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

October 29, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L052 - Thu 29 Oct 1998 / Jeu 29 Oct 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

NORTHERN ONTARIO BUSINESS AWARDS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

JOB CREATION

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

ABORTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMERGENCY VOLUNTEERS PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS AUXILIAIRES EN SITUATION D'URGENCE

DEFERRED VOTES

ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

VISITORS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ABORTION

SPACE SCIENCES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PUBLIC SERVICES

PROBATE AND ESTATE FEES

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

PROPERTY TAXATION

PORNOGRAPHY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

SCHOOL PRAYER

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

BEAR HUNTING

PROSTATE CANCER

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

HOUSE SITTINGS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I move that, in the opinion of this House, since persons with disabilities in Ontario face systemic barriers in access to employment, services, goods, facilities and accommodation; and since all Ontarians will benefit from the removal of these barriers, thereby enabling these persons to enjoy equal opportunity and full participation in the life of the province; and since Premier Harris promised in writing during the last election in the letter from Michael D. Harris to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee dated May 24, 1995 to:

(

a) enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within its current term of office; and

(

b) work together with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, in the development of such legislation;

And since this House unanimously passed a resolution on May 16, 1996, calling on the Ontario government to keep this promise, therefore the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should embody the following principles:

1. The purpose of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should be to effectively ensure to persons with disabilities in Ontario the equal opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario based on their individual merit, by removing existing barriers confronting them and by preventing the creation of new barriers. It should seek to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities within as short a time as is reasonably possible, with implementation to begin immediately upon proclamation.

2. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act's requirements should supersede all other legislation, regulations or policies which either conflict with it, or which provide lesser protections and entitlements to persons with disabilities.

3. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require government entities, public premises, companies and organizations to be made fully accessible to all persons with disabilities through the removal of existing barriers and the prevention of the creation of new barriers, within strict time frames to be prescribed in the legislation or regulations.

4. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the providers of goods, services and facilities to the public to ensure that their goods, services and facilities are fully usable by persons with disabilities, and that they are designed to reasonably accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.

Included among services, goods and facilities, among other things, are all aspects of education including primary, secondary and post-secondary education, as well as providers of transportation and communication facilities (to the extent that Ontario can regulate these) and public sector providers of information to the public, eg, governments. Providers of these goods, services and facilities should be required to devise and implement detailed plans to remove existing barriers within legislated timetables.

5. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require public and private sector employers to take proactive steps to achieve barrier-free workplaces within prescribed time limits. Among other things, employers should be required to identify existing barriers which impede persons with disabilities, and then to devise and implement plans for the removal of these barriers, and for the prevention of new barriers in the workplace.

6. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a prompt and effective process for enforcement. It should not simply incorporate the existing procedures for filing discrimination complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as these are too slow and cumbersome, and yield inadequate remedies.

7. As part of its enforcement process, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a process of regulation-making to define with clarity the steps required for compliance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It should be open for such regulations to be made on an industry-by-industry basis, or sector-by-sector basis. This should include a requirement that input be obtained from affected groups such as persons with disabilities before such regulations are enacted. It should also provide persons with disabilities with the opportunity to apply to have regulations made in specific sectors of the economy.

8. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also mandate the government of Ontario to provide education and other information resources to companies, individuals and groups who seek to comply with the requirements of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

9. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also require the government of Ontario to take affirmative steps to promote the development and distribution in Ontario of new adaptive technologies and services for persons with disabilities.

10. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the provincial and municipal governments to make it a strict condition of funding any program, or of purchasing any services, goods or facilities, that they be designed to be fully accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Any grant or contract which does not so provide is void and unenforceable by the grant recipient or contractor with the government in question.

11. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act must be more than mere window dressing. It should contribute meaningfully to the improvement of the position of persons with disabilities in Ontario. It must have real force and effect.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Duncan has moved private member's ballot item number 29. According to

section 95, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Duncan: I'm pleased to stand today on this resolution, which shouldn't be new to any member of the House. This resolution was designed in consultation with members of this House, members from all three parties.

The process for this resolution began some 10 years ago when the United States adopted its Americans with Disabilities Act. Throughout subsequent governments, all of us have participated in the discussion of these and other issues that confront persons in our community with disabilities. All three political parties in the last general election - all three of our parties - and each of us individually as members of those parties gave a commitment to persons with disabilities in this province that we will enact a meaningful and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act in the life of this Legislature.

As I was contemplating what to say today, it struck me that we are in the fall. We are in the dying days of this year, as we are in the dying days of this Legislature. Depending on when the call is, depending on what other business the government has and the opposition has, we have relatively few days as members of this Legislature to deal with this type of legislation. This type of legislation gives us the opportunity as able-bodied individuals to help bring those in our community who feel alienated from it into the mainstream.

This resolution and the commitments that were made by all of our political parties in the last election - the government party and the two opposition parties - involved five principles. I'd like to take a moment to review those principles.

The first principle is the principle of involvement in open, accessible discussions about the contents of this bill, an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That is, we should be talking about the issues. There are issues within this. There are issues around implementation. There are issues around who should be covered. There are all kinds of issues around that. But the process must be open and, most important of all, it must involve persons with disabilities. None of us, if we haven't experienced a disability of one form or another, can effectively address their concerns.

As I travelled the province in the last week and met with groups literally across the province, I want to tell you what Graham in Windsor said to me. He said, "Don't forget persons who don't have visible disabilities." I got that message in North Bay; I got it in Peel region; I got it everywhere I went. I say to Graham and members of the Legislature that we must not only confront visible disabilities; we must confront those disabilities which aren't visible.

The second principle is the principle of removal. Too often I think those of us who aren't faced with the day-to-day challenges that our brothers and sisters are faced with take for granted or think or believe that we've done everything we can to remove existing barriers. The simple fact of the matter is, we have not.

This Legislature itself can only accommodate two wheelchairs at any given time. It doesn't adequately allow people who are deaf to hear what goes on. I believe all members in this House support the removal of barriers, and I believe the people of this province want barriers removed. But we mustn't be complacent and think that we've done everything. We mustn't believe that because we have handicapped parking spots, the barriers have all been removed. They haven't been.

The third principle is the prevention of new barriers. Technology presents barriers; technology prevents barriers. If you don't have access to technology, how do you compete in this economy? And if you're disabled and you don't have the income, how do you access a computer, especially a modified computer?

The fourth principle is the principle of proactive intervention. That is, we as a government, as a Legislature, have a duty and a responsibility to proactively intervene. It shouldn't be a question of volunteerism. We must commit ourselves in a proactive fashion to bring the resources of government to bear on removing barriers and on preventing new barriers.

The fifth principle is the principle of enforcement. All of us know, as members of provincial Parliament, and many have sat on municipal councils before, that the best-intentioned law in the world doesn't work if you can't enforce it. Whatever law we pass must have a mechanism that works for enforcement. The Human Rights Commission, where oftentimes we try to resolve these, simply does not work in an adequate or fast amount of time.

Ces principes sont très importants, pas seulement ici dans la législature, mais dans toute la province. Pour tous nos citoyens, il faut que nous adoptions ces principes maintenant et dans la nouvelle législation, dans la nouvelle loi du gouvernement. Moi, je soutiens un ODA qui sera fort et où nous pourrons enforcer toutes les provisions de cette loi maintenant et dans l'avenir.

Throughout the last period of time, I have had the opportunity to travel the province and meet with the most able people I know. Today in Windsor, at ALPHA, Dean Labutte and his group are watching us in the Legislature. The people in North Bay who are out in front of the Premier's office as I speak asking for the government to keep its commitment are among the most able people I know. The people in Peel region who are watching today are among the most able people I know and are among the people who most want to be brought into this process. The people who have been to your offices this morning, the people from the Rumball centre, are among the most able people I know.

I believe all of us in this House, all private members, want this kind of legislation. We don't want to be 10 years behind the Americans. We want Ontario to be the most accessible and accommodating and open province in this country and indeed, hopefully, in North America.

I say to my colleagues in the House, we have a rare opportunity to adopt what I would call a piece of legacy legislation, a legacy that for this House will be as meaningful as Algonquin Park was to Oliver Mowat's government, or the education reforms that Davis implemented in the 1960s were to his government, or the French Language Services Act was to the Legislatures of the 1980s.

We have an opportunity, my colleagues, all of us, in a non-partisan fashion, in a trilateral fashion, if you will, to leave a legacy we can all point back to regardless of our political stripe and say, "We did that." This has been asked for for years. We are 10 years behind the Americans. We have a chance now to keep all our commitments because all of us made that commitment, whether it be through our political party or through groups in our communities in the last general election.

I ask members in all three parties to support this resolution embodying these 11 principles and I ask the government: Bring that legislation forward so we can pass it and leave a legacy for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I rise and speak in support of this resolution because I know that for many in our communities, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act has been too long in coming.

It was Mike Harris during the 1995 election who promised to bring in this legislation and, as a result of the lack of action, it was my NDP colleague Marion Boyd who introduced a resolution into this Legislature in May 1996. That was supported unanimously and yet we are still waiting for the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

There are many groups in my community that are anxiously awaiting this legislation, groups like Legal Assistance of Windsor, the AIDS Committee of Windsor, the local Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Hearing Society, WECAN and the Windsor/Essex

Chapter of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, who I know have done a great deal of work in preparing briefs and lobbying government members.

Individuals who live at Alpha House, a residence in my riding, are also asking themselves why it has taken so long for this government to introduce legislation. They're asking themselves why the promise is not being kept, why a government that says "A promise made, a promise kept," is failing to keep its promise with respect to persons with disabilities. There's a good reason, and that is that the overwhelming promise that this government is fulfilling is the one that provides a tax benefit to those who are the most well off. If it means cuts to education or cuts to health care to do that, then that's OK.

