear that in mind in his future dealings. Perhaps he should take a very close look at some of the great programs -- most of them are great -- that were brought in by the Conservative government. Perhaps if he thinks of them, this government might even stay out of trouble for a little longer.

Mr. Rowe: I am very pleased to rise this evening in the House and participate in this debate with respect to Bill 44, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act, which is essentially a good bill. It should be; it was initiated by the previous Progressive Conservative government.

Having said this, I will take this opportunity to express some words of caution to the government of the day. With this bill it is dealing with a way of life in Ontario, a major source of job creation and, therefore, a major employer in the province.

There are so many facets to small business that it is essential we nurture it. We can do this by paying attention to the funding for small business. In this regard our party, when in government, was working on the organization of a pool for funding.

Mr. Foulds: Are there tear drops on that page?

Mr. Rowe: I am having enough trouble hanging on to this page, never mind getting any tear drops on it.

We had also set up funding for the northern and eastern Ontario regions. These areas still need this extra attention. Again, I compliment the government on its use of small business development banks for the funding of small business.

It is hard to criticize such a motherhood issue as small business legislation. Our party takes so much stock in small business and the free enterprise system in general that just one year ago the leader of our party, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), commissioned a review of small business legislation. We had also set up a hotline for small businessmen across the province. I am glad to see this government is keeping this important aspect of communication open to small businessmen and businesswomen in this province.

I hope the government will keep this line of communication for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, to cut through the red tape of bureaucracy. Small businessmen are too important to become entangled in such red tape and discouraged.

It is well that we respect the social needs of small business in the northern and eastern regions of this province, but we must not lose sight of the fact there are pockets of very tough sledding for all small businesses in otherwise prosperous sectors of the province.

These enterprises should not be overlooked, regardless of their geography. I want to impress on this government the importance of the small business community. We talk about job creation, and when we relate this to small business we are talking about the creation of real jobs. For some major firms job creation is often merely a short-term venture, but for small businesses it is genuine job creation.

Here again, a note of caution: when two small business ventures are competing we must make certain we do not give one an unfair advantage over the other through government programs. This could force one of the ventures into a state of bankruptcy.

To go back to job creation, for big business it sometimes amounts to a job shift as opposed to the creation of one. Two aspects of small business to which I would urge this government to pay particular attention in this bill are businesses dealing with computer software and exports.

Computer software is the industry of the future and one that should come in for special attention if we are to compete in today's market. We should also stress the importance of export trade for small business. The minister may not be aware that only 20 per cent of the businesses in Ontario really export any trade; the other 80 per cent do not. The other 80 per cent I am referring to are small businesses.

Why do these small businesses not export? I could suggest two reasons for this failing on the part of small business. First, many of the small operators are not aware of the potential for export; second, they are just not encouraged to export.

This government must be forewarned not to ignore the needs of small business in exporting. We are dealing with a market in Canada of 25 million people. If this government can be pressed into looking at the big picture -- the world market -- then we can expect small business to react to that encouragement.

To be specific, we contend that to import is to lose jobs. By the same token, to export is to create jobs. The small business of today, if encouraged properly, will become the big business of tomorrow. I can give a specific example of this type of small enterprise growing big. Magna International Inc. began in a very humble way, but today Frank Stronach, the man who started this business, is a major employer in this province with a very significant corporation.

8 :20 p.m.

I compliment the minister on the relaxation of the arm's-length rules of ownership for northern and eastern small business development corporations. Under the current Small Business Development Corporations Act, an SBDC is not allowed to invest in a small business if any shares of the small business are held by a major shareholder of the SBDC.

Bill 44 would relax the rules regarding the special cases of northern and eastern SBDCs. Where a shareholder in an SBDC has 10 or more shares he could not invest in additional shares. Under the relaxation proposed in section 8 of Bill 44, a single shareholder could maintain a 20 per cent interest in an SBDC in northern and eastern Ontario.

We appreciate as well the portion of Bill 44 that allows the SBDC to invest in small businesses that have business dealings with shareholders of the SBDC as long as the SBDC has no fewer than five shareholders, none of whom owns more than 20 per cent of the SBDC shares. Again, this applies only to northern and eastern Ontario.

I mentioned earlier my interest in the extension of eligibility. Computer software and applications development may be prescribed by regulations. Eligible business activity in this category will include application and software development that are ready for use without significant modification for sale and lease or licensing by small business concerns, provided employees of the small business carry out substantially all the phases of research, programming and testing.

As a small businessman in a riding with literally hundreds of small business ventures, I can appreciate more than many the impact of small business on the community in the form of jobs and on the tax base. All aspects of life in a community such as Simcoe Centre depend for the most part on small business.

In summary, I remind the minister not to think small but to think big when it comes to small business.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was listening very carefully and I appreciate the remarks made by the honourable members.

I want to indicate to the former Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory), who does not happen to be here at the moment -- he may be having a coffee in the back room -- that I am quite sensitive to his point that by reducing the involvement from 30 per cent to 25 per cent in the central part of the province it would appear we are diluting the effect to a point where it may be less effective than we would all wish. I want to indicate that we are not cutting back on the allocation of funds; as a matter of fact, we are enriching it by $5 million.

He made the point himself that in previous years the central part of the province had run out of the funds allocated because the program was so popular. We thought it would be useful to enrich the overall fund by, in this instance, $5 million; and to reduce it to 25 per cent from 30 per cent, giving a wider array of small businesses a chance to participate instead of putting them over to the following year.

Specifically, the north and east -- by the way, the east is specifically included in the legislation -- are going to go up to $9 million from $7.5 million; new enterprises will go to $6 million from $5 million; and the general fund, which is available mostly to the central pan of the province, is going to go to $15 million from $12.5 million. Therefore, in a sense, the reduction of the percentage to 25 from 30 does support a thrust in the northern and eastern parts of the province. However, it in no way is reduced in absolute dollars; in fact, it is enriched as much as the other two.

Honourable members will know that in southwestern Ontario $43.1 million is already invested on behalf of taxpayers. That is almost 16 per cent of the total investment to date and almost as much as in the north and east combined. That is under the policy of the previous government, which, as people on all sides have mentioned, was a good initiative. However, we felt that by changing the thrust of the bill in this way we would meet more modern needs and make the money spin out, go further in the central part of the province and at the same time give a new thrust and new initiative in the north and in the east.

I do appreciate the fact that the bill has support in principle on all sides. I have already indicated I would ask that it go to committee of the whole for one amendment from myself to correct an oversight in the original drafting. There may be other comments at that time. I am very glad to accept and acknowledge the comments made by the members, and I am delighted they are going to support the bill in principle.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 15:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that section 15 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"15(1) This act, except sections 6, 11 and 12, comes into force on the day following the day it receives royal assent.

"(2) Sections 6, 11 and 12 shall be deemed to have come into force on October 24, 1985."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I believe copies of the amendment were distributed last year when I was under the misapprehension the bill was going to sail through along with the other revenue bills; so they might have been misplaced. I am glad to know the Chairman's copy was available to him.

I mentioned, I guess in the comments made at the end of second reading, that I wanted to introduce this amendment since we felt the change in the proportions to 25 per cent from 30 per cent should be brought into effect at the time of the announcement in the budget. This would remove the uncertainty that businesspersons would have when dealing with the government in this regard.

I have already explained to the best of my ability that although we are reducing the participation of the government in small business development corporations to 25 per cent from 30 per cent in the central part of the province, we are adding $5 million to the overall funding, including, I believe, $2.5 million to the special allotment for the central part of the province.

The Chairman is already aware that we are introducing considerably more flexibility into approvals in the north and the east, and there are more funds available in those two parts of the province as well. We feel this will make the program available to a larger number of people interested in small business development. We sincerely hope that is the case since, along with the other members, we feel the program is a good one.

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Treasurer. I do not recall his giving us a figure of the total allotment for the program.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is $30 million.

Mr. Foulds: What portion of that is assigned to northern and eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: North and east will get $9 million, up from $7.s million.

Mr. Foulds: Is that combined?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Guindon: Was it not $7.5 million for eastern Ontario alone before?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Guindon: Was there a limit on eastern Ontario before?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), when he spoke on second reading, indicated that the allocation for the central part of the province was used up each year but that the allocation for the northern and eastern pans was never used totally.

