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

April 27, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-27 (PDF)

L049 - Thu 27 Apr 2000 / Jeu 27 avr 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TENANT PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (TOWARDS FAIRNESS FOR TENANTS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES EN VUE DU TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES LOCATAIRES

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AL PURDY

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

SENTENCING

CITY OF TORONTO

CLARINGTON BACKYARD FESTIVAL

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE GREEN PLANNING ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT ÉCOLOGIQUE DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DAY OF MOURNING

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

SCHOOL CALENDAR

FIREARMS CONTROL

LANDFILL

AIR QUALITY

EDUCATION FUNDING

WINE INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LORD'S PRAYER

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

KARLA HOMOLKA

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DIRECT DEMOCRACY THROUGH MUNICIPAL REFERENDUMS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE DIRECTE PAR VOIE DE RÉFÉRENDUM MUNICIPAL

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TENANT PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (TOWARDS FAIRNESS FOR TENANTS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES EN VUE DU TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES LOCATAIRES

Mr Caplan moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 36,

An Act to ensure fairness and reasonable access to justice for Ontario's tenants by amending the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 36, Loi visant à assurer aux locataires de l'Ontario un traitement équitable et un accès raisonnable à la justice en modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection des locataires.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I welcome the chance to speak to this bill on behalf of my constituents and my neighbours from Don Valley East, half of whom are tenants. It gives me a great opportunity to reaffirm the commitment of the Ontario Liberal Party to tenants, and to put forward some modest yet balanced and very much needed proposals that will bring some balance back to the proceedings at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

I am pleased that so many of my caucus colleagues are going to be joining in this debate. I know they will be speaking to how the proceedings work and how they affect their particular communities. I hope the government members and all members of this assembly will be listening today and will be supporting this bill.

I would like to thank the people who worked on and helped to develop this bill, especially Joe Myers, Elinor Mahoney and Kenn Hale from TAG, Jennifer Ramsay of the Eviction Prevention Project at the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, and the many tenant groups, landlords and other advocates who have contributed their views toward the development of this bill.

Bill 36 is a set of six modest yet very much needed changes, and I would like to take a few minutes to go over the proposals in Bill 36. I am seeking to increase access to the proceedings of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal by implementing the following procedural changes.

First, matters involving security of tenancy-evictions, arrears, damages-will proceed directly to a hearing without written submissions being required.

There was a recent study by the Eviction Prevention Project of the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, and the most telling statistic from that study is the fact that 53% of claims filed resulted in default judgments for landlords. Tenants either don't understand how to respond or are not able to respond. The forms themselves are very confusing. They say "notice of hearing." They imply there is going to be a hearing when that is not the case. After all of these concerns were brought forward, the minister said that it was only an interim study and that the study was only Toronto and didn't have larger provincial implications.

I've spoken to the people at CERA. They said they would love to do a province-wide study. Of course, their funding was pulled by the provincial government and they would love to have it back. I understand of course that the ministry's own facts back up and confirm what is in this study. In fact, some of the legal clinics across the province are saying the same thing: Tenants are intimidated by the process and many see the notices and just move out.

I'd like to quote here from the Waterloo Region Housing Coalition on why they're supporting Bill 36. This is a group made up of tenants, of landlands, of legal services, of emergency shelter workers, of support agencies, of local planners. They say: "Landlords and other members of the coalition agree that all matters involving the security of a tenancy should proceed directly to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal without the demand for written submissions or disputes from tenants.

The number of default orders is alarming, leading us to conclude that tenants are not, for many reasons, submitting written disputes within the five-day period." They go on to say that the stated "intent of the Tenant Protection Act was to maintain the concept of security of tenure. It is clear from two years of experience with the tribunal that this concept is being seriously eroded by the need for a written dispute."

This is not the way justice should be served to tenants. They should be able to appear at a hearing and prepare and make their proper defence. They shouldn't have their cases thrown out because they didn't file the proper paperwork. That's what Bill 36 addresses.

The second change in the bill proposes that notices will be sent directly to all of the parties by the tribunal instead of relying on delivery from one party to another. In the CERA study which I mentioned earlier, one third, one out of three tenants surveyed, didn't even receive notice that an eviction or an order had been served against them, that an application had been made at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. I've spoken to landlord groups and they say they feel that tenants are not getting the forms and are having some difficulty with the process as well. I'm taking this element out of the process.

The tribunal will serve papers to both parties. This change is not out of order in the normal procedure of government. In fact, it's already done by the Social Benefits Tribunal and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; notice is issued to both sides. Why, in a matter as important as housing, is this kind of procedure not in place? It should be.

The third change is that credit records of tenants will be updated when payments of arrears have been made or when eviction orders are withdrawn, contrary to the practice now. You see, you can have a rental history or credit record which is totally false and potentially misleading to a prospective landlord, and that is, again, grossly unfair. So it's important to ensure that the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ensures that landlords properly note payments and that any updates are adequately reflected in tenant records.

The bill will also ensure that eviction orders that have not been executed will expire after six months. If they don't expire, they can be used to threaten tenants.

The bill also moves to restore the rules by which landlords will not be able to be granted above-guideline increases if there are any outstanding work orders on the property. That makes sense. Why should a property proven to be in disrepair be allowed these kinds of increases? I will again quote the Waterloo Region Housing Coalition, which said, "The present legislation allows a landlord to request rent increases when there is confirmed evidence of non-compliance with property standards and city by-law. Clearly, this

section of the legislation provides no protection to tenants who find themselves in unsafe rental housing. Few repair applications are being filed by low-income tenants since they often cannot afford the $45 filing fee." This will remove this really unfair practice that's in place now.

Finally, and perhaps one of the most important aspects of this bill, is that so-called catch-up rent increases, maximum rent, will be eliminated. Landlords acknowledge that they have been able to bring these new rents in for tenants resident prior to June 17, 1998. The time has come to eliminate this practice entirely. Landlords have had time to execute these increases, and many were prevented in the past from doing so because their buildings were in disrepair and those provisions were in law. The practice now means de facto economic eviction for tenants.

You're seeing 30% to 50% rent increases in some buildings and in some tenancies in the province. It's time to close this loophole, especially since the economic conditions have changed significantly.

The reason I propose this bill is that tenants are facing a government that talks the talk but certainly doesn't walk the walk when it comes to providing real action to protect tenant rights and the rights of renters and preserve their access to justice. The government promised access to justice with the new act, but what they have delivered is worse than nothing. It's a process that favours one side over the other; it favours landlords. They've cut back on the hearing process itself, and they've shown an unwillingness to change when real problems are brought to their attention.

This bill will make the important changes that are needed. They talk a good game, but let's see if they're prepared to support justice for tenants and Bill 36.

I have many letters of support from across this province. From the Etobicoke-Lakeshore housing task force: "The modest changes to the procedures on eviction and rent increases have been proposed in Bill 36. We strongly support the amendments in this bill." From Etobicoke legal services: "We understand it will be brought forward and we strongly urge the government and the Legislature to support it." From Manitoulin legal clinic: "The bill's procedural changes would be made involving issues related to security of tenancy such as eviction, arrears, damages as well as issues and notices of hearing and updated credit records."

These are all very important amendments that need to be made to create a fair process for tenants. I have letters from citizens of Don Valley West, in fact, who sent me a petition with several names-they've signed their names, addresses and phone numbers. They say, "We tried calling our MPP for Don Valley West to ask him to support Bill 36. We were told Mr Turnbull is not-

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate? The member for Parkdale-High Park.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill by my colleague from Don Valley East. It's also a pleasure, quite frankly, to address this bill in a non-partisan setting. It is very important to use the private members' hour in this context, because we as lawmakers get few chances to address things in progress. I believe this is an opportunity for government members to join with the opposition to correct at least some of the unfairness that exists and that faces tenants in Ontario today.

It is, as are many of these bills, a test of our will to see what is the right thing to do. There are very few times in this House when we can see measures that look, on paper, to be administrative, to look at how the functions of a tribunal, which is the only body in the province that tenants have to dwell upon, can operate in the interests of tenants, and see that as something that can actually enrich the lives of citizens across this province. My colleague has worked diligently with people who are working with tenants directly to focus on those issues which, while seemingly innocuous, are creating a tremendous amount of hardship.

I want to recognize here today someone from my riding, Roy Cunningham, the newly elected head of the High Park Tenants Association. He's here with Bart Poseiat from Parkdale Community Legal Services and a number of other people, simply to bring the message to you that was brought to me at their meeting the other night: People, predominantly seniors, who have been living in apartments for years on end, are finding themselves in a terrifically unfair situation, the simple fact of not being able to have redress, of not having someplace to go, when their buildings aren't improved.

I can tell you about the frustration of an older couple who are paying $1,450 for an apartment they moved into a year ago. They're having an above-guideline increase of 7%. They did not get the apartment they were promised at that high-end amount of money. They are so driven with frustration that they're thinking of breaking their lease, of leaving the city, of paying their losses, of not being irresponsible. They simply have no mechanism to make their landlord do what they are paying $1,450 to make him do.

Across this complex of 2,800 different apartments-just the families, let alone the people involved-are people who are living in apartments that have been rundown or that have been under construction for months on end, and they have no easy and realistic means of being able to get redress for their problems.

This situation, the everyday hardship they have-people who have contributed to this province for years on end-is in our hands today. We can do something about it simply by some rebalancing. We're not asking the government members to give up their policy; that's for a different day. Today we're asking them to show a requisite amount of fairness towards people who really have to have some consideration in this House. We are the only people to whom they can turn, and I appeal to you, on behalf of my constituency, to make that right decision this morning.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to join the second reading debate on private member's Bill 36. This bill,

An Act to ensure fairness and reasonable access to justice for Ontario's tenants by amending the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, certainly on its face would appear to be dealing with something procedural, but that's not the case.

There is no question that, for their rent, tenants expect to be in well-maintained and safe homes. But under the old system, property owners were discouraged from doing maintenance and work because they could recover very little of the money they spent on repairs, so repairs were not done. In fact, under the old legislation, more than $10 billion in repairs was required in rental buildings across Ontario, buildings had countless work orders against them, and tenants were plagued by chronic poor maintenance.

One requirement under the old legislation that made the situation worse was that an order could be imposed where landlords were prevented from taking above-guideline rent increases if there were outstanding work orders.