Those cuts are affecting many people in my area, people like Debbie Desjardins, who wanted me to raise the case of her daughter in the context of this resolution that says persons with disabilities should have "equal opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario." She has a daughter, Brandie, who requires support services so that Debbie is able to fulfill her obligations as an employee at Casino Windsor. Debbie has been looking after Brandie for 21 years and has saved the government millions of dollars. Brandie is now an adult.

She now feels that she should be able to have the opportunity to live like other able-bodied individuals, but at the moment Debbie only gets temporary short-term help.

Community agencies are stretched to their maximum in assisting individuals and their families, and the rights of the disabled to "equal opportunity and to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario" is a message that she wanted me to convey on behalf of herself and her daughter.

Mary LeFleur and her daughter, Jodi, who has been diagnosed with severe and profound developmental delay and autism disorder wanted me to mention that her daughter, Jodi, being 21 years old, graduated from the developmentally challenged program at Southwood School in Windsor and attended Autism Services Inc. That was a program that was run during the summertime. This program has the ability to provide for a number of adults with autism, but the funding is going to end on October 31.

This is a government that often likes to say that it wants not to give a handout to people but to give them a hand up. This is an opportunity for government members to do the right thing, to support a resolution that is going to move us into having protection for people with disabilities in Ontario, and I urge all members to support the resolution.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I an pleased and honoured to rise today to speak to the resolution put forward by the honourable member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Members will recall that during the 1995 election, the Premier wrote, "A Harris government would be willing to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in the first term of office within the economic goal posts of the Common Sense Revolution."

Members will also remember that in May 1996 the House unanimously passed a resolution by the member from London to enact an ODA and work with the ODA committee, a group of disability stakeholders, in the development of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

I'm pleased and honoured to say to all those who are here today and everyone watching at home that this government's principles and parameters for an ODA are still very clear. They are written in black and white in our discussion paper that was released in July. We are committed to bring forward an ODA and we will keep our promise.

I think it somewhat ironic, of course, that the tone of the debate from those on the other side of this chamber is just slightly harsh. The two opposition parties have been silent on an ODA for some time.

The New Democratic Party, for example, failed to support a private member's bill that was brought forward by one of their own members in 1994. During our ODA meetings we listened to what Mr Malkowski had to say about the need for programs and the need for legislation. We thank him for his candidness about how difficult it was to get his colleagues in government from 1990 to 1995 to listen.

It is ironic that the Liberal disability critic did not participate in the ODA consultations. His office, I know, was contacted back in July and informed how he might get involved. I know the minister and I have looked high and low for Liberal submissions on behalf of the opposition. We can't find them; there are none available. His office was informed about the meetings in Ottawa but he was not involved. Nothing has been heard from him or from the leader of the Liberal opposition on this issue.

At this point I suppose we can say that they are johnny-come-latelies. They were late in endorsing debt reduction, late in supporting tax reduction and they are late in showing interest or support for an ODA. But we welcome their support for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The minister should be bringing forward legislation shortly because a promise made is a promise kept and I'm pleased that my NDP colleague reminded us of that. A promise made is a promise kept.

Let me turn my attention to the resolution that is before us now in more precise terms. The resolution sets out a number of directives that may or may not be good ideas, but the principle of an effective ODA is something all members of this chamber should stand in support of. We support the principle of equal opportunity for everybody. The Premier made a commitment and that commitment is being fulfilled. Any legislation from our government is based on some fundamental principles and consultation.

We spent the summer consulting across the province on the ODA. The minister met with many stakeholders in Toronto, and I met personally with large numbers of varied stakeholders across this entire province. We held consultations in eight communities, met with representatives of 283 groups and organizations and received over 260 submissions from individuals, community leaders and organizations, representatives of Ontarians with disabilities, business, municipalities, service providers and labour.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Did you open the meetings up?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's a good point, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order.

Mr Shea: During the consultations we asked for input on three key questions. First, what are the priorities for preventing and removing barriers for persons with disabilities? Second, what could be included in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act? Third, what additional approaches could complement an Ontarians with Disabilities Act? We are currently reviewing the many ideas which were put forward in meetings and in the submissions. Once our review has been completed, the minister will be moving to bring legislation before the House.

Legislation isn't the only thing government can or should do, however. I know that our government has given a lot of emphasis to programs. For example, $1 billion a year for special education through the Ministry of Education's funding to school boards for programs for exceptional children, such as children with disabilities and gifted children, and up to $25 million over the next five years for neurotrauma research, prevention and rehabilitation projects.

Mr Lessard: Are you going to vote in favour of the resolution? Are you voting for this?

The Deputy Speaker: Member from Windsor, come to order.

Mr Shea: In May 1998, the Premier announced the approval of $3.7 million as the first round of projects as part of Ontario's $25 million commitment to the Rick Hansen Neurotrauma Initiative.

In short, this Liberal resolution contains many things. Some are helpful, others are perhaps more problematic, but the thing that is most important about it is equal opportunity, and that is something we can all support.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Before I start my presentation, I must say I'm surprised that Mr Shea, a man I respect, a man I consider of a high calibre, would do a political speech while we have thousands of people look at us at this moment, thousands of people looking at us for an answer to their demand, a cry for help. Let me assure you, had you done your research, you would have found out that we called the minister's office on many occasions to find out where meetings were to be held and never did we ever receive an answer.

I commend the member from Windsor-Walkerville for presenting a challenge to the government in the form of this resolution. It is inspired by the hundreds of people with disabilities who have come together around the province to ask for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It is simple justice the community is calling for, justice that has been too long denied.

Only recently has this government acknowledged that they have this promise to keep before the next election. For that reason, I am sure that we will see a bill reasonably soon. What I doubt, however, is that the government will produce a piece of legislation that will be truly meaningful. It will be another item they can check off the list to say a promise has been kept, but it is terribly cynical to approach the issue in this way. The only way we can judge the effectiveness of this legislation is whether it will have a measurable impact on the lives of people with disabilities.

It is true that the task is daunting. What an effective ODA would help accomplish is to shift our way of thinking. We would recognize our differences as human beings and acknowledge the fact that our environment is organized in a way that favours some people more than others. All persons have a right to a life of dignity. We must realize that our society does not provide a level playing field for everyone. Many of us have been born to a life of privilege and, sadly, don't even know it. As a result, we don't see the broad range of physical, social and economic barriers that people with disabilities encounter every day, and it keeps getting harder for them.

In its consultation document the government listed the programs and services it provides to persons with disabilities. It is trying to say: "Look. See how much we do for you." What they fail to say is that behind the elaborate program names, program funding is shrinking. That is the reality. More families are having to compete for fewer resources. Hours of support are being cut. More stringent rules are applied in a whole range of programs. The full impact has yet to be felt, but the prospects are not good.

It all adds up to the kinds of cuts to persons with disabilities that the Premier promised would not happen. This is the context into which this government would place its Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

That is the reason for this resolution. What persons with disabilities are asking for is a real advance into the world that we all take for granted. We're asking the government to live up to its obligations and give us legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of people with disabilities.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased to speak to this resolution and indicate my full support for it. I'm quite disturbed by what I've heard in this House today. As I understand it, the government members will rise and vote in favour of this because they don't want to be seen to be on the wrong side of this very important issue. But if you listen to the words of the parliamentary assistant, you heard very clearly his support for a couple of helpful things in the resolution and some things that are not very helpful. He said their clear commitment still exists, what they wrote in black and white in that discussion paper.

Nothing could disturb one and a half million Ontarians with disabilities more than hearing that. You've just dashed their hopes entirely that you were going to have a strong, effective law. That discussion paper was full of all the weasel words like "voluntary measures." Let me tell you what happens in Mike Harris's Ontario with voluntary measures.

The speech I intended to give today has just been thrown right out the window because my colleague from Sault Ste Marie, Tony Martin, has shared with me a letter that he just received from Vince Buczel in Sault Ste Marie:

"On October 18, 1998 I had the opportunity to visit Pancake Bay Provincial Park to enjoy the fall colours, a pleasure I've enjoyed for over 25 years.

"Upon turning into the main park entrance from Highway 17, I was confronted by a newly installed gate. Another car had also pulled in just ahead of me.

"I parked my car and got out to continue into the park on foot. As I walked past the other car I noticed that the occupants were greatly distressed. I asked the male occupant what was wrong. His response was that he had enjoyed coming to the park in the off-season since it opened to enjoy the beauty and now he couldn't get in because of the newly installed gate. You see, this man used a wheelchair and now could not access the park. Pancake Bay Park has a wonderful paved loop that winds its way through towering pines and along some of the most beautiful waterfront scenery in the world.

In addition the park has installed a wonderful paved ramp up to the beach area, provided handicap parking in the picnic area and has wheelchair-accessible toilets. Not much good if you can't get into the park.

"I again contacted Mr Caldwell on October 27 and asked him, now that he'd had a chance to reflect on the decision, if the gate was going to stay. He stated" - every one of you in the government benches, listen to this - "that handicapped individuals have ample opportunity to access and enjoy the park when it is open and the gate will stay where it is. It is at this point that I felt compelled to write this letter. For many years Pancake Bay Park has been a welcoming and valued complement to our unique northern lifestyle.

I have often seen wheelchair-bound individuals enjoying a stroll during the peaceful off-season. This decision to relocate the gate is regressive, punishes the innocent and will do little to combat vandalism. The Ontario Parks even sell winter and summer passes that encourage you to `enjoy unlimited daily vehicle entry to all provincial parks.' By whom?"

"I encourage everyone to call the park manager at (705) 882-2209 or e-mail Ontario Parks at comments@OntarioParks.com and oppose this exclusionary decision. Our provincial parks are for use by everyone 12 months of the year."

