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

December 1, 2005

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Dec-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 1 December 2005 Jeudi 1 er décembre 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(INSULIN PUMPS FOR DIABETICS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(POMPES À INSULINE

POUR DIABÉTIQUES)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(DRINKING AND BOATING

OFFENCES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(INFRACTIONS RELATIVES À L'ALCOOL

ET À LA NAVIGATION DE PLAISANCE)

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(INSULIN PUMPS FOR DIABETICS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(POMPES À INSULINE

POUR DIABÉTIQUES)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(DRINKING AND BOATING

OFFENCES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(INFRACTIONS RELATIVES À L'ALCOOL

ET À LA NAVIGATION DE PLAISANCE)

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(INSULIN PUMPS FOR DIABETICS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(POMPES À INSULINE

POUR DIABÉTIQUES)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(DRINKING AND BOATING

OFFENCES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(INFRACTIONS RELATIVES À L'ALCOOL

ET À LA NAVIGATION DE PLAISANCE)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S GARDEN

NURSERY SCHOOL

SANTA'S PARADE OF LIGHTS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

MILL CLOSURE

THE CHARLATAN

PROPOSED OXFORD HOSPITAL

HABITAT JAM

KNOLLCREST LODGE

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING-DISABLED

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE TRANSFERT

DES VALEURS MOBILIÈRES

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE FONDS

DE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE

DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

SIDOFF'S CLEANERS & TAILORS

LIMITED ACT, 2005

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

PERMIT PROGRAM

WORLD AIDS DAY

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

PERMIT PROGRAM

WORLD AIDS DAY

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

PERMIT PROGRAM

WORLD AIDS DAY

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

DISABLED PERSONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MILL CLOSURE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ENERGY CONSERVATION

MUNICIPAL ELECTION

FINANCES LEGISLATION

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

CRIME PREVENTION

PROPOSED WOODSTOCK HOSPITAL

PROPERTY TAXATION

BEST START PROGRAM

CANCER TREATMENT

PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS

DRIVE CLEAN

NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

SCHOOL SAFETY

PETITIONS

DIABETES TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CANCER TREATMENT

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION FUNDING

RECREATION IN

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PROSTATE CANCER

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

PROPOSED OXFORD HOSPITAL

CRIME PREVENTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESPECT FOR

MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE RESPECT DES MUNICIPALITÉS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(INSULIN PUMPS FOR DIABETICS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(POMPES À INSULINE

POUR DIABÉTIQUES)

Mr. Gravelle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 15, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

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

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Bill 15 is a very straightforward, simple and quite short, one-page piece of legislation.

However, if this bill is supported by my colleagues today, and subsequently receives the support of the government, the impact its passage will have on the lives of thousands of people with

diabetes will be nothing short of dramatic.

By making the provision of an insulin pump and its supplies a covered service under the Ontario health insurance plan, we will be improving the day-to-day life

of people with diabetes by helping them better manage their glucose levels, which is the key to preventing the serious complications that are the frightening reality that people with diabetes live

with as they struggle to manage this debilitating and insidious disease.

While the insulin pump may not be suitable or helpful to every person with diabetes, there are thousands of Ontarians who would greatly benefit from it today,

who are not able to access this service because they simply cannot afford it. In fact, the Canadian Diabetes Association receives calls every day from people who have been told by their physician

that they should be using an insulin pump, but unless they have employer or private health insurance, they are simply not able to purchase it.

I will acknowledge that the costs seem substantial. The pump itself costs $6,000 and monthly supplies can run anywhere between $300 to $400 a month. However, I

believe the price of not covering the pump under the OHIP plan is far more substantial. Let's just look at some of the facts. Diabetes is expected to cost $2.13 billion in direct costs to the

health care system in 2005. Diagnosed diabetics comprise 6% of Ontario's population but they account for 51% of new kidney dialysis. Dialysis costs about $50,000 per person per year and of course

is covered by OHIP. They account for 70% of amputations in the province. A leg amputation costs $70,000, and, again, it's covered by OHIP. They also account for 43% of heart failures. In fact, 80%

of diabetics die from cardiovascular disease and its complications.

Type 1 diabetics, who are most likely to benefit from the insulin pump, are approximately 10% of Ontario's diabetic population but account for 40% of the direct

costs of diabetes in Ontario -- over $800 million. This is not even taking into account the indirect costs to the health care system and our economy, such as rehabilitation after hospitalization,

depression, lost productivity, lost wages, sick days and unemployment.

The facts, as unpleasant as they are, go on and on, but the fact that I want to focus on today is that the provision of an insulin pump can change all those cold

and rather grim statistics. Today there are approximately 3,000 Ontarians living with an insulin pump to help manage their disease, and their lives have changed immeasurably for the good. Many of

them are with us today in the gallery, and each and every one will tell you how much better their lives have been since they became pumpers. And while that improved quality of life is clearly the

greatest benefit of the insulin pump, there is no denying that the health care system is also very much the beneficiary of their being able to access that service. Just imagine the benefits if all

those who needed the pump could have ready access to it.

So far, I've spoken about statistics. For a moment, let's talk about people. Since I began this quest to see our government provide the insulin pump under OHIP,

I've spoken with hundreds of people -- some with a pump, many without it. I've heard from literally thousands of people by e-mail. They all have their own story to tell -- sometimes uplifting,

sometimes heartbreaking -- but in each and every case there is a common thread: Their lives have been altered by their struggle with diabetes.

Those who have been able to access an insulin pump invariably have a life-changing story to tell. One of the most remarkable stories -- and I return to it -- may

be that of Paul Beckwith, who is in the Legislature with us today. I met him when I first introduced this legislation last year. Diagnosed with diabetes in 1966 at the age of 13 -- I know my

colleague from Simcoe North will want to talk about him as well -- Mr. Beckwith spent 30 years struggling to manage his condition, with mixed results. At the time he was finally able to access the

insulin pump, I guess about seven years ago, he was in grave danger of having his foot amputated and was not able to work regularly. However, once he began insulin pump therapy, his quality of life

improved dramatically. The amputation was averted and he was able to return to work -- certainly a wonderful story, but also an instructive one. The long and short of it is that the insulin pump

can make an extraordinary difference in a person's life.

Perhaps less dramatic, but no less inspiring, is the story of my constituent Derek Lawrence, a teenager who went on the pump over three years ago. When I met

with him, I was struck by how unobtrusive the pump actually was, but more significantly, I was moved and impressed by how the pump allowed Derek to lead a normal teenage life, something he could

not do before, something he had been totally denied before and now he could do.

But sadly, for every uplifting story, there are many more stories of lives compromised by diabetes, of people who struggle daily with managing this disease,

people such as my constituent, who contacted me recently from his hospital bed, a gentleman who could not afford the insulin pump but who certainly would benefit from it, yet for now is a brittle

diabetic who is frequently in the hospital, often for several days at a time.

It's not my intention today to harangue or to guilt our government into supporting this legislation. Indeed, I am incredibly conscious of the financial pressures

that face both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance as we struggle to manage the ever-growing demands on our health care system in Ontario. We and all those concerned with the

management of diabetes in the province are grateful for the financial support the province provides to fight this disease. Included in that support was the announcement earlier this week of a new

investment of $15 million for the development of 69 new diabetes education and care teams across the province. Personally, I was pleased to announce that almost $2 million of those new funds will

be provided to the Thunder Bay region.

These funds are a good investment and much appreciated. But today I ask the minister to once again look positively on the overwhelming benefits that insulin pump

therapy does and will provide to people with diabetes and to the enormous cost savings that would result if all people who could benefit from the pump were able to access it. As for the Minister of

Finance, I acknowledge the challenges he faces as he prepares next spring's budget. Having said that, I note with some interest that he personally has advocated for this specific legislation

himself. In June 2003, while still in opposition, Minister Duncan introduced this exact same legislation into the House. Although it never got beyond first reading, it certainly indicated that he

recognized the enormous benefit of insulin pump therapy. In fact, it was he who first encouraged me to bring this legislation forward for the first time last year. As we move this legislation

forward today, I hope the minister will give serious consideration to including the necessary funding for coverage of the insulin pump and the supplies associated with it in next year's budget.

Clearly, there is great support for this legislation amongst my colleagues on all sides of the House. I am grateful for that, as are all the advocates with us in

the public galleries and those watching the proceedings today across the province. Yes, the upfront costs may be substantial. I was speaking with the Ontario Diabetes Action Partnership in terms of

their advocacy for children with diabetes and type 1 diabetics, and they're looking at potentially somewhere between $6 million and $15 million. But it would make such an enormous difference. The

reality is that the benefits both to the quality of life and to the health care system clearly outweigh those initial costs. I only hope that today's debate and the support that we expect we will

receive at 12 noon when we vote on this will be a crucial step in seeing the insulin pump become a health care reality under the Ontario health insurance plan.

To many of us, this has taken on the quality of a crusade. Indeed, that may be an accurate description of this campaign, and that is because all of us who are

waging this campaign have seen the enormous difference an insulin pump can make in the lives of people with diabetes. We want to see those benefits extended to everyone in this province for whom a

pump is recommended therapy by their physician.

In the little bit of time I have left, I want to close with a quote from a friend of mine in Thunder Bay. But I want to recognize the great support we've had

across the province. We've got some wonderful people in the galleries today, and I do want to acknowledge some of them. Suzanne Sterling, the regional director of the Canadian Diabetes Association,

northwest division, Thunder Bay, is here, as are her colleagues Gary O'Connor, area executive director for the GTA-central south, and Alan Marks, the GTA regional chair. Whitney Binns, the

marketing and communications officer, is here as well. I mentioned Paul Beckwith, from the Ontario Diabetes Action Partnership, and Terry Anne Thomson, the coordinator for ODAP. Zachary Smith, a

great young lad, and Lyla-Kay Collins are here as well, who are both on the pump, and their lives have been changed in a remarkable way.

Let me close by quoting Maggie Bellefountaine, a manager of Diabetes Health Thunder Bay: "It is time to provide people with diabetes equitable access to improved

treatments to manage their diabetes. Insulin is not a cure. Managing diabetes is like juggling balls while walking a tightrope between two cliffs, not an easy task at the best of times." Let's make

that challenge less perilous today by passing the legislation so that people with diabetes can have a fighting chance.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I am very pleased to rise today to support the member from Thunder Bay-Superior North, Mr. Gravelle, in

private members' time, on the reading and debate on Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act. I think it's important to note that the main

section of the bill is

section 11.2 of the Health

Insurance Act, and it is amended by adding a following subsection: "

(1.1) The provision of insulin pumps and supplies for the pumps are insured services." That's what Mr. Gravelle asked for in Bill

55 and that's what he's asking for today in this piece of legislation. I can tell you that from my own perspective, I support it wholeheartedly.

Just to let you know, I have with me today four folks who came up to my office. I welcome everyone who is in the Legislature today to lend us support to the

bill, but I wanted to put some faces to the names and tell you a bit of the history of these folks.

