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

May 8, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L188 - Thu 8 May 1997 / Jeu 8 Mai 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

DRINKING AND DRIVING

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

DRINKING AND DRIVING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

BARBARA TURNBULL

PROPERTY TAXATION

SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

PITCH-IN WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

AIR QUALITY

CHILD CARE

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

NATIVE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES REVENUES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

PETITIONS

TAXATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

FIRE SAFETY

FIREARMS CONTROL

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

SALE OF AMMUNITION

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

HOSPITAL FINANCING

TVONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CORNWALL COURTHOUSE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AND MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997/ LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES ET LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1997 ONTARIO BUDGET

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

1997 ONTARIO BUDGET (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mr Kwinter moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 126, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les médecins.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Bill 126 is elegant in its simplicity but profound in its impact on health care in the province of Ontario. I would like to just read into the record the 67 words that make up the bill. 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 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 is the total bill. What does it do? It provides that doctors -- and I want it absolutely understood, we're talking about doctors only, licensed physicians -- shall have the opportunity of taking a look and prescribing alternative forms of treatment without fear of discipline or being found incompetent by the regulatory authorities.

This may sound to some as somewhat of a radical departure, but I want to quote from a major

article in the Fraser Forum, the publication of the Fraser Institute, which is certainly not by any stretch of anyone's imagination a radical institution.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Read it.

Mr Kwinter: I'll be happy to read it. It's written by Cynthia Ramsay and it's called Freedom of Choice in Health Care. The thing that I found interesting that I would really like to put into the record and draw members' attention to is this:

"Licensed medical practitioners who choose to practise complementary medicine are fulfilling an important public need that is not currently being met by the Canadian medical establishment. The medical licensing boards are using their near monopoly control over the provisions of medical service in Canada to restrict the choice of both the suppliers and the consumers of these services. In doing so, they are acting in direct opposition to the World Health Organization's 1989 Helsinki agreement signed on behalf of Canada, and therefore, by definition, on behalf of the provinces and territories by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time."

This agreement contains the following subsection and, colleagues, I want you to know that this particular subsection, put into force in the Helsinki agreement in 1989, is exactly the provisions that are included in my bill. The subsection 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."

The definition of the bill that I introduced last week and is being debated today is exactly that.

One other province -- and I'd like my colleagues to really listen to this, because hopefully we can do the same thing. Alberta has already enacted such legislation. Bill 209, a private member's bill promoted by Alberta MLA Roy Brassard to provide citizens with a greater degree of choice in health care, passed third reading in the Alberta Legislature on April 24, 1996. This bill allows Alberta doctors to perform any alternative therapy provided that it cannot be proven to do more harm than conventional drug and surgical treatments. That bill was given first, second and third reading on the same day. That gives you an idea of the sort of support that's out there.

Similar legislation has already been enacted in Alaska, Colorado, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and, as I've said, Alberta.

How does this apply to Ontario? It's interesting to note that four new groups were given status as probationary sections by the OMA board of directors at its March 5 meeting. The Ontario Medical Association has approved sections in sleep disorders, GP, psychotherapy, complementary medicine and chronic pain physicians. So the Ontario Medical Association has recognized complementary medicine as viable, as an alternative form of treatment.

I would like to enter into the record a letter sent to me by the chair of the complementary medicine

section of the Ontario Medical Association. This chair is Linda Rapson and she says:

"As chair of the complementary medicine

section of the Ontario Medical Association, I wish to congratulate you for bringing Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991, before the Legislature."

She talks about the number of doctors who are represented and says, "We are convinced that the sort of protection for Ontario physicians provided by the bill is urgently needed to ensure that all Ontarians receive safe, beneficial and cost-efficient treatment." It's signed by Linda M. Rapson, MD, who is chair of that section.

When you think about complementary medicine, you should know that a study by someone I've known for many years, Dr Merrijoy Kelner, who is a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto Institute for Human Development and Aging, found that more Canadians are trying alternative medicine, and most of these will still consult their family physician. This is critical, because the family physician is the one who is being addressed in this bill. We are not talking about people outside the practice of medicine. We're talking only about those who are licensed practitioners.

Statistics Canada says that 3.3 million Canadians visit non-traditional practitioners, and the number continues to grow. The reason they've turned to these options is that they are looking for help for chronic problems that haven't responded to mainstream treatment. Most patients opted for this type of treatment after hearing from others who have had results as a result of these treatments. Another major reason for choosing other options is concern about the effects of drugs or surgery; 40% of those surveyed said they believe alternative therapy is more natural and safer.

Interestingly enough, in the United States, a study that was done by Dr David Eisenberg, co-author of a 1993 survey that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, reported that in 1990 -- 1990 is seven years ago, so you can imagine what the number is today -- Americans made 425 million visits to alternative care providers, more visits than all of the conventional care treatment combined.

So it is certainly an idea that has been embraced by a large sector of our society, and it's an issue that deals with fairness, equity and freedom of choice: fairness for the doctors to explore these alternatives, fairness and freedom of choice for the patients to take greater control of their health care, fairness in the sense that those doctors who are seeking the best treatment for their patients are free from harassment.

We have another article, in the Economist, again hardly a radical publication, probably the most respected economic publication in the world. They have an

article about what is happening in Vancouver at the Vancouver Hospital, which is the second largest hospital in Canada, and it says:

"Not long ago, orthodox doctors shunned them as quacks. Now the medical profession has begun to ask whether alternative practitioners may have something useful. That is common enough anywhere, but Vancouver Hospital, Canada's second largest, has gone further, making this partnership official. Its new Tzu Chi Institute for Complementary and Alterative Medicine aims to sort out scientifically the useful from the useless in the welter of non-conventional therapies and to integrate what works into conventional practice."

We have a situation where all of these things are there. The College of Physicians and Surgeons says there's no need for this bill because doctors are free to do it. I have documents, I have many, many letters from doctors who are very supportive of the bill, saying this will in fact help them, and I'd like to read just part of one of them.

He said, "I have been practising on the staff at York Central Hospital for many years, since 1979. Unfortunately, I've been harassed by the college of physicians of Ontario because of my use of alternative approaches to medicine." They're asking that this bill provide them the opportunity to have the ability to do what is best for their patients -- and that is the key.

There is a huge demand by patients to have the ability to do this. I hope that as we go into the debate and as you and my colleagues in our caucus speak to it, you will give thought to what is becoming an issue that brings economic benefits to the province because it cuts down the reduction on some aspects of health care. It brings freedom of choice to patients and it allows us to really move forward into the next century.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker: For the members that are in the gallery, perhaps it's your first visit in the Legislature, but you're not supposed to applaud, only the members here on the floor.

Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I welcome the opportunity today to participate in this debate and this discussion about a topic that is both very important and very timely in the evolution of health care and the delivery of health care in this province and in this country.

I'm anxious to hear today from members from all parties their position on this because it is indeed an ongoing, very live debate in my community and I know from some of the correspondence I've received that it's alive and well in many communities across this province.

I think it's important, and we have to give thanks to the member for Wilson Heights for bringing it to this place today so that we might have this debate and see where the government stands on this issue, and where it is that we who represent the public will out there -- we're elected representatives, called to give leadership on some very important issues and some very important aspects of life as it evolves in this province, and I think we need to be indicating to people where we stand on this.

I know myself that over the last number of months I've had numerous individuals into my office from the alternative health delivery system, people who deal in health foods, who are very concerned with what's happening at the federal level re legislation that might come forward that would inhibit their ability to continue to practise what they've honed over a long number of years, continue to offer to people substances and information and advice they have spent many, many years researching and coming to understand and making good decisions about and wanting to offer to the people they have as their clients or as their customers and whom they serve.

This debate is rather interesting when you put it into some of the context that I think it fits. The member for Wilson Heights suggests that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario says that we don't need a bill of this sort in front of us today, but the experience of people in the field will tell you very clearly that is not true.

When you look at the experience of, for example, nurse practitioners or midwives over the last number of years in Ontario and Canada, in fact across the world, and the difficulty those groups of professionals have had in having what they do recognized as a very legitimate and positively contributing health practice in all jurisdictions, you begin to understand the difficulty people in the alternative health medicines field are experiencing today. It took a long time; it took a lot of work; it took courage by some governments to bring forward the legislation that would protect those particular professionals in our provinces as they do their work.

I suggest today that should help all of us understand why we need to, if not move forward very aggressively in this field, at least consider this piece of legislation very seriously today so that we might give some indication to the government, as they develop the framework within which health care will be delivered in this province, that we in this place feel it is necessary to protect the good work and the very excellent research and background in this field.

I remember watching for a number of years, because I had some friends involved in it, the evolution of the whole area of chiropractors. Chiropractors at one time in this province, it wasn't so long ago, were considered to be less than professional in many instances. It was only after tremendous effort by people who believed that what chiropractors were doing was right and healthy and in the best interests of the people they serve that eventually we got to a point where they are now recognized under the Health Professions Act and have a scope of practice within which they can operate and have begun to receive some remuneration for the service they offer to people through the public purse.

I think, in looking at this bill, it's very important for all of us to recognize the evolution of health care and recognize the contribution various professions have made over the years to the way we deliver health care, the way we respond to ailments that people run into, the way we have shifted very significantly from an after-the-fact approach to health care, from a disease focus on health care, to a proactive, making-people-healthy, make-sure-people-stay-healthy approach. I think this is all tied in with some of what is happening in the alternative health practices that are happening out there today.

I know in my own community we have a number of very excellent people delivering alternative health medicine to people who have come, through their own experience, to understand how important and how valuable that is.

When we recognize, as I've said before, the contribution that various professionals have made to the delivery of health care in the province over the last number of years, and I mentioned nurse practitioners, midwives, physiotherapists and others, I think it's important that we do everything we can in this place as we set the legal framework within which people operate to make sure we don't inhibit the contribution that people have to make who are willing to go the distance to find different ways to break through the barriers we often establish in the traditional way we do things, to find new ways to both prevent disease from happening and, once we do get sick, to find ways to cure people without sometimes the very intrusive processes and procedures we often see when we enter hospitals today.

