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

December 13, 2007

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-Dec-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 13 December 2007 Jeudi 13 décembre 2007

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2007

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2007

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

RIDING OF ALGOMA–MANITOULIN

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

FOOD SAFETY

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

HOLIDAY MESSAGES

VISITORS

VISITORS

VISITORS

VISITORS

VISITORS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

VISITORS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT DIVERSES LOIS

DE NATURE FINANCIÈRE

POPE JOHN PAUL II DAY ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE JOUR

DU PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SNOW PLOWS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(CHASSE-NEIGE)

HOMESTEAD ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007

SUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS FAMILIALES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT

(HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL

(HARCÈLEMENT ET VIOLENCE)

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW /

PERSPECTIVES ÉCONOMIQUES

ET REVUE FINANCIÈRE

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

WATER QUALITY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FOOD SAFETY

SMALL BUSINESS

FOREST INDUSTRY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ABOLITION OF BRITISH SLAVE TRADE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

POPE JOHN PAUL II

IDENTITY THEFT

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

DRIVER LICENCES

IDENTITY THEFT

FEDERAL ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

HIGHWAY 35

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY FOOD FOR HEALTHY

SCHOOLS ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 PORTANT

SUR UNE ALIMENTATION SAINE

POUR DES ÉCOLES SAINES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr. Prue moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to deem that the Building Code and the Fire Code require fire detectors, interconnected fire alarms and non-combustible fire escapes / Projet de loi 14, Loi prévoyant que le code du bâtiment et le code de prévention des incendies sont réputés exiger des détecteurs d'incendie, des systèmes d'alerte d'incendie interconnectés et des sorties de secours incombustibles.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mr. Prue has moved second reading of Bill 14. Pursuant to the standing orders, he has 10 minutes to make his initial presentation.

Mr. Michael Prue: It is indeed again an honour to stand on this bill. This is the third time that this bill has been introduced in this House. The first time was in 2005, where it received unanimous approval at second reading and was ordered to committee. The second time was in 2006, where it received unanimous approval of this House, went to committee, was approved unanimously in committee and was ordered for third reading. Unfortunately, in both circumstances, the House was prorogued, and the bill died on the order paper. Hence, it is back here again today.

I'd like to commence by thanking those who are in attendance today. As you can see, we have a huge showing of firefighters from across Ontario who are here in support of the bill. They come from Toronto and from all of the areas around the capital, and they are here to show support for this bill, as they have in the past. I would like to thank as well the people and groups who have written letters of support in the past on this bill: the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association, the Toronto fire chief, the Toronto tenants' federation and the Coalition for Social Justice.

The biggest thank you, though, I want to give is to Mr. Tom Steers, who is here; he was here on the last two occasions as well. I would like to extend my gratitude to him, a man who has worked for nearly nine years to see that the tragedy that happened to him, to his friends, to his fiancée, in January 1999 is never revisited by anyone in this province.

At 3 a.m. on January 14, 1999, a fire broke out at 2362 Queen Street East in the Beach. It was a horrific fire. It literally burned the building to the ground. Two people died, one of them being Linda Elderkin and the other being Paul Benson. Linda was Tom's fiancée. As residents fled the building in the dark and in panic, no one pulled the fire alarm. Linda and Paul were asleep and unaware of the tragedy that was unfolding around them and that would soon engulf them. Finally, the heat of that fire became so intense that the wires melted, and that was what triggered the alarm in that building.

The firefighters arrived within minutes, as they always do in Toronto. They found an apartment building completely engulfed in flames. They found that the back fire escape was completely engulfed in flames and that no one who was in the building could get down either the front stairs or down the back fire escape. They could hear the victims' screams, yet with all of their training and with all of their courage, they could do nothing.

An inquest was held into this fire in 2000, a year later. The inquest jury made 28 recommendations, two of which are embodied in this bill. Tom Steers has fought every step of the way to have these 28 recommendations become law and to be enforced, and the fire departments across Ontario have been with him every step of the way and ask that these recommendations of the jury be enforced as well. Tom has gone to the newspapers, he has gone to the courts, he has been to this Legislature—now for the third time—asking that the jury's recommendations become law. A lesser man may have given up; Tom did not, and I believe he will not until this is passed.

The bill purports to do two things: first of all, that all the fire alarms need to be interconnected with fire detectors mandatory in rental buildings, and the second

part is that the fire code needs to be amended to ensure that fire escapes are made of non-combustible material.

In terms of the interconnected fire alarms, the interconnected fire alarms would work when an out-of-control fire triggers a building-wide alert. It would be in the common areas only. I want to assuage the fears of anyone who thinks that a resident or a tenant burning some toast in the toaster will set off the alarm; it will not.

The alarm will only be triggered when the common areas, not the individual residences, have smoke; that is, if fire is that strong that the smoke spills out into the halls, it will trigger the alarm throughout the building so that people on the first, second, third or 20th floor of a building will be able to hear it and know that there is a serious fire. If this had happened at 2362 Queen Street, I am sure that both Linda and Paul would still be alive.

The second aspect of this bill involves wooden fire escapes. It has to be obvious to everyone that to have a wooden fire escape on the outside of a wooden building is tantamount to asking for disaster. It has been outlawed years ago in most jurisdictions around the world, including most of the states of the United States of America. It is still common practice in some of the jurisdictions in Canada but ought not to be, with the greatest of respect. Remember that fire escapes exist on these buildings because the building is not in compliance with the fire code.

Whenever you see a fire escape on the outside of a building, you know that the building is not in compliance with the fire code. If you see an apartment building without fire escapes, you know that it is in compliance and therefore it does not require fire escapes. So the reason they are there is because the building does not meet the fire code, and this is a way to get around it.

What is required in law in Ontario is that there be two exits, and very often in these older buildings there are not two exits; there is an exit into the hall, but there's nothing else, and so the fire escape is the second means to get out of the building should there be a fire. Older buildings do not have firewalls. Some of them do not have the self-contained units of a modern building where the fire will be contained within an apartment for a number of hours before burning out into other areas, and they do not have multiple staircases; hence the need for fire escapes. The fire escape allows compliance for the existing unsafe condition.

I'd like to read what the fire code says right now.

Section 9.4.7.13(3) says: "Fire escapes shall be of metal or concrete"—that's the law, and then there's the "except," and this is what we're trying to change—"except that wooden fire escapes may be used on buildings of combustible construction if all posts and brackets are at least 89 millimetres in their least dimension and all other woodwork is 38 millimetres in its least dimension."

Just for older people who may be watching this or some of the members of the Legislature, that means that the posts are four by fours and the rest of it is two by fours. If any of you have ever had some spare wood and used it in a campfire, you know how fast you can burn a two by four. It burns pretty readily. This is crying out for change and in fact to be deleted from the fire code.

I ask the members to consider who lives in these old, potentially unsafe buildings, and I think all of you know from your own ridings who lives in these buildings. They tend to be people of low income. They tend to be students if it's near a school or a university. They tend to be people who live on social assistance and who cannot afford to live in newer or better-kept apartments, and they tend in many, many circumstances to be new immigrants.

The last Parliament saw another bill by Mrs. Jeffrey, who I'm glad to see is here today, and we are in complete agreement should she bring that bill forward. But hers deals with new construction; I'm asking you to consider this one for the older buildings that are unsafe. Perhaps with the two of them together, we can try to be as safe as other jurisdictions. I know that the city of Vancouver, which has adopted both parts—the one that she will, I hope, bring forward again and the one I'm bringing forward today—has had no deaths for a number of years,

whereas Ontario averages between 100 and 200 people dying in fires each and every year.

I'm asking you as well to consider the brave firefighters, those who need to get to the fire, those who have to get the people out of the building, those who have to go up burning fire escapes. Make life simpler and safer and better for them so that they too can go home to their families.

I ask the support of this Legislature for this bill, and I thank again the firefighters and Mr. Steers for being here today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: As always, it's a privilege and honour to stand up and speak on many different issues, and I want to thank my colleague Michael Prue, the member from Beaches—East York, for bringing this very important issue again to this place. I think he has brought it twice so far; this is the third time. I remember last time, I stood up and spoke in support of that bill, supporting the intention of the bill.

Also, my colleague Linda Jeffrey brought an almost similar bill to this place to be discussed, because I guess all of us have a great intention to create some kind of protection mechanism for tenants, for the people who live in many different residential or apartment buildings across the province.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the firefighters, who give great support to this bill. They've been working around the clock to protect all the people of this great province of Ontario.

It's important to allow time to talk about safety. I was listening carefully to the member from Beaches—East York talking about this issue. I know this issue came as a response to the coroner's inquest that happened in 2000, and also as a result of the deaths of two people from his riding in 1999. I think it's important to be able to establish rules and laws to protect innocent people, especially when they live in old buildings.

I know the building code right now requires concrete or metal fire escapes to be installed in all buildings, and also that it's mandatory to have alarm systems in residential buildings, even a single home, because it's important to protect residents and give them some kind of a warning.

I know this issue has been debated many different times. As I said, I support the essence of the bill and I support my colleague from Beaches—East York for bringing this bill forward, because it's very important, as I mentioned, to protect the residents who live in older buildings. This has happened in many older buildings and older homes, which, sadly, are occupied by low-income families, students and people with no ability to move to a newer home, all of which are built according to the building code in a safe way.

But the minister of corrections and safety has established some kinds of recommendations or rules to support all buildings, all places, and also ask them to have metal and concrete fire escapes to protect the residents who live in those dwellings.

It's a great bill, and I think all of us can support it, and hopefully it will go to third reading. Hopefully it will pass, because all of us, from both sides of the House, have a great interest in seeing all residents live in a safe place, and also in creating a mechanism to create safety for all of the people who live in many different jurisdictions. This issue is very important. We have debated it many different times. I hope that at the end of this debate we will pass this bill and support it. Hopefully it will go to committee to tighten it up and see what we can do.

All of the bills, all the rules and laws, have many different ideas and different points of view. We have to debate this bill very well to see what the best mechanism is to use, because it's very important. The safety of our people is more important than anything else, and without passing tougher rules sometimes, we leave our residents and our citizens unsafe. I think it's about time.

I thank the member from Beaches—East York for bringing such an important bill for the third time, and I'm looking forward to debating it for a second and a third time, and hopefully we'll see it established and passed. It would be another initiative to protect the residents of Ontario.

Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I wish my colleague luck, and hopefully this bill will pass.

Mr. Peter Shurman: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the member for Beaches—East York for this important bill. It deserves passage.

