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

June 2, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Jun-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 2 June 2005 Jeudi 2 juin 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MISSING PERSONS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE SIGNALEMENT

DES PERSONNES DISPARUES

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES DROITS DES AVEUGLES

MISSING PERSONS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE SIGNALEMENT

DES PERSONNES DISPARUES

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES DROITS DES AVEUGLES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDS' FISHING DAY

FABRY'S DISEASE

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

FABRY'S DISEASE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

GREENBELT

PIERCE DUNDYS

RIDING OF ANCASTER-DUNDAS-

FLAMBOROUGH-ALDERSHOT

BEEF FARMER AWARENESS DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GREENBELT COUNCIL

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

ONTARIO FARMERS

HYDRO ONE LABOUR DISPUTE

TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

BEEF AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS

FABRY'S DISEASE

REFINERY CLOSURE

MICROBREWERIES

BEEF AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS

OMERS PENSION FUND

NIAGARA AMBULANCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 26

SENIORS' TRANSIT PASS

RIGHT TO LIFE

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

BROCK COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TENANT PROTECTION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MISSING PERSONS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE SIGNALEMENT

DES PERSONNES DISPARUES

Mr. Racco moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 198,

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of the reporting of missing persons from care facilities / Projet de loi 198, Loi modifiant diverses lois

à l'égard du signalement des personnes disparues d'établissements de soins.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Racco, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I stand before the House today to briefly outline Bill 198, a bill that amends the Charitable Institutions Act,

the Developmental Services Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and the Nursing Homes Act to ensure that police are immediately notified when a resident of a care facility operated under

one of those acts goes missing.

Ontarians make difficult decisions every day. Some of these decisions involve placing their aged or ill parents into homes of the aged or nursing homes. Some

have to decide whether or not to place their disabled children into a government-regulated facility. These are very difficult decisions which weigh heavily on family members. We as a government

have a responsibility to ensure that those most vulnerable people in our society are secure in the place that they call home.

Our government has taken strides in the right direction in updating the Amber Alert when children go missing. We now need to upgrade our procedures when our

vulnerable adult citizens go missing from care facilities as well.

In speaking to Chief Armand La Barge of the York Regional Police, he advised of the importance of notifying their agency forthwith in these circumstances, as it

would only aid his officers, as time is a very sensitive matter when dealing with missing persons. Chief La Barge suggested that there be a lawful requirement for registered seniors' homes or

facilities and registered licensed group homes to report missing persons forthwith to the police, as soon as an absence is noticed. The reason for this would be to reduce the time to locate missing

persons, to protect them from injury or death.

As I heard about some of the occurrences that have taken place over the last year involving adults wandering away from care facilities, I wondered what

procedures were in place for the administration to follow. What I learned was that homes were required to comply with ministry standards, policies, criteria, legislation and regulations which

state, "Report missing residents as it poses an immediate risk by means of unusual occurrences to the ministry compliance adviser that is responsible for each home." What, I thought, is an unusual

circumstance? A missing person, to me, would be an unusual circumstance. The term "unusual occurrences" allows for a very large margin for the compliance adviser to work with -- too large a margin.

It does not on all occasions include circumstances which may be unusual to one patient and not to another.

A person wandering away, I believe, should be reported on all occasions so the police and the compliance adviser can have information that would lead them to

believe which patients have a tendency to wander. This also leaves a tremendous amount of responsibility on the compliance adviser, as well as staff of the facility, to determine when and if police

should be notified, as patients who suffer from a series of different illnesses can be unpredictable and can wander off even though they were not deemed to be wanderers. Having in place legislation

making it mandatory for police to be notified, I believe, would benefit homes, as it will relieve staff from making a decision which could mean life or death for missing persons.

I found it very disturbing when I discovered all the administrative steps taken before police were called in, the timing of reporting an incident to police if

the occurrence poses an immediate risk to residents: The reporting must occur by telephone by the next day, followed by a written report. The telephone and written report are to indicate an

occurrence, what the home is doing to locate the resident, and any outcomes.

As we all know, time is the biggest factor when someone goes missing. The more quickly the police are notified, the sooner the search can start. The biggest

impact on these cases should be police response time. Waiting until the facility staff perform an on-site inspection, which could take hours, is wasted valuable time. This time should be used by

both the staff and police, who could be searching the community either by foot or by driving in the vicinity, as patients who wander are usually found close to but not on the facility grounds.

Randy Mogridge, an autistic man who walked away from Oaklands Regional Centre in October 2004, wandered from the centre on four separate occasions that same day

he went missing. The first three occasions were not reported to senior staff, as Mr. Mogridge was found. If the police and his family had been notified when he wandered off the first time, he may

not have attempted to leave the facility again that day.

Wandering is a rising concern here in Canada and in the United States. According to US statistics, 75% of residents in long-term-care facilities suffer from

dementia; 24% of them are deemed likely to wander. In January of this year, Indiana introduced a bill which will be enforceable on July 1, 2005, involving a missing senior citizen alert, which

would allow law enforcement agencies to prepare and forward a report concerning the missing adult to other law enforcement agencies, the National Crime Information Center, news agencies and the

data communications system.

Missing adults is a problem that is on the rise. According to a Nova Scotia study, we in Canada have 10,000 to 12,000 adults who are classified as wanderers.

Forty-five per cent of those who wander and suffer from dementia will die of exposure. We need to ensure that we have done our best in helping to locate these people as quickly as possible. This

can only be done if the police are notified as soon as an absence is noticed.

In Grimsby, a community policing committee was launched in 2003 to compile a registry of individuals in care facilities who were deemed wanderers to help police

find them quickly, as the first 12 hours are the most important in finding the patient alive. The Alzheimer Society has had a registry since 1988. This project, launched in eastern Ontario, is

aimed at streamlining searches for missing or wandering elderly patients by providing long-term-care homes with a standardized plan for quickly dealing with disappearances. Police are given

photo-aerial maps of the area, along with a profile of the potential wanderer.

Even at a time when our government is moving forward and making changes to our long-term-care homes, we are still facing challenges. The Long-Term-Care Facility

Program Manual states that homes are to have a contingency plan to maintain the health and safety of residents. As part of the contingency plan, homes are to address internal disasters, which would

include missing residents. However, this plan is not submitted to the ministry for authorization. Making it mandatory for these disasters to be reported to the police would not only serve the

missing person's and their family's best interests, but would also be a transparent regulation with no margin for error.

Will there be times when the police are notified and the resident is then found to be safe on the facility premises or just outside the grounds? Yes, but giving

the families the assurance that the police will be called forthwith if their loved one wanders away outweighs calls to the police which may deemed to be premature. Time is a very big concern when

searching for missing persons. It is always in the best interest of the person to be reported missing as soon as possible so that police can begin a search and can also judge what type of search is

necessary when considering the amount of daylight left in the day.

On many occasions, patients who wander are easily recognized by citizens or police if they are made aware that the person is missing, as many of the wanderers

are not dressed for the weather: They may be in pyjama pants, not wearing shoes, or many leave the premises without jackets. In one instance of which I have personal knowledge, the patient wandered

off in pants and a T-shirt. When police interviewed people who worked in the area the next day, they remembered seeing the individual walking in the community the day before. "If I had known he had

wandered from a care facility, I would have notified the police," was the response received. As the man was not dressed for the weather conditions, passers-by noticed him but did not think to call.

The police, unaware that he gone missing, not having been notified forthwith, did not begin their search until several hours after the man wandered. He was unfortunately found dead from

exposure.

The passing of Bill 198 will allow administrative or ministry compliance advisers to perform their tasks without having to decide whether or not to contact the

police. Legislation will require them to notify the police when a person goes missing, relieving them of making the decision about when or when not to call the authorities. Families will be

comforted in knowing that if their loved one did wander, the police would be called forthwith upon their absence being noted.

Today I'm asking that this Legislature do the right thing, something that makes sense. We know the importance of time when it comes to a missing child; let's

make that the same rule for adults who go missing from care facilities.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 198. The intention of the honourable member in bringing this bill

forward is certainly honourable, and I think all of us in this House will support the concept of whatever safeguard is available to us.

My reservation in bringing forward an additional piece of legislation to address this issue is simply that it seems that every time there is an issue, honourable

members seem to feel that the answer is to do more legislation and more regulation. I want to point out that we already have the provisions in the province of Ontario. In fact, I made my inquiries

within the riding of Oak Ridges, which takes in the town of Richmond Hill, the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the northern part of Markham. We have a number of long-term-care facilities, homes

for the aged and other facilities that will look after and have the responsibility for the care of seniors and those in need of this kind of protection. What I hear from the professional

caregivers, from those who have the responsibility for administering long-term-care facilities, is that they have reservations about yet one more regulation coming forward. They pointed me to the

Long-Term-Care Facility Program Manual; if members are not familiar with it, they should make themselves familiar. I have a copy of it here.

Section 1011-01 refers to "Standards: Programs and Services." It is in the facility organization and administration section, "standards and criteria." I just

want to share with honourable members some of the references in this particular manual that all long-term-care facilities are guided by and in fact have an obligation to comply with. It states very

clearly under M3, "There shall be coordinated risk management activities designed to reduce and control actual or potential risks to the safety, security, welfare and health of individuals or to

the safety and security of the facility." Then it goes on, under M3.10, "There shall be written contingency plans for handling internal disasters (including missing residents, bomb threats, fires,

loss of essential services, service disruption)."

There is a very specific reference to the requirement for contacting police in the same document. Under

section A, it refers to "Unusual occurrences to be

reported immediately by telephone and followed by a written report." It goes on to say, in

section 1:

"Agency contacted:

"(

a) Police for occurrences of abuse and/or assault involving a resident" and a number of other categories, and then specifically refers to "missing person,

according to the facility's own disaster/search plan definition of when a person is `missing.'"

I wanted to read that information into the record to make the point that I'm not convinced that we need to legislate yet one more piece of legislation. What we

simply need to do is ensure that the existing regulations we have, the existing guidelines, are in fact enforced. That, I suggest, is more a matter of compliance requirements, a matter of

education. It doesn't matter how many laws and regulations we put in place through this Legislature if, at the end of the day, the implementation isn't what it should be and if there aren't

consequences for non-compliance. Then we can have truckloads of legislation and it will serve no purpose.

I want to point out as well, with regard to some of the specific contacts we made within the riding, that we spoke to Susan Hart, for example, who is a director

of the Alzheimer Society of York Region. We also spoke with Donna Taylor, who is the administrator of Specialty Care Bloomington Cove. Susan Hart makes the point that they are in fact following

these guidelines currently and that they take them very seriously. As a result, in her opinion, there are sufficient guidelines in place today that whether we pass this legislation or not won't

change how they conduct their business. They are already taking the initiative to contact the police if there is a missing person they become aware of. From that standpoint, I want to say that we

have very responsible people in the long-term-care business who take seriously the issue of their oversight responsibilities with regard to their residents.