It is in that light and in that spirit that I will stand today in support of this bill that's brought before us by the member for Wilson Heights, Mr Kwinter, and look forward this morning to further debate and discussion from members around the floor so that I might be more educated in this business and perhaps challenged, but hope to hear from people that they also support the protection this bill will afford those who choose to practise in the alternative health field.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to speak in the Legislature on the private member's bill before this House in the name of the member for Wilson Heights, Monte Kwinter. I'd like all members to be aware that in principle I, as a government member, could support this bill.

However, again I want to be very clear and want it to be read into the public record that while I may want to support this bill in principle, and as a member of this Legislature could support this bill in principle, we here on this side of the House have some reservations about this bill, not so much in its intent and what it hopes to provide -- I will get to that in a few moments -- but rather what could happen if it is passed and becomes law in Ontario and does not have amendments to it.

The reason why this bill needs amendments is that we here on this side of the House take health care and legislation that could change health care very seriously, because it is our number one priority as a government. As we heard Finance Minister Ernie Eves say in his budget speech, health care is the number one priority for this government. We must continue to put patients first to bring about and introduce the necessary change so the right kind of legislation works in the best interests of the patient, to ensure that the right kinds of technologies are introduced for patient care so we can continue to have the best health care system in the world.

This bill brings about significant change to the way physicians' professionalism and competence are judged. This is an important distinction, because our support of the principle of this bill is based on the fact that currently legislation and regulation already allow alternative practitioners to practise in Ontario without fear of reprisal. That is why we need amendments to it. That is why we need to have it studied and examined by people in the medical field and health care profession.

We need time to ensure that all the concerns of this government, the Ministry of Health and health care professionals are addressed and safeguards put in place so that we as a government can keep our word that we will ensure that we continue to put the patient first.

We must be cautious, because what Mr Kwinter is proposing is significant change to regulated health profession regulation legislation that is a product of over 10 years of consultation and consideration. Caution is required because this government wants to ensure that practitioners are treated fairly.

Today, if there is a commitment from Mr Kwinter here in the Legislature to seek amendments to this bill, allow for public consultation and address some of the concerns we have and also hear the very real concerns professional people and organizations have in Ontario, if we get this commitment from Mr Kwinter, we will support this bill in principle.

The way this bill reads, it could leave the door open for legal

interpretations that could allow members of the medical profession to abuse the sacred covenant between provider and patient.

In an open letter to the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Health, from Geoffrey Bond, president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mr Bond states, "The college...does not support Mr Kwinter's bill both because the material contained in it does not belong in the act but rather in the regulations or the bylaws, but also because it is premature and contains a number of other serious flaws which could place the health and safety of Ontarians at risk."

Mr Bond continues his letter to the minister by asking that an ad hoc committee created by the College of Physicians and Surgeons hold public consultations on alternative medicine and non-traditional practice. I agree that there is a need for public consultation.

Regarding the point about regulations or bylaws raised by Mr Bond, this bill would set a precedent in Ontario that medical amendments would now have to be legislated, not regulated. As a government, we have no problem with regulations, good regulations. Just ask the member for Lincoln, Frank Sheehan, the chair of the Red Tape Review Commission. However, it is a custom and tradition in Ontario that professional guidelines, especially misconduct rules, be enshrined in regulations, not legislation. This bill could change that custom and tradition and potentially change the relationship of the CPSO with Ontario's physicians and surgeons.

So I say to Mr Kwinter, let's slow down with this. The CPSO is the self-regulating body that oversees the practices of physicians and surgeons in Ontario, and they have reservations about this bill. Let's give this bill the time it needs to examine every aspect of it more fully and more closely. I believe it would be more useful for you to have the endorsement of the CPSO. It would help to give greater credibility to the people who are providing this kind of care, let alone your bill.

As well, in a discussion with the Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges, it too would be open to public consultations to begin a dialogue on alternative medicines and non-traditional practices. This federation -- for the benefit of all members in the House today -- oversees all medical professional colleges in Ontario. Their input could bring about greater credibility to their professions, these changes, and ultimately this bill.

In closing, I'd like to say to Mr Kwinter, the member for Wilson Heights, that in principle I will support this bill, but it is a qualified support. We must take our time and go slowly about bringing this kind of significant change so that patient care remains a priority, so that our health care providers are not put at risk, and so that our health care system continues to remain the very best in the world.

I will support this bill in principle because it reflects the current reality: Alternative practitioners are already allowed to practise in Ontario. I think that when considered from a technical standpoint, this bill is flawed and needs amendments. The test it creates, where a physician can only be found guilty of misconduct if the therapy he or she used can be shown to carry with it a greater level of risk than the traditional therapy, is an impossible one to have to prove. There are other ways to phrase the bill to ensure that alternative practitioners are not discriminated against by the college.

The current complaints-based system where the harm test is used has proven to work well for all types of practitioners. We know the CPSO has a committee that is considering a professional misconduct regulation.

So I'd like to ask from you today, Mr Kwinter, a commitment from the CPSO, once it has held its public consultations and once they are completed, to accept amendments to this bill before this bill proceeds past the second reading stage in the legislative process.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is a pleasure to be able to address this bill today and to commend my colleague from Wilson Heights, Monte Kwinter, for bringing this forward. We have heard from the member opposite around concerns raised, but I think the reason this bill is here today and the reason we are discussing it today is appropriate. This Legislature is here to discuss matters of great and substantive public interest and to ensure that great and substantive interest has a forum, that it has a means of finding expression.

We know that throughout this province there are people who have learned to rely on different parts of alternative medical therapy in all manner of forms. We know there has been a dialogue about these forms of medicine or treatment for a long, long time. Of course, ironically, many of the types of alternative medicine that would be enabled by this bill, or better enabled, have been around a lot longer than what we now call our traditional medical practices. But so has the debate; so has the discussion.

The problem with the debate and the discussion to this point is that it has taken place mainly in closed rooms, mainly in the hearings of the organizations that we have set up to deal with these kinds of things on a technical basis. But what eludes them in those closed rooms is what is the substantive public interest here: How do we as a society want to proceed?

We have heard what unfortunately some of the other -- this side of the House can, outside of this hour where it's private members' business, and we know that sincerity is coming from individuals rather than platitudes from the government. But quite often that's how we're sometimes led to take them, because as we see the future of the health care system in this province, we wonder, of course, around the commitment reflected in some of the decisions of this government towards good health care and good choices for people around high quality health care.

We certainly see that there is a place, a place that's been acknowledged by the

section set out by the OMA on alternative medicine, a place that's been acknowledged by the College of Physicians and Surgeons itself, in albeit a different process it would like to see go ahead and acknowledged by other jurisdictions around the world, a place in an improving medical system for alternative medicine.

As we on this side of the House look at being faced with the potential responsibility of having to clean up some of the problems this government is going to create with an unplanned system, if there is going to be an integrated health system, it is going to be one with just that type of choice available to patients, and rather to people who are no longer so much patients but informed people who have real choice about the kinds of things they can do for their health and wellbeing.

As we try to advance, and it is hard to advance given some of the strictures that we have facing our current system, we want to make sure we've opened up the choices that are available, that we've made sure that as we try and give the people of this province and the existing practitioners, for whom we have great respect -- this is not an adversarial piece of legislation in any respect, I would put forward to you today. This is a piece of legislation that tries to put forward the public interest, that tries to say, "Here is where we must discuss, what we as elected representatives must wrestle with."

I take the point of the member opposite that there may be, and I have heard, what I think amounts to significant concern, but those points are not what we're here to discuss today. We're here to discuss the merit of the bill.

There is a place called committee where technical wording and other things can be worked out, where those backroom discussions and the substantive arguments that have been made there can find their place and can find their expression. We in this legislative process know that we have those checks and safeguards.

But we would be very remiss today if we did not put forward the public interest, if we did not show, each of us, to our constituents an openness to having a system which is -- without seeing it as adversarial, it is tilted towards a traditional practice -- a system and the safeguards that come from a different way of thinking about how we can ensure good health and good medicine in these times.

I believe it is incumbent on us today to pass this act at second reading, to provide for better medicine, for better choices for people, to see, I think also in the public interest, the kinds of things that many of us are only notionally aware of brought into the mainstream of consideration where they will benefit not only ourselves, not only people frustrated in the current system, but really the advancement of ourselves as a society and as a people.

I think we've had for too long a close-minded idea about how we practise medicine. We've had for too long a closed idea about how we have an integrated health system, because it really means, and this is a test we will hold the government to, a variety of quality methods available to people. It really means a society not giving away or getting rid of responsibility for the wellbeing of people, but having that happen through the choice of that person working with a variety of practitioners.

Yes, we have an obligation that we will not drop, we will not dilute, to ensure the safety of people, but we also will not show a fear of unknown things in terms of what this comes to bear because we have a substantive idea. We have the World Health Organization commitment, we have the examination and the work done in other sections of the country and other jurisdictions, to know that this bill and what it intends to do is substantially in the public interest. Thank you.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I am very pleased today to support the private member's bill by the member for Wilson Heights. Obviously, as this is private members' hour, I'm here as a private member, but I also want to speak as a former Minister of Health in this province who was the last in a long line of health ministers -- I think there were eight of us, spanning 10 years and three different political parties in government -- dealing with regulated health professions legislation and finally bringing the final RHPA reforms through.

I can tell you, in the dying days of that process there was a flurry of activity of people trying to get the scopes of practice changed for various professions, one more thing added or one more thing deleted and a lot of delineation, much of that motivated by real concern for patient care. But I have to be honest; I found a certain amount of it also motivated by what I would call, in layman's terms, "turf protection." I believe health care is too important to allow turf protection to get in the way of providing the widest range of opportunities for people to seek wellbeing in our communities.

I think there is an evolution that has taken place. As a child, I grew up in a family where my primary health caregiver was a naturopath-chiropractor, a cross-profession. There was a medical doctor as well, but much of the family's wellbeing was taken care of by a naturopath-chiropractor. This is something that I was exposed to, I guess, from an early age. In those days -- this perhaps suggests how old I am -- naturopaths and chiropractors and a whole range of people were called quacks by the medical profession.