Earlier this week, I recall that the galleries of this House were filled with firefighters, and there was an extraordinary amount of time spent by members, even the Speaker, acknowledging the presence of so many of these good people here with us. Some of the firefighters took the time to visit individually with their MPPs privately. I had the pleasure of hosting several of our good firefighters from the city of Vaughan.

All parties acknowledge that these people do fine work, and they also acknowledge the care that firefighters provide to the people they serve. Our efforts here should be to demonstrate that support very tangibly, and this bill is an aspect of that. How do we do that? Well, by making life easier for the firefighters themselves. After all, they put their lives at risk for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Prue's bill is not new in this House. It has appeared before several times, as has been noted. Perhaps we could say to Mr. Prue that three times lucky will apply. All this bill says is that fire detectors should be present in public or common areas in residential buildings of two units or more. I would venture to say that there's no one in this House who hasn't installed detectors in their own single family dwelling or their apartment. It just makes sense. Who wouldn't want them?

The bill would also make it necessary that fire escapes be constructed of non-combustible material. Seriously, are we still looking at wooden fire escapes, or has somebody contemplated plastic? I know that's a bit sarcastic, but it seems pretty obvious that we have to make sure the structures that get us out of burning buildings are the last structures to go, and concrete or steel would do that.

In short, I support the bill, as does the entire Progressive Conservative caucus.

I believe this bill also calls for modifications to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. It's probably an appropriate time to call attention to this act, because about a third of it deals with labour relations for firefighters. Perhaps what it needs is a thorough review some time in the not-too-distant future. My stakeholder firefighters want well-trained, happy, fit and properly treated firefighters in their midst. I agree with that sentiment.

Firefighters are asking now for consideration for a mandatory retirement age of 60, which of course goes against recent human rights changes that provide for an open-ended retirement age, but frankly, I'm 60 years old and I personally don't want a 67-year-old man carrying me out of a burning building down a ladder. So I think that deserves some consideration, and it finds itself in the Fire Protection and Prevention Act as well.

In addition to that, collective bargaining between firefighters and the cities they serve oftentimes takes the entire period of a contract to expire before it actually becomes finalized. I think that's something that bears review as well. So in voting along with Mr. Prue on this act in a positive way, I would call the House's attention to these important considerations that firefighters are asking for under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

Mr. Paul Miller: This bill is a must, in my opinion. We cannot expose our firefighters to potential life-threatening situations. Steel fire escapes allow firefighters to have solid platforms to work from. This enables them to have access to multilevel buildings, to be able to remove people and pets from life-threatening situations. This legislation is long overdue. It also provides firefighters an escape route in the case of flash fires and explosions. We have an obligation to the families of our firefighters also. Every time they go to work, I'm sure their families are concerned.

I, for one, want to see this legislative body provide all the necessary safety features possible to ensure the safety of these brave men.

All buildings must be forced into compliance as soon as possible. I support this bill 110%. I think the wisdom of this Legislature will come through on this bill and finally it will be where it's supposed to be.

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I'm pleased to speak today in support of Bill 14. I'd like to congratulate the member for Beaches—East York for his persistence and his vision. I remember that the first time this bill was introduced it was Bill 184 in 2005, and then its replacement in 2006 was Bill 120, I believe. I'm delighted to support all fire protection legislation that's designed to save lives.

Fire kills nearly 100 Ontarians each and every year and it injuries many more, the overwhelming number at home. Despite mandatory smoke alarms and improved building construction, there has not been a substantial reduction in this number in over a decade. The cost to the Ontario economy in relation to health care expenses, property loss and the personal impact is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Smoke alarms are simply not enough.

I believe Bill 14 has the support of the firefighting community, the fire safety industry, many large and small municipalities, contractors, seniors' organizations, the insurance industry and Ontarians across this province.

Statistics show us that fatal residential fires most often occur between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., when the victims are asleep. Victims are also disproportionately children and the elderly—those who are vulnerable because they're physically unable to get to an escape route. There's no magic bullet. There's no single solution to the dilemma we face in legislating adequate fire protection; rather, for Ontarians to be effectively protected from fire, we need to use a number of strategies. It's clear that simply having a smoke alarm is not enough.

The member's bill addresses key concerns that I support. That is, where there is a fire in a building in which more than one dwelling exists, an alarm should be sounded in other dwellings within that same building. It seems only logical that alarms warn neighbouring or adjacent dwellings in the event of a fire. However, I do recall a report by CBC Marketplace that was broadcast back in June 1990 which reported that "one third of smoke alarms fail to go off in an emergency: People just don't maintain them.

"Canada has one of the highest rates of fire deaths in the world, and almost 80% of them happen at night....

"Many people think the smell of smoke will wake them up."

Fire alarms cannot protect you from fire, and often a fire is out of control by the time people in a residence are warned by a fire alarm. By the time a parent realizes that their house is on fire, it's too late to save the children. By the time you realize there is a fire, it's too late to save an elderly parent.

The second part of this bill addresses the ability to escape from a flaming building. Once alerted to a fire situation, it's critical that people can escape safely. This bill recognizes that there are many fire escapes in the province that were constructed at a time when measures we now take for granted were not in place, and that there are a number of buildings that have a wooden fire escape that offers no protection in the case of a fire where the only means of escape may in fact contribute to a fire. Firefighters cannot climb up and rescue someone if the fire escape is on fire or weakened by fire.

Again, common sense tells us that we need to make changes to give people every chance to escape a fire alive.

The member's efforts are to be lauded, and I know that a number of fire professionals support this initiative, but this legislation is only one strategy. Ideally, I believe better fire protection would include residential fire sprinklers. Members on all sides know my passion on this issue, and as tempted as I am to use my time to promote this issue, I would instead encourage other members to join in the debate on fire safety as the member from Beaches—East York has done by introducing this bill. The facts are overwhelming, and the terrible, ongoing loss of life is preventable. This issue goes beyond partisan politics.

Again, I would like to commend the member from Beaches—East York for being persistent in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I'm very happy to support Bill 14, and I believe that the time is right now to bring forward legislation that is meaningful and ensures the safety and security of all Ontarians.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Beaches—East York for once again introducing this worthwhile bill that will increase fire safety and save lives. I was pleased to support it in the past, when he introduced the same private member's bill in 2005 and in 2006, and I'm pleased to support it once again today.

As I was preparing these remarks, I looked back at Hansard from June 8, 2006, the last time this bill was debated in the Legislature. I started my remarks on that occasion by pointing out how strange it was that the House would unanimously be in support of an important initiative like this for the safety of our population, and yet the government seems to think it's not important enough to bring back for third reading and actually make it part of the law of the land. In April 2005, the member of Beaches—East York first introduced this bill, which was then Bill 184.

It was debated during private members' business and was passed on a voice vote. Sadly, the bill was referred to committee and died there.

In June 2006, the member from Beaches—East York once again introduced the bill. This time it was Bill 120, which was debated and passed second reading, and I want to point out that it passed second reading with the support of members of all parties that were there—not one vote against the bill. From there it was referred to committee and had hearings. In the committee it was supported by the Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association, Thomas Steers, the Toronto Fire Services, the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers Association and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs.

There was even a member from the government side of the House who appeared before the committee to speak in support of the bill. During those committee hearings, Deputy Chief Frank Lamie from the Toronto Fire Services said, "The measures required in Bill 120 will enhance early detection and provide early warning to all building occupants. Bill 120 will also provide an alternate escape route that can be part of the residential fire escape plan. The main advantage of early detection and early warning is to allow building occupants to get out of the building when the fire is small."

The committee reported back to the Legislature in September 2006, and last spring, when the House prorogued, the bill died again. It was never called for third reading. The committee had done its job, but after that, it must be the government that calls the bill back for third reading, as you would know, Mr. Speaker. Let's remember back last spring. The Legislature prorogued several weeks early. It wasn't that we ran out of time to deal with this bill; it was that the government didn't deem it a priority for the safety of the people.

Now it may be that, like several other private members' bills from this side of the House, the government may choose to incorporate these good ideas into a government bill and bring them forward, which they could do—put this in the building code review—but so far they haven't done it.

What I really want to talk about is that private members' business should be about members doing the right thing for their constituents and collectively doing the right thing for the people of this province. A couple of days ago there was motion introduced to look at making the workings of this place more family friendly. I would think, as that committee is looking at that, they should look at making private members' business more productive. As we look at all the good bills that have been introduced, all the good bills that have been passed for second reading, very few ever get to third and final reading and become the law of the land.

At the beginning of this new session, I would hope that the government would put aside partisan interests and do the right thing for the people of Ontario and have that review. I hope they will evaluate private members' bills based on their merits, not on who introduced them, and that when we have a good bill like this one they will take action and move forward for the good of the people.

I think everyone agrees that the changes in this bill will save lives. This bill requires that fire alarms be interconnected so that if a fire detector is activated in a public area, it will sound an alarm that is audible; people everywhere can hear it throughout the building. Simply put, this tries to ensure that if there is a fire in a public area or a serious fire within one of the units, people will be warned in time to exit the building or to make it possible to extinguish the fire. Early warning allows people to get out before the situation is life-threatening.

As a former firefighter, I can tell you that often after the fire has been put out and you look at the results, you think, "If only someone had noticed it sooner, it could have been a much different situation."

One of the concerns that is raised about the interconnected fire alarms in a multi-residential building is whether the alarm will go off too frequently. I think we all agree that if an alarm sounds every time someone burns toast, then people start to ignore it or even disable it. This is one of the reasons I support this bill, because it is the fire detectors in public areas that are required to be interconnected. That means that if someone burns something in the kitchen, their individual fire alarms should alert them to the problem so they can deal with it.

However, if the fire gets out of control, then everyone in the building will be warned. That also means that if someone has a fire in a basement apartment, the people on the top floor should be warned before the fire spreads to the stairs and blocks their route out of the building.

I also want to address the part of this bill that will save lives, which is the requirement that fire escapes be constructed of non-combustible materials. I spoke to that quite at length the last time this bill was here. The current building code regulations simply do not do an adequate job of ensuring that people will have an escape route in the event of a serious fire. The current regulation reads as follows:

"Fire escapes shall be of metal or concrete, of the stair type extending to ground level, constructed throughout in a strong substantial manner and securely fixed to the building, except that wooden fire escapes are permitted to be used on buildings of combustible construction if all posts and brackets are not less than 89 millimetres in their least dimension and all other woodwork is not less than 38 millimetres in its least dimension."