The honourable member indicated in his remarks that he was alerted to this issue before us today or it came to his attention as a result of an unfortunate

situation that we all read about and saw in the media. I want to make the point that just because of isolated circumstances -- and I will not comment on whether the facility was somehow not

diligent in their responsibilities -- we have a tendency in this place to cover a multitude of sins with new regulations and new legislation, when I believe what we should be doing is spending much

more time on trying to determine what it is we can do and what resources can be put in place to enforce the regulations that we currently have, to ensure that the appropriate inspections are taking

place and to ensure that there are consequences for any facility, particularly a long-term-care facility, that does not comply with the very clear direction, the very clear guidelines that the

Ministry of Health in this particular case has put forward.

Donna Taylor also indicated that her facility abides by the regulations in the Long-Term-Care Facility Program Manual. She indicated that any missing resident is

immediately reported to the police, the resident's family, the facility's head office and the Ministry of Health. I make that point because I don't want there to be a perception on the part of the

public that somehow those charged with the responsibility of looking after residents in these facilities -- that somehow there is a culture in this province of mishandling these circumstances and

not giving due care.

Another facility within our riding, the riding of Oak Ridges, is Bloomington Cove. They also confirmed in discussions that they work with the Alzheimer Society

missing person registry and provide updated photos and identifying information on an ongoing basis. I want to take this opportunity to commend the work of the Alzheimer Society. They do incredible

work in our province, and, as you know, in large part, through volunteers within our communities.

I will, of course, cast my vote in favour of the intent. As we know, that's what second reading is. It's a matter of, do honourable members agree in principle

with what is being put forward? So how could I vote against this? The intent is right. I do so, however, with reservations for the reasons I've shared with honourable members. I believe that, first

of all, we should be giving credit, honour, respect and gratitude to the many responsible administrators and caregivers in our province who are working within these facilities. Second, I caution

honourable members that every time we have a concern or see something in our communities that needs to be addressed, we not overlay that with another statute, thereby, I feel, often missing and

sidestepping our responsibility for ensuring appropriate implementation of existing guidelines and existing regulations that we have already.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I'm very pleased to speak this morning in support of Bill 198. I did have some concerns about it that I'm

going to address in a moment.

First of all, what we're dealing with is a very emotionally charged issue. When we consider the idea of a vulnerable child or a vulnerable adult going missing

and the anguish for the loved ones, every second is torture. Time is of most importance in these situations. We have people who are wandering away and going missing from their homes, whether it's a

long-term-care home or whatever, and for the family it's sheer anguish.

My experience as a reporter is that the police are experts in dealing with missing persons cases. They're pretty good at figuring out right away whether or not

this is a situation where they have to pull out all the stops, or whether it's a regular thing and what they need is just to have a little bit extra vigilance around the situation to help find the

person. I was worried at first about this bill because the workload of the police is tremendous. Now every time somebody wanders off and it's maybe a regular occurrence, given the condition of the

person, we're going to try to involve them in this, as if they didn't have enough to look after and enough to do. However, they are experts in this area. I'm also cheered by the fact that Mr. Racco

has talked to the police about this and has their support. It does make sense when you consider their expertise and also the need to notify the community at large.

I was just listening to the remarks of the member from Oak Ridges, who was saying that we should not be, and I agree with him, pointing any fingers at the

administrators and staff of these places. They have a tremendous responsibility. Instead, I think what this bill does is provide wider community support for the administrators and staff at these

places. That's what they need: They need our support. We can provide it to them, in one way, through the police, who have great expertise in helping to find these people in an efficient manner.

The other thing we have to do is talk about the network the police have that they can immediately put into place when somebody goes missing. If you notify the

police, "So-and-so is missing and we've just discovered it," they can put in place a preliminary action plan that notifies the police cars, the cops on the beat and maybe some of their community

leaders or neighbours to be on the lookout for this person. That could help save lives -- let's face it -- and that's what the intent is behind this bill. At least four people have wandered and

gone missing and have died as a result, and really what we're trying to do here is prevent some deaths. It's being done in a considerate manner; as I said, he has talked to the police about

this.

The greater community: I just want to talk about that a little bit. It's not just up to the police to be helping people out in these situations. There is a

small-town or an old-fashioned neighbourhood way of thinking, of making some connections with the other businesses or neighbours who might be around these homes and institutions, to involve them in

keeping an eye out for people, so that if they see somebody wandering around in the streets wearing pyjamas and all the rest, they don't just say, "Gee, that guy is wandering in his pyjamas." Maybe

they'd take the extra thought and say, "That guy is wandering around in his pyjamas, and he just might be from the home down the street. Maybe I should call the home or call the police right away."

That's also developing a network within the community. That's being good neighbours, taking things into a neighbourly hand, and involving the police can also help to do that.

The intent of the bill is very clear. We are trying to save lives here. We are trying to provide wider community support, through the police, through some ideas

of developing working relationships for the administrators and staff of these homes because it is a tremendous responsibility. You can just imagine the sinking feeling in their stomach when they

realize that somebody who is their charge has gone missing and they know that the person is having some difficulties with memory or whatever, which makes them vulnerable, and that if they can't

locate this person quickly enough, they are now going to have to pick up the phone and call the family and notify them of the situation.

I don't think there is any harm. I think there is a tremendous amount of benefit to developing a relationship with the police, with the wider community around

these homes, that will help in these searches and help to bring people back home safely, quickly, and not have to endure the anguish of having somebody go missing. I talk about it from a personal

standpoint. I went through a situation where there was a person missing from my family. Every second is hours, and you do need the expertise of people, because there is a tendency to flail around

and for everybody to run in the same direction and look in the same direction. My sense is that bringing the police and the wider community into this situation will help to make it a more orderly,

quicker, supportive situation and prevent what Mr. Racco is first and foremost concerned about: the fact that these people wander off and never come back. I think Mr. Racco was indicating that

three people had frozen to death because they had wandered off, weren't appropriately dressed and couldn't be found in time. They probably had huddled somewhere and then died. This is what we need

to prevent, as best we possibly can.

I'm just going to sum up one more time. It's a very emotionally charged issue. I think it's great that this member has brought this forward. I think it's great

that he has consulted the police on this matter. It's not pointing fingers at anybody in terms of the administration or staff of these institutions and homes; it's just taking a step, a legislative

step, toward putting a framework in place to provide wider community support through the police, through more awareness of the situation. In so doing, I think we can go a long way to saving lives

and supporting these institutions that are charged with looking after our loved ones, whom we want to give our full support.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'm pleased to join in this debate. I think it's an important initiative and I want to

compliment my colleague for bringing it forward. As one who had the privilege of working with Minister Gerretsen, the minister responsible for a number of municipal affairs issues as well as

seniors, I was exposed in a rather dramatic way to a number of concerns and issues related to seniors, particularly in the area of the Alzheimer strategy, which the previous government initiated

and which has served the people of Ontario very well. It has taken some changes over the years.

I want to, in the context of this bill, tell a true story. I was at an event in Burlington on advances in dementia research. I was there because I was interested

in getting a bit of an education about what was happening. The fact that my late mom suffered from Alzheimer's was an additional incentive to learn what I additionally could. When I was there at

the break, an older fellow came up to me and he said, "You're Mr. McMeekin, aren't you?" I said yes. He said, "I'm really pleased to see you here. It's really good to see some of our political

people out to learn things." I said, "Who are you?" He told me who he was. I said, "Pleased to meet you." He said, "By the way, I've got something I want to say to you." I said, "What's that?" He

said, "I'm not afraid to die." I said, "That's interesting," conjuring my old social-work skills, thinking, "How long have you felt this way?" or "What's happening?" So I spoke with him about it

and it turns out, when I said to him, "What are you afraid of?" he said, "To tell you the truth, I'm really afraid I'm going to get one of those debilitating illness that's going to make me a

burden on my family and end up in one of those blankety-blankety long-term-care facilities." And I said to him, "That's interesting. It's pretty dark. What's your hope?" He said, "My hope is I that

get sick late and die quick." I thought, "Wow, isn't that the hope that many of us might articulate in a sober, reflective moment?"

As I got to talk to this fellow, he expressed something else, which was quite instructive for me at the time. He was 81. He was there for a break. This was his

respite night. He had arranged to have somebody take care of his 84-year-old spouse who was home with Alzheimer's, as they'd made a pledge to each other they would, as long as they could, take care

of each other. Why? Because he was afraid that if his beloved ended up in a long-term-care facility, they wouldn't be able to watch out for her, to take care of her, that she might wander away. He

felt much more secure accepting that responsibility himself, as difficult as it was for him. As I say, that was instructive to me, and I suspect that if the mandatory regulation that the honourable

member is proposing were in place, that would allay many of the fears that people like this gentleman have.

I also suspect that in many cases, folk who are really vulnerable are on kind of a watch list anyway, that if they disappear there's going to be some action

taken by responsible caregivers to provide that. But do you know what? On the off chance that there are some out there -- and I believe there are -- who wouldn't take those kinds of precautions or

might feel embarrassed to have to report somebody missing, I think it would be profoundly helpful to have this kind of fallback position in place.

So I support this, based on my experience with seniors, and particularly with those who are at risk, and more specifically with dementia concerns. I do so

enthusiastically and without reservation and hope that all members of the House will rally to support this very thoughtful resolution.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to join the debate on the motion that has been put forward by the member for Thornhill,

Bill 198,

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of the reporting of missing persons from care facilities. I certainly do appreciate the interest that the member has taken and the attempt that he

has made to ensure that those individuals who are in care facilities and go missing are reported as quickly as possible in order that all effort can be made to locate them in order to prevent them

from any harm that might befall them.

However, I think that my colleague from Oak Ridges has made some excellent comments about some of the procedures that are already in place, some of the

guidelines that we have in the long-term-care manual.

I think it's important that we recognize that much of the problem that we have today is because we probably don't put the effort into ensuring that there is

compliance. There are already many regulations and there are many guidelines which certainly do offer the protection for persons within care facilities. I think we need to ensure that there is

enforcement of those guidelines, that there is enforcement of all of the regulations and that there is compliance. Obviously there is a responsibility to make sure that happens, and part of that

means that there need to be ongoing regular inspections of these facilities in order to ensure that the regulations and guidelines are being met.

I will support the intent of this particular bill. I recognize that we all share responsibility for the health and safety of people in the province of Ontario.