I went through a period of time where I was involved in helping bring through the regulation to regulate midwifery, to bring it back from the netherlands of unregulated practice, illegal practice, to bring it into the regulated scheme. For a period of time there was a great opposition to midwifery. We're now seeing a very similar process around nurse practitioners. There is an evolution here and there is, I believe, a need for us to have openness in looking at many alternatives that are out there.

I have medical practitioners in my riding who are also providers of alternative medicine, who are part of the OMA

section looking at alternative medicines and who have been rallying behind many of the doctors who feel that they have been harassed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' process. I'm very glad that the College of Physicians and Surgeons is also now looking at this.

I'm interested to see the concerns that are raised, that perhaps there could be greater sexual abuse of patients if you don't have the tight regulations. I remember feeling the wounds from the profession when we tried to bring in the tough controls in the legislation around sexual abuse. But we got past that, and the college took a very important leadership role when they set up their task force. They're doing that again. But I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that is being proffered that says we have to bring this discussion out into the open.

It is not good enough to only read about these cases where doctors are being brought before disciplinary processes, where patients are coming forward and expressing that this treatment has been a lifeline for them and yet to see the continued prosecution of individuals.

I believe we have to move beyond that to have an open debate about the nature of a multidisciplinary delivery of health care and what that means and how some of the areas of health care which we can't immediately bring into the medicare system -- we're in the middle of restructuring our hospitals and our medical services and our other regulated health professions right now -- but we shouldn't preclude the opportunity to explore and to learn from and to perhaps find better ways of treating certain conditions.

As diseases have become more complex, as we've seen chronic fatigue syndrome, as we have seen environmental hypersensitivity, as we've seen a lot of things that we don't quite understand in the traditional medical view of what is happening with the human body, we have found alternative therapies which have given great help to individuals.

We must do all we can as legislators to ensure that help is there and available, of course with all the safeguards, of course with all the regulatory protections that are our responsibility to put in place, but a system that welcomes an exploration of those alternatives, not one that relegates them to the world of quackery. I think that's what this debate is about.

I believe the bill that's before us would need to be amended, would need to be more specific in certain areas of how that would work, but that's not the issue at second reading. The government, I would argue, should step in at this point in time and actually take this over as a government bill and work with all of us in this Legislature and all the people who have a public interest in this to bring about good legislation.

As the Minister of Health I worked with a member of the Conservative Party at that time on a private member's bill the member had that was in the public interest, I believe, to ensure that bill got passage. I worked to help provide amendments the ministry could live with that I could then get the government to support. That's an alternative.

I believe that the Minister of Health should be here today participating in this debate and helping the member bring this bill forward in a way that it can be brought into law. That's the challenge I put forward to members of the government.

I will be supporting this bill today. I hope this bill gets referred to committee or is taken over by a government bill so we can work to bring about this kind of legislation in Ontario that opens up our doors to explore alternative therapies, to explore alternative medicines, to find alternatives to help people be the healthiest they can, to promote a community of wellbeing in this province. Thank you very much.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): The member for Wilson Heights has put forth an interesting bill, and I commend him for his sincere interest in broadening the scope of Ontario's health care system. His introduction of Bill 126 has brought to the forefront a growing issue among patients and practitioners of both the traditional and alternative medical professions.

As some of you may be aware, I've been a veterinarian for some 35 years and have heard on occasion about alternative medical practices. Before you jump to conclusions and start saying, "What does a veterinarian know about this?" there are a lot of similarities between veterinarian medicine and human medicine. Humans just happen to be one more step up the mammalian list. I've observed and talked to farmers and seen what happens with livestock and heard some very strange suggestions they come out with, but many farmers have very keen observations of responses of livestock.

The very basis of good quality research is the ability to keenly observe. Never did I scoff at any suggestions that have been put forth as some of these alternative suggestions, because down the road many times you're able to prove very scientifically that those alternative suggestions really work very, very well.

Probably Doug Galt is one of the greatest sceptics there has ever been when it comes to alternative suggestions of medical treatment. Coming through a scientific community: If you can't prove it, don't throw it in front of me. However, you have to look around and observe other things that are happening out there. Certainly I have observed livestock with the desire to live when they shouldn't have and survived; when livestock had the desire to die, when they had had perfect medical treatment, and died. It's something like Henry Ford's comment that if you think you can, or if you think you can't, you're probably right and that's how it turns out.

There's a great book that was written back in the mid-1960s by Dr Bernie Siegel, who is basically a cancer surgeon. The book is called Love, Medicine and Miracles. Most of that book contains testimonials, stories about various patients he was working with. He compares himself to a mechanic, where he can remove things or parts but he couldn't keep people alive, that keeping people alive came from within. If you didn't have the desire to live, often with the very best of medical treatment you still died; but if you had the desire to live, often in spite of the greatest odds, you did end up being able to survive.

Health care in Ontario and around the world is changing and we have an opportunity to be leaders in the health care continuum. However, change must proceed with care, especially when the outcome could significantly affect the quality of essential public services and ultimately the health of the people of Ontario.

Putting patients first is number one, and this is non-negotiable when it comes to discussing changes in our health care system. This means taking a proactive approach to new health care practices. Chiropractic manipulation and acupuncture are two examples of alternative medical practices which have faced tough opposition over the years from traditional medical practitioners.

After having been condemned as scientifically unsubstantiated for many years, the perseverance and dedication of practitioners to their profession have been rewarded with scientific data which many needed to validate these methods. Certainly I've received treatment from chiropractors, and as I mentioned earlier, I was probably one of their greatest sceptics. However, observing results was the proof of the pudding.

We might therefore keep in mind that although scientific studies have not been conducted on many non-traditional medical practices, there are also many traditional techniques in common use today that have not undergone these tests. For example, practices such as angioplasty and bypass surgery, which are important life-saving techniques used every day in hospitals, have never been subject to controlled, random, doubleblind tests. In fact, approximately 85% to 90% of accepted traditional medical practices are not based on such studies, and I have personally found this to be quite surprising.

It seems apparent that the medical and scientific community needs to work together towards a consensus as to what constitutes proper research procedure which thereby leads to the evidence that would be needed to prove that one treatment does indeed pose a greater risk to the patient than another.

At this point it is apparent that consultations need to be considered before proceeding with legislation. As Bill 126 stands, it would place the onus on the regulating body to prove that an alternate practice holds a greater risk than the traditional methods. The difficulty with this lies in the lack of a consistent method for determining how "evidence" would be defined.

Although the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario openly opposes Bill 126, over a year ago they established an ad hoc committee to review the issue of how the college should regulate its members who choose to offer alternative medical therapies. This committee has plans to conduct public consultation over the coming months.

I must once again stress that putting the patient first is of the utmost importance and should remain the primary focus in any discussions which could potentially affect their health and safety.

It is for this reason that, although the member opposite has brought forward a bill with merit, I strongly believe there must be some amendments made to it before I can confidently vote in favour of its final passage.

Alternative or complementary treatments have a growing following. Statistics Canada released the figure that 3.3 million Canadians looked for non-traditional medical treatment in 1996.

The people of Ontario presently not only have access to a comprehensive health care system but to one of the finest in the world. However, they also deserve the opportunity to access safe and accountable treatment from all forms of medical practice.

Amendments are needed to Bill 126 that would ensure public safety, thereby preventing dispute over changes to the medical act. This would address one major concern about the bill as it stands today.

I look forward to a positive outcome for all those involved with this bill. With the foregoing comments, I can support its second reading but would look forward to several amendments prior to its coming back to the House for third reading, because then I could support it with those amendments.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It's a pleasure for me to take

part in this debate today. I want to first congratulate my colleague the member for Wilson Heights for having the conviction to bring forward this amendment, one that I believe represents a progressive step towards recognizing complementary medical treatment in Ontario and something that is long, long overdue. I also want to congratulate the member for Wilson Heights for debunking some of the myths about complementary medicine, myths which have been used to hold off the use of complementary medical treatments.

In the time I have I want to talk about the positive economic benefits of welcoming complementary medicine into our health care delivery model. I believe that by fostering a collaborative health care model we'll improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care overall.

As many people know, our health care system is under considerable financial strain due to the costs associated with pharmaceutical drugs and surgical treatments and due to demographic pressures on the system.

Today's environment demands flexibility and adaptability. If we're going to meet the evolving health care needs in our society, we must draw on all our available resources and be prepared to seize on different ideas. This includes not only the latest technological advances but also all of civilization's past beneficial experiences.

Ontarians believe in a health care system that is universally accessible but also understand that it needs to be delivered in the most cost-effective manner possible. There is a basic understanding today that we don't have the resources to further expand our current health care system and therefore we must adapt and find additional approaches to health remedies. It is regrettable that it has taken a financial crunch to force us to adapt our health care delivery model. In the past number of years, we've finally begun to move from a model totally based on treating the sick to one which is aimed at giving more weight to preventing illness; in other words, preventive care.

There is an enormous body of knowledge that has been passed over by conventional medicine. Some of it dates back thousands and thousands of year, such as acupuncture or herbal treatments. It's irrational from a health care point of view that we would turn a blind eye to solutions that can play a positive role. It's also very paternalistic and egocentric for conventional medical organizations to think that only they can come up with certain answers. This simply isn't the case and it's a xenophobic perspective.

The human body is an amazing and mysterious machine that has the unique capacity to heal itself. Encouraging that healing process is a fundamental key to quality of life, and that is what complementary medicine is all about: preventive care. Complementary medicine also helps produce improved patient outcomes for fewer economic inputs. Its preventive nature reduces both the incident and the cost of illness by focusing on wellness.

The reality is that we all in one form or another engage in modified complementary medicine, whether it's an old family cold remedy or changes to one's lifestyle through diet or exercise to address an ailment that prevents a trip to the doctor's office. Not only does this save on the immediate costs of our health care system, it saves in the long run as we accept more of the responsibility for the state of our own personal health.

This hardly sounds controversial or revolutionary. Complementary medicine saves lives and it saves money. Many insurance companies are recognizing its cost-effective benefits and are now covering some naturopathic treatments.