The member says that the old legislation favours landlords. Coming from the municipal sector, which dealt with property standards, we were looking for teeth to deal with landlords with respect to rental housing. That is what the legislation that was passed dealt with. Under the old method, every outstanding work order was treated as if it were the same. A failure to comply with an order to paint a door had the same effect as a failure to comply with a work order for a major structural defect.

Under the Tenant Protection Act we addressed this imbalance. Our goal was not only better maintenance of Ontario's rental housing but also to get tough on landlords who failed to take care of their buildings. We gave property owners the ability to recover the money they legitimately spent to repair a building either through an above-guideline rent increase or on vacancy decontrol. Tenants were allowed to apply for rent abatement for inadequate maintenance.

We improved the ability of municipalities to enforce their property standards bylaws, including issuing work orders, which is the guts of what makes this system work: getting it into the hands of the municipal sector. Those landlords who failed to take care of their buildings were liable to higher maximum fines and more immediate penalties.

The Tenant Protection Act addresses problems with maintenance and with work orders, and it balanced the situation. The amendment proposed in Bill 36 would be a step backwards. It would discourage both the construction of new rental housing and the maintenance of existing rental stock, and both tenants and landlords would suffer. So the focus has been put on stiffening the penalties and allowing municipalities to enforce work orders and get tough on landlords, and that in fact has happened.

I want to also address the issue of maximum rent, something the member has failed to address. At this time it seems appropriate to remind the opposition that this year the guideline is 2.6%, the lowest in the 25-year history of rent control. Under Bill 36, maximum rent would be eliminated.

In 1986 the Liberal government established maximum rents under the Residential Rent Regulation Act. This meant that each rental unit in Ontario carried a maximum rent which the landlord could then legally charge the tenant. In 1992 the NDP government left the maximum rent intact when they introduced the Rent Control Act. Under both governments, if the maximum rent was not charged to the tenant, landlords could bank rent increases over an extended period of time. This left tenants vulnerable. They were often walloped with large, accumulated increases all at one time. This was unfair to Ontario tenants. I heard from many tenants within my riding with respect to this system. It was not fair.

As a result, the Tenant Protection Act froze the concept of maximum rents as of June 17, 1998, the day the Tenant Protection Act came into effect. One of the changes was that the rent registry was discontinued and maximum rents would no longer be applicable as new tenants moved in. Since the Tenant Protection Act, maximum rent would only apply to tenants who had occupied their units before the Tenant Protection Act was proclaimed. The landlord is not able to carry over maximum rent to a new tenant. This means maximum rents will eventually be phased out.

The government has not eliminated maximum rent, because it is unfair to retroactively change landlord and tenant arrangements that were in place at the time of the Tenant Protection Act's proclamation. Under the Tenant Protection Act, a sitting tenant's rent can only be increased by the amount of the annual rent increase guideline unless the landlord applies for and receives an above-guideline increase from the tribunal. There is a procedure in place to do this. Tenants can no longer be walloped with large accumulated increases. I remind the member and the opposition that this year the guideline is 2.6%, and that's the lowest in the 25-year history of rent control.

Our government's goal in the Tenant Protection Act is to protect the tenant, not the apartment. Why return to a system where landlords would be unable to gain fair market value for their rental units and as a result would refuse to build more units, and which would require the government to reinstate a huge system of administration at an enormous, ongoing cost to taxpayers?

I don't agree with Bill 36, which would return to an archaic and unfair system and in effect change the rules, where in fact we tried to change the rules to make it fair for landlords and to make it fair for tenants.

This bill fails to address the issue with respect to rent and it fails to address the issue with respect to maintaining the units. In effect, the title of the bill is misleading.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak on this bill and to commend my colleague for bringing forward this very important amendment. The previous speaker seemed to have missed the message completely. What my colleague is trying to do here is enhance and make sure that there is adequate protection for the tenants.

We all know basically what is causing all this. There is a lack of affordable rental units out there. It's nothing new I'm saying. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing himself reprimanded those people who had promised to build affordable housing and said: "You're not doing that. We have given you everything to do that and nothing is done." So the atmosphere, the environment is just completely ripe for the landlords to do what they want to do because of the lack of affordable rental units. There are none on the market.

We know that a new budget is coming out and we know that nothing new is going to come out in the sense of looking after those individuals who need it better. There will be bragging about balancing a budget, but there will be no bragging about people who are paying far in excess of what they can afford for rent.

I want to focus quickly on number 2: "Rent may not be increased beyond the guidelines if there is an outstanding work order." That makes complete sense. The fact is that people have made a contract with a landlord for rent of a place for a certain situation, and what has happened? The place has deteriorated and the landlord continues to contract and collect that money.

I feel that it's quite appropriate that some of these amendments come forward. What the previous speaker had mentioned completely ignored the fact that what it's trying to do is make your law, something that has been really not all that wonderful, a little bit better. He's rejected that to say it's not good to bring an amendment in to protect tenants because it's misleading. That's what it's all about, to ensure fairness and reasonable access to justice for Ontario tenants. They need that kind of justice. As a matter of fact, today everyone is shouting, "I'm paying more into rent than in feeding my child." So the balance is not there.

I feel that we should either encourage the government side-with all this abundance of money they will speak about, to bring some fairness to tenants in this regard-because there's a lot of inadequacy. Of course, as my colleague from Parkdale previously said, it's another day to discuss tenant protection and how we can move forward in making this a better place for those tenants who are paying by far an excess of their income for rent.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): Thanks for the opportunity to speak to Bill 36 this morning, Mr Speaker. It gives me an opportunity to discuss the points under the bill that are related to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

I'd first like to remind members opposite what role the tribunal plays and the reason it was set up under the Tenant Protection Act. It was established as an independent agency responsible for administering the act. Throughout that process, they inform the public on legal rights and obligations of landlords and tenants. This process goes on to ensure a fairer, more efficient process of hearing landlord-tenant disputes and regularly adjudicates on such issues as rent increases, harassment, evictions and maintenance issues.

One of the major benefits of the tribunal is that it has moved these disputes from a court setting, from a cumbersome, time-consuming, expensive court process, into a less formal system of mediation and adjudication. It's not only a less confrontational environment, but it also means that disputes can be heard more quickly and efficiently.

In the past, it used to take months-to some people I guess it seemed even longer than that-to get a court date. Now 80% of the applications are heard within 30 days. On average, members of the tribunal are getting their decisions out to the parties within a week, and many within two or three days. For example, for the year ending on March 31 just past, the tribunal attempted mediation in over 20,000 cases. Under mediation, 6,000 cases were successfully settled and the remaining cases resulted in more streamlined hearings and at a minimum cost to the taxpayers of Ontario.

It also dealt with more than 65,000 applications that were filed by both landlords and tenants. At this point, the tribunal has no backlog. It is current within one month's receipt of applications. This indeed does benefit both the tenants and the landlords with quicker resolutions to their issues.

The tribunal has been very effective at not only reducing backlogs and reducing waiting times for applicants; it also benefits tenants, in particular, since they don't have to wait as long or tie up significant amounts of resources while they're waiting for a decision. That was one of the main complaints we had heard before we passed the Tenant Protection Act.

The tribunal operates in a fair and impartial manner, according to the rules of conduct, the tribunal rules and guidelines and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. These are what guide the conduct of the tribunal.

The system deals with all complaints so effectively that it helps all parties in a way not experienced under past legislation or past governments. There is also a greater efficiency under this system. The ministry is indeed spending less money on administration of rent regulation than under the previous system. In fact, administration costs alone were 4.3% lower in 1998-99 as compared to 1995-96.

The essence of Bill 36 jeopardizes the ground we have gained under the Tenant Protection Act. It suggests an amendment stating that all applications to terminate a tenancy or evict a tenant be sent to a hearing, promoting a long, cumbersome process. It should be noted that in many cases tenants do not contest these applications. It should also be noted that under the Tenant Protection Act the tribunal can issue default orders when the tenant does not dispute the application in writing. Once a default order is issued, the tenant still has 10 days to ask for the eviction order to be set aside if they were not able to file their dispute in time.

This is a more efficient procedure, and it was actually carried over to the Tenant Protection Act from the Landlord and Tenant Act. Under the Tenant Protection Act, it is also the policy for applicants to notify all parties involved in tribunal proceedings. This is an administratively efficient and appropriate method that has worked extremely well. Bill 36 would propose to change all of that, adding layers of bureaucracy and reducing the current streamlined procedure that has all kinds of evidence that it is working in a more efficient manner. It would again be a step backwards.

There are two other proposed amendments to the Tenant Protection Act under Bill 36 and they do have some merit. They include voiding any eviction order that hasn't been enforced within six months and allowing those who have paid any amounts required by an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order to ask the tribunal for a statement of this fact. This would help the individual prove to the landlord and to other creditors that they have complied with the tribunal's orders. We note the value of those suggestions and appreciate their intent by the member for Don Valley East.

However, the overall effect of this bill is that it generally discourages investment and does not create a positive environment for the construction of new rental housing in Ontario and the maintenance of existing rental stock. These were the specific areas that were improved under the Tenant Protection Act. It would impede the efficient administration of the act and ultimately it would be a step backwards for the landlords, tenants and taxpayers of Ontario. In fact, the Tenant Protection Act is aptly named. It's there to protect the tenants. For the reasons I have noted, I will not be able to support Bill 36.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'd like to add my comments to the private member's bill the member for Don Valley East, Mr Caplan, has brought to the House today. I would call it a fair deal, because it addresses some of the problems that both landlords and tenants encounter on a daily basis, and the issues are many. I can tell you that three out of five people who walk into my office or call or send letters deal with housing issues. Unfortunately, the way the situation is now, tenants are getting it from both sides. First of all, there is no more protection from the rent protection act, as it is called.

There is a problem with the lack of affordable housing and it is causing a problem with tenants as well. Rents are skyrocketing. That's a problem in itself and everybody knows it, so tenants are getting it from both sides.

I think the bill, as presented by the member for Don Valley East, speaks exactly to the long experience, knowledge and hard work he has put into the matter, the knowledge he has on the issue and the work he has done with many tenants. I think the amendments he proposes are very fair. They don't take away from the landlords; they don't take away from the act itself. They make it better. If the system were changed to work better and smoother for tenants, this would go a long way in improving some of those areas where problems have been identified by both landlords and tenants, especially when it comes to eviction, arrears, repairs and maintenance. That is a big problem.