However, if this were ever to go beyond second reading, there would be a need, I believe, for considerable consultation, because we simply cannot continue as legislators to pass regulations and

increase the amount of red tape if we already have guidelines and regulations which would cover this type of situation. We need to deal with the care facilities, the people who would be impacted,

families; that's extremely important. But I commend the member for the compassion and concern that he has shown for these individuals in care facilities, so I am prepared today to support this Bill

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is a privilege, as always, to stand and to debate private members' bills. I often think they are among

the most interesting bills we have to deal with in this Legislature. This bill in particular is a small bill, as most private members' bills are. It contains only two pages, and most of them are

very similar to that.

This bill will change four particular acts: the Charitable Institutions Act, the Developmental Services Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, and the

Nursing Homes Act. It will change them all in identical ways, and that is, quite clearly, it will result in the administrators of those homes having to inform the police immediately when someone

goes missing. That's a good thing, and I'm going to be supporting the bill.

I don't think any of us in this House could ever not support such an idea. But I do have to be somewhat critical, not of the idea that is here today, but the

fact that it takes a private member's bill to do what I believe this government should be doing on a much grander and greater scale, because what is being dealt with here today is one small aspect

of what is going wrong in our care facilities.

I'd just like to go through what I think is going wrong and why we need to do a lot more than what is contained in this particular bill. The mover of the bill,

the member from Thornhill, talked about the very tragic case at Oaklands, of Randy Mogridge. I want to deal for a few minutes about that very tragic case and what the recommendations that came out

of that case had to say. The 11 recommendations from the coroner's inquest did not mention in particular that the police be notified immediately when someone went missing. There were 11

recommendations. That was not one of them. So I have to pause and think, what did the coroner think we should do when people wander away?

Among the 11 recommendations, there were three that I think are key, and I'd like to deal with each of them in turn. The first one is that the coroner, Dr.

Bonita Porter, made a finding: "There has been a reduction in the complement of registered nurses at Oaklands Regional Centre. This reduction has led to increased reliance on non-health-care staff

to identify and interpret the symptoms of potential health problems."

Her recommendation was, "a review of the complement and qualification of staff [including] careful consideration of an on-site, full-time, health care resource

... who has specific expertise."

The recommendation here, I think, goes to the very heart of the matter and what is wrong when individuals wander away. They are wandering away increasingly from

these facilities because there are not the eyes and ears of trained professionals who can stop people from what is called eloping, from simply taking off, wandering in the day or night. The

professionals know how to look into the symptoms and what is causing that, whether there was an upset with the person, whether wandering is a habit or an attitude, whether they are simply

uncontrollable.

I would suggest that this is what this Legislature should be dealing with, this Legislature and the government in particular. Only the government can do it,

because it will, of course, involve the expenditure of money, so I'm not for a moment suggesting that this can be part of a private member's bill. What this government should be doing is making

sure that there are those professional experts in the field in each one of the homes where we house our frail and most vulnerable people, where those who have a penchant to wander are housed,

because, as in the case of Randy Mogridge, had there been somebody there, the coroner is quite convinced that was one of the key things that could have and would have stopped him from his

wanderings. He didn't wander away once and die; he wandered away many times before he succumbed to a very tragic fate.

The coroner also talked about another finding, and I quote coroner Dr. Bonita Porter again. Finding: "a reduction in management and nursing support, reduction in

resident programs and funding for infrastructure, such as security, might have impacted the quality of services to Oaklands residents." Her recommendation was a very simple one, that "an

operational review [should] be conducted to ensure that adequate resources are made available." This is pretty simple. If you have a structure in a facility like Oaklands, or any of the hundreds or

thousands of infrastructures across this province, it is very easy to institute a plan that will trigger something. When we walk into this Legislature, unless you're a member of this House, we all

go through metal detecting devices. You go through security checks. You go through all kinds of things to walk into here. That same technology is available for people leaving facilities as

well.

I remember my mother-in-law, who is now deceased, was in a home for the aged in East York. Although she never wandered away, she often threatened to. She would

say, "I'm leaving here. I'm going back to Scotland." That was one of her famous phrases. She wouldn't do it, because she felt safe and secure within the building, but if they wouldn't give her what

she wanted or if she was cantankerous that day, that's what she said. So they put a tiny bracelet on her wrist, and she couldn't take it off. What happened if she attempted to go outside the doors

was the bells would ring. I thought it was a good thing. They asked me, because I had power of attorney for her care, whether I objected to that. Quite the contrary; I did not object to that. I

thought that was an absolutely important thing for them to have. That was a tool and a disposal they could use. Each one of the doors was wired so that if a person who was known to wander left the

building, the alarm would trigger. Immediately upon leaving the building or the confines of that property, the alarm would be triggered and go off. When she went outside for picnic days and things

like that, they took the bracelet, they did whatever they had to do and then put it back on her outside, so if she attempted to go out of the gate, it would trigger again. It allowed her the

freedom to have picnics and to do all the things with the other residents who lived in that facility.

I think we need to make sure that there are funds available to do that in all of the facilities, including Oaklands and in literally every other one. That

technology exists. It's not enough to call the police, because by the time you've called the police, it's too late. The time that the staff should hear the ringing going off is if someone passes a

certain point. They'll know that one of the residents has left and should not have, and they can actually go and get them themselves. Better to get them themselves than to call in the police when

they're down the street, down the block, in the ravine, in the river or wherever else they're going to end up, or out on a cold night. Much better to find them while they're still on the

property.

The coroner made a third recommendation, the last one I want to deal with today. That was a finding that, "the confusion resulting from inconsistent messages

regarding the future of Oaklands had an impact on the staff and the provision of services to its residents." Her recommendation was a very simple one: "Clarify the nature of services to be provided

at Oaklands Regional Centre."

Our centres are, of course, multidimensional. They have people with a broad range of abilities and disabilities, and they have people in them who may be prone to

wander or who may not be prone to wander. I think that we need to have specialized institutions. If people are prone to wander, that kind of provision should be made. Staff should be specially

trained on how to deal with individuals who are like that, so they are able to stop the wandering and so the police do not need to be called.

The coroner, in making her recommendations, described the staff at Oaklands in three words. Her three words were: "dedicated, co-operative and professional."

But they were dedicated, co-operative and professional without having the resources they needed to do their jobs. I'm sure that each one of those locations had a phone, and that each one of those

locations, had they found out in time when a person went missing, as 10 did at Oaklands -- as 10 did die at Oaklands -- would have picked up the phone and called the police, the families and their

fellow individuals who work there to conduct a search. But in fact, they didn't have that kind of thing.

The problem was set out by the coroner's report, which went on to say that (1) there's been a reduction in nursing staff and (2) there has been a reduction

over the years in the funding of the infrastructure necessary to upgrade and make modern the facilities, which would allow the technology to better serve the individuals living there. There is a

whole confusion around the closure of Oaklands.

This government has been sadly and hugely silent on what their plans are. I commend the member from Thornhill for at least coming forward with one plan, but

this government has been sadly and hugely silent on where they're going with care facilities. In the past number of weeks and months, I would suggest that there have been at least 100 petitions

read in this Legislature about the closing of our regional centres. A great many of them are read by my colleague the member of the Conservative caucus from Simcoe North. I don't know where he

finds them all, but he seems to be able to find one or two every day emanating from someplace in the province. I have read a couple of them in myself.

These centres are amazing places. I can't speak for all of them because I have only visited one, and that is the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. I didn't

know what to expect when I went there, quite frankly. I had never been in such a centre before, and I went there with some trepidation as to what kind of institution I would find. My fears were

quickly heightened, first of all, and then allayed. They were heightened when I was taken into a room full of what I would consider younger men -- in their 20s, 30s and 40s -- who have a rare and

horrible condition called pica. I had never run into it before; I had no idea what it was. They wander and they incessantly eat things. They put everything they can find in their mouths. They had

to be fitted with special gloves that could not be eaten so they wouldn't pick at things and put them in their mouths.

The people who work there showed me how one resident had been successful in peeling off the corner of a wall and had started to eat at the asbestos and other

things that were contained within the wall, and was followed in very short succession by almost every other individual, who started to eat corners and pieces out of the wall. The staff who found it

-- luckily, in a very short time -- put metal strips and fittings on the corners of all of the walls so that that could not happen. The beds had to be outfitted with blankets and the like, which,

if eaten, would not cause harm to the individuals.

It was a horrible experience, I have to tell you, to be in there with these people and to see them and their lives.

But then they took me to the other rooms, where I saw other individuals who were not quite so profoundly disabled, and I saw the really excellent service that

the staff tries to provide. I saw Snoezelen rooms, which are sensory rooms that help people to sense and to feel things that they may not otherwise be able to, with light and sound and warmth and

heat and music. It was really quite remarkable to see the attempts that were being made within what was called a centre of excellence to provide this.

There is a report put out by OPSEU called Centres of Excellence, and it talks about these three facilities in Ontario. They have set out, I think quite clearly

and succinctly, what needs to be done. They have argued three things: that there are no sector-wide standards on the basis of safety and wandering and that the best practices can be found within

these centres of excellence, not in the many other places where people are housed within the community; that there are a variety of terms dealing with all of this and that there are no real

definitions; and that there is no protocol once a resident is returned from elopement and there needs to be one.

If I had more time, I'd speak about more stuff. I'm supporting the bill, and I urge other members to do it as well.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Before I address the provisions of this bill, which I support very much -- and I

commend the member for bringing it forward -- I would like to note that a former student of mine is in the gallery today. His daughter, Alexandra Edgar, is a page here. Warren Edgar was a student

of mine, and I taught with his father, Maurice Edgar. Mr. and Mrs. Edgar are here today, so I just wanted to make mention of that. It's interesting how time goes by and how a page who is here today

is the child of somebody I actually taught a number of years ago when I was in the teaching profession.

Second, I would like to welcome St. Elizabeth School from Wallaceburg, on behalf of Maria Van Bommel, the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. They are visiting

Queen's Park today.

On the bill itself, I think this bill is an essential one. There have been some tragic circumstances which have arisen as a result of people leaving an

institutional setting, for whatever reason, and embarking upon a journey which on some occasions has ended up being a most unfortunate journey; that is, one that has ended up in a fatality or, in

other circumstances, has simply caused great anguish to members of the family and, I'm sure, the people who work at that particular institutional setting.

The member for Kitchener-Waterloo, which used to be Waterloo North, Elizabeth Witmer, made reference to the fact that whenever we put new requirements or new

regulations, there is an implication that there's a need for enforcement, and of course there's an additional cost. That's an assessment that the Legislature has to make: whether that particular

new regulation and new cost is one which can be sustained or is reasonable.

Mr. Racco has clearly indicated his concern about this matter; I think it's shared by everybody. We've all seen the instances that have been raised in this

House or in the news media, but there are many that are never raised.

