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

November 23, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-23 (PDF)

L107 - Thu 23 Nov 2000 / Jeu 23 nov 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT (PATIENT RESTRAINTS), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS (MESURES DE CONTENTION)

DRUG USE IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

RAMADAN

EDUCATION FUNDING

BLOOD DONATION

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

LABOUR DISPUTE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY 407

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

WEARING OF PINS

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGRICORP

SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTES

LABOUR DISPUTE

DRUG USE IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

AMBULANCE SERVICES

TRAINING AGREEMENT

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONTINUED PROTECTION FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 POURSUIVANT LES MESURES DE PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES FONCIERS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT (PATIENT RESTRAINTS), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS (MESURES DE CONTENTION)

Ms Lankin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act to regulate the use of restraints that are not part of medical treatment / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les hôpitaux publics pour réglementer l'utilisation de mesures de contention qui ne font pas

partie d'un traitement médical.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes to make her presentation.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I would like to ask unanimous consent to add five minutes from the time of the New Democratic caucus to my opening statement of ten minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has asked for unanimous consent for five minutes to be added to her time, to be deducted from the New Democratic caucus's time. Agreed? Agreed.

Ms Lankin: I want to begin by saying to my colleagues, who have been quite wonderful over the past year as I have gone through many struggles with my mom's health and who have come to me on countless occasions and asked me how my mom is doing, that if I had a dime, a dollar, for every time I've been asked, I would be a wealthy woman financially, but I am wealthier for the generosity of human spirit that is displayed among colleagues in this place and many of my constituents. I thank you all for that.

Many of you know by now, because I've spoken to you over and over again about what has happened, the personal story that has brought me here today with this private member's bill. It's often said, and it's almost become a cliché, that the personal is political. Today is a demonstration of that.

I'm not going to take the time to relate again my personal story because today I have the opportunity, the honour, as an elected member of the Legislature to move this to the public, to move this to the political, to do something that will affect not just my mom and my personal situation but hundreds, if not thousands, of seniors and their families in this province.

I was shocked following the experience my mom and I had to learn that every day in Ontario thousands of Ontario's elderly people are restrained in our public acute care hospitals, not because it's part of their medical treatment, not because they are necessarily a danger to themselves or to anyone else, but because they're old, because they're confused and because the system doesn't know how to respond to the growing challenge of aging, the growing challenge of treating patients, not just for their illness or for the trauma-the reason they may present to the hospital-but the whole senior, in many cases seniors with confusion, with dementia.

Currently in Ontario there are laws in place under the Mental Health Act to deal with the issue of restraint if someone is in a mental health ward of a hospital or in a psychiatric hospital. We know what has to be documented. We know when restraints can be used, for how long, how the patient has to be monitored. There are also laws governing those people who are living in our long-term-care facilities-nursing homes, homes for the aged.

Again, those laws are there to not just regulate when we use restraints and how we use them, but to try to set an atmosphere where we look to doing everything else before we consider the use of restraints. But in our public acute care hospitals there is no such law. There is common law. It is a criminal assault on a person-forcible confinement-to tie them up against their will. We have consent-to-treatment legislation in which, if a person is not capable of making a decision for themselves, their family must be involved.

But that law, a law that I was proud as a Minister of Health at one point in time to shepherd into being in this province, a law that I thought would cover situations like this, routinely doesn't.

Let me tell you what my law would do. It would set up a situation where it is prohibited to use restraints that are non-medical except in certain circumstances: in an emergency situation where someone is presenting as a clear danger of perpetrating serious injury on another person or themselves, and there are times when you can imagine that would be the case. But when a restraint is going to be used, this law would say that a doctor has to actually see the patient.

It can't be just a standing order that when you present at emergency rooms, because you're old and elderly, someone writes on your chart-it even has a shorthand-"PRN," physical restraint if necessary, and that follows you through the system. You would actually have to be seen and assessed and a determination made, and if restraints were applied, you'd have to be monitored every 15 minutes to make sure that you were OK.

There are documented cases in this province and around the world where patients have died in restraints, where they've been left in restraints, where they have strangled. In one case, a patient set the restraint on fire to try to get free and died in that fire. They would have to be monitored. Their position would have to be moved every hour to alleviate problems of the restriction and bedsores and all sorts of other problems that come from that. Every two hours the order would have to be reviewed.

Those are a set of guidelines that say, if you're going to do it, what you have to do. But what's more important, what's at the heart of it is that you would have to document that restraint and you would have to document that you had explored all of the least restrictive options. That's where the problem is in our hospitals-a problem of resourcing, a problem of an understanding in our hospitals of what is age-appropriate care. We need to do much work, in addition to the law, through education and through a change in our attitude. We have many elderly patients in our hospitals, and we know with an aging population that's going to continue to grow.

Why are people being restrained? The most common reasons given are to prevent the person from falling and injuring themselves or to prevent them from pulling out an intravenous tube. All of the research shows that doesn't stand up to the light of day. People who are restrained become more cognitively impaired, more agitated, more confused and more likely to fall once the restraints are taken off. There's no evidence to show that the restraint actually prohibits someone who is in an agitated state from pulling out an intravenous tube. In fact, what the research does show is that this is a serious problem for the individual's health.

If I may, some of the things that result from a person being restrained: there is certainly evidence of physical damage; pressure sores; infection; incontinence, both bowel and bladder; decreased appetite; constipation; deconditioning; muscular atrophy; weakness; and death. But there are also psychological effects. It is an attack on the heart and the soul of these individuals. There is the sense of social isolation, there's panic, there's fear, there's anger, there's apathy, there's withdrawal, there's depression. Imagine being in a situation where you're unable to communicate well and finding yourself tied, restrained, unable to move, sometimes for hours, throughout a whole night.

I can't understand anyone who could object to the concept of the legislators of Ontario speaking up on behalf of some of our most vulnerable citizens and saying that this can't happen, this can't continue to happen.

Many will tell you that there are policies already in place in our hospitals. It's true. We've had a number of coroners' inquests that have given clear direction that there should be laws, there need to be policies. The Ontario Hospital Association, for example, has developed policies; many hospitals have policies. But I am telling you, from reading the research that has been done, from talking to the front-line deliverers of service-the nurses, the geriatricians-those policies are not being observed. It's not being monitored.

One set of researchers here in Ontario-they've done much larger research, but in one hospital they went in and looked at patients over the age of 75 at 10 o'clock in the morning and found 70% of them restrained. At 10 o'clock in the morning. Do you know what else they found? It wasn't written on the charts. We do not have effective monitoring. We don't have a culture that understands what we're doing to people. The OHA's response to my bill is that they're very sympathetic but they don't want to see hospitals furthered burdened by regulation.

Again, I'm reminded of when I was Minister of Health and I brought forward the issue of routine referrals for organ donations. The OHA responded, "We understand. We will handle this through education and through policy. Don't regulate us further." Good intent; it didn't work. Here we are in the Legislative Assembly some eight years later about to pass a law to regulate hospitals around routine referrals of organ donations.

I don't accept the Ontario Hospital Association's argument. I do wholeheartedly accept their offer to bring together people to work on updating the policy, to provide education, to find a way to effectively monitor, but it must be underpinned by law. I also, with great appreciation, accept the RNAO's offer. If the Ministry of Health provides funding for another best-practices study-they're currently doing 10 in areas of best practices in nursing right now-they're willing to add an 11th, with funding from the ministry, to look at this issue of physical restraint. I welcome that.

All of the education, all of the hands-on work that needs to be done is an essential part of making this law that I'm proposing effective. But it must be underpinned by law.

Let me say to the members opposite, because there are concerns that the words in my law may not be appropriate in all cases, maybe I've got the timelines wrong, maybe they should be monitored more frequently or less frequently, there is room for change. I have said to the government that I believe in the end a law that sets out a general prohibition and refers to exceptions, and those exceptions and conditions are set out in regulations, is the appropriate end result of this. To do that, we need to get to committee. To get to committee, I need the support of members in the House today.

I have had considerable support from the community on this bill. I want members to know that although I've been working on it for a very short time, we have letters of support and endorsement from groups such as Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities, the Older Women's Network, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, the Alzheimer Society, the Ontario Psychogeriatric Association, the Geriatricians' Alliance.

Just yesterday the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, which represents over 400,000 retired persons across Canada, over 230,000 of them here in Ontario, endorsed this bill. Ty Turner, the chief of psychiatry at St Joseph's Health Centre, has endorsed this bill in principle. The Ontario Nurses' Association has said they believe this issue needs public debate in committee.

I've indicated to you that both the OHA and the RNAO say they're very sympathetic to the issue and have other suggestions on the way we should go about it but, again, are fully supportive of the concept of a public debate and getting to the right answer to how to handle this situation.

All of those people who have endorsed this accept the concept that at the end of the day the the law we pass in Ontario may not be worded verbatim as I have proposed to this Legislature, but they understand my goal of provoking the debate and of setting forward a bill that cobbles together best practices from around the world.

I want members to know that this is an issue that has been looked at in great detail in other jurisdictions. Do you know in the British Isles it is very rare, if ever, for restraints to be used on the patient population that I have referred to. Additionally, with all of the research that's done, a growing body of evidence, other jurisdictions that have used restraints in the past are moving to do away with them. For example, in the United States a national policy has been passed which is very similar to what is in my bill.

Adherence to this national rule is a condition of participation for hospitals in getting Medicare or Medicaid funding. Legislation in place in New Hampshire has resulted in a 20% reduction of the use of restraints. In North Carolina legislation similar to Bill 135 has been introduced in its legislature. British Columbia has already passed legislation governing the use of restraints in hospitals.

People are coming to understand that we have an aging population. In this province, one of the sad things I have to observe is that at a time when we need more and more experts in this area, we are losing our core stock of geriatricians, the specialists who understand, who can help us chart the appropriate full-person care for the elderly. That's another issue we will have to address as legislators. But that group of people understands the indiscriminate use of restraints in our hospitals.

Research that has been done shows that, for example, in the United States, 17% of patients routinely experience restraints, and they believe that's too high. In Ontario it's up to 33%. We are lagging behind the world in standards, in understanding the appropriate care.

