LONDON (January 9 and January 16, 1996) - In an unprecedented action, the London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition (LMTC) was invited to make two separate presentations to the Ontario government's Standing Committee on General Government on Bill 26.
The first of the two submissions (January 9), dealing with the NON-health-related aspects of Bill 26, was jointly presented by LMTC chairperson Jim Montag and vice-chair Craig Stevens. The second submission (January 16), dealing exclusively with healthcare aspects of the bill, was presented by Montag and Fp.president Robert Metz, who also happens to be on the LMTC's executive.
In the first LMTC submission, Montag charged that the vast majority of groups appearing before the committee suffered from the 'NIMBY Syndrome' - 'Not In My Back Yard' - and urged the government not to listen to protesting self-interest groups.
Despite many faults with Bill 26, Montag commended the government's proposed $2.8 billion deficit reduction as a "worthwhile goal."
Montag referred to many of the protest groups as "whiners," but did not hold them exclusively responsible for the government's high debt, taxes, and deficits.
"I repeat," Montag told the committee, "we in varying degrees are ALL responsible and surely we should all share in the solution."
Meanwhile, Stevens cautioned the government to "clearly define, in advance, the expanded inventory of license and user fees available" to municipalities, referring to the government's own description of these measures as new "tools" for municipalities.
Calling Bill 26 the "fiscal equivalent of the War Measures Act," Stevens predicted that it would "forever and indelibly alter the landscape of municipal politics" in Ontario. He criticized the bill's "concentration of authority in the Minister's hands, the lack of clearly defined "direct" taxes, the exemption of police boards from municipal control, and the undefined audit and review procedures relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of municipalities' operations."
In his second submission to the committee on January 16, Montag accused the Ontario Medical Association of operating just like a union which "has consistently worked to prevent competition and keep costs high. Once a very powerful lobby, this medical 'union' has lost a considerable amount of its influence when faced with increased control by the government, and obviously they resent this."
"When health care and treatment are free," Montag concluded, "ways must be found to control the unlimited demands placed on a limited service. After all, if you pay the piper, you call the tune."
Montag's theme was further expanded upon by Metz, who attacked the principle of "universality" as being the very thing that is destroying the government's ability to help those most in need.
"Under universal medicare," he explained, "the concept of directing help to those in need is completely abandoned. Universality PRECLUDES helping just those in need; it's for everybody!"
To the visible shock of committee members Lyn McLeod and Frances Lankin, Metz argued that the test of whether someone is sincerely interested in helping the needy is to ask them whether or not they support universality. If their answer is "yes," he explained, then what such people are really interested in is a common "desire to continue their existence at the public trough."
In directing his comments towards government healthcare, Metz suggested three key options:
"However, our preceding comments acknowledge that this final and ideal option is not within the purview of Bill 26, nor within the mandate of this government. Nevertheless, we urge you to avoid painting yourselves into a funding corner with no options, by preparing yourselves for the inevitable future.
"We hope that our suggestions would perhaps, in addition to offering alternatives within the government medical monopoly, plant the seeds for future debate and consideration of this most worthwhile final option."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