That is what happens to the voluntary approach in Mike Harris's Ontario. Mike Harris has removed and cut the staff in ministry after ministry who were responsible for removing barriers in the Ontario public service. He has removed the fund that was put in place under the previous government to systematically remove barriers and to implement changes that were necessary to ensure that workplaces were accessible.

This act is for everyone. This act ensures that all of us who are disabled, who may become disabled or who have disabled members in our family can enjoy access to all parts of our society together. It is simply a necessary piece of legislation. Any dickering around, saying, "We'll make it voluntary. We'll make it an approach where we attempt to encourage people to participate," anything like that will simply be a betrayal of the one and a half million Ontarians with disabilities and all of us who support them and who call on the government to keep their true promise and enact a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I support the resolution proposed by my friend opposite regarding an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Let me say, however, that there should be no confusion in anyone's mind about this government's position on supporting persons with disabilities. Our government believes, and has always believed, that persons with disabilities should have an equal opportunity with every other Ontarian to participate in the social and economic life of this province. Furthermore, this government has always said that it intends to promote that participation by both legislative and non-legislative means.

I have personally urged it to advance on this agenda, and it has done so. In fact, this government has already gone further than any other government in the history of this province to make equal access a reality. As the member opposite says himself, during the last election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party said that it would enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in its first term of office, within the economic goalposts of the Common Sense Revolution. This is a government that keeps its promises and we will keep this one too.

Do we support the objectives at the heart of the member's resolution? Of course we do, and he knows we do. It will be this government - I repeat, this government - that is going to move our province closer to becoming barrier-free for persons with disabilities. Let's be blunt here. If either of the two previous provincial governments had been even half as serious as this government is about achieving equal opportunity for people with disabilities, we wouldn't have to be here this morning responding to the member's resolution. Members on that side of the House had an opportunity to do what we will be doing but they did not do it. Let's not forget that.

As the member knows, Isabel Bassett, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, her parliamentary assistant, Derwyn Shea, and ministry officials met recently with literally hundreds of individuals and groups to discuss issues affecting persons with disabilities, and I personally commend the Bloorview MacMillan Centre for its assistance in this process. This government distributed more than 7,300 copies of a discussion paper that became the focus for an unprecedented consultation process on preventing and removing barriers for Ontarians with disabilities.

The government had consultations in eight cities across the province. It consulted with 283 organizations in Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Peterborough, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Toronto and Windsor. More than 100 of these groups represented the disability sector. The government received approximately 260 submissions on improving access for persons with disabilities, about 60% of which came from disability groups.

The discussion paper set out a number of parameters for consulting on barrier removal, and I think it's important that we reiterate those parameters now, because they were, and are still, clear statements about this government's direction in this regard.

We said that time frames for implementing barrier-removal approaches should be realistic. We said that approaches must support the government's overall goals. We suggested that a range of approaches should be considered. We were clear that barrier-removal approaches should use existing legislation and enforcement mechanisms to their fullest extent. We stressed that barrier-removal ideas in the area of employment should be consistent with the government's voluntary approach to promoting equality in the workplace.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Voluntary.

Mr Parker: I understand that the members opposite have difficulty with that concept; that's something they have to deal with.

We stated that the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government should be kept clearly in view.

In other words, we have been clear from the beginning about our direction and about the fact that both legislative approaches, such as the Ontario disability support program, already introduced, and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, soon to come, as well as complementary approaches to achieving equal opportunity for persons with disabilities must fit within the government's overall vision for Ontario and the promises it has made to Ontarians.

Each organization the government consulted with had its own opinion on the issue, its own experiences to relate and its own recommendations to make. I also know from my colleague the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation that the consultation process has provided the government with a considerable amount of information on disability issues from representatives of business, disability groups, labour, health service providers, municipalities and the education sector.

Naturally, given the diversity of opinion and divergence of views that such a group would bring forward, the government has to take a measured, considered approach to addressing barrier removal and prevention. There is no point in repeating the mistakes of previous governments and developing a hodgepodge of legislation and programs that fail to meet the needs of the very people they purport to assist.

What we need is a thoughtful plan for barrier removal, a plan that will continue to advance this province firmly towards its goal of removing and preventing barriers. This government wants a balanced and workable approach to supporting people with disabilities and preventing and removing barriers to their participation in our society. This government fully intends to lead by example, to demonstrate what achievements are possible when there is a commitment to succeed.

But make no mistake. The government intends to meet the commitment it has made. It will do so in a carefully planned manner that achieves the objective of enabling disabled Ontarians to contribute their potential to the social and economic life of this province.

Mr Agostino: I'm pleased to join in support of the resolution by my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville. It's certainly interesting to listen to the members of the government party talk about this commitment they have. What you had was a three-and-a-half-year delay. What you had were public hearings that were an absolute sham. What you had were public hearings that were closed. What you had were hearings with selected individuals whom you chose to come forward and you shut out the rest of the community. You won't even release the papers that were submitted at those public hearings. You're afraid to do that.

Very clearly, what we're going to get is more feel-good, pat-on-the-head weasel words and weasel legislation. We talk about voluntary. Our history should tell us that voluntary compliance when it comes to dealing with people with disabilities in Ontario does not work. We have passed hundreds of bills in this Legislature since this government has taken office. They have not seen fit yet to bring this bill forward, three and a half years later. When the bill does come forward, it is going to be an absolute joke, because it will be based on the goodwill of people who may want to comply with this legislation but don't have to.

My father spent 24 years in a wheelchair. I know at first hand the impact of voluntary legislation. What that means is that my dad could not get into a building unless my brother and I were there to pick up the wheelchair and carry it up the steps. What it meant was that for him to access a disabled bathroom - it didn't exist. We had to take him behind the building. It meant that there were many buildings he couldn't get into, many workplaces he couldn't get into. That was the reality of voluntary legislation.

It doesn't work, it is unenforceable, it is a sham, and all you're trying to do here is give some vague commitment that somehow is going to tell you that you've kept your promise. You haven't kept your promise. You have betrayed a million and a half disabled Ontarians with this feel-good, pat-on-the-head approach that you have taken here. You're not going to fool those folks. They know that this type of legislation is not going to work. It's not far-reaching enough. It is not going to have the teeth it needs for it to work.

You had a golden opportunity here to act. You had a golden opportunity to set up a place in history for yourselves, to do something real that helps Ontarians. What we've heard clearly this morning is that you're going to let this thing slide. You are going to give up that opportunity to make some real changes to help disabled Ontarians. I say shame on you.

You've cut funding to vocational rehabilitation services. You've cut funding to disabled programs. You've added user fees. That is your legacy. This bill is not going to be your legacy. Frankly, the introduction of this bill is going to be a joke. Unless this government moves to ensure that it is not going to be voluntary but mandatory, and it's going to force every single aspect of our society to comply, it is going to be a dismal failure and the disabled community will not forget the betrayal you've imposed upon them.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'll be brief but I want to say a couple of things. First of all, the resolution we're dealing with today follows on the resolution from May 6, 1996, when Marion Boyd, my colleague from London Centre, called on this government to enact the Ontarians with Disabilities Act in this term. That was agreed to by all members of this House. Here we are, two years later, doing the same thing yet again.

Frankly, this government's handling of the development of this act has been abysmal. There is no other way to describe it. For the first three years of this government you did nothing with respect to the development of this act. What you did, though, was to reverse a number of policies and cut a bunch of funding from a number of programs that were put in place to help the disabled, some over many numbers of years.

In the middle of the summer, the government finally decided that it was going to do something with respect to its commitment around this act. The government developed a consultation paper, which it dropped on the disabled community and a number of organizations in the middle of the summer.

Two things have to be said about the discussion paper and the consultations. First, if this discussion paper is a forerunner to a bill that is supposed to protect and enhance the condition of the disabled in the province, forget it. Don't even bother bringing anything else forward. The measures that were outlined in the government document have no teeth, are voluntary, are worthless, aren't worth the paper they're written on.

The fact that you want to use the Ontario Human Rights Commission to deal with discrimination is ridiculous. People know that doesn't work. Using the Human Rights Commission doesn't deal with the systemic problems, the systemic discrimination and the systemic barriers the disabled face in this province. We have two people who went to the public hearings who said the following:

"People's complaints would be still handled by the Human Rights Commission. What's the point in bringing in a disability act? It's the situation we have now." That was Kim Scott, who is with the Canadian Hearing Society, Sudbury chapter.

Joanne Nother said: "There's no teeth to it, no form of enforcement. There is nothing that will force employers to make the workplace accessible or force them to comply." Joanne is the chair of the NorthEastern Ontario Regional Alliance for the Disabled.

Second, with respect to the consultation process itself, it was a sham: seven communities only, in the middle of the summer, a 90-minute meeting behind closed doors by invitation only. It was an affront, a slap in the face of the disabled community, who want and need to participate in the development of this act. People in Sudbury said very clearly that this is ridiculous.

Mr Andre Crepeau, who is with the Canadian Hearing Society, said, "We're the experts. We're the ones who are living with these barriers." He expressed his disappointment about the closed meeting.

This government promised legislation this term. This government must recognized that the disabled have an enormous contribution to make to the Ontario economy. It's time this government went on and got this bill done.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I did have some prepared remarks, which I'll ignore because my colleagues who waxed eloquent in their remarks robbed me of the time to present them. What I will say, however, is that I tend to agree that this is not the time for political speeches and it's not the time to defend a process, because it is time for us to become very serious about the needs of the disabled in our communities.

When we talk about the issue of mandatory versus voluntary, I'm going to suggest to you that we have ample example, as someone has already said in this House, that when certain issues are made voluntary, there perhaps is a reluctance on the part of those responsible for implementation to follow. We recently had that example with municipalities. I'm one who would support that some requirements be made mandatory to ensure that the services for the disabled in our communities are adequately met.