I would urge and encourage members of the House to support this bill. The best and only thing we can do is give tenants at least a fair chance when they have to appeal on some of the problems they encounter on a daily basis with respect to their rental properties.

My time is running out quickly. Let me say it is an area that must be looked at. Members from the government side are also saying: "There are issues that we have to look at. We have to make it better." I think the private member's bill from the member for Don Valley East is a beginning. It's the vehicle to get there. I hope we can get the support needed and move the bill forward. I thank you for your time.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got to tell you that the exercise of this debate, and these debates these days, is intellectually and physically draining. It is at times downright sickening. It sickens me. I listened to two members because the other hyenas on the other side didn't get a chance to speak, but two people have spoken: one from Carleton-Gloucester and the other fellow from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. They both read their speeches, you will recall.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think it's quite in order in this House to call members on either side hyenas. I would ask the member to withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker: Withdrawn?

Mr Marchese: I did say it and I withdraw it.

Speaker, you will have noticed that those two members read their speeches. They hardly lifted their eyes from the paper as they spoke. Every time these people speak, they read speeches given to them by presumably someone in the Ministry of Housing, and that's all they do. They're parrots. It appears to me that they have no freedom of their own to speak. They never speak from the heart; I don't think they have one.

You have the member from Barrie-Simcoe saying, "The title of this bill is misleading"-and you didn't stop him then, Speaker-but their own bill is called the Tenant Protection Act. That's not misleading. But this modest bill, with these modest changes, trying to bring some fairness to tenants, according to that member who left this chamber is misleading. He's coming back to listen to the debate. I'm glad to see him back. The goal, he said, is to protect tenants.

Mr Tascona: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm in the chamber. I don't know what the member is talking about.

Mr Marchese: OK. Thank you, Joe. Sit down.

"The goal," said he, "is to protect tenants." Who believes that? Who believes that except the landlords who are in their pockets day in and day out, reaching in their pockets day in and day out? And they're protecting the tenants.

According to the member for Carleton-Gloucester, the past bill and the past process to deal with the complaints would take months. Ninety-five per cent of the people who came to those hearings, first on the tenant protection hearings and then on the Tenant Protection Act, 95% of the cases, we were told by the legal clinics, were dealt with fairly and expeditiously. Only 5% of the cases were not. For that they invent a tribunal, to deal with 5% of the cases, a tribunal nominated by them. Most of them are Tories. You know that and I know that.

This from the people who said when they were in this opposition chamber that they were going to be different, that they weren't going to make political appointments. No siree, it would all be based on merit. It appears that all these Tory appointments are based on merit.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): How perceptive.

Mr Marchese: Is Garfield interested in my discussion?

The problem is this: This is a government for landlords. They make no bones about it. I learned through a study I looked at that I believe was done in 1992-93 that 76% of tenants don't vote. Nothing has changed since then. They know that and that's why they've been able to introduce a so-called Tenant Protection Act that would support the landlords over the tenants. That's what that bill is all about, and they know it. I know it. The sad thing is that the tenants still don't know it. But if they voted, they would have such tremendous power that this government wouldn't be in power very much longer.

Our job as opposition is to try to reach out to them as best we can. We are trying to reach out to a group of tenants whose average income is $36,000; 3.3 million tenants, many of whom only earn $20,000 to $22,000; many of whom have language difficulties, as they become better Canadian citizens. That's the kind of constituency we're talking about that we're trying to protect, which this bill with modest changes is trying to do, to reach out and in some way bring some modicum of fairness to the tenants.

The member for Carleton-Gloucester says, "The essence of Bill 36 would jeopardize all the gains we have made." What gains? The kinds of increases Toronto and many other places in Ontario have faced, increases in Toronto of $1,200 a year for a two-bedroom apartment, which these people with their modest wages of $20,000, $30,000, $36,000 are having to pay? That's what we're dealing with. Are those the gains we're trying to protect? Of course those are the gains they are trying to protect, because it suits the landlords.

The member for Carleton-Gloucester was the one who said-no, it was the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who now has left the chamber again, and several of the others who have scurried about-

The Acting Speaker: It is improper to refer to members' absences.

Mr Marchese: The member from Barrie-Simcoe said that under the old system the poor old property owners were discouraged from doing maintenance. He says, "Oh, my God, there was $10 billion worth of maintenance problems." Speaker, every year they were getting guideline increases. I should look at the public directly; forget the Speaker. Where did the money go except to be pocketed by the landlords and not thrown back into maintenance?

Thus, over the years, they have deferred maintenance problems and, yes, they've got billions of dollars worth of problems that have to be dealt with because they put it off as they pocketed the money for the guideline increases and the above-guideline increases so they could buy other buildings. That's where the money has gone.

If the new system is working so well, why is it that we're suffering such maintenance problems throughout Ontario? Why aren't they spending the money now to do the maintenance? Because these landlords love to pocket the money as much as they can. Because they don't really care very much about that poor tenant who only earns anywhere from $20,000 to $36,000 or $40,000 or $45,000 a year. It's a crime, I argue.

The member for Carleton-Gloucester says that this bill would discourage investment. Tory members, I ask you, has the Tenant Protection Act encouraged investment? It has not. The Tenant Protection Act was supposed to have created so much housing, to have given so much choice to the prospective tenant. Have we built any units because of it? No. The CMHC, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, says we will need 80,000 units by 2001. We have only built about 6,400 units at present. Is their bill encouraging investment? This modest bill is discouraging investment? Do you see how stupid this whole thing is? Do you see why I get discouraged?

We say modest changes; they say, "No, that would really jeopardize what we've been trying to do." The poor public listening attempts to deal with this mess and they say: "Who's right? Who's wrong?" We say we are protecting the most vulnerable citizens of this province in the best way that we can. Legal clinics are doing their best with the modest amounts of dollars they've got to help tenants. They're the ones who proposed these changes, for the most part. They know what they're dealing with because they have to deal with poor tenants daily. Yet this government doesn't want to listen to that. Why?

These are the questions you've got to ask yourselves. Why? Could they be so tightly connected to big business and the big landlords that they don't want to listen to this at all?

We New Democrats, and Liberals before us, tried to build non-profit and co-operative housing, because it was the right thing to do. We built housing that was affordable-

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: My good friend the member for Dufferin-Peel says we spent weeks debating why it didn't work. Why didn't they try to fix that? If there were some problems in terms of overexpenditures in some area, why wouldn't they just fix that? I'll tell you why. Because their landlord buddies, their developer buddies said, "We can't have that." In the committee hearings, they said, "It's unfair competition." They said to have public housing, non-profit and co-operative housing, was unfair competition.

M. Tilson from Dufferin-Peel, that's what your buddies said. Are you not doing their bidding? Of course you are. That's why you eliminated that program-that's the politics of that-not because it didn't work, not because in the hearings they said it didn't work, and so we scrapped it. You scrapped it on the basis that your private friends, your landlord friends and your developer friends, were going to build housing. They haven't built anything-zip, zero, nada, rien. It's depressing.

I was reading a brochure from my former good friend Isabel Bassett. "It's time for common sense," she wrote then. "There is a better way to protect tenants and increase the supply of apartments," Isabel Bassett said.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Oh yeah, you know her. "Mike Harris is committed to a new form of tenant protection. This is our common sense plan. Tenants will not be subject to unfair rent increases." Oh? What about the guideline increases? What about the vacancy decontrolling, so that when you move out, rents have gone up to the tune of about $1,200 for a two-bedroom apartment?

Poor Isabel Bassett. I'm sure she didn't anticipate those increases. She would not have known. She could not have been omniscient or omnipotent enough to be able to predict the chaos we've got. She goes on to say, "Mike Harris's government will improve apartment maintenance, safety and security." Oh? With all the maintenance problems we're having across the province, poor Isabel Bassett could not have anticipated or predicted these problems. But that's the common sense plan.

"Tenants will have a greater choice in the rental market through an increased supply of private sector units." Oh? Where is this increased supply of units? They must be invisible units, because I haven't seen them. Poor Isabel. This wasn't just Isabel; it was all the other Tory types on the other side who said as much, a few of them at least.

Then she says, "Using shelter subsidies, the Mike Harris government will target support to those most in need." Oh? I thought they abandoned this plan. We've asked a question in this regard, and there are no shelter subsidy plans that I'm aware of. That's what she said then. That's what you said then.

It is a pitiful expression. It's a pitiful debate that we're having. I know you people are not listening. I know that. Modest attempts have to be made to try to make you listen. That's why often we talk directly to the public. We say to the tenants, "If the 76% of you who don't vote, voted and understood that this bill is hurting you in the way that it is, you would be booting this government out of office." I hope that day will come.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I would like to spend the few seconds remaining to suggest to the member who has introduced this bill that I think he has some suggestions that make sense. I think the direct communication to the tenant is a laudable suggestion.

My concern is with the elimination of maximum rent. My concern is that the bill does not recognize that the real problem continues to be the fact that municipalities charge between three and six times as much property tax on apartments as they do on single-family homes. Here in Toronto it is 3.6 times as much, a staggering increased cost that isn't profit to the landlord but is a very direct expense on tenants that directly contributes to the lack of affordable housing in this city and all other cities in Ontario.

At the same time, we have a federal government that, in its capital gains regime and its income tax system, is providing extraordinary disincentives to landlords to renovate and, in the case of older landlords, to sell off their properties to people who would now want to start all over and rejuvenate those properties and add new premises.

The fact of the matter is that the bills we brought forward have changed the perspective. There is new construction going on for the first time in almost a half decade. In 1995, when we were elected, there was a grand total of 35 units built in the city of Toronto, at the same time the population was going up 40,000 a year. Clearly the system was broken; clearly it had to be fixed.

I agree with the member opposite that there is fine-tuning that needs to be done and I encourage him to continue to bring forward those suggestions. Eliminating maximum rent and eliminating the incentive to landlords to bring properties up to code and up to spec is not the way to do it.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I want to speak to this bill, which I obviously have enormous support and respect for, because in my riding 68% of the people are tenants. We get more calls in my constituency office on landlord-tenant-related issues than on any other issue. This is the issue for them. They are suffering from the legislative black hole that is the Tenant Protection Act. There are no apartments being built, as we've already discussed. The housing minister is begging developers to build, and we now have the former housing minister acknowledging that changes need to be made to that bill.