8:30 p.m.

Mr. Guindon: I have one more question. If there is not enough in the fund for eastern Ontario, will the Treasurer not put a cap on it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is necessary for us to have some budgetary allocations. Occasionally, government programs are oversubscribed. The member may recall times past when the minister had to inform applicants they would have to wait for the next fiscal year.

We are hoping the allocation will be sufficient. It is up by $1.5 million for northern and eastern Ontario, and in the past it has never been fully subscribed. However, we are reducing the requirement of the business involvement to $50,000 from $100,000, which should make it a little more attractive to smaller groups and communities. We are also allowing a greater degree of flexibility in non-arm's-length transactions. So it will give a better opportunity for smaller groups in communities less well endowed with capital pools to participate.

However, I am informed the funds can be shifted around. If it turned out that one part of the province was oversubscribed and another part was not, then towards the end the allocations could be shifted from one area to another so we would utilize as closely as possible all the funds committed.

Mr. Guindon: I want to make the minister aware, if he is not already aware, that in our part of eastern Ontario, which is past Kingston, when they take their data and put them all together, they include the cities of Ottawa and Kingston for unemployment and for other initiatives. I would like him to keep in mind that in the far east, as we call it back home, we sometimes need special consideration.

Motion agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 54, An Act to Authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specified Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner).

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think it is our turn in the rotation.

The Deputy Speaker: I understand that the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) adjourned the debate on December 5. It was my understanding a member of his party would then lead off.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: No; that is not how the House works, Mr. Speaker. I will not be long; so the member for Peterborough will be able to speak this evening. I am not going to not speak for two and a half hours on this bill.

I am not joining the debate on Bill 54 to point any blame on this issue, which has consumed the time of many pharmacists in our province over the past number of months since this issue was first dealt with by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). I am not joining this debate to try to say that any group of individuals are bad people or are the cause of the problem.

However, I am going to say on behalf of my caucus that there is a problem with the Ontario drug benefit program. We know the former government was aware of that problem and chose not to deal with it. This government has chosen to deal with it, and I congratulate the Minister of Health for doing what needed to be done to have a debate and it is to be hoped, once this legislation is passed, to save the taxpayers some money and bring some sanity to the Ontario drug benefit program.

Having listened to the member for Cochrane South, who spoke on this bill for two hours and 15 minutes, I gather that his party does not believe there is anything wrong with the current system. He must think the current system is just fine, where a minimum of $15 million a year is spent under the Ontario drug benefit program that need not be spent. The Tories must also believe the price spread is not a problem, even though the Ontario Pharmacists' Association agrees it is a problem.

The Tories obviously support the idea that pharmacists should be able to opt out of the Ontario drug benefit program, since that was one of the concerns the member for Cochrane South outlined in his debate. They must also feel that dispensing fees should be tied to the formulary, contrary to the Gordon commission recommendation that the dispensing fee should not be related to the setting of the drug formulary prices.

This bill attempts to deal with a specific problem that has been debated and commented upon but not dealt with for years. When I was having the Ontario drug benefit program explained to me several times by our research department and in committee with other members of the Legislature, I had to go over it several times, specifically regarding the establishment of the drug formulary prices. I could not comprehend that the government would publish a drug formulary and submit prices to be paid that bore no relationship whatsoever to the acquisition costs to the pharmacists in this province. It did not make any sense to me whatsoever.

The price spread has been and is a real financial problem for the taxpayers. I might point out that had we dealt with this bill before the Legislature adjourned for Christmas the consumers and taxpayers of this province would have saved approximately $4 million. However, thanks to the Conservative Party of Ontario, about $4 million has been wasted because we did not deal with this bill before Christmas.

Anyone who looks at the Ontario drug benefit program will realize there are problems, and in some cases there is a real ripoff of the taxpayers and consumers of this province. Even the former Minister of Health, Mr. Norton, tried to come to grips with this problem. He regulated and took action on 30 of the most commonly prescribed drugs. But what did he do with the cost saving? He gave it all back in the form of much higher dispensing fees. I must say, though, contrary to what his party has said since this bill was introduced, he offered the Minister of Health the best of luck and said he hoped this minister would be able to deal with the problem he obviously did not deal with. When the current minister tried to take action to regulate costs his attempts were stopped by one of the drug companies.

I am not going to say this bill is universally acceptable to our caucus. There are some areas I would like to have some debate on in committee. I have some concerns about the 30-day rule being eliminated universally, not on the basis that there is going to be a decrease in revenue for pharmacists but because I worry about some prescriptions, particularly such as those for Valium, perhaps being given out on a six-month basis. I want to be assured that elimination of the 30-day rule will not put anyone's health care in jeopardy in this province.

8:40 p.m.

I do not think a 30-day rule should apply to maintenance drugs. I think most people in this province who are on maintenance drugs know very well how to take those drugs. Some people have been on them for a long time, and there is no reason to apply a 30-day rule.

I also want to look at whether there can be some amendment to the legislation to ensure there is an ultimate solution to the negotiations between the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and the government, so that if the government or the OPA does not negotiate in good faith there is the possibility of a third party coming in to rule on the settlement. Whether it be through arbitration or whatever the solution is, I would like to know the merits and the problems of a third party coming in to solve dispensing fee disputes.

I would also like to look at whether the OPA's suggestion of lowest available price is a better solution than the one the government is suggesting. From the way it has been explained to me, I have some problems with the OPA's suggestion but I would like to hear its merits and problems.

I believe very strongly that there have to be guarantees and protection for communities that have only one independent pharmacist. Anyone who has studied this bill will understand that delay in acting on it is hurting the people the Conservatives think they are protecting. Who does it hurt when there has been no amendment to the drug formulary? It hurts the small independent pharmacist who has had no amendment to the drug formulary. As to the drugs that are now not covered under the formulary but are going to be added, who does that hurt? It hurts the independent pharmacist, but it also hurts the consumer, the individual who is on welfare or the older people in this province who now do not have those drugs covered under the Ontario drug benefit program.

The Conservatives can stand in this Legislature and say they are going to defend the doctors and the pharmacists. I am here to say on behalf of my party that it is about time special interest groups are not protected and systems are developed and legislation is passed to bring about fairness. Fairness is what we are interested in.

Mr. Villeneuve: Join a union.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will tell my friend, I do not intend to go to committee and participate in totally unlimited, unrestricted hearings on these bills. I want action on these bills. I want to have fair and reasonably open public hearings on Bills 54 and 55. That is what we have done in the past with many pieces of legislation. If we have totally unrestricted hearings on every piece of legislation, what we are saying with this bill is that we can be held up in committee literally for months if the OPA wants to hold up the legislation.

That is exactly what could happen. If the Tories want that to happen, I guess they can force it to happen, but it will be the taxpayers and consumers who are hurt. I will be glad to go out and tell my constituents exactly what these people have been doing on Bills 54 and 55.

Mr. Turner: You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Foulds: They do not know what they are doing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am not sure they know what they are doing. Their Health critic was so committed to this before Christmas, but he is not here tonight; however, they have deputy critics.

Over the past number of weeks and months that these bills have been debated publicly, a case has been made that individual pharmacists have been much fairer with the members of the Legislature than the OPA has been. I have read some of the advertisements that have been sponsored in the newspapers by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. They are what can only be described as a disgrace and a distortion of what the government is attempting to accomplish in these pieces of legislation.

I have had some constituents who have been genuinely concerned and frightened by what they have been told. They have been told that if these bills pass, in a city the size of Windsor they are going to have to travel from one end of the city to the other if they are on ODB. If that is not a distortion of what Bills 54 and 55 are doing I do not know what is. If we are to have a fair debate on these two bills the proper way to do it is to do an analysis of the bills in committee. We support the principle of these bills. We want reasonable public hearings. There will be amendments that we will support. There might even be some amendments that we propose in committee; but we are not going to hold up these bills, we think the bills are overdue.

It is too bad the previous government did not act. I hope the Conservative caucus has come to its senses over the Christmas holidays so we can get on with passing these bills tonight and get on with the proper public hearings they deserve.