This is about people's dignity, a right of treatment with dignity, a right of treatment without having the very essence of liberty assaulted. I know that members of this Legislature agree with the sentiment behind my bill. I pledge to work with them to get the right words so that as a Legislature all of us can agree to the content of the legislation that will go a long way, along with the education, along with the hands-on practice and demonstration, along with the efforts of all of us in this system, to do the right thing by our elderly, by our frail, by our foregoing generation.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to be here today to speak on Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act to regulate the use of restraints that are not part of medical treatment, brought forth by the member from Beaches-Woodbine. I understand and share the concerns of the member for, I should say, Beaches-East York about the inappropriate use of physical restraints in public acute care hospitals. We need to find ways to address this problem to protect the frail elderly. However, I believe that the objectives of this legislation can be better achieved through the health care professionals who provide patient care.

I understand that the Ontario Hospital Association has a position paper on the use of restraints. This paper was developed to address issues related to the use of restraints on patients in hospitals and to provide guidance to hospitals in the development of their own policies and procedures.

While this bill only addresses physical restraints and not chemical and mechanical restraints, the use of any of the above types of restraints is a clinical decision made by the patient's caregiver based on the physical and mental condition of the patient. I believe it is the role of the hospital to provide specific policies and procedures on the use of restraints that are appropriate to their own hospital. Most, if not all, hospitals already have their own policies regarding restraints.

The Ontario Hospital Association, in a recent letter to the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, stated that they were "prepared to work with member hospitals in co-operation with their clinical partners to examine existing guidelines and to develop new guidelines that incorporate the most current clinical practices respecting the use of restraints." The OHA's position paper provides a statement of duty, which clearly states that when a restraint is necessary, "hospitals should ensure that their policies related to restraints are consistent with the policy of least restraint, and that restraints may be applied only when justifiable."

Our government has taken many steps to help improve our hospital system. In 1995, when we took office, we faced a health system that was not prepared to meet the growing needs of Ontarians. Ten thousand hospital beds were closed between 1985 and 1995. No long-term-care beds were built between 1988 and 1995, despite the growing and aging population. Home care was mismanaged and underfunded. Hospitals were technologically unprepared. Our government has endeavoured to ensure that the health system is accessible to all Ontarians now and well into the future.

We have increased total health spending by $4.4 billion, to $22 billion, up 20% from 1995. Since 1995, community care spending has increased by 63%, to $1.6 billion. We are currently building 20,000 new long-term-care beds in Ontario. We have put $2.3 billion into hospitals, for the biggest capital expansion in history. Our government continues to increase necessary funding to hospitals to improve our health care system.

However, we should not be in the business of creating legislation where we attempt to regulate decisions for health care professionals that are clinical in nature. The health care provider is the one who makes the decisions as to whether or not a patient needs to be restrained, if they are at risk of causing serious bodily harm to themselves or to others. All situations are different, and the health care professionals have the knowledge and the experience to make the tough decisions.

We are listening and the stakeholders have told us that the objectives of the bill can be achieved without introducing regulations that could constrain health care professionals from exercising their best clinical judgment for each case.

In conclusion, I would suggest to the member for Beaches-East York that we should allow the Ontario Hospital Association to examine the guidelines and build upon them with member hospitals, in co-operation with their clinical partners on clinical practices respecting the use of all types of restraints. I respect the member's wishes in terms of what she's trying to accomplish here today and we're going to hear other views on that.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I'm pleased to speak in support of the bill that has been presented by the member for Beaches-East York. I want to do so not only in support of the principles and the direction of the bill, but in recognition of the personal distress which has led the member for Beaches-East York to bring this forward. It seems to me that the reason private members have the opportunity to bring forward legislation is because very often it's the reality of personal experience that shows the necessity of new legislation and changing laws.

I don't believe any one of us in this Legislature can tolerate knowing of the kind of treatment Ms Lankin's mother received-"endured" is a more appropriate term-and not want to act. The least that we can do today is to support the legislative action she has proposed.

Ms Lankin's bringing forward this legislation has made us aware that the protocols regarding the use of restraints, the kinds of protocols that already exist in the Long-Term Care Act, the kinds of protocols that are in place for those who are in psychiatric hospitals, simply do not exist for patients in acute care hospitals.

I'm not sure, indeed, that the specifics of the protocol set out in this bill would or should be found to be exactly right on more detailed consideration, on further consultation, and the member for Beaches-East York has acknowledged that she is more than willing to work to fine-tune the legislative proposals she has placed before us this morning. What I am sure of is that this legislation should receive second reading support today so that it can go on to committee and receive that kind of consideration. Furthermore, I want to see this legislation return for third reading and be proclaimed into law.

This is legislation that will indeed force acute care hospitals to examine their use of restraints. It's evident from the personal experience Ms Lankin had with her mother that there need to be clear guidelines in place for our acute care hospitals, guidelines both for the use of restraints and for monitoring when they are used.

I believe that in some hospitals, as she has indicated, there are policies in place. I believe it is also true that they're not always enforced, even when they are in place. I hear the concerns of the Ontario Hospital Association that they don't like to be overregulated, but I also believe that good legislation is consistent with good policy and in fact good legislation can be the spur for good policy as well as for its enforcement. I believe that's what we're dealing with this morning.

Unfortunately, legislation cannot minimize the use of restraints to the extent I think we would all like to see.

One of the reasons restraints are likely to be overused is a lack of staff to give personal care that's needed. I'm not offering excuses for the outright neglect the member for Beaches-East York has described, but I am concerned when we don't have enough nursing staff to provide appropriate care to non-critical patients. I am concerned when uncertainties around hospital budgets lead to the hiring of part-time casual nurses and private agency nurses who simply don't have enough knowledge of their patients to provide more personal and appropriate care.

I am concerned about our long-term-care facilities, where there may be only one nurse to 300 or 400 patients at night because there are no requirements for minimum nursing care. I am concerned that in those long-term-care facilities we're hearing from staff who believe their personal safety as well as the safety of the residents is in jeopardy, in spite of the existence of a patients' bill of rights in the Long-Term Care Act and clear protocols for such things as the use of restraints. It is no wonder that under these kinds of circumstances staff in our hospitals resort to the use of restraints.

The Geriatricians' Alliance has said, and they're offering their support for this bill, "We do not condone the use of physical restraints as a substitute for adequate staffing," nor should we, but we do need adequate staffing. The Geriatricians' Alliance also stresses the need to educate hospital staff in how to manage patients without restraints. The alliance says we need that education and that we need hospital policies and legislation to prevent the indiscriminate use of restraints.

There are other facts from the Geriatricians' Alliance that are sobering, if not shocking, and the member for Beaches-East York has mentioned some of those. I was shocked to find out that the use of restraints is much more frequent in Canada than other countries. In the US, 7% to 17% of patients in acute care hospitals may find themselves in restraints at some point,

whereas in Canada up to 33% of patients may experience the use of restraints. I was sobered to know that half of the patients who die in hospitals have been restrained at some point.

I have only a few more seconds left and I want to conclude by recognizing the support that's been offered by the Alzheimer Society for this bill. The Alzheimer Society has said that the most predictive factors of re straint use are age and confusion. Surely we can respond to the confusion of an older person with dementia without having to tie them up, without having to add to their confusion and distress. As disturbed as an Alzheimer's patient may be, that person is a feeling person. They need gentle care and not restraint.

My personal experience with my mother was fortunately different from that of the member for Beaches-East York. My mother spent the last three months of her life in a long-term-care facility. I had the good fortune that she was placed in a facility where they subscribe to the philosophy of gentle care for Alzheimer's patients, and they struggled to provide that gentle care regardless of the limitations of staff which were, in terms of shortages, very real.

My mother only had three months there before strokes took her life, but in those three months she was happier than she had been for many months prior to that because of the personal care they took to respond to her needs. Indeed, in the last month of her life, she had a lap restraint used so she could sit up in a wheelchair, but it was to enable her to sit up not to keep her in it.

I am very grateful for the care my mother received in those last three months of her life. I am very grateful that it was gentle care, that restraints were used appropriately, and with my understanding and consent as to why they were being used. I hope this legislation will make mother's experience more true for seniors, particularly seniors with dementia, in any setting in this province.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure for me to participate in debate in support of this private member's bill, Bill 135, which has been moved by my colleague from Beaches-East York. I want to say at the outset, even though my other colleagues who were here have now left, that we really do appreciate that our colleague has brought this forward.

Members should know that although our colleague from Beaches-East York said briefly that it's been a year now that she has been dealing with all of this, many of us know that in fact it has been a very difficult year for her to maintain her legislative responsibilities, which are great because she is our critic for the Ministry of Health, her constituency responsibilities in a much larger riding with a much enhanced population, and the work she has had to do with some other family members to try and keep her mom out of an institution, to keep her at home with all the supports that are necessary.

As she has related to us before, the particular experiences she and the family have had with her mom with this use of restraints has led her here today. That experience has been shocking, has been appalling, has been horrifying, and regrettably is an experience that probably thousands of other patients and families have had to experience in our acute care hospitals.

That is why we are here today. There is a time for some consultation and discussion and debate, and there is a time, I suppose, for the Ontario Hospital Association to want to develop a working group, to have some new policies and procedures for the use of restraints and some working groups for education. But you know what? I don't agree with that.

The time is now for legislation to deal with this. It is very clear that this was not an isolated incident that happened to our colleague and her mom. It is very clear from the groups that have stepped forward, have stepped up to the plate to support this bill, that in fact it is happening all too frequently, all too commonly, all too routinely, all too regularly, across our hospital system. I think the time, frankly, for working groups and discussion and debate is over. The time to have some concrete, significant action that is legislated is here and now.

That's why I encourage all members of this House to support this bill. There's something dreadfully wrong when researchers go into an Ontario hospital at 10 o'clock in the morning and 70% of the patients who are over 75 are in restraints. Imagine what that number would be like if we actually had bodies of researchers going into other Ontario hospitals. I suspect we'd see the same. That cannot be acceptable for members in this House, to know that is happening to elderly patients and their families. This is very much a call to action. I don't know how else to describe it. We need to respond positively by passing this bill, getting it through second reading and to some public hearings.