At best, the Tenant Protection Act is a failed neo-Conservative experiment, a failed experiment that has led the housing minister to plead with developers to start building affordable housing. Well, we're not here to plead; we're here to legislate. I would ask the housing minister and I would certainly ask the former housing minister, who just spoke in favour of some of the measures in this bill, not to beg developers to build but to support this legislation.

Let me say something about this legislation. Its title is crystal clear. All we're trying to do here is to begin to level the playing field. At worst, the Tenant Protection Act was

an act of political vengeance, rewarding landlords and punishing tenants. The goal here is not to reverse that political vengeance and play the politics of friends and enemies. The goal with this bill is good public policy, taking a flawed act-I would say a fatally flawed act, but at least accepting the flawed act for the moment because it is in place-and trying to improve it: the provisions on security of tenancy, on due process, on the maximum rent boondoggle for landlords, the nightmare eviction orders. An eviction order is not an unusual thing for a tenant to get these days, and because of the lack of due process, because of the loopholes in the act, clearly this is

an act which has to be changed.

The member for Don Valley East has brought forth a perfect solution, a modest proposal, and it is beyond my comprehension why this government would not come in, assess these reasonable suggestions, and support something that would improve

an act they brought in. We're trying to help tenants on this side of the House. What are you going to be doing when it comes time to vote on this bill?

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I stand today in support of the Towards Fairness for Tenants act presented by my colleague the member for Don Valley East, because I work on behalf of tenants. It's interesting to see that the government puts up speakers who know so little because they have such a low percentage of tenants in their ridings. They have spent no time at the rental housing tribunal representing tenants, as I did yesterday and as I have done on many occasions.

My riding, Toronto Centre-Rosedale, has the highest proportion of tenants in the province of Ontario, and I can tell you that the Tenant Protection Act can only be referred to appropriately as the "so-called Tenant Protection Act," because if that was its goal, as the title suggests, it is an extraordinary failure.

Today, in the very brief amount of time I have, I want to focus on one element of the bill that is before us today. In the explanatory note, point 2 says, "Rent may not be increased beyond the guidelines if there is an outstanding work order." Is that common sense or not? Is it appropriate that a landlord ought to be able to seek a rent increase when work orders have been issued on the properties that he owns, or not? It seems to me it is common sense. We had this provision in previously, OPRI, orders prohibiting rent increases. Municipalities could enforce work orders to ensure that the living conditions tenants were subjected to were appropriate.

We have circumstances in my riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, and particularly in the St James Town community, as an example, where problems have persisted, where heating and plumbing systems have failed, where debris is left in stairwells and set on fire, where communities are being subjected to landlords who do nothing to provide security in their buildings, where drug and prostitution problems are rampant and the effect is not only on the security of the people living in those buildings but on the community as a whole.

The government's so-called Tenant Protection Act had a circumstance that I want to highlight to anyone who is watching or listening or will read this today. I stood alongside my tenants from the Rose Park Tenants' Association to work against a landlord who, under this act, had the gall to try and bill tenants for the cost of the removal of their own swimming pool. Not only were tenants subjected to the loss of an amenity they had enjoyed for a long time and paid for in their rent, but the landlord, empowered by this government, had the gall to try and charge tenants for the removal of their own swimming pool so he could increase the number of parking spaces he could rent out.

We've seen lobbies converted to apartments. We've seen community spaces in buildings converted to revenue-generating sources like retail stores. It's time to tip the balance back in favour of tenants.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Don Valley East has two minutes to wind up.

Mr Caplan: I'd like to thank all the members who participated in today's debate. I really hope that all members will be supporting this legislation. I'd like to point out that in the galleries we have Elinor Mahoney, Kenn Hale and other tenant activists. I'd like to thank them for coming and I'd also like to thank them for the help they gave me in putting Bill 36 together.

I've heard some very interesting comments and I'd like to address them. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing, the member for Carleton-Gloucester, mentioned all the gains we have made. That is an incredibly puzzling statement, given that there is virtually no activity at all in the construction of new rental housing in Ontario. I'm not certain what gains have been made.

He spoke about the process of the tribunal, and how it's working and it's very efficient. That is not the case at all. There is mounting evidence that people are being denied their fundamental right to access justice, their fundamental right to defend themselves at a quasi-judicial body. That is contrary to everything that this democracy, this province, this country has been built upon. For God's sake, it is important, it is necessary that we preserve those rights so we ensure that people have the basic right to defend themselves.

He mentioned set-asides, and I should tell you that I have opinions from lawyers across this province who say it is more difficult to get a set-aside of a default order at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal than it is to get a set-aside of a court decision. That speaks volumes. This is a fatally flawed process. I agree with my colleague who said that. I can't change the whole thing and get the support of the government, or get the support of enough members, but for six modest proposals, six balanced ideas, I ask for the support of all members in the House.

The Acting Speaker: The time for this ballot item has now expired.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mr Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les médecins.

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I'm pleased, for the third time actually, to rise in this House to debate this bill, and I want to read the bill, which is sublime in its wording but profound in its impact.

It only has 68 words, and it says: "A member shall not be found guilty of professional misconduct or of incompetence under

section 51 or 52 of the Health Professions Procedural Code solely on the basis that the member practises a therapy that is non-traditional or that departs from the prevailing medical practice unless there is evidence that proves that the therapy poses a greater risk to a patient's health than the traditional or prevailing practice."

This bill was first introduced on Thursday, May 8, 1997, as Bill 126. It was again introduced on October 29, 1998, as Bill 2. The genesis of this bill is really the World Health Organization's 1989 Helsinki agreement. It was signed on behalf of Canada and, by definition, on behalf of all the provinces and territories, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, and this is what it says:

"A registered practitioner shall not be found guilty of unbecoming conduct, to be found to be incapable or unfit to practise medicine or osteopathy solely on the basis that the registered practitioner employs a therapy that is experimental, non-traditional or departs from prevailing medical practice, unless it can be demonstrated that the therapy has a safety risk unreasonably greater than the prevailing treatment."

That is almost verbatim to the wording in my bill, a bill that was signed by the international World Health Organization.

Notwithstanding that, and after this bill received unanimous consent in this House on May 8, 1997, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in their annual report to members as published in their Members' Dialogue, stated, and the headline says, "Bill 126-Monte Kwinter Private Member's Bill: Executive received an update in June on this bill, which received second reading in the Legislature and was referred to committee. Executive agreed that while the college has already made clear its opposition to the bill, we will prepare to speak out strongly against it again should it be called before the committee for further consideration."

Notwithstanding that, the College of Physicians and Surgeons established an ad hoc committee to take a look at the issues, and what happened? The ad hoc committee on complementary medicine, which studied the issue of regulating physicians who provide non-traditional diagnostic methods and remedies, met for two days of public hearings. The College of Physicians and Surgeons committee report concluded that patients have every right to seek whatever kind of therapy they want.

In addition, the committee stated that regardless of the kinds of therapies or practices they choose, physicians are accountable not only to their patients but also to the college, and ultimately to the public at large. I have no quarrel with that; I agree.

Since my bill was introduced, another interesting thing has happened: The Ontario Medical Association has given permanent status to a

section on complementary medicine.

Other things have progressed since the first debate on this bill. The United States Congress passed legislation that's going to change the face of health in that country forever. What they've done is pass legislation that allows for the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health to be changed from being an office to a centre, which means it gets $50 million worth of funding.

In addition, the legislation provides $1 million to support the establishment and operation of a White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine to study and make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate policies regarding research, training, insurance coverage, licensing and other pressing issues. Again, a very significant step forward.

"Almost two thirds of traditional US medical schools now teach alternative therapies, including chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal remedies and mind-body medicine, a survey found. With millions of Americans visiting alternative practitioners yearly, educators have no choice but to respond to this relentless challenge to evolve. The survey of 125 medical schools found that, of the 117 reporting, 75 of them now include in their curricula alternative medicine."

In our own country: "A new acupuncture program has been launched at Mount Sinai Hospital in conjunction with the Michener Institute and is heralded as the first of its kind in Canada. The program, part of the hospital's pain clinic, will be an important bridge between traditional Chinese and western medicine, said Michener Institute president Renate Krakauer."

Also, interestingly enough, there was a conference on traditional healing to treat menopause in Toronto. A researcher from Columbia University's medical school in New York stated that this is a process that has been tried for centuries and is something that mainstream doctors are now getting hold of. An interesting comment she made was, "In Europe, St John's wort, a botanical used to treat mild to moderate depression, another common complaint of premenopausal women, is outselling Prozac by leaps and bounds."

Another very interesting development is the statement by Dr Russell Joffe, the man behind McMaster University's proposed $100-million centre for complementary medicine. Joffe said, "The centre will do something quite unique for a western university faculty of medicine, amalgamating research into western and eastern treatments while investigating the roles lifestyle, diet and stress play in keeping Canadians healthy. ... Nearly 50% of Canadians are using some form of alternative therapy, so it's important to better understand how it works and its place in the health care field."

An Angus Reid poll, which asked about Canadians' attitudes towards alternative medicine, found that the majority, 66% of Canadians, feels that the government should be advocating the use of alternative medicine and practices in order to potentially reduce the costs to the health care system.

I want to enter into the record a letter I received from Dr Linda Rapson, the president of the Ontario Society of Physicians for Complementary Medicine. She says:

"I wish to thank you for bringing Bill 2 ... before the Legislature.

"Your bill comes at a time when there is even more urgent need to improve the knowledge and experience of the medical profession in the area of non-traditional medicine. The public will be best served by a medical profession that can take a careful, objective look at various forms of `alternative' medicine, to best advise our patients. Our long-range goal should be to critically evaluate complementary therapies in the same way we are assessing traditional medicine, in order to provide the safest, most cost-effective and beneficial treatments.

This would ideally be accomplished through interdisciplinary co-operation and collaboration, bringing the best of traditional and non-traditional care to the Ontario public.