Mr. Turner: I would like to rise to speak about Bill 54 and also to correct, if I may, some of the misconceptions held by those people who sit on my left, and rightly so. I want to make it very clear that neither I nor my party, including my leader, stands in favour of any special interest group. I do not know where the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) is getting his information, but I would like to suggest he is totally erroneous in some of the statements he has made.

I would like to address some problems which seem to arise out of the bill in the minds of my constituents and the constituents of many others in this House, including some who sit on the opposite side. As the minister knows, I have received many letters and petitions. With the exception of the ones I have received today, I have copied every letter and petition I have received and made the minister aware of the problems that seem to be arising in the minds of the pharmacists and the public with regard to this bill.

Time and time again -- and I know the minister has denied this so I do not want to cast aspersions in any way, shape or form -- people continue to tell me, as late as today, that the minister has refused to sit down and talk with them. I know he is going to deny that and I can feel some sympathy for him, but that is what I am being told and it is the perception of the public.

Mr. Polsinelli: Do you believe everything you hear?

Mr. Turner: Yes, I do, when I hear it from such large numbers of people and from such a wide variety of geographic locations in this province.

Ms. E. J. Smith: Who is giving them that perception? The OPA?

Mr. Turner: Perhaps, I am not sure, but it does bother me. I am not going to be vindictive or overly partisan, but I am speaking in a sense of fairness. I am speaking in a sense of fairness because I do not think there is any great secret about it: I do have respect for the minister and what he is trying to do. There is no doubt there are problems and these problems have to be addressed, but I am not sure that in addressing them the government has taken the best approach. I keep hearing remarks --

Mr. Foulds: What is the best approach?

Mr. Turner: I do not know. I think that is what we are here to determine.

Mr. Foulds: Then make some suggestions.

Mr. Turner: I will. If the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) will keep quiet for a moment, I will continue. However, it is nice to have him participate.

I keep hearing remarks such as, "Why is the minister, or why is the government, or why is the ministry, taking a sledgehammer approach to killing a fly?" They --

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is not a fly.

Mr. Turner: I am not trying to underrate the importance --

Mr. Haggerty: Your government did. You have done nothing over there.

Mr. Turner: Just a minute --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Turner: I am not trying to underestimate the importance of the bill or the problem the bill is trying to address. All I am saying is that I have had many hundreds -- I am not sure of the exact number -- of letters from people in this province. I have met with independent pharmacists who own their own businesses. As a matter of fact, some of them have made up financial statements for me to show the detrimental effect this bill will have on their operations.

That is what people are concerned about. It is what people are literally afraid of. They are afraid, especially in the small pharmacies, the small towns where they have only one pharmacist or one store, and that pharmacist and his family, usually his wife, put in 10, 12, 14 hours a day to serve the public. They are not complaining about that, but they are complaining about the approach of the ministry and the government in producing this legislation to solve a problem.

I have had letters, as the minister is well aware --

Hon. Mr. Elston: I hope the member is not going to read as many as the member for Cochrane South did.

Mr. Turner: Why not? No, I will not do that. I am not sure my voice would hold out.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is a much better speaker than the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Turner: Not really.

Mr. Laughren: Would the member step up the pace a bit?

Mr. Turner: No, I tend to --

Mr. Foulds: Drone.

Mr. Turner: Yes. Who said that?

Here is a letter written by a senior citizen who puts her point across well. It is dated December 10 and is addressed to me. It says:

"I am addressing...and begging you to speak out against Bills 54 and 55 regarding pharmacies. I realize that the motivation of the government is good. They are trying to lower the deficit by cutting the fat. But, in my opinion, it is another piece of government intervention that we do not need.

"I have interviewed several pharmacists around town and they all point out that services to the public would be drastically reduced by these bills.

"If the druggist has to stop and give six different prices to each customer and wait while he or she hems and haws, some other customer is waiting, so service is delayed. Delays in services would be detrimental."

Hon. Mr. Elston: She does not want to know about prices.

Mr. Turner: We are coming to that. She points out:

"There will be two prices for drugs.... It is something like a teeter-totter. If the prices of senior citizens' drugs go down, it only makes sense that the prices for younger people go up, and while I as a senior citizen appreciate the lower price, I'm not happy that my daughters and sons-in-law will have to pay a much higher price.

"We may order a drug on Monday and be lucky if we get it on Thursday, and with the possibility of less use of computers, since their use is costly and of necessity may have to be curtailed, the druggist tells me that you may be lucky to even get your drug by the following Thursday....

"The pharmacist will have to cut back on staff, which means an added cutback on services, with fewer people to do the work.

"We wish to point out that we value highly the services we now get from our pharmacists and we earnestly request that they not be tampered with in any way."

That is a letter written by a senior citizen who was quite concerned about the services she and others may expect to --

Mr. Philip: It was much better written than read.

Mr. Turner: Perhaps, but it is the writing with which I am having a little difficulty.

I have another letter, written on a small piece of paper, from the village of Lakefield where there are two pharmacies. This letter says:

"Our small pharmacy is of more advantage to us than the larger one. They have time to listen, time to advise and time to help us, whereas the larger one is the same as some larger stores: they have no time to help us in various ways. Please leave the pharmacies as they are. Enough has been changed for now."

There is a general thread of uncertainty and apprehension that is coming to the surface in all of these letters. This is another letter from the village of Lakefield and this gentleman refers to an advertisement in the Globe and Mail, inserted by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association concerning Bill 54 and Bill 55.

"I do not want to see my family's drug requirements made available to any government bureaucrat or anyone else. I pay for the drugs myself and it is of no concern to the government what drugs I have so long as they are obtained legally. Confidentiality is my right and I demand that right. Governments in Ontario have successfully ruined the rental market with rent control and have more than a head start in messing up on the medical system provided by the doctors and hospitals of Ontario. Now it is doing its best to complete the job.

"John, do not let this happen." This is a personal appeal. "It is difficult enough for people to escape the arms of government at the best of times, let alone making a whole new bureaucracy to look after the druggists. I believe also that in Bills 54 and 55 there is an item for a $50,000 fine for incorrect pricing of drugs. No other business, government or politician would work with that spectre hanging over one's head. Why would the government expect a druggist to work that way? Please ask the Minister of Health to reconsider. Let market forces decide how much drugs should cost. Private enterprise, not government, is what will keep the province going."

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is a government program.

Mr. Turner: There is no doubt about that.

This is a letter from a pharmacist:

"I am writing about a matter that superficially would seem to be of minimal concern to me. It is my understanding that on November 7 the Minister of Health introduced two bills into the Legislature that would have a serious impact on retail pharmacies. It is my understanding from talking to pharmacists that these bills, in essence, would amount to a complete breakdown in their present computer drug monitoring programs and would have a very deleterious effect on their ability to dispense drugs efficiently.

"Although it is of no economic concern to physicians as to what restrictive steps are taken against pharmacies, it is certainly very much in the interest of physicians, patients and all involved in the health care scheme that dispensation of high-quality drugs in a manner convenient and acceptable to the patient be available.

"From my communications with the pharmacists, there is a great question as to how their present quality could be continued if these bills are passed. I am writing in hopes that you will communicate seriously with the pharmacists before supporting these measures. From my understanding of the situation, the consequences could be disastrous."

I mistakenly said that was from a pharmacist. Actually, it is from a physician who has expressed personal concern to me, verbally as well as in the letter, and there is great concern within some parts of the medical community as to the intent and the results of this bill.

9 p.m.

It would seem that a lot of people within the pharmaceutical profession have taken exception to the fact that the announcement was made via the press, rather than the government going to the people involved to discuss the problem.

Again, I am repeating information that has been given to me. I know what the minister has done. From what I have read in the media, certain of the print media have denied that. However, this charge keeps coming forward over and over again.

All they are asking is an opportunity to meet the minister and representatives of the government and the Legislature in order to make known their views, to make changes and perhaps to suggest amendments to the present bill. They say this opportunity has been denied them so far.

I would like to suggest that the government, and the minister through his influence with the government House leader, give very serious consideration to referring this bill to a committee where there can be open discussion, not reasonably open discussion but open discussion. It is not going to take an interminable length of time to do this.

Mr. Mancini: Where has the member been? We have already done that.