We are not advocating that complementary medicine replace conventional medicine, nor does this bill seek to undermine conventional medicine. In short, it seeks to enhance the health delivery model to ensure that patients have information on and access to all of the health care options. It makes no sense that with something so volatile as the human body, we would straitjacket ourselves with a singularly focused medical approach. It makes sense for all of us to keep the door open to all potential effective solutions.

I want to talk in a tangible way about the Carlington Medical Centre in my riding of Ottawa Centre, which has put together a chiropractic referral program for low-income individuals whereby low-income individuals are able to access chiropractic services through a referral system; 70% of the individuals who use this clinic are low-income. The linking of chiropractic services with family medical services has opened up a new avenue of treatment that these individuals, for economic reasons, would not have access to.

It opens the door to new ways of looking at the delivery of health care and how we approach illness, and the cooperation between doctors, nurses and chiropractors is possibly an important model for the future.

In conclusion, there is support in almost all quarters, with some reservations in the medical establishment, to increase the treatment options for illness prevention and health care. The increase in complementary medicine will be more economical, more effective and, equally important, will greatly strengthen the notion of more individual self-responsibility in maintaining health and preventing illness. For this reason, I look forward to voting in favour of the bill.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too would like to commend my colleague from Wilson Heights for bringing forward a most thoughtful and progressive private member's bill. When we created the concept of multiculturalism -- on which I take a different view than many of my colleagues have taken -- in Canada, many foresaw this as new immigrants bringing into Canada various dances and exotic foods which we only acquire when we travel overseas. New Canadians have brought with them knowledge and skills that covers thousands and thousands of years, generations.

The member for Northumberland made a very interesting point. One such knowledge that we have is health science that was brought by many of these people who came to Canada. Many of us can recall an ailment that was healed through the use of a remedy that was handed down through generations. When I was a young boy -- that wasn't long ago -- I recall my mother administering the sap of a plant to chickens or cattle that had come down with what would have seemed to be the common cold. Within 10 days, whatever it was that was ailing the animal, a total recovery was experienced.

My friend on the other side said there were side-effects. Today, aloe vera is hailed as one of the wonder cures that relieve a variety of ailments. What may be considered as non-traditional medicine in Canada is very much traditional in China, India, Africa or the West Indies. When we are looking at non-traditional and traditional medicine, we must then start thinking that what is traditional to Canada may be something that is quite non-traditional to other regimes, and that what is traditional to other countries may be quite beneficial to us in Canada.

This government will spend billions of dollars on health care despite, as we know, the closing of hospitals, putting sick and elderly people at great risk. They fail to reach out to, as my colleague said, complementary approaches to the problems in the health care and health science sector.

The pharmaceutical industry and the advertising market have created a climate where the only thing that is being looked at these days is symptoms, and that is what is being treated. A cure often is ignored. Why? Because I presume we focus very much on the economic interest to do so.

No one part of the body functions on its own. Inflammation has a purpose and a meaning, and to stop the inflammation doesn't correct the problem; sometimes we find out it has merely masked that which is causing the inflammation. We as a society need to develop a holistic approach to medicine, the way the body was meant to function, rather than digesting any number of pills and liquids that are preferred as instant solutions to complex problems.

I will heartily support this private member's bill and I urge all my colleagues to move in that direction, because there are thousands and thousands -- as a matter of fact, millions -- of people in Ontario only who are today seeking alternative solutions to the problems they have. Putting the patient first is one of the things we often hear in here. If there is any approach to medicine that puts the patient first, it is the complementary, alternative medicine that is being practised today. People should not be punished for it. That is what the legislation is asking for: that a situation that shows that ailments are being resolved should be looked at very seriously.

I urge members to support this. Give it second reading. Of course, any amendments must be considered and concerns can be addressed in our public hearings. When it comes back here, third reading should not be a problem.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Kwinter: I want to thank all of my colleagues on all sides of the House because, notwithstanding some reservations, I really detected that there was approval in principle for this bill, which is what this second reading is all about.

I would like to first of all acknowledge, which is almost unprecedented, the number of people in the public galleries, and if you look behind you, those members on the government side, you will get an opportunity to see the interest that there is in this subject.

The question I want to address in the couple of minutes that I have left is the question that was raised by the member for Scarborough Centre and his concerns with the bill.

When I was drafting this bill -- and as all of you know, I don't draft the bill, the bill is drafted by legislative counsel -- it was their advice, it was their counsel who said, "This is an appropriate bill to be addressed in amending the Medicine Act of 1991." Notwithstanding the concerns of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, this particular wording, as I said in my opening remarks, has been used verbatim in the Helsinki agreement by the World Health Organization and by Alberta and several states in the United States.

When I was contemplating this bill and when word got out about it, there was a lot of interest in it and lots of people wanting me to put lots of things into the bill. I resisted that for the very reason that this is a very complex issue, without question, but Bill 126 is a platform. It is a platform on which to build better health care for the people of Ontario, to provide freedom of choice for citizens, to provide fairness and equity to medical practitioners, and I certainly hope that I can get the support of everybody in this House for second reading. Then as it goes to committee, we can certainly address those other concerns that have been expressed.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I am pleased to move private member's notice of motion number 50:

That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should be urged to recognize the seriousness of impaired driving by amending the Criminal Code to provide for the following penalties:

For first offences: seven days' incarceration, provided no accident has resulted; 30 days' incarceration, if an accident has resulted; one to five years' incarceration, if an accident has occurred and an injury or death has resulted;

For second or subsequent offences: 60 days' incarceration, provided no accident has resulted; six months' incarceration, if an accident has resulted; five to 10 years' incarceration, if an accident has occurred and an injury or death has resulted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Wettlaufer: Between 1991 and 1995, there were 29,000 injuries and fatalities as a result of motor vehicle accidents involving drinking drivers or those legally impaired, and that's only in the province of Ontario. In 1995 alone, there were 5,000 injuries or fatalities in Ontario. Every year in Ontario nearly 350 people are killed; in 1994, however, there were 544 killed.

These are statistics, the fatalities. We hear them every day. We hear them on television, we hear them on the radio, we read about it in the newspaper. We have become immune to them because they're only fatalities, they're only statistics. Let's call them what they are. They're deaths. They are lives snuffed out.

I have to admit that there has been a decrease in injuries and deaths over the last 10 years, and the figures are often cited to demonstrate the success that we as a society are having with our educational programs, with RIDE, with designated drivers etc. But until the year 1995, there had been a year-over-year increase in the number of property damage accidents involving drinking.

Many of us, probably most of us in this House, when we were younger drove after drinking, and I'm sure that some of us were impaired. We thought it was smart, we thought it was macho. It was socially acceptable, until we got caught. Yes, it was macho. To the member for Windsor-Sandwich, I say that 10 times as many men get caught driving impaired as women. We have to demonstrate that it is no longer socially acceptable to drink and drive.

In 1996 our government enacted the administrative driver's licence suspension program, better known as ADLS. Drivers who fail or refuse a breath test automatically lose their licence administratively for 90 days. In October 1996, our own government member for Mississauga South, Margaret Marland, introduced Bill 85, which provides for a one-year suspension of licence on the first conviction, a three-year suspension on the second and a five-year suspension on the third. On a fourth conviction, the licence is revoked.

The Manitoba government has enacted the vehicle seizure and impoundment program. If the convicted driver continues to drive, the vehicle is impounded. Unfortunately, too often the vehicle that he or she will drive won't be his or her own and the owner of the vehicle must prove that he or she didn't know that this driver didn't have a licence.

I don't diminish the importance of those bills or programs that have been enacted either by ourselves or by other administrations. I think they are a recognition of the importance of this issue. But what I have seen in 33 years of experience in the insurance business is that suspended drivers continue to drive. It doesn't matter whether or not they have had licence suspensions because of impaired driving, they continue to drive. Clearly, tough action is needed.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has approached federal governments and largely their approaches have been met with indifference. Successive federal governments have ignored the issue. What is needed, really, is the influence of the government representing the largest province, representing nearly 40% of the country in population. The influence of this government is needed to negotiate stiffer penalties.

In other countries there are stiffer penalties. In some Middle East countries impaired driving has a penalty of death. In some countries it has a penalty of caning. As a matter of fact, in North America yesterday an individual was charged with first-degree murder, which carries the death penalty.

I'm not advocating that we bring back the cat-o'-nine-tails but I am advocating that this is a reprehensible act, it is a despicable act, it is a selfish act and it is a wilful act. It demonstrates wilful disregard for the safety and the lives of others.

The purpose of the resolution is to demonstrate to the government the level of support that the resolution has within this chamber with us and with our constituents both urban and rural across this province to put pressure on the federal government to make the penalties much, much stiffer.

I was going to ask for unanimous consent to make a change to my resolution because, as many of the members in this House know, we do work very long hours and when I proofread this initially I missed a key word and the key word was "following `minimum' penalties." But I won't do that because the principle behind this is really to direct our government to negotiate with the federal government.

I would like to draw your attention to the statistical yearbook, 1994, Drinking and Driving in Ontario, specifically page A-5, table 2, "Alcohol use among motor vehicle fatalities, Ontario, 1994." The significance of this table is that the majority of drinking and driving offences occur between the ages of 19 and 44, supposedly the mature ages.

I would like also to draw your attention to page A-16 in the same drinking and driving statistical yearbook. The significance of this table is that there has been no dramatic decrease in the percentage of impaired drivers since 1985.

I would also like to read a letter from Sandra Henderson of Kitchener, Sandra's story.

"It was May, 1992, and I was wondering what to get my daughter Nancy for her 25th birthday. Should I buy something for her new apartment or something more personal? Before I had a chance to buy that present for her or wish her happy birthday, Nancy was killed in a car crash caused by a drunk driver. I didn't get a chance to say good-bye."

Mr Speaker, many of us ran for election for the future of our children and our grandchildren. If it was your child who had been killed, would you have been mad enough to want to kill the other party? I ask you, I ask the members, would you have been angry enough to want to cause bodily harm to that impaired driver? Would you have been devoid of all feeling?

Larry Cripps from Kitchener, a friend of mine, is in the gallery. He lost his son. I don't want to go to any more funerals for children of my friends.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I think we can all relate to the kinds of experiences this member has just talked about. I agree that it's totally unacceptable that in our province over 350 people have died -- I believe that's what he said, or maybe that was Canada-wide -- as a result of drinking and driving offences.