"We are convinced that the sort of protection for Ontario physicians provided by this bill is urgently needed to ensure that all Ontarians receive safe, beneficial and cost-effective treatment."

It's signed by Dr Linda Rapson.

This is an issue that has been before this House twice. It has had unanimous consent twice, but there has been a dramatic sea change since this was first introduced. I read the quote from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which was opposed to it. They have been silent. There has been no opposition to this at all.

It's also interesting to note that the current Minister of Health, in a letter to a constituent, wrote: "I want to assure you that this government supports freedom of choice for patients for a range of care options, as long as people are not put at unnecessary risk. This includes physicians who use non-traditional treatments, as long as they maintain the standards of the profession and have the skills, the education and training necessary to provide such treatments."

That's exactly what this bill does. The time has come to move forward. The citizens of Ontario and of Canada are far ahead of the government.

I think it's important that this provision be enshrined in the Medicine Act because what it will do is provide doctors with the freedom of choice and, more importantly, patients the freedom of choice to take a hand in the treatment they receive and to be able to access not only traditional medicine-and this is not a substitute; this is complementary-but to access treatments out there that are not necessarily mainstream but have been shown to be effective, safe and, in all cases, part of what the population seems to want. I encourage my colleagues once again to support this-this is the third time.

If I can prevail on them, I'd like to get third reading today. Notwithstanding that, let's take one step at a time.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I'm very pleased to stand today in support of Mr Kwinter's bill. Today it feels like déjà vu all over again to me. I can only imagine what it must feel like to Mr Kwinter. He must be very pleased, even from the last time we debated this bill in this House, that we've moved even more forward. The public is ahead of us and it's time to move on. I don't think we should be in a position ever again in this House to have to begin this debate all over again. It's really good that we have this opportunity to have the debate once more and to discuss the merits of it and possible problems, but it really is time to move on.

As was pointed out the last time around, Statistics Canada says that 3.3 million Canadians see non-traditional practitioners, and the number is growing. I'm one of the statistics that I mentioned here and have been for a number of years, and so are a number of people in my riding. They're quite anxious to see me support this bill again and they're quite anxious for this Legislature to take ownership of it, particularly the government, because they have the power either to move it forward into committee or take over the bill itself, which I'm sure Mr Kwinter would not object to.

His goal is to get this thing through. The government should take a stand today and do one or the other. Some amendments, I believe, would need to be made, and that could be done through the process of committee hearings or the government making it their bill.

We've been talking for some time now in this House, certainly before this government and when the NDP was in government, about new, integrated medical systems, the way we deal with all forms and types of medicine, not only after the fact when we're sick, but preventive medicine. This is an opportunity to deal with that in a planned way, so that it becomes part of what we're talking about, part of the system; so that the safeguards we need to see in place are there and the regulations to protect people are in place. That's the kind of thing that people who use alternative medicine have been crying out for, for some time.

When the NDP was in government from 1990-95, I remember working with our ministers of health, Frances Lankin and Ruth Grier. We were, as governments before us, a part of regulating midwifery and nurse practitioners. We can all recall a time when a tradition that was with us many years ago became almost outlawed from the system and doctors took over. It took a while again for us to say that midwives have been around for eons doing that job and they can do it very well and it's time to bring them back into the system.

It took a very long time before, I have to say it, the OMA and others agreed that it made sense in terms of cost-cutting and also in terms of the skills that midwives can bring. The kind of attention they can bring to their patients is really beneficial-to a woman when she is giving birth, to the family and to the whole process. It has become more and more accepted now. Midwives are back in the system; nurse practitioners are back in the system. There's still a lot more work to do but we've all agreed as a community that there's a very important place for them in the system. We have to move in that direction now.

I think it's urgent now because so many people use alternative medicine and have been for a long time. I commend the Toronto Star-I saw it in the weekend paper-for doing some work on testing some of the alternative medicine that's out there. I don't think a newspaper should have to do that. I think all of us who use alternative medicine would like to know there are more regulatory rules in place so that when we buy some of these alternative medicines we feel we're protected, that what it says on the label is actually in that bottle. That's an important step we have to take.

In closing, I want to say very strongly that today is an opportunity for all of us to say not only that we're going to support this resolution but that we're going to be done with this initial aspect of the debate, which we've had three times in this House now, and we're going to move it into committee or the government-I know the Minister of Health is very busy and I'm not suggesting that ministers have a lot of time to come to-

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): She's creating new ads.

Ms Churley: Yes, creating new ads, but I'm trying to be non-partisan this morning. It's possible at times, depending on what the government members say, of course. I was a minister once and I tried to come on Thursday mornings. But I wish in this debate that the Minister of Health could be here to participate in this and give us her assurances that she indeed-

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Anybody comment on your absence?

Ms Churley: I'm not commenting truly on the minister's absence; I'm really not. I'm trying to be fair and say how difficult it is for ministers to have the time available to come to private members' hour on Thursday morning. This is an issue that I hope the minister is paying some attention to and that she will give us her views on where she intends to take it. I believe she could have a lot of influence on the members of her cabinet and caucus in where they should go in terms of supporting this bill.

I would ask that everybody support this bill at the very least today and that it go into committee so we can take it to the next step and make it the law of the land.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I would like to make some remarks on the member for York Centre's bill. I agree; I think this is at least the third time it has been presented to this House and I have supported that bill on the former occasions. I congratulate the member and provide my admiration for him in his determination to bring this issue forward. You refer to the "Kwinter bill" and everyone knows what you're talking about.

I'm here as well, for the former speaker's information, as the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Health, and I'm probably going to speak out of both sides of my mouth at the same time. I intend to support your bill, but obviously I have an obligation as the parliamentary assistant to express some of the minister's concerns, although it is private members' hour and I'd be voting in my personal capacity. I believe, as I hope members all around this province will, that the public supports the general principles of what the member has been saying.

I might as well get out of the way what the minister's concerns are. They give you these notes that you have to read and I'm not going to do that, but I will comment on some of them.

Ms Churley: He's rebelling. He's breaking free.

Mr Tilson: No, I'm not rebelling, because I think it's fair that members should know the ministry's position on this. You've read part of what she has said in a letter to her constituents and that's fairly accurate.

The ministry has worked with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to ensure that physicians using alternative complementary treatments would not be the subject of quality assurance investigations solely based on their use of these treatments. The College of Physicians and Surgeons quality assurance regulation now has many procedural safeguards for these physicians. Finally, the minister has asked the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council to advise her on regulatory issues related to naturopathy and she will consider their advise carefully as it is received next year.

Therefore, it is the position of the ministry, at least, that she cannot support moving forward with legislation in the absence of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council's advice.

The member indicated that he would ask for third reading today. He may be right, because it has been debated in this House so often. Because of a comment of the minister, however, I would hope he'd suggest it go to a committee and we would have again an opportunity to discuss it, perhaps have the College of Physicians and Surgeons representatives to come forward to the committee and provide their comments. There are concerns with the bill.

"The ministry believes that the physicians and other health care professions who use the alternative or non-traditional treatments should be able to practise as long as they maintain the standards of practice of the profession, work within the scope of the practice, have skills, education and training for their practice and do not cause serious physical harm or put their patients at unnecessary risk."

I'm sure the member agrees with that. If it's safe, absolutely. If it's safe, if you're practising something, if there's some sort of regulation to make sure the public understand it, or if you're selling some sort of herbs or whatever-I don't want to appear too off on this-but if materials are sold, you want to know for sure that those people know what they're doing. Doctors tell me: "Well, if I have my patient under medication for something or I'm aware that my patient has some ailment and someone else prescribes something else, whether a treatment or some sort of medication, it could conflict.

It may be something completely related, and we could have a tragedy." I'm sure the member agrees with that as well.

"The bill would enshrine in legislation professional misconduct guidelines which have historically been dealt with through regulation." I don't know whether that's a fair comment, but that would be up to the member to comment on that.

Finally, and this is an interesting point, "The minister is of concern that no regulated health professional legislation has these guidelines in legislation." I guess that's a fair comment. We're now putting into legislation what other professions have by regulation. This is the first time this has been put forward that I know of. He may know some other professions, but normally these sorts of things are not enshrined in legislation.

She goes on to say, "The College of Physicians and Surgeons has the mandate to regulate the practice of the medical profession to govern the members in the public interest." We're varying from that a little bit as well.

I didn't hear the member comment on the fact that the word "solely" does not appear in this legislation,

whereas it appears in the other piece-

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It does.

Mr Kwinter: You're wrong. It says so. I read that today.

Mr Tilson: It does? OK. I apologize to the member. That's what I was led to believe.

Those are the concerns of the Minister of Health. Personally, as other members have spoken, we're into other things. We're into nurse practitioners. We're into midwives. My daughter gave birth to a little girl back in September.

Interjection: Congratulations.

Mr Tilson: Thank you very much. She lives in California and she had a midwife. In California, I understand, it's common practice, and it's gradually becoming more popular here.

There are many things that our health system simply can't afford. More importantly, there are people who completely support these alternative ways of dealing with things. I had a woman come into my office who had arthritis. She literally couldn't move her hand for fear of pain. Well, she took some sort of treatment, treatment that's being recommended in this amendment to the-is it the Medicine Act? Now she's fine; she's not perfect, but she's a lot better than she was.

So I believe, in my constituency at least, my people support that as long as it's safe. I will be supporting this legislation notwithstanding-and I hope the members realize that-the reservations of the Ministry of Health.

Mrs McLeod: I am pleased to participate in this debate in support of the bill that's been put forward by my colleague from York Centre, as indeed has been mentioned a number of times already this morning, the third time that this particular bill has been presented.

The bill does continue-I want to stress this fact, given the comments that the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey made on behalf of the Ministry of Health, who may have misread the third iteration of this bill-to contain the change that was brought in the second time when the member for York Centre, who was then the member for Wilson Heights, presented this bill, and that is to include the word "solely," so that it clearly states, "A member shall not be found guilty of professional misconduct or of incompetence under

section 51 or 52 of the Health Professions Procedural Code solely on the basis that the member practises a therapy that is non-traditional or that departs from the prevailing medical practice ... ." I did believe at the time the member made that change in his second presentation of this bill that it was an important change and I'm pleased to see that he has continued with that in this third presentation of the bill.