We know that the people who work within the institutional setting are extremely dedicated to the individuals with whom they work, but there's also an

obligation for society as a whole to protect people who are in a very vulnerable circumstance. I think this bill aims in that particular direction, and that's why I'm going to support my colleague

enthusiastically in this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Thornhill has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Racco: I want to thank all the members who spoke on Bill 198: the member from Oak Ridges, the member from Stoney Creek, the member from

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, the member from Kitchener-Waterloo, the member from Beaches-East York and the member from St. Catharines.

I am happy to hear all the positive comments that all members have made in regard to Bill 198. At the end of day, as all of us have been saying for the last

half an hour or so, the objective is to save the lives of our seniors. We are here only because of our seniors. We should do everything we can for our parents, for our seniors. This bill, as has

been said, will just do a little thing to make the lives of some of our seniors better. I am, again, very pleased for the positive comments. I thank all of them.

Hopefully, this bill will be able to pass as quickly as possible. I believe that some of the past occurrences may have had a better resolution if the police

were notified forthwith. It is in the best interests of the individual who has gone missing, their families, our government and regulated institutions to notify the police as soon as a person goes

missing. That is the basis of this bill. Again, I heard positive comments from all three parties, and therefore I thank all of people who spoke in the House for, hopefully, supporting passing of

this bill as soon as possible.

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES DROITS DES AVEUGLES

Mr. Martiniuk moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Blind Persons' Rights Act / Projet de loi 103, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les droits des aveugles.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Martiniuk, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm always somewhat surprised, because the bill seems such an obvious extension of the rights presently

enjoyed by blind individuals to be accompanied by a guide dog wherever they might go, to public places or accommodation. For decades, the blind have had the right, and rightfully so, to be

accompanied by a guide dog when visiting public places. During that time there has been a growth of, some would call them guide dogs but they are also called service or assistance dogs, used by

other persons with physical disabilities of one kind or another. I will go into that, but I should deal with the mechanics of how the bill does amend the present act and what it seems to do.

Bill 103 simply gives to persons with a disability other than blindness the same rights of being accompanied by an assistance dog that a blind person presently

enjoys. It is surely the least that we can do.

The Blind Persons' Rights Amendment Act, Bill 103, would amend the Blind Persons' Rights Act to provide the same rights of access to public places for persons

with disabilities as defined in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, including the physically disabled, hearing-impaired, deaf and autistic people with assistance dogs.

The Blind Persons' Rights Act presently provides protection as follows:

"2.

(1) No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself, herself or itself or by the interposition of another, shall,

"(

a) deny to any person the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted; or

"(

b) discriminate against any person with respect to the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily

admitted, or the charges for the use thereof,

"for the reason that he or she is a blind person accompanied by a guide dog."

The act goes on, and subsection (2) states:

"No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself, herself or itself or by the interposition of another, shall,

"(

a) deny to any person occupancy of any self-contained dwelling unit; or

"(

b) discriminate against any person with respect to any term or condition of occupancy of any self-contained dwelling unit,

"for the reason that he or she is a blind person keeping or customarily accompanied by a guide dog."

The bill would afford these rights of obtaining occupancy and entry presently afforded the blind guide dogs to: service and assistance dogs that are trained to

assist a disabled person in pulling a wheelchair, opening doors, pushing elevator buttons, retrieving objects, turning light switches on or off and other activities required by the individual;

hearing alert dogs that are trained to assist a person who is deaf or hard-of-hearing; seizure alert dogs that are trained to alert a person when a seizure or diabetic episode is about to occur;

and lastly, the most recent development of service dogs for autistic persons, primarily children. It was the last needful group of persons that came to my attention, though all are certainly

important.

National Service Dogs of Cambridge is a non-profit charity specializing in the breeding and training and placing of Labradors and golden retrievers with

children who have autism. The Web site of this organization is www.nsd.on.ca. This charity was initiated as a volunteer organization some 10 years ago by Heather Fowler, Chris Fowler and Danielle

Forbes, all of whom are still working with the charity. Their offices are located in Cambridge in premises advantageously rented from Ron Woynarski, a long-time Cambridge lawyer who often quietly

volunteers his expertise for charitable causes that better Cambridge.

I had the pleasure of attending National Service Dogs' annual meeting some weeks ago, and at that time met many of the autistic children and their families who

presently enjoy many of the benefits of national assistance dogs. We at that time celebrated the graduation of 17 dogs and families for the year 2004. But it is the goal of the organization to

graduate and place 40 dogs a year after their two-year training period.

There is presently a waiting list of 55 children and families across Canada that have been approved. Two foreign students, one from Japan and the other from

Ireland, are presently training with the organization. The Bridgeway Foundation recently granted National Service Dogs the R.L. Petersen Award for Non-Profit Innovation, and in 2005 a

National-trained golden retriever named Abby in Calgary was inducted into the Purina Hall of Fame.

Each dog and its training costs about $12,000, and no family is refused because of the inability to pay. Many families, however, do initiate local fundraising

activities to assist in the cost of the dogs, both before and after placement.

As a matter of fact, what was interesting was that the brother of the younger autistic child was so impressed with the positive impact that one of the dogs

that was placed in Calgary had made on his brother and his family that he initiated a fundraising, after the dog had been with him for at least a year, for another family with an autistic

child.

This bill is merely a natural extension of the use of dogs for disabilities other than blindness. I know that all members of this House will want to support

Bill 103.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I'm happy to rise to give my support to private member's Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Blind Persons'

Rights Act, introduced on June 17, 2004, by the member for Cambridge.

I'm just going to cut to the chase. I'm going to support this because I support anything that supports dogs. I adore dogs; in fact, I think dogs are angels.

They have an unconditional love and devotion that you will not find in the human world. Anything that gives dogs their due respect and rewards, I wholeheartedly support. So let's just get my

prejudice on the table right away.

As has already been pointed out by the member for Cambridge, dogs have demonstrated an incredible range of talents and gifts that they have been able to

provide to the human world throughout history, and now we have it honed to the point where dogs are able to be trained to deliver and perform specific duties and tasks for people in a very wide

range, but also for people who need extra help. We're talking about people with a wide range of disabilities. There's a sensitivity that dogs have where they can attune themselves -- the

seizure-alert one is probably the most amazing. They know purely by their instincts when a seizure is coming. That life-saving mechanism is just astonishing, and it's something a human being cannot

do. Some day, if we work really hard, we might be able to come up with some sort of computer, machine or whatever that will measure the body temperature, tremors and all the rest that will do this,

but dogs just have that innate ability. We've been able to, not to use a great word, exploit that, capitalize on it to help save lives, and it's a very supportive thing.

I just want to go over some of the ground that has already been gone over. This is a bill that, first of all, is going to rename the Blind Persons' Rights Act

the Persons with Disabilities Rights Act. This will have service dogs for all types of assistance, not just for people with vision impairment but also seizure response, autism and physical

assistance dogs. There may be a couple of tiny housekeeping issues that could be dealt with to make sure that this can fly, is doable, enforceable and supportable, but I think only housekeeping

issues might be at stake here.

This is something that I think we can all support. Anything we can do to give people with disabilities a better life is something that anybody in this House

could support. I'm going to encourage everybody in here to support this.

I'm going to take the opportunity, just because I have the opportunity, to also point out that the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, has received third

institutions, and private sector businesses as well, accessible to people with a very wide range of disabilities. In my view, this bill that's being brought forward by the member for Cambridge is

simply a natural extension of that, and I applaud him for his foresight in this.

I want to wrap up by once again paying tribute to the dogs. I know that's not directly what this is about, but they really are remarkable dogs. As you were

pointing out some of the things they can do, it really warms the heart. We've heard about being able to press elevator buttons, and help them dress and undress. They can help them with their

clothes, open refrigerator doors and do all sorts of things.

As I started out, they can provide an unconditional love and support and devotion that many of these people really require. It's an underlying emotional

support that's probably greater and of more importance. We've all heard about therapy dogs. There are therapy dogs for senior citizens in homes. I confess that I have a therapy dog. It's the

stressed-out-MPP therapy dog. Actually, I have two of them, and every night I go home to them and I adore them.

I support this bill wholeheartedly.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I am pleased to join the debate today on the private member's bill brought forward by my

colleague from Cambridge, and to support the member from Stoney Creek in that dogs are great therapy, not just for MPPs who are stressed out, but they can be used for a lot of medicinal

purposes.

It was kind of surprising when this came to my attention, because being new to the Legislature there are some matters that come up and you think, "There aren't

laws or regulations?", or, "This hasn't been brought forward before?" It's quite surprising the topics we are discussing that you would think should have been in place already. The member has

brought attention to something we need to move forward on.

I know we have some protections built into the Ontario Human Rights Code that people can turn to, but redress under the Human Rights Code is slow and indirect.

If there is an alleged infringement of that code that would lead to an investigation and the Ontario Human Rights Commission would attempt to negotiate a change of behaviour and perhaps

compensation on the part of the party infringing on the right, I think what the member from Cambridge is proposing is a solution that cuts through the convoluted process and puts protection for

people who rely on service dogs into a piece of proven legislation that does a good job of protecting the rights of the blind, and would extend the rights of protection to all persons with

disabilities who need the services of a guide dog.

Service dogs, guide dogs and hearing-ear dogs all perform vital functions for the people they are paired with. The dogs provide a lifeline for those who need

seizure assistance or doors opened for them. They're trained to push help buttons, to physically warn the deaf if there is a phone ringing or a baby crying, as we just heard. That was good

background; I didn't bring that prop with me. The people who are teamed with these dogs rely on them to carry out the functions that most of us take for granted. But in order for that partnership

to work, people have to be confident that their dogs will be able to go with them wherever they go, and this is not the case, as we've found out.

I wanted to take a few minutes to read some information into the record about the myriad tasks that service dogs can perform. This information comes from the

International Association of Assistance Dog Partners. The tasks and duties have been grouped into three skill categories: obstacle avoidance, signalling changes in elevation, and locating

objects.

Obstacle avoidance is navigating around obstacles, avoiding moving objects such as bicycles, people, strollers; leash-guiding around obstacles indoors or

outdoors for a short distance; intelligent disobedience, as in refusing a command to go forward into the road if there is oncoming traffic or at intersections. Signalling changes in elevation: halt

or sit to indicate every curb; halt to indicate descending stairs at the top of a flight of stairs. Intelligent disobedience: refusing a command to go forward if there is a drop-off. Other possible

tasks are retrieving dropped objects and finding a desired object, like the morning paper on the porch.

The special-needs guide dog -- and I know Gerry mentioned the National Service Dogs in Cambridge that train dogs to work with people with autism -- is a good

beginning.