This means that if my building is made of wood, then I can build a fire escape of wood as well. It simply doesn't make sense that when the building is on fire, the fire escape, which is supposed to provide a safe exit, is just as likely to be on fire.

I want to raise one concern, and this is the one I raised last time I spoke to this bill. The bill says: "Regulations made under subsections (1) and (2) are deemed to require that fire escapes, where permitted, be constructed of non-combustible material." My concern is with the words "where permitted." It would seem to me appropriate to say, regardless of whether they were permitted to be there or whether they weren't, whatever fire escapes are, we don't have wooden fire escapes, wherever they are.

I think I mentioned last time that it seems silly that we have to have a steel one in case the building isn't really on fire, but if the building is all wood and it's in full flames, it's okay that the stairs are also in full flames. That just doesn't make sense.

I also have concern that if you leave the words "where permitted" in, if it's not saying that they have to be there, where it is not mandatory, municipalities could put in that they don't allow fire escapes and then they could put up wooden ones. Again, if they have to be metal, if they're not permitted to be wood, if they don't do anything, they can put in wooden ones. I hope that when the bill goes to committee this time, this is something that is considered to ensure we are preventing tragedy with wooden fire escapes.

Mr. Prue has related the tragic story of the fire that occurred in 1999 on Queen Street, and I want to once again extend my sympathies to the families of the victims of that fire. It was a horrible tragedy. I was a volunteer firefighter for 25 years. There were good days when we made a difference, helped an injured person or saved a life. There were also the days that we couldn't help, the days when we were too late or an accident was too bad. Those days stay with you forever. I can only imagine what the firefighters in Toronto must have felt when they saw the wooden fire escape in flames. I can't imagine what people felt who needed the escape route.

While you cannot prevent every fire, I believe that these changes could reduce the number of tragedies in the future. I believe that this Legislature has a responsibility, not only to support this bill today but to ensure that it's moved forward quickly and does not die on the order paper. We need to ensure we are not back here in a year or two debating the same issue on this same bill. I think lives can be saved in the meantime. Can we imagine that there are many cases where it's possible that a life could have been saved if this bill had been passed the first time it was in this Legislature? I encourage everyone to support it and move it forward.

M me France Gélinas: J'aimerais remercier M. Michael Prue pour avoir amené ce projet de loi, Loi prévoyant que le code du bâtiment et le code de prévention des incendies sont réputés exiger des détecteurs d'incendie, des systèmes d'alerte d'incendie interconnectés et des sorties de secours incombustibles.

I wasn't around when this bill was introduced the first time and the second time, but I'm here now and I have a really difficult time understanding how something so obvious, something people have been putting forward since the year 2000, hasn't been accepted yet by this House. We heard the previous speaker say that all of the process has been followed: Mr. Prue introduced the bill, it went to committee and it received the support of the people in committee. Everybody is on board—the association of professional firefighters, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs—and everybody agrees that this is a good bill, yet it doesn't go through. It doesn't become a law. It doesn't come into effect.

This is the kind of skepticism people sometimes have toward politicians. I think some of it is born in actions like these, in the lack of action. Why is it that when a private member brings something forward, a private bill that makes sense and that is supported by members of government—everybody on each side of the House today has spoken in favour of it. I'm hopeful it will go to committee, although it will be for us all to decide. I'm hopeful that this time will be the real time for it.

I know we have people here who have to live with the legacy of what it means not to have this kind of protection in effect in Ontario. The first part of the bill says, "Every residential building with two or more dwelling units is equipped with fire detectors in all public corridors and common areas of the building and interconnected fire alarms that are audible throughout the building." We all know that fire alarms and smoke detectors save lives.

You can ask any kid from elementary school and they can rhyme it off: "Fire alarms save lives." The fire departments have big campaigns in all of their communities that, when you change your clock in the fall and when you change your clock in the spring, you change the battery in your smoke alarm. It would be even better if your smoke alarm was hard-wired through your house. But if you take on this habit, it will save lives and it has saved a lot of lives.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with Marc Gobbo and Mark Muldoon. Marc Gobbo is the president of the Sudbury Professional Firefighters Association and Mark Muldoon is on their executive. They came and talked to us about what firefighters want. What they want is basically to work themselves out of service. They want to make sure that everybody is safe. Sure, they'll be there if you need them, but they know that the more lead time you have, the better the outcome will be. Sometimes the outcome can be really bad, very drastic, and sometimes it leads to death.

Like the speaker before me, my husband, Keith Harris, is a firefighter. He has gone to many fires in his long career where the outcome has been really bad. When he comes home, he will always say, "The fire detector didn't work. The smoke alarm was disconnected," and those are the fires that turn out bad. What this bill is trying to do is make sure that this will not happen again. It is 100% preventable. All we have to do is pass this bill. Make it hard-wired. Make it interconnected.

Make it so that if an apartment in the basement is on fire or is filled with smoke, then all of the exits don't fill up with smoke before the people on the second or third floor know about it. As the member mentioned before, most of those fires happen at night, when people are asleep. Most of the fatalities are not people burning to death; they are dying of smoke inhalation because the smoke alarm didn't go on, because there was no smoke alarm.

The second part of the bill says that every fire escape should be constructed of non-combustible material. Here again, why are we debating this? Isn't it common sense that a fire escape should be built of non-combustible material? It goes without saying.

So I'm going to give my support to this bill. I have a feeling that most of the people in this House will give it their support. It will go to committee. Here again, all of the professional associations will come out and say the bill is good the way it is. It will save lives. It will make a positive difference in the lives of people in Ontario.

I hope this time is your lucky third time—it's the lucky third time for all of us—that it will come back to this House, it will become law, and the pain and suffering that some of the visitors in this House have gone through will be recognized in a positive way, that it brought something good out of something tragic that has continued to happen for the last seven years. Let's make sure that 2008 is the last time it ever happens in Ontario. Let's make sure this bill comes back to the House and that we as politicians do the right thing: that we do what's right for the people of Ontario and we pass Mr.

Prue's Bill 14 and make it the law in Ontario.

C'est certainement mon plaisir ce matin de pouvoir amener mon appui au projet de loi 14, Loi prévoyant que le code du bâtiment et le code de prévention des incendies sont réputés exiger des détecteurs d'incendie, des systèmes d'alerte d'incendie interconnectés et des sorties de secours incombustibles.

La première

partie de ce projet de loi dit que des détecteurs de fumée devraient être connectés dans tous les corridors et les sorties d'urgence pour permettre aux gens qui demeurent dans une même habitation de l'entendre. Souvent les feux se déclarent la nuit, pendant que les gens dorment. Lorsque les pompiers s'y rendent, ils vont nous dire que le résultat est tragique et drastique. Souvent ce n'est pas parce que les gens sont brûlés qu'ils vont mourir, c'est parce qu'ils vont respirer trop de fumée. Donc les gens meurent dans leur sommeil sans même s'en apercevoir.

C'est tellement facile à prévenir : tout ce qu'on aurait à faire c'est de s'assurer de passer le projet loi, un projet de loi qu'on essaie de faire passer depuis l'année 2000. Ça fait sept ans qu'on essaie de faire passer quelque chose qui est tellement évident : d'avoir des détecteurs de fumée et d'avoir une sortie d'urgence qui n'est pas faite de matériel combustible.

Ça aussi est pas mal l'évidence lorsqu'on pense que la loi comme elle est en ce moment dit que les sorties d'urgence doivent être faites avec des 2 sur 4 et des 2 sur 8. Qu'est-ce qu'on est en train de faire là? On est en train de rajouter de l'huile sur le feu. On est en train de rajouter du matériel combustible à une situation qui est déjà explosive. Il me semble que ça va de l'évidence.

Ce projet de loi a été présenté une première fois, il s'est rendu en comité, il a passé en deuxième lecture, mais le gouvernement n'a pas cru bon de le ramener en Chambre pour en faire une loi. Il a été présenté une deuxième fois par M. Prue. Encore là, il s'est rendu en comité, il a reçu l'appui de l'Association des chefs pompiers, de l'Association des pompiers professionnels. C'est un bon projet de loi, mais encore là le gouvernement n'a pas jugé nécessaire de le ramener en Chambre.

Cette fois-ci, c'est la troisième fois. J'espère que la troisième fois va être plus chanceuse. C'est un bon projet de loi, c'est un projet de loi qui va prévenir des feux, qui va prévenir également du dommage autant aux habitants qu'aux habitations, et j'espère que cette fois-ci on va le respecter et que le gouvernement va juger bon de lui donner l'importance qu'il devrait avoir. Moi, je vais voter en faveur.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: First, thank you to Mr. Prue for bringing forward this bill. This gives us a good point of discussion.

I was very enthusiastic about this bill until just yesterday. I am less enthusiastic about this bill today, and I will be listening very intently to what Mr. Prue has to say about at least one of my questions.

As you know, this Bill 14 is to amend both the Building Code Act of 1992 and the Fire Protection and Prevention Act of 1997, and I only wish that Mr. Prue would have divided those two so we could have separate discussions on the Building Code Act and on the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

As you know, as it stands right now, the FPPA is administered by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and already provides authority for standards that apply to fire safety.

What Mr. Prue is trying to accomplish—I am familiar with the City of Toronto Act. It says that interconnected systems must be applied in buildings of six units or more. Mr. Prue is trying to reduce that to two units, which is admirable and certainly has my support. The question that I have has to do with something that happened to me personally when I was invited to visit an eight-storey building in my riding.

I was shocked to see that some of the interconnected systems and smoke detection systems were tampered with, almost to the point where in every fifth apartment that I visited personally it had been tampered with by the tenant. Either the unit was pulled out of the wall because it was deemed to be too sensitive—and, Mr. Prue, I would hope that we will have this discussion in committee—or too sensitive also in terms of smoke detection systems. In some cases they were not pulled out; in some cases the battery was missing. In some cases it was taped over. Why?

Because these units had been manufactured in a too sensitive manner, and consequently they were sounding the alarm when no alarm was necessary.

So I would certainly support that part of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, because it would indicate that Mr. Prue's intention here is to ensure that there must be a manufactured interconnected fire system to prevent tampering, and that discussion has to take place in committee. That discussion is necessary, because it's no use to talk about fire prevention systems when it's easy to pull out a battery or it's easy to pull out the equipment, and consequently, all this money spent on fire prevention is of no consequence. So I would hope that you will take that into account when the details of this bill are being discussed.

The second part of my question—and this is really the reason why I may not be as excited and enthusiastic about supporting this bill. I was looking for the second time at Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and it struck me that Mr. Prue's bill, Bill 14, talks about wooden fire escapes. It's obvious that we don't want wooden fire escapes, because they keep burning. Even though there are treated woods that will delay the fire, that may be of little consequence to firefighters.