At the same time, it ought to be said that the attitude of young people nowadays is quite a bit different from when I was growing up. When I think back to the 1950s and 1960s, it was quite common for young people to get a case of beer in the car and to go out for a drive, particularly at some social or high school event etc. It was almost a customary thing.

When I compare that to the attitude now of my own children and their friends, I think a much more responsible attitude prevails now within our society. It was a macho kind of thing to do back then, and certainly a lot of that has been taken out of the system already.

We could certainly do a lot more as far as the education side of this issue is concerned, because 350 deaths or the countless number of injuries that occur as a result of drinking and driving are still totally unacceptable. But I think we've come a long way, and the schools and the various police departments ought to be commended for the kinds of programs they have carried on.

Whether the kinds of penalties he is suggesting in his resolution are appropriate, particularly when he talks about one to five years' incarceration if an accident occurs on a first offence, I'm not so sure. I still believe we could be a lot tougher as far as the licence suspensions are concerned. The minimum suspensions called for in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act are too lenient, quite frankly, but even there we've come a long way.

I can well remember that when I first started my practice as a lawyer, back in the early 1970s, it was quite common for provincial court judges in those days to allow offenders to retain their licences for a certain period to drive to and from work. Thank goodness that's been taken out of the system, because it was almost farcical in some situations, in terms of the people who were convicted and somehow were still able to drive.

I happen to have some relatives who live in Japan, and it's interesting that there, drinking and driving is almost totally unacceptable to the entire society, young or old. One of the reasons for that is the fact that if you ever get convicted of drinking and driving you basically lose your right to drive a vehicle for life. I understand that statistically the incidence of drinking and driving offences there is very low because people realize the seriousness of the consequences if one gets convicted of a drinking and driving offence.

To lose your licence for life or for a significant period of time, certainly well beyond the one-year minimum called for in the Highway Traffic Act, is much more serious, something we should all take very seriously.

I'm not sure whether the kind of penalties he calls for are realistic. I think we should pay much closer attention and place the emphasis on the licence suspension. But I will be supporting this resolution, as far as I as a private member am concerned, because I think it will send the right kind of message to people that this kind of situation we, as elected members of the Legislature, simply will not condone. I will be supporting it.

I doubt very much whether any federal government, whichever party gets elected, will impose restrictions as severe as he is suggesting here, but it will be part of the education process that we as a society have to go through to make drinking and driving totally unacceptable in our province.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am pleased to join the debate today on this important resolution. People who watch this place regularly will know that from to time we have issues that come to the floor of this place that are not partisan in nature, that cut through all the politics that are a necessary component of this Legislature, and deal with issues that affect each of us in a way that just doesn't allow divisions along party lines. I see this as very much one of those issues and commend the member for Kitchener for bringing this forward.

Like the member for Kingston and The Islands, I too can recall, not that long ago, when societal standards were very different, much as they are different now around smoking in places that affect other people with secondary smoke, seatbelts, helmets for motorcycle drivers. The idea that someone would have the right, under our Constitution and our bill of rights, to get behind the wheel of a potentially destructive machine like a car totally unable to properly control such a vehicle is absolutely not only unacceptable, but I think it sickens each of us when we hear of cases such as the member for Kitchener brought forward of Nancy.

All of us have been touched in some way or another by someone who's been seriously injured or killed in a car accident involving someone who was impaired. We know -- certainly I remember from my time as the Solicitor General -- that much of the cause is repeat offenders. When you read the paper about someone who's been killed in a car accident and someone's been charged with impaired, you find out that they've got a whole long history of total disregard for the rights of other citizens. In fact, in far too many cases those drivers are driving while their licence is suspended -- a total, absolute, complete disregard for anybody else's concern except their own.

There has to be during the court process some recognition of the fact that there are addictions and circumstances that a judge or a jury must weigh out, because sometimes there are cases where our family member or friend wasn't the victim but the driver. It's always important that we keep that balance, because it's never cut and dried when we deal with any kind of justice issue, which is why I continue to be proud of our justice system. With all the complaints and the criticisms, and many are justified, we still have one of the finest justice systems in the world and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

You learn a lot about people, not just from their formal speeches in this place, but from a lot of the quips and things that people say beside you and near you when the focus is elsewhere in this place. I was pleased to hear, given some of my experiences, given that the member for Kitchener only sits a few seats over, that he didn't want to bring back the cat-o'-nine-tails.

A review of his idea of what is fair punishment is certainly warranted, given what I've heard from time to time, but I'm pleased to see that he's not going way off the beam, as some of the members of his party tend to do when we deal with justice issues. They want to press the hot button and go for the emotional impact over and above the reality of a balanced, fair judicial system that metes out discipline and punishment in a way that is acceptable to the majority of Canadians.

But in this resolution I think he speaks to the kinds of sentences we would all support. I'm not going to say his formula is exactly the one we ought to follow. I was pleased to hear that he said it's the principles behind what is presented here that are of the utmost importance to him, and I share that. Therefore, I will also be supporting the resolution and certainly the principles behind it. I would implore the member, and his colleagues, when he talks about compassion -- and I think each of us was moved; certainly I was.

That was a very moving speech and I enjoyed listening to you, and I think you evoked the kind of reaction in each of us and anyone watching that you were hoping to. I think most people watching today hope this Legislature would unanimously support this resolution.

I ask and implore the honourable member and his colleagues that when you reach inside you on an issue that you care about strongly, as clearly the member for Kitchener does, and you manage to bring forward that much feeling and that much compassion, I would ask the members of the government to please reach in for that compassion when we're dealing with other pieces of legislation.

I felt, as closely as anyone can from listening to a speech, some of the pain the member's friend in the gallery today has gone through, and I would bring to the attention of the government that there are thousands and thousands of other people who are feeling pain also, a different kind of pain but pain none the less, as a result of some of the actions this government has taken and some of the laws it has passed. I'm very pleased to see that kind of emotion coming from the member for Kitchener and I was pleased to see that everyone in the House was listening, riveted to what he said.

But I urge you, please transfer some of that compassion and some of that caring to some of the other people who are hurting in our society. As you boast of the numbers -- the deficit number, the debt number, the tax reduction and all the people who are so pleased to receive extra money -- please think of the people, particularly the poorest of the poor, who are hurting. They're going through their own pain. I think maybe what we need in this place is a little more compassion, a little more reaching out and a little more understanding of the pain that far too many Ontarians are going through.

I close my remarks by again complimenting the member on bringing forward this excellent resolution. This kind of resolution on this issue is always timely. I certainly will be very proud to offer my support to him. He knows that doesn't come lightly, but in this case I have absolutely no problem and will be very proud to join hopefully all the other members who are in this place today in passing this resolution, because I believe it reflects where society is on this issue. The more and more we can keep impaired drivers off the streets, the fewer and fewer Nancys each of us will have to deal with.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to speak to this private member's bill that the member for Kitchener has brought forward. I too will be supportive of the bill. I believe the intent of it is certainly an honourable one and that the intent Mr Wettlaufer brings is one that he hopes will be adopted in spirit, not just by parliamentarians, but by everyone out there who drives a car and/or has family members who drive; and that it will help in the education of drivers, in making all of us more responsible and aware that all our actions often have very severe consequences and we must take those responsibly.

I'd like to speak for a moment on the specifics of this. If this should be passed on to committee and actually gets to the point where we're discussing the details of it, I think it would be fairly difficult to actually bring forward into law. Regardless of what party may be in power, it would be very difficult to do so.

In looking at this as an issue, it reminded me immediately of a law in California, a state that I rarely speak about and one that I think many of us should be looking to, because they have done a number of things as a government that would be considered right-wing. They are under a Republican government. What they have in California is called a three-strikes law. What they found was that while the intent was to be very tough on crime -- in this case, each time you would be charged with something and subsequently convicted, the penalty would become stiffer and stiffer.

The intent, as a parallel to the member for Kitchener, is the same in that it becomes tougher and tougher and so should be more and more of a deterrent. What happened in California was that when they finally implemented this, no one looked to the cost of implementation. What they've found since then is that the bill is absolutely impossible to implement. In fact, the three-strikes law alone accounts for an increase annually of $5.5 billion to the system.

The irony for me, in discussing a bill like this, whose intent I agree with and will be supportive of, is that I also know this is the same government in this day and age that is making such significant cuts to our systems that we will never be able to implement it. If the Conservative government continues in office, we will never be able to implement it. It costs an enormous amount of additional expense to the judicial system, to the systems under the control of the Solicitor General. In these two areas alone we have seen so far, in the last two years of government here, such a bulging in our system that has yet to be funded appropriately, and that will continue.

In the budget that was announced just the other day, we see no relief in sight. Here we have an Attorney General's office that can't cope with the simple transaction of money from parents who pay support to parents who accept support by law. There is such a terrible situation going on in families that are going through family support. That is the same Attorney General who will now be charged with a doubling and trebling of cases and litigation and court time and judges. This is a government that will not be funding it, as is evidenced over the last two years.

Secondly, we have another minister here in the House, the Solicitor General, another member at the cabinet table authorizing massive cuts across the system; this at a time when we will need more and more of it. What happened in California during this -- these are individuals who are certainly experts in the field. One gentleman says: "Does that mean that I triple my staff? Where is the money going to come from to pay for that?"

The law could have some ironic consequences. It's filling jails with defendants awaiting trial who refuse to plea bargain, because if they were to plea bargain and actually enter a guilty plea, that means automatically that becomes their second offence. The next time around they could be looking a crime that is a life sentence, for example. They are not going forward with that. That means more dangerous inmates will have to be released early, because as it goes down the line we are then letting more dangerous criminals actually out on to the street. That is the irony, that the three-strikes law which was to prevent crime is actually put more crime into the streets.

While the expensive processing of a growing number of criminals is enormous, the cost of imprisoning those is even greater. There is no one there to ensure the system will have the funding it needs to implement the law they've actually passed. By the end they realize their options are simply to raise taxes, which hardly seems like a political option, or to completely cut off funding for other services like public education, pollution control or firefighting.