Mr. Gravelle mentioned that Paul Beckwith is here. Paul is a person from my township, a resident of my riding. He has been on an insulin pump for eight and a

half years. He has had type 1 diabetes for 38 years of his life.

Also with me today from the town of Penetanguishene is Glen Heatherington, who also has a pump. He has had type 1 diabetes for 40 years of his life.

As well, we have Melanie Hellstern. Melanie doesn't have an insulin pump, but she has a 14-year-old son who has had an insulin pump for the last four years.

Having the pump has allowed Melanie to go back to work. She wasn't able to do that previously because she had to care for her son. It has allowed her to go back and work at full employment and pay

taxes.

Finally, we have a registered nurse with us today, Karen Lyn. Karen has type 1 diabetes. She has been on an insulin pump for six years. I want to show you, with

the consent of the House, Mr. Speaker -- I'll get this right back to Karen; I won't take it anywhere -- one of the insulin pumps we're talking about, with a $6,500 value. I thought it would be nice

to show people just how small it is. It's a very expensive device, but this is making people's lives much more healthy and convenient.

The member already mentioned some of the savings. My understanding is that the cost of dialysis now -- you said $50,000; I understand it's closer to $65,000.

Just to remove a limb costs $74,000 in upfront costs, but there are all the ongoing costs of the health care associated with that.

Paul Beckwith is a strong advocate for this. I have to give Paul so much credit, because at times his health hasn't been 100%. Let me give you examples of how an

insulin pump over the last eight and a half years has changed Paul's life.

Before I get on to that, I want to just very briefly say that Paul presented petitions to me. Paul and his group of people presented over 9,000 petitions to me

in my office. I presented about half of them yesterday in the House -- the balance will be presented today -- in support of Bill 15, previously Bill 55. The intent here is that this is a very

important issue to a lot of people in Ontario -- not just the people who have diabetes but their families, who are affected by this as well. We're asking for that strong support here.

Here is the story of Paul. He presented this to me. At a period of time when he had four to six injections per day of two different insulins, Paul had over 4,000

shots of laser to each of his eyes. Since he has been on an insulin pump, there has been no laser treatment done on his eyes in the last eight and a half years. Think of that: 4,000 shots. He

mentioned that before the insulin pump, his sick days from work were too numerous to count. He was off all the time. In eight and a half years since he has been on the insulin pump, Paul Beckwith

has had one sick day. It's an incredible story.

He had two motor vehicle accidents because of low blood sugar, previous to the insulin pump, and since then, thank God, he has had no motor vehicle accidents.

Under the injection system, Paul had his licence suspended three times. Since he's been on the insulin pump, he's had a perfect record. In the eight and a half years, he's had no suspensions.

Glucose control 1.2 mmol -- I'm not medical. I don't even know what that means, so I'd better not get into that. I'll pass that over to the physician on the

other side; maybe he will understand that better.

He suffered from hypoglycemia unawareness and now he does not have that. Finally, 911 was being called two to three times a week previous to the insulin pump; no

911 calls in eight and a half years.

There's one example. There's a lot more detail on this page than just what I have mentioned here today. But I can tell you that it has changed the lives of

people like Paul, and it has changed the lives of the other three folks who are here today as well. They're here strongly advocating that we proceed with this legislation.

We've been here before. I hope that in this House today everybody will support this bill. I hope we will send it off to a committee and that at the committee it

will get debate. But what is more important is, after the debate and after the committee hearings, that we bring it back for the final reading so that we can actually vote on this bill in this

House. It might even be able to be done as early as the end of this session, and if not then, hopefully at the end of the next session.

What is important is that we have an opportunity to provide this assistance to these residents of our province. And what's really important is that we don't not

call it. If we have this thing go through committee, to have it sit there on the order paper and to die I think is a mistake. So let's make sure that all members of this House -- we can send

letters to the Minister of Finance. As you mentioned earlier, the Minister of Finance introduced this bill originally. Possibly it's an opportunity for him to show strong advocacy as well if he

pushes this ahead in the spring budget, saying we'll cover it.

I think it will be a cost saving to the province of Ontario. I can't see how it cannot be. However, maybe there is some data out there that I don't understand,

and maybe the Ministry of Finance could send it to all members of this House and tell us why it shouldn't pass. But from my perspective, after listening to this debate a number of times in this

House and after talking to my friend Paul Beckwith, who is in my office about once a week advocating on behalf of this piece of legislation, I want to tell you that I think it's important for the

citizens of this province that we proceed with it and support Mr. Gravelle's bill.

We know the Ministry of Health has a huge budget. We know there are all types of demands on the ministry, but this appears to be one that's affecting a large

number of people in the province. I understand that Quebec has just moved forward with covering the supplies around the insulin pumps. I'm not sure of the full details on that yet. But I think we

have to take this very, very seriously in our country.

We have a lot of strong advocates here today -- and we have a lot of strong advocates for whom it wouldn't even be possible to attend today -- who belong to all

the diabetes associations across our province. These people are out hosting golf tournaments, hosting luncheons, and every time you go to one of their events, Bill 15 or Bill 55 comes up: "When is

the government going to pass this piece of legislation? When are we going to see action on this?"

I would urge the government members here today -- I'm sure you'll be supporting the bill -- in your caucus meetings to ask the Minister of Finance, to ask the

government to bring it forward. I'm sure you'll get 100% support in this House. I'm sure that it will be a positive story for the government and, God knows, you need a positive story once in a

while.

Interjection.

Mr. Dunlop: The fact of the matter is that you do need a positive story, but let's make this bill actually work. Let's get it passed today.

Let's get it into committee. Let's get it into third reading, and let's pass this bill in this House so that the people who are here today advocating on behalf of the thousands of people in Ontario

who have diabetes can have some satisfaction and some comfort in knowing that the government of Ontario and this Legislative Assembly supports their needs.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): To my colleague the member from -- I don't remember Mr. Gravelle's riding.

The Deputy Speaker: Thunder Bay-Superior North.

Mr. Bisson: Thank you very much. I was going to go by the old riding name. That's my problem. I've been around here too long, and I get the

ridings mixed up with what they used to be.

I just want to say to the honourable member, first of all, that we will be supporting his bill. We think this is a good idea, something that's very necessary, as

has been spoken to already by both Mr. Gravelle and the previous speaker. Certainly those people watching the debate today and those people who are with us today can speak volumes on the need to do

this, because we do know it's a huge expense to families to be able to provide an insulin pump, and the benefit that is gained from those insulin pumps is immeasurable. I know, in my own

constituency, a number of people whom I've dealt with over the years who have had to go on insulin pumps talk about what it has done for their lives after being on the pumps. I want to say up front

that we support this.

I want to turn the debate to something that's tied to what we're talking about but speaks more of the process that we're in here in the Legislature. That is, I

believe that private members' hour is becoming more and more the model of how we should run this place. I want to say, with all sincerity, that far too often the work that is done in this

Legislature by way of government bills tends to be pretty one-sided. I don't care if it's Liberal, Conservative or NDP; all governments have their bills, and the majority, which is the government,

decides what they want as far as business of the House. Far too often, even backbench members of the government are stuck in debate on bills that they may not feel very strongly about. I find that

private members' hour is one of those times in this Legislature where we can really do meaningful work. An example of this morning: Mr. Gravelle brings to the floor of this Legislature an issue

that's important to a number of people in this province. What better way for us as legislators to spend our time than trying to do something to improve the lives of our constituents and make the

greater constituency of Ontario a better place for people to live in?

That's the point I want to make. One of the things we need to do at one point in a future Parliament is take a look at how we're able to increase the

participation of members by way of introducing bills into the Legislature, and being able not only to debate them and pass them at second reading but actually get the bills passed into law. It

seems to me that's what this Legislature was supposed to be all about. It was supposed to be about members being elected individually in their own constituencies, coming to this place, raising the

issues that are important for their constituents and having actual legislation, or motions or initiatives passed in order to affect what happens to the people back home.

Instead, what has happened over the years is that the Office of the Premier -- and I don't care which government it is; it's always the same -- decides what the

direction is, and 99% of the time of this assembly is then taken up by the business of the inner cabinet and the Premier and, quite frankly, we as legislators are here doing the business of

unelected advisers who work for the Premier. Basically, that's what it comes down to. We're here to do their political work, and the people in the backrooms make all the decisions. It seems to me

that's an inverted situation.

This Legislature should be about 103 members coming to this House, introducing at their occasion bills that are important for their constituents and having a

debate among the elected officials about what the agenda of this Legislature should be. I just think that it's high time that we try to figure out a way to make that happen.

However, with this particular bill, I'm afraid the possibility exists -- and it's a great possibility -- that, yes, we will pass this bill at second reading, we

will probably get it into committee, I would think we might even get some hearings on it; but the likelihood of a private member's bill becoming law is a really small one. Just look at the history

of the last two years: Of all the private members' bills that were introduced in this Legislature -- I'm the whip of our party; I don't even think there's one that's actually passed.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Anaphylactic.

Mr. Bisson: Anaphylactic. That was a bill that Mr. Levac originally brought forward in previous Parliaments. It was a huge amount of work, and

there was one for yourself, Mr. Speaker. The point is, it took those members four, five, six, seven years to get those bills passed, and it didn't happen on the first attempt. Normally, they get it

passed at second reading and it dies on the order paper. They bring it back the next time they get a ballot item. They put it in a second time and the same thing happens: The bill gets passed but

dies on the order paper, but eventually, members persist, and this is what Mr. Gravelle is doing. He wants to have his bill passed, and I just think it's a shame that members are put in the

position where they're really not able to get the legislative time they need in this House to deal with these important matters. This is an opportunity for to us to raise it, because I think his

bill is a primary example of how we can do some good work in this Legislature.

I just say to members across the way that we, as individual members, at some point need to take control of this Legislature. We need to take the control away

from those unelected people who work for Premiers and ministers. We end up doing their bidding, but it should be the other way around. I think there are a couple of ways we can do that. I believe

the best way is to change the way that we elect people in this place. The first-past-the-post system that we have in Canada, as we do in Great Britain, is a tried-and-true system, but it's getting

kind of old. If you look at most modern democracies, they've moved to a system of proportional representation, the idea simply being that if a party is elected with, let's say, 42% of the vote in a

general election, they will get 42% of the seats, and each of the other parties are apportioned seats according to the percentage vote they got. That means that for any government that gets elected

-- the Liberal Party in the last election would obviously be the government because they were at 42% and they had more votes than anybody else, but they would have to work with the opposition

parties. But it would also mean that they would work with their own backbench, and that's the point I really want to make.