I firmly believe we need provincial standards regarding the use of restraints in acute care hospitals. I fundamentally disagree with an approach that says, "We will leave it to each individual hospital and the administrators to determine what the policies and procedures will be in that hospital with respect to use of restraints." We need provincial standards so we can guarantee that in each and every hospital across this province, no matter where you live, no matter where you are a patient, no matter where your family is trying to support you, the rules around the use of restraints in that acute care hospital will be the same.

It would not be acceptable that in my community of Sudbury the new regional hospital would decide there would be very limited use of restraints based perhaps on the guidelines of the bill, and somewhere in Toronto, Cochrane, Timmins or Kingston there is something completely different so that the use of restraints regrettably continues on a regular and routine basis. If we are going to deal with this problem, if we are going to guarantee to the elderly, to seniors and to their families that we are going to deal with the excessive use of restraints, then we have to have a provincial policy that is supported by legislation. We need to ensure we do that through this bill.

I fundamentally disagree as well with the premise that we shouldn't legislate these kinds of decisions by health care professionals, that we have to let them use their own best judgment about how to deal with this matter. I disagree with that because in Ontario now we already legislate those decisions on the use of restraints for seniors who live in Ontario nursing homes, in our charitable institutions, in our homes for the aged and in our rest homes. We already legislate those decisions and set out the guidelines that health care professionals must apply and adhere to.

Residents in those facilities are protected by a residents' bill of rights that establishes those same guidelines. The Mental Health Act also provides guidelines for restraint use in psychiatric institutions. We are already in the position in this province where we set out guidelines and expect health care professionals to adhere to them. It is a small step to then ensure that in our acute care hospitals we do the same. It's a small step but it's a very important step.

My colleague from Beaches-East York reminds me that in a press conference she held yesterday, the spokesperson who was there from the Ontario Psychogeriatric Association said very clearly that when the legislation was brought in, the residents' bill of rights that outlined the guidelines for use of restraints, yes, many health care professionals were not very happy about having to have those decisions adhered to in terms of a set of policies and procedures they had to abide by. But the law was passed, and they respected that the law was passed and they implemented what was passed in the law.

As a consequence-and this was mentioned at the press conference yesterday-the use of restraints in our charitable homes for the aged, in our rest homes and in nursing homes has dropped dramatically. Surely that is the same thing we want to see happen in our acute care hospitals. That's why we have to legislate these guidelines.

We also need to know whether or not this overuse or indiscriminate use of restraints really has to do with a lack of staff in our hospitals, because if that is why this appalling situation is occurring, then surely as legislators we all have a responsibility to deal with that. What else can it be but a lack of staff when at 10 o'clock in the morning 70% of the population over 75 in that hospital is still in restraints? How else can we describe that? How else can we determine that that is happening but to say that there must be a lack of staff and those staff are having to use restraints because they just don't have the time in the day to deal with our elderly in an appropriate situation?

We know from the evidence that has been presented already in numerous jurisdictions which have looked at this that the use of restraints does not help to prevent falls, does not help to prevent people who are already confused. In fact, it makes them more confused, more frustrated, more angry, more upset and more fearful, and causes even more medical problems in the long term than what that individual is probably in the hospital for in the first place. So there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the indiscriminate use of restraints has anything to do with clear proof that this is actually helping patients.

On the contrary, it is making their medical, their physical and their psychological situation even worse.

We have had any number of other jurisdictions which have taken the step to regulate the use of restraints in acute care hospitals, and my colleague from Beaches-East York has described those. Given her experience, which I firmly believe is the experience of thousands of other patients and their families in the province of Ontario, surely it is time for this jurisdiction, for this province, for this government, for all of us to take a similar step.

It is appalling and it is shocking that so many seniors, so many elderly, find themselves in the situation of being restrained merely because they are confused, merely because they are disoriented, merely because the staff fear that they would have a fall. That is a situation that we can rectify. We can develop-and it's very clearly set out in Bill 135-those situations where it will be necessary to use a restraint to protect patients from serious bodily injury or to protect others from injury as well.

As the member already said, some of the guidelines that are set out in terms of time frame she is quite open to amend, quite open to change. But I think we need to take the basic framework that is outlined in Bill 135 and work with that in committee through the use of public hearings to address the concerns that people may have.

In closing, I want to say again that we appreciate the work that has been done by our colleague from Beaches-East York. I think the time for action is now. We need provincial standards to regulate this. We cannot let it be done hospital by hospital. We have to have very clear standards about when restraints can be used so we guarantee that the seniors and elderly are not being inappropriately restrained in our hospitals.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to be able to make a few comments this morning on the member for Beaches-East York's private member's bill entitled

An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act to regulate the use of restraints that are not part of medical treatment. I thank the member for bringing this forward and all the other speakers today on their comments.

I'd also like to briefly thank the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care for an announcement that she made yesterday on additional mental health care funding that she provided to the Barrie-Simcoe branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association. The $1.2 million will help relieve pressures that exist today in Simcoe county. I would also like to thank the parliamentary assistant, Brad Clark, for setting up meetings with stakeholders in Simcoe county to eventually see some of this funding announced.

As I understand it, Ms Lankin had a personal experience and it brought forth one of the main reasons for presenting this private member's bill.

"The bill amends the Public Hospitals Act ... to regulate the use of restraints that are not part of a patient's medical treatment. A restraint may be used only on written order of a physician to protect the patient or others from serious bodily injury. The least restrictive restraint that will provide the necessary protection must be used. The use of a restraint in excess of two hours requires reassessment and a new order by a physician. Policies and procedures governing the use of restraints must be established by hospitals, consistent with the rules set out in the section. The policies and procedures must be provided to patients on admission and posted in patients' rooms."

I would like to go more into the background on restraints. The common law on restraint is, in general, that a caregiver has a duty to restrain when immediate action is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm to the person or others. It should be noted that the common law on restraint, and in fact the definition of "restraint" under the Mental Health Act, includes physical, mechanical and chemical restraint.

The remaining three statutes-the Nursing Homes Act, the Homes for the Aged Act and the Charitable Institutions Act-contain a residents' bill of rights that states that "every resident that is being considered for restraints has the right to be fully informed about the procedures and the consequences of receiving or refusing them."

I believe this bill has good intentions, but there are some problems with the bill-and I think the problems can be fixed-and I am not alone in my concerns. I know of a letter of David MacKinnon, President of the OHA, stating that his main reason for not supporting the bill is that the use of restraints should be a clinical decision, and policies should be established by hospitals, in consultation with caregivers. The OHA already has a set of guidelines or policies and procedures respecting the use of restraints for hospitals to follow when developing these policies.

The College of Nurses has expressed some concern that the bill requires that restraints be ordered in writing by a physician. It is within the nurse's scope of practice to determine the patient's need for restraint. There are also guidelines for nurses on the use of restraints.

The other problem with the bill, just looking through it, is that the bill addresses only physical restraints and not chemical or mechanical restraints. This may inadvertently lead to inappropriate use of other types of restraints. As well, it is my understanding that there is no other legislation that addresses restraints in such detail. I feel that this legislation could be viewed as too prescriptive for all facilities. I think problems such as this could be solved when the bill goes through the committee process.

With that, I would like to end my comments and pass on to some other speakers. I again thank the member for Beaches-East York for bringing this bill forward.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am going to support the bill. I believe it should go to committee. I think there should be representations made by various people who have these concerns. Obviously the concerns that Frances has expressed are very genuine and personal concerns, and I think it's something we all worry about as we see people, in their advanced years in particular, who are restrained, and sometimes in circumstances where we would really question that.

I would place it largely as a situation of lack of staff. I believe we need the guidelines. In not only the acute care institutions, where 15,000 nurses were fired out the door by the Harris government's policies, but also in long-term-care facilities there simply is not enough staff on many occasions. That requires an investment of funds. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that: we have to invest funds in those facilities.

But given the choice of this constant mantra of, "We must cut taxes"-and I've heard it from every political party in this country at some stage or other and to some degree or other-or provide funding for our institutions-and I say "institutions" in the best sense, in our hospital institutions, for instance-is in my view short-sighted.

I believe people in this province want to see a very adequate investment in health care. We've got to have those people-well-trained people, well-educated people-dealing particularly with our seniors, people who know about seniors in our province. The geriatric experts will tell us that this is absolutely essential.

What I fear as well is that people will become so concerned about what they perceive to be a lack of the kind of care they want because of lack of staff that we'll start to see people advancing the two-tiered health care system, similar to what they have south of the border. That's what happens when public institutions are allowed to deteriorate. People will then accept in desperation the privatization of our health care system. I think that would be a drastic error. For the wealthiest people in the province, that would be fine. I'm certain of that, because they are able to buy additional care.

But for the average person in this province, I think people of all political parties in this House over the years have been supportive of a health care system that would not allow a two-tiered regime, although I see that potentially happening.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Stockwell Day, that's what he wants.

Mr Bradley: The member for Eglinton-Lawrence says Stockwell Day was talking about that, or at least Jason Kenney for the Alliance party. I think that would be a major mistake. We've resisted that here in Ontario. They haven't in Alberta. We've resisted that here in Ontario so far, but if the federal government is not in a position to enforce the Canada Health Act, then we have a problem.

The last thing I want to say is that there's a problem with retirement homes. I think all of us have had calls from uninspected, unregistered and unregulated retirement homes. It's absolutely essential that we have inspection and supervision of those homes.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I'm pleased to speak to this bill, which is a tough bill. I wonder if I could have permission from the member for Beaches-East York to quote from her letter that she wrote to me. She says yes.

She said, "Imagine the shock and horror you would feel discovering that one of your parents was being tied up in a hospital bed." Then I quote from a second section: "Even though I left explicit instructions about what drugs could or could not be given to my mother, they were ignored. Despite explicit instructions from her family and her geriatrician that my mother not be physically restrained, she was still placed in a restraint jacket and tied down in her bed."

I have a very close personal attachment to this. I certainly sympathize with what the member from Beaches-East York is trying to do here. I had enough concerns that I gave it a lot of thought. I talked to doctors back home in my riding and I spoke with people in hospitals, and they expressed some concerns. In fact, I was taken aback by the adamance with which the doctors opposed the bill. One of the doctors-and I don't want to mention his name because he asked me not to-expressed that there is a terrible shortage of doctors throughout North America.