The irony for us of course is to see that this is the state of California. Here's a state, California, that has completely sucked dry the public education system. They're actually worried about having to pull even more money out of that system, which is considered failing in public education, because they cannot find the money to properly fund their judiciary system there.

Clearly something will have to give and it will be interesting to see what it will be. I caution all the members of the House that while all of us are going to probably or likely -- I speak on my own -- be very supportive of the intent, because on its merit its intent is absolutely honourable and I'm very happy to support it, I will tell you that we would be far more ahead if we could get these same Conservative members to ensure that we properly fund both the office of the Attorney General and the office of the Solicitor General. That so far has not happened.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise in support of this resolution. As was said earlier by the member for Hamilton Centre, there are times in this Legislature -- at least it's what's supposed to happen at private members' hour -- when members come into this House without partisan affiliation, trying to address particular problems that face Ontarians within this province. This is one occasion where the particular member, the member for Kitchener, is trying to do just that.

A couple of things need to be said in this particular debate. First of all, the reason the member is calling upon the federal government to deal with this issue is because what he's asking be done can primarily only be done by the federal government because it falls under the Canadian Criminal Code.

It should be said for the record that this Legislature on two occasions over the last two or three years has passed resolutions and laws that stiffen the suspension for drunk drivers. What we have jurisdiction on here in Ontario is that, if you're caught impaired, we can suspend your driver's licence.

I believe that on at least two occasions, once in the last Parliament and once in this Parliament, there were two private members' bills that went through this House, that were passed and eventually adopted, where the suspensions were actually increased for people with drunk driving. I think that's a pretty good approach. People need to recognize that driving is not a right, but is a responsibility. With that responsibility comes the acceptance of your responsibility towards other people out there who may be in danger because of how you may drive your vehicle. That needs to be said, that this Legislature is actually probably further ahead than most jurisdictions in dealing with this issue.

The interesting thing about this as well is that this is another example where we can point to our federal government really not taking its responsibility on a number of key issues. It seems that the Chrétien Liberals in Ottawa, since 1993, since coming to power, have had a fairly free ride. If you take a look at them -- for any government elected to the federal House -- I know that Mr Mulroney was chastised and chased around the country for a number of years when he was Prime Minister of the country, and prior to that the Trudeau government was chased and chastised over a number of issues.

What we've seen in Ottawa is quite interesting. Since 1993 you have a federal government -- quite apart from political partisanship, and I am a New Democrat, I think it needs to be said that no matter what these guys do, it seems that either the media doesn't follow it closely enough or there isn't a strong enough opposition in Ottawa to say to the federal Liberals, "Hey, get your act together."

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): This is true.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: The Tories are agreeing with me on this one. I think this is another example where the federal government has some power. The federal government controls the Criminal Code and the federal government can try to address this issue in a progressive and positive way to be able to diminish the risk to citizens in our province and across this country. This is another example where the Chrétien government is saying: "Oh, we don't want to straddle the fence to drop on one side or on the other on this one. Maybe we'll offend this citizen, or maybe we'll offend this other special interest group that's out there." They sort of walk the fence on this one.

I think what this House is attempting to do is to say to the federal government in Ottawa: "Listen, you have a responsibility. You need to make sure that you take that responsibility and move forward with it."

The only other point I want to make on this is that we cannot forget the human dimension of this issue. I don't think there's a member of this assembly, and probably not a member of the public who might be watching this debate, who hasn't been touched in some way by this issue, either by a person within our family or a close friend or an acquaintance who has died or been injured as a result of a drunk driver, so everybody knows of a case where this has happened.

That's really the scary part. When we all know somebody who has been involved in a motor vehicle accident because of drunk driving, it tells us we have a pretty serious problem out there. We can't forget the human dimension of what this means to the survivors or victims, should they survive this particular kind of accident that really is not necessary. There are enough accidents on our highways. We don't need to be contributing and adding to them by virtue of having drunk drivers on our highways, endangering the pedestrians and other people travelling on our highways.

I think what the member for Kitchener is trying to do is a step in the right direction. I'm not sure the federal government will agree with the member in saying that on the first offence there should be incarceration of one to seven days.

Mr Baird: Alexa will, Prime Minister McDonough will.

Mr Bisson: I thought we were not going to get too partisan here.

The only thing I want to say to the member for Kitchener is that I'm not convinced the federal Parliament will say that on first offence you will incarcerate.

I think the federal Parliament will more likely say: "The governments of Ontario and other provinces have extended suspensions for first and second offences, and eventually withdrawals of licences, and only in cases of criminal negligence and in the cases of second offences or a person leaving and driving while under suspension" -- I think the federal government, in that case, no matter what the political stripe, would probably take heed of what you're trying to do through this motion and say that in those particular cases incarceration might be the answer.

We should put that cautionary note out there and say this is a step in the right direction. I'm not convinced the federal government will go as far.

The last thing, I'll come back to the same point. It's a good example, in this motion, of how we need to ensure that we do have people in Ottawa who are speaking up for the interests of Canadians. One of the things that's happening in our federal Parliament today, with nothing but a bunch of Liberals, Tories, Reformers and the Bloc Québécois, is that there really isn't a voice there to keep those Liberals honest in Ottawa. I would urge people to remember that on election day, and what Alexa McDonough is saying on the federal parties.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): The timing for this debate is excellent as we are approaching the Victoria Day weekend, also known as May two-four by many young beer drinkers in Ontario, one of the warm weather holiday weekends that result in most of our drunk driving crashes in Ontario.

Drinking and driving is a complex problem that defies simple solutions. It involves two extremely common activities: the operation of a motor vehicle, boat or snowmobile, for example, and the consumption of alcohol. By virtue of sheer number of people involved and the frequency with which they engage in these behaviours, it is not surprising that we have a drunk driving problem in Ontario.

Over the years it has become increasingly apparent that no one countermeasure program or policy will eliminate the problem. The search for new solutions must recognize the complexity of the issues in attempting to changed well-entrenched patterns of behaviour.

I've worked to try and decrease drinking and driving for over 20 years now and I'm encouraged by the intent of this resolution, as well as the track record to date of the government of Ontario. Much of my work has been through Citizens Against Drinking and Driving, the Brant/Brantford drinking driving countermeasures committee and the Addiction Research Foundation.

Legal sanctions such as jail sentences administered by the courts are central to deterrence-based policies for reducing alcohol-impaired driving. Other examples are fines, licence suspensions, community service. These sanctions will be effective in modifying behaviour to the extent that they are perceived in three ways: as being certain, swiftly applied and severe.

These three primary characteristics, being certain, swift and severe, have proven potential to reduce drunk driving. I feel the impact of any sanction on the general driving public is much more important than its impact on the offenders who are punished. Programs that result in reduced recidivism by those who are punished are worthwhile. However, without having some impact on the total population of drinking drivers, particularly those people who don't get caught, such programs cannot have a major impact on drunk driving and its consequences for people in Ontario.

Thus the importance, as I see it, of enforcement, coupled with education and coupled with other measures, seat belt use, for example.

Confinement for drunk drivers is traditionally in jails. However, the use of alternative confinement sites, including the offenders' homes, is increasing. This is due in large part to the inability of jails to handle large numbers of drunk drivers. The use of prison sentences for drinking drivers has been part of Scandinavian law for more than 50 years. In North America, it has been used much less frequently, although interest in the use of such penalties has increased in recent years. In my opinion, such penalties may provide needed shock value for first-time offenders.

I concur with this motion proposed by my friend from Kitchener that legal sanctions and jail terms are important in reducing drunk-driving behaviour.

For 10 years I went into Burtch Correctional Centre on a monthly basis and talked to groups of inmates who were locked up for drunk driving. I would ask their advice on prevention, especially with respect to younger people, and I was often told that if they had received a week or two in jail on their first offence when they were younger, they felt they would not now be doing two years less a day. For that reason, my experience at Burtch, I support jail sentences for early offences as a preventive measure. Jail terms have a proven effect.

However, people are still driving drunk and this suggests that jail terms must be combined with other measures. We must also recognize the cost of enforcement -- police, courts -- and social and economic costs of increased surveillance by the criminal justice system.

To continue to broaden our horizons in our quest to reduce drunk driving, we should embrace a global approach. Under this broader approach a number of different countermeasures could be considered in that combined efforts are more successful than individualistic approaches. We must acknowledge the value of the stick combined with the carrot. The stick -- for example, jail terms -- is a proven method of deterrence, but we should recognize that it need not be the only method used.

Its success can be augmented by many new developing approaches: improvements in vehicle design, energy-absorbing steering assemblies to reduce chest injuries, for example, and better road design. There's work being done on alcohol safety interlock systems for vehicle ignitions and this has a potential for prevention. High-intensity spot checks are very successful in Ontario, improved police training, and continuing to get the word out that you can go to jail if you drive drunk.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased to make a contribution to this debate this morning. I want to begin, however, by mentioning the difference between two resolutions or two bills, two initiatives that have been taken.

The member for Mississauga South brought forward her legislative initiative, and it was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. I have seen, and it's not simply during this session or anything else, a penchant among some members of the Legislature of all parties, at different times, for wanting to point to some other government to do something, a federal or a local or an international government to do something.

I've always felt that the best resolutions or bills are those which are exclusively within the purview of this Legislature, because it compels the government in power, whatever government it is at Queen's Park, to make a decision whether it's going to proceed with that legislation or not.

This piece of legislation or this resolution is helpful, I think, in terms of particularly the shock value of it to people. It will shock them into recognizing the significance of driving which is considered to be unacceptable by our society. Nevertheless, if I want to contrast it with the member for Mississauga South, hers was strictly within the purview of the provincial government and therefore really said to members of the Legislature: "Here is something we can do. We have a direct effect on this. We don't have to point a finger somewhere else or ask somebody else. We are dealing with a matter under provincial jurisdiction."

I was enthusiastic about the bill proposed by the member for Mississauga South not only for the reason that the contents of the bill were good, but also the fact that it was under exclusively provincial jurisdiction. I happen to believe -- and perhaps you'll chastise me some time if I ever bring forward a resolution or a bill that does not fit this category -- that what we should be dealing with in this House are matters exclusively under the purview of the provincial government.