But in addition to fire escapes, let's look at what's on the ground in the city of Toronto. There are literally thousands upon thousands of decks and balconies that I see when I go onto any street in the city of Toronto. The question I have is this: Number one, are these wooden balconies or these wooden fire escapes—and remember, these are not steps. Fire escapes are not necessarily steps; fire escapes are balconies. They are exits away from a fire.

I'm wondering, having looked at this bill—and I hope maybe there will be a discussion as well—if you are changing the wooden structures which have been treated to prevent fires or delay fires, and then you impose a law that says you have to now either do it in concrete or metal, will these be too heavy?

But what's even more important when I discuss the Inconvenient Truth movie by Al Gore is, what will be our environmental footsteps of ensuring that all wooden structures now are having an effect on material that is not renewable? So I'm wondering, Mr. Prue, if you are able at all, in whatever way, to tell us what would be the environmental problem of replacing all of those. Now, I know you will tell us, "Well, it's a question of environment versus saving lives." That may be the case, and I'm very sensitive and happy that you would be making that argument, but you should also tell us in terms of the numbers what would be the effect on the environment.

Thank you very much, and I hope I'll be listening to Mr. Prue's response to this question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? The member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome back to the Speaker's chair once again in this session.

It's a pleasure this morning to speak to the bill before us, Bill 14, the Fire Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2007, just for those of you at home who are viewing today. I congratulate the member from Beaches—East York again for bringing this forward in the Legislature and his tenacity on this issue. And welcome to the firefighters in the gallery today and those who have been here through the week, coming to our offices, explaining their concerns and putting the public safety of Ontarians foremost before us and what we can do to make the laws better.

This is one example of what we can do. We were disappointed, in the two times that it's been introduced, that it has not been moved forward. I encourage the government to certainly take this forward maybe a little bit more expediently than they did before.

I want to concur with my colleagues the member from Oxford and the member from Thornhill about the different aspects of the bill they have brought forward. I want to focus, in the short time I have, on the particular part of the bill in which Mr. Prue, under

section one, indicates interconnected fire alarms that are audible, and in clauses 1(2.0.1)(

b) and 2(1.1)(

b) he reiterates that point.

The concern I want to bring forward is about people such as seniors or people who are deaf or hard of hearing in our communities who need strobe lighting and different devices in order to be alerted. I know my colleague the member from Pickering—Scarborough East did a private member's bill in the last session on visual fire alarms so I know that other members of the Legislature are aware of this.

I've had the opportunity to speak in my riding to Maggie Doherty-Gilbert, who represents the Canadian Hearing Society and does a fantastic job on that part. She's been to my office many times. She makes the point that one of the main focuses of the local health integration networks is to work at providing seniors with the dignity and independence of staying in their homes, and this includes those living in retirement residences and supportive housing. Statistics show that as many as 40% of seniors in our community are either deaf or hard of hearing.

So for most of those people, an audible fire alarm isn't sufficient to make them aware of the potential danger they may be faced with, so strobe alarms are what's needed in these cases. We have a variation of those strobe alarms in the Legislature, as we speak.

Surprisingly, strobe alarms and fire alarms are not covered under the assistive devices program, so there are financial hardships for these people in obtaining strobe alarms. The estimated cost is about $100 per alarm, but it's the connection of the hard wiring and the many rooms that they will need; obviously, they need them in different rooms in their homes. That is the point we want to make: to look at strobe alarms that may be covered by the assistive devices program.

I want to make the point that the Legion in Clarington has just raised $2,000 for a local situation in their riding. So I say, God bless the Legion for identifying that and for fundraising.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? The New Democrats have three more minutes if they choose to use it.

If there's no further debate, I can recognize the member for Beaches—East York for up to five minutes, can I not? Agreed. The member for Beaches—East York in reply.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to thank the members for London—Fanshawe, Thornhill, Hamilton East, Brampton—Springdale, Oxford, Nickel Belt, Davenport and Victoria—Haliburton—Brock for their very serious and well-thought-out comments on this bill. I have up to five minutes, so I'd just like to deal with some of the concerns that they raised.

The member from London—Fanshawe spoke generally, but he spoke very well. He did remember the contents of the previous bill, and I thank him for having spoken to it in the past as well as today.

The member for Thornhill is a newcomer to the House, but he seized upon and understood immediately what the bill involved, particularly in terms of the firefighters. In my opening 10-minute remark, I did not have enough time to talk about the firefighters. But he was absolutely right: The firefighters put their health and their lives at risk each and every day.

The firefighters are in support of this bill, not only because it will help them to do the job that they are paid for and that they have a passion to do—that is, saving lives—but it will also, in the long term, protect those brave men and women who have to go into burning buildings, to make them safer and to more often come home. We know that every year we mourn the loss of firefighters who have died in the line of duty going into burning buildings, some in the actual fire and some because of the inhalation of smoke and other toxins that is endemic to the profession.

The firefighters will be very much saved. Number one, when they get there, they will get there faster. If the alarm goes off—as it did in the case of the Queen Street fire, where it had to actually melt the wires to turn it on—they'll get there before, in the three or four minutes that they endeavour to try to do in every single case, at least in large cities like the city of Toronto and Hamilton. When they get there, they will find that the residents have had an opportunity to leave the building, so they won't have to be running in trying to save people who are inside, because they'll already be outside.

And last but not least, many times they will be able to have access to the rear or side entrances to gain access to the fire and be better able to put it out, rather than simply going in a front door. They won't be able to do that if there are wooden fire escapes. So I think this is a health and safety issue for them, and we need to pay attention to that.

The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is a newcomer, and he spoke briefly but well on the bill.

I applaud the efforts of the member from Brampton—Springdale. We've been working in tandem, even though we're in different parties, trying to get two aspects of the bills passed: one for older homes, which is my bill, and one for newer homes, which is hers. I hope she is going to bring her bill forward again.

The member from Oxford spoke in absolute detail. I was not aware till today, or did not remember, that he was a former firefighter.

I'd better skip down to the member from Davenport because I only have a couple of seconds left. Yes, we need the very best technology so that fire alarms don't go off when toast is burnt, even in the hall. They can be modified and should be modified.

In terms of whether a wooden fire escape is better for the environment than a metal one, I can't tell you how much that's going to save, but I do know that the purpose of this bill is not so much environmental as it is life-saving. But I promise to try to get you that answer by the time this goes to committee.

The member from Victoria—Haliburton—Brock was talking about strobe alarms. I think inevitably that's possible. It is something that can be considered when the debate of the bill takes place in committee. Strobe alarms maybe won't work everywhere, but I don't think the technology is that far afield that it cannot be modified, and especially modified in places where people are hard of hearing. She has made a very good case and a very good suggestion in terms of retirement homes and homes where a lot of senior people might live, also where the deaf or hard of hearing might live, that strobe alarms be considered as well.

The difficulty with that—and I have to state—is because we're trying to do the public areas, not the areas inside the apartment. So if somebody is asleep and is hard of hearing, the strobe alarm would be outside the door. It would be in the hallway, as this is intended to do. It may have to be wired into their home if that's what they wish as well. I certainly have no difficulty with it being done.

The only argument that was raised in the past was an issue of cost. There were some landlords who owned properties who said they did not want to be involved in the cost. Well, the whole issue here is the cost of human life. The whole issue is for the landlord to put in the fire escape. As fire escapes become redundant, they have to be replaced. Certainly, the bill contemplates that there can be a time frame for this to be done. It would not instantly become law, but there would be a time frame. As these old fire escapes are replaced, they would have to be replaced with non-combustible ones. This is all eminently doable.

I thank all members for their suggestions. I'm looking forward to your support today and to having this heard again in committee and passed at third reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have available for this ballot item.

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2007

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

Mr. Crozier moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act to make the month of November Bone Marrow Awareness Month / Projet de loi 5, Loi visant à désigner le mois de novembre Mois de la sensibilisation au don de moelle osseuse.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I'm prepared to recognize the member. He has 10 minutes for his leadoff presentation.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Like the bill we just finished debating and discussing, it's the second time that this bill has been presented. The first time was earlier this year, only in the last session of Parliament, and it received unanimous consent the morning it was debated. It was ordered for third reading but, unfortunately, because of the mysterious workings of this place, it did not get third reading finally and, as the saying goes, died on the order paper. I certainly hope it enjoys as much support as the last time, and more, and I hope this time it gets past third reading and is enacted.

As a matter of fact, it's a very short bill that carries a great message. The bill is only three paragraphs, and I would even read it. It declares: "The month of November in each year is hereby named Bone Marrow Awareness Month." The act would come into effect and force on the day it receives royal assent, if it is passed. But importantly in this case too, the

short title of the bill is the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Awareness Month Act, 2007.

This bill was created with the inspiration provided by Katelyn Bedard and her parents, Joanne and Bryan. They are founders of the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Association. They live in Windsor just outside of my riding. Beautiful and lively Katelyn lost her battle with leukemia at the tender age of three and a half, when she was unable to find a match within the bone marrow registry for the life-saving donation that she needed. That is the reason that in Katelyn's memory—for her so-short life and her battle against leukemia—we have named this the Katelyn Bedard bone marrow bill.

After losing Katelyn, her parents decided to make it their mission to encourage more people to join the bone marrow registry, so that no other child, and in fact no other person, would have to experience the pain that Katelyn and her family did when they couldn't find a match. I quote Bryan Bedard: "Having Bone Marrow Awareness Month declared will bring added legitimacy to our cause.... With hundreds of Canadians needing a bone marrow transplant each year, it is imperative that people educate themselves about the bone marrow registry and add their name to the list of potential donors to bring hope to those that desperately need to find a match to save their life."

The bone marrow transplant is a procedure that's required when a patient's own bone marrow is destroyed because of the use of high doses of chemotherapy or radiation. For many people suffering from diseases such as leukemia, a bone marrow transplant is the only hope of any long-term survival. A transplant requires matching tissue types between the patient and donor. More often, I suppose, this is found in related donors and patients, but in those cases where even the related donor and patient can't find a match—that's why we need to make bone marrow donation a much broader scope, so that the chances of finding someone are increased.

These tissue types are inherited, but 70% of patients don't have a matched donor in their family. These people rely on the kindness of strangers who have volunteered to donate their bone marrow through the national bone marrow registry. But sadly, the demand for life-saving bone marrow transplants far outweighs the matches found in the registry. Again, bringing awareness to the need for bone marrow donors will increase the size of the registry and therefore increase the chances of needy patients finding a bone marrow match.