Far too often in government, backbenchers are not taken seriously. They need the backbenchers to sustain the government but do not do enough, I believe, to

support the needs of the backbenchers. I know that because I've sat in government, as has Mr. Gravelle, and I'm saying that from the experience on sitting on both sides of the House. In a funny

way, you have much more freedom and latitude to get more done in opposition than you do as a backbencher. That's always amazed me. I always used to think, "Man, it's a lot better to be on the

government side." It is, from a satisfying point of view, but when it comes to being able to raise the issues of your constituents, it's a lot easier to do it from the opposition benches. Far too

often, a government backbencher has to be mindful of what his party and his Premier have to say. If they want to get into cabinet, they really have to toe the party line.

That's why I think we need to change the way we elect people around here, so that every member is taken as an individual member. You may be a Liberal or a New

Democrat or a Conservative or a Green or whatever you might be, but at the end of the day, your vote counts. That means that the vote of the people in your constituency counts in the end. Second,

when you come into the Legislature as a representative, the government can't take you for granted. That's one of the ways that we can fix this.

Another way is possibly to try to find a way of increasing the time we get for private members' business. I think that would be a thing well done.

The third

part is that we need to take control of the assembly in some way so that members are able to get their bills actually passed into law. It should be a

decision of the majority of the assembly, not necessarily those people in the back rooms of the corridors of power, as we say.

Back to the issue of diabetes. I needed to put that on the record, Speaker, and I know you were being somewhat patient with me. It is related. I think you agreed

with me and that's why you didn't rule me out of order.

Back to the issue of diabetes itself. I represent a constituency in northern Ontario called Timmins-James Bay. In my constituency, diabetes is a huge problem,

especially in the northern communities of the Mushkegowuk Cree and also the Ojibways in Martin Falls and Constance Lake and other places across northeastern and northwestern Ontario. Part of it is

lifestyle, genetics, but the other part of it is diet. Trying to eat a full, healthy diet in a place like, let's say, Attawapiskat is pretty difficult to do, when a head of lettuce will probably

cost you $5 or $6 and doesn't look very appetizing. So people tend to eat foods that are maybe not necessarily as good as they need to be for their health.

We have a huge problem with diabetes. I've got to say with some pleasure that, I believe next Friday, Minister Smitherman is going to be coming up to Moose

Factory to officially open our dialysis unit. It has taken a lot of years. As the member for Timmins-James Bay, we've been working with Weeneebayko hospital and James Bay General Hospital and other

people in the health field in the area for a long time to try to get this dialysis system and up and running and funded. I give the government credit for having listened to the arguments we've made

and for finally having funded the dialysis system at the Weeneebayko General Hospital in Moose Factory. I can tell you, it makes a huge difference. It means that those people who live in the

Moosonee, Moose Factory area are able to stay home. They don't have to travel and live in Timmins or wherever it might be to survive. That's really what it comes down to: You're not able to survive

without dialysis if needed.

Obviously it's still a problem for communities further up the coast, because there are no dialysis services in communities like Fort Albany, Kashechewan or

wherever it might be. One of the things we're going to have to think about as we move forward in the integration of our health care system in the James Bay -- as members in this House know, we are

now in a process of merging the federal hospital, Weeneebayko General, and the provincial hospital, James Bay General Hospital, into one provincial system. It's high time we did that because I

think the federal government is abysmal at running things. When it comes to running hospitals, schools or reserves, you just need to travel in my constituency to find out the degree to which

they're ill-suited to manage those services. We have very competent, hard-working people in our aboriginal education system and in the Weeneebayko General Hospital. Pat Chilton, for example, as the

executive director, has done an amazing job. But the federal government, I believe, is not well suited to support the work that needs to be done in health care on the James Bay.

I really and truly believe that at the end of the day, integration is the way to go in the provincial system for a couple of reasons:

(1) These people are

residents of Ontario and they should be part of the provincial hospital system; and (2) the province has the wherewithal to run hospitals. We understand health care because we are the deliverers of

health care in Ontario. The federal government is not. They are sort of at the edges of the system. I think we'd be better served.

The key is, we need to make sure the federal government, on the transfer of the hospitals to the province, doesn't just all of a sudden walk away from its

fiduciary responsibility and say, "Well, too bad, so sad. Now it's a provincial hospital. We're not giving you any more money." They have a fiduciary responsibility to First Nations and we need to

keep the dollars on an annual basis in the budget. The dollars that the province brings into the system can then be used to do real health care planning, such as making sure all of our communities

on the James Bay have proper health facilities.

For example, there's no long-term care. Imagine if there were no long-term-care services in the community you live in, and once you need them, you have to move

out of your community. That happens in some of our communities. It's just down the highway, and kids can go visit their moms and dads 50 or 60 miles away. If you live in Peawanuk, Martin Falls,

Kashechewan or wherever it might be and you need long-term-care service or to live in an institution, you've got to travel out of the community and go to Timmins, Cochrane or wherever it is.

For families, it's traumatic. You're basically talking about a person in their 70s or 80s, who was born on the land, who speaks Cree and probably doesn't speak

their language. They don't have any of their friends with them in the institution and they find themselves very lonely and, quite frankly, die a lot quicker. They're away from their families, and

that's the key thing.

As we move to an integrated provincial health system, we are able to plan and make sure that we have long-term-care beds in provincial institutions that are

already existing, in places like Fort Albany and Attawapiskat, but also make sure that those types of services are available as we take over the federal system in Kashechewan, Martin Falls,

Peawanuk and those places, making sure that services like dialysis are available in those communities as well.

I say to the member, a job well done. You will have our support. We think this is a good bill. We will support you through the process. I only hope this bill

not only gets second reading but ends up as a bill that gets passed. It's going to take a lot of work, as you know, Mr. Gravelle. You've been here a long time. You understand, as I do, the

difficulty and challenges in being able to get a private member's bill passed. Whatever we can do from our side of the House to help you, we are more than pleased to do so. I have to say that we've

not always been on the same side on all issues. Certainly on the forestry file, we're miles apart.

Mr. Gravelle: No, we're not.

Mr. Bisson: Well, you may not be apart. This goes back to my original point that sometimes when you're in government, you've got to keep

quiet. The point is that I think this is one we can work together on. Private members' hour is one of those times when we demonstrate that members of all parties are able to work well together --

even though we might be sparring on other issues -- for the better good of not only the constituents of your riding but, at the end of the day, the constituents of my riding and everybody else's. I

congratulate you for bringing in this bill.

Mr. Craitor: I had the pleasure and honour of speaking to this bill when it was originally introduced in April 2004, so I'm grateful to have

the opportunity, along with five of my colleagues, to speak on the bill again.

Congratulations to the member from Thunder Bay-Superior North, Michael Gravelle, for bringing this bill forward. I think every day in the hallway we bump into

each other and the first thing I ask Michael -- and he'll tell you -- is, "How are we doing? Where's it going?"

When I spoke on this bill the first time, I mentioned a couple of names. One was Patrick Cummings, a very close friend of mine for the 10 years I sat on city

council. Patrick had diabetes and has since passed away. That's when I really learned what diabetes was all about. I also mentioned an e-mail that I received back then from a Wendy Anderson, who

said the passage of the bill is a life-and-death issue for her and the insulin pump therapy is a necessity, not a choice.

I want to add a couple of other faces and voices to this bill. My good friend Al Greatrix from Niagara Falls has diabetes. My wife's brother, who is seriously

ill, is a diabetic.

I recently received a letter from Susan Crane of Niagara Falls. I spoke to her, and she's given me permission to read into Hansard her comments to me. She

writes:

"Mr. Craitor

"I am a single mother of three daughters. The youngest daughter (age 13) is an asthmatic and type 1 diabetic.

"It is very difficult for me to understand why it is taking so long for Bill 55 to have its second reading. People with type 1 diabetes have not chosen this

medical condition, but the cost in controlling it is huge. I cannot understand why our government, whom I think the world of, cannot get this bill passed through so that children with diabetes can

get medicines free.

"My daughter's syringes cost $1 apiece, four times a day. Multiply that by 30 days per month and the cost is out of this world. My family and I will go without

a lot of things to ensure she is kept healthy.

"We have approached all of the service clubs in Niagara Falls to ask for their assistance in obtaining a pump. A pump would enhance her young life and give her

more freedom to do some of the things her friends are able to do. Thus far we have received a $1,000 donation from the Niagara Falls Kiwanis Club. The total cost of the insulin pump is $6,600.

"I don't know if you can help to push this bill through the parliamentary procedures, but if you can it would mean a lot to her and our family."

I know this assembly is listening. I know it wants to help.

I will also share with the House that two weeks ago the Minister of Finance was in St. Catharines and conducted a round table meeting to discuss our upcoming

budget. A young lady made an excellent presentation about insulin pumps. I will also tell you that I could tell the minister was moved, and in fact commented on the bill.

So in closing, I just want to say it's a good start. I'm totally in support of it. Congratulations again to the member for bringing it forward.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I am pleased to rise today to speak in support once again, this time on Bill 15, the private

member's bill from the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North which would amend the Health Insurance Act to allow the insulin pump and supplies for the pump to become insured services.

I've had many people come to me in the riding to speak about this bill. We're following it with the Lindsay

chapter of the Canadian Diabetes Association --

Anne Rink was past president there -- but also from the Peterborough area. I'm sure the member for Peterborough has been approached many times by people in his area supporting this.

In January, Mrs. Brown, a constituent of mine, had to quit work in order to look after her child who has diabetes. She wasn't able to get an insulin pump for

her; she was a very brittle diabetic, which means unstable. She had to make changes in their lifestyle just to look after her daughter, who could have been assisted by an insulin pump. Her daughter

could have much more independence, and thus she herself could have more independence to go back to work etc.

We've written to Mr. Smitherman through the Canadian Diabetes Association, and I'm hoping the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North and other members can

pressure the government to bring this to committee so we can have a fulsome discussion about the insulin pump.

The insulin pump itself controls the blood sugar level. I don't know if the member for Simcoe North held up the pump. It's a small device with a catheter. It

monitors the sugar level and delivers the insulin accordingly, so people don't have to watch the clock; their lifestyles can be more flexible.

Ron and Cathy Millen in my riding have a son who has a demanding university schedule. This has helped eliminate the chronic high and low blood glucose levels

that occur with him. They paid thousands of dollars to assists their son's medical needs, and they're hoping the bill is passed. He's going to be graduating soon, if he can go on to afford that,

because it will affect what jobs he chooses and his whole quality of life.

George and Dott Heath from my riding, both diabetics who volunteer with the Canadian Diabetes Association, have e-mailed me in support.

Certainly, in my career as a nurse, I've seen many diabetic highs and lows and how diabetes affects people and their lifestyles. Even recently, in my

profession now as an MPP, I still do a lot of medical calls when I'm out in public because they are affected. They're passing out in public. They do have unstable levels. So it's all around us.