He said, "We simply do not have the time to assess patients every two hours. What you're trying to do to us with this bill will drive doctors out of this province. We simply cannot do it."

One of the sections of the bill maintains that the caregiver at the hospital would assess the person who is under restraint every 15 minutes and that those restraints must be lifted unless a doctor looks at it every two hours, and I would like to quote: "A restraint must not be used for a period longer than necessary and, in no case, for a period exceeding two hours unless a physician reassesses the need for the restraint and gives a new written order." The doctors were quite opposed to this. In addition, there has been reference made this morning to a letter which was written by David McKinnon of the Ontario Hospital Association, and I'm going to quote from his letter.

"While we are sympathetic to the issues raised by the bill, the Ontario Hospital Association is concerned that regulating practices that are essentially clinica1 in nature may undermine the ability of health care professionals to provide patient care."

Going on further, he says, "The OHA is prepared to work with member hospitals in co-operation with our clinical partners, to examine existing guidelines and to develop new guidelines that incorporate the most current clinical practices respecting the use of restraints in hospitals."

Further on he says, "I believe that we can achieve the objectives of Bill 135 without introducing regulations that may ultimately constrain the ability of health care professionals to exercise their best clinical judgment."

I think the key words here are "health care professionals." They are professionals, and we need to rely on them to use their professional expertise from time to time. I don't think we should get involved in philosophy, ie, whether or not we should set provincial standards which would micromanage. I don't want to see the discussion get down to that.

I sympathize a great seal with what the member is trying to bring forward here, but I'm probably in a minority when I say I cannot support the bill.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to stand and support the bill the member from Beaches-East York is bringing forward.

Let me start by saying that my caucus, the Ontario Liberal Party and Dalton McGuinty, believes that this member has been very courageous to bring forward a bill that so impacts on residents in Ontario and in particular on Ms Lankin's own family. It's very difficult to stand in the House day after day, but in particular when it is something that is so close to you and something that you live with every day. It really stands to reason that we should be applauding this member for doing something that is so courageous.

Many of us probably will never have the opportunity to do something that is going to be so meaningful to Ms Lankin's family. I want to applaud you for that and tell you that it's a very courageous thing you've done today. I want to support the bill. I plan on voting in favour of the bill. I encourage all members of the House to do so.

The bill is about resources for the hospital sector. There is no question that hospitals are under siege in Ontario today. I just came from a Ontario Nurses' Association meeting. They're having their convention these last three days and they finish tomorrow. Barbara Wahl was speaking this morning, and she told us that of her ONA membership, 56% are not working full-time. It's an incredible statistic, made more incredible by the fact that we have a nursing shortage in Ontario. We need nurses desperately, and the examples that Ms Lankin brought forward today, including her own mom in a hospital, have everything to do with who is available on the floor to care for patients.

I've had too much opportunity over the last five and a half years since my election to spend time in hospitals, not just in my own community of Windsor West, in Windsor Regional Hospital and the Hotel Dieu Hospital, but right across Ontario, with an inordinate amount of time in the London hospitals as well. There aren't enough nurses on the floor to care for patients. Barbara Wahl said something interesting this morning. She said, "When they can't give what's needed, it hurts." I can tell you the people who work in the system know what they should be providing and know that today in Ontario they are not providing the level of care that's required.

There are issues in hospitals; there are issues in long-term-care facilities. Regulations that this government has changed have dropped the level and the standard of what nursing care would be given in our long-term-care facilities. They just wrote by regulation that it's no longer required to have a set higher level of care. They've dropped the standard. While members want to talk about increased funding in health care, what we know is the reality in our hospitals, in our long-term-care facilities. There is less care available, not because professionals don't want to provide the care; there simply aren't enough professionals who are working to give it.

The specifics of the bill: there are things that I think the member is perfectly prepared to discuss when the bill gets to committee. The whole reality of whether or not a doctor would be able, for example, to be back in the room to check every two hours, as is requested at this point in the private member's bill, is something that I would hope the member is prepared to review. Perhaps as a committee we would come together and say that maybe it would be a professional, maybe it would be a nurse who would do that checking on a patient on a regular basis.

It is something that even the hospitals-while David McKinnon from the OHA may write a letter and suggest why this thing can't happen, I think it's time that the Ontario Legislature says, "Why can't it happen?" In fact, let's look at what is required in the system to make this happen. Why can't we say that unless there's some very unusual circumstance which-in my view, you wouldn't want to physically restrain any rational person on the street unless you absolutely had to. If you were going to physically restrain in a hospital setting, there would be a set condition when that applied, as opposed to the reverse: having to explain away the number of times you've done it.

The truth is, not every family has the opportunity to be around the patient 24 hours a day, and the nurses simply aren't around. It becomes convenient in many instances to restrain patients instead of having nurses attend them on a regular basis. It is something that we, as family members-and all of us have been in circumstances, or will be, where we have had the experience that the member from Beaches-East York has had. When that happens to us, we will have wished that we voted in favour of this bill.

I applaud the member for bringing it forward. It's very timely, given the kinds of shortages in the nursing staff we see across the bill. I hope the bill goes forward to committee. I look forward to speaking to it and to seeing exactly how we can improve it and make it law.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm pleased to respond and speak on this particular bill and certainly have the greatest respect for the member for Beaches-East York and empathize with her in the situation that she's in. I had a similar one a few years ago.

But I am indeed surprised at this vote of non-confidence in the member's unions' brothers and sisters, particularly in the nursing profession. I certainly don't share that lack of confidence. I support our hard-working nurses, our medical professionals and recognize the difficulties of the job they perform, although, as I mentioned, I do empathize with her situation.

My own personal experience was back in 1981, when my father had a massive stroke and was in bed for five weeks prior to death. It was a pretty rough situation as he struggled to get out of bed; he developed bed sores. I searched my mind for what was wrong here. I had no alternative suggestion, and certainly the nursing profession were extremely kind and supportive. They put him on a waterbed, which helped significantly. But it really tugs at your heart to see that kind of thing going on.

This legislation really tars everyone with the same brush, and I'd urge the member to work with organizations like the ONA, RNAO and the OHA to review their policies. I believe there's strong accountability in the nursing profession, particularly as it's administered through the Ontario College of Nurses. If any of the members have ever read their magazine, you'll know that those convicted of professional misconduct are subjected to severe and very public consequences.

Not only can their licences be revoked and workers suspended, the names of those offenders, their misconduct and their place of last employment are published for the entire profession to see. I think that's quite a severe penalty. I believe the college does an excellent job of censuring those who break the rules or endanger any patient's safety.

I'm concerned that this legislation is like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Beaches-East York has two minutes.

Ms Lankin: I want to speak to my appreciation of all members who have participated here.

For those who say the bill is too prescriptive, I have already indicated that my attempt in this bill was to get the debate going-and I think that has happened, and that's good-and that I believe through committee an appropriate bill that sets out a general prohibition and brings the specifics and the clinical guidelines into regulations, and we work with the professions to do that, would be the appropriate end result.

But I have to say that people who make comments that there's an objection, for example, to monitoring every 15 minutes-as some of you know, I used to be a jail guard in Ontario. When I put someone in physical restraints or put them in an isolation cell-solitary confinement-I had to monitor them every 15 minutes. I think you've got to take a look at what the reality is here and the people we're dealing with. They're not flies to be swatted with a fly swatter-or a hammer. These are our citizens who have built this country, and we somehow don't have within us the understanding of what is happening to our senior citizens.

For those who say laws don't work, we have laws in place in long-term-care facilities, in psychiatric hospitals. Why should acute care hospitals be any different?

I appreciate the response of the OHA, and I appreciate their offer to do more work, and we'll work with them on that. But I have to say that all of the evidence that's out there doesn't support the argument that this should be left to just clinical decision-making. If you can have virtually 0% in the British Isles, 17% in the United States and find 33% of incidents of restraint in Canada, clinical decision-making isn't working.

Let me tell you, this bill-people have spoken about my mom, and I appreciate it-is not for her. She's got a strong advocate. It won't happen again to her. What I want you to join with me in doing is make sure it doesn't happen to any of our citizens.

The Deputy Speaker: That completes the time allocated for this ballot item. The votes will be taken at noon.

DRUG USE IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mrs Julia Munro (York North):

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario,

(

a) believes that the introduction of illegal drugs into correctional institutions is a grave danger to correctional staff;

(

b) believes that illegal drugs cause violent and erratic behaviour in offenders;

(

c) knows that the use of illegal drugs compromises the ability of offenders to successfully complete treatment programs to overcome their addictions;

(

d) supports action to eliminate the use of illegal drugs in correctional institutions;

(

e) introduces regular and random drug tests of all sentenced, remand and intermittent offenders in Ontario's correctional facilities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mrs Munro has moved ballot item number 50. The member has up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Munro: I would like to share my time today with the Minister of Correctional Services, the Honourable Rob Sampson; the member from Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop; and the parliamentary assistant for the Chair of Management Board and the member for Brampton Centre, Joe Spina.

I rise today to speak to a resolution I believe is consistent with our government's agenda. Our agenda recognizes the importance of safety for all citizens. Our agenda recognizes the need to provide help and specific services to enable people to lead safe, law-abiding and successful lives. Our agenda recognizes the need for everyone to enhance their quality of life.

This resolution fits that criteria. It deals with a segment of the population that is at extreme risk. It also deals with the safety of staff and the public at large. It provides a means of identifying inmates and intermittent offenders who would benefit from drug rehabilitation programs.

This resolution deals with drug abuse in our correctional facilities. Everyone knows that illegal drugs create a huge cost to our communities. What is less well-known is the enormous repercussions illegal drugs have in our prison system. Substance abuse plays a significant

part in criminal behaviour. In Ontario, a staggering 83% of adult inmates in correctional institutions and 61% of adult offenders serving sentences in the community are found to have some degree of alcohol or drug dependency.

Illegal drugs in our correctional facilities have a negative impact on inmates. Let me explain the devastating results of the current situation. The availability of illegal drugs in our correctional facilities has a negative impact on inmates. With the availability of drugs, an inmate with a drug problem will be discouraged from participating in drug rehabilitation programs. As well, without the ability to avoid a drug-ridden environment, most individuals, once released, will still be addicts. If an inmate wanted to deal with a drug problem in an effective way, it would be next to impossible with drugs all around them.