I think the issue is a significant one, I must say. If you look at the European experience, the level of tolerance of impaired driving in Europe is next to zero in some countries, even countries which have perhaps a worse record in terms of the consumption of alcohol. The rules for the operation of vehicles related to that are rather strict, much stricter than we have, generally speaking, in North America.

The other provision which is useful but has to be enforced is the provision of the removal of the right to drive. When people yield that right, that is rather significant in terms of their ability to enjoy recreation, to enjoy pleasurable events or, most importantly, to enjoy the opportunity to be able to drive back and forth to work, particularly if a person's job depends on the operation of a vehicle.

So I think that whenever we deal with matters of this kind, they are important matters, they are initiatives that deserve support of members of this assembly. I only wish, when we are dealing with these matters, that we would deal with those under provincial jurisdiction and that we encourage our federal colleagues of whatever political party to bring forward this kind of initiative within the purview of the federal House of Commons, where it can be dealt with appropriately.

But I'm sure there will be widespread support for this initiative. I intend to vote for it. I'm sure many in our province would be in support of this initiative.

Mr Baird: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and address this resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Kitchener. I would at the outset like to commend him for all of his effort and dedication on this very important issue. I know his interest in the safety of his community and on this issue is long-standing and I congratulate him for his efforts.

I also congratulate Margaret Marland, the member for Mississauga South. She has certainly worked hard on this issue, as has the Minister of Transportation, Al Palladini, in bringing in the administrative licence suspension.

Drunk driving causes a great deal of concern for people in my constituency in Nepean. A good number of local tragedies have got the public extremely concerned. But the problem when a local tragedy happens and it gets people concerned and outraged and upset and they express that anger and that demand for action, that clarion call for action, is that it then dies down and the issue goes away, only to rear its head a number of months later, a number of years later.

That's why I've taken it as an issue to constantly be presenting petitions, constantly raising this issue, and do enjoy the opportunity to bring those views forward, because this is not an issue that's going to go away. I had a town hall meeting on this issue and 250 people came out to hear the member for Mississauga South speak on this issue because it's so important for the public in my constituency.

I encouraged the member for Kitchener with support on this resolution. It deals with the federal House. We're dealing with everything we can do on the provincial level. We have had the administrative licence suspension, this House passed through second reading Mrs Marland's bill on drunk driving, and the Minister of Transportation has brought one bill forward and has indicated he'll be moving on another initiative.

What this is suggesting, in a very non-partisan way, is to put on record the views of this House and encourage the next federal Parliament to act, because they haven't done a lot of action in recent years and I think that's regrettable. As a matter of fact, we looked through the Legislative Assembly and we couldn't find one time when the federal government had brought forward an initiative. Maybe there is one; we couldn't find one in the last three and a half years.

My colleague the member for Kingston and The Islands brought two issues up in his comments that I agreed with and wanted to discuss. He said, "We've come a long way." I would agree with my colleague the member for Kingston and The Islands on that. We've come a long way, but there is much further we have to go. We've got to continue to put pressure, continue to clearly demonstrate that as a society we're not going to tolerate this type of behaviour.

The member's resolution particularly merits support in my judgement for the components it contains on second and repeat offences, wanting to put in stricter offences for repeat offenders, which I think is where the crux is: 65% of charges are repeat offenders. Those people aren't getting the message. The Highway Traffic Act doesn't deal with them. What the member for Kitchener is saying by this resolution, in my judgement, is: "This is not a social problem; this is a criminal problem. These are acts committed by criminals.

The results of their criminal activity have victims, and these victims have families and these victims deserve some justice." I commend the member for wanting to seek that.

The member for Kingston and The Islands also said that people must realize the significance of their actions. When we see that 65% of charges are repeat offenders, we know that people obviously don't realize the significance of their offences. Maybe a few days, a week, or 60 days on a second offence, as a minimum, would allow them the opportunity to reflect on their criminal behaviour. I think that certainly is very important in this.

We've got to look at drunk driving. It's the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. Every 45 minutes, a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash. The member for Kitchener talked about the statistical yearbook put out by the Ministry of the Attorney General. There are a lot of families and a lot of parents out there who -- this document, with all its facts and figures, there are no pictures in it. That is in my judgement regrettable because the actions of these criminals have a consequence and they deserve to be and must be addressed by the people's representatives in the province of Ontario.

I think that's very important, certainly with what I've heard in my constituency.

Education is important, but to an extent. If 65% of the cases are repeat offences, obviously education is not enough; obviously tougher actions are required. We can't pass changes to the Criminal Code in this House. That's why I appreciate the member bringing forward this important issue so that we can address it at the federal level.

Lastly, I would just encourage everyone watching on television to go to the all-candidates' meeting in your constituency. When the candidates of all parties come to the door, ask them where they stand on this issue, ask them what specific commitments they're going to make to you, and then hold them accountable for that, because this issue must be dealt with by the Criminal Code, and that is very important. I think it's important that this be dealt with as a criminal problem, not a social problem.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today in support of the member for Kitchener's resolution on the state of impaired driving in Ontario. I want to first state I'm very clearly in support of this resolution. I've had certainly in the last week a change of mind on this, because originally I felt that the Minister of Transportation's administrative licence suspension, which was just recently introduced, was a very severe signal and warning for those who would be driving under the influence. However, listening to a program yesterday on CFRB radio really brought home to me that someone can drive and can actually kill someone and not have to pay a serious consequence for it.

I think if we really want to be serious and put some real teeth into the enforcement of impaired driving, this very clearly sends a signal that you're going to do time, and this time would be the appropriate time to learn the consequences for their actions. I don't think it's too harsh. I think of all the work that's gone into it by the Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They need the support of this resolution from the member for Kitchener.

When I listened, in other jurisdictions they have an incarceration period, and I think that's the reminder that is critical. Before you get behind the wheel of a car, if you're impaired, there's a serious message here in this discussion today.

I'm going to leave the remainder of my time to one of the other members, but keep in mind that impaired driving is not acceptable.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm very delighted to join on this historic occasion with the member for Kitchener and his presentation this morning of the problem of drinking drivers and the tragic consequences arising out of their irresponsible actions. On behalf of Transportation Minister Al Palladini, we want to respond in the transportation ministry and agree vigorously with the proposal in the resolution presented by the member for Kitchener.

The member for Kitchener raises concerns in an area that should have been dealt with for many, many years, and this government has undertaken significant initiatives in that particular area. Our concern is shared with the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, which includes representatives from such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving. We've come to the conclusion, from listening to a lot of people on this subject, from law enforcement officers to family members to loved ones to the judiciary, that we need to undertake specific inclusive, comprehensive measures in this area.

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has done so through its road safety plan. Although the plan is only 18 months old, we've made several significant advances in road safety. The first one I'd like to mention is the 90-day suspension that is invoked before the offender leaves the police station. While the administrative driver's licence suspension program is relatively new and has been in effect since last December, we have made some surprising gains in this area, if you look at it in that context.

Under the ADLS, in its first weekend of operation from November 29, 1996, and into December, there were 303 Ontario drivers who had to serve a 90-day driver's licence suspension. Since that time we've chalked up, in five months, 8,832 drivers who have had administrative driving suspensions undertaken.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Kitchener has two minutes to reply.

Mr Wettlaufer: I would like to thank all the members who participated in the debate today: the members for Kingston and The Islands, Hamilton Centre, Windsor-Sandwich, Cochrane South, St Catharines, and my colleagues in the government from Norfolk, Nepean, Durham East and Etobicoke-Rexdale. I thank them all for their support. I appreciate it very much. I especially want to thank the PA for transportation because that indicates to me the ministry is in favour. With that kind of power behind us, I think we can carry this to the federal government. Thank you very much.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 75. If there are members who are opposed to a vote on this at this time, will they please rise.

Mr Kwinter has moved second reading of Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill be referred to a committee?

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): General government.

The Acting Speaker: Does a majority of the House agree that this should be referred to the general government committee? It is agreed.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal now with ballot item number 76, standing in the name of Mr Wettlaufer. If there are any members opposed to a vote being taken at this time, will they please rise.

Is it the wish of the House the resolution carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Wettlaufer has moved private member's notice of motion number 50. All those in favour please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Gerretsen, John

Newman, Dan

Baird, John R.

Gilchrist, Steve

O'Toole, John

Barrett, Toby

Gravelle, Michael

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Beaubien, Marcel

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Bisson, Gilles

Hastings, John

Pettit, Trevor

Boushy, Dave

Kells, Morley

Phillips, Gerry

Bradley, James J.

Kennedy, Gerard

Pupatello, Sandra

Brown, Jim

Kwinter, Monte

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Michael A.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Christopherson, David

Laughren, Floyd

Shea, Derwyn

Colle, Mike

Leach, Al

Sheehan, Frank

Cordiano, Joseph

Leadston, Gary L.

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Marland, Margaret

Spina, Joseph

Elliott, Brenda

Martin, Tony

Stewart, R. Gary

Fisher, Barbara

McLean, Allan K.

Turnbull, David

Fox, Gary

Miclash, Frank

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Galt, Doug

Munro, Julia

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having now been completed, I do leave the chair. This House is adjourned until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The budget presented by the government May 6 has failed totally and miserably to recognize and address the very special needs of a very special group in our society: our seniors. A very large and fast-growing group, hit with copayment and user fees, our seniors are once again being neglected and forgotten by their own government. Another bitter pill to swallow.

Thousands upon thousands of our seniors, the sick and the elderly, the old living on a single measly pension, the seniors in need of a nursing home bed, the seniors who are forced to pay for the government's tax cuts, the seniors who will have to decide: pay rent, buy prescriptions or buy food -- the minister has unfortunately forgotten the seniors.

In your budget there is no better tomorrow for our seniors. You are colour-blind. Their future is not rosy; it's very grim and bleak. Shame on you for failing to address the seniors' needs. This is not the way to recognize our seniors.

Minister, you had the opportunity to remove copayments and user fees, and you have once again failed our seniors miserably. Shame on you.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The claim in the budget that this Conservative government will spend more money on health care this year is quickly unravelling, and so too is the claim that this money will go to patient care.