Hearing-dog tasks -- I don't know if anybody here has a chance to watch TV sometimes and see Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye, but she is an investigator who is hard of

hearing and deaf, and she has a dog to assist her in her work. I think that is maybe the first show on TV where, if you've had a chance to watch, you can see how a dog can help people with

disabilities -- in her case, being hard of hearing and deaf -- to function in our everyday lives.

Some of my family members are deaf. I know that they didn't have professionally trained dogs, but the family dog was able to interpret sign language, which may

be hard for some people to understand, but I actually saw it work. They saw the sign for walk or sit and even got to the finger-spelling stage, so that the dog could interpret the finger spelling

for walk and sit. So there's a lot to be accomplished and discovered using dogs.

My second cousin, Rexana Mark, actually tried out and was accepted on to the show Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye. She is also deaf and worked with that show in the

production. It was a great discovery and an opening of a world for her, that even though she is hearing-impaired, she can function in the world with certain devices and lead a normal life.

I know from experience that sometimes mechanical devices the deaf have set up don't work. If electricity goes out, the flashing light system they have to alert

them to fire detectors and their phones doesn't always work. With a dog, the system doesn't break down. The baby monitors, when they had their small child, were dysfunctional at the start, and they

had to get one of our other hearing family members to sleep over till that system was straightened out.

I wanted to bring some practical experiences to the Legislature in which this bill, I think, will assist people with disabilities to access and have more of a

normal life. I think all members of the Legislature -- and I'm running out of time -- should support this bill. The physically disabled, hearing-impaired, deaf and autistic people who rely on guide

dogs deserve the same rights and access as blind people. I'm sure that we'll receive all-party support today.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I want to start by thanking the member from Cambridge for bringing Bill 103. I think that the bill should be

supported.

Of course, what Bill 103 does especially is add more to Bill 118, which has received third reading in this House already. I was pleased, when we went around

the province of Ontario, to hear many comments -- whether we were in Niagara Falls, London, Thunder Bay or anywhere we went with the committee that dealt with Bill 118 -- that people who have

disabilities not only are people like any of us and deserve the same possibilities, but at the same time they are also a very strong economic power within our country. In fact, it is currently

estimated that people with disabilities have control over $25 billion in disposable income in Canada. So not only is there the human side, that we should strive to make the lives of all Ontarians

as good as possible and allow people to work, socialize and play as much they want, but at the same time, it is also accepted or understood that it is healthy for the province of Ontario, because

people with disabilities, just like anyone else in the province of Ontario, do have income, do spend money, do work and do participate in day-to-day activities. Therefore, it's important, not only

from a social point of view but also from an economic point of view, to do whatever is possible to allow every Ontarian, regardless of their potential disability, to participate in daily life. This

bill gets a step closer to making that happen, and therefore it deserves support. I again thank the member from Cambridge for bringing Bill 103.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the private member's Bill 103. I too want to commend the

member from Cambridge for bringing this bill forward.

I can still remember, I think it was about six or seven months ago, that I received a phone call from a constituent -- and I know she would not be offended if

I mentioned her name: Brenda Howell -- who called me one day and was quite upset that her son, who uses a service dog, was not allowed to have the dog with him when he was using the transit system

in Niagara Falls. I asked her to come into the office so I could meet with her and her son Albert. I asked her to bring in the dog with her. The dog's name is Magic.

We sat there, and that was the first time, I must say, that I understood that there was an opportunity for service dogs to have some benefits to individuals or

children with some different type of disabilities. I was quite surprised to learn that the service dog, Magic, that she brought in with her, was still in training and the cost to train the dog was

$22,000. In fact, I was so shocked that I made a few phone calls, and that is a normal price to train a dog to have those special abilities.

A few more phone calls and, much to my surprise, I found out that there was, in fact, no legislation that gave them the right to have the service dog allowed

into stores, transit systems and other facilities in our community. The blind persons' act gave those individuals who needed a Seeing Eye dog that right, but other individuals with different types

of disabilities didn't have that opportunity.

A couple of the things that we decided to do -- and I am so pleased to support this bill because I had been working on bringing some legislation forward,

probably quite identical to this. I had met with the CNIB on a number of occasions to talk to them about possibly amending their bill or including in their bill the right for service dogs to be

recognized. So I was still working on that process. This bill certainly offers that opportunity.

I'm also pleased over the fact that when we passed Bill 118 -- and I was quite pleased that the committee took the time and came out to Niagara Falls and held

a hearing there. In fact, we had a wonderful turnout. Many people from throughout the whole region and a number of people from my own riding came out and spoke in support of Bill 118. I know that

there is an opportunity with Bill 118 to maybe include standards that might address this, but, in the meantime, this is a good bill, and I want to see it continue forward.

Some of the things that we've done, just in Brenda's case, for example: The Chippawa volunteer fire department has held a fundraiser along with other groups in

the community to help support her financially to try to cover the costs for the training of this dog.

Brenda and Albert and Magic have been into my office quite often. They'll stop in and we'll have a coffee and chit-chat.

There are some other projects that we are working on. For example, Brenda lives on a street that is extremely busy with traffic, and we have been trying to

convince the local city council to put up a sign that would warn motorists that they should be slowing down or that there is a boy who has a disability and to be extra cautious. We haven't been

successful yet, and I'm a little disappointed. I know that the matter was brought up at city council on Monday, and I wrote a letter of support asking the council to find some type of sign that

they could put up. I indicated that I, as a member, would go forward on whatever I can do up here to see if there is some way in which, if there isn't a current sign, then we could, through the

Minister of Transportation's office, look at developing a sign that could be used across all of Ontario in those kinds of situations.

The service dogs -- it's very unique, because when you get a first-hand experience to meet a service dog in the family -- the dog has such a calming effect on

Albert. He has a unique disability, and when he is out and about and the dog is with him, he is very calm, he is able to enjoy himself, and the family just feels so much more comfortable. The fact

that you spend $22,000 to train a dog just shows you how significant a dog like that is.

Some of the speakers before me mentioned some of the positive effects that a dog like this has. Having seen it myself, I can tell you that it is important to a

family to be able to have that dog go out with Albert and be able to participate in all types of community events and use different services that we have in our community knowing that because the

dog, Magic, is there with Albert, it allows him to be out and active in the community.

I hadn't intended to speak on this bill. I want to thank my two colleagues who gave up some of their time to allow me to say a few words. I am extremely

pleased that this private member's bill is coming forward.

I too want to echo the comments I've heard before from other members that private members' bill time is really unique. I always say back home that many

exciting and rewarding bills come out of private members' time. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of watching Bill 3 being passed here in this House. That originated out of private

members' time. In my opinion, there are a lot of benefits and a lot of rewards that come out of private members' time bills, and this happens to be one of them. I am just so pleased that it's

coming forward.

I do feel, though, that there will still be some opportunities with our bill, Bill 118, which is just as significant a bill, and maybe there will be an

opportunity to incorporate the standards that we're talking about right now into that bill when the committees are formed and meet to develop those standards.

In conclusion, I just want to again thank the member from Cambridge for bringing forward the bill and thank the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak

on this.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I certainly rise in support of this bill brought by the member from Cambridge,

An Act to amend the

Blind Persons' Rights Act. The focus, as we all understand, is to extend rights to all persons with disabilities if they are dependent on a guide dog.

It is truly remarkable what these dogs can do. What we often don't see is what these dogs can do in the home and elsewhere to assist people who have

disabilities. In fact, Mr. Martiniuk has pointed out that the dogs can help people who are suffering seizures, they help push help buttons, open doors and can physically alert the deaf people, for

example, to an emergency situation, and there is assistance for autistic people. It really seems apparent to me that all of these people with impairments or disabilities who are relying on dogs

deserve the same rights of access as we as a society have given to the blind. Probably most of the states in the United States have legislation that does this. It's very important for all of us to

realize that we do take our hearing for granted and we take our sight for granted. This is certainly something that we can do to help out.

There's another thing we can do to help out. On April 27 this year, the LCBO approved placement of donation boxes for Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind. For

those of who visit the LCBO, it's an opportunity to throw in some change or some paper money. It would be our way of directly helping some people who need it. The Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind

is one of 26 provincial and numerous local charities that benefit from these LCBO fundraising strategies. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are raised. I want to thank the LCBO for setting up these

kinds of programs. LCBO customers are generous people, and I would like to extend my thanks to them for their donations in the near future, which will better assist.

I'm looking forward to continued progress in this legislation to assist people -- not only blind people, but deaf people and other people with disabilities --

who rely on these dogs to access ringing telephones, alarm clocks and smoke detectors and to hear automobiles or trucks that may be coming, in harm's way.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to rise in support of Bill 103, brought forward by my colleague. I want to say at the outset that,

as was previously mentioned, often there are things within legislation that one just assumes are already there. This happens to be one of those situations, where the extension of a definition or

its re-definition is most appropriate, to allow for assistance dogs to have access and to be appropriately recognized for providing their support services.

I want to take this opportunity to make reference to the Bloomington Cove long-term-care facility in Stouffville. I had the opportunity to make a special

presentation at Bloomington Cove in July of 2004. That presentation was to a dog by the name of Eneda and her master Ruth Love, who were part of the therapy dog program at Bloomington Cove. This

past spring, Beverly Keith and her dog Pepper were recognized as well for the services they provide at Bloomington Cove. I noted with great interest the effect that these dogs have on the residents

of this long-term-care facility. It's just one aspect of how important dogs can be in improving the quality of life of people in our province.

As was indicated before, the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Code already recognizes the important role of assisting dogs. The code's definition of

"disability," as you know, includes "physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device." It's only appropriate that we extend the definition,

as proposed under Bill 103 today. I believe that it's during private members' hour that we as members of the Legislature and the public have an opportunity to get insight into some of these areas

that we otherwise might never become familiar with.

I want to take this opportunity, in the two minutes I have left, to call on the government. I know this bill will be passed, but there is something so

important that I want members opposite, members of the government, and members of this Legislature to consider, and that is the continuing inequity that exists in the kind of support and funding

that is provided to many in our disabled community. I speak specifically of the deaf-blind. It was some time ago that I called on the Minister of Community and Social Services to address this

inequity in funding. While at the time in discussions with them, she agreed to meet with members of the deaf-blind community who had visited Queen's Park, nothing has yet been done to rectify the

inequity of funding. These are people who are both deaf and blind and who are not yet being recognized by this government appropriately for the kind of support services they need.

We will, as I said before, no doubt pass this legislation, but what we can't do is lose sight of the many people within our communities who continue to make

appeals to this government to recognize their very special circumstances, and it is our role as legislators not to forget that these are our priorities. As has been said before, society really is

measured by how we treat the most vulnerable in our communities, and that is something that I trust all members of this House will keep in mind as we move forward.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): As the representative of the New Democratic caucus, I want to say that we will give support to this

legislation. This is what I call a no-brainer. Why we're in this situation, in the year 2005, having to bring forward legislation to deal with this issue is, I think, somewhat reflective and says

something about us as a Legislature and as a government overall, because this is an issue that you would think we would have dealt with some time ago.