Mr. Turner: No, the government has not, with all respect.

However, to say this legislation is being delayed through our efforts is absolute nonsense. We are interested in getting this bill through as quickly as anybody else, but we do have a sense of fairness. As I said before, we want to ask the government to give consideration to referring this legislation to a committee for full public participation. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is not going to take a long time.

The pharmacists themselves are in agreement that changes have to be made. There is no doubt about that. We are not arguing that the pharmacists, the public or anybody else has all the answers. We are not arguing that the bill is completely unacceptable. We have never said that, and even today we do not. All we are saying is that the bill should go to committee for open discussion and public participation.

Mr. Laughren: That has already been agreed to.

Mr. Turner: No, it has not.

Mr. Laughren: It has so.

Mr. Turner: With all respect, I think the member had better take a look at what has been agreed to.

Mr. Laughren: Stand up and tell them that.

Mr. Turner: I did.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Peterborough will disregard the comments from his left.

Mr. Turner: What comments were those? I was not aware of them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Wildman: That is the problem.

Mr. Turner: Some of the problems that have been identified, and I have mentioned them already, are the negotiation and consultation process, or perhaps more correctly, from what I have been told, the lack of consultation.

There is very strong feeling within the profession that pharmacists are being discriminated against. They say there has been unilateral action by the government against one professional group. They say professional judgement is being negated, taken away and is being replaced by bureaucratic control. Again, that is the information I have been given. Under the terms of this legislation, they have all been opted in whether they want to be or not.

As I repeated earlier, the pharmacists realize there are problems that have to be dealt with. They are willing to sit down and negotiate, if indeed there is any negotiation, and come up with a reasonable piece of legislation that will work to everybody's advantage. They are particularly concerned about the appointment of inspectors who have the right to walk into their individual businesses and literally take a look at any of their private records and photocopy anything that may be relevant. They have the power to delegate this authority to anyone else.

The list of concerns goes on. I think they are important enough that we should give serious consideration to what is going on. It is perceived by a lot of people in the profession as an attack against them. They see it as an attack on them as small business people as well as professional people. It is rather interesting that we were speaking about the small business bill just prior to this.

Interjections.

Mr. Turner: I point out again, Mr. Speaker, that there is some levity going on behind me, for which I will not apologize.

Mr. Pierce: Before you.

Mr. Turner: Yes, and I appreciate it very much. Who was it?

The ones who are primarily concerned are the privately owned smaller pharmacies in the smaller communities. The minister is as much aware of those pharmacies as I am.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Despite what the member has been told.

Mr. Turner: I did not hear the minister.

They see the potential for harm, destroying their businesses. I have had letters from many privately owned pharmacies that operate on a smaller scale in smaller communities. They have told me they have two choices. One, they will go bankrupt if they have to live up to the terms of the legislation; two, they will have no choice but to close their businesses and seek employment elsewhere, working for somebody else.

They also draw attention to the safety factor and express some strong concerns in the matter. I have to agree with them about this because we are talking about larger quantities and longer-term prescriptions being filled.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Prescriptions, by the way, that are filled out by physicians on the basis of their professional skill.

Mr. Turner: Okay. I am glad the minister brought up that point because I would have overlooked it, and l am sure he will agree with me.

Mrs. Grier: Inadvertently.

Mr. Turner: No. The minister brought it up himself and he reminded me. He did not want me to forget it; so we will talk about it.

The physicians themselves have great concern about the effects of this legislation. As the minister says, they are the ones who write out the prescriptions. However, they have a growing concern about prescriptions being filled for some perhaps frivolous items. The minister knows better than I, but I am told that people who have some kind of scalp problem with psoriasis or whatever can get what I refer to as a patent remedy off the shelf by prescription. I guess they can get a six-month supply that they may or may not have any intention of using. I think this is a problem.

9:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The physician is the person who prescribes.

Mr. Turner: I am not arguing that point. I know that full well and so do they. They are the ones who face the patient when he or she comes in and makes a plea. I am not sure what goes on between patients and doctors except between my own doctor and myself.

Mr. Wildman: That is what worries the member.

Mr. Turner: Not really. I enjoy reasonably good health. The point is that the physicians are concerned about the costs -- and I hate to bring this up -- when they themselves see glaring inadequacies from their perspective within the system. I draw that to the attention of the minister. Even though they have the responsibility and write the prescriptions -- and I do not say this in any derogatory manner -- until some of these matters were drawn to their attention I do not think they had given it a great deal of thought in many cases. I know they write the prescriptions.

Again, we go back to the small pharmacists employing one or two people from within the community. In their view, they will have to lay off people, restrict services and fill in more time themselves on a personal basis because they tell me -- and their figures seem to support this -- there is no way they will be able to maintain their present level of business or employment. They claim the volume, the cash flow, is going to be severely restricted. From some of the examples given to me and from some of the financial statements I have seen, I can tell the minister there is a potential for that to happen.

Hon. Mr. Elston: These concerns from people they are laying off, are these people they have hired to dispense?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not committee of the whole House.

Mr. Turner: It is a valid point, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, but it is not a question-and-answer session.

Mr. Turner: No. As a matter of fact, I had it here and I was going to come to that topic next.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the minister would refrain from interjecting in future.

Mr. Turner: I was not aware the minister interjected. I heard a voice from the wilderness.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have come out of the wilderness.

Mr. Turner: I sincerely hope so.

To answer the question or the problem specifically, they are concerned about having to lay off, reduce the hours or completely dispense with the services of pharmacists who may be on staff as well as the people at the front end of the store. The people I am talking about rarely operate the stores themselves. They operate the pharmacy and maybe have their wives at the front. I can give some very valid examples here.

The lack of negotiation and consultation is a concern which I am sure has been brought to the minister's attention time and again. I have read his responses and I respect them, but the people with whom I deal and meet are telling me a somewhat different story. Frankly, they are not only concerned but also frightened. For the most part, they are people who have graduated in the past 10 years, have gone out nicely on their own and may have been into an operation for four or five years. They have a fair amount of equity invested and they are frightened they are going to lose all of that.

I make it very clear to the minister that the letters and petitions I have received from various people across the province have been sent to him for his information, because I feel very strongly that if this matter is going to be dealt with, quite obviously it is going to have to be done with the co-operation of the minister and the ministry staff. It is my intention to keep him informed.

As well, I have responded to each letter, acknowledged it and really done little else. I am not playing politics with the situation; I want to make that very clear. It is a very serious situation.

I have a letter from Forhan's Pharmacy Ltd. in Ottawa, which is well outside the bounds of my riding, I might add. Alan Forhan is the person involved. He informs me as follows:

"On November 7, 1985, the Minister of Health introduced two bills in the Legislature: (1) the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, 1985, and (2) the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, 1985. I am writing you to alert you to the profound implications these two acts will have on our profession.

"The Ontario Drug Benefit Act, 1985, subsections 5(2) and 11(2), would enable the Minister of Health to unilaterally set our professional fees. These subsections eliminate any meaningful negotiations between our association and the ministry.

"Subsections 9(1), (2), (3) and (4): These subsections give inspectors of the Ministry of Health enormous and unreasonable authority of search and seizure. In addition, the ministry at great costs would have to hire and train these people. Moreover, the Ontario College of Pharmacists, our regulating body, has inspectors at present, and this clause takes away most of their authority.

"Subsection 4(2) of the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act enforces posting of the prescription fee in the front window and dispensary. No other profession is required to post fees. Also, it is meaningless, because the final price will depend on acquisition costs, and large pharmacies and chains, buying for less, will have a lower final price."

This theme occurs in several letters from independently owned pharmacies.

"This subsection is especially dangerous because smaller pharmacies will be squeezed out and, in turn, there will be less competition in the marketplace.

"Section 4 of the ODB Act: This section opts in every pharmacy, and we must participate. There is no freedom of choice to conduct our business as we see fit.

"Section 8: A pharmacy cannot refuse to supply a drug to an eligible person. There are various reasons we require to refuse prescriptions, i.e., fraudulent, incorrect dosage, incorrectly written. A pharmacist requires the right of professional judgement.

"Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, section 7: The section would eliminate the one-month supply concept. Also, this section allows unlimited quantities to be prescribed, an exceedingly unreasonable clause. A physician could write for a six-month or a one-year quantity."