We're trying to let Ontarians lead healthy, more productive lives. Statistics have shown the increase in diabetes that is going to be happening. Diabetes is

the leading cause of heart disease, kidney disease and blindness in Ontario. More than 850,000 Ontarians, which is 7% of the population -- when you think about it, it's quite a lot -- have this

disease. They account for 32% of the heart attacks, 43% of heart failure cases, 30% of strokes, 51% of new dialysis patients and 70% of amputations. Just last week, or maybe even this week, the

amputations that occur were on the news -- diabetics not being able to see their lower extremities, especially, facing amputations that could have been prevented. Being able to monitor their blood

glucose levels in a more effective way would certainly improve their circulation and save amputations down the road. So that's getting more prominence in the news, the costs to the health care

system, which the member from Thunder Bay-Superior North gave very good statistics on. Certainly, I believe the ounce of prevention, the money put forward now, will save the cost to the health care

system down the road.

Gilles Bisson mentioned how so few private members' bills get passed. I was fortunate enough this year to have one of my private member's bills get passed, and

only 2% get passed. But it's a great morning when we do non-partisan work and try to improve the quality of life for all people in Ontario.

Later this afternoon, at the Speaker's will, I'm going to present petitions on behalf of the member from Simcoe North. There are thousands of petitions. I

thank Paul Beckwith, Glen Heatherington, Karen Lynn and Melanie Hellstern for obtaining these signatures.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I too rise in support of this initiative. When a person with the integrity of the

member from Thunder Day-Superior North asks you to offer a few words, the only possible response is to agree. I've always found that the sponsor of the bill has never had to worry about giving a

speech that will bring people to their feet, for his wise and thoughtful words have always served to bring people to their senses. Today is no exception.

Simply put, the bill presented makes sense. It makes sense because diabetics suffer if their disease becomes unmanageable. In simple truth, research on the

utility and effectiveness of insulin pumps in achieving and maintaining optimal glycemic control requires us to concede that no diabetes strategy can be comprehensive if it fails to acknowledge the

importance and then ensure the broad-base use of insulin pump technology. The benefits of continuous insulin infusion with an insulin pump have been well documented.

That said, the good member from Thunder Bay-Superior North has already provided a comprehensive overview of the serious complications which can result from a

failure in disease management. The costs to our health care system are both staggering and growing. In Ontario, there are about 6,500 children who live with insulin-dependent diabetes. On average,

each child living with insulin-dependent diabetes will cost our health care system more than $200,000, the result of disease complications. Contrasting this cost to the cost of the pump and

supplies, which the member has outlined, suggests at least a 10 to one health care payback through the early provision and use of insulin pump technology. Investing these dollars to ensure proper

disease management will enhance the future of these children and allow them to live healthier, happier, more productive lives. In short, it would be money well spent.

Allow me to close by quoting the words of a friend, the Right Reverend Dr. Tommy Douglas, who said, "If, instead of flowers, we could plant a beautiful thought

in the heart of a friend, that would be to give as the angels give." Today we have an exciting opportunity indeed to give as the angels give, to move forward with the beautiful thought placed in

the heart of this assembly this morning. Thank you, Michael.

Today we can ensure that the road less travelled becomes the more common path and avoid the fate of Robert Frost's hired hand who, in the end, "Had nothing to

look back on with pride nor forward to with hope." I implore all members of this assembly to act with resolve to embrace this wonderful initiative.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It really is an honour for me to say a few words today in support of Bill 15 and support my good friend the

member from Thunder Bay-Superior North. Today in our audience we have a number of fourth-year nursing students from Trent University: Nicole Anderson, Julia Wadsworth, Lai Jeet Yeo, Amarpreet

Sikand, Melissa Bennett, Jennifer Nash, Spring Numan and Meredith Alexander. These individuals have been circulating a petition in my community of Peterborough to bring forth support for Bill 15.

My friend from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock has mentioned the son of Ron and Cathy Millen, who I know very well, and Dorothy MacDonald, the executive director of the local diabetes

chapter in my

riding of Peterborough.

In bringing this bill forward today, the member is truly part of the great legacy of Thunder Bay-Superior North, along with C.D. Howe, Robert Andras, Lyn

McLeod and others. There is a great tradition of leadership from that part of northwestern Ontario, and this fulfills that great legacy.

Secondly, I believe that Bill 15 is just a logical extension of the legacy here in Ontario of Banting and Best, to bring forward and support this bill to have

OHIP support these insulin pumps.

I want to talk about the two First Nations communities in the riding of Peterborough. Chief Greg Cowie, of Hiawatha First Nations community, and chief Keith

Knott, from Curve Lake First Nations community, in fact have shown leadership roles as Peterborough has had the opportunity to work with the Kashechewan people in the last number of weeks. They've

certainly indicated to me that diabetes is a very serious problem in their communities and they see the funding, through OHIP, of this pump as a very significant step forward in order to manage

diabetes in their communities. When you look at the statistics, over a million people in Ontario with either diagnosed diabetes or undiagnosed diabetes is a very serious situation, causing $2.1

billion in health care costs in Ontario. I think funding the insulin pump through OHIP would be a dramatic step forward to manage this difficulty.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm honoured and privileged this morning to stand up and support Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Health

Insurance Act. The honourable member from Thunder Bay-Superior North, for the second time in this place, has brought forward an important initiative, an important bill, that will affect thousands

and thousands of people across Ontario.

Before we start talking about this bill, let me introduce the people who came from London to be with us this morning to watch the debate about this important

bill: Jannet Mundt, Jennifer Kish and Christine Turner. Thank you for coming from London.

Along with the wonderful people from London, many other people from the province of Ontario are watching us today to see how this debate is going to unfold. I

believe this initiative is very important for many families, for many kids, for many people who want to live their lives normally, like everybody else, like you and I. They're going to wake up in

the morning healthy, they can go to work, and they can be productive in our community. That's why I am supporting this bill, because the insulin pump is a very important initiative, a very

important technique to give us a positive initiative to keep us alive, going to work and doing whatever we want with comfort.

Also, many people talked about it from both sides of the House, from three different parties: Liberal, Conservative and NDP. I believe that everyone is going

to support it.

I know the insulin pump is going to cost the government, the Ministry of Health, some kind of money at the beginning. But in the end, in the long run, this

will save health care a lot of money, and not just money, but also to create a way for the diabetic people in this province to live their lives normally, like everyone else.

I learned from many people who spoke before me that there are almost a million people who are diabetic in this province, who suffer from this disease. Many

people are looking at us today, especially today, to support them, and they want us to pass this bill.

I feel that this bill is going to pass in the future, hopefully. It was first introduced by our Minister of Finance when he was in opposition in 2003. Second,

it was also introduced last year by the honourable member from Thunder Bay-Superior North, who has again presented it in this House, seeking support from many members of this House.

I believe that passing this bill will mean a lot to all of us, it will mean a lot to our health care, and it will mean a lot to many thousands of people in

this province. I want to continue supporting this bill, and hopefully we will see the passage of it.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): It is also my pleasure to speak this bill. As others have mentioned, we've spoken to it before. I

hope to speak to it again, but at third reading this time rather than second reading. I think the fact that it's back before this Legislature is a wonderful tribute to Michael Gravelle; Michael

proves that good things do come in small packages. Thank you, Michael.

It's also a tribute to parents, grandparents and community advocates who have not let this bill go away, because they know the goodness that exists within

it.

As engineers, when we design a structure, one of the factors we have to consider is, what happens if the structure fails; what are the implications? So when I

look at a bill I say, what happens if this bill doesn't pass? It's difficult at times for governments to find funding for what are truly preventive programs, because there isn't that immediate

payback that you can calculate and say, "Boy, it's going to save this many dollars." They're long term. But if this bill fails, what are the long-term costs? Let's look initially just at money down

the road.

I have been told that if an individual has a heart attack, it's basically $100,000 when they enter the hospital and the bill goes up from there; insulin pumps

substantially reduce that. Vision: The loss of vision for the individual is a loss of independence. It's not just not being able to read but it's losing their independence. There is a high rate of

amputations among individuals with diabetes. There's the need for dialysis. All of these represent dollar losses to our province and represent independence loss to our individuals. But folks, to

the province it represents the loss of the talents and the contributions that these individuals would have been better able to make had they had not suffered this. From a financial viewpoint, the

pumps are a pretty small cost.

All of us are lobbied on a regular basis. When I was first appointed, I was lobbied about insulin pumps, but the impact was really made on me when I was at an

event and saw a child with an insulin pump. I know that juvenile diabetes affects more than children, but my first contact was with a young man wearing an insulin pump. I realized that this pump

enabled that person to live the same life as all his peers and colleagues, to take

part in sports and not go through the challenges of having the needles all the time.

I believe that a child has a right to a childhood. This insulin pump bill, when passed, will enable children to have the childhood they deserve. It will enable

them to take

part in all the activities and to live as close to a normal life as humanly possible.

I hope, as all of us do, that ultimately a cure for diabetes will be found. But, folks, we have the opportunity here to make life better for innumerable

children and adults in this province, and we must not waste this opportunity.

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

Mr. Gravelle: I want to begin by thanking my colleagues who spoke today and all others for being so articulate, so passionate and so

supportive of this legislation, particularly the members for Simcoe North, Timmins-James Bay, Niagara Falls, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, Peterborough,

London-Fanshawe, and Prince Edward-Hastings. You all were wonderful and I appreciate the great support.

I am most grateful to the Canadian Diabetes Association and the Ontario Diabetes Action Partnership for the great support you've shown. I mean, you won't give

up. You shouldn't give up, and we won't give up as well. We believe this is something very important that should happen, and I'm really confident that we're going to succeed.

I don't want this to be misunderstood, but sometimes when you're in this business, when you're a politician, you feel like you are spinning your wheels or you

feel like you're not accomplishing a great deal. I must admit, when I first became involved with this particular issue and brought it forward as a private member's bill, I did recognize that this

was going to have a positive impact on a lot of people in the province. It would be something that would make a true difference. Truly, that is why we all come here. We come to Queen's Park or get

into elected office or seek public office because we truly want to make a difference. I think that goes for all people of all parties. This is something that, if we are successful not only in

getting passage today but in getting our government to support it -- very soon, we hope -- will make a huge difference in people's lives. That does make a difference. So I thank you all.

I do want to thank those people who came here to try to lend that support. I'm thinking of Zachary Smith and Lyla-Kay Collins. Thank you so much. I know the

pump has made a real difference, and I also know what a challenge it has been for you to manage the costs. Hopefully today, with the tremendous support we've received, we will be successful in

seeing things change and this legislation will go through and the pump will be available through OHIP in the future. Thank you so much, everybody.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(DRINKING AND BOATING

OFFENCES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(INFRACTIONS RELATIVES À L'ALCOOL

ET À LA NAVIGATION DE PLAISANCE)

Mr. Zimmer moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 209,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences / Projet de loi 209, Loi modifiant le Code de la

route en ce qui concerne les suspensions de permis de conduire.