We know that people in the province of Ontario are very progressive. People understand that properly trained dogs are an integral part of a person's life when

it comes to not just people who use them as seeing-eye dogs but for all other people who use dogs. Why we accept this premise on behalf of blind people and not other people with disabilities is

beyond me. I just think it's a bit sad that we find ourselves here in 2005 having to move forward on legislation.

I commend the member for bringing it forward and for recognizing the oversight in current legislation; I commend the member for having done that. But on the

other hand, I say that a lot of us have been asleep at the switch, not having dealt with this before. I guess "better late than never" is the old adage that you could basically use on this

particular issue.

I also want to say, however, that there's a lot more that can be done in regard to dealing with how to make life easier for people with disabilities. The

government has come forward with legislation -- I think it's Bill 118, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Certainly it goes forward and moves the yardstick forward when it comes to opening up

access for people with disabilities but, my Lord, what a baby step we're taking.

There are some things we need to be doing that I think would be very positive as far as being able to assist people with disabilities. For example, we should

be amending the building code in such a way that says that when we're planning and building all types of buildings in the province of Ontario, we have to take into account certain issues when it

comes to making sure that these buildings are accessible, specifically public buildings, paid for by both the private and public sectors when it comes to any building that the public needs to enter

for the purpose of doing business. We could very easily, by way of the building code, really move forward and deal with a lot of those issues.

The other approach we should also be taking when it comes to planning in municipalities is to include some amendments to the Planning Act so that all of these

issues are dealt with. For example, when we pour a sidewalk a street during a road repair, why not cut down the curb so that people who are using wheelchairs and people who are having difficulty

walking don't have to jump off the curb or fall and sometimes trip and hurt themselves or possibly get severely injured as a result of doing something as simple as not cutting the curb? There are a

lot of things we could be doing under the Planning Act that would allow us to move forward.

Pour les personnes avec des « disabilités », c'est spécifiquement plus difficile d'être capable de vivre dans un endroit de

l'Ontario qui se trouve hors des centres urbains comme Toronto, Ottawa et autres. Imagine-toi si tu demeures dans une petite communauté quelque part en Ontario, à l'est, dans le nord,

dans le sud ou n'importe où. Quand ça vient à donner les services aux personnes avec des « disabilités », c'est beaucoup plus difficile d'aller les

chercher.

Je vais raconter une histoire. On se rappelle M. Malkowski, un député de cette Assemblée de 1990 à 1995. Mon bon ami Gary Malkowski

est une personne sourde. Je me rappelle toujours qu'il était avec moi sur le comité constitutionnel, où on a eu une chance d'aller écouter le monde de Sioux Lookout. J'ai

trouvé ça très intéressant, et vraiment ça m'a ouvert les yeux quand il y a eu un monsieur qui est venu présenter. Il y avait tout d'un coup une excitation dans la

salle. Je n'avais aucune idée de ce qui se passait, et finalement, ce qui est arrivé est qu'il y avait un homme qui demeurait à Sioux Lookout qui lui-même était sourd et

qui parlait seulement en American Sign Language. Il n'y avait personne d'autre à Sioux Lookout qui parlait ASL; il se trouvait seul. Il était excité parce que c'était la

première fois en 15 ans qu'il allait parler à quelqu'un.

Donc, imagine-toi les difficultés des personnes qui ont des « disabilités » dans nos communautés. Je regarde les

réserves dans le nord de l'Ontario, par exemple à Kashechewan, au nord de Fort Albany. Il y a un monsieur en chaise roulante. Écoute, ce n'est pas facile, les chaises roulantes

à Fort Albany ou à Kashechewan. Il n'y a pas de pavés. On parle des chemins qui sont encore en gravier. On parle en hiver de chemins qui ne sont pas très bien entretenus parce

que l'infrastructure n'est pas là. C'est très difficile pour les personnes avec des « disabilités » de vivre dans ces communautés.

Je pense que c'est dire que, quand on ne fait pas assez comme province pour être capable de répondre aux besoins, il y a une rancune dans le

système, quand ça vient à répondre aux problèmes qu'on a dans nos communautés pour s'assurer qu'une personne avec une « disabilité » peut

vivre d'une manière plus facile dans sa communauté. Parfois, avec la situation où une personne demeure dans une petite communauté quelque part en Ontario, même plus

sévère, dans le nord de l'Ontario, cette personne a besoin de décider de déménager loin de sa famille ou de ses amis pour avoir des services en allant quelque part un peu

plus central où ces services existent. Par exemple, dans la ville de Timmins, on trouve du monde de différentes parties du nord-est de l'Ontario ou de la Baie-James qui ont besoin de

déménager à Timmins parce que c'est un centre urbain où on peut aller chercher des services qu'on ne peut pas avoir dans nos communautés.

On a une chance, avec ce projet de loi, de répondre à une

partie du problème. Si une personne, autre qu'une personne qui est aveugle, a un

chien, elle va avoir la permission d'emmener son chien avec elle pour entrer dans un espace public, prendre un autobus ou faire autre chose. Je pense que c'est un pas positif et quelque chose qu'on

peut faire pour être capable d'assister ce monde.

Mais je vais encore dire, à travers ce débat, que c'est très important que nous autres retroussions nos manches et regardions ce que nous

pouvons faire, parce qu'il y a parfois des solutions à des problèmes qu'on pourrait faire ici à l'Assemblée qui ne coûtent pas d'argent. Par exemple, je pense qu'on a

manqué une très bonne chance ici à l'Assemblée quand on a eu la loi 118 devant nous, où on a mis en place une loi pour assister les personnes avec une

« disabilité ». Je pense qu'il y a des affaires qu'on aurait pu faire qui auraient été vraiment extraordinaires pour aider la qualité de vie du monde qui

n'auraient pas coûté d'argent, tel que j'ai annoncé un peu plus tôt en anglais.

L'autre

partie du problème est qu'on a aussi besoin de regarder le support fiscal quand ça vient à la personne avec une

« disabilité ». On sait, par exemple, que si par malchance on a besoin de vivre sur une pension de « disabilité » ici en l'Ontario, la vie n'est

pas facile. On sait que l'argent qui est versé à ces individus mensuellement à travers le « Ontarians with disabilities support plan » n'est pas extraordinaire en

vertu du montant. Moi, je le sais. Je rencontre beaucoup de monde, comme le font d'autres députés ici à l'Assemblée, dans notre communauté qui sont des personnes sur une

pension de « disabilité ». Écoute, il y a des choix pas mal difficiles à prendre : « Est-ce que je paie mon téléphone ce mois ou dois-je

acheter un peu plus de groceries? » C'est rendu à ce point-là parce les loyers ont augmenté. Notre programme a eu de grosses augmentations dans l'ODSP ça fait assez

longtemps. Il y en a eu une l'année passée. Je pense que c'était la première dans environ 10 ans qu'on en a eue. Tout a augmenté en prix, et là ils se trouvent dans

une situation sur leur pension de se dire, « Comment est-ce que je peux y arriver à la fin du mois? » C'est très difficile.

Je pense toujours à M. et M me Pouliot, qui viennent régulièrement au bureau chez nous, au bureau du comté, et aussi quand je

rends visite à l'Association for Community Living. Ce sont des membres très actifs. La première question est toujours, « Quand est-ce qu'on va voir une augmentation de

notre pension? On trouve ça très difficile. » Une des affaires qu'on a besoin de regarder, c'est comment indexer ces pensions d'une manière réelle pour qu'au moins des

moins on soit capable de garder le pas avec l'inflation pour s'assurer que ce monde ne se trouve pas dans une situation où chaque année le montant d'argent qu'ils ont est de moindre en

moindre à cause de l'inflation. Je dis au gouvernement qu'une chance de faire quelque chose, ce serait de regarder la question d'indexer les pensions de l'ODSP pour s'assurer qu'au moins, le

monde garde le pas avec l'inflation.

L'autre chose que je pense est importante, et c'est un débat qu'on a présentement à l'Assemblée : on sait que notre caucus, le caucus

NPD -- mon chef, M. Hampton, nos critiques, M me Horwath et M me Martel -- ont soulevé dans cette Assemblée à beaucoup de reprises la question de comment on

traite les jeunes dans cette société, spécifiquement ceux qui souffrent d'autisme. Il y a la situation présentement où, si l'enfant a six ans ou moins, on peut aller lui

chercher des services pour être capable de gérer un peu mieux la condition de la personne. J'ai eu l'occasion, justement dans les dernières quelques semaines, de visiter la ligne de

piquetage CAS à Timmins, où il y a des travailleurs sociaux qui sont présentement en grève qui m'ont parlé un peu de la situation qu'on a à Timmins quand ça vient

à donner des services aux personnes autistiques. Le problème est qu'après l'âge de six ans, le jeune perd ces services, et quand il perd les services, l'enfant commence à

prendre un peu de recul sur le bien qui avait été fait avec l'intervention qui a besoin d'être faite pour aider ce jeune. Ce gouvernement, pour une raison ou une autre, dans les

dernières années refuse d'accepter de faire quelque chose de positif. À la place, ce qu'ils ont fait c'est d'amener les parents en cour, ce que je ne comprends pas. J'aurais

pensé que le gouvernement libéral aurait été un peu plus sensible envers ces enfants, et c'est un peu triste de se trouver dans cette situation.

The legislation that's being brought forward is definitely a progressive step. We know there are many people in our society who use assistive dogs to do

everything from, as was pointed out earlier, dealing with identifying a seizure at its onset, to not only seeing-eye dogs but hearing-ear dogs etc., and they are highly trained and very well

behaved. Every dog I've run across that is a working dog is very well trained, and you never have to worry about how they handle themselves. On a separate note, it's interesting that most of the

dogs are Labs. There's something about the character of a Labrador retriever that is interesting.

I've got to take this occasion to talk about Misty, the dog at home. We've had Misty for about three years now. She's a black Lab-retriever cross. I've got to

say that these animals always amaze me because of their intelligence. I swear to God that you can talk to our particular dog, and if she could talk too, she'd talk back to us because she knows

exactly what we're saying. When my wife or I talk to our dog, it's basically in French, and people say, "How come you talk to your dog in French?" I say, "Well, it's a French dog. What else would I

do? If I talked to the dog in Italian, it would be an Italian dog. My dog is French." And people always say, "How can it understand French?" and I say, "Well, we've always talked to it in French.

Of course our dog understands French." But I'm digressing.