I hope that the memory of little Katelyn Bedard inspires people to register to donate their bone marrow. There are plenty of people in my own riding whom we would like to encourage to do this.

In order to help the patients, and others around the world, as a matter of fact, find compatible, committed and healthy unrelated donors, the Unrelated Bone Marrow Donor Registry was established in 1989 by the Canadian Red Cross Society and assumed by the Canadian Blood Services in 1998. The success of the registry, as I have said and will emphasize, depends on people who are willing to sign up to provide the gift of life to someone who's not related to them. While many patients have received a life-saving bone marrow transplant from a donor found through the registry, many others continue to search for this miracle each month.

I will admit that I have not yet registered. The only thing that's preventing me from doing so is finding the closest clinic that I can go to. But it's a very simple process. There is simply a blood sample taken, and then that blood sample is recorded for those technical things that they need to know in order to match it with a patient who needs a bone marrow transplant. Your name is in the registry, and if someone who's seeking this kind of life-saving help finds the qualities of your blood to be that match, then you are asked to give a bone marrow transplant and that process is carried out. So with little inconvenience and certainly little discomfort, many of us could help save lives.

After all, we are here on this planet together to, I think, from time to time, make large sacrifices in order to save someone's life. But in this case, it's such a small sacrifice, and yet it can mean so much. It would mean an awful lot—although she's not with us—to little Katelyn, I'm sure. The short time that she was here, it would make that little life of hers mean so much more if, through this, and in her name, we could encourage more people to register to be a bone marrow contributor.

So I ask for the support of my colleagues here this morning. It received unanimous support when we debated it earlier this year in the former Parliament. I ask you to support this bill so that come next November, when they can take a month to call their own and bring this issue to the fore, all of us can feel proud that in some little way we helped to bring that awareness to those around us who don't know about it, and subsequently, because of that, increase the size of the bone marrow registry. With that increase in numbers comes a better chance that a life will be saved.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill 5. I think that when we look at this issue in a broader societal context, what we're really looking at is balancing the success of medical science in being able to provide answers with public awareness and understanding. This is an ongoing issue. It certainly always has new facets of challenge for the public and for medical science.

I think back to the point in time when we were in government and we embarked on a public awareness program to increase organ donation. I recall at that time that I think most of us embraced the notion, particularly when we found out that Canadians were reticent to sign up for organ donation, and we had relatively, in comparison to other jurisdictions, a very small percentage. So again, it was the question of creating opportunities to build that awareness and to improve the percentage of potential donors.

I must say that I thought it was a very clear public message, but I did have a constituent who phoned me in great agitation because somehow she thought that this initiative implied that there was going to be some obligation on her part to be engaged in organ donation. I had to assure her that, no, it was a question of public awareness. I offer that anecdote simply to remind people that the challenge here, first of all, is in supporting the research we are proud to have in this country that provides us with avenues for this kind of donation. But it behooves us as public figures, then, to encourage and promote public awareness and understanding.

Maybe it's a feature of my age, but it seems to me that we have pushed the boundaries of medical science in those particular areas. I think back to the availability of successful organ transplants, and now we look at tissue, cell, cord blood. These are all huge innovations in the area of being able to treat medical conditions, very life-threatening medical conditions. The issue for us today, then, is matching that medical success with this ongoing public awareness and understanding. The challenge, I think, is understandable because of the fact that around us constantly are medical science achievements.

People tend to think, "Well, it's not something that affects me; I'm not directly involved," so they're not as likely to make themselves aware of the issues and the opportunities that in fact save lives.

I'm reminded of the personal story from my neighbours, who discovered, obviously in a very traumatic way, when their seven-month-old baby was diagnosed with leukemia—when he was diagnosed and the medical profession were looking for options that might be of assistance to him, they were pleased to note that he had three siblings but, very sadly, none of those siblings provided an opportunity for a bone marrow match, and certainly the fact that he had cousins as well—they were not able to find a match within the immediate family.

This created huge angst on the part of my neighbours, because obviously they understood that their child's chance of survival would be significantly enhanced by the opportunity of having a bone marrow transplant. In speaking to Hudson's parents, their appreciation of the kind of technology and research that exists today became clear to me, and they wanted to convey the importance that people's lives are saved, that it is money well spent.

When we look at the whole bone marrow process, one of the things that I think becomes very clear is the chance of how successful it is to find a match: It's estimated that it's one in 750,000 people. When you consider that, according to a Toronto Star

article in October 2006, there are only about 230,000 people in Canada who are registered, it gives you some kind of idea of the kind of urgency that the member from Essex referred to in being a part of that registry.

I think as well that when you look at the support program that has been provided through this Katelyn Bedard foundation, it's also something that needs to be recognized, because when I look at the delivery of the terrible news for my neighbours about their seven-month-old and having to deal with that kind of message, the kind of support that they required from family, from friends, from neighbours, from the community at large, was enormous. As a seven-month-old, of course, he went to Sick Children's in Toronto, and had to have his mother with him most of the time.

So there's a huge strain, and I think that recognizing the work of this foundation in providing that kind of support is extremely important.

So I want to offer congratulations to the member for Essex, Mr. Crozier, in the reintroduction of this bill, because I think that it goes a long way to building that awareness that we need to share. We need to make people more conscious of the opportunities and, frankly, the good work of this foundation.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I thank the member from Nickel Belt for allowing me to speak at this time. I can tell you that I'm truly honoured to stand in this House and speak to this particularly vital bill, the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Awareness Month Act. I would also like to extend my appreciation and my gratitude to my colleague from the riding of Essex, Bruce Crozier, for proposing this act and actively lobbying on its behalf for the families that have been most affected by the illness through this tragedy.

The story of Katelyn Bedard is truly a sad and very heartbreaking tale. For a child of three years old to have to suffer through and ultimately succumb to an illness such as leukemia is a true tragedy. Even more tragic is the fact that Katelyn may have been able to survive such a critical illness had she been able to receive a matching donor for her bone marrow transplant. She did not, and now we must strive forward in trying to fix the system and attempt to influence more Ontarians to become bone marrow and organ donors.

A story like Katelyn's will often help in bringing an issue as serious as this to the public consciousness. I hope this bill will do the same and that, out of such immense tragedy, there will be hope for others who will come behind Katelyn to not have to suffer the illness that could have been avoided through organ and bone marrow transplants.

Katelyn's parents, Bryan and Joanne, have served the honour of Katelyn by creating and dedicating themselves to the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Association. This association's goal is to promote awareness about worldwide bone marrow registries and to educate about bone marrow donation in an attempt to further encourage adults to consider joining the bone marrow donation registry in hope of saving the life of someone else suffering from this illness. This is truly admirable of the Bedards.

I speak for others in the Legislature in suggesting how important and commendable their work on this mission is and how proud of themselves they should be for striving to help others to avoid the tragedy that has befallen their family.

On that note I would also like to relate a similar story about organ donations from a very special individual from my riding. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet Ann Miller. Ann is a resident of the riding of Huron—Bruce, and she was at the Legislature. as a part of National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week last April as a representative of the Gift of Life Association.

Ms. Miller had been struck by a tragedy: Both her son Joel and her nephew were killed in automobile accidents within a very short time of one another. Ann's son was an organ donor, and his donation went to help give other people the gift of life. Ann's son was enshrined in the Gift of Life Association quilt that honours transplant donors and recipients. Through the tragedy of losing her son and her nephew, Ann has become a tireless advocate for the Gift of Life Association. She travels around the province with the organization, telling her story in hope that it will drive those who have not signed up for organ donation to do so in order to save a life.

I'm certain that many, if not all, of the members of the Legislature could share a story of a constituent or a friend or a family member who has been touched by a tragedy like my constituent Ann Miller.

To conclude, this bill proposed by the member from Essex is being presented as a bill that could help lead to saving the lives of people faced with similar circumstances like Katelyn Bedard. If this bill will help to save even one life, I cannot imagine how it could not receive full support from this Legislature. I'm certain that every member in this House would agree that more needs to be done to help promote bone marrow and organ donation across this province. Because these donations can make a difference, a decision between life and death, in many instances.

We need to do what we can as representatives of the province of Ontario. We need to push this issue and we need to become advocates for bone marrow and organ donation.

So once again, to the member from Essex, you deserve a great deal of credit and respect from this Legislature for being on the front lines of this issue and bringing awareness not only from your riding but from across the province. To the people that I represent, I thank you for all of your hard work, and I will support this bill.

Ms. Laurie Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to introduce the grade 10 class from the Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute, the students and the teachers. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Further debate?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm certainly pleased to join this debate on Bill 5, the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Awareness Month Act, that's been introduced by our Liberal colleague from Essex. I'd like to congratulate him. He's reintroduced a bill that he felt very strongly about before in this Legislature. As we've heard, it has been inspired by Katelyn Bedard. Unfortunately, she lost her battle with leukemia because there was no match in the bone marrow registry. Certainly, her parents since then have done whatever they can to encourage all Ontarians to join the bone marrow registry.

I think sometimes we don't realize that each one of us could do a lot. We know that in certain instances we have the opportunity to donate blood; in some instance we have the opportunity to donate our organs. But we also have the opportunity to donate our bone marrow, and it is extremely important that people become aware of the fact that this is something that they can do. I think particularly at this time of the year, people sometimes are looking to do something that would benefit others, not just in this province or this country but throughout the world.

And really, the success of the registry that we have depends on people who are willing to sign up to provide the gift of life to someone who is not related to them. While many patients have received a life-saving bone marrow transplant from a donor found through the registry, there are many, many others throughout the world who continue to search for their miracle match. Each one of us would be devastated to know that we have a life-threatening disease that could be cured if only the right person had joined the bone marrow registry.

I hope this bill, as it's reintroduced today, will be supported, will be passed. Even our discussion today, I hope, will raise the awareness of the need for people to participate in donating bone marrow.

I think it's important to also remember that we need people from all ethnic backgrounds to be participating. If we take a look at the Canadian bone marrow registry, we will see that many people of backgrounds other than Caucasians are vastly under-represented. It says here that there are approximately 230,000 Canadians registered: 83% of them are Caucasian, 1% aboriginal, 0.5% African-Canadian, 3.6% Asian, 1.6% East Indian and 0.3% Hispanic. We know that if we're going to be matching these donors to the transplant, they need to be of the same ethnicity. So certainly we need to encourage all people, and it's really important to raise awareness. This is an issue that isn't always talked about.