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

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Bill 209 is aimed at saving lives and preventing bodily injury and ensuring boat safety. As a society, we now

understand the message that driving a car while impaired is dangerous. Through the hard work of organizations like MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and our law enforcement authorities,

the message has been clear: If you drink, don't drive. As well, through a strategic campaign of advertisements, RIDE programs and punitive deterrents within our justice system, the culture of

Ontarians has been changed and impaired driving is now considered antisocial behaviour. The result has been that thousands of lives have been saved and thousands of injuries have been

prevented.

But there is another alcohol-related issue that has long been ignored. Driving an automobile or a snowmobile while impaired has been deemed unacceptable

behaviour, but driving a motorboat on our vast waterways seems to have escaped this labelling. Every boating season, there are serious accidents involving boating and alcohol. Lives are lost

needlessly due to impaired boaters. I'm a cottager. I am familiar with the lakes and waterways of our province, as are many, many other Ontarians. Unfortunately, it's not unusual for individuals to

choose to operate a motorboat while impaired. The attitude that it is acceptable to operate a motor vessel while impaired is prevalent among many boaters.

Alcohol and recreational boating is an extremely bad mixture. Alcohol impairs cognitive function, judgment and reaction time, and diminishes an individual's

ability to survive in cold water. Yet society maintains a much greater level of tolerance for riskier behaviour in boats than in motor vehicles. According to a Red Cross report that looked at

drownings between 1991 and 2000, the statistics are even more appalling. Between 1991 and 1995, 26% of drowning victims were above the legal alcohol limit. Between 1996 and 2000, 23% of drowning

victims were above the legal limit. Boating and alcohol, snowmobiling and alcohol and the non-use of personal flotation devices accounted for a significant number of these drowning fatalities.

Over the summer break I had the opportunity to visit police units around the province in order to understand the perspective of local authorities. Whether I

was in Peel, Bracebridge or Orillia, the message was clear: We need to change the culture that believes drinking and boating is acceptable.

The Ontario Provincial Police statistics effectively illustrate the extent of this problem. Between April 2003 and December 2003, the OPP marine units issued

almost 2,000 charges and warnings involving the use of alcohol and boats. During that same period, 33 impaired boating charges or warnings were issued; 33 Criminal Code charges were also issued

regarding blood alcohol of more than 80 milligrams per 100 litres of blood.

Here are the facts: 37% of boaters in Canada admit to consuming alcohol on every boat trip; 66% report that they drink alcohol sometimes while boating. Alcohol

is a factor in over 40% of recreational boating fatalities. These statistics about the dangers of impaired boating are compelling by themselves, but it is sometimes easy to detach ourselves from

the numbers. It is very difficult to ignore the personal tragedies that are faced by families across the province who lose their loved ones to individuals who are driving a boat while impaired.

Pete Crompton, for instance, a 27-year-old man, died tragically two years ago in a boat collision where alcohol was a factor. Ken Crompton, Pete's father,

inspired the introduction of this bill. I spoke at length to him. No family should have to endure the loss of a loved one due to the impairment of a boater. I'm committed to ensuring that something

positive emerges from the loss that families suffer, such as the Cromptons have had to face.

What will the bill do? The premise of this bill is based on the belief that there should not be a distinction between an impaired driver of an automobile and

an impaired operator of a powered vessel. When an individual chooses to drink and drive in any vehicle, they become a weapon and they put the safety of others at risk.

Bill 209, if passed, will amend the Highway Traffic Act so that the penalties that apply to individuals convicted of impaired driving of an automobile will

also apply to boaters who drive powered vessels while impaired. Right now, law enforcement authorities have the ability to issue convictions for drinking and boating, but for law enforcement,

spotting an impaired boater is much more difficult than spotting an impaired automobile driver. Therefore, it is important that there is an effective deterrent that will prevent boaters from

drinking in the first place. As well, theoretically, if an individual who is convicted of driving a motor vessel while impaired is brought ashore by the local police, there is nothing preventing

them from going to their car and driving away, in spite of their alcohol-related conviction, because their driver's licence is still in effect.

This bill is about giving law enforcement authorities the tools they need to effectively address this problem. It's about giving the municipalities, especially

those municipalities on our waterways and in cottage country, the tools to further ensure the safety of citizens and tourists. It's about ensuring that the millions of tourists and Ontario

residents who enjoy boating can go out on our waterways without having to fear for their lives due to impaired boaters.

If passed, this bill will (1) suspend the driver's licence of individuals convicted of an alcohol-related offence while operating a vessel; (2) give

enforcement authorities the ability to enact 12-hour driver's licence suspensions if persons are caught operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol; and (3) the registrar of motor

vehicles will be able to enact an immediate 90-day suspension of a driver's licence for an offence involving alcohol and the operation of a vessel.

This legislation is long overdue, and it is not the first time it has been introduced. Bills similar to Bill 209 have been introduced at least four times in

this Legislature, and each time the bill has died on the order paper, despite support from all political parties.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House for considering this bill. I hope you will be able to review this bill expeditiously so that I can introduce it.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure safety on Ontario's waterways and roads. People who drink and boat present a safety risk not only in a boat

but also if they choose to get into their car following the conviction or a warning for a boating offence. As a province, we do suspend drivers' licences for offences such as non-payment of child

support and impaired operation of a snowmobile, so there is no reason why we can't do the same for drinking and driving on the water.

I have been around the province. I have heard from all the police enforcement agencies that operate on or near our waterways. I have had communications from

virtually all of the cottage owners' associations, the marine operators' associations -- anybody having to do with boats and recreation, whether it was down in the Niagara Peninsula, in Lake Huron,

in western Ontario, up in Lake Superior, in the Kawarthas, in the Muskokas. I've had extensive, huge e-mail response to this. All of the stakeholders, to a person, support this legislation, for the

reasons that I've said. I can tell this House that there is one exception: I received an e-mail from someone in northern Ontario -- one e-mail out of hundreds and hundreds -- that objected to the

legislation and said, in effect, "I go out fishing every morning at about eight o'clock, and I have done for 50 years. I've always taken six bottles of beer with me, and I don't intend stopping

that." With that one exception, there has been across-the-board support for this legislation.

I can say in the House that I've talked to my colleagues in the Conservative Party and in the New Democratic Party, and I'm thankful for the support that I've

received from those caucuses on this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I look forward to debating Bill 209 and the member from Willowdale's presentation.

Opposition's role is to bring forward a lot of questions so that hopefully we can get some answers when bills like this come forward. At the outset, I should

say that we'll be supporting the bill.

The member from Willowdale spoke in his opening comments regarding power vessels. We'd like to know what's going to take place when you deal with canoes or

sculling vessels, which are the rowing ones, or the rowboats in those actions as well, because it specifically deals with power vessels. What takes place there?

Also, we wonder why ATVs or Argos, those eight-wheeled vehicles, and the other ones that are coming forward now -- the member probably realizes that they're

under the HTA, or the Highway Traffic Act, but there is currently a movement to have them removed from the Highway Traffic Act. The reason for that is for insurance purposes. According to the

Insurance Bureau of Canada, they have to follow the guidelines for the Highway Traffic Act for ATVs and Argos and all those other vehicles for insurance purposes. In order to get changes in the way

they can be insured in the same fashion that snowmobiles have been removed from the Highway Traffic Act, ATVs and other vehicles are trying to be removed. We should probably look at that aspect as

well for future considerations of what's going to happen in those areas.

Some of the things: What takes place with an individual who doesn't have a driver's licence? You're required to have a boating licence, and I'm going to get

into that very shortly, but there's no requirement to have a driver's licence to be out utilizing a power vessel or a canoe or the other ones that we mentioned there. We'd like to know what the

intent is, if there is any, to look at those aspects as well.

We realize that the member is trying to move forward. Anything that can take place to make our waterways safer, we'll certainly support.

The licensing aspect is another one. I met with the federal members who were on the committee when the federal licensing issue took place. I'm sure the member

knows that, according to the Canada act from 1982, licensing is retained by the provinces. The provinces are the ones who are supposed to have licensing ability. The committee members were saying

that should this federal boating licence go to court, it probably doesn't have a leg to stand on and they expected it to be challenged -- so something to ensure that the federal licensing component

is reviewed.

Another aspect, of course, is that we get a lot of bills like this, and we need to know where the funds are, or who has the ability to enforce the laws.

Conservation officers are constantly checking fishing limits, they're checking fishing licences and those sort of aspects as well, but they don't have the authority to deal with anything outside

the Game and Fish Act. They have no authority under the Highway Traffic Act or any other aspects. They are currently seeking that, but then again, they move away from conservation officers dealing

with specific aspects of the Game and Fish Act to dealing with all sorts of policing aspects. The way it stands now is that they can detain that individual and have an officer come on to move

forward with other charges, and whether that's drinking or other aspects of activity that are illegal, they will be able to deal with that as well.

There are a lot of other boating issues that need to be addressed as well. I know a key one that we get responses from individuals on is whether or not this

monitoring of boat speeds will be taken into consideration in one shape or form. Believe it or not, there are limits for individuals and the speed they drive, particularly close to shores, where

the wake will actually wash away the shore and cause degradation of those shorelines. It causes a lot of problems with docks and the boats that are out there smashing against the docks and those

sort of things.

Some of the other considerations as well: We realize that alcohol is a very serious issue, and anything that we can do along those lines we'd be very

supportive of and we will move forward on.

I've given the member a number of key questions regarding these issues: the licensing aspect, the enforcement aspect, the funds to enforce, the other areas

that potentially should be looked at, whether it's canoes, sculling vessels, ATVs, Argos and all those other vessels that are looked at being removed from the Highway Traffic Act. We'd certainly

appreciate some information or some insight on what potential impacts might be there or could be looked at for amendments at that time.

Hopefully we can get it forward. We will be supporting it, as I said, in moving it to committee so a lot of these issues can be brought forward by groups and

organizations that are directly impacted or work with individuals who participate in these recreational activities.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): First let me say, as the critic for the New Democratic Party for the Ministries of Natural Resources

and Transportation, that we will be supporting this bill, because we believe, as does the member, that people should be responsible. People should not be operating a motorboat or vehicle or

anything else when they're intoxicated. It's a danger to themselves and, quite frankly, a danger to others. I think that goes without debate.

I want to put something on the record, because we know that in the future, when this item is brought to court, if somebody gets charged under that, some

lawyers are going to go back and take a look at the record of when we had the debate and what the intent was. I want to put a couple of issues on the record and I want people to not misunderstand

where I'm going, because it's a bit of a controversial issue.

One of the complaints that I get from people in my constituency quite a bit is that there's this sense in northern Ontario -- northern members will know what

I'm talking about -- that there is less and less of an ability these days to live the life that we traditionally have lived in northern Ontario. People move to northern Ontario because the work is

good; they enjoy the lifestyle. In compensation for being further away from the centre of the universe, which happens to be Toronto, you have a positive, which is that you have the outdoors, so

people can enjoy themselves when it comes to fishing or hunting, camping, skidooing or whatever it might be.