The point is that there are extreme --

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Is your dog in French immersion?

Mr. Bisson: Not French immersion; it's just in French, period. Ours is a francophone household.

The point I make here is that the intelligence of these animals always amazes me. I've got to tell you this story. People are going to think I'm a little bit

anal, but it's kind of funny. I don't like bombshells in my backyard. So the very first thing I did when we brought Misty home was to build a pen. The idea was to put a couple of patio stones down

and cage them in a chain-link fence, and then say to the dog, "This is where the bombshells go." It took a little while, but the dog got trained, and that's the only place she'll go. You never have

to worry about picking up bombshells in your backyard. The funny story is that the first winter we had her, I took her up to the cottage -- we're out at Kamiskotia Lake -- and the dog jumped out of

the truck. She was a pup about eight or nine months old and was all excited. She's at the lake and jumping in the snow. All of a sudden, I see her in the yard. I see her prancing around in the yard

at the cottage, looking for her chain link fence. She couldn't find it. So what did I do? I told my dog in French, without even pointing, "Dummy, go out on the lake." So my dog ran out on to the

lake and that's where she did it. To this day, whether it's summertime or wintertime, whenever my dog has to go and do a little bombshell, she runs out into the lake. It's the funniest thing you've

ever seen. If you ever come to the cottage and you see a dog in a lake, you'll know why. That's what the story is.

I digress. I know I'm a bit anal --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I'll tell the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Bisson: Hey, listen: Birds, fish, everything else goes there. What the heck. Anyway, I can't stop her now; she's well trained. What am I

going to do?

Anyway, I digress in my debate. I just say to the member, congratulations for bringing the bill forward. We will be supporting this legislation, and hopefully

we can see this bill getting third reading passage -- if not this spring, next fall -- in order to accept this particular bill as reality in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Martiniuk, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Martiniuk: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their support: the members for Oak Ridges,

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Stoney Creek, Thornhill, Niagara Falls and Timmins-James Bay.

There have been tremendous strides in the use of assistance, guide or service dogs -- whatever terminology you wish to use -- during the last few years, as I

mentioned in my previous talk. The last of those innovations is the use of dogs with autistic children, but I am sure there many more innovations to be brought forth in the future. I am so pleased

that everyone in this House has recognized the need, and I urge you to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

MISSING PERSONS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE SIGNALEMENT

DES PERSONNES DISPARUES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll deal first with ballot item 71, standing in the name of Mr. Racco.

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

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I would ask permission to have this bill brought to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Racco has asked that the bill be sent to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES DROITS DES AVEUGLES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item 72, standing in the name of Mr. Martiniuk. Is it the pleasure of

the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: The request has been made to have the bill referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

All matters relating private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1158 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDS' FISHING DAY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved in our fifth annual kids' fishing day at Heber

Down Conservation Area. The event, which was rewarding and fun-filled for both children and adults alike, attracted over 1,000 participants to come out and enjoy the great outdoors. Through the

support of many outdoor organizations, children were invited to participate at no charge in a day filled with many events, including MNR demonstrations, lure-making, fly-tying, a casting

competition, and natural history.

CLOCA; Ducks Unlimited; John O'Toole's office; Kids, Cops and Canadian Tire; Muskies Canada; the Ontario Deerhound Association; Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources; the Ontario Sporting Dogs Association; Oshawa Community Health; Oshawa Teen Council; the YWCA; Pickering Rod and Gun Club; Durham Fly Tying; Port Perry BassMasters; Simcoe Hall

Settlement House; South Central Ontario Big Game Association; and the Westmount Kiwanis, to name them all, all contributed time, effort and volunteers to the success of the event.

I would like to give a special thanks to each of those, as well as to Walter Oster of the Toronto Sportsmen's Show, who once again contributed rods and reels

for the event, as well as thanking Angelo Viola of Fish'n Canada and Italo Labignan of Canadian Sportfishing for being on hand for the day's activities. As well, of course, I thank the parents and

kids who showed up to make the event the success it was. It was a great opportunity for children who usually don't have a chance to learn about fishing and nature to have fun discovering the

outdoors at the same time. They caught more fish this year than ever before.

Sandra Sweet of Oshawa's Settlement House said it best: "On behalf of the children, please express our deep appreciation to the many people who made this

memorable experience possible. The children's accounts of how `huge' their fish were leads me to believe that there is a `fish story' in all of us just waiting to get out. Thanks for giving our

kids an opportunity to tell theirs."

Remember, there are still hundreds of fish in the pond, and we would like to invite everyone out to attend next year's event.

FABRY'S DISEASE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Today, people who suffer from Fabry's disease have come to Queen's Park to lobby the Minister of Health to

finally cover the cost of their enzyme replacement therapy.

I first wrote to the Minister of Health on February 16, 2004, to ask the government to cover the cost of the treatment. I wrote on behalf of an Ottawa woman

who had been told she would have to pay for treatment herself: $12,500 per infusion, twice a month. I wrote four more letters, the most recent on March 31, 2005, and have never received a reply.

More people have come forward since that time to ask the government to cover the costs. More delay; no reply.

What's most distressing is that the Minister of Health promised patients that this treatment would be covered, and he has failed to deliver. On April 19, 2004,

he met with Donna and John Strauss here at Queen's Park, and he told them he expected to have an answer by June on whether or not the ministry would fund the treatment. John died some weeks later.

On July 3, 2004, the minister sent a sympathy note to Donna and said, "As you struggle to deal with such huge loss, I wish to assure you that I will make certain of coverage for Fabry's. Don't let

any stories about the drug's slow approval add to concern about coverage."

That was almost a year ago. Again today, people who suffer from Fabry's are here at Queen's Park asking for help. They should not have to beg for payment for

life-saving treatment. This intolerable situation has gone on long enough. This minister and this government should agree to pay for treatment and do it now.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Today over 500,000 Ontarians of Italian origin, and Italians all over the world, are celebrating the birth

of the Republic of Italy. On June 2, 1946, Italy was born out of the ashes and turmoil of World War II into a vibrant, free and democratic nation.

Today in my riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, thousands of Ontarians will be coming to the Columbus Centre, which is the cultural, educational and recreational

mecca for Italian Canadians. Today they will eat, sing, dance, reminisce about their homeland, celebrate what is called la Festa della Repubblica, and reflect on how lucky they are to be proudly

Italian and fiercely Canadian. Whether they are in Pembroke or in Puglia, whether they are in Melbourne, Australia, or in Montreal, whether they're in Woodbridge, Windsor, Venice, Sicily or

Sudbury, today Italian Canadians and Italians across this world, and especially in Italy, will be thanking the creation of this wonderful democracy that is home to so many vibrant people who will

celebrate the birth of the republic today on Italian Republic Day.

FABRY'S DISEASE

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Today, outside the east door of the Legislature, Rick Sgroi of Richmond Hill and Darren Nesbit of Sarnia, both

sufferers of Fabry disease, are handing out information packages to MPPs. Mr. Nesbit wrote and delivered a letter to Health Minister George Smitherman today. It reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Smitherman:

"I know your time is valuable. If I leave you with nothing else, I would like you to know:

"

(1) Enzyme replacement therapy works. It is effective.

"

(2) While ERT may be expensive, this should not detract from the fact that it is effective.

"

(3) I understand that ERT is provided in Ontario for non-lethal Gaucher disease.... Fabry's is a lethal disease. Why is Ontario not willing to provide ERT for

lethal cases of Fabry's?

"

(4) I'm not ready to leave this world yet -- I have too much to give. Just like the other Fabry's sufferers."

This government must reorder its priorities to ensure that the most vulnerable of our citizens receive the care they need to sustain their lives. I therefore

urge members on the government side of this House to join with me and my colleagues in the Conservative caucus in supporting the funding of ERT for Fabry patients.

I have here the undertaking that these folks are asking MPPs to sign. It reads: "On my honour, I hereby undertake to sincerely use all of my abilities and best

efforts to obtain full financing/bridge funding of ERT ... for all Fabry's patients in Ontario." I have signed it. I'm going to ask that it be passed along to every member of the Legislature for

their signature.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): Today our leader, Premier McGuinty, renewed this government's campaign to narrow the

$23-billion gap. This fiscal gap is real and exists despite the recent Ontario-federal agreement.

Progress was made in the negotiation of the five-year agreement when Ottawa agreed that Ontario should receive a per-capita share of all new funding for

post-secondary education. Ontario's students and post-secondary institutions will benefit from an additional $200 million in 2005-06, increasing to $400 million in 2008-09 for a total investment of

$1.55 billion, but most of the monies flow after 2007-08 and expire after that.

We welcome our leadership role within Canada as a "have" province. We are proud to help pay for post-secondary education in places like Whitehorse and Moncton.

But as our Premier reminded the audience at the Canadian Newspaper Association this morning in Ottawa, we believe this support should be confined to one accountable, transparent federal program,

and that's equalization. We believe fairness dictates that equalization by stealth be ended. Federal cash transfers for post-secondary education, among other cash-starved sectors, should be funded

on a per-capita basis.

This campaign is about strengthening post-secondary education in Ontario so we can fulfill our responsibility to the education and prosperity of all Canadians.

This campaign is about a strong Ontario for a strong Canada.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): What we in the chamber have seen since the greenbelt legislation was passed is that it is nothing but a massive

public relations exercise.

Applause.

Mr. Hudak: The minister applauds his absence of action, I guess.

It has done nothing to help greenbelt municipalities, it has done nothing to help greenbelt farmers continue to farm, and, because it is not based on science

and has no plan to make it work, it is not going to be successful in preserving environmentally sensitive land. In fact, they've neglected to take any action to support the greenbelt. The city of

Pickering and Durham region are in full rebellion against the greenbelt plan and the minister's leadership on this plan. Farmer Thomas Kuegler in Niagara-on-the-Lake wants to turn 22 acres of

fallow land into grape production and has been prevented, because of the Greenbelt Act, from doing so.

The municipal funding formula has been a disaster for greenbelt municipalities like Niagara-on-the-Lake, St. Catharines, Thorold, Pelham, Grimsby and Lincoln.

In fact, Lincoln Mayor Bill Hodgson says they've been double-whammied by the cuts in municipal funding to those communities and the Greenbelt Act.

I ask the minister to try to salvage some of the damage that has been done by a lack of action to support the greenbelt. Appoint a greenbelt advisory council.

I ask him to do it in the next 20 minutes. Timing is everything in politics. As part of that, I also ask him to appoint advisory committees for the Niagara and Holland Marsh area specialty crops,

as Bill 200, which I introduced as a private member's bill, calls on him to do.

PIERCE DUNDYS

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I rise today to pay tribute to a most extraordinary young man from my riding of Etobicoke North. He is

here. Both the grandfather and the grandson are here, and I'd ask them to rise.