By dealing with the issue of drugs in our correctional institutions, we will be able to effectively treat people who are addicts. I give the following dramatic example of how serious this situation is. In August of this year, members of the vice and drug unit of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Service, in co-operation with members of the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre security staff, had been involved in a month-long investigation involving the trafficking of controlled drugs into the detention centre.

On August 30, a male was arrested walking into the detention centre in possession of various types of suspected controlled substances, including heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana and hash worth approximately $4,500. A Hamilton man was arrested and has been charged.

The issue of intermittent offenders and drug abuse is a severe hindrance to law enforcement officers and to those individuals who are addicts. Intermittent offenders are in and out of prisons on a regular basis to serve their sentence part-time. This is a ready-made opportunity for illegal drugs to go in and out as well.

Individuals who are serving an intermittent sentence are targets of drug dealers and pushers. An operational manager at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre has said, "People go to courtrooms and watch proceedings to see who is going in on Fridays. They will approach the prisoners and order them to deliver drugs and won't tolerate no for an answer." Intimidation is an extremely powerful tool and is used regularly in Ontario courtrooms and prisons.

A 26-year-old mother of three died on September 5, 1998, in the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre where she was serving an intermittent 30-day sentence for theft. A 24-year-old man died on June 12, 1999, in the Niagara Detention Centre where he was serving an intermittent 90-day sentence for a driving offence. Both died of drug overdoses. The 26-year-old mother's autopsy showed a combination of drugs she had taken: methadone, diazepam and cocaine. The combination of these drugs would have depressed her central nervous system, her breathing became shallow and she choked on her vomit.

Josephine was one of the last people to see John before he checked into the Thorold detention centre and died of a methadone overdose. Every Friday night John prepared himself before he stepped into custody for the weekend. He would gas up, which means he would take some methadone, and then he would pack a suitcase. The term "suitcase" refers to the concealing of a balloon in his lower bowel when he went into jail. John took extra drugs because he didn't want to run out. John was addicted to methadone, which he took every day, and other illegal drugs.

John, who was 24 years old, was serving a three-month intermittent sentence for dangerous driving. He was found dead in his cell the next morning. He had overdosed on a combination of Valium and methadone and a quantity of other prescription drugs that were found in the balloon in his lower bowel. He was the second inmate in the past two years to die of a drug overdose while serving a weekend sentence.

The reality is that offenders are arriving at correctional facilities already high and with concealed drugs in their bodies. What chance is there for them to break the cycle of drug dependency and criminal activity? How can our families and communities be safe?

The creation of a drug and alcohol testing program for offenders is part of the Ontario government's commitment to increase public safety, create more secure and efficient institutions and lower re-offending rates. Substance abuse is a known factor contributing to criminal behaviour.

By introducing this resolution, we can tell the people of Ontario that this government and this Legislature care about giving the people a hand up. Without testing for controlled substances, we have no way of knowing that these individuals are suffering from a terrible addiction disease and we are unable to assist them in recovery.

Drug abuse in correctional institutions is a very serious problem. In the examples I have given it is clear that lives are lost, staff are at risk and our communities are threatened. Eighty-three per cent of inmates are drug users. I am sure you will agree with me that this resolution addresses serious problems that are the result of inmates using drugs in our correctional institutions.

Having random as well as targeted drug tests in Ontario's correctional facilities will deter criminals from bringing and using drugs in institutions. Knowing that they could be tested at any time, without warning, and have to face significant penalties, including an increase in time spent in jail, will likely deter some inmates from using drugs, while at the same time having programs available to treat addictions will also assist inmates in helping to overcome these addictions.

I believe that random drug and alcohol testing for offenders in both adult institutions and under community supervision will enhance the ability of the Ministry of Correctional Services to monitor offenders' compliance with court and release orders, and thereby, re-offending rates. This, in turn, would create safer communities.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'd like to commend the member for bringing to the floor a resolution that needs to be debated in this House, and also needs to be debated in the province.

First of all, the ministry should be making more of an attempt to make sure that drugs don't get into the institution instead of dealing with drugs that are already in. One way that could be done would be to avoid fed bashng and move to a federal program that's been instituted that is working perfectly. That's the ion X-ray machine scanners that are used to help alleviate the problem at the door before it goes in. The federal program is highly successful in detecting those drugs before they even enter the institution.

What was the excuse given by the government? "It is just too expensive. We can't do it." They give lip service that they want to remove that process. They would have gone to the federal program that was instituted called the ion X-ray scanners.

This is a resolution that talks to the Minister of Correctional Services' recent bill that simply says, "It's a smokescreen. We want to get privatization in here, but we've got to wrap it around something else so that everybody in the province is going to say, `We can accept that. We want drug testing. We want to keep drugs out of the prisons.'"

Everybody wants that. We don't want drugs in the system because it jeopardizes the safety of our correctional officers, who work hard day in and day out on a regular basis. If the ministry were really interested in making sure those members were safe and secure, along with the rest of community, they would have introduced those ion scanners early, quickly and completely.

This is similar to the much-heralded announcement that work programs were going to be expanded to try to provide those people with an opportunity for optimism, when in fact the programs in the province, since 1995, have been depleted and reduced. We're now looking at a program that we need to have improved. They're talking about it again: lip service.

This is similar to the much-heralded zero tolerance for violence against correctional staff announcement, when in fact the offender who had a gun and threatened correctional staff at the Yonge Street probation and parole office was given a mere slap on the wrist. If we go back to the records we will realize that that person, who accosted someone with a gun, simply got a slap on the wrist. That's not justice. Unsupervised probation was what he was given, apparently. The Ministry of Correctional Services' staff did not tell the Attorney General they were getting tough on these offences because the Attorney General gave that guy a slap on the wrist too.

This is similar to the much-heralded announcement that correctional officers would be given new ranks and seniority status within the profession in order to foster respect and dignity. This week over 500 correctional officers were given notice that they either had to accept a job in a private prison or else find work somewhere else-that's respect?-a facility they know will be more dangerous and less secure because all the statistics around the world prove there's a 50% increase in assaults on correctional officers in private institutions. We also know there's a 47% turnover of correctional officers when you move to a correctional institution that's run by privateers.

There's also the electronic monitoring program that was supposed to be expanded, which has hardly been used. In the one facility I visited, we were told the program was up and running. I said, "How many times have you used it?" It was zero. The ministry has mismanaged the program and these individuals who are hired to do monitoring have not monitored anybody.

Perhaps before the Ministry of Correctional Services pushes on the new initiatives, they should concentrate on the glaring problems that were pointed out by the Provincial Auditor. The auditor indicated there was a very large amount of money being wasted in private institutions: With the first one they heralded as being a great success, there was $400,000 that the auditor said was above and beyond the contract.

Let's talk about the programs. The treatment programs across the province have been reduced, outside the correctional institutions and in the entire province. They've been flatlined in terms of the amount of money they've been offered for support. A lot of people are on waiting lists who can't even get those services to help them with drug rehabilitation. The auditor indicated the intermittent programs, in terms of the outside, allowing the temporary absence passes.

When the programs were being offered, in the use of the temporary absence programs, they were to be very good because they would address rehabilitation and the progress of the inmate not to reoffend. Instead, it was pointed out that it was a major problem, that there was overcrowding, that these people were getting away and weren't going into programs.

What did the corrections minister decide to do? He decided to cancel the entire program. He stopped the entire program, stopped those programs that were successful and overcrowded his jails again. As well, the cost of the jails skyrocketed, at a time when the number of inmates has gone down. That is the mismanagement we were talking about the other day, Minister, when the Provincial Auditor's report came out.

In terms of the idea of stopping drugs from coming into the jails, we believe strongly on this side that we should be working very hard and diligently to make sure those drugs do not show up in the jails. There was mention made by the honourable member for York North about, "Let's stop the drugs from coming out." Well, let's stop the drugs from coming in; that's the real issue. Where is the investment in this? This resolution is quite good in terms of motherhood, but where is the investment discussion?

The investment discussion needs to take place around the idea that the implementation of ion X-ray scanners would eradicate an awful lot of the problems. She made a comment about what's going on in the courts; they have the preying junkies who are saying, "We need to get those drugs in and out of the system." Where's the security there? Where's the tougher security to make sure we can identify these people?

I want to take a proactive stance instead of a reactive stance, as this government continues to do. The reactive stance that this government is taking is saying, "We want to do what compromises the offenders from successfully completing their treatment programs to overcome their addictions." In terms of the problem that the member is trying to point out, we have to remember this: if we stop the drugs from entering the jails in the first place, we will not have to deal with how strong is their need to take those drugs.

In many of the jails that I've visited across the province, there have been members who said to me, "If we stopped these things from coming in, in the first place, our jobs would be made easier, society would be safer and we wouldn't have to deal with scraping some of the inmates off the floor from these overdoses." I would suggest and respectfully submit that this is nothing but a smokescreen that simply says we have to prepare these people to accept the bill that the minister is going to step forward and introduce in the near future, and have us accept the fact that we couched this wonderful bill with all of the privatization that they're talking about.

We have a very serious problem here. The resolution being offered right now is commendable. We do want to recognize that drugs are not acceptable in our society-drugs are not acceptable in our society outside of our prisons. They have underfunded the addiction problems; they've underfunded the programs that the jails had at one time in terms of recovery. Now they turn around and say, "But we've got a problem with drugs." By the way, they've diminished the use of dogs; they won't invest in the innovative X-ray machines that the federal government is using. They're not putting their money where their mouth is.

One of the things I caution the public in understanding is that when this bill gets introduced, we're all going to be expected to talk about it and support it strictly on the fact that we don't want drugs being used in out jail system. Very clandestinely we're going to be looking at a piece of legislation that's basically opening the door and permitting privatization.

Therein lies the big rub, because when you introduce privatization across the world, there is an increased use of drugs, there is an escalation in violence against our correctional officers, there's an increased use of violence by the inmates themselves and there's a reduction in programs being offered to help them deal with their problems.

One of the last comments I want to make regarding this resolution and the bill itself that's going to be put in front of us is that the Minister of Correctional Services has had in front of him for months now, from a client and a constituent in Brant, from experts and former correctional officers, a program called the Alternative Solution, which deals exactly with the problem that the member is trying to address today. Instead of worrying about the drugs themselves, it's the rehabilitation and the addiction they're dealing with.