There has been a move over the past number of years to where it is becoming more and more restrictive for people to participate in those actions. For example,

we look at the issue of the moose hunt. Moose hunting is something that is in the blood of people in northern Ontario. It's something that we've always done. My earliest memories as a child were of

my father taking my brother and me out hunting. I've got pictures at home where I'm out with my dad; I'm like three years old out in the bush and we're looking for partridge or going along with dad

in the afternoon on a cruise of the timbered areas to look for moose. It becomes part of our culture. It's the kind of thing that maybe a lot of people who don't live in northern Ontario don't

understand, but it becomes our ethos; it becomes part of what we are.

What has happened over the years is that many of those things that we have done for years are being taken away, or there's a perception that they are being

taken away. For example, on the moose hunt, it's almost impossible to get a moose tag these days. I was in the moose tag draw for 10 years and never got drawn, so I finally gave up. I got rid of my

guns and said, "To heck with it; I'm not doing it any more," because I'm frustrated that I can't get a moose tag.

The other

part is that, as a person who likes to hunt -- and I don't hunt any more -- I found it was becoming more and more restrictive. The ministry officers,

the game wardens, are in the bush with the OPP. You would think, for God's sake, there's a bunch of criminals running around in the bush. Go in during hunting or fishing season; it's absolutely

amazing the presence the MNR has out in the bush.

I understand, as a responsible citizen, there's a reason why they're there. We need to make sure people don't break the law, that people are not out poaching,

not doing things that are a danger to themselves or others, etc. I understand all of that. But there's this real sense that the thing we have taken for granted as northerners, the outdoors, is

becoming more and more difficult to do because it's becoming more and more restrictive as we pass more and more laws through this provincial Legislature. The complaint and the comment I get from a

lot of people, not only in my constituency but from across northern Ontario -- and I'm sure if you talk to other northerners, you'll get the same -- is that people are becoming extremely

frustrated.

In the context of this bill, I want to put a couple of things on the record in the context of what I've just said. People really feel as if things are starting

to get a little bit crazy.

For example, last summer I had an older couple in their 50s -- actually they're retired, so they might even be in their 60s -- come to my office totally beside

themselves. They said, "I don't believe this. We've had a cottage on this particular lake for 35 years. Every Saturday night my wife and I, after the kids were old enough that we could leave them

alone, would get on our boat and go fishing. We'd fish for an hour, catch a pickerel or two, bring them back and we'd have ourselves a little fish fry."

Every time they'd go, they'd bring a beer with them. They're sitting out in the middle of the lake. They're not hurting anybody. They're responsible

individuals who happen to have a beer while they're fishing. What happens? These people are on their boat in front of their cottage. They go out, and who shows up? The MNR along with the OPP. They

get charged because they've got two beers in the boat.

I understand people will say, "My God, you shouldn't be drinking and driving." Yes, I agree with you too. I get in my car, for example, and drive from my home

to my buddy's place and he gives me a beer; I'm not over the limit. As long as you're under the limit and you're able to drive it's not illegal. You have to be responsible, and you drive back. If

you go and have two, three or four beers and you're over the limit, of course you don't drive. You take a cab or get somebody to drive you home.

The point this couple was making and why they were beside themselves -- they said, "Here we are for 35 years on this lake and we get charged on our lake for

having a beer while we're fishing. What have we done wrong? Have we become criminals?"

I get similar stories from other constituents when it comes to incidences they've had as far as contact with the MNR and the OPP.

Here's a good one. This one's beyond me. A friend of mine, Bob Courchesne in Fauquier, Ontario -- I think it was Bob's daughter; I hope I get this right. Bob

Courchesne's daughter -- at the time she was about 14 or 15 -- and her friends, as I did, grew up in the outdoors. They wanted to go ice fishing. Bob's got an ice hut out on a lake in behind

Fauquier. As all kids: "Dad, can we use the skidoo and go ice fishing?" "Of course, not a problem." They have a licence. She and her friends get on the skidoo, go out in the bush and get to the

lake. Here are three young girls, 14 years old, doing nothing wrong but fishing in an ice hut. Who showed up? The MNR with the OPP. They said, "Get out of the ice hut. We think you guys have got

drugs."

It's 30 below zero. Three 14-year-olds are just beside themselves because they don't use drugs and they're doing something that, quite frankly, we should

encourage our children to do, and that is, to be responsible young people. They just happened to be ice fishing. They're told to get out of the hut. The MNR and the OPP went in and stripped down

the hut. They searched the girls and found no drugs, then left everything on the ice and left.

So Bob gives me a call and says, "Gilles, what the heck is going on when our kids can't go in the bush -- they're searched by the OPP and because they happen

to be 14 years old, they're drug users? Give me a break."

I say to the member who introduces the bill, I agree with you that people should not be intoxicated driving any kind of vehicle. I'm a pilot, and I well know.

The point is, we need to be very careful when we do these things that we don't set them up in such a way that restricts people's ability to do what is part of the natural cycle of things in a place

called northern Ontario. I would argue it's probably the case in many other parts of Ontario. I'm familiar with where I come from.

Other stories: Another friend of mine, Len Pigeon, who used to have a cottage two or three over from us and actually used to live there, and his buddy Leo

Belec would go trout fishing, on this lake we call Winter Lake, in the wintertime, a really nice lake. We've got nice lakes there, if anybody's watching. It's in behind the Kamiskotia River.

Anyway, the point is that he goes out fishing with Leo. They're two retired guys and they're going to go ice fishing.

I'm sorry, but if I'm going to go ice fishing, I know I would bring with me a little mickey of rye or some wine or a couple of beers. I'm going to be out there

for the day. So I'm going to get my machine, load up my skidoo and put it on the trailer. I'm going to drive up the dirt road to get to where the lake is. My buddy and me are going to take the

machine out, we're going to go out fishing and, yes, we're going to have a couple of beers. But I'm there for the whole afternoon. I'm not over the limit.

What happens to him? He gets a RIDE program in the middle of the bush, for God's sake. I understand if there's a RIDE program on Highway 11, but a RIDE program

in the middle of a dirt road? Well, it happens to be covered with snow. What are we thinking? What's the OPP up to and what's the MNR up to? They're sending a signal. Yes, I agree that we need to

be responsible and people need to know that they can get caught if they're impaired; that's how we prevent people from drinking and driving. But again, the same thing: They were pulled over; the

MNR and the OPP told them to strip the truck. They took everything out of the truck and basically checked everything. They saw that they had four bottles of beer. Thank God the bottles of beer

happened to be in the back of the pickup truck, because if they'd been in the truck, they probably would have been charged. I would tend to put them inside my truck because I don't want them to

freeze. It's 40 below zero when I go ice fishing for trout in January. Anyway, the point being, everything is thrown out on to the side of the road. They're made to feel as if they're doing

something wrong. Then the OPP and the MNR say, "Be careful," and they leave all the stuff on the ground and away they go.

I go out to the lake the following weekend, to do what I normally do at the lake, to cut some wood or whatever, and Len comes over to my driveway. He is just

jumping this high off the ground. He says, "All my life I've lived up here." Then he says, "I'm going to get pulled over by these guys in the middle of the bush. They think I'm some kind of

criminal because I happen to be going ice fishing and I've got four beers in the back of my truck. What's going on here?" Following that, he said that he had to pick up all of the stuff and put it

back into the truck himself.

For the record -- because I know at some point this will be looked at in the transcript of a trial when somebody is charged -- yes, we need to do what is right

to make sure that people don't drink and drive in any kind of vehicle. As New Democrats, we agree with that. But we need to be sending a message to our police services and MNR that -- I don't want

to use a word that's too strong; I was going to use the phrase "police state," and that would have been way over the top -- they have a responsibility, yes, to make sure that the laws are followed,

but at the same time, we should not be doing it in such a way that gives people the feeling that they're being restricted from being able to do what they normally do. I just say that we need to be

mindful of that.

Yes, we as New Democrats will support your bill, because we agree with you that there should be a penalty if you're found to be drinking and driving. I don't

care what the vehicle is. That is a danger. People shouldn't be doing it, and we should not condone it. We have to be very clear that there are severe penalties if that happens. If it means losing

your driver's licence, so be it. I have no problem with that.

But for the record, I want to be very clear that the MNR, the conservation officers, along with the Ontario Provincial Police, need to get a talking to.

Somebody's got to sit down with these people and say, "Just cool your jets." Yes, there's nothing wrong with you being out there and having a presence. You have to be there in order to watch what's

going on. But in your contact with people, you need to be mindful that they are citizens of this province; they are not a bunch of criminals. They happen to be people who live in northern Ontario

who like to ice fish, who like to fish in the summer or skidoo or whatever it is. Yes, if I'm going to go ice fishing, I'm bringing two beers with me; I've always done that. But don't treat me as a

criminal because I decide to bring two beers with my lunch as I go ice fishing for the day. I can sit in my home, have two beers, get in my truck at 6 o'clock at night and drive, and if I started

having those beers at 12 o'clock in the afternoon, I'm not impaired. The issue is, yes, charge the person if they've been found to be impaired, charge the person if they've done something

dangerous, charge them if they're doing something wrong, but don't go there and start penalizing people on the basis of just carrying out a regular activity that you would do as you enjoy the

outdoors. I just want to say to the member, I think that has to be put on the record, because there is really a sense of frustration out there.

I would say that another one, a good friend of mine who runs a bait store, who my good friend Mr. Ouellette will know quite while -- Roger Cauchon -- is at

wit's end. Every time I have a conversation with him, it's like, "So tell me what the ministry of no response is doing these days." He calls the MNR the "ministry of no response." He is frustrated,

because here's a guy who's the second generation in the business of a sport shop supplying people bait, tackle -- whatever they need to go hunting or fishing -- and who has done a really good job

at providing that service. Quite frankly, it's one of the premier businesses in that area in that particular sector.

What he finds is that over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for him to make a living. Why? Because fewer and fewer people are using the outdoors

for the very reason I stated just now, which is that the Ministry of Natural Resources -- or, as he would call it, the ministry of no response -- and the OPP think they're a bunch of Rambos when

they go into the bush. As a result, people get frustrated. They stop fishing, they stop hunting, they stop doing the very things that we take for granted in northern Ontario. As a business person,

he says, "My God, what are you doing? You're charging my people as if they're a bunch of criminals. All they wanted to do is go out and catch a couple of fish, maybe shoot a couple of partridges,

go skidooing or whatever it might be, and they're being treated like criminals." He gets it day in and day out at his business when he's interacting with these people, because somebody will come

into the bait shop, pick up half a dozen or a dozen minnows, take off to go fishing, and all of a sudden they come back and they've got some horror story about how they've been pulled over by the

OPP or the MNR for no reason. I would understand if somebody gets pulled over because they seem to be doing something that is illegal, or they seem to be intoxicated and they were worried they

might take control of a vehicle; I would understand that. But his complaint is the one I'm raising here, which is that people are just out there doing the regular stuff, they're just fishing, and

you've got people being pulled over for no reason.