As I indicated to people outside this place earlier today, I have been and will continue to be an advocate for the needs of the disabled in our communities. I have been an advocate of bringing forward an Ontarians with Disabilities Act by our government, and I'll continue to do that. When it comes forward, I also agree that it should be meaningful, and if it is not brought forward as a meaningful document for first reading, I will be the first one on this side of the House to work with other members of this Legislature to ensure that it is in fact a meaningful document, a meaningful piece of legislation.

All of us have a vested interest in ensuring that the work that goes on in this place is not simply for political purposes or for making the necessary noises to the people in our community. We all have a responsibility to ensure that when we spend time in debate, when we spend time in committee, the final product is something that will work for the people it's intended to help, that is practical in implementation and that will, at the end of the day, achieve its objectives for Ontarians and ensure that the quality of life for people with disabilities in this province is improved.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In the two minutes I have, let me lend my support to this resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville. Today we have the opportunity to honour a promise that the government put forward and to honour a promise not only by the government but by all of the Legislature. Disabled people are appealing to the highest level they can go, the Legislature. The Legislature itself is the body that can make meaningful and effective legislation for all the people who are disabled.

Let me also say what it's all about, which I'm just going to emphasize, and I think we do know. All they're talking about is access: access to employment, a meaningful way of life; access to public services, which are given to all of us and paid for with taxpayers' money; access to buying a product to carry on their life; access to transportation. These things are basic. I really am confused when we have this sort of debate as we talk about a political issue. I think today we have the opportunity, all of us, to pass the motion and move it along so we can have that law in effect, and I support it very much.

I just want to take a second to say that it was an excellent speech given by my colleague the member for Carleton East, and also the presentation prepared by my colleague here. We are in strong support, and I hope we all have that support in making this resolution pass today without the dance and fanciness that goes on here each day.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, I want to tell you that every New Democrat in this Legislature stands firmly behind this resolution, not just vaguely, in principle, but with respect to every facet of this resolution, which calls for real and meaningful enforcement of what are basic human rights in this province.

I'm concerned about the vagueness of the Tory support. I'm concerned about the fact that they support this in principle today, yet within months of forming government they repealed equity legislation, modest legislation that gave some access to persons with disabilities to our workplaces.

You see, it's not just about eliminating barriers to buildings; it's about ensuring that every Ontarian, and today we're speaking about persons with disabilities, has access to the economic activity of this province as well; that persons with disabilities have a right to real jobs with decent wages; that persons with disabilities have a right to housing that is appropriate for them and that is decent and affordable housing.

We need firm laws to establish firmly in this province that every Ontarian is going to be included in the day-to-day activities of Ontario life. This government has not made that commitment. I call upon Tory backbenchers to forget the whipping today and vote with their consciences.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in very strong support of my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville's resolution today, and also to speak on behalf of the disability community in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, which has worked so hard to have this legislation brought forward.

The truth is, I think my colleague will probably be the first to say that he wishes he wasn't bringing forward this resolution. We all wish this government was bringing forward legislation that indeed would be meaningful and indeed would have some true effect and make a real change in terms of the disability community. The fact is, it has become increasingly clear, especially in terms of the speeches that were made today, particularly by the member for High Park-Swansea, that this government will bring forward legislation but will be dealing very much on the basis of voluntary compliance.

We know that the efforts to secure voluntary compliance over the past 20 years have not been effective. It is our responsibility, and our obligation as legislators, to make sure that legislation comes forward and that the promise that was made by Mike Harris is kept not in some shallow, hollow fashion, but kept in a meaningful way. Because the truth is that Ontarians with disabilities still face massive unemployment rates and systemic exclusion from education, mainstream public transit, employment, job creation, housing, and many other areas.

If I may just say so, the consultation process that has been discussed by the government members was truly one that was completely insulting from the very beginning. The fact is that in April the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee presented a blueprint and wanted to present it to all three parties in a rather non-partisan fashion. I was very proud, as the member for Port Arthur and on behalf of the member for Fort William, Lyn McLeod, who couldn't be there, to accept that blueprint on behalf of the group. Persons United for Self-Help, PUSH Northwest, presented that to me.

What was shocking about that at the time was that not one government member would accept that particular blueprint. That was certainly a bad sign. This was already after an extraordinary delay in the process where the minister and the former minister would not even meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. This blueprint is one that is very clear in terms of what the needs are.

The consultation this summer was truly a farce. The fact is that PUSH Northwest went to the session chaired by the member for High Park-Swansea and were told that they would have an opportunity to speak but that they couldn't stay. They sat in that room and told the member that they were not going to leave, that they were going to stay there and sit in because it was their right to do so. We were proud that they did so. They were able to listen to the presentations, all of which supported the fact that there needed to be mandatory and clear, meaningful legislation, not the legislation that unfortunately we're now expecting to see.

I'm glad to have had an opportunity to state my case in strong support of my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Bradley: I'd like to thank my colleague Dwight Duncan from Windsor-Walkerville for bringing forward this resolution this morning. I suspect the resolution will receive unanimous approval of this House. The real proof of whether it's going to be implemented, of course, will be in the actual legislation that is forthcoming.

I'm a bit concerned by the defensiveness I've heard and some rather partisan remarks that have come out this morning from some of the Conservative members. It appears that they are uneasy with many of the provisions that might be contained in this kind of legislation, and of course the proof will be in the actual detail of the legislation that we see. I was concerned about the controlled, restricted and limited consultation that took place behind closed doors. It would have been advantageous to have open consultation, widespread consultation across the province, to come forward with

an act which is truly going to be meaningful.

When I hear the words "workable," "voluntary" and "practical" used, it seems to me they're code words. They're code words which, to those who are opposed to this kind of legislation, will give them some ease. If you look at the Ministry of the Environment, for instance, when you say, "Will you please, on a voluntary basis, clean up the environment" or "Be good environmental citizens," some might well do that but many will not. It requires enforcement, it requires strong provisions within the legislation and the regulatory framework.

What individuals with disabilities in Ontario are looking for is not some privilege but the right to enjoy the same kind of life that others in our society enjoy in terms of access to housing and transportation, and particularly access to good jobs that might be available within our society and certainly within our province, and access to education and physical access to buildings and to our society as a whole. We have made some progress in the last number of years. Much more progress has to be made.

As they see the television ads that come on, costing the Ontario taxpayer millions of dollars - self-serving, blatantly political advertising, whether it's on health care or education or municipalities, whatever it happens to be - they must be thinking, "Wouldn't it be nice if that kind of money could be invested in services that would assist people with disabilities to be part of the mainstream of Ontario," as all want to be part of the mainstream of Ontario. Yet they see that money being wasted, squandered, thrown away on self-serving advertising. I think that money could be converted to much better use.

I hope all members of this House support this motion. More importantly, I hope the bill that emerges is truly meaningful and beneficial.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Windsor-Walkerville, you have two minutes.

Mr Duncan: I want to begin by thanking my colleague from St Catharines, Jim Bradley. To those in the community watching and listening today, Mr Bradley gave up his private member's time to allow us to bring forward this resolution, and he deserves tremendous credit for the support he has given to the disabled community throughout Ontario.

I listened carefully to the parliamentary assistant to the minister, and I believe he said they are asking the government members to support the resolution and I welcome that.

I welcome that because I thought his other comments weren't accurate in many respects. There was no meaningful consultation this summer. People were barred from participating. That's why we brought this resolution forward, so we could have an open discussion about these issues. We haven't had that, we haven't. Members were excluded. My colleague from Carleton, M. Morin - we made a conscious decision not to participate. We met with groups throughout the province to hear their point of view. Any notion that that was a meaningful consultation should go right out the window.

I say to my colleagues opposite and my colleagues on the opposition benches, we have a real opportunity to leave a meaningful legacy of recognizing the inherent rights of every member of this community to be full partners in this community. We have the opportunity to pass legislation that will be meaningful and enforceable, that goes beyond voluntarism and says to the disabled community, "You are full partners, you belong here." I say to my friends on all sides that the most able people I have met in my life I have met from the disabled community as I talked about this resolution throughout Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mr Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 2,

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Bill 2 is the successor bill to Bill 126, a virtually identical bill that I introduced and that had unanimous consent at second reading on May 8, 1997. I'd like to say that I have made one change to the bill. I have inserted one word. I want to read the crux of the bill, which is very short, very succinct but very important. It says:

"A member shall not be found guilty of professional misconduct or of incompetence under

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

The one word that has been added is the word "solely." The question is why? Why add the word "solely"? I would like to quote from the World Health Organization's 1989 Helsinki agreement, which was signed on behalf of Canada, and by definition on behalf of all the provinces and territories, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time.

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

That is almost identical to the wording of this new bill.

I would like to quote from a letter from Dr Linda Rapson, who is the chair of the complementary medicine

section of the Ontario Medical Association. She says:

"Dear Mr Kwinter:

"As chair of the complementary medicine

section of the Ontario Medical Association, I wish to thank you for bringing Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991, before the Legislature. This bill is an improvement over its predecessor, Bill 126, which we supported last year. By adding the key word `solely' to the bill, we believe you have gone a long way to answer the sincere concerns of some individuals and organizations with respect to the potential for this bill to weaken the traditional public protection we have come to expect from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario."

That is very significant, because I can tell you that virtually the only resistance I got to this bill was from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's interesting to note that the last time this bill came forward, they wrote a strident, strong letter to the Minister of Health saying that they could not support this bill. I think it's somewhat significant to note that this time there has been no comment whatsoever by the college.

What has happened since Bill 126 was passed? Interestingly enough, the bill was passed on May 8, 1997. On May 10, an advertisement appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail announcing that an ad hoc committee on complementary and alternative medicine was to be set up and would meet, and the public was invited to make representations.