I went on the website of the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Association, and there was a note there from Judy Fortier of Lavigne, Ontario. She joined the registry 12 years ago and she says it's "Easy to register. Good for the soul."

Lisa Beneteau of Amherstburg says she did it to honour her husband, who had a transplant in May. She goes on to say that it's so easy; people need to be educated on how easy it really is.

There's someone from my community, Steven McEvoy, who has belonged to the registry for 16 years. He has donated twice.

There's a Kim Dwight of Strathroy, who writes that she has recently joined the registry because she wants to make her existence in this world useful to others.

There are Jennifer and Ryan from London, who have joined to honour a loved one's memory, and they hope to help somebody else.

There's a Celeste Breault from LaSalle, who says, "I joined when I heard about Katelyn Bedard. I went to school with her parents and it really hit home.... I realized that even if I wasn't a match for her, I could still help save someone's life."

Then there is Donita Des Rosiers from Windsor, who writes that she was at a Nascar race in Michigan and there was a booth set up by the national bone marrow donor program. Both she and her husband signed up on the spot.

Then there's Rosanna Brazil, who writes that she joined the registry in 1996 because a girl named Natasha was looking for a bone marrow transplant, and that a year before, a girl at her school had died suddenly from AML leukemia.

So you know what? There are many, many people who have made the decision to become a donor. I know that recently there was a resident in Kitchener, my community, who was looking for a bone marrow transplant. He wasn't able to find a matching donor in the registry. His family was originally from Nicaragua and, as I think was pointed out to you, there weren't too many donors of Hispanic background, and he was quite desperate.

To those people who are watching today, I hope that a gift that you will consider making this Christmas is to register. You may be called upon at some point to give the gift of life to somebody else. Again, congratulations to my colleague on introducing this bill again.

M me France Gélinas: Il me fait plaisir, moi aussi, de parler en faveur de la Loi visant à désigner le mois de novembre Mois de la sensibilisation au don de moelle osseuse.

Chaque année des centaines de personnes en Ontario ont besoin d'une greffe de moelle osseuse pour lutter contre des maladies, des maladies qui souvent sont mortelles. Cependant, moins de 30 % de ces gens trouveront un donneur de cellules souches parmi les membres de leur famille même si on inclut là-dedans les familles étendues. Un donneur non apparenté qu'on ne connaît pas est la seule source de moelle osseuse disponible pour la majorité des gens qui attendent le don de moelle osseuse.

Donc, un registre de donneurs non apparentés de moelle osseuse a été créé en 1989, ça fait quand même pas mal longtemps de ça, par la Société de la Croix-Rouge. Plus tard, ça a été prise en charge par la Société canadienne de sang, en 1998. Le registre vise à aider les gens qui ont besoin d'une greffe de moelle osseuse à trouver quelqu'un, un donneur compatible non apparenté, partout dans le monde.

On est, nous les politiciens ici à Queen's Park, dans une position privilégiée pour s'assurer que ce message-là se répand à la grandeur de la province. Pour ceux qui écoutent à la télé, puis certainement si on appuie ce projet de loi, on aura la chance de faire une différence concrète dans la vie de centaines de personnes. Par contre, le succès du registre repose largement sur ceux qui acceptent de se porter volontaires pour offrir le don de vie à une personne qui n'a aucun lien de parenté avec eux.

Si de nombreuses personnes en attente ont pu recevoir une greffe de mœlle osseuse essentielle à leur survie, c'est parce que le registre a permis de trouver un donneur et que, par miracle, cette personne-là était compatible. Par contre, c'est difficile et on a besoin que plus de gens participent.

Pour stimuler la participation, la Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Association a été mise en place en 2005. L'association vise à faire connaître le registre des donneurs de moelle osseuse du monde entier pour que tout le monde sache où un donneur potentiel puisse se trouver. Ça sert également à renseigner le public sur le don de moelle osseuse et attirer l'attention sur le besoin urgent de donneurs de moelle osseuse et d'encourager tous les adultes à s'inscrire au registre.

L'inscription est facile. Les gens pensent, quant à la moelle osseuse, que l'on parle d'une chirurgie ou des os ou quoi que ce soit. Pas du tout; ce n'est pas ça. C'est une simple prise de sang. Même pour ceux qui ont peur des aiguilles, je vous garantie que ça ne fait pas mal. Allez-y. Vous ne le regretterez pas. Même mon collègue n'aura pas peur.

La désignation du mois de novembre comme Mois de la sensibilisation au don de moelle osseuse appuie à la fois les activités de la Société canadienne du sang et celle de la Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Association, en attirant l'attention sur la nécessité d'accroître le nombre de donneurs volontaires, afin d'accroître les chances de trouver un donneur de moelle osseuse compatible pour tous ceux qui sont en attente d'une greffe.

Je crois que ce sont des motifs très honorables. Je suis sûre qu'on a tous connu quelqu'un qui avait soit le cancer, un lymphome ou une autre maladie sérieuse qui était en attente d'une moelle osseuse et qui n'a pas reçu ce don de vie. Moi-même, j'ai perdu un ami il y a deux ans, M. Michel Galipeau, qui lui aussi aurait eu besoin d'une moelle osseuse et a subi des complications. On est tous dans des situations comme ça, on connaît tous quelqu'un, et en passant ce projet de loi, on peut faire une différence. Donc certainement, les néo-démocrates voteront en faveur de ce projet de loi.

J'espère que le travail de comité va se faire et que ce projet de loi soit ramené en troisième lecture, pour être appuyé par cette Chambre et pour être sûr qu'il devienne loi. Nous avons la chance ici de faire une différence dans la vie de centaines de personnes. Il ne faudrait pas la laisser passer.

As politicians, we are in a leadership position. We have an opportunity here to pass a bill that will make a tremendous difference in the lives of hundreds of people waiting for bone marrow transplants. Let's make sure we take this leadership responsibility seriously. Let's make sure that this bill goes to second reading, goes to committee and comes back to this House and becomes the law. We will have an opportunity to make sure more people register and make a big contribution to people who are waiting for bone marrow transplants.

The season of giving is upon us. It would certainly be a nice gesture to call up your local hospital and make a donation. You won't regret it. You will feel better about it.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I want to thank the member for Essex for introducing this private member's bill, the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Awareness Month Act.

Katelyn Bedard today is asking us to donate our bone marrow through the National Bone Marrow Registry. But I think at the same time Katelyn Bedard would want us, as members of Parliament, to be leaders and examples of how to live a healthy and gifted life. Is there something we can do to ensure that we do that? Yes: a proper diet, go easy on fats and sugars, increase amounts of fruits, vegetables and grains, and don't forget your vitamins. There are mineral supplements because our foods may be lacking in them. Physical exercise should be a must—aerobics, walking, cycling—and certainly getting enough sleep, which is something all MPPs need more of.

But there is one dimension that seems to be missing as well to a healthy life that Katelyn Bedard is asking of us today, and that is the emotions. What are the effects of our emotions on our health? That of course is the new science called psychoneuroimmunology, which shows the connection between your mind, the nervous system and the immune system.

Why is this important? We know that the stress that most people feel has a negative effect on our lives, especially sitting here and listening to some of the speeches; that could certainly increase a lot of stress. But it is important, because I ran across a very interesting

article in the journal of the Archives of General Psychiatry from December 2005. This study shows that the effects of an argument between spouses have a negative aspect on your health. The new study shows that arguments between spouses slow down your body's ability to heal a wound. Dr. Ronald Glaser of Ohio State University found that having these kinds of negative interactions between people—everyday, hostile relations with your spouse—is changing your body's immune system as you grow older.

The study shows clearly that only one half-hour argument with a spouse reduced the immune system's mechanism to heal a wound by one day; imagine that. A big, strong argument with your spouse reduces your immune system, and consequently it reduces the ability to heal a wound by one day. In short, as hostile arguments between couples increase, the body's ability to repair a wound decreases. That is the power of this new science called psychoneuroimmunology, and it shows that it has a direct effect on the immune system.

How does this relate to Bone Marrow Awareness Month? Bone marrow is the factory of production of red and white blood cells, and they have, obviously, a direct impact on the immune system. Consequently, in order to live a healthy, gifted life—because what is life but a gift, really—we have to try to ensure that we understand this kind of relationship. The body of evidence is growing that the emotional content, the stress we feel every day, has a direct impact on our health.

So what's the science? Let's look at Joan Borysenko, who says that the mind-body relationship is entering a new level in scientific understanding. She talks about how belief and imagination can unlock the mystery of healing. Dr. Carl Simonton pioneered the use of guided imagery for cancer patients, and he runs the Simonton Cancer Center in Pacific Palisades in California. Dr. Dean Ornish, University of California, advocates the use of meditation to reverse the effects of heart disease. Karen Olness, Bernie Siegel—Dr. Hamer of Germany discovered after 40,000 case studies that almost every disease is caused by a shock experience of stress.

In short, while we're discussing the whole issue of Bone Marrow Awareness Month, we must also show some leadership in terms of introducing a gifted and healthy life and some leadership to show the rest of the world how we can live a gifted life.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'm delighted today to speak in support of

An Act to make the month of November Bone Marrow Awareness Month, which has been introduced by my colleague Mr. Crozier. This is a very important topic and something that is very near and dear to my heart. I have actually been tested and I am, I think, on the bone marrow registry.

As some of my colleagues know, my brother was diagnosed with aplastic anemia 10 years ago. This is a disease that strikes one in a million people, and in order to be treated for it, he required a bone marrow transplant. My siblings and I were all tested. My older brother was as close a match as we could find, although not a perfect match, and underwent the transplant. I have to say for my colleagues and for those who are watching that being tested and being put on the registry is a completely, as my colleague from Nickel Belt stated, painless undertaking, one that takes very little time and that could alter somebody's life forever.

My older brother was the bone marrow donor. When in fact you are called to be a donor, it is, again, a fairly uninvasive procedure. It is somewhat painful, although you recover very quickly. My younger brother received the bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, over the following two and a half years, there were complications, and he did pass away in 2000. Although this has been a very difficult time for my family, and it's a very personal issue for me, I wanted to take the opportunity today to talk about it, to encourage people to get themselves on the registry because, again, it is painless, it takes very little time, and it can ultimately change someone's life dramatically.

In my hometown, I also have a little girl named Julie Perrotta. She is my friend Rosalba Perrotta's niece, and Julie was also diagnosed with aplastic anemia. Again, one of those shocking statistics, that it strikes one in a million, but I happen to know two.