It was important, and the member for York Centre read a letter from Dr Linda Rapson, the chair of the complementary medicine

section of the Ontario Medical Association, when he presented the bill the second time.

I'm going to reread it again because I think it's important to be sure we recognize the importance of including the word "solely." "By adding the key word `solely' to the bill, we believe you have gone a long way to answer the sincere concerns of some individuals and organizations with respect to the potential for this bill to weaken the traditional public protection we have come to expect from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario." I certainly do not believe that it's the intent of the member for York Centre or the intent of any member of this House to indeed weaken in any way the protection that Ontario citizens have from duly regulated health care practitioners.

The bill was unanimously supported in this House on the two previous occasions that it was presented. I suspect it will be supported unanimously again, and that leads me to say that it is time-past time, probably-for the Ministry of Health to bring this bill forward.

If, as the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey has suggested, it's the preference of the Ministry of Health to see the intent of this bill incorporated within existing health professions regulations legislation rather than stand as a separate piece of legislation, they have had ample time, and probably have ample time ahead of them, to bring forward the appropriate changes to the health professions regulations legislation.

In fact, this is an extremely timely point at which to be revisiting this issue and to be opening up a debate about the regulation of alternative medicine and alternative therapy practices, because the entire health professions legislation is under review as we speak.

I believe that the government needs to open an even broader discussion on the issue of alternative medicine and alternative therapies than is dealt with in this particular bill. This bill deals with physicians, and solely with physicians. It opens the door for physicians who are conscientious and responsible users of alternative therapy, who are trained practitioners of alternative therapies, to have that as an option they can present to their patients. The bill really doesn't go beyond that at this point.

I think it's important that physicians recognize they have a responsibility to respond to their patients. Patients come into physicians' offices and ask about alternative therapies. They need to have answers from their physicians.

I think it's a concern that so many Ontarians are using alternative therapies, seeking out alternative therapies, using alternative medicine products, and are hesitant to speak to their physicians about them because they believe the physician would disapprove or would not even be legally able to make any recommendations regarding these alternative medicines because they're not within their defined scope of practice now. I believe that the bill essentially allows physicians to accept a responsibility to respond to patients' interest in alternative therapies.

This bill is really just one step towards the regulation of alternative therapies that are increasingly used by Ontarians.

I want to take just an extra minute or two and stress the fact that I think it's essential, given the reality of the demand for alternative therapies, that the government act in a way that consumers of health care have some protection against irresponsible practice and some guarantee of quality in the services and products that are offered.

Probably the issue that stands out most clearly as one which demands regulation is the practice of acupuncture. We know that currently in Ontario virtually anyone can practise acupuncture. There are no regulations, there are no controls, there are no limitations. We know the practice of acupuncture has demonstrated its benefits when it is carried out by well-trained, conscientious practitioners. We also know it is a highly dangerous practice when carried out by people who are not adequately trained.

In order to get past the horror stories that start to emerge about the practice of acupuncture, for example, we have to have regulation. Good regulation obviously requires scientific evidence of the benefits of the practice, as well as a clear understanding of where there is potential harm. I think it is imperative that the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council review the need for the regulation of alternative medicine and alternative medicine practitioners and determine what can and cannot be regulated and how it can best be done.

I acknowledge that these issues are not easily dealt with. I know that the advisory council studied acupuncture for two years back in 1996. We have never seen the results of that report publicly. We know it's now under review again. We know there is a report on acupuncture expected yet again this spring. It is not easy to deal with it, and I don't think we want to avoid the most stringent criteria in terms of the evaluation of what is responsible and what is credible practice. But I think the greatest danger, the greatest potential harm to consumers of health care, is to ignore the issues altogether or to avoid dealing with them.

Where there are benefits, then the Ontario public should be able to access alternative therapies with confidence in the quality of care that they will receive. Where there is potential harm, the Ontario public must be made aware of it. Where untrained practitioners are posing dangers to the health of the population, they must be stopped from their dangerous practices. One of the great strengths of the bill that is presented today is that it opens the doors to addressing these very real issues in a responsible way.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I am pleased to rise today in support of this bill. I am supporting this bill mainly because of the demands I have had from my constituents for alternative medicine and options in health care during the past five years. My position is that patients should have the freedom of choice from a range of care options. We should signal that, and I think this bill does that.

What is important is that physicians and other health care professionals who use what is called non-traditional treatment-it's non-traditional here, but it's traditional in many cultures of peoples who make up Canadian society today. What is important is that there is a standard of quality, a standard of practice, a standard of care that is maintained and that is similar to other standards in health care, and that the people practising have the skills, the training and the education to carry on the practice that they are carrying on.

I recall particularly a situation where one of my constituents was suffering from cancer, and he was in constant pain. He used to contact my office all the time, asking me to assist him because he needed acupuncture to help with the pain. He had constant pain. He just wouldn't be able to survive without it. He had to pay out of his pocket for this treatment, and it was very costly. He pleaded with me until his death that we look into ways of helping people with some sort of financial help to be able to pay for these kinds of alternative treatments that he required. He passed away a few months ago.

The suffering that I saw in this constituent made it just so clear that there are other methods of treatment and other ways of treatment that we should look into. Especially now that we are looking at ways of easing the cost of health care, sometimes a lot of the non-traditional treatments may be less costly than the treatments that we have in our traditional health care system.

I want to applaud the member for York Centre for pursuing this matter. I want to indicate to him that I'll be voting in support of his bill, and I'll be doing that with the support of the constituents of Mississauga East. I am pleased to support this bill today.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I too want to thank my colleague from York Centre for bringing forth for the third time this bill, which I think is extremely important. I will emphasize the importance in a different light than many people have done. But I want to also commend my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, who has expressed most of the concerns that I sometimes hear expressed outside, and again emphasized it in a way that takes care of all those concerns. I have seen no other bill brought before this House that people have shown such interest in, not only inside but outside.

But there is one other aspect of it. Let us move it along. I've seen the passage of quite a few bills in this House, and I think it's a comfortable way to move that process into place.

As you know, health care is one of the largest budgets that we have in our system and takes the biggest piece of the Ontario budget pie. I'm sure that looking at ways in which we can address health care in an efficient way will always be the largest and longest debate in this House, and I think this is a solution that can come to it.

One of the main things I want to emphasize is the fact that, especially in my constituency, we have quite a diverse cultural community that uses alternative medicine, and I can say to you that they feel very strongly about it because they have used this in their old country for thousands of years.

There are billions of people in Asia, Africa and China, and people here in Canada, who have used what we call "alternative medicine." As a matter of fact, I don't even like the name "alternative medicine." It is medicine in those countries, and may be alternative here, but it has been around longer than the traditional medicine that we talk about here. I think it has been proven in many respects that this medicine not only would help the cost of medicare here but also has proven itself over the years and can be applied successfully in treating the citizens of this country.

We have seen also that almost 70% of Canadians feel that this could be supported and paid for by the government. I think that's one of the grave concerns. But we can see that sometimes this non-traditional medicine, if you want to call it that, can be introduced, and maybe at far less cost than traditional medicine. I know there's concern. A colleague from the government side stated that we've got to make sure this is safe and all that. Of course. The government must have regulations, and people who are practising this medicine must be educated in the field and of course follow procedures that can be monitored.

As my colleague from York Centre stated very well, although he should be disappointed that it has not progressed enough, he and many of us have learned many things that can make this bill a better bill. This is now ready to move forward, because the longer we keep this out of the system, I'm quite sure there are people who will be deprived of proper treatment. We'll remove the fear so that when they go forward to get these medicinal treatments they don't feel that they are breaking any law and those who are administering it don't feel they are breaking any law. I think the government must act in a responsible manner and say, "Let's make sure that we move forward."

As a matter of fact we now have seen that marijuana, which was completely outlawed at one time, today is legalized. That would be considered to be alternative medicine because it has been proven today to help those who have cancer and relieving the pain of those with other treatments. In the past, one would not only be charged with possession but charged with smoking marijuana itself. There are many areas, and I'm not only looking at marijuana but at many other things.

We also know that our parents have given us alternative medicine, and one would have questioned their authority a long time ago, whether they are able to administer that in any way. I've been healed by my mother's alternative medicine, and it did not come to light that she was doing anything illegal. But again, look how healthy I look and look how healthy millions of people around us look-very healthy. I would give that praise to my mother, who has practised alternative medicine-rest her wonderful soul, she made such a wonderful son-but again she did it in a way to look after me with her alternative medicine.

There are many ways it has been applied. I'm just saying that we are prepared and poised in our society here in Canada, blessed by the fact of that diversity, that we can have hands-on individuals who have seen the practice of alternative medicine and who can institute that.

I know my colleague wanted to say a word, and I will leave a minute or so if he comes back.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to, as others have in this place this morning, offer my congratulations and support to the member who has brought this bill forward this morning, recognizing that it is the third time he has made the effort, and say that I'm happy to be speaking on it again. I spoke to it when he tabled it in May 1997 and I'm happy still to be here and willing and able with my caucus to support its intention, both in principle and in fact, and will be indicating this in the vote that will happen here later this morning.

I want to offer him some comfort in that I've had a bill before this House three times now, you'll note, my bill on franchising that I've worked through the system. We're at a point now with the government where we may have something. It won't be everything I've asked for. As a matter of fact, it will probably fall quite short of everything the people we've talked to at the public hearings we've had on this bill called for, but we will have something. I think that's always a step forward. In this place we make gains incrementally.

We don't always get everything we want, but if we get something, if we move the goalposts forward a distance in our time of service here, we feel we've done something for the general public and for the public good. I suggest that what has been proposed here today by Mr Kwinter is in the interests of the public good, will serve us all well and will move the question of how we deliver health care in this province forward quite substantially and significantly. It's an issue we've been looking at for quite some time.

I think it's time to take some action and stop dithering and to ask some of those very important questions that need to be asked. Get out there, do a bit of a public consultation, hear what the public have to say about it and then ultimately get on with it.

I just want to put on the agenda today probably three things, some comment on three areas that concern me where this bill is concerned and where the whole agenda of this government is concerned.

One is the question of who's driving the agenda. Always, when things come before us in this place, I think it's important for us to ask the question and to understand, if we can at all, because it becomes quite confusing at times as you try to sort it out, who's driving the agenda? In whose interests is the government acting? Who is being served and, ultimately, at the end of the day, is the common good of the community of Ontario front and centre in the decisions we make?