As she said, a very high percentage in the 1980s had a problem with drugs, but it's not just drugs, it's all types of illicit problems. If you don't get the inmates to understand there is a problem, through programs that are designed inside, you're going to keep coming to that revolving door.

I fear one major problem. The revolving door is going to continue as long as we are moving ourselves away from publicly run, publicly accountable institutions to privateers who are in it to make money. Why? Because they need to fill the prisons. They need to have them full, they need to have more people coming in, and that means we have to reduce the programs to stop them from coming in. If we don't have recidivism rates drop, then the privateers are going to be all smiles and say, "Thanks very much, because we get to continue making tons of profit."

Mr Speaker, I have ended my time and I defer to the honourable member.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm happy to have a chance to speak on this subject this morning, in that it is consistent with a number of things that this government has been doing over the last number of weeks in the middle of a federal election to try and prop up and support the hot-button agenda of their federal Alliance counterparts.

There isn't anybody, I think, in this place who could not support initiatives to do the kinds of things that are contained in this resolution, if it wasn't so obviously a blatant attempt to do other things-another Trojan Horse-and I've spoken about those on a number of occasions over the last six years in this place.

This is another hot button issue in the middle of a federal election. It's paving the way for the privatization of prisons, and it's as well handing over to their private sector friends another opportunity to make money at the expense of the public accounts.

The legislation the minister introduced this past week, in keeping with the spirit of the legislation the Minister of Community and Social Services is going to introduce to make it mandatory for people on social assistance to be tested for drugs, which is in keeping with the spirit of yesterday's big, grandiose press conference to talk about welfare fraud, is to victimize and to demonize individuals in our society who need that least of all, who actually need to be worked with, to be given programs to correct their circumstance and their situation.

This government isn't interested in that. This government on every occasion has taken away from those people on the front lines who deliver these programs, who actually have a direct interest in making sure that their workplace is safe, their ability to do that by reducing their numbers and taking away the programs that were put in place by previous governments to make sure that those things in fact were happening. The prison system in Ontario until this government took over was the envy of the rest of this country and many jurisdictions around the world.

Since then it has begun to deteriorate in a major and significant way, and it's simply because this government is ideologically bound and determined to turn it over to the private sector so that their friends and benefactors can make some money at the expense of these folks and at the expense of the public trough. There's no interest whatsoever in the issue of good and successful and helpful corrections behaviour and activity.

The legislation that the minister introduced is not only laughable but totally unnecessary. It's another attempt by the Tories to give out contracts to their corporate pals by privatizing drug and alcohol testing rather than cracking down on the real problem of how drugs are getting into our jails in the first place.

If the minister sat down and talked to correctional officers instead of his corporate friends, he would understand the link between drugs entering jails and understaffing, overpopulation, under-resourcing and the elimination of rehabilitation programs. Perhaps the government is simply acknowledging what we have suspected: with privatization of our prisons, the problem of drugs and violence in correctional facilities will get worse, not better. They are creating a problem within a problem, all so they can justify giving away millions in contracts to American for-profit prison corporations.

My colleague Mr Kormos the other day, in responding to the legislation introduced by the minister, had this to say:

"I would ask the minister to please have read his own statute before he made the announcement today. It's naïve to the point of outright wrong to suggest that he's introducing any sort of new regime. The fact is that superintendents of prisons across this province had the power, by way of discipline, to extend prison sentences beyond the two thirds and revoke portions exceedingly in greater numbers of the statutory remission for decades. The reality is that Mr Sampson hasn't had enough interest in the correctional system here in Ontario to call upon superintendents in our prisons to in fact do that."

The other issue I think we need to deal with here this morning-and if you don't believe me, if you don't want to listen to me, if you think that I'm ideologically driven as well, let's listen to some of the players out there who have been working in this industry for quite some time now. One of Canada's top criminal lawyers said on Monday, "The tougher parole standards would create more prison unrest and help future privatized jails in Ontario turn in a bigger profit." Imagine that. Clayton Ruby said the new plan "is helping pave the way for private prisons. Ontario's Tory government plans to open a pilot, privatized superjail in Penetanguishene, Ontario, next year.

"`This is an attempt to help private prison operators control inmates without spending money on adequate food, programs, rehabilitation and psychiatric care,' said the high-profile criminal lawyer."

That's confirmed by some of the findings of the Provincial Auditor this week in his report when he talked about the prison system and how they're spending more money to put facilities in place that will deliver less service, and will add in the long haul to, yes, perhaps the private sector, which will ultimately take it over because we're building the facilities for them, making a whole lot more profit. We know that's not beyond this government to do. He also says that the Harris government "has cut most of the rehabilitation programs that matter, such as continuing education."

Another gentleman who is held in high regard in this province where dealing with corrections issues and people in our jails is concerned, the executive director of the John Howard Society, says, "Keeping someone in jail until the last day of their sentence does not make a community safer."

I certainly support what these gentlemen are saying. Our caucus at Queen's Park, in watching over the last five or six years the diminishing of our correctional system in its ability to do its job-the wholesale move to privatize and turn over corrections to the private sector, thinking that they will deliver it more cost-effectively and more effectively where rehabilitation is concerned-will prove in the long run to be a huge mistake. We should look at the experience of some of the American jurisdictions where they've done this.

In wrapping up and bringing some conclusion to my comments here this morning, I would suggest to the minister that he spend a bit more time out there talking to superintendents and talking to the correctional workers. Come up to my community a bit more often and spend some time at the Northern Treatment Centre, because there is good work going on there. If he will resource it effectively and properly and enter into partnership with the federal government to make sure that we have the resources we've always had to provide that good work, he will be improving and doing what he says he wants to do to the correctional institution.

This is, no more, no less, this government supporting their friends the Canadian Alliance in a federal election by pushing another hot button issue, done in partnership with the Minister of Community and Social Services, who this week and last week kicked again the recipients of social assistance twice, not because they've done anything wrong but because it's politically an attractive thing to be doing, it seems, unfortunately, in the world we live in today.

This is paving the way for the privatization of our prisons and it's handing over to this government's private sector partners another opportunity to make money at the expense of all of us.

The Deputy Speaker: Just to remind members, because I've noticed we may be a little bit confused about how it works during private members' hour, we don't need to mention we're sharing time. It goes 15 minutes for each caucus around the room.

The Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): Thank you very much, Speaker, for that advice.

I want to thank the member from York North for her insight in drafting this resolution and bringing it before the House for discussion today. I certainly have listened intently, and I will listen for the rest of the morning to the discussion from other members of the House, but so far to the members from Brant and Sault Ste Marie who have gone on their traditional rant on privatization. I want to say to the people watching today, what we're planning here is a drug testing program that will apply to all institutions. It doesn't matter who should be running them; what should matter is indeed how they are being run.

We think it's appropriate, in order to get at the rampant problem of drugs in institutions, to first identify the extent of the problem. You can really only do that if you test. How else would you know how bad the problem is until you perform a random test to determine the extent of the problem?

The member for Brant ranted on about technology that is being used in some other jurisdictions, inclusive of the federal system where, by the way, drug use is about the same as what we have in the provincial institutions, if not in some cases higher. In fact, I heard a story in one institution where they're actually allowing inmates to grow marijuana so that they can consume it inside, because that's part-

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): You know someone who knows someone who knows someone. Name names. What institutions?

Hon Mr Sampson: I say to the member from Hamilton, if you believe that drugs in an institution are a problem, then support-

The Deputy Speaker: The minister has the floor. It is not a chorus.

Mr Agostino: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd appreciate it if the minister would mention the institution as well. I think all of Ontario would like to know.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Sampson: I say to the member, all he has to do is listen to the radio interview that I did yesterday morning on CFRB, when one of the newscasters on that interview commented about this. You might want to call that person.

Mr Agostino: Is that your research: CFRB?

Hon Mr Sampson: I say to the member opposite-and I should be speaking through you, Speaker, and I know that's the challenge here.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sampson: I say to the member across the floor, if you believe that drugs are a problem in institutions, then you should support this resolution.

I say to the member from Brant, who spoke to this item, that various technologies can be used to deal with the problem. I agree. In fact, we may embark upon the use of different technologies to deal with that. But there's no use putting the technologies in place if you don't know what it is you're trying to deal with, how extensive the problem is, because the problem of how-

Mr Agostino: How do you know it's a problem, though?

Hon Mr Sampson: If you don't know how extensive the problem is, you don't know what technologies to prohibit the entrance of drugs into institutions one should use.

Part of the problem in dealing with drug addiction is making sure those who have these challenges recognize these problems and are prepared to deal with them. The testing program we've put in place will allow the individuals who are still on drugs and addicted to drugs in institutions to recognize that addiction because it will show up through the testing results we will receive as a result of the program.

I say to the members opposite, I find it very difficult to understand their objection to this resolution. I firmly support the resolution. I think the member from York North has done some tremendous work on this and I encourage her to continue. I will listen to the debate, as I listened opposite, with some concern as I hear that they are not prepared to support it.

Mr Agostino: I found it interesting to hear the minister talk about "rampant use," but then he said, "We have to do that so we can find out what the problem is." Earlier, the minister believed it was a massive problem in our jails. I appreciate that the research for the minister is done by state radio CFRB.

Clearly, this resolution is cutely worded. It's a cute code resolution that this government is expert at. The reality is that it's motherhood and apple pie and the basics. Who in their right mind would say, "Gee, we should support people using drugs in jails"? Of course that's wrong and of course we all believe that, but when you look at this resolution, it does nothing to deal with the problem. All it does is say, "Drugs are bad. Let's random-test prisoners. That takes care of the problem." It doesn't deal with the real problem. First of all, what do you do when they test positive?

Is the government now going to commit to setting up treatment programs in jails for inmates who test positive or are we just going to say, "You tested positive and we'll just throw away the key"?

The resolution talks about people who have been remanded. Again, you're talking about someone who I still believe, unlike the Tory government, is innocent until proven guilty. If someone is in an institution-they've been remanded, they have to appear in court, they have to appear for bail-in any of those situations you're going to drug-test that individual. Again, the person up to this point has not been proven guilty of anything, but you're going to drug-test him. This government has absolutely no respect for the fundamental rights of individuals. We saw it with welfare. This follows the lead of Minister Baird's welfare testing. This is simply hot button politics.