Julie was seven when she was struck with aplastic anemia, and spent a great deal of time at Sick Kids hospital, as we did at Princess Margaret at around the same time. She's now 15. Julie was able to find a bone marrow donor on the registry. After all of her family, her relatives, her extensive Italian family were tested, they were unable to find a perfect match. But they found a stranger in Ohio, of all places, who matched perfectly with Julie, who went through the donation of her bone marrow and we had a successful transplant. Julie today is 15 years old, a high school student in North Bay and thriving.

So, again, by the generosity of a total stranger thousands of miles away, this little girl in North Bay is now living a perfectly normal life. It's a very happy tale.

So I just wanted to take the opportunity today to support Mr. Crozier in his bill, to support the creation of the month of November as Bone Marrow Awareness Month, because it is an issue that touches so many people. While these diseases—leukemia, aplastic anemia and other autoimmune deficiency diseases—strike what seems to be a few people, everyone who has spoken this morning has had some kind of personal contact or awareness of someone who has required a bone marrow transplant. There is a demand out there. There are people who are dying because they cannot find that match.

If this woman in Ohio hadn't taken the time to be tested and put herself on the registry, Julie wouldn't be here today. So I am here today to speak to the fact that, having been tested, having been put on the registry, it is painless, it takes very little time, and it really can change somebody's life.

I'm hoping today that we are all able to support this. It is, as the member for Kitchener talked about, a season of giving. I think it's important that we see this as a gift that anyone can give. It has no monetary value but it has a huge value in the impact on somebody's life. I want to encourage everyone to support this bill and to support Mr. Crozier in his endeavour to raise the awareness and to ensure that everyone across the province is aware of the fact that they can be on the registry. It's so simple, it's so easy, and it has such a dramatic impact.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? That concludes the debate on this item. The member for Essex has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I want to thank the members for York—Simcoe, Huron—Bruce, Kitchener—Waterloo, Nickel Belt, Davenport and Nipissing for their contribution to our discussion of this bill this morning.

With that, I just want to read something from the website of the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Association:

"If only there had been a donor for Katie.

"Katie was such a precious little girl. She loved to sing songs, make crafts and play games with her brother and cousins. She was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) not long after her second birthday. After treatment with chemotherapy, the leukemia went into remission but it eventually came back, just days before her third birthday. The only thing that could cure her of this life-threatening disease was a bone marrow transplant.

"Sadly, nobody in the bone marrow registry was a match for Katie. She never received the bone marrow transplant she desperately needed, and in June 2005, little Katie earned her angel wings. She was only three and a half years old.

"If only there had been a match for Katie in the bone marrow registry. If only more people were aware of the desperate need for bone marrow donors. Please help.

"Join the bone marrow registry today.

"Spread the word.

"Tell your friends and family."

Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): According to the standing orders, I am now compelled to suspend the proceedings of the House until 12 noon.

The House suspended proceedings from 1150 to 1200.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

We will first deal with ballot item 3, which is standing in the name of Mr. Prue.

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mr. Prue has moved second reading of Bill 14,

An Act to deem that the Building Code and the Fire Code require fire detectors, interconnected fire alarms and non-combustible fire escapes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to have this matter referred to the standing committee on justice policy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy? Agreed? Agreed.

We will next deal with ballot item 4, which is standing in the name of Mr. Crozier.

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2007

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mr. Crozier has moved second reading of Bill 5,

An Act to make the month of November Bone Marrow Awareness Month. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I would seek unanimous consent that the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Is there unanimous consent to order the—

Interjection: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I heard a no.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy? Agreed? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I have a message from the Honourable Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 2008, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Toby Barrett: The McGuinty government's "Don't worry; be happy" approach is breaking the back of rural Ontario: on the front page of the Ontario Farmer, "Pork and Beef Farmers Ask for Help." Farmers are losing $65 per finished pig and $350 to $400 for fed cattle. Surging government-policy-driven feed prices, rocketing European pork export subsidies and the Canadian dollar spell disaster. Our cattlemen predict losses of more than $100 million in the last half of this year, and many hog and beef farmers fall through the cracks of CAIS.

When the pork sector faced disaster nine years ago, our government announced funding and it went into their hands within 40 days. Today's farmers have been waiting a lot longer for this agriculture minister to speak up.

Greenhouse fruit and vegetable growers are feeling the heat as well. Surely the minister knows their concerns on energy costs, minimum wage increases and regulatory restrictions ripping their bottom lines. Again, government has caused this; government must fix it.

Tobacco farm families have suffered a market meltdown. Jacked-up tobacco taxes and a smoke-free Ontario war on tobacco see government sitting idly by as families lose their farms, lose their houses and lose their livelihood.

Pork, beef, tobacco and hogs are reeling in the wake of McGuinty government policy, regulations and programs or lack thereof. Will this government finally announce help in this fall's economic statement?

RIDING OF ALGOMA—MANITOULIN

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I stand today to reflect on the year 2007 in the beautiful and vast riding of Algoma—Manitoulin.

During the year, we have seen the coming into production of the largest wind farm in Canada at Prince township in the Algoma district. We've seen remarkable improvements to the ski hill in Manitouwadge in the Thunder Bay district. We've seen significant improvements to the waterfronts at Gore Bay and Little Current in the Manitoulin district. We've seen improvements for the first time in over 30 years to the overpass that crosses the CPR main line at Chapleau in the Sudbury district.

We've seen new family health teams created in Wawa, Elliot Lake, Espanola and Little Current. We've seen the literal rising from the ashes of the Haavaldsrud lumber company at Hornepayne. We've seen 16 kilometres of four-lane highway opened in Algoma, just east of Sault Ste. Marie. We've seen the building of a long-overdue water treatment plant at White River in the district of Algoma. We've seen a $9-million refit of the Chi-Cheemaun ferry, which travels between Tobermory and South Baymouth.

Community after community have made much progress. We've also seen difficult times in the forest industry.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all those in Algoma—Manitoulin a Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year from my dedicated staff and from our family. Best of the season.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: "We get it," to quote my daughter's favourite heroine, Dora the Explorer. Welcome to the 21st century. We finally made it. The composition of this Legislature today is so different than it was 200 years ago. We've got more young men, we've got young women, and we've got members from different linguistic, regional, religious and cultural backgrounds.

On Tuesday this past week we all stood together. Regardless of gender, party or region, we unanimously rallied together to make this place more reflective of who we are and where we are going as a province. By unanimously supporting a government motion inspired by a resolution I tabled over a week ago, we have recognized that each member of this Legislature is more than just a politician. By forming an all-party panel with the intent of making the Legislature more family friendly, I think we've embraced a new era of thinking in this place.

This is an important time in the history of this institution. We have been recognized as stewards of this place and we must also modernize it to keep up with the times and make the systemic changes so that this Legislature will be more appealing to all men and to all women who are called to public service.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your support of this initiative as well as all members, and in particular all of our families, who love this province as much as we do.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

Mrs. Laura Albanese: On November 27, the Ontario government officially committed an investment of over $3 million in my riding of York South—Weston to establish a new satellite community health centre for Weston-Mount Dennis, an area identified as one of 13 Toronto neighbourhoods most in need of improved community infrastructure, according to the United Way Strong Neighbourhoods report.

The community health centre approach is vital to our public health care system. It brings health care to the neighbourhoods where people may have difficulty accessing primary health care due to barriers such as language, culture, physical disabilities, homelessness, poverty or geographic isolation.

Community health centres, or CHCs, are non-profit organizations funded by the government of Ontario and community partners who make up health teams that include traditional medical personnel such as physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses who work alongside counsellors, community workers and dietitians.

Under the sponsoring agency of York Community Services, the Weston-Mount Dennis satellite CHC will be an umbrella group where residents can find medical as well as social and mental health programs all in one place.

I look forward to working with York Community Services and the Ministry of Health to ensure that the needs of low-income earners and seniors of York South—Weston will be met.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Randy Hillier: In 2001, the Harris government gave the people of Ontario confidence in the safety and quality of the food on their tables. However, under the same legislation, the McGuinty government has jeopardized our food supply and put rural Ontario and small business on notice once again.

Over-zealous agents are using this same legislation to eliminate local food suppliers that we have relied on for generations. The Premier thinks it's safer for me to buy steak from Argentina than from the Beckwith Butcher in Lanark county. In 2006, the McGuinty government put farmers' markets and church suppers in the crosshairs, and now the butcher shop is on the block. The minister of rural affairs talks about cost-sharing, but in the real world cost-sharing means bankruptcy.

The relentless attacks on rural values and the rural economy by the McGuinty government are consistent and despicable. In Ontario's butcher shops, food safety is their livelihood. For the McGuinty government, however, food safety is an attack on the family business and the cultural institutions that have been our bedrock.

With our tax dollars, the government tells us to "Buy Ontario." But under this government, there will be no one left to buy from.

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Mr. Michael Prue: Last May, approximately seven months ago, I posed a question in this House to the then Minister of Government Services. I asked the minister what he was going to do in terms of the Tarion Corp., what kinds of actions he was willing to take, how he was going to act in order to protect homeowners in Ontario.

At that time, the answer was not forthcoming, and over the last seven months there has been no answer forthcoming from the McGuinty government—absolutely none whatsoever. People who have bought these homes and who are dissatisfied with these homes continue to write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Most recently, Karen Somerville has written too to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, who, I must say, has brushed her off. In his last paragraph of a very, very truncated and short letter back to Ms.

Somerville, he writes: "I note from your correspondence that you have already sent your request for information to representatives of the township of Rideau Lakes and to the Honourable Jim Watson, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to whom I must defer." So, he is not willing to intervene on the behalf of consumers either.

If the Liberal Party wants to see the worst case of this abuse, I suggest that they go and talk to your former candidate in the township of Rideau Lakes, Lori Bryden, who is the living nightmare of all that this party refuses to do for consumers.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise in the House today to ask a question: Why is the federal government making a worker living in Ontario worth less than a worker living in any other province? Specifically, I'm talking about the federal government's ongoing refusal to provide Ontario workers with equitable funding for employment insurance benefits and job training.

Last year, the average unemployed worker in Ontario received $4,000 less in funding for regular EI benefits when compared to the average unemployed person in the rest of Canada. If Ontario's unemployed were to receive fair treatment in regular EI benefits, they would have received about $1.7 billion more in benefits last year alone.

Not only that, but 70% of Ontario's unemployed workers do not qualify for EI and are therefore excluded from EI-funded training programs. If Ontario was treated fairly and received the same funding for job training as other provinces, there would be an additional $314 million annually to support Ontario workers to upgrade their skills.