I do not want to provoke the minister or have him respond in any way, but I would like to know whether that is correct.

9:20 p.m.

"The cost of the medication could be $100 or more, and we are supposed to settle for $5. It is insane. It would make ODB prescriptions completely uneconomical.

"Enclosed are some facts of real reasons why drug costs are escalating in Ontario."

He has given me a copy of information and facts pertaining to the Ministry of Health's proposed drug pricing in Ontario. I suppose the minister is well aware of the document at hand. I know he is, because I sent him a copy and there is no doubt he has read it.

The letters go on. They all reflect the concern of the pharmacists which the minister drew to my attention inadvertently a few minutes ago. I have a letter from a pharmacy employee who says:

"Dear Mr. Turner:

"As a pharmacy employee and head cashier, I would like to ask that you as my representative oppose the upcoming legislation regarding Bills 54 and 55.

"We work in a small-town drug store which employs 15 to 20 staff members. I am very concerned for my job and our staff people.

"Please check into what is going on with this legislation and at least contact the concerned parties. I want you to oppose this unilateral action. Please meet with all people involved and negotiate. Surely you could come to some better proposal without a lot of hard feelings.

"We have worked long and hard to establish a profit-making, fine drug store and are a credit to our community. We provide many services to the elderly and our profit, in turn, generates jobs for our young people.

"I am very concerned with this matter because I don't want this wonderful store to change. I don't want to see some of our staff members laid off in January. Please do what you can on our behalf."

I have several letters in the same vein: people expressing a fear for their personal survival, their welfare and the welfare of the community. These letters all come from a small, privately owned pharmacy in the village of Lakefield.

Mr. Laughren: Is this a filibuster?

Mr. Turner: No; I am trying to make the minister aware of the seriousness of the situation. I have another letter written by an employee; it is somewhat different and should go on the record.

"I wish to go on record to urge you to look into Bills 54 and 55. These must be studied in depth in committee.

"While I do not profess to understand parliamentary procedure, I cannot understand how or why these bills came to be, so rapidly and without any pharmaceutical consultation. I personally feel I'm about to `be took.' Please do your best to help."

That is signed by a pharmacist who describes herself as a part-time or relief pharmacist at five pharmacies. Again, she expresses a personal concern that her livelihood is going to be threatened and perhaps taken away.

Here is another letter:

"This is written to ask you to please exert your best influence regarding Bills 54 and 55 in the Legislature. In my opinion, these bills desperately need further study before anyone should think of bringing them to law."

That was written not by a pharmacist but by a professional engineer; so a lot of concern is being expressed by a very large group of people, not just the pharmacists but ordinary people -- indeed, engineers.

To move around the province a bit, there is a letter from the Family Drug Mart in Kingston, again expressing concern:

"The bills are the result of unilateral action by the...government without any input from the profession of pharmacy. This is especially evident in some of the clauses which make the act unworkable in its present form (i.e., the determination of actual cost, which is not really known until the end of the business year)" -- I know what he is getting at -- "and in some other clauses which the Ministry of Health itself admits it cannot explain."

I am not sure whether that is a true statement. Perhaps the minister can be persuaded to give serious consideration to a full, open public consultation.

"The intent is to control prescription costs under the Ontario drug benefit plan and the result of the legislation will be the very opposite. The net result will be higher costs to the retail pharmacist and a loss of professional image due to the posting of fees and the emphasis on price this will create. The minister himself has admitted that the smaller pharmacists will suffer directly."

Did he say that?

"We, the pharmacists of Ontario, urge you strongly to vote against this piece of legislation. It is poorly written and will provide only a lower quality of overall pharmacy service and more cost escalations."

I am sure that letter was written with a sense of frustration. I am sure that pharmacist is aware of the problems within the profession. As many of his colleagues have stated, they are willing to deal with the problems and to make suggestions about how the whole plan can work better.

That is signed by Bruce Wheeler, BSc, Phm, MBA.

Mr. Wildman: Is the member going to vote against it?

Mr. Turner: I have not said that.

Mr. Wildman: Is he?

Mr. Turner: I think not. This is not question-and-answer period. However, I have no hesitation in making my stance quite clear.

I have another letter, from Peters Drugs (1982) Ltd. in Kingston. I think the minister is aware of this one. He nods his head.

An hon. member: You have a lot of mail.

Mr. Turner: Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, I rather encourage it.

Mr. Barlow: Read that one.

Mr. Turner: Shall I?

It says:

"Dear John M. Turner:

"As a frustrated pharmacist, I feel compelled to write to you at this time. Negotiations with the Ministry of Health and the Honourable Murray Elston appear to be nonexistent. This administration appears to be determined to rewrite the economics of the drug delivery system while dealing with our `profession' in a manner that would not befit a militant trade union. To this end, they have recently...introduced two bills in the Legislature."

Of course, we know what the two bills are.

9:30 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: It is signed by a guy named Parrott.

Mr. Turner: No.

"I would suggest at this time that much more input is required from our side.

"This legislation lacks in the following areas because:

"It attacks the retail pharmacist, who was not responsible for the ODB book prices.

"It humiliates the retail pharmacist by insisting that he tell his customer his acquisition cost of this medication.

"It humiliates the college of pharmacists by saying that the Ontario government inspectors can overrule the inspectors of our profession.

"It does not allow for an amending formula for ODB formulary prices that result from competition.

"It is unconstitutional in that it financially impedes the independent businessman who has invested in our profession and threatens him with financial ruin."

That keeps coming up time and time again.

"I cannot accept this legislation and I predict that the backlash from pharmacy will be bitter."

That is signed by K. E. Moffat, BSc, Phm.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: A fine speech.

Mr. Turner: Now the member knows how I used to suffer.

The recurring theme that comes up time and time again is one of concern. There are people who are feeling threatened that they are losing their professional status and their financial independence. In these matters, rightly or wrongly, people are voicing their concerns. They want the minister to be aware of the problems. They are asking the minister, indeed they are crying out for the minister to recognize the problems and to meet with these people in the hope of coming up with legislation that is more workable than they perceive the existing legislation.

I have another letter, from Short's Pharmacy in Brooklin.

An hon. member: He must be in the newsprint business.

Mr. Turner: Does my friend know him?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Is the member a penpal?

Mr. Turner: Just to indicate the seriousness of this, take a look at the stamps on the envelope. Any of you who are stamp collectors might --

An hon. member: Real nice colours.

Mr. Turner: They are indeed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Turner: Somebody made the remark about the pretty colour of the stamps, and I just wanted to agree.

This letter was written to Mr. G. Ashe, who sent a copy to me.

Mr. Epp: How is that name spelled'?

Mr. Turner: I will ignore that remark.

"Dear Sir:

"I am writing this letter in the hope that after you have read it you will support me and my colleagues in stopping the enactment of the Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act as proposed by the Minister of Health.

"Over the past half century, pharmacy as a profession has evolved from a traditional role of manufacturing, purchasing and dispensing of safe, effective medication into an increasingly more important clinical role. This role is now being seriously jeopardized by the two pieces of legislation proposed by Mr. Elston. It appears to me that Mr. Elston is determined to decrease drug costs, at least in the short term, without ample consideration or examination of the long-term effects of this legislation.

"I am in total agreement that the consumer has to be protected from the unscrupulous; however, I do not agree that the consumer will best be served in this regard by the proposed legislation. The thrust of this proposed legislation involves a great deal of unnecessary government intervention and regulation of a profession which has served the public good in communities across this province.

"There are some specific areas in the legislation to which I would like to draw your attention:

"Government insistence on having pharmacists charge only the acquisition cost of drugs. This requirement will curtail the use of innovative buying techniques and good business practice. Over the long run, this requirement may even lead to increased drug costs as pharmacists find fewer incentives to look for the `best deal' from the manufacturers.

"Validation of acquisition cost. The validation of acquisition costs will probably give rise to an expanded bureaucracy and the inherent costs therein.

"Posting of dispensing fees. Government insistence on the mandatory posting of dispensing fees is denigrating to the profession (are physicians, dentists and lawyers required by law to display their fee structure?) and will lead to consumer confusion because the fee by itself is not indicative in any way of the service provided for that fee."