The Ontario Medical Association issued a press release yesterday which blew apart the government's spin. Dr Rowland, president of the association, said, "The Conservative government's claim in the budget that more money is going into health care is misleading." He noted that this government came to its final budget figure by adding together the operating budget of the Ministry of Health, plus one-time restructuring and capital costs associated with this government's hospital closures. In looking at the money that has been lumped together to form the larger budget figure, Dr Rowland said, "Either way, there's really no additional money for patient care in Ontario."

For good measure, so the Minister of Health gets the message, Dr Rowland also said: "There has been no tangible increase in health care spending in 1997-98 despite the increasing health care needs of the population. I see nothing in this budget to reassure patients that access to care will be any better this year."

It's also worth adding that health care spending per person this year will be less than last year. The one-time funding for health care which appears in the budget is to pay for severance packages for the thousands of nurses who are going out the door and for the capital costs for the single hospitals which will be left after the government closures. The announcement to delay cuts already announced is clearly a sign that the government has gone too far. Too bad the budget claim on health care is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Earlier this year, I sent out a questionnaire to business owners in my riding of Wentworth East. With the Minister of Finance having delivered his new budget on Tuesday, I'd like to report the very timely results of my survey to the House at this time.

For the business people of my riding, these are very positive and hopeful times. One of the questions I asked business people was to identify what the greatest negative impact was on their willingness or their ability to increase employment in their firms. Over 60% of the respondents said that taxes are the biggest deterrent to job creation in this province.

I think my constituents will find solace in the fact that the finance minister's budget not only continued to cut income tax rates, but the budget included a total of 20 tax cuts, and you and I both know, Mr Speaker, that tax cuts create jobs. This budget will mean more good news for the job creators of my riding.

Another question I asked business people was to rate their likelihood to hire new employees in the next 18 months: 44%, almost half of the business owners in Wentworth East, stated that they intend to hire new employees to create more jobs for constituents. People in my riding know that our plan is working, and because of it there will soon be more people working as well.

People who responded to my survey strongly urged this government to stay the course, continue to cut taxes and government spending, and to improve the climate for creating jobs in this province. I thank all those who took

part in the survey.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My statement today is directed towards the Minister of Health, and I would like to ask a page to deliver this letter to the minister.

The story is about two very young constituents of mine. Two-and-a-half-year-old Peter Navratils and his eight-month-old sister Avery have both been diagnosed with a very rare skin disease known as xeroderma pigmentosum, XP, for short, a rare condition that affects less than 1,000 people worldwide.

What XP means is that these small children have an extremely high sensitivity to UV rays to the point where their skin burns within minutes of exposure to sunlight. This disease dramatically raises the risk that Peter and Avery will go blind, deaf or experience neurological problems. They are predisposed to cancer, and most children who are born with this condition do not live past their 18th birthday.

Peter and Avery need protective clothing, glasses and frequent applications of the highest sunblock in their home. They also need a triple laminate coating for their windows to provide a protective barrier between them and the sun, and a light meter for their home, because even the windows cannot fully protect them.

These measures are aimed at giving Peter and Avery the most normal childhood. The problem is that I've been informed that while the assistive devices program was established to provide supplies for Ontarians with long-term disabilities, this program does not cover most of these needed expenses, particularly the vital coating for the windows or the light meter.

We have a responsibility to help the vulnerable children in this province, and I'm calling on the Minister of Health to help the Navratils. Find the flexibility in the ADP to help these children live the healthiest, longest and most normal lives possible.

NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This morning I had an opportunity to participate in the debate on a private member's bill sponsored by the member for Wilson Heights. The piece of legislation he proposes deals with alternative medicine and ensuring that practitioners of alternative medicine have an opportunity to do so as long as it is consistent with good patient care in a way that is free from harassment by the medical establishment in the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

I can't tell you how important I think this kind of legislative initiative is and I am fully supportive of it. I'm also pleased that the members of the Legislature, in all three parties, supported this bill in principle.

I heard some members of the government caucus caution that they had problems with the wording and that there were some more restrictions and/or cautions that need to be built in to it. Fair enough. Let me tell you how to do it.

Now that it has passed second reading and it has been ordered for committee, it's up to the government to ensure that it doesn't die on the order table, that it's actually called. The Minister of Health can take ownership of this, either by introducing a government bill or by working with the member for Wilson Heights to improve the legislation to meet the concerns that have been expressed by some in the field and to make sure it comes to committee so there can be full public hearings.

I remind the government caucus, the Conservatives in this House, that I, as Minister of Health, worked with one of their members to do just that with a private member's bill and helped her see it through to legislation. Jim Wilson should do the same.

BARBARA TURNBULL

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Some events in our lives are so shocking that we will always remember where we were when we heard the news. For me, one of those days was September 23, 1983, when I learned that my constituent, Barbara Turnbull, an 18-year-old student, had been shot that night during a robbery at a local convenience store where she worked.

We soon learned that while Barbara would live, she would be paralysed from the neck down. Her doctors predicted that she would always be reliant on a lung machine. But the strength of Barbara's personality soon became obvious. Not only did she recover her ability to breathe, but she went on to graduate in 1990 with a BA in journalism from Arizona State University. An exceptional student, Barbara graduated with high academic honours and was selected as her class valedictorian.

Since then we have enjoyed Barbara's talented writing in the Toronto Star. Now she has published an autobiography, Looking in the Mirror, about the tragedy that changed her life and the road back from that dark time. I was honoured to be invited to the official launching of Barbara's book on April 23, 1997, published by the Toronto Star.

There can be no stronger testimony to the strength of the human spirit than Barbara's determination to make the most of the many gifts she has to offer our society. Her courage, wisdom and love for life are truly an inspiration to us all.

I invite all members in this House to join me in congratulating Barbara on the publication of her book and wishing her the very best in all her future endeavours.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mike Harris and Al Leach are continuing to spin doctor that municipalities are happy with the new downloading arrangements with the province.

Whereas municipalities are certainly better off than the $1 billion of additional downloading that Mike Harris forced on them earlier, the new scheme will still cost Ontario property taxpayers more in property taxes than it currently does. Why else would Mike Harris and Al Leach not guarantee local property taxpayers that they will not be paying more as a result of the new funding arrangements?

In addition to the municipal support grant of $667 million that municipalities were cut off from last year, there will be at least another $600 million that will be downloaded on municipalities this year. No, Premier, municipalities and local taxpayers are not happy with the new downloading, as municipalities will now have to pay for 100% of social housing in their cities, ferries, airports, sewer and water inspections, police, farm property tax rebate systems, property assessors, libraries, public health including health units, and land ambulances.

We are already hearing from municipalities that they will have to increase their property taxes by as much as 10% or 20% to provide the same services they did last year. Mike Harris, in order to pay for your tax cut, you would have been better off if you'd left the funding arrangements to the municipalities alone.

SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The government made a very big deal out of the increase of $27 million over the next four years to support women and their families who are trying to break the cycle of violence.

This particular item in the budget points out as no other the hypocrisy that's involved in the spin this government is trying to put on its budget. The reality is that the cuts this government has already made to services that had been proven to be effective in assisting those who are trying to escape violence in their lives, to become self-sufficient and safe in our communities, is many times the number of dollars this government has announced with so much fanfare.

The whole field of violence against women and children has been one to which successive governments in this province, until this particular government, have devoted more and more time and energy, because they recognized the real problem both in dollars and cents and in human misery that is caused by the ongoing violence that occurs in families.

For this government to attempt to portray itself in this budget as if it were joining in the real efforts to help women and children in a position of violence is hypocrisy of the worst level and it will not be accepted by --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

PITCH-IN WEEK

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you for the opportunity to remind the members of this Legislature about Pitch-In Week, now taking place in hundreds of communities in Ontario and across Canada.

Pitch-In Week is now in its 29th year in some parts of Canada. This has become a tradition and is a testament to a very powerful idea: Cleaning up the world begins with individual action.

This week more than two million individuals are putting this idea into action. More than 2,500 organizations are involved, from local governments, community organizations and chambers of commerce to environmental groups, service clubs, schools, youth groups and seniors' groups. Together they are pitching in by reducing, reusing and recycling; by cleaning up waterways and highways; by removing garbage from school yards and parks, resulting in cleaner and healthier communities.

The organization of this week's activities, Pitch-In Canada, deserves our thanks for a job well done. I should also note that among the partners involved are Scouts Canada, Friends of the Environment and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

I know that all of my colleagues in this Legislature share my desire to see a cleaner and healthier environment. I encourage all of you to get behind the great work being done in your communities. I encourage you to pitch in and help.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Today I want to talk about what's really happening to students in Ontario who want to go to college or university. It's now clear to everyone, Minister, that you're giving up on our students who need you the most. You've just closed the door on 5,000 part-time students, who are now ineligible for Ontario student loans because you've increased course-load requirements.

This is nothing short of ridiculous. On the one hand, you forced universities to boost tuition fees by about 20%. Now you're telling desperate students that they're out of luck, that this government won't help them. How can anyone believe you when you say you want to ensure that our universities and colleges remain accessible? What do you say to those 5,000 students who won't be able to earn an education as a result of these changes?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I would suggest the member opposite perhaps spend a little more time with his research staff. He will find out, if he talks with his research staff, that Ontario has since 1978 had the provisions of the Ontario student assistance program meet the federal regulations. He will notice that those federal regulations changed between 1978 and now, several times, and Ontario has matched those requirements.

The last series of changes the federal government brought into its package, which we have now adjusted to, happened during the tenure of the previous government in 1994. There were consultations across Canada on those regulations, including consultations with Ontario students, with the Ontario universities and, I assume, with the Ministry of Education under the previous government. So Ontario has moved to be consistent with the federal package of loan programs for students.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, you're the one who has given Ontario's universities and colleges the lowest funding in this country. That's how you show your commitment to accessible post-secondary education? You're the one who told people collecting family benefits that they could get student loans only if they went to university part-time. Now you're cutting most of those people off completely. The message is very clear: If you want an education, you have to buy it; if you can't afford it, tough luck.

That's not what Ontario has been all about. This province has been a success because we've given people the opportunity to succeed. Time and again, governm