If they want to deal with the real problem in our institutions, let's deal with the real problems there. Let's deal with the tour I took of the detention centre in Hamilton a few weeks ago, where there are two guards for 72 inmates. Look at the danger you're putting those guards in. Look at the potential you have for problems in jails.

Why don't we talk about the fact that we have three or four people per cells that were built for one? Why don't we look at the danger there? Why don't we look at this policy that this minister and this government have, because you've cut out the nursing staff in jails, where jail guards who are not trained medical professionals are being forced by this government, against their will, to hand out prescription drugs? They are forced against their will, and if they refuse to, as Ed Almeida, the president of the local union, did in Hamilton, they're disciplined.

They're saying, "We don't know if someone reacts differently to a drug. We don't know if there's going to be a problem. We are jail guards-professional, trained jail guards." They're not nurses or medical people. They should not be handing our prescription drugs to inmates as part of their routine, but this government is forcing them to do that.

Those are some of the causes of the overdoses. Those are some of the problems that occur, but this government as usual just hides its head in the sand and says, "You know what? It's just hot button politics. Here we go. Let's just test them and that solves the problem." Where are the resources? Where are the resources to ensure that we have a system that, once we do that, if that's what you choose to do, there's treatment available? To what end is this, if there isn't?

I was interested that the minister's speaking in support of the resolution, but the minister had absolutely no answer as to what he'd do at that point, what he's do at the point where someone tests positive. Maybe the member who brought this resolution forward can address that in her remarks. Are there going to be programs in place? Is there funding that will be available? Are there treatment programs or are we just simply doing it so we know how many people are using it?

As my colleague from Brant spoke about, technology is available to stop it at the source, from getting into the jails. You're not using that. Staffing, as I said earlier, is part of the problem and the fact that we don't have enough staff, as we've seen in Hamilton. They have no standards. Understand that federally there are standards as to the number of inmates there can be for the number of guards. Provincially, we have no such standards, and if we do, they're not applied. Most of us would think it's unreasonable for two guards to be looking after 72 inmates. It is just unrealistic. It is unsafe.

I ask this government, if you're concerned about the situation in our jails, invest some money, invest some resources, back up those men and women who risk their lives every day on the front line in the jails, looking after the inmates, protecting the community. That's where your focus should be. Put some real investment into looking after and helping the people who risk their lives every single day to protect us, protect our community and look after inmates in our jails.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I am really pleased to participate in this debate. Let me begin by saying that it's really clear that that 42% pay increase has really cut into this government's currency. Even its core supporters must have been really angry, because in the last week the government's done everything it can to try and divert attention away from the piggy-at-the-trough pay scheme and trying to retain some of that core support again. We see the Minister of Community and Social Services coming in and whacking social assistance recipients.

Here we are today with a resolution where the government pretends it's going to get tough on crime and criminals, when the resolution does nothing of the sort, and neither will the legislation that the minister's introduced.

Minister, look, if you are interested in dealing with a drug problem in our jails, then you will figure out how the drugs are getting into the jails in the first place and you'll do something about it. We've got a serious problem here. We've got a problem that there is understaffing, under-resourcing in our jails. We need more correctional officers, but the government doesn't want to deal with that. We probably have an overpopulation of inmates in too many of our jails too. We've got a serious problem about drugs coming into the facilities, and neither the member who put forward the resolution nor the minister who put forward the bill is doing anything about that.

Let me give you an example at the Sudbury jail. The Sudbury jail had a courtyard where the inmates used to be able to have some exercise. The problem is the courtyard is quite close to the parking lot, and they had a problem with people standing in the parking lot throwing drugs over the fence into the courtyard. So now the inmates can't use the courtyard at all. Instead of putting a roof on the facility, which might actually solve this problem, the Sudbury jail supervisory staff said they can't get the money and they don't have the money to even put a roof on.

Here's one small example of drugs coming into a jail. This is how the government responds. We don't even have enough money to put a roof on to stop the flow of drugs into that courtyard and then into the jail. This is ridiculous.

Look, this government has an abysmal track record when it comes to programs for inmates. The auditor made that very clear in his report. Minister, here it is. Let me just give you one quote, page 90: "Twenty-seven per cent of the correctional program recommendations for meeting the needs of inmates were not met as the recommended programs were not even available."

We're going to test inmates and you would think that after we test the inmates, we're going to try and have treatment programs for them, but the government is cutting back on its rehab programs in its jails. I'll just give you the example at the Rideau Correctional Centre, where there were five-week and 10-week intensive programs for drug rehabilitation. Rideau is closing down, and there goes the drug treatment programs that were actually in effect at one centre in this province.

Not only does the government not have rehab programs in most of its jails so it can't deal with offenders who have drug problems, but the fact is the government has also cut some of those supports to individuals who are being identified as having drug problems even before they got to the jail.

Let me give you another example in Sudbury. In Sudbury, the E. Fry Society operated a bail verification and supervision program. They got a small operating grant from this ministry for two part-time staff to go to the Sudbury jail to advocate for females who were up on charges to commit to judges that they would supervise the conditions set by the judges and make sure these female offenders would participate in any number of anger management and drug and alcohol addiction programs. By agreeing to do the supervision, judges and the E. Fry Society made sure that hundreds of women were kept out of the jails and actually went and got help and went to those programs and got clean.

Do you know what this government did? Three years ago, this government pulled the rug on the E. Fry Society in my community, and in Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay as well. It's interesting that all those ridings were served by opposition members. In any event, the government pulled the rug on those programs and withdrew the operating supports. Do you know what happens now? Women who are going to court on any variety of charges who do need anger management programs or drug and alcohol treatment programs can't get those programs because there is no organization now in place that will agree to supervise them.

As a consequence, all those women are being thrown in jail and there ain't any rehab treatment programs at the Sudbury jail.

So what have we accomplished? Absolutely nothing, because women who were previously getting help with the support of E. Fry, previously having to be in those programs because it was a condition of supervision that the E. Fry Society had agreed to meet, they got their money yanked by this government and all of those women now aren't getting treatment and are sitting in jail for a lot longer.

If we've got a drug problem now in our institutions, and clearly the member who moved the resolution said that we did, imagine what that drug problem is going to be like when we move to private jails. Is the private sector interested in putting money into rehab programs? Absolutely not. Is the private sector interested in seeing some of its profits being diverted for rehabilitation programs for inmates? Absolutely not.

We know, if we look at the examples already in the United States-we have Wackenhutt and we have Corrections Corp of America-that in the private jails, the incidences of contraband, incidences of violence, incidences of murder and incidences of escape were far higher in the private institutions than those that were run in the public sector. There is more than one report that has been done to confirm that.

The public should be really concerned because it's clear that we do have a problem of drugs in our jail. It's also clear that the government is doing nothing to get at the problem of drugs coming in our jail. Now the government wants to hand that problem off to the private sector, which is not terribly interested in rehabilitation programs at all. People should be awfully concerned about who is going to protect jail guards in our institutions. Communities should be awfully concerned about who is going to guarantee their community safety.

I am opposed to this resolution because it makes very clear that this government is not interested in dealing with the real problem, which is how drugs are getting into our institutions in the first place. If they really cared about this situation, that's what they'd do.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak to this resolution. I would like to thank the member for York North for bringing this important topic up in her private member's time. I would like to start by thanking Minister Sampson-he's not here in the room right now-for the leadership and the professionalism he's shown. I've enjoyed working immensely with Mr Sampson over the last year as we've looked at a private sector partner for the Penetanguishene and North Simcoe correctional facility in my riding.

We've had an investment of $85 million in that facility. It's nearing completion and right now the economic spin-off to the community of Penetanguishene has been approximately $25 million in building materials, labour costs and housing and accommodation. As well, it's interesting to note that not too far to the east of me, the Lindsay facility is going up as well and the same type of economic impact is occurring there.

I'd like to thank the opposition for their comments on this resolution as well. It's always nice to hear the fear-mongering continue. It's gone on for a year. When this Penetanguishene facility opens up and it's running in a professional and efficient manner, I think the corrections critic from Brant will be basically redundant in his position.

The comments from Ms Martel about the piggies at the trough were very interesting comments, especially when I hear the amount of concern she had about getting third party status here at the House and the type of money her party receives for research. It's actually very high per capita for membership in this building and I'm disappointed to hear you make those kinds of comments here today.

Interjection.

Mr Dunlop: Yes, seven out of nine of your members get extra money for whatever you do over there, and I think the leader gets a car and a driver as well.

It's no secret that illegal drugs are the source of many problems within our society. Many of us in this House have heard the horror stories about how illegal drugs have ripped apart the fabric of our province. Many people have died or are on the verge of dying due to addiction to hard-core drugs. Substance abuse is a known factor contributing toward criminal behaviour.

Drugs are extremely dangerous in our society, but are even more dangerous in the confined quarters of correctional facilities across our province and indeed across our nation. There are some who say that illegal drugs are not a problem in our prison system and feel that this resolution and the legislation introduced by the minister on Monday is not necessary. I have to tell you that I think they're completely wrong and I disagree with them 100%.

According to an

article in the Hamilton Spectator, the number of prisoners in minimum security federal jails who tested positive for drugs has doubled in the last five years. According to a report, 13% of inmates randomly selected at minimum security jail tested positive for drugs in 1999-2000, compared with 7.4% in 1995-96. The federal government randomly tests 5% of its prison population for drugs every month. In Ontario, approximately 83% of adult inmates sentenced to incarceration in provincial correctional institutions and 61% of adult offenders serving sentences in the community are found to have some degree of alcohol or drug dependency.

I also read in Hamilton-Wentworth-and again today I had another one from the Quinte Detention Centre about other drugs being found. A huge drug bust was made in Hamilton-Wentworth in August. The place for this drug bust was not in the streets of Hamilton-Wentworth, but in the detention centre. On August 30 of this year, a man was arrested walking into the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre in possession of various types of suspected controlled substances, including heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana, hash and hash oil.