Mr. Laughren: In his hardware store, the member did not put his price on anything, did he?

Interjections.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think they are trying to provoke me.

Mr. Pierce: They just do not have druggists in Nickel Belt.

Mr. Turner: Is that right?

Mr. Pierce: No druggists.

Mr. Jackson: No druggists.

Mr. Turner: I find that hard to believe.

"Mandatory participation in ODB. The legislation proposes that all pharmacies must participate in ODB regardless of whether in doing so the pharmacist operates his or her business at a loss." Again, the recurring theme.

"Refusal to supply a listed drug will not be permitted. This proposal in itself may not be in the best interests of the patient, especially where the patient may be a drug abuser.

"As a result of these proposals the pharmacist will be spending an excessive amount of time explaining why the fee is structured as it is. He or she will also be required by law to explain the customer's right to request interchangeable drugs, after which he or she will be required to define interchangeable drugs and why their costs may vary. Complying with these government requirements will leave little or no time for counselling the patient about the drugs which are needed to alleviate a particular health problem

"Who is really being served by all of this?

"The consumer must be informed, but surely this is not a matter for legislation. This is part of the professional responsibility of the pharmacist.

"Mr. Elston has stressed the need to move quickly in the enactment of these two pieces of legislation. However, I urge you to slow down this process so that the proper amount of consideration and examination can be given to this matter. The profession of pharmacy and a vital aspect of the health care system is at stake."

It is signed by Margaret Frankovich, BSc, Phm.

Mr. Laughren: If the member agrees with that, he will not vote for the bill.

Mr. Turner: As a matter of fact, I did not want to say so.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections. Address your remarks to the chair.

Mr. Turner: How can I? My hearing is still good.

I did not want to say this, but the next letter was really addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Haggerty: Did the member get it in a brown envelope?

Mr. Turner: No. We got it in a white envelope with the same number of stamps on it.

These people are expressing concern about what they see as an intrusion into their professional status and integrity and, of course, their businesses.

"Serious public study of Bills 53 and 54 must be undertaken." That was a telegram sent by Elizabeth Lake, BSc, Phm.

Mr. Laughren: Does the member have any more from engineers?

Mr. Turner: I have all kinds.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the member for Peterborough has the same speechwriter as the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Turner: I must confess -- no, I will not say it.

Mr. Laughren: They are the same letters.

Mr. Turner: No, they are not.

Mr. Laughren: They were just passed on.

Mr. Turner: No. These are all addressed to me.

I have a letter from Millbrook Pharmacy Ltd. in Millbrook, Ontario. Millbrook is a beautiful, wooded community, nestled in the hills. Everybody has heard of it. It is in the township of Cavan, on the outskirts of Peterborough.

9:40 p.m.

This letter is addressed to me:

"There are certain sections of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and Prescription Drug Cost Act that concern us pharmacists a lot. They will severely limit our ability to serve the public. Dramatic revisions are needed. Please give your input when the legislation goes into a committee. Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Health minister Murray Elston voicing areas in which I would like to be addressed. Also enclosed is an opinion poll done at my store in support of pharmacists."

That is signed by David Tong, BSc, Phm, the owner and operator and sole pharmacist at the only drugstore in town, serving a wide-ranging farming community. I will not read the letter he has sent to the minister because undoubtedly the minister has read it, noted all the points Mr. Tong has made and will be moved by his compassionate nature to take --

[Laughter]

Mr. Turner: No, that is right.

Mr. Foulds: Why are all the member's colleagues laughing?

Mr. Turner: They are not laughing, they are just grinning.

Anyway, this letter -- oh, it is not a letter, it is another telegram from Kawartha Pharmacy in Peterborough signed by Mr. Tino Nontopoli: "Legislation's long-term effects on drug trade and public not understood. Get independent advice. Confrontation is no way to solve a problem." I have many telegrams here, all saying virtually the same thing, pleading with the minister for his consideration.

Interjection.

Mr. Turner: No, it is not that. Again, and I want to emphasize this, they are not suggesting in any way, shape or form that there are not problems which have to be dealt with. As I said at the very beginning, there is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my colleagues that changes must be made. Every one of these letters, with very few exceptions, makes note of that. They are not saying there is not a problem we should not deal with.

This is a long letter, and I do not want to read the whole thing.

An hon. member: Go ahead.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is only 10 pages.

Mr. Foulds: It has not stopped the member before.

Mr. Pollock: If the member can read them into the record twice, he can read this one once.

Mr. Turner: This is a letter from a pharmacist in Peterborough, a young man who operates a pharmacy called Market Plaza Drugs. This is one of the people with whom I met and he has sent a copy of this letter directly to the minister. I would like to draw out one section, and I do not want to be accused of selective reading.

However, I would like to emphasize this point in case the minister inadvertently overlooked it: "Over the past several weeks, myself and my peers have been calculating the losses that will accrue to our pharmacy operations if the projected average $1 loss per prescription, as calculated by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, does in fact take place.

"In my instance, approximately $20,000 will disappear from the store's net income before taxes; this after I and my family have spent four of the hardest years of our lives building a new pharmacy operation from the ground, i.e. zero, up to the point where a small amount of profit is yielded. Facing, as I do, a rent increase and a five-year occupancy renewal term in May 1986, facing the phasing in of the Ontario corporations tax, facing, unbelievably, a $20,000 decrease in revenues from the dispensary, I will not be in a position to renew my lease and my business operation will have to be aborted.

"This is an economic fact which has been thoroughly discussed with my accountant and is bona fide in substance. Four full-time employees and one part-time employee, excluding myself, will see their positions and jobs disappear, while the people of this area of Peterborough who have grown to respect and support our store, the senior citizens who appreciate the convenience of our location for prescription drugs and other needs, will be deprived of our services."

I will not read the rest of it because there is no doubt the minister has read it. I met with this fellow and, frankly, I was very impressed by his sincerity, his sense of frustration and fear that after four years of working long hours and getting to the point where he was and is making a minimal profit he will see, in the light of the new legislation and the increased costs over which he has no control, it is going to disappear. These figures have been prepared, as he said and as he impressed upon me in our personal meeting, with the help of his accountant. Frankly, I have no reason to doubt them in any way.

I have another letter that was sent to my colleague the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) from Washago Pharmacy Ltd., Larry Wilson, BSc, Phm, again expressing a concern over the loss of business and the loss of equity that he has invested. He has gone to some length to give me examples of the anticipated financial problems that he sees as inherent as a result of the new bill. Again, these are ordinary people. They are not people who are politically motivated or politically inclined in any way, shape or form, but they are crying out for help.

They perceive themselves as being in a very difficult and dangerous situation. They are asking for consultation and the opportunity to sit down and arrive at a mutually acceptable piece of legislation that would benefit the people of Ontario -- there is no doubt about that -- and solve the problem the minister has so dramatically made everybody aware of.

This is another letter from Smith and Smith Drugs Ltd. in Peterborough:

"The turn of events regarding the Ontario drug benefit program has caused great concern for the pharmacists of Ontario, both employee pharmacists and owners alike.

"Aside from the biased and unfair reporting in the Globe and Mail, we understand, at least at the grass-roots level, that the Minister of Health has taken a very one-sided, inflexible stand.

"Certainly costs have sky-rocketed in the program over the last years. But these costs have not risen because of excess profits to the pharmacists." The minister may or may not agree with that. I do not know. "The number of people covered by the drug benefit program has risen by 23 per cent. The number of drugs and preparations included in the ODB formulary has risen by 67 per cent. Many of these new drugs are very specific and very expensive.

"I think most pharmacists and pharmacist-owners would agree that some adjustments are definitely needed," again recognizing the problem, "in the ODB program, including the so-called price spread," and everybody has expressed a concern over that, "in large-volume purchases of generic drugs, but also change in the negotiated fee for the ODB is required.

"Nowhere, as far as I can see, has there been any acknowledgement that the role of the pharmacist has been more than `putting pills in pails,' " as he describes it, "for the patients on the ODB program. A lot of time and effort is used in monitoring the proper use of the medication, the consulting and checking for potentially dangerous interactions of the precise and potent medicines used today.