On December 15, 2003, five-year-old Pierce Dundys was sledding with his grandfather at Etobicoke's Esther Lorrie Park. Their sled hit a patch of ice and flung

the pair almost 20 feet, breaking Pierce's grandfather's leg, leaving them both stranded and out of sight.

All alone, Pierce was left with no choice but to climb the icy hillside to seek help for his immobilized grandfather. Out of his grandfather's sight, he was

forced to overcome his fear and seek strangers' help. No one would wish his or her children into such a position, but Pierce was left with no choice. Thanks to his grandson's bravery, an exemplary

citizen of Etobicoke North, Peter Wood, the grandfather, was rushed to hospital and into surgery. As a physician, I can attest to the gravity and life-threatening nature of the injuries. Pierce's

bravery has certainly saved his grandfather's life.

As I've mentioned, Pierce and his family are here with us today, and I'm certain all members will join me in congratulating our young hero on this exemplary

behaviour.

RIDING OF ANCASTER-DUNDAS-

FLAMBOROUGH-ALDERSHOT

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): The feedback has been terrific. Our spring budget, together with government

successes over the past 18 months, is clearly benefiting the citizens of my riding. Resources are flowing back into my local schools; the Best Start program for our early years, coupled with our

ambitious $6.2-billion investment in post-secondary education, has put Ontario education back on track. Just ask former Premiers Bob Rae and Bill Davis.

In Dundas, collaborative efforts are now underway that may soon result in a new family health care team coming to fruition.

Our agricultural sector has become one of my greatest passions. Minister Peters has not only talked the talk but also walked where I walk, literally, by coming

into Lynden, Rockton, Ancaster and, most recently, the Pasuta farm on Campbellville Road. He comes to listen and advise and to learn from the excellent feedback he receives.

Our local business community is also to be commended for their hard work. As a former business owner, proprietor of the original Chapters bookstore in

Waterdown, I make it my business to support their businesses. The new provincial small business advisory council will assist all businesses, including those in my community.

I want to acknowledge ADFA's greatest asset: our people. Next week the Waterdown Rotary Club will celebrate their 50th anniversary. I'm proud of the service

that they and so many other service groups provide, day in and day out. What a wonderful testimony their service is to their commitment to build a stronger, healthier and more caring community. It

is indeed these people putting service before self who are Ontario's greatest resource.

BEEF FARMER AWARENESS DAY

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I rise today to commemorate Beef Farmer Awareness Day and to congratulate the Ontario beef industry on their

great work. I would like also to formally welcome members of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association to the Legislature. Today the Ontario Cattlemen's Association came to Queen's Park in order to thank

the members of this chamber for their support of the beef industry through the years.

While I'm honoured by this gesture, I believe that the beef industry, which is comprised of approximately 21,000 farmers and their families, ought to be

thanked by all Ontarians for providing us with top-quality, safe Ontario beef.

Since May 20, 2003, these 21,000 farmers and their families have been hit hard by the BSE crisis. While it has been a difficult time for the industry, they

have been actively working with our government to alleviate the immediate crisis and to look for solutions that will help us ensure a sustainable future for our beef industry.

These efforts have paid off. In the past two and a half years, our government has committed $138.5 million in crisis relief. We have extended existing markets

by investing in slaughter capacity and deadstock collection, and we are developing new, alternative markets.

Our government understands how vital the beef industry is to the well-being of our province. We will continue to work with them to make sure that all Ontario

continues to have the pleasure of enjoying Ontario beef and Ontario corn-fed beef for years to come.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL

Mr. Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 207,

An Act to proclaim Sexual Harassment Awareness Week / Projet de loi 207, Loi proclamant la Semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement

sexuel.

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

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): If passed, Sexual Harassment Awareness Week would be proclaimed in memory of Theresa Vince, who was brutally

murdered in Chatham by her workplace supervisor. For years, Theresa Vince was a victim of ongoing and persistent sexual harassment perpetrated by her supervisor. The first week of June has been

chosen as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week because June 2 marks the anniversary of Theresa Vince's death.

The majority of women will experience sexual harassment at some point in their working lives. The objective of proclaiming Sexual Harassment Awareness Week is

to raise and increase public awareness, to foster change in societal attitudes and behaviours surrounding sexual harassment, and to prevent other tragedies from occurring. Everyone has the right to

full, equal and safe participation in the community.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) Mr Yakabuski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities /

Projet de loi 208, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun à l'égard de l'aide apportée aux municipalités par le

ministre.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It is with great pleasure that I introduce this bill today. This bill will, if passed by this

Legislature, ensure that if the Minister of Transportation enters into an agreement with a municipality to provide a rebate of tax under the Gasoline Tax Act to any municipality for the purpose of

constructing, maintaining or operating a rapid transit or public transit transportation system, the minister could not refuse to enter into an agreement to provide a rebate of tax under that act on

the same per-capita basis to any other municipality for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, or operating public highways in that municipality.

The roads, the highways and the bridges in rural Ontario are our public transportation system, and it is only fair that if our tax dollars are being used to

subsidize urban transportation systems, the travel needs of rural Ontarians should also be supported. I hope the members of this Legislature from all political parties will support this important

bill, which I believe stands for fairness and recognizes the significant economic and cultural contributions made by those people who live in rural Ontario.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from

6:45 p.m. till 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 2, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, please say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

The Speaker: The government House leader has moved government notice of motion 379.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Watson, Jim

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GREENBELT COUNCIL

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): When the Greenbelt Act, 2005, passed on

February 24 of this year, historic legislation that will protect 1.8 million acres of green space around the Golden Horseshoe became law.

Ontario's greenbelt will preserve our watersheds, rivers and forests, protecting the water we drink and the air we breathe. It will promote recreation, sports

and tourism by encouraging the development of a trail system, open spaces and parklands. It will protect thousands of acres of prime agricultural lands and tender fruit lands so that farmers can

continue to grow the foods that we eat. It will also set strict limits on where urban boundaries can and cannot expand.

Today I'm proud to announce that the McGuinty government has taken the next step in its plan for the permanent protection of Ontario's greenbelt with the

appointment of the Greenbelt Council. This council will provide invaluable advice and expertise on the administration of the greenbelt. The council will help guide our government on the

implementation of the greenbelt plan and development of performance measures to monitor its effectiveness. It will also support our 10-year review and provide advice on any proposed amendments at

that time to the greenbelt plan.

The nine members of the Greenbelt Council are experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated. They come from a variety of backgrounds and different ways of life, but

one thing they all share is a commitment to preserving the agricultural lands and the environmental areas within the greenbelt. I am honoured that such a group of distinguished and accomplished

individuals has agreed to help us manage the greenbelt wisely.

I'm proud to announce that the chair of the Greenbelt Council is Dr. Robert Elgie. Dr. Elgie is a former MPP who held a number of cabinet posts, including

community and social services and consumer and commercial relations, during the Davis government years. He was appointed a member of the Order of Canada in 2003, founded Dalhousie University's

Health Law Institute, and just recently completed his term as chair of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Dr. Elgie also served as a chair of the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario for

six years. His commitment to his community and dedication to serving Ontarians are truly remarkable. I am confident that he, along with the other eight dedicated members, will provide expert

guidance as our government implements our greenbelt plan.

I will just quickly mention the other eight individuals who are on the council as well.

One of the eight individuals is Howie Herrema, who is a lifetime resident of Uxbridge. He has served on the Uxbridge township council since 2000 and has been a

full-time farmer his entire life.

Donna Lailey has been a full-time grape grower in the Niagara-on-the-Lake area for over 20 years. She has previously served as a vice-chair of the Ontario

Grape Growers Marketing Board, has served as a director of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, and was at one time a Niagara Parks commissioner.

Dr. Virginia MacLaren is an associate professor in the department of geography at the University of Toronto, where she teaches environmental planning and

environmental impact assessment.

Dr. John Middleton is a faculty member at the Centre for the Environment at Brock University. His focus is biodiversity conservation in the context of

sustainable development.

Linda Pim is an environmental biologist who lives in the village of Inglewood in the town of Caledon. She has worked in the environmental policy field for over

25 years, both with the government of Ontario and with non-government organizations.

Russ Powell is a founding director of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation and currently sits as its chair. He served previously as the executive director of the

Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario.

Dr. Clay Switzer was raised on a farm in Middlesex county. He is a well-known professor at the University of Guelph and former dean of the Ontario Agricultural

College. He was the deputy minister of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food during the 1980s.

Rebecca Wissenz, who is the past president of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, has been on the executive since the year 2000. She also sits as an elected

member of the governing council of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and has worked with the Trillium Foundation.

I look forward to working with these nine individuals on our Greenbelt Council to build on the legacy that we have created for our children: a legacy of

protecting green space, agricultural lands, environmental lands, and recreational and resource lands in the Golden Horseshoe. Working together, we will help ensure that our children will have parks

to play in, clean air to breathe, fresh water to drink, and wholesome food to eat for many, many years to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond to the minister and welcome the announcement of the greenbelt advisory council. Certainly

Bob Elgie is somebody whom we admire, and we'll look forward to working with Dr. Elgie.

Bob Elgie, as a former cabinet minister in the Davis government, will know about the accomplishments of Progressive Conservatives in setting up the Niagara

Escarpment Commission, for example. He'll know about our accomplishments as Progressive Conservatives in setting up the Bruce Trail system, linking Niagara-on-the-Lake all the way up to Tobermory.

Dr. Elgie will know, under Mike Harris, about the biggest expansion in protected areas in the history of the entire country of Canada through Living Legacy. Dr. Elgie will know that when

Progressive Conservatives bring in these initiatives, they do it based on good science and a plan to make sure it's successful. So we're encouraged to see some Conservative blood and sensibilities

injected into what too much has been a greenbotch exercise instead of a greenbelt, and no doubt some strong individuals. We know many of these individuals. It might make the minister nervous. I

know a number of these individuals personally. We're pleased to see them and look forward to working with them.

One aspect I would like to have seen: I think the minister knows that I brought forward Bill 200, my private member's bill, which would have guaranteed that at

least half of the representatives on the advisory committee came from the agricultural sector. The minister has received a letter from the OFA, dated March 28, calling for exactly that. They say in

the letter to the minister that because farmers are the largest group of landowners in the greenbelt area, a majority of members on the council should be farmers. I support that, and my private

member's bill did. The minister does not hit that target with his council, and we hope to see that corrected. It is disappointing, I'll relate, from what I would expect would be the OFA's point of

view, that they were not notified of today's announcement. There is no doubt they want this council to get moving, although they would have liked to have seen, as we would, a majority of

representatives on the council.

I would also ask the minister to seriously consider the other aspe