For the record, I just want to say that we really need to give a talking-to to the officials of both the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario

Provincial Police to say, "Yes, you have a responsibility to enforce the laws of this province, but you need to do so with respect for the people you're in contact with. You should not see

yourselves as the Rambos of the world. You should see yourselves as what you are, professional conservation officers and OPP, who are there if there is a problem and to make sure the problem is

dealt with, and not to create a problem by trying to treat people who are in contact with the outdoors, as Roger would say, as a bunch of criminals."

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm sad to say that one of the reasons for Bill 209 was the tragic death of Peter Crompton, 27 years old, on

July 13 by the operator of a boat who had been drinking. I was also shocked to learn, and so were many of my friends when I told them, that the driver of a boat who's impaired is not treated the

same as a driver of a motor vehicle. This bill simply will correct that by amending the Highway Traffic Act so that the penalties that apply to impaired drivers will apply to impaired boaters. If

you drink, don't drive. Don't drive a car, don't drive a snowmobile and absolutely don't drive a boat.

We probably all know the song, "Summertime and the living is easy." A few beers on the dock of the bay can be a cool thing too. This is the romance of

summertime on the water all over Ontario. Summer fun and a cool one is a lifestyle too well publicized every night on TV in fantasy ads. What is not glamorized is the death and destruction, the

pain and suffering, the loss and anguish of one drink too many on our lakes and on our rivers that we see far too often on the 11 o'clock news. Boating and alcohol is a death warrant, a

prescription no one wants to deliver to loved ones at home.

My riding of Niagara Falls is an island, with waterways on all four sides and the Welland River running through the centre. We're blessed by having Lake

Ontario, Lake Erie, the Niagara River and the Welland Canal, and, like many Ontario communities, boating is one of the most popular recreational activities we have. Safe boating is a primary

concern not just in my riding, but to everyone in Ontario.

The people in my riding certainly will support any legislation to make our waterways safer, especially after last summer, where we had the unfortunate incident

of a loss of life on the Chippawa River. As a result of that, a public meeting was held at the Chippawa Lions Club on how to make boating safer on our rivers and in our community. I was pleased to

attend that meeting and share Bill 209 with the public. I'm pleased to tell the House that all three city councils in my riding -- the city of Niagara Falls, the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the

town of Thorold -- passed resolutions in support of this bill.

Let's face it, alcohol impairs boaters. It's estimated that 50% to 60% of boating fatalities are alcohol-related. Alcohol impairs your coordination, balance,

vision, judgment and reaction time. Vision provides us with more than 90% of the information we use while operating a boat. Alcohol impairs vision by causing loss of focus and side vision.

Let's be clear: We need to understand that alcohol affects you even more on the water. Alcohol and a motor-powered vehicle is a weapon of mass destruction --

in the air, on land, on ice, on snow, and certainly in the water.

This province needs to amend the Highway Traffic Act to send a strong message that drinking and the operation of any motorized vehicle does not mix.

Not only do I support this bill but I'm strongly urging every member of this House, as I'm hearing from my own community, that we do the same thing. Hopefully

this bill will be passed before this upcoming summer and take effect for the upcoming boating season.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward. I was present when Mr. Crompton was there and

spoke to our committee. I would say it was a very emotional committee that I attended, having a parent talking about his son, who, without any question, had a bright future ahead of him, who died

tragically under those conditions. Certainly this bill has to go forward. Again, I commend you for bringing it.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I want to speak in support of this bill and I thank the member from Willowdale for bringing it

forward. I think for a lot of us, when it was first brought forward, it was actually a surprise that there wasn't some serious consequence for drinking in a motorized vessel on the waterways.

In my riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, I have quite an extensive lakeshore. My riding includes communities like Grand Bend, which is quite famous for its

summer activities and the waterways. We have Port Franks, and as we move along we have Kettle Point, Walpole Island, and Mitchell's Bay in Kent county as well. All these communities are famous as a

summer resort area, and it's not uncommon to see people moving with coolers from their cars to their boating vessels.

There is a general perception that drinking and boating is an acceptable practice. More so, the likelihood of getting caught is small, and even if you were to

get caught, the consequences are not terribly important and are almost negligible. So people do take the chance of drinking while they're boating.

There are a lot of myths around the idea of drinking and boating. There is the idea that there is no consequence, but also that drinking can be done safely in

a boat. People are thinking that maybe all they have to do is have a drink and enjoy themselves and, if they get drunk, everything will be fine. What they don't understand is that it is a motorized

vehicle and it can harm people.

There are myths around this sort of thing. They talk about things such as standing up; you know, can you stand up in a boat? Apparently 40% of the drownings

that occur are related to boating. People fall out of their boats into the water and they are too drunk to be able to recover from that.

One thing certainly struck me, and another member mentioned it as well. I am a member of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Mr. Ken

Crompton came before the committee during its public hearings in September to talk about what happened to him and his family. There was no doubt; you could see the family was still hurting and

suffering from the loss of their son Peter. So he sent a letter to the members of Parliament. I want to read excerpts from that letter:

"My son Pete was killed on July 13, 2003, while a passenger in a boat on Lake Joseph in the Muskokas. Pete was seated between two friends at the stern of the

boat, which, at the time, was stationary. The operator of a second boat failed to observe the presence of the boat Pete was in and struck the left rear stern, coming to rest across the boat. Pete

died of massive injuries caused by the boat's prop.

"The operator of the boat was charged with eight counts, including the impaired operation of a vehicle. He eventually pleaded guilty to criminal negligence

causing Pete's death and was given a conditional sentence which consisted of 18 months of house arrest."

It goes on further to say, "In my discussions with representatives of the OPP, who are responsible for the majority of the policing of the waterways, they have

indicated that the abuse of alcohol on the waterways is prevalent. Enforcement, however, is much more difficult than on the highways as in most instances there are no designated routes. The

deterrent effect is, therefore, of paramount importance. The 12-hour suspension allows the enforcement officers to remove drivers' licences and thus prevent individuals who have been drinking to

return to their vehicles and drive on the highways."

In his last paragraph he says, "Finally, in the case of Pete's death the operator of the boat did not have insurance. Although not confirmed, it is apparent

that his inability to obtain insurance was a result of a lengthy record of offences under the Highway Traffic Act. Not surprisingly, there is a direct correlation between the manner in which the

same individual chooses to operate a motor vehicle or a boat."

I think as legislators we have a responsibility to take care of our constituents when they go out on to the water. We need to make sure that it's safe. It's

important in communities like Grand Bend, where tourists come, that they have the assurance that they can go on to the water and be safe out there; that anyone who is caught impaired out there will

be punished accordingly. So I support this particular bill.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I guess that saying, "It gives me pleasure to speak to the bill" -- I'm not sure how to take that, because

after listening to Mr. Crompton in the committee, I too certainly realize, why are we debating a bill that it's just common sense should have been done years ago? Nevertheless, it's one of those

things that falls through the cracks, and we're dealing with it today after reacting to tragedies that we realize maybe could have been prevented.

I come from a riding which is surrounded by water on three sides. I'm very fortunate to have the shores of Lake Ontario on the south, the shores of beautiful

Rice Lake to the north, and probably one of the best navigable rivers, the Trent River system, to the east, which of course leads into numerous other parts of Ontario. So boating, I guess if I turn

around on three sides, is very popular in the summer. Water is very accessible. So do we need boat safety? For the people who live within the riding, for the visitors who come to the riding to

explore those waters, we need to provide a sense of safety, a sense of security.

Just to show how important it is to create a sense of safety in our communities, the first week in May, I believe it is, at the mouth of the Trent River in the

beautiful Bay of Quinte, there's a Kiwanis fishing derby. I don't exaggerate: There are thousands of boats.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): A wonderful success.

Mr. Rinaldi: Wonderful success. If I stand on top of that bridge in the municipality of Quinte West and look into the bay, I almost get the

sense that I could hop off the bridge and hop from boat to boat to boat. It goes on for a whole weekend. There are some fantastic prizes. People come from all over Ontario and probably from all

over the northern part of the US.

So do we want to reassure these people that they're coming to an environment for recreation, for a sporting event, one for a weekend of enjoying themselves --

of safety? I think we do.

When we talk about needing to pass this legislation, we need to recognize that when you're behind the wheel of a motorboat, it's no different from being behind

the wheel of a car. Actually, it's probably more dangerous, because at least when you're behind the wheel of a car, you tend to follow the shoulder; you tend to follow the line in the middle of the

road. Well, you're right on open waters. There is no right or left or in-between. So anything that we can do to enhance that safety, I think, we need to do.

I'm not a boater, I will admit, even though I live around bodies of water, but I did have the opportunity on a few occasions, with friends who are boaters, in

the middle of the summer to go for a boat ride or be part of a regatta. I must admit that, yes, there was the bottle of beer in that boat, which we tend to enjoy. But I think the fact is that if we

send the message out that maybe a bottle of beer is OK, but don't get behind the wheel of that particular craft, then with all reality, the number of incidents -- and I know the member from

Willowdale did a pile of research. When I was going through some of that research, some of the incidents that have happened have not been with people who had been drinking and driving a motorboat,

but innocent bystanders who were there with their families, their friends, enjoying a beautiful day, a beautiful weekend, whatever the case may be. So it's the same old story: It's the innocent

bystander who would normally suffer the consequences.

I want to thank the member for Willowdale for not giving up on this bill and for the research he did, because I think all of us in this place certainly have an

interest in the best for Ontarians, and this is one of those things that I truly believe fell through the cracks, with the Ministry of Transportation not addressing the consequences that this might

cause. So I'm hopeful that everybody supports the initiative that Mr. Zimmer, the member from Willowdale, brought forward. I know I certainly do. I'm here this morning. I don't normally sit on this

committee, but I'm here because I'm committed to this.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure today to rise and compliment the member from Willowdale for bringing forward

this legislation and taking it to committee, and for the work he has done on it. The bill has been introduced several times before. I represent a riding, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, with many lakes

and many boating tragedies, unfortunately, every year. So anything that we can do to decrease the number of tragedies on our lakes and protect the people is something we should do.

Bill 209, if passed, will amend the Highway Traffic Act to give provincial law enforcement authorities the power to suspend the Ontario driver's licence of

individuals who choose to drive a motorized vehicle on the water while impaired. Certainly, it's interesting. The member said that she didn't realize it wasn't like that already, and I agree. I did

not know this either until this bill was brought forward.

I want to commend Mr. Crompton for enduring such a personal tragedy and having the courage to go forth to try and make changes in the system so other families

don't endure what he had to endure. I had the pleasure of meeting him, not at the committee but at a function, and he told me about the tragedy with his son Pete and what he was trying to

accomplish, and complimented the member from Willowdale for all the work he had done in working with him on that.