The hearings were held in June, and I just want to tell you what happened when they set up the committee. The ad hoc committee on complementary medicine, which studied the issue of regulating physicians who provide non-traditional diagnostic methods and remedies, met for two days of public hearings. The College of Physicians and Surgeons committee report concluded that patients have every right to seek whatever kind of therapy they want.

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

What has also happened is that the Ontario Medical Association set up a probationary

section on complementary medicine. At their last meeting, held on September 16 or 17, 1998, the board of directors passed a resolution that recommends that full status should be given to a complementary medicine

section of the OMA. So after the probationary period they have realized that this is viable, that a lot of doctors want to affiliate, and as a result we have the Ontario Medical Association now giving full and permanent status to that section, which is a very significant advance for doctors who are practising complementary and alternative medicine.

Interestingly enough, on October 20, just a week ago, the United States Congress passed legislation that's going to change the face of health care in that country forever. What they've done is pass legislation that allows for the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health to be changed from being an office to a center, which means it gets $50 million worth of funding.

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

In our own country - this is interesting. On September 16 an

article in the Toronto Star said, "Mount Sinai Gets Clinic for Acupuncture."

"A new acupuncture program has been launched at Mount Sinai Hospital in conjunction with the Michener Institute and is heralded as the first of its kind in Canada.

"The program, part of the hospital's pain clinic, will be an important bridge between traditional Chinese and Western medicine, said Michener Institute president Renate Krakauer.

"`We're delighted,' she said.

"On hand at the press conference, yesterday, was Mount Sinai Hospital president Ted Freedman and Isabel Bassett, Ontario's minister for citizenship, recreation and culture."

An

article appeared in the Toronto Star on September 17 about a conference held in Toronto. It says, "Traditional Healing Can Treat Menopause." A researcher from Columbia University's medical school in New York stated that this is a process that has been tried for centuries and is something that mainstream doctors are now getting hold of. An interesting comment she makes is, "In Europe, St John's wort, a botanical used to treat mild to moderate depression, another common complaint of pre-menopausal women, `is outselling Prozac by leaps and bounds.'"

Another interesting

article says, "Alternative Medicine Gains Acceptance."

"Almost two thirds of traditional US medical schools now teach alternative therapies, including chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal remedies and mind-body medicine, a survey found.

"With millions of Americans visiting alternative practitioners yearly, educators have no choice but to respond to this relentless challenge to evolve.

"The survey of 125 medical schools found that of the 117 reporting, 75 of them now include in their curricula alternative medicine."

I have very little time left but I do want to quote from a letter that the Minister of Health sent to a constituent. This letter is quite significant in that what it does is it gives, for the first time that I have seen, an acknowledgement by this government that they are supporting this initiative. In her letter she says:

"I want to assure you that this government supports freedom of choice for patients for a range of care options as long as people are not put at unnecessary risk. This includes physicians who use non-traditional treatments as long as they maintain the standards of the profession and have the skills, the education and training necessary to provide such treatments."

I couldn't have said it better. This is exactly what this bill proposes. This is an issue that I think will dramatically change the face of medicine in this province, as it has in many other jurisdictions, and it is something that will give freedom of choice for patients and freedom of choice for doctors.

The Acting Speaker: Before we continue, I'd like to recognize in the gallery the former member for York East, Mr Malkowski.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Speaker: You're quite right, Gary Malkowski is in the members' gallery. Gary Malkowski is also deaf. Gary Malkowski, as a member of the public and as a former member of this Legislature, has every right to attend in this chamber. I submit to you that he has every right as well to understand what's being debated in this chamber. I point out to you, Speaker, on a point of order, that the absence of any signing interpreters available for Mr Malkowski, the absence of any visible written

interpretation of what's being said in this House that's visible within the Legislature, both illustrate how inaccessible -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. As you know so well, that has nothing to do with procedure, but I think it is a good suggestion. Perhaps you could bring it to the attention of the Speaker or do it officially and send it to the Legislative Assembly committee.

We will now proceed with the debate.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to take this opportunity, first of all, to tell the member who brings forward this resolution that we will be supporting, as we did the last time, this particular bill because we think it is a step in the right direction, given where health care is going generally in Ontario.

I also want to take this opportunity as a member from northern Ontario to speak about what it means for us in the northern part of the province where often health care services are much more difficult to attain because of the geography in the place we live, and also the overall system of health care and the way it's been developed over the past number of years.

If a person is unfortunate enough to be ill in Toronto or Ottawa or Windsor - it is never good to be ill but if you're going to be ill I guess this is the place to do it - there are various places to access the health care system in places like Toronto and other major cities: health clinics, various specialists, hospitals, you name it. There is a multitude of points of access to our health care system. But that is not the case in northern Ontario.

If you're fortunate enough to live in some of our communities such as Timmins, Sudbury, Thunder Bay or Sault Ste Marie, you have generally fairly good services, but if you live in communities like Hearst, Kapuskasing, Cochrane, smaller communities such as Ear Falls and others, services in health care are very difficult to come by at best.

One of the things this bill will do, hopefully in the longer run if the government would wish to adopt it, is to give people various options when it comes to how they're treated within our health care system. It is not appropriate all the time for people to just solely utilize a doctor when it comes to a particular ailment that they may have when they're not feeling well.

Our government, under Bob Rae, started the process of using nurse practitioners. We know that in places, especially remote communities where there is difficulty attracting a full team of doctors to man an emergency room and give full 24-hour coverage seven days a week, properly trained nurses with the proper supports put in place can go an extreme long way to offset the need of the community when it comes to access to health care.

That's the way I view this bill, because we need to look past the regular styles of health care and those practitioners within it who we see now and we need to take a look at broadening our understanding of how you're able to access care when it comes to your particular disease.

We look back in the past. I know within the medical community certain doctors look at this as being unfriendly legislation. But I also remind physicians that when we look into the past, many of the things that we now take for granted within our health care system were seen as buffooneries of health care 100 and 200 years ago. What happens within health care and other things is it becomes organized to a certain extent, and those people who tend to control the majority of what happens in our health care system are the doctors.

We need to take a look at, yes, doctors are important. They play an integral

part in our health care system. But we need to look beyond to how we involve other people in the system of health care to ensure that we are using our health care system in the most efficient manner when it comes to the delivery of the health care itself, in other words, services, and also when it comes to the dollars we spend.

I want to speak from where I come from. I look at communities like Hearst or Attawapiskat or Peawanuck or Ogoki, communities where health care services are a little bit more difficult to come by. If you're a patient living, let's say, in a place like Peawanuk and you're unfortunate enough to get a heart attack - first of all, does anybody know where Peawanuk is? Probably most people in this Legislature don't. It's in Ontario.

It's all the way up on the Hudson Bay coast, and most members of this assembly probably have never been there, but if you live in Peawanuk and you happen to get ill, it's not a question of jumping in a taxi and going three blocks down the road to Toronto Western or whatever hospital may still be open by next year here in Toronto.

It's a question of going to a first-aid station and hopefully having a nurse there to be able to stabilize your condition, and if you need more profound treatment, of having a helicopter flying up from Moosonee, a Twin Huey, for what would be about a four-hour ride just to get up into Peawanuk and a return four-hour helicopter ride coming back and stopping for fuel in Attawapiskat.

The point I make is it's not very easy to access services in many of those communities, so we need to take a look at, how do we deliver services in communities such as Peawanuk? I think one of the answers, not the answer but one of the answers, is to say yes, we need to take a look at how we use other health care professionals within the health care system, not only how we use the nurse practitioners but how we might be able to use other people who have more traditional lines of being able to deliver health care services.

I look at the native community on the James Bay coast. There is a long tradition and a long understanding within the native community as to what are appropriate responses to ailments for the people of the first nations of this province and of this country, and they have traditional healing people. In fact, in the city of Timmins, we have the Timmins native health centre, which provides to the native community and non-native people who are interested more traditional means of delivering health services.

I think this bill to a certain extent would be able to address some of that so that people, where appropriate, can rely on some of those more traditional healing methods and, where appropriate, use more traditional ones, as the case may be. I think the bill definitely goes in that direction.

You can't get into a health care debate in this province without talking about the Harris government and the record they have. I remember well Mike Harris in opposition, and when Mike Harris went through the whole process of putting together the Common Sense Revolution in the run up to the election of 1995, Harris stood in this House and promised us and the people of Ontario that if ever he was the Premier, not one cent would taken out of the health care system, that he would guarantee health care services to people, because that was the holy of holies.

I remember during the campaign of 1995, as it relates to this bill, Mr Harris promised that he was going to do a whole bunch of neat things and positive things when it came to health care service. Did Mr Harris, on being elected to government, first of all adopt the previous bill that the member introduced, Bill 126, which was very similar to this one? No. What did Mr Harris choose to do? Mr Harris chose to gut the health care system as we know it. The government is in the process now of cutting over 30 hospitals, shutting down over 30 hospitals in Ontario. By shutting down those hospitals, he is going to make it more difficult -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I have to interrupt you. This bill is quite clear. It's Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, and that's the topic you have to debate on.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, we're talking about amending the Medicine Act, and with all due respect, one of the things he is trying to do through this bill is give people the opportunity to seek other forms of -

The Acting Speaker: I think I've been very clear. I don't want an argument. I've been extremely clear. It's Bill 2.

Mr Bisson: I would love to say something that comes to my mind, but I won't repeat it. I will get back to the debate at hand.

The Acting Speaker: This is a total lack of respect vis-à-vis the Chair. When you address the Chair you address yourself. That means you have no respect for yourself, and I won't tolerate that. I will give you another chance.

Mr Bisson: Back to the topic. We're discussing health care and we're discussing the Medicine Act. Basically the member is trying to bring a bill in that makes it possible for people to access various alternative forms of health services, and if that's not related to the overall health care system, I quite frankly wonder, because that's the point that the member tries to make through his bill.