Ontario workers deserve the same opportunities as other Canadians to improve their skills, to find meaningful work and to contribute to Canada's prosperity. I call upon all members of this House to press the federal government to end this unfair practice to the people of the province of Ontario.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. David Zimmer: I rise to talk today about the McGuinty Liberals' $17.5-billion rapid transit action plan for greater Toronto and the Hamilton area. The plan, Move Ontario 2020, tackles gridlock by building a modern transit system that will move people and goods quickly and efficiently to ensure we can attract and keep thousands of good, high-paying jobs.

Over the summer, John Tory called this plan a political ploy. I don't think the people of Ontario, who are going to benefit by the 175,000 jobs, would agree with him on that point. The plan will build over 900 kilometres of new and improved rapid transit, create two rapid transit lines across Hamilton, and help realize Toronto's transit city vision for light rail transit across the city.

Mr. Tory can call it a ploy, but let's not forget that it was his party that allowed Ontario's infrastructure to crumble because of inadequate investments in our highway system. It was Mr. Tory's party that in 1998 cut transit funding to 0% and then, in 2002 when they resumed transit funding, it came in at less than half of the original level. The Conservative Party's 2001 investment plan provided only $3.25 billion in funding for transit over a 10-year period. That's less than our government has spent in the last three years.

The McGuinty Liberals' Move Ontario 2020—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

HOLIDAY MESSAGES

Mr. Jeff Leal: I rise in the House today to wish my colleagues and all Ontarians happy holidays. Whether you celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah or Kwanza or the Hajj, this festive time of year is a special time to be with family and friends, and it's also time to reflect on another year past. I encourage Ontarians to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in the best province in the greatest country in the world, and in the everyday hustle and bustle of our daily lives, I ask Ontarians to remember to give and share with those less fortunate.

As this is the time of year for celebrations and holiday cheer, it's important that we all ensure that we and our family and friends are safe in their travels. I remind Ontarians that if they drink, they should not risk the lives of themselves or others by driving. Please take a taxi or public transit, or use the services of the dedicated individuals at Operation Red Nose.

We all cherish this time of year to be with those we love, so let's make sure to be safe and enjoy it, while keeping in mind the needs of those less fortunate among us.

Mr. Speaker, happy holidays to you, my colleagues and all the people in the province of Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees: I would ask that members help me to welcome three very special guests in the west gallery: Mr. Ron Wallace, the publisher and editor of the Auroran, otherwise known as Mr. Aurora; Ms. Barbara Thompson; and Mr. Greg Foster. Welcome.

VISITORS

Hon. David Caplan: Our page Dave Lewis, from Don Valley East, has his family here in the gallery: Jamie, Jane, Kristen and Tim. I'd like to welcome them here today, joining us watching David in action.

VISITORS

Mr. Bob Delaney: On much the same point of order, I'd like to introduce Brianne Westland from Mississauga—Streetsville, who is job-shadowing me today. She's a student at Cawthra Park Secondary School in Mississauga. I welcome her to the Legislature.

VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's my delight to introduce to the House Mr. John Bowker. He's with the Roncesvalles Village Business Improvement Association, owner of She Said Boom! and a defender of the rights of small business.

VISITORS

Mr. Mike Colle: In the gallery today we have one of the finest mayors of one of the finest cities in the world with us: the mayor of Mississauga, the honourable Hazel McCallion.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome to Queen's Park, Your Worship.

VISITORS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I stand to welcome Sharon Howarth, Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu, Rita Bijons, Mike Nickerson, and a number of other friends and supporters of Donna Dillman, today on the 68th day of her hunger strike, which I understand will be ending as an inquiry has been called by major environmental groups in this country on the issue of uranium mining in Frontenac county. Welcome and have a good holiday.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think my statement may very well be a little timely, with the points of order.

Yesterday, members of the House spent in excess of five minutes introducing guests in the galleries. It seems to me that the business of introductions may be getting a little bit out of control. I would ask that members use their collective intellect to ponder alternatives to these kinds of introductions, and discuss them with me during the adjournment so that we might address it in the spring session.

As an example, it may be appropriate for the Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House, to make introductions at the onset, as I'm about to do on behalf of one member who brought this suggestion forward to me today, in welcoming 53 students and three teachers from a high school located in the riding of Leeds—Grenville. The grades 10 and 11 civics classes from Thousand Islands Secondary School are in the gallery today with their teachers James Cross, Conrad Walpot and Patty Gollogly. Welcome.

VISITORS

Mr. Charles Sousa: I would like us also, if we may, to congratulate and welcome the students of Neil C. Matheson Public School, who are here today. And with Her Worship Hazel McCallion, I think it's appropriate that the students are here, and I would like to congratulate them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome. Again, as has been said in the past in this chamber, to anybody that hasn't been recognized, welcome to Queen's Park today. It's a pleasure to have you here.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yesterday, the member for Oshawa, Mr. Ouellette, raised a point of order arising out of question period. The member for Oshawa expressed an opinion that on at least two occasions during yesterday's question period, answers were given that amounted to announcements which should more properly have been made during ministerial statements. The member asked for some clarification on the rules and practice respecting this issue.

While the Speaker is not in a position to make judgment on answers in order to ascertain whether the contents constitute announcements of new public policy, I am nevertheless in agreement with the member that any such announcements should be made during ministerial statements and not question period. I would therefore remind the House that as much as possible, ministers should refrain from using question period to make statements that might more appropriately be made during a ministerial statement, particularly in response to questions asked by the members sitting on government benches. I thank the member from Oshawa for bringing this forward.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The comments you just made give rise to this. I do put to you, sir, that you do have, as do members, direction from standing orders 36(

a) and (d), which are relevant to the comments you just made.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the member for that, and I wasn't pointing out any one member. There were a couple of specifics raised, and it's really done just as a reminder to all members. I thank the member for the reminder from the standing orders as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT DIVERSES LOIS

DE NATURE FINANCIÈRE

Mr. Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Community Small Business Investment Funds Act, Corporations Tax Act, Education Act, Income Tax Act, Land Transfer Tax Act and Taxation Act, 2007 / Projet de loi 24, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière, la

Loi sur les fonds communautaires de placement dans les petites entreprises, la

Loi sur l'imposition des sociétés, la

Loi sur l'éducation, la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, la

Loi sur les droits de cession immobilière et la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Finance for a short statement.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In ministers' statements, Mr. Speaker.

POPE JOHN PAUL II DAY ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE JOUR

DU PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

Mr. Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to proclaim Pope John Paul II Day / Projet de loi 25, Loi proclamant le Jour du Pape Jean-Paul II.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: Members will recognize this bill; this is really a reintroduction of a bill that was before the House in the last session of Parliament. The House was prorogued. We had literally thousands of petitions in support of this bill. I'm reintroducing it today and asking that we give serious consideration to recognizing the life, the work and the contribution of Pope John Paul II as not only a spiritual leader but as a humanitarian and someone who bridged the gap between many cultures and faiths in the time that he reigned as Pope.

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Day Nurseries Act to limit the approval of corporations to not for profit corporations / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les garderies afin de limiter l'agrément de personnes morales aux personnes morales à but non lucratif.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This act is quite self-explanatory. The purpose of it is to restrict the expansion of child care in this province to the not-for-profit sector, as was advised to this government during the entire process of their consultations with child care providers and the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care particularly, because it's well documented that the not-for-profit sector provides a higher quality of child care at a lower rate. What we really want to see is good-quality child care being the priority of providers and not the shareholders of massive corporations.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SNOW PLOWS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(CHASSE-NEIGE)

Mr. Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to privately operated snow plows / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui a trait aux chasse-neige exploités en entreprise privée.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. David Ramsay: This amendment to

section 109 is introduced today to clear up a double standard in the Highway Traffic Act that says to a private snowplow operator who has an oversized plow that if they have a contract with the province and a municipality, they're allowed to convey that plow on a provincial highway, but if they happen to have a private contract—say, with a forest company—they cannot and they have to disassemble it and reassemble it at the site where the work is to be taken. This adds a penalty to those operators and to forestry operations.

HOMESTEAD ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007

SUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS FAMILIALES

Mr. Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act with respect to homesteads / Projet de loi 28, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière à l'égard des propriétés familiales.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Tim Hudak: This bill would update the previous Homestead Act to reflect the realities of 2007-08. As members know, assessors will be in the field this winter and spring and will deliver to taxpayers a triple whammy of assessment increases this fall to be assigned in the 2009 tax year. That means that residents in some homes could see, based on previous results, 60% to 80% assessment increases.

This bill would ensure that the annual increase in assessment during the phase-in would be a maximum of 5% per year; provide a property tax break to seniors and the disabled; have a deductible for home improvements; and also bring in, as has been successful in Manitoba, a reverse-onus system to put the burden on MPAC and not the homeowner when it comes to proving an assessed value.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT

(HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL

(HARCÈLEMENT ET VIOLENCE)

Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to protect workers from harassment and violence in the workplace / Projet de loi 29, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail pour protéger les travailleurs contre le harcèlement et la violence dans le lieu de travail.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Members of this chamber will know that the Lori Dupont inquest came up with a number of recommendations. Not surprisingly, one of them was this very action that you see to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to make it possible for workers to refuse an unsafe work environment when that work environment includes harassment, bullying and other kinds of violence in the workplace.

Unfortunately, this bill has been here many times before, but the government has not chosen to move on it. It's not the first time it has been recommended by a coroner's inquest. Women are dying at work and others are dying at work as a result of this bullying and violence. It needs to stop. We need to pass this bill.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

Mr. Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to provide protection for minors participating in amateur sports / Projet de loi 30, Loi visant à protéger les mineurs qui participent à des sports amateurs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: There are tens of thousands of volunteers doing a fantastic job, providing hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours in the province of Ontario, yet we found a small loophole in that in some areas there is still no requirement to ensure that convicted sex offenders be subject to submitting a vulnerable person's police check. What this bill does is ensure that convicted offenders are required to submit a vulnerable person's police check with the association in which they are volunteering to ensure whether they should be working with kids.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Julie Harmgardt in the west public gallery today. Julie was a page from 2003, and her brother Simon is a current page from Oakville. She is here today with her mother and her brother Andrew. She also presented a book to Minister Cansfield that she wrote on Killbear Provincial Park. Welcome.

As well, I would like to remind the members in the gallery that they are welcome to be here with us today, but to refrain from clapping, and welcome His Worship David Miller from the city of Toronto to Queen's Park today.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Michael Bryant: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding committees.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I move that the following committees be author