I suggest that if it is for the common good of the people of Ontario, and there's a desire to provide the best of health care, and to make an offering to the citizens of Ontario that is safe and well regulated and understandable and accessible, then we've done our job here; we've done our duties. I don't have any answers to that question, but it's something we all have to think about as we consider the subject before us today and as we vote: Who's driving the agenda? In whose interests are we acting? Why are we making the decisions that we're making?

The second thing that we have to take a look at in this instance and again in other instances as we work our way through different pieces of business before this House is, who is giving leadership around this place? It is no more important or obvious who is or isn't giving leadership than where we consider the question of the reform of health care and the reform of primary health care in this province.

I suggest to the members of the House and to the public out there who are listening that if this government had any real interest in moving the health agenda forward in this province, they would be doing a whole lot more than simply negotiating right now with the Ontario Medical Association a very narrow and, I would suggest, limiting set of proposals that will not do anything to further the agenda of the reform of primary health care or the presentation of different forms of health care to the public out there that will be preventive in nature and promote health in the province so that at the end of the day we don't have to spend the kind of money that is worrying so many as we look at the budget of health care in this province over a number of years now.

As we look ahead to what the cost of health care will be as we consider the aging of our population and the number of diseases we're discovering as each day goes by that are new and responsive to some of the things that we're doing, sometimes, because we haven't thought it out and we haven't allowed into the action more of the players who might have something to offer by way of understanding and alternative approaches, we've not been able to stem the tide or understand or get a handle on some of the new challenges from the health care perspective that confront us.

The question that needs to be asked, that we all need to be considering here this morning as we look at this piece of business, is, who's giving leadership? Where does responsibility for this lie? Ultimately this morning, we can give some leadership. We can take it upon ourselves, because this is private members' public business, to give some leadership, to ourselves indicate to the government by supporting this bill that we think they should be moving today in this way to recognize the contribution that so many of the alternative health care providers out there, or alternative processes in health care, can provide to the delivery of health care in this province.

We only have to look back over not a very long period of time to some of the changes that have come about that have recognized the contribution of professionals who for the longest time in this province for some unknown reason were not allowed to exercise the ability and training and concern they had in their particular profession. I only have to mention a couple: nurse practitioners and midwives. The progress that has been made over the last 10 years in this province has been quite exciting and phenomenal.

There is no reason why we can't move forward in this area as well to recognize the contribution that can be made by alternative medicines so that they become part of the mainstream, so the people of Ontario who now are actually voting with their feet and taking advantage of some of these medicines can do that and know that it's regulated and safe and that what they are accessing is the best that's out there.

The third thing that I want to put on the record this morning is the real concern of this, which is the government's concern that if we pass this, it will cost them more money. Over the last five years, they have given all the money away.

If this government had sat back, taken a deep breath, taken a sober second thought and considered the impact of their tax breaks to their rich benefactors and friends and how that would impact their ability to be government and offer services in this province over the long haul, they probably would not have done what they have done and impacted in such a negative way our ability as a government to offer the kinds of services that this member this morning is proposing we support here today. I will be supporting it.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 2. Certainly Ontario health consumers deserve reliable access to competent doctors who offer safe, beneficial and low-cost alternatives to conventional medicine.

That brings me to the point I'd like to make. I believe that consumers in our province should have choice. I note that in a pamphlet distributed by Citizens for Choice in Health Care, they claim that Alberta and eight American states have enacted legislation that protects consumer access to complementary medicine provided by physicians. So what we're talking about here is choice, and alternative medicine is clearly an option that people should have access to in our province.

What I'm concerned about, however, is that the bill makes absolutely no reference to the issue of ensuring that doctors who would be practising alternative medicine would have the appropriate training and necessary background to administer that alternative medicine. We know that traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture is an entirely different system of medical science. Complete training in the profession of TCM and acupuncture, for example, requires four to eight years of full-time study.

What I'm concerned about here is that we would have western doctors simply moving into the area of practising alternative medicine without appropriate training. Bill 2 makes absolutely no mention of any training requirements, and I believe it would be absolutely essential that the training component be addressed. I look forward to participating in that discussion through the committee process to ensure that we address that.

Support on this side of the House would be in principle for the bill, based on the fact that the current legislation and regulations already allow alternative practitioners to practise within Ontario, and they can practise without the fear or perceived fear of reprisal.

I believe that physicians and other health care professionals who use both traditional and alternative or non-traditional treatments should be able to practise as long as they maintain the standards of practice of the profession and work within the scope of the practice; have the skills, education and training for their practice; and do not cause serious physical harm or put their patients at or in unnecessary risk. Bill 2 would enshrine in legislation professional misconduct guidelines that historically have been dealt with through regulations.

Let me turn my focus to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college has the mandate to regulate the practice of the medical profession and to govern its members in the public interest. The college decides what, if any, changes they want in their own bylaws, and it is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which, if it still has concerns with Bill 2, may be affected with respect to the inclusion of the word "solely." Because what we're dealing with here is a procedure, in terms of what the member wants: "A member shall not be found guilty of professional misconduct or of incompetence under

section 51 or 52 of the Health Professions Procedural Code solely on the basis that the member practises a therapy that is non-traditional or that departs from the prevailing medical practice unless there is evidence that proves that the therapy poses a greater risk to a patient's health than the traditional or prevailing practice." That's what we're talking about here.

The bill still places the burden on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to prove negligence. There is a lack of research available today to evaluate the safety and efficacy of many alternative therapies-

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I join in supporting the bill by my colleague Mr Kwinter. It is a bill which is an adjunct to a previous bill he brought forward to allow more options for people to look at in terms of medical treatment. It has in it the safeguards that are necessary to alleviate some of the concerns that others might have.

I know that if he had time to put it in the bill, he probably would have talked as well about funding for the whole health care system and how next week in the provincial budget we will no doubt see the government forget about their latest tax cut and instead put the money into health care, because that option is there. When I hear the Premier say there is no money for health, it reminds me that some of the other provinces are giving tax cuts at the same time they say they have no money for health care.

I remember my friend from Peterborough nodding in agreement with me a few weeks ago when I mentioned in the House that the problem with transfer payments was that the provincial government would get the transfer payments and give them away in tax cuts instead of putting them into additional money for health care.

I know my colleague from York would be concerned that, in addition to passing this bill, we would also want to see appropriate funding for health care, because at the present time we have people who have to go to the United States to get treatment; for instance, cancer treatment, radiation treatment and a number of other treatments. We have a long list of people waiting for heart bypass operations.

We have a lot of areas where money could be invested into the health care system, and that money will be there. The provincial Treasurer will get up and say that, for the first time since 1989, the last Liberal government budgetary surplus, they will have a surplus here. That money can be invested in paying down the debt. That money can be invested in health care, which everybody is concerned about. I'm convinced that the member who brought this bill forward would also want to see the provincial government forgo unnecessary tax cuts and invest that money in health care where it belongs.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Centre has two minutes.

Mr Kwinter: First, I want to thank all the members on all sides who participated in this debate for their support. I gathered from everything I've heard that even though there are some reservations on the side of the government, they're going to support it.

I just want to address those reservations. Number one, this bill addresses the medical profession. It's an amendment to the Medicine Act and we're only talking about licensed medical practitioners. They have the same responsibility to the cause of physicians and surgeons as they have in every aspect of their practice. A doctor who is not qualified to be a surgeon does not start performing brain surgery. It's the same thing when we talk about alternative or complementary treatments. The doctor will still be responsible to the college for the way he practices medicine.

Those who want to investigate these complementary treatments will certainly have to get the necessary educational qualifications and take responsibility for it. It's important to know that this legislation is already in place in Alberta. It was given first, second and third reading on the same day. I'm hoping I can get third reading today. It is in place in several jurisdictions in the United States. Most importantly, it was signed by Canada in the Helsinki agreement of the World Health Organization with the exact same wording. Effectively, Canada is a signatory to that provision.

All this does is build a platform. It's a very small step but a very important step to allow freedom of choice for the doctor, and most importantly, freedom of choice for the patient. The idea that they can go to a licensed medical practitioner to discuss their concerns about their own personal health and the possibility of alternative-

The Acting Speaker: The time for debating this ballot item has now expired.

TENANT PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (TOWARDS FAIRNESS FOR TENANTS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES EN VUE DU TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES LOCATAIRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item 19. Mr Caplan has moved second reading of Bill 36. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The division will take place after we deal with ballot item 20.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Kwinter has moved second reading of Bill 2. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can I move approval for unanimous consent for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter, you may ask for consent that the bill be ordered for third reading immediately. Is that what we're asking for?

Mr Kwinter: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter has asked for unanimous consent that the bill be ordered for third reading. I'm afraid we don't have it.

Pursuant to the standing orders, this bill will be sent to committee of the whole House.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Speaker, the general government committee.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter has asked that this bill be sent to the standing committee on general government. Is it the pleasure of the House that that happen? Agreed.

TENANT PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (TOWARDS FAIRNESS FOR TENANTS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES EN VUE DU TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES LOCATAIRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now revert to Mr Caplan's Bill 35. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Acting Speaker: Will members please take their seats.

Mr Caplan has moved second reading of Bill 36. Would all those in favour please stand and remain standing until their name is called by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Coburn, Brian

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 31; the nays are 36.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business now being complete, I will leave the chair and the House will adjourn until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AL PURDY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): It's with great pleasure that I speak in this House to pay tribute to one of Canada's most celebrated poets, Al Purdy.

It has been said that Al Purdy helped to define modern Canadian poetry. He encouraged many young writers, among them Margaret Atwood, George Galt and Susan Musgrave. A prolific writer, his poems spoke of his love of Canada and his working-class roots in small-town Ontario, as well as his many travels.

Alfred Wellington Purdy was born on December 30, 1918, in Wooler, central Ontario, and grew up near Trenton and Belleville. Through his poetry, Purdy left a legacy of life in rural, small-town Ontario. He wrote about everyday living and gave life to the images that define us. In the words of fellow poet Patrick Lane, "He returned poetry to the common man."