The member says we can't look at just traditional methods when it comes to being able to access health care services, we need to take a look at alternative forms of delivery, and that is something that's not separate from our health care system. To somehow come here before us and say these two things aren't related, I don't agree. They are very much related.

The point has always been that health care services have been dominated by the medical professions, and the medical professions have dominated what happens within the health care system. What the member is trying to do is open up the scope of practice to a certain extent to allow other people, the public, the option when they're feeling ill to seek out alternative forms of health care delivery.

I make this point: One of the reasons this bill becomes more important is that this government since 1995 has gutted and cut at the health care system in this province to an extent that we have never seen before. They're in the process of closing over 30 hospitals, which probably will make it, if this bill passes, a little bit better for people to access various styles of health care, but nonetheless this government is basically taking apart a system of health care.

The point I am trying to make is very simply this: I don't believe for one second that even if the government votes for this bill, they're going to do anything to allow this bill to get the light of day past the committee process, if it's lucky enough to get there. Why is that? It's because the Harris government has an agenda when it comes to health care, they want to move towards the privatization of our health care system over the longer term and they want to move to a two-tiered system and very much more a system as we see it in the United States.

I as a New Democrat, founding party of our health care system in this country, started by Tommy Douglas and others of the CCF in Saskatchewan, will not sit idly by and watch this government rip apart what is the best health care system in the world.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 2, brought forward on behalf of the member for Wilson Heights. I know it's an issue he cares very passionately about as back on May 8, 1997, he debated Bill 126, which was a similar bill with the exception that Bill 2 has the word "solely" included in it

whereas it wasn't in Bill 126.

As the member for Scarborough Centre, I will support this bill in principle, as I did on May 8, 1997, with Bill 126. At this time I want to remind all members of the House that the province of Alberta has enacted similar legislation, as have the states of Alaska, Colorado, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington.

As I can see from the crowds here in the gallery today, the member for Wilson Heights seems to have a knack of drawing large crowds of people around him these days on various issues.

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

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

It's interesting to note in today's Sun newspapers - and I hope in a few weeks or a few months from now we will still be able to call them Sun newspapers - that the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame last night welcomed 11 medical pioneers in a ceremony in Ottawa. It's important to note that today's non-traditional or alternative practitioners could very well be tomorrow's pioneers. History has a way of doing this. Honourees last night included stroke expert Dr Miller Fisher, psychiatric pioneer Dr Heinz Lehman, as well as the late Dr Norman Bethune, who was inducted into the hall.

This bill, Bill 2, would enshrined in legislation professional misconduct guidelines that historically have been dealt with through regulation. I have received letters of support for Mr Kwinter's bill from the Ontario Society of Physicians for Complementary Medicine. They represent licensed physicians, family doctors, specialists in diverse fields such as anesthesiology, oncology and occupational health. Some of the treatments integrated into their practices today include acupuncture, homeopathy and orthopaedic medicine.

I have received letters from the complementary medicine

section of the Ontario Medical Association. They represent specialists from such diverse fields as internal medicine, occupational health and oncology and many in between. I also received a letter from the Acupuncture Foundation of Canada Institute.

Now let me turn my focus to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. It is the college that has the mandate to regulate the practice of the medical profession and to govern the members in the public's interest. It's the college that decides what, if any, changes they want in their own bylaws.

It is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that, if they still have concerns, is much happier today with Bill 2 with the inclusion of the word "solely." Yet the bill still places the burden on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to prove negligence, and there is a lack of research available today to evaluate the safety and efficacy of many of the alternative therapies.

To my friend from Wilson Heights across the way and to all members here today, I say that I will support this bill in principle, just as I did Bill 126. Let us accept this bill in principle on all sides of the House. Let us bring Bill 2 forward to committee for public hearings to ensure that the rights of patients are front and centre in Ontario.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It's a pleasure to be able to speak in favour of this bill, as it was for Bill 126, and also to acknowledge why we are here today. This is not just about alternative medicine, the subject, itself; it's about the role of the Legislature. We have a member in Monte Kwinter who is doing, I think, the kind of job that we are put here to do, which is to bring issues which would not otherwise get a voice into the public domain.

Monte Kwinter brought Bill 126 forward, and it by itself has had some of the desired impacts. We need this subject to be debated. We need this to be part of how we examine the public interest in terms of people's ability to maintain their own health. Nothing more personal, nothing more important happens in society, yet up to now this had been left in the shadows, in the backrooms of medical decision-making, and it doesn't belong there.

It's extremely important that it happen here today and that we look at this as simply an enabling that this Legislature can do to put this issue where it belongs: in the hands of people who are capable, with the appropriate measures being taken by this Legislature to ensure that people are protected.

All of that is in the wording of this current bill. In fact, with the changes in the bill, I think this bill is complete in the sense that it meets all the concerns that have been raised by people who are potentially worried about the effect of that discussion. I'm not worried about that discussion; I'm not worried about creating a better, clearer form of access for people to the complementary practices that we have. It's a service that this Legislature needs to do and it's well overdue.

For people in the public who often shake their heads and wonder whether the Legislature is a place for politicians to do them that service, to be able to stay in touch with their concerns, this bill today is a test of that, because complementary medicine, when you look at what we are talking about, the specific practices in terms of acupuncture, in terms of holistic therapy - some of those have been around longer than the traditional medicine that some other people have felt is under attack.

If we look closely at this bill, it only takes us to a certain point that says, "The people we have who are certified in our traditional therapies can, using that knowledge and the other knowledge they have acquired, practise other therapies that are safe for their patients." It is only a small device; it's just a strategically important one to be able to make sure we don't subject the biases we have been brought up with in terms of access to traditional medicine.

I want to mention that Monte Kwinter came to this bill as somebody without biases in one direction or another, and he is to be complimented all the more for examining the case for this kind of practice on its merits. Again, I think it distinguishes us as legislators to know that we are supporting that specific kind of effort.

The beneficiaries here are many. The public certainly stands to benefit. We have to, in this time of an aging society, examine the various options which are open to us. We have to embrace them, we have to bring them into the public light, we have to evaluate them for the public safety, but we have to make sure that people can make those choices. This is not just about consumer choice; it's about something more fundamental. Our whole public system hinges on those things we can do together, and keeping people healthy is certainly one of those things.

It also has a political benefit. It brings merit on to everyone in this House to see this pass, and I think pass all the way through. But specifically for a government in the throes of many credibility problems around health care, this is a significant opportunity for the members of that government to show that when it comes down to it and they are given an opportunity like this, a non-partisan chance to advance the interests of the citizens of this province in such an important fashion, they will take advantage of it.

Mr Kormos: I want to commend Mr Kwinter for, among other things, his perseverance in reintroducing this bill as Bill 2 on this occasion, and to indicate that I will be supporting this bill without hesitation.

First of all, it has already been suggested this is, at the end of the day, a relatively modest proposal. It doesn't in any way lower the level or reduce standards for practising physicians. In fact, it reinforces and repeats, rearticulates, that there's a high standard that physicians have to function by. It permits them to diversify the types of treatments that they may engage in with particular patients.

Within the lifetime even of the youngest member of this Legislature we've seen dramatic changes in the types of treatments that are considered appropriate or acceptable. We still suffer from an incredible ethnocentrism, if that's not an inappropriate word, in terms of our fear or mistrust of medical treatments that somehow aren't North American.

I can speak very much from my own experience. I've been getting acupuncture treatments from Dr Michael Venneri in St Catharines. He's a chiropractor, not a physician; a very competent young chiropractor. Dr Venneri, over on Welland Avenue in St Catharines, has a very broad-based approach to treatment.

I've been taking acupuncture in an effort to quit smoking, to overcome that addiction. I'm not a poster boy for overcoming smoking addiction. I suppose in some respects I speak as well as anybody because I've done it many times. I want to tell you that my experience - and this is my first experience with acupuncture, with Dr Venneri in St Catharines - has been an extremely positive one and, quite frankly, I am optimistic.

I don't know how it works. I'm not going to pretend to know how it works. I don't want to know how it works. All I want to know is that at the end of the day I'm no longer smoking and no longer a victim of those predators in the corporate world that would sell one of the most addictive substances - it is, Speaker - that we know in our community. They realize people my age are less inclined to smoke; now they're peddling it to kids.

When we talk about the Medicine Act and practising physicians and surgeons, it's hard not to consider just where it is that physicians are going to be practising when places like Hotel Dieu in St Catharines are shut down, boarded up, sold off. That's what happened earlier this week. The health restructuring committee of this province said Hotel Dieu is gone, the only Catholic hospital in the Niagara region. That's where physicians practise and that's where they're going to be entitled to practice these alternative medicines if Bill 2 becomes law, as I hope it does.

That's where they're going to be engaging in these practices - oh, in some respects in their own offices, but they're going to need these hospitals and the hospitals have to be capable of accommodating this broad range of treatments and treatment approaches.

So this government shuts down Hotel Dieu. There may well be Tory members in Niagara who all of a sudden now want to join some sort of rallying cry to keep it open, but where were they when thousands of people were gathering across Niagara protesting the attack on hospitals in Niagara region?

You're quite right, Speaker, I'm digressing. I'm not speaking directly to the bill before the Legislature. I've already told you I'm going to support it and I've already commended the member for introducing it, not once but twice, and I've already expressed my concern about this government's attack on hospitals and its shutdown, its closure, its boarding up, its selling off of Hotel Dieu, one of the most important - well, no less and no more so, but an important and integral part of the hospital and health care system in Niagara. Shame on them.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise today in support of this bill. I supported it the last time it came before the House and I will do so again today.