"Fair is fair, John. I ask that you, with your previous experience...and as our representative to Queen's Park, make sure that this present situation be resolved equitably after all aspects of the problem have been thoroughly understood by our legislators."

It is signed by Robert S. Philips, BSc, Phm.

This is the owner-operator of an independently owned pharmacy in Peterborough who apparently has spent a long time and long hours in building the business to where it is. He recognizes there is a problem and says they are willing to work along with the ministry in resolving this problem, but again he emphasizes the need to sit down and have open consultation and meetings.

I have another letter addressed to the Minister of Health. I will not read it, but it is from the Kawartha Pharmacy (Peterborough) Ltd. and it is signed by Douglas I. Langdon, BSc, Phm. Again it emphasizes the problems as he sees them as a small, independent owner-operator. The letter having been addressed to the Minister of Health, I have no doubt he has read it and has taken into consideration some of the suggestions Mr. Langdon has made.

I have another letter from Robert L. Moro in the village of Lakefield.

Mr. Callahan: Have we heard from everybody in Lakefield now?

Mr. Turner: I can tell the member it is not a very big place. It is a very picturesque little community just north of that great city of Peterborough and it serves a needed function to the rural and farming community --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Turner: -- which it serves, Mr. Speaker, sir.

"Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Murray J. Elston, Minister of Health. I hope that it will assist you in giving your support to the pharmacists of Ontario in any new legislation." There is no sense of vindictiveness, but it again asks for a full and open hearing.

Mr. Moro had the unfortunate experience of being burned out two years ago. He writes: "Unfortunately, in January 1984 my store was destroyed by a fire. I had to build a new building complete with fixtures, equipment and stock. The cost to rebuild, fixture and stock a new store was as follows," and he gives a very detailed statement.

Mr. Epp: Is Lakefield not where Prince Andrew was?

Mr. Speaker: I do not believe this is question period.

Mr. Turner: I did not think it was either, Mr. Speaker, but I did not want to ignore my friends on the opposite side.

I think the next portion of this letter is important. It points out a problem that is mentioned again and again in the various letters to which I referred, but perhaps it goes into it on a more specific basis.

"Enclosed is a trial balance for eight months, from January 1985 to August 1985. This would be a realistic statement of costs and profit for any new pharmacy starting out in business in rural Ontario. The inventory for the dispensary was $52,000 at cost.

"If the new legislation does not deal fairly with pharmacists as well as with the people of Ontario, I feel many pharmacies in rural Ontario, as well as some in urban areas, will be forced to close. This would result from a loss of profit to compensate for a return on investment. This same lack of profit would prevent a recently graduated pharmacist from buying an established pharmacy.

"If I had invested the $416,000 at nine per cent" -- which it cost this fellow to replace his store, stock and fixtures -- "I would receive $37,440 per year. My income, projected from the eight months as enclosed, would be $31,622.25 for the year. This would come from projected sales of $672,000.

"I employ another pharmacist and three full-time staff and four part-time students. Do you see, in my balance sheet, any windfall gains of the magnitude I have seen printed, using your ministry's figures, in the newspapers? This is a comparable balance sheet for many pharmacies in rural Ontario."

Mr. D. R. Cooke: However, the member's speech is costing the taxpayer $12,000 per hour. Is he filibustering?

Mr. Turner: No, I am not. I feel very strongly about this in a sense of fairness, as I said at the beginning. I have a very close and friendly feeling with the minister, which I hope is reciprocated, but I think he has chosen to attack this issue.

Mr. Epp: When you were the Speaker, you called this filibustering.

Mr. Turner: I do not ever remember that. Anyway, I would like to draw this to the minister's attention and to the Speaker's attention because I know he is well aware of the problems faced in the rural communities of this province. The pharmacist has included a financial statement, which I will not take the time to go over in detail because it would be an abuse of the privilege of members of this House.

Mr. Callahan: Has the member got his tax statement there, too?

Mr. Turner: Yes, okay.

Mr. Callahan: I would like to see it.

Mr. Turner: Anyway, Robert Moro in the village of Lakefield has a very real and great concern that should be addressed as do a great many other pharmacists in rural Ontario and in the small towns and cities of this province; indeed, it must be addressed.

I have another letter from R. W. Bunting Drugs Ltd. in Peterborough, voicing the owner's concern, again in the same manner, asking for fair and equitable treatment.

I do not want to belabour the point --

An hon. member: Oh.

Mr. McFadden: The member has not been.

Mr. Turner: If the member wants me to go on -- but, seriously, I have one other letter from Dom O'Keefe, a pharmacist in Peterborough.

Mr. Andrewes: The Dom O'Keefe?

Mr. Turner: Yes, the member knows him well, as does the minister. The pharmacist in question has sent a copy of the letter to the ministry.

I would like to emphasize the concerns all these people are stating with regard to their own welfare and the welfare of their customers and their communities. Having regard for the clock, I do not want to wear out my welcome.

10 p.m.

I have not had the opportunity to send these to the minister. This is what has accumulated over the weekend, which I brought in this morning and which was sent directly. It is not only the pharmacists who are concerned. There is a growing concern among the physicians and the people, senior citizens in particular, who avail themselves of the services of pharmacists in the province.

I emphasize that this is a great and growing concern, one that is legitimate in my view and has to be addressed. This is not in defence of any special interest group. I am not suggesting that, but I am saying it cries out for fair and equitable treatment.

Mr. Leluk: I am delighted to participate in this debate on Bill 54, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act. I am pleased the minister is listening carefully, because he did not listen to the pharmacists of the province, to the drug manufacturers, to the drug wholesalers, or in some cases even to the consumers, before introducing this legislation in the House on November 7.

We keep hearing from the Premier about the openness of the government. One would have expected that in bringing forward legislation as important as this, the minister would have chosen to discuss this legislation with members of the pharmaceutical profession, but he chose not to.

I want to read into the record what the minister said to the standing committee on general government on Wednesday, November 20, 1985, when it was considering the estimates of the Ministry of Health:

"One never knows where all the impetus for litigation comes from, but I can tell you that the net result of that litigation and the fact that an injunction was placed against the Ministry of Health to prevent it from implementing a new formulary...has created a high degree of uncertainty and difficulties with respect to coming to grips with negotiating a dispensing fee and it has also eliminated, I think, a desire on my part and on that of the ministry officials to arrive at a mutually agreeable and co-operative and fair system."

There are 7,000 professional pharmacists in the province, and one generic drug house brought an action against the ministry which resulted in a statement of that kind that places in jeopardy 7,000 practising pharmacists in this province. I hardly think that is the open type of government that people expect from the party on that side of the House.

I was looking for a statement from the ministry which gave the highlights of Bill 54 and Bill 55. I do not have a date for this document; so I cannot give that date. However, in the closing paragraph, it states:

"The Honourable Murray Elston, Minister of Health, and his officials have sought advice from all parties -- drug manufacturers, consumers, wholesalers, and representatives of pharmacy, medicine and dentistry. Mr. Elston has publicly stated that the ministry is prepared to negotiate a fair and equitable dispensing fee under the Ontario drug benefit program."

It concerns me when talking to pharmacists. We had a group of young pharmacy students down to Queen's Park on November 18, who asked to meet with the minister. I believe when the call was made to his office around 11:30 a.m. he was not able to change his schedule. However, when he appeared on television that same evening and was asked about this matter, he stated he did not know the pharmacy students wanted to see him.

Subsequently, I understand a meeting was arranged and that those pharmacy students met with him. The feedback I got from those students was that the minister was just going through the motions. He met with them because of the flak that occurred when he was not willing to meet with them when they arrived here at Queen's Park. [t was a fait accompli that the legislation was before this House. His mind had already been made up. He was not interested in listening to what these young people had to say.

Mrs. Grier: The member's government always listened.

Mr. Leluk: We are listening. We are no longer the government. The government over there is not listening.

I was quite concerned on December 5, when my colleague the member for Cochrane South was speaking on this legislation in this House and was putting on the record a letter in which a pharmacist was somewhat concerned that he was actually losing money in the dispensing of certain drugs. In the dispensing fee, this druggist lost $ 1.48 on every prescription filled out for 60 tablets of a drug called Nolvadex, that he fills out as a pharmacist in this province.