I take this opportunity to honour this man who took the images and the people of this province and immortalized them for us all. For me, the work of Al Purdy is an example of how writers depict everyday life, the essence of what has shaped us as a people. His poetry is about the places, the values and all aspects of life. Al Purdy has left us with a long-lasting gift of heritage for future generations.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I am pleased to say that, just like the weather, Northumberland's economic outlook is sunny and warm with no chance of frost. People from the agri-food industry, the arts community, business and the municipal sector have been working hard to establish a Northumberland economic renewal initiative.

As a result, the Honourable Ernie Hardeman came to Northumberland last week and made the official announcement that $1.6 million would be coming from the rural job strategy program to complement this initiative. This funding goes a long way to help promote Northumberland county as a tourist destination, and will help to create more than 1,000 new jobs.

Overall, this means the formation of new partnerships and alliances in all areas of Northumberland. It also means the agri-food, cultural, business and municipal sectors are all working together to build our community and strengthen the ties that bind.

I am indeed very proud of the many people who got this project off the ground and put the rural economic development proposal forward. Essentially, it is the private sector that will create more jobs and boost tourism in the county. I want to commend them for pooling their resources and expertise to put forward such a fabulous initiative.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Further to the report of the Privacy Commissioner dealing with the unauthorized disclosure of personal information by the government savings office operated by the Minister of Finance, I'm sure you and the people of Ontario will be interested in knowing that the government continues to use a double standard with respect to its so-called snitch lines.

The Minister of Finance's tax-cheat snitch line was shut down over two years ago because, as one official put it: "It was not providing much. It was more innuendo than anything else." Yet at the same time, its snitch line to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services continues today. Information on individuals is kept for up to seven years, even in cases where individuals have been cleared of any allegation. This may very well be illegal and contrary to

section 39 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, an independent officer of this Legislative Assembly, stated to the Kingston Whig-Standard, which has been featuring investigative reports on this important issue, that she is worried about the anonymity of the lines.

"An irate neighbour can call, an upset spouse. I have a great deal of difficulty with the anonymous snitch lines. ... You have to promote accountability and responsibility if you're going to the lengths of accusing someone."

We're all against fraud of any nature. It takes money out of our pockets, all of us, but the government must be fair to all citizens. Remove all snitch lines, government, and obey your own statute.

SENTENCING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): In February, members of the PC Party of Ontario had the privilege of hearing an address from Toronto's new police chief, Julian Fantino. In his speech, the chief spoke eloquently about many aspects of the justice system and offered some of his ideas for addressing personal safety concerns.

Chief Fantino's suggestions included making truth in sentencing and protecting law-abiding citizens the primary focus of the system, as well as removing judges from the policy-making process. The expectation is that elected representatives will remove unnecessary obstacles in the administration of justice, allowing police officers to do their jobs and protect the public in an effective manner.

These initiatives represent a large challenge to the political will of elected officials. Our constituents expect us to lead the charge to create a safer Ontario. Chief Fantino, Scarborough law enforcement officials and the public have expressed frustration with the justice system. I've heard it in town halls and at the door. Thousands more expressed their concerns through my petition to keep Karla Homolka in prison. It is in response to these concerns that I introduced Bill 66, the Judicial Accountability Act. This bill begins to address some of these concerns.

Together, we can start to return truth to sentencing and create an Ontario where people feel safe in their neighbourhoods.

CITY OF TORONTO

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Tonight the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's last team in the Stanley Cup playoffs, will take the ice against the New Jersey Devils. I'm confident they will do their best for Toronto. If only the same thing could be said of the Harris government. Yesterday Toronto took a drubbing at the hands of Montreal, which was awarded Canada's first dedicated marketplace for NASDAQ-listed companies. The score: Bouchard 1, Harris 0.

This is a significant slap in the face for Toronto, Canada's financial services capital. Imagine that NASDAQ itself had bypassed New York for Chicago or Charlotte. Heads would roll as those in New York who dropped the ball were held to account. Evidence is scant that the Harris government even lifted a finger to fight for Toronto and Ontario's place as a world leader in the sectors of the new economy. Outworked, outhustled, caught in the trap of their own press releases. Toronto needs a champion with a strategic vision.

This result demonstrates how much help Toronto needs to tell our story to the world. The Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance, an innovative public-private sector partnership, has been formed. The feds cough up cash. The municipalities in the GTA all participate. Big business and economic sectors are at the table. But there is an empty seat and it's got the name of the Harris government written all over it.

Who over there speaks up for Toronto? And where was Mike? To put this in perspective for the super-duper car salesman, you just lost the biggest fleet sale ever.

CLARINGTON BACKYARD FESTIVAL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to invite all members of the House today to Clarington's Backyard Festival. I'd like to say that the Backyard Festival, which is the municipality of Clarington's way of celebrating the new millennium, is something that each of us should try to set time aside to participate in.

From April 29 to May 22, there are 21-just count them-special events of interesting attractions and workshops planned for the people not just of Clarington but all of Durham, indeed all of Ontario.

The Backyard Festival will be launched this Saturday afternoon with a celebration at the Clarke Museum and Archives where it celebrates its 30th anniversary as a museum in Ontario.

Some of the other events are the Kinsmen's Home Show; the May 6 Maple Festival in downtown Bowmanville; a fruit and wine festival scheduled for May 13 at Archibald Orchards and Wineries, a must-attend event; a workshop at the Visual Arts Centre; and the Courtice Lions Club Carnival on May 18. There will also be racing at Mosport Speedway on the last three Saturday nights in May. There will be a Mother's Day Festival at the renowned Bowmanville Zoo on May 14, and a special tea which will be hosted at the Bowmanville Museum by Charles Taws and Ellen Logan. This is another event that celebrates the traditions of our past.

The grand finale will be held on May 22, a great display of fireworks to be held on Victoria Day weekend. How appropriate.

I extend a sincere invitation to everyone here and everybody who is watching today.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The Mike Harris government is spending at least $5 million in taxpayers' money to convince people that it actually has a plan for health care. But the only people who will be convinced are those who don't actually ask for a copy of the plan.

If you called the 1-800 number in response to the first $3 million worth of ads, you could get your name put on a list to receive the plan when it was ready in, we were told, three to six months.

Somebody in the government's highly paid PR department must have pointed out that it might be a good idea, if they were going to run another $2 million worth of ads, to actually have a plan they could send out to the few people who might not be convinced by seeing, "We have a plan," spelled out on their television screen several times a night in prime time.

So the current round of multi-million-dollar ads do indeed show a plan, and you can ask to have one put in the mail, which might seem to be an improvement over the blatantly false advertising of the first round. You might think so, unless you look at the plan: the same plan that was sent out just before the last election, also at taxpayers' expense, with a couple of interesting changes. Last April the government said they would move towards a four-week maximum waiting time for cancer treatment. They didn't hit the target, so they just removed that from the plan.

The document they sent out last spring before the election said they would improve ambulance access to hospitals. Well, we've had more emergencies on critical care bypass than in the history of this province, so they dropped that out of the plan too. And guess what else? They left out the graph showing the federal government was increasing spending for health care.

So the advertising continues, but is this advertising really about health care?

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Speaker, you will know that in a very short time members from each party will stand in a relatively non-partisan way and speak to the day of mourning out of respect to workers who were injured or died on the job.

But I want to point out during this part of the proceedings that because this government has left so many injured workers and future injured workers out in the cold by virtue of killing the Occupational Disease Panel when they rammed through their anti-worker, anti-injured worker Bill 99, the Ontario Federation of Labour has decided that if the government won't do the job for injured-workers, they will. The Ontario Federation of Labour, under the leadership of Wayne Samuelson, has announced that it's going to begin a province-wide campaign called A Job to Die For.

What they are doing is bringing to the attention of workers across the province-whether they work in a factory, a restaurant, an office or a hospital-that they are exposed to chemicals which could lead to things like to asthma, emphysema, lung cancer, liver cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, neurological damage-the list goes on-and yet it sometimes takes decades for these diseases and illnesses to show themselves.

If the public has questions about what they are exposed to, call 1-800-788-0227. The Ontario Federation of Labour is stepping in where this government has stepped aside.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David Young (Willowdale): As the Toronto Maple Leafs prepare to do battle with the forces of darkness, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect upon the Toronto-Ottawa series, the so-called Battle of Ontario, as it parallels with the battle for Ontario's health care dollars.

Ontario's capital, Toronto, has a plan to improve health care for Ontario's citizens. All we need is the $1.7 billion that the Liberals have cut on an annual basis since 1995. Ontario's nurses, doctors and hospitals agree with this position.

Canada's capital, Ottawa, on the other hand, has responded with a feel-good television ad depicting Canada as some kind of jigsaw puzzle. Despite the fact that the little girl in the ad is obviously well qualified for membership in the federal Liberal caucus, the fogginess of the message bears a distinct resemblance to the Ottawa Senators' trap. You'll remember the trap strategy in the Battle of Ontario. Although the details of the trap are best left to hardcore hockey fans, suffice it say that the trap's purpose is to induce a kind of stupor in opponents and fans alike.

Despite their best efforts, the trap did not work for the Ottawa Senators, and it won't work for the wannabe senators in the provincial and federal Liberal caucuses.

Canadians want hockey, not hypnosis, and Ontarians want their health care dollars back now, not hackneyed Liberal symbolism.

One more thought: Go Leafs, go.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment.

Bill 28,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day / Projet de loi 28, Loi proclamant le Jour des pionniers allemands.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

This bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I ask for unanimous consent to introduce a private member's bill for first reading on behalf of Ms Martel, who couldn't be here today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE GREEN PLANNING ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT ÉCOLOGIQUE DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

Ms Churley, on behalf of Ms Martel, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act to freeze development on the Oak Ridges Moraine and to amend the Planning Act to increase and strengthen the protection of natural areas across Ontario / Projet de loi 71, Loi imposant un moratoire sur les aménagements dans la moraine d'Oak Ridges et modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire de manière à accroître et à renforcer la protection des sites naturels partout en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Does the member have a short statement?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Yes I do, Mr Speaker. This bill is somewhat similar to the bill of the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, Mike Colle, and I congratulate him on his bill. Some Liberal members said when I introduced my bill that we've already done that. In fact, they haven't. What my bill does is place a development freeze on the Oak Ridges moraine, to continue until a policy statement dealing with the moraine is issued under subsection (3). But my bill also goes