I also want to say to the member that he was obviously well organized in presenting the issues around this bill because I have many petitions that have come to my office in support. In fact, it was the petition that focused me on the rest of my remarks that I'll make that I trust will be considered as helpful, because in this petition one

section of it reads as follows:

"Ontario health consumers deserve reliable access to competent doctors who offer safe, beneficial and low-cost alternatives to conventional medicine."

That brings me to the point I would like to make. I do believe that consumers in our province should have choice, that alternative medicine is clearly an option that people should have in our province. What I'm concerned about, however, is that this bill makes absolutely no reference to the issue of ensuring that those doctors who would be practising the alternative medicine would in fact have the appropriate training and the necessary background to administer that alternative medicine.

We know that traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture is an entirely different system of medical science. The complete training in the profession, for example, of TCM and acupuncture, requires four to eight years of full-time study. What I'm concerned about here is that we would have western doctors simply move into this area of practising alternative medicine without the appropriate training. Bill 2 makes absolutely no mention of any training requirements. I believe it would be absolutely essential that that component of training be addressed, and I look forward to participating in that discussion through the committee process to ensure we've addressed that.

For the record, the member made reference that there was perhaps only one letter of objection to the previous bill proposed. I certainly received, and perhaps the member did not receive, a letter that was sent out that actually listed some 18 organizations that objected to the previous bill and would object really to this bill as well on the principle that I've just mentioned.

For example, the Canadian School of Eastern Medicine, the Chamber of Chinese Herbal Medicine of Canada, the Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture Academy of Toronto, the Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture Association of Canada, and it goes on to list a number of organizations that object to the bill in its present form. I undertake to work with the member and with other members of the Legislature to ensure that the concerns of these organizations are addressed.

I commend the member for bringing it forward. It will bring choice into the system that now is restrictive in that regard and I look forward to working with you.

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

part in this debate. I want to compliment my colleague the member for Wilson Heights for having stuck with this issue and maintained his conviction to bring back this bill, one that I believe represents progress, a step towards recognizing complementary medical treatment in Ontario, something that really is long overdue.

It seems to me, and I think we would all agree, that any body of knowledge, by the strictest definition of the term, must be added to, redefined, refined over a period of time. So it is with the large body of knowledge that we refer to as modern western medicine. It's not static and it's not all-knowing. Like anything else it must evolve and that's one reason why we're here today.

This legislation is a means by which we can address an issue that consistently faces our doctors or practitioners in relation to their patients. How does the system help patients to proactively take responsibility for their own health? One answer of course is by giving doctors and practitioners a wider range of options with which they can encourage self-treatment.

When we look at health and the human body, the human body, as we know, has the unique capacity, far greater than many people think, to heal itself, and encouraging that process is a key to quality of life. Conventional medicine too often is about after-the-fact treatment. Complementary medicine often seeks to promote well-being before the fact.

Lately we've had a lot of talk about bricks and mortar and hospitals, and doctors and nurses, but this bill helps to add what I believe is something extremely important, and that is the concept of self-responsibility and the concept of being able to participate more fully in the process of treatment and self-treatment. It seems to me that doctors should have the right to practise medicinal methods that are beyond - I know my doctor advises me on vitamins and herbal substances that he believes are of import, and more and more doctors are doing so, even though perhaps they don't have the legislation to back it up and that's why this is important.

When we look at the cost benefits, the practice of complementary medicine dovetails really neatly with the long-stated goal of both the federal and provincial health care systems: the benefits of exercising complete and preventive health care. I had the opportunity to look at a couple of hospitals in the Ottawa area recently. All their objectives were treatment oriented. There was not one word in those objectives about prevention, about helping people to be more aware of the ways they could contribute to their health.

Because of the time factor I have to speak very quickly. We all know that at least half of all Canadians will use some form of complementary medicine this year, many of them with tangible good results. Similar to my colleagues who are speaking here today from the Toronto perspective, I want to tell you that in my riding of Ottawa Centre, I have many people from many lands and many parts of the world and they bring with them many perspectives and histories of medicinal healing and health. Those should be explored and recognized and added to our body of knowledge.

As legislators, one of our key responsibilities is to try to keep society's laws up to date. This legislation provides us with that opportunity. We should seize the opportunity that this private member's bill gives us and recognize what more and more Canadians already know.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Je suis très heureux de participer à la discussion concernant le projet de loi 2.

Speaker, it's very important to compliment the member for Wilson Heights on his initiative in this bill. Seldom have we seen some really good ideas coming out of the official opposition. From that perspective alone it's good to see an original, or nearly original, idea in the area of health care.

Regarding my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie and his concerns about training and research, I think that if this bill gets to committee, it can widen the discussion regarding the major benefits and beneficiaries of this type of legislation. Specifically, I have many constituents who have approached me before you brought in your idea regarding this bill, that we ought to be elevating and legitimizing the status of alternative or complementary health care practices.

Whether it be acupuncture, aboriginal medicine treatments and practices or Chinese approaches to medicine, we can learn a lot from those parts of the world. To some degree, the Western approach to medicine has assumed a superiority that it does not really have.

If the bill ever sees the light of day, I think it will advance and create a wider discussion about the benefits of health care. For the member of Wilson Heights, I was just thinking this morning about some of those things, like perhaps relieving, over the mid- to longer period of time the tremendous expenditure pressures on the Ontario drug benefit plan, because we would have a different avenue for treating some of these things.

I was thinking of many members of this House, and I include myself, and how acupuncture has helped a lot of people in the relief of anxiety, allergies or what have you. That's one significant benefit. Another benefit is that perhaps people will go back and look at how they can treat themselves rather than rush immediately to a doctor. What made me think of that, member for Wilson Heights, is that when I was a child, my mother used the old mustard plaster to eliminate colds and the flu. Why is that so soundly rejected today?

I see a wider benefit than simply allowing doctors to have a greater scope of practice. Those are two significant benefits that will come from your bill, as well as a possible new industry in terms of research on plants and animals that we are disregarding today.

I congratulate the member for Wilson Heights for introducing the bill widening the scope of practice. Let's hope we see this get to committee, because I believe it has many potential benefits and I congratulate the member for that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to commend my colleague Monte Kwinter, the member for Wilson Heights, not only for his perseverance but for the insight and the way he has researched this and consulted many in the community. I keep reminding him also that I have the privilege within my constituency of Scarborough North to have many alternative and complementary medicines that I consult from time to time because of the large Chinese population in my riding. So I have that kind of privilege.

One of the things we always talk about in our society is that Canada is one of the best places to live in the world. I think that comes from the fact that the other phrase that comes with it is talking about celebrating our diversity. That diversity itself brings many things because our immigration policy attracts some of the finest minds around the world, and with the finest minds come some of the greatest traditions and practices that have been around for thousands of years. Some have come not only from China but from Europe and all over. That comes in a way that we can extract from those wise minds.

Complementary and alternative medicine is one of those opportunities that we will tap in on and that's why I want to commend my colleague for this.

Of course, as I said, and the previous speaker mentioned it, I have seen alternative medicine a long time, from mothers or what have you. I think he made a very important point. It triggers off a discussion. It triggers us to start looking at even things within our own traditional society that we were discarding.

Sure, the physicians and surgeons and many of the associations want to see us do it in a proper way without any risk. The amendment to the legislation he has put forward is excellent because it gives a sort of comfort to those who are then moving into something that is new.

As we work along with this, I would like to see this move to second and third reading, but I also see the importance of our discussing this more, not because I would like to see it hurried through but because what debates have done and consultations really do for us is educate the population so they can be more informed so that legislators understand what they are doing.

For me to stand today and support this is supporting something that I have lived with for a long time and would have great comfort to know that the legislators of today have got this legislation, have exercised it, and now move forward so we can have proper legislation.

I'd like to give some of my time to my good colleague from Scarborough who also shares those sentiments.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am in support of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991, put before this House by the member for Wilson Heights. I am pleased to relate some of my own personal experiences. I was here when we spoke on Bill 126 and I doubt if the member realizes the amount of good that previous bill has done people across this province.

I believe that the body's resistance to disease rests largely on individual choices on how we live and eat and how our lifestyle takes place.

My experience with Monte Kwinter's Bill 126 some time ago goes back to last December. Last December the doctor diagnosed me with diabetes. I had not realized how high my count was until a few episodes with the doctor. He instructed me that I would have to go on the needle. That did not sit very well with me. I thought there had to be an alternative so I said to my doctor, "If I have to go on the needle, I presume I'm going to have change my lifestyle," and he said yes. I said: "I'll tell you what. I'll change my lifestyle and then I will determine whether I need to go on the diabetic needle or not."

So what did I do? I got Monte Kwinter's book that he had given me with regard to the different medicines you could take. I read that book and I made a copy of the page that dealt with diabetes. I took that and my wife and I went away for two weeks and I stuck by what that said to a T. Within two weeks my count was down to normal and my lifestyle had changed. My lifestyle today is because of Monte Kwinter's Bill 126. I've lost weight and my count is normal. So I commend you for what you have done.

That's what I say in my opening remarks. There are probably a lot of people who have no idea of the amount of good that bill has done. The discussion we're having here today is another example of your commitment to the Medicine Act. I think it's been great. I can tell you that there are probably many other people out there who are watching who, if they can do what I have done on our health care system, there will be major savings.

Today, speaking briefly on this bill, it's a challenge for us and a challenge for the doctors to be able to put in place and allow to happen what this bill wants. "The challenge doctors face today is to try to separate what is obsolete information they got in medical school from what is current and more helpful to the modern way of living." Today's society has a great interest in natural self-healing. To achieve a balance between chemical drugs and natural healing requires revision.

An ancient Arabian proverb says, "He who has health has hope; and he who has hope has everything." I believe this bill, if passed, would allow a lot of people to find hope through an alternative and complementary natural healing process, as it has with me.