In August, a federal inmate died of a suspected heroin overdose in a Kingston prison. That was the third inmate to die due to a drug overdose in a Kingston prison in 17 days. A couple of weeks later, the police intercepted a load of the same drug being smuggled into another institution. The worth of the drugs seized at that time was in excess of $28,000.

According to a book by Kevin Marron called The Slammer: The Crisis in Canada's Prison System, prisons often create more serious addicts because drugs are an integral part of the culture. Having drugs inside institutions makes it more difficult for offenders undergoing treatment programs to successfully overcome their addictions. It is much more difficult to get back to the same cycle of substance dependency when there are drugs and alcohol readily available to everyone in the prison.

The book went on to say that all the inmates across Canada being interviewed told him that drugs are more plentiful and accessible in prison than on the streets. Again, that's across the whole nation, not just the province of Ontario.

We need to do whatever we can to get drugs out of our correctional facilities. I feel that this resolution, as well as the bill introduced by the minister earlier this week, is an important step in trying to get this problem out of our prison system. Imagine working in a highly dangerous place and adding drugs into the mix.

Inmates who fail to stop using alcohol and/or drugs in institutions are likely to continue using them when they leave the institutions, and often fall back into criminal patterns to support their addictions. That alone should support the reasons for this resolution.

Therefore, we should be doing drug tests on a regular basis on all inmates in Ontario's correctional facilities, and that is why we should support this resolution, as well as support Bill 144 when we have debate on it next week.

Having random as well as targeted drug tests in Ontario's correctional facilities will deter criminals from bringing and using drugs in our institutions. Knowing they could be tested at any time without warning and have to face significant penalties, including an increase in time spent in jail, will likely deter some inmates from using drugs, while having programs available to treat addictions will also assist by providing inmates help in overcoming additions.

This resolution, which I fully support, is an important step in trying to make our prison system safer for both the inmates and the people working in the correctional facilities. Earlier this week the minister introduced legislation to continue to reform our prison system, forcing inmates to actually earn their release while they're in prison.

The proposed legislative changes fulfil our government's promises that we made during the 1999 provincial election. As a government, we feel we need to transform Ontario's correctional system into one that puts public safety first, achieves better results, creates more secure and efficient institutions, and improves accountability.

I'd like to conclude my remarks today by urging all members to support this resolution, and I'd like to sup port the Minister of Correctional Services and thank him for the 300 jobs that will be in my riding as a result of this correctional facility in Penetanguishine.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The Minister of Community and Social Services. I'm sorry, the member for Brampton Centre.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I'm glad I didn't have that promotion. I wouldn't want to be the Minister of Community and Social Services, because I think the current one is probably one of the best we've ever had in the history of this province, in addition to being the colleague who sits in front of me.

I'm really troubled by the comments made by the opposition today, particularly the members from Hamilton East and Nickel Belt. I think about the words that were used in the resolution the member for York North brought forward:

"Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario,

(

a) believes that the introduction of illegal drugs into correctional institutions is a grave danger to correctional staff."

By opposing this, I can only assume and draw the conclusion that these opposition members don't believe that. Further, this resolution "believes that illegal drugs cause violent and erratic behaviour in offenders." Clearly the members of the opposition don't think that's the case. They know "that the use of illegal drugs compromises the ability of offenders to successfully complete treatment programs to overcome their addictions." If the opposition is against this, I can only assume they are encouraging the use of illegal drugs in prisons.

They support "action to eliminate the use of illegal drugs in correctional institutions." If they're opposing this, I can only assume that the opposition wants to support the use of illegal drugs rather than the elimination of them. You talk about being silly, but these are the kind of stupid, erratic conclusions that sometimes the opposition draws on government bills. Lastly, they are opposed to introducing "regular and random drug tests of all sentenced, remand and intermittent offenders in Ontario's correctional facilities."

I live in a community that has a minimum security prison, and this is a situation that has surfaced. Let me read this from the Standard, St Catharines-Niagara. This is written by Marlene Bergsma, Standard staff:

"Bold and intimidating drug dealers are using Ontario courts to arrange their drug deliveries, a coroner's inquest was told Wednesday.

"`People go to courtrooms and watch proceedings to see who is going in on Fridays,'" that is, they're sentenced to intermittent terms.

For the individual who has been charged and convicted to go for intermittent service, this is not easy. They are intimidated. They can't say, "I don't want to participate in that. I don't want to run drugs into the prisons." The reality is they're intimidated. They're in a position where they have a lot to lose and they have to deal with other inmates in there. This is a gap in the system that we are trying to plug. That's what this resolution is after. I can only assume that if the opposition opposes this, they endorse the use of illegal drugs in the prisons.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York North has two minutes.

Mrs Munro: Thanks to all those who have taken

part in this morning's debate. I certainly appreciate the comments that have been made.

I'd like to simply emphasize a couple of points that were brought up. One of the issues that more than one speaker referred to was the fact that the resolution didn't specifically deal with the allocation of resources. I want to remind the members that according to standing order 56, it would be inappropriate for there to be a specific direction of allocation of funds.

More importantly, as to their comments in regard to that, part (c)of this resolution refers to "successfully complete treatment programs." We understand that the first step is being able to have drug testing. This is the prime reason for this resolution, recognizing it is only through drug testing that any kind of change, any kind of opportunity for inmates can be effected.

So it is to those two parts of the resolution that I would direct members' attention, because they clearly speak to the need to be able to, first, know the issue through testing, and then, second, be able to look at the ways in which we can make those people's lives more successful and break that re-offending pattern we have seen.

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

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT (PATIENT RESTRAINTS), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS (MESURES DE CONTENTION)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will deal first with ballot item number 49. Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 135.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members after I put the voice vote on the next ballot item.

DRUG USE IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 50. Mrs Munro has moved ballot item number 50.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will now call in the members on ballot item number 49 and then call in the members for ballot item number 50. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT (PATIENT RESTRAINTS), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS (MESURES DE CONTENTION)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 135. Would all those in favour please stand and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Pupatello, Sandra

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hastings, John

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 9.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I'd like to refer it to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

DRUG USE IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 50. Before we do that, we will open the doors for 30 seconds.

Would members take their seats. Mrs Munro has moved ballot item number 50. All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bradley, James J.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Conway, Sean G.

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cordiano, Joseph

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Pupatello, Sandra

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 18.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the members of this assembly would wish to recognize the presence in the members' gallery of the Honourable Margaret McCain, the co-author of the Early Years Study.

The Deputy Speaker: As you know, that's not a point of order, but we welcome her.

All matters before the House relating to private members' public business now being complete, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Earlier today in an outstanding gesture of compassion and community spirit, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union in Sudbury announced it will provide 1,300 Christmas turkeys to our striking Falconbridge workers.

About 1,250 Falconbridge workers have been off on strike since August 1. These are people with families, people who helped build the community, people who pay taxes and, last but not least, people who have the right to negotiate the terms of employment in a province that is not anti-union, not anti-labour and that disregards the reality of working people. Today's announcement is a bright glimmer in the otherwise bleak, anti-labour environment created by Mike Harris.

I am proud that my community has rallied around our workers. This has helped the Falconbridge workers in these trying times and will buoy spirits and strengthen their resolve. I applaud the efforts of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union to ease the financial burden for these affected families. I commend its president, Robin McArthur, and his executive for their leadership on this initiative and I congratulate the membership for their generosity and their well-placed values.

I also commend Mine Mill/CAW local 598 president, Rolly Gauthier, who has remained steadfast, level-headed and focused on the issues.

In the meantime, I will continue to urge the Mike Harris government to stop their merciless attack on labour and abandon their plans to destroy free collective bargaining in Ontario.

RAMADAN

Mr Bob Wood (London West): As many members of this House will know, one billion Muslims throughout the world will be observing a month of fasting during Ramadan, starting around November 30 this year.

Muslims regard Ramadan as a spiritual tune-up. It's a time for inner reflection, devotion to God and self-control. The third pillar or religious obligation of Islam, fasting, has many benefits, the most important of which is that it teaches self-control. Ramadan is also a time of intensive worship, reading of the Koran, giving charity, purifying one's behaviour and doing good deeds. In fulfilling the teaching of their faith, they demonstrate to us a commitment to righteousness and a compassion for the needy, qualities to which we can all aspire.

Ramadan will end with the celebration of the feast of Eid Al-Fitr in about one month's time. At that time, Muslims will gather for prayers and then exchange presents and share alms with the needy so that all members of the community may be able to celebrate together.

I know I speak on behalf of all members of this House in extending greetings to the Muslim community of Ontario and in wishing them Ramadan Kareem and Eid Mubarak. These greetings, which in Arabic mean "May you have a month of giving and a blessed feast," speak to the central meaning of Ramadan.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'm very sad to report to the House that Bill 74, the infamous funding formula, has claimed another victim, or I should say more victims. This particular time, 90 seniors in the tiny community of Bluehaven at Bluehaven school were shut out. The school has closed them out from one room which they've been using for years, paid for by the city. The school has kicked them out. They have no more room, and it's a shame that these 90 seniors have nowhere else to go. The nearest community centre is about one mile away, and I don't think we have many seniors who would like to walk about a mile, in particular in weather such as today's, and cross one major intersection.

These are the kinds of seniors who don't have very much and ask very little. They were asking for this government to maintain this particular room where they congregate, have recreational activities, have all kinds of dos on behalf of the local communities. This is no longer, and I have to say shame on Mike Harris, shame on his government, shame on Bill 74, which fails to look after the most needy. the seniors in our community. Shame on this government.

BLOOD DONATION

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Giving blood is giving the gift of life. Every year, thousands of Ontarians benefit from the generosity of strangers who give blood to save the lives of their fellow citizens, most of whom they don't even know.

Interjection: They must all be Tories.

Mr Gill: They are.

A well-stocked blood supply is particularly important this time of year, in the run-up to the Christmas season, as snow and ice make our roads treacherous.

It only takes a few minutes of our time to help save someone's life and make sure they make it through the holidays. Ontario citizens have shown, through their response to our organ donation drive, that they come through when there's a need. Blood donation is just as important, and I know Ontarians will come through, led by the city of Brampton.

Over the next three days, Brampton residents will have the opportunity to give blood at clinics sponsored by all three Brampton members of this House: Friday from 1 pm to 8 pm