While my colleague was speaking on this matter, which was of concern to the pharmacist in question, the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) stated: "Is this pharmacist operating out of a truck? He is selling peanuts, razors and cigarettes." That is the kind of mentality that the members on that side of the House should be ashamed of, particularly since the member for Brampton is a professional himself, a lawyer by profession. He should know better.

I would like to send over a prescription of my own to the member for Brampton. It is a bag of peanuts. I would like him to take one of these every six hours when he has a fever, a temperature of 104 degrees. When he is not getting any better, I would like him to think about what he had to say about the profession of pharmacy on the evening of December 5 in this House. He might want to take one every six hours when he has a temperature. There is no dispensing fee; it is compliments of the House pharmacist tonight.

10:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member will get a medal from the pharmacists.

Mr. Leluk: It takes one to know one, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The concern I have is that in talking to pharmacists and people from the pharmaceutical industry, I am told they were not invited to sit down and talk to the minister about this legislation. The Ontario Pharmacists' Association, the professional organization for pharmacists in this province, is on record as far back as 1979 as requesting the Ministry of Health to involve the OPA in its deliberations for the changes which for several years both parties have recognized are desirable.

Pharmacists and drug manufacturers in this province admit there are problems with the present Ontario drug benefit program which need to be addressed. I do not think there is any pharmacist in this province who would deny there are problems; other members of the drug delivery system, whether they be drug wholesalers or manufacturers, would agree. However, they object to the method and manner in which the minister has gone about addressing these problems.

I am told by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that on November 6, 1985, there was a letter from the minister asking the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada to consult on the new legislation. On Thursday, November 7, Bills 54 and 55 were introduced for first reading in this House. The PMAC met with ministry officials that same day to exchange documents with a focus on the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, Bill 54.

On November 13, the PMAC called a general meeting when the impact of Bill 55 became known to it, something of which it was totally unaware. It turns out this is the kind of consultation and discussion the minister has had with members of the drug delivery system in this province: no discussion and no consultation.

There are some 7,000 professional pharmacists in this province who are dedicated members of the health care team and have a long demonstrated commitment to serving the people. They are university graduates. They are people who spent four years obtaining a degree and another year or so in an internship program. They are people who have knowledge and experience and who exercise judgement in dispensing prescription drugs.

They are very important members of the team of health care professionals, who provide one of the finest health care delivery systems to be found anywhere in the world. We have had people come to this province such as Senator Kennedy, who was chairman of the US Senate health committee. They have come here in awe of the health care system we have in this province. Unfortunately, many people take it for granted.

Mr. Mancini: He came here for the Ontario health insurance plan.

Mr. Leluk: I know he came here for the Ontario health insurance plan.

Mr. Mancini: He did not come here to review what the pharmacists were doing.

Mr. Leluk: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) does not know what he is talking about. This is all part of the health care system in this province. Many people have come from abroad and remarked on the health care services in this province.

To get to some of the specifics in the legislation, I am very concerned that the pharmacists are all opted into this program and have no option to opt out. It concerns me that the government, through the Ministry of Health and the minister, is going to set the prescription fee arbitrarily without any negotiation with the profession. It concerns me, as well, that, under the program, the pharmacist will not be allowed to refuse to supply a listed drug for an eligible person. The government is depriving a person who has been professionally trained from using his own professional judgement in cases where he should have the discretion not to fill a prescription.

I do not know how much the minister knows about prescription drugs and what can take place. Many forged prescriptions are brought to pharmacies. I used to be an inspector with the Ontario College of Pharmacists. I have travelled this province. I was in virtually every pharmacy throughout the province between 1961 and 1969. At that time, I think there were only 1,400 pharmacies; today I understand there are some 1,900.

10:20 p.m.

It was not unusual to have people who were knowledgeable in the drug language come into pharmacies with forged prescriptions. Some were actually very good, having obtained prescription forms through a physician's office or somewhere else. In many cases, pharmacists refused to fill those prescriptions, knowing full well they were not authentic prescriptions. In many cases, those prescriptions were for narcotics and other potentially dangerous medications.

Mr. Mancini: Do you think this bill is going to stop that?

Mr. Leluk: You do not even know what you are talking about.

Mr. Grande: For the second time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Guindon: Give him six months of Valium.

Mr. Leluk: In many other cases, there are prescriptions for drugs that are contra-indicated for that particular patient who may be on other medication and the pharmacist is trained to know these things. There may be overdosages.

This is ill-conceived legislation. It was not at all well thought out. The idea behind this legislation was to bring it in on November 7 and have it passed by the time the House recessed for Christmas, for the winter break, without consultation or discussion and without its going to committee.

There was no mention by the minister that this legislation would go to committee. It took the leader of our party, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), to tell the pharmacists we would ensure this legislation would go to committee for a full and open discussion.

Mr. Mancini: That is not true at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Leluk: It was only when flak hit the fan that the minister responded. He said at that time, "Yes, it is going to go to committee."

Hon. Mr. Elston: Wrong.

Mr. Leluk: No, I am afraid that is the way it was.

Mr. Hennessy: Walter Cronkite.

Mr. Leluk: Walter Cronkite.

It has always been the position of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association that a drug distribution system in Ontario can be effective and efficient only if it is the product of the combined efforts of the government, the pharmacists, the drug manufacturers and consumers' representatives. However, the government unfortunately has chosen to do its own thing.

I would just like to read into the record a letter which I obtained from the Ontario branch of the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists. This branch represents more than 700 practising hospital pharmacists in this province. It identified a number of serious concerns regarding the manner in which the legislation has been introduced, as well as the contents of the legislation itself.

It was extremely concerned about the short time frame associated with the introduction of this legislation. It feels the speed with which the proposed legislation has been introduced is not consistent with the spirit of consultation and consensus that has been the hallmark of the health professions legislation review process. The branch feels that any new health-related legislation introduced at this time should be undertaken only within the context of the health legislation review process.

It feels that the proposed legislation raises a serious question regarding the principle of self-regulation. According to the legislation, the minister may appoint inspectors to examine a pharmacy's records and remove these from the premises. This provision raises some questions regarding the jurisdiction under which the profession falls and its accountability. The provision of the Health Disciplines Act establishes the Ontario College of Pharmacists as the regulating body for the profession.

I, too, want to add my strongest concerns about this section of the bill. As I stated earlier, I was an inspector with the Ontario College of Pharmacists back in 1961-69. I headed that department in 1965. We had four inspectors who were all qualified pharmacists and understood what they were looking for when they visited these pharmacies across the province.

I would like to ask the minister why it is necessary for inspectors to be appointed through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, who in turn can designate any person the legislation says, any person at all -- Joe Blow from Kokomo -- to walk into a pharmacy, examine confidential medical records and be able to seize those records and walk out of the store with them. Why does the minister feel it is essential to do this -- to have inspectors brought in when the college of pharmacists has an inspection department which, over the years, has done a very good job?

If it is a question of requiring more inspectors, then the college of pharmacists should be advised of this through the minister's office. If there are some problems of which I am not aware, and I served at the college for only eight and a half years, then maybe the minister could tell me about them, because I would enjoy hearing what those concerns are that would prompt him to bring in this type of proposed legislation. Furthermore, in this letter it states it is disturbing to note the proposed legislation makes absolutely no reference to the term "pharmacist," only to the operator of a pharmacy. According to the Health Disciplines Act, only a pharmacist or a physician can dispense a prescription.

The omission of "pharmacist" from this legislation is a very serious oversight. Maybe there is a meaning here that goes beyond this legislation. Maybe what we are looking at down the road is socialized medicine coming in, with a central government depot for dispensing drugs, doing away with the pharmacy professional socialized medicine.

It must be emphasized that the role of the pharmacist goes beyond the mechanics of dispensing and prescription pricing. The professsional responsibilities of the pharmacist include patient counselling, and assessing the appropriateness of the drugs prescribed through the review of the prescription written by the physician as well as through the patient profile maintained in the pharmacy.

No person other than a pharmacist or a physician is legally authorized to carry out these responsibilities under the current provisions of the Health Disciplines Act.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member could find the appropriate time to conclude his remarks or adjourn the debate.

Mr. Leluk moved the adjournment of the debate.

The House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.