I'm here today to compliment the member for what he has done with regard to Bill 126 and with regard to this bill, Bill 2, and I'm sure the people out there watching will all benefit. If they change their lifestyle, exercise and eat properly, it will all work out for the better.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too want to join in support of Mr Kwinter's bill. The previous member, Mr McLean, outlined the benefits he's found in complementary and alternative medicine. I would just say that I've literally talked to probably 100 different people who have a similar story to Mr McLean's, where they have taken the time to understand and learn about alternatives, have practised it and have benefited enormously.

I don't think there's any question that this bill has enormous merit. It will represent for many people a terrific opportunity to improve their health. And as someone said earlier, just in pure dollars and cents, it's important.

I also want to put it in a broader context, for me at least, and that is that we in Canada are developing a model for the world of how we can change our diverse society with a minimum of conflict. I'll just use the area I represent now. Fifteen years ago there was not a Sikh gurdwara or a Muslim mosque or a Hindu temple, but they're all there now. We have enormous religious diversity.

I'll be going to a graduation tomorrow night where there are flags in the auditorium of the school from 80 different countries. That represents a flag from the countries where the students in that school were born - 80 different countries. In that school they accommodate the diversity, and the staff and the students understand the strength of that diversity.

What we have to do as a society is continually look at the various practices and make certain that we are changing and adapting. Access to trades and professions is another area where I don't think we've done nearly enough.

Mr Kwinter's bill, in the area of health and medicine, takes us an important step forward, where we recognize that there are more forms of effective practice of good health than we currently recognize in our legislation. This moves that forward and is an important step forward. But, as I say, I put it into a broader context. I think the magic of Canada will be in our ability to continually challenge the status quo and say, "How do we need to change our laws and our practices so that we take advantage of the diversity?" This is one step but an important step forward.

I want to close by complimenting Mr Kwinter. He has spent an enormous amount of time on this. Mr McLean talked about the book he received. I think Mr Kwinter sent us all the same book. He has been tireless in this. I hope that very shortly the House will approve his bill and we'll see the fruits of his many years of labour in the field.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Kwinter: To all of my colleagues in the House, I want to thank you for your support. I have not heard a dissenting voice but I did hear some concern and I want to address that, and I had to address it the last time as well.

It has to be made absolutely clear that what we're talking about is providing medical doctors with the ability to take a look at these alternatives that are available to them without being censured or found incompetent by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. That is all it's about. It doesn't take away the responsibility of the college or the medical practitioners to do no harm, to be accountable to their profession, but without this provision, just as all of you, I'm sure, have had faxes and letters from people who are concerned about this issue - and just take a look at the public gallery. When do you see this many people for a private member's bill? Hardly ever.

The college has said, "We have no problem." There has not been a dissenting voice from them on this bill at this time. It is impossible for a private member's bill to answer all of the questions that are out there. It just can't work. When you see government bills, some of them take 50, 100 or 200 pages. This is a private member's bill that builds a platform to allow doctors to use their best professional judgment to provide the best care for their patients. It also enables the patient to get freedom of choice and the ability to have some control over what is happening to their bodies.

What we have to do is not only give this second reading today but, as our colleagues did in Alberta, give it third reading so we can get on with it, where we can save the province money and get the job done.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 29, standing in the name of Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan has moved private member's notice of motion number 23.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 30, standing in the name of Mr Kwinter.

Mr Kwinter has moved second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1209 to 1214.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jordan, W. Leo

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Leadston, Gary L.

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLean, Allan K.

Miclash, Frank

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ross, Lillian

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Tilson, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 56; the nays are 0.

The doors will now be open for 30 seconds until we proceed with the second vote.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jordan, W. Leo

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Leadston, Gary L.

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLean, Allan K.

Miclash, Frank

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ross, Lillian

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Tilson, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95(j), the bill is referred to committee of the whole.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May I ask for unanimous consent for third reading of the bill?

The Acting Speaker: You're asking consent to order the bill for third reading. Is it agreed? I heard a dissenting "no."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter, we can order it to committee of the whole.

Mr Kwinter: The standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: The bill could be sent to the general government committee. Is there agreement to this? Agreed.

All matters related to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1221 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Premier and is in regard to his decision to spend more than $42 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money to promote his government's extreme right-wing agenda, an agenda of cuts to health care and education, an agenda of closing hospitals and schools, an agenda of slash and burn.

Our health care system has been one of our proudest achievements, based upon the belief that every person living in the province has the right to receive the care they need regardless of personal circumstances or where they live.

Since 1995 we have watched Premier Harris and his revolutionaries promote an agenda that destroys, divides and demoralizes our citizens. In just a few short years they have forgotten the purpose of government.

No one is fooled by the Tories' attempt to position themselves as caring and compassionate as we approach the next election. Despite the millions they are spending on ads, Tories are committed to an agenda that is leading Ontario down the wrong path.

Forty-two million dollars would have gone a long way to solving the health care priorities of my constituents. Instead the Tories decided to use tax dollars to buy ads.

Forty-two million dollars would have gone a long way to ensure remote and northern communities had access to health care. Instead Premier Harris decided to buy ads.

Forty-two million dollars would have helped to hire and indeed rehire nurses. Instead Premier Harris bought ads.

Forty-two million dollars would have provided my constituents with the ongoing psychiatric services we need in our area. Instead Premier Harris and the Tories bought ads.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I think it would be instructive to outline how the new funding model under Bill 160 affects the viability of schools across Ontario and what challenges there are for school boards in making the tough decisions required. Ultimately the issue of school closings will be discussed well past the December 31 deadline.

Under the funding formula, staffing is based on an average student population of 450 to 500 for elementary schools and 900 to 1,000 for secondary schools. For areas with schools smaller than these averages, guidance counsellors, administrative staff, principals and vice-principals, librarians, special subject teachers - the staff required for each school - will be reduced.

For example, a small school with 150 students may qualify under the new funding formula for only one third of a principal to staff that school. Rural areas with small communities, and therefore small schools, are particularly hard hit by this formula. Maintenance costs under the new funding formula are based on the number of students in each school and not the actual size of the building.

When growth occurs under the funding formula, a grant for a new school will not be available unless the spaces within the school board are fully used. In essence, they must close small schools in order to get money for new schools. This is going to be a problem for neighbourhoods right across Ontario, both in urban and rural centres.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm recognizing the need for the Simcoe County District School Board to act now to build additional student accommodation space. This board realized 10 years ago that student accommodation in the south of the county would grow to the point that they would need a new secondary school in Innisfil. Explosive growth over the past five years has reached a crisis point. The Barrie secondary schools are at over-capacity by 1,600 students.

Ontario boards are in turmoil as they adjust to the new student accommodation funding formulas.

I have been contacted by many parents in Simcoe East expressing concern for Simcoe's struggle to adjust boundaries to accommodate all students. I feel boundary changes will cause disruption and upheaval for these families and students.

This government has given boards greater flexibility. Boards can now debenture costs, allowing needed construction to begin without delay. School boards have the flexibility to determine their own priorities. They have the flexibility to decide whether the student accommodation funding provided for every student should be used to build new schools or renovate schools to eliminate portables. This flexibility removes the barriers that delay construction.

I urge the Simcoe county board to proceed immediately with a new secondary school in Innisfil. This will provide some needed relief to current boundary attendance problems in the northern part of the county.

The Ministry of Education has given the boards in Ontario the opportunity to develop long-term capital plans.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In Windsor today and this week you have the subjected the public and my constituents to horrible, propaganda-type ads at their expense. Make no mistake, I will make sure that the people in my riding understand that they, the taxpayers, have paid for the Tory propaganda that should have been paid for by the Conservative Party.

I am asking the Premier to do the honourable thing and reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario, the government, all of the $42 million that it is wasting when it should have been spent in places like Windsor.

This past summer alone, 230 times, ambulances were turned away. They could not dislodge their patients into the emergency rooms because our ERs had no room. That could have been avoided. But $42 million of their money was spent on your propaganda ads.

How many surgeries by Dr Akpata could have been done instead of cancelled? The day surgery couldn't guarantee that the patient would go home that night because there wasn't a bed in the hospital.

Instead you spent $42 million on propaganda ads. That is unconscionable and has never happened in the history of Ontario. No matter what you say, the public will know that you are wasting their taxpayers' dollars.

NORTHERN ONTARIO BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This Tuesday night in Sault Ste Marie, the community, under the able leadership of our mayor, Steve Butland, hosted the 12th annual Northern Ontario Business Awards.

This was a very exciting evening. Some 400 people gathered at the Ramada Inn - small business folks, big business folks, financial institutions, government representatives - all there for one purpose: to focus on and encourage and congratulate small business entrepreneurs in northern Ontario who have gone the distance in good times and in bad to be successful, to generate wealth, to make sure that there are jobs for those of us who call northern Ontario home, and to be honoured in a particular way on that evening.

Some of the people who were honoured - and they deserve certainly great praise - were Prestige Glass International of Elliot Lake; Nicholls Yallowega Belanger Architects-Artchitectes of Sudbury; David Liddle of North Bay; Jennifer McNutt and Brent Bywater of Callander; and McChesney Lumber of Timmins.

But most particularly for me was the fact that two small business people from Sault St Marie were centred out for mention and for recognition for the wonderful contribution they make to the small business environment in Sault Ste Marie. One of them is Vic Fremlin, someone we all know in Sault Ste Marie for being the champion of a local dairy called Lock City Dairies. He was certainly centred out with some deserved -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Recently I had the pleasure to attend the Premier's Conference on Jobs and Prosperity in Kingston. It was one of seven such conferences taking place across the province this fall.

Prosperity has returned to the province of Ontario. Since our first throne speech, the Ontario economy has created 408,000 net new jobs. In the month of September alone, 64,000 net new jobs were created.

The question we f