The amendments would result, on conviction of an alcohol-related offence while operating a vessel, in the convicted person's automobile driver's licence being

suspended. It happens with snowmobiles. Again, it makes sense that it happens with boats. Enforcement authorities will have the ability to effect 12-hour suspensions, and the registrar, upon being

notified by the police officer, shall suspend a person's driver's licence for 90 days. This is supported by the Ontario Provincial Police and by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Mr. Crompton had been quoted in the newspapers as saying it is a deterrent. The incident occurred in by colleague's riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and he wanted

me to mention that, although we're running out of time for him to speak today, he's very supportive of this bill because of the proximity to him in the riding.

We need, as a government, to make these changes. We need to be consistent in our messaging. We have laws in place that affect when you're drinking with heavy

power equipment, with snowmobiles and with vehicles. So it makes total sense that this is extended to boat traffic, to driving boats. I think it's a good prevention measure. It is a deterrent. I

know that the member for Durham wants to speak further on this bill as he is our party's transportation critic.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. I'll be supporting this bill.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased at the outset to say as the transportation critic for the opposition that we're in support of any

measure that makes our roads, waterways and highways safe. That's been the record of this government when we were government, and certainly in opposition our leader, John Tory, would be of the same

view.

We must all recognize that these pleasure crafts, as well as any privilege -- it's a privilege to be given a licence. There are rules that much be abided by,

and that's really what this bill attempts to do: join the two issues. The enforcement and deterrent that Ms. Scott referred to is part of bringing this forward to make our transportation areas

safer. I would say that's pretty much all that has to be said about this bill. I think we'd be supportive of it and anyone who stands in this Legislature on private members' legislation would say

that, because there's no other option. I think I'm also just repeating much of the work that's been done by MADD and others, and I compliment the member from Willowdale for taking his time and his

ballot item to bring this forward.

As the critic, there are a lot of issues I'd like to put on the record. One of the things I'm getting calls on is the plate denial issue, which is the 407

tolls. There are two or three appeals before the courts on the 407, all to deal with either plate suspensions or other penalties that I don't think are going to be resolved. If the government

doesn't look at this issue and the contract that exists -- again, the operators of 407 highway as an example -- they have no way of denying use of that transportation corridor. As such, this

mechanism of resolving disputes -- there's quite a long series of steps that have to be engaged before someone's plate is denied -- that repeal mechanism, is --

The Deputy Speaker: The member from Durham, take a seat. I'm going to remind him it is private members' business and we are dealing with a

bill that relates to boating, and not the subject you're on now. So I'd like you to come back to the bill, please.

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you for that very long interruption. I do appreciate the fact that --

The Deputy Speaker: OK, let's go.

Mr. O'Toole: What I was trying to do is tie in a relationship between resolving disputes. In this issue here, we have supported the

government; it's a reasonable action to ensure that we have safety on our roadways, highways and waterways. That's really the linkage here. Reasonableness is really what I was trying to make the

link with, respectfully, in resolving disputes. In this case, we're going to empower the police to effect a deterrent on the waterways of persons using, while drinking alcohol, any kind of

motorized vehicle. Certainly, we support that.

The government -- in this case, the member from Willowdale -- is bringing this forward. I was just trying to relate this to other reasonable ways of resolving

disputes without the court having to intervene and make some kind of jurisdiction. At the end of the day, it's all about the customer; in this case, the victim. That's really what you're trying to

empower here. You have my assurance as the critic that I wasn't trying to be disrespectful to the Chair, but I was trying to find the link. You find this consensus in the House. Whether it's the

insulin pump issue or this issue on the suspension of use of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle, you will find the ability to bring forward what I consider to be fine, meaningful consensus in

this Legislature. That's actually the most important message of the day for the visitors here today.

I respect the fact that the two issues before us are being voted on here very shortly. You'll find there is a great deal of harmony, consensus and respect for

the arguments made for it. If I'm not digressing, I can say that I myself had a couple of bills. One was on the use of cellphones while driving. I had a private member's bill -- it is a bill that

will be introduced again -- where I ask the Minister of Transportation, through private members' business, to consider modifying the Highway Traffic Act to regulate the use of cellphones and other

distractive devices while operating a vehicle. This is very much a part of the argument, and this is the forum for that to happen. I am a little bit off topic, but I'm addressing two things.

As the critic for transportation, we are supportive of this, but there are other consensus-building initiatives, like the use of cellphones or other

distractive devices while operating a motor vehicle, that should be brought forward here with a non-partisan -- it is the right thing to do. You will find consensus. You will certainly find John

Tory and our government supportive because we believe that fundamentally it's this simple: Good policy is good politics.

I think that in looking forward to voting on this bill and the other private member's legislation before us today, we have demonstrated to the public that, at

the end of the day, we represent that we can work together and make Ontario a better place to live and keep us all safe and happy. Thank you very much for the time I've been given.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I wasn't planning on speaking to this bill today, but seeing that the member for Durham left me a

minute, I'm pleased to get up to say that I think it's a very important bill. I'm glad to see the member for Willowdale bring it forward. Particularly representing an area like Parry Sound-Muskoka,

I can tell you we've had some tragic circumstances where alcohol has been involved with boating incidents. I'm completely supportive of this bill. I think that it's an important bill and that you

should have the same repercussions if you drink and boat that happen if you drink and drive. It's every bit as serious as drinking and driving an automobile. I'm pleased to see the member for

Willowdale bring this bill forward. I know that in the area of Parry Sound-Muskoka there will be big support for this. I look forward to seeing it followed all the way through the process and

become law.

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

Mr. Zimmer: Let me say at the outset that nobody enjoys a cold beer or a cold gin and tonic on the lakeshore in summer more than I. But it's

incumbent on all of us that if we're going to operate motorboats on the lakes, we do so responsibly. That means to do so without consuming alcohol.

What we're talking about here is operating a motorboat while you're impaired. That's the threshold. We've already accepted in our society that you cannot

operate a car or a truck while you're impaired. "Impaired" means over the legal limit, which is 0.08. We had that law in place for many years, and after due course we extended it to cover

snowmobiles because the sentiment developed that people ought not to drive around on snowmobiles while they're impaired. Again, that's the threshold: impairment, over the legal limit, 0.08. What

Bill 209 does is extend that same concept -- don't drive a car or a truck while you're impaired; don't drive a snowmobile while you're impaired -- to cover boats: Do not drive a motorboat while

you're impaired. The threshold is impairment, over 0.08.

I want to thank all the members from my party and from the opposition parties for their support of this legislation. All parties have spoken objectively and

passionately to this bill. All parties are in support of this bill. It will prevent harm; it will save lives.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you to all members. The time provided for private members' public business has now expired.

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(INSULIN PUMPS FOR DIABETICS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(POMPES À INSULINE

POUR DIABÉTIQUES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall deal first with ballot item number 11, standing in the name of Mr. Gravelle.

Mr. Gravelle has moved second reading of Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members for a vote on this after we have dealt with the next item.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(DRINKING AND BOATING

OFFENCES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(INFRACTIONS RELATIVES À L'ALCOOL

ET À LA NAVIGATION DE PLAISANCE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 12, standing in the name of Mr. Zimmer.

Mr. Zimmer has moved second reading of Bill 209,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a vote on this. Call in the members. I remind you that this is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(INSULIN PUMPS FOR DIABETICS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(POMPES À INSULINE

POUR DIABÉTIQUES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Gravelle has moved second reading of Bill 15.

All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bisson, Gilles

Brownell, Jim

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 41; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing --

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social

policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds before we take the next vote.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(DRINKING AND BOATING

OFFENCES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(INFRACTIONS RELATIVES À L'ALCOOL

ET À LA NAVIGATION DE PLAISANCE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Zimmer has moved second reading of Bill 209.

All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bisson, Gilles

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 42; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to --

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, I'd like this bill to be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S GARDEN

NURSERY SCHOOL

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise to congratulate the Children's Garden Nursery School of the city of Pembroke, in my

riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, as the recipient of the prestigious Donner Canadian Foundation Award for excellence in child care at their awards ceremony last week here Toronto. Out of 842

applicants narrowed down to 31 finalist in nine categories, our very own Children's Garden Nursery School came out on top. This award comes with a $5,000 prize.

This was not an easy year for the nursery school, as they were forced to relocate as a result of a serious flood in Pembroke this past spring. Instead of

shutting down, the school operated out of a nearby church until repairs could be completed. The support of parents, neighbours and the community was vital at that time.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Children's Garden Nursery School personally last year. They were devoting one week of their activities to each letter of the

alphabet, and I was honoured to be their special guest during "Y" week. What I saw were happy, cheerful children fully engaged in the broad scope of activities at this wonderful facility. There is

no better way to evaluate the performance of a nursery school than to see the faces of the children themselves. The young faces at the Children's Garden Nursery School score their school an

A++.

I know that everyone here in this House joins me in congratulating me executive director Benita Richardson and all the staff at Children's Garden Nursery

School, and in thanking them for the excellent job they do for our children.

SANTA'S PARADE OF LIGHTS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): This weekend, I was part of Santa's Parade of Lights in my riding of Ottawa-Orléans. The parade

was produced and hosted by the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association. The parade route was three kilometres long, starting at Youville Drive and finishing at our former city hall near the

Orléans shopping plaza.

There were 77 floats involved in the parade, the most impressive floats to date. It is estimated that over 100,000 people attended the parade; this turnout was

also our biggest. There was a toy drive to celebrate the Christmas season, and collect toys and money for those in need. The parade watchers were encouraged to bring a loonie or a toonie to support

the toy drive campaign. A total of 150 firefighters volunteered for the parade, with 100 of them walking the parade route collecting cash donations as well as new toys for the Salvation Army.

I would like to thank Wyatt McWilliams for letting me drive his team of horses and for the wonderful float he provided, and all the people who participated in

our float: Cedric Pelletier, Sara and Mackie Leduc, Katie and Scott Smith, Daniel Kemp, Mary deToro, Sarah Benfield and Dawn Stroz. They were wonderful elves. I also thank Don McNeely for assisting

me in driving the horses.

The parade was a huge success, grossing more than $20,000 for the Salvation Army. I thank the co-chairs, Rob Rainboth and Ken Walton, as well as all the

firefighters and volunteers who donated their time and effort in making the 2005 parade of lights in my home of Orléans a tremendous success.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to speak with some optimism about a challenging event in my riding of Durham which

includes, of course, the situation around General Motors and the optimism at UOIT, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

The optimism began when John Tory, our leader, kicked off the Durham region United Way campaign yesterday. John, who continues his commitment to the United Way

following his years of volunteerism and worthwhile charitable fundraising, recognized the two United Way leaders for the McLaughlin Award for volunteerism: Bill Nurse and Stan Lovel. Mr. Tory's

message of volunteerism and community commitment was well received by many community leaders and volunteers.

Afterwards, John Tory took the time to meet with Dave Paterson, who is the corporate vice-president, environmental, for General Motors of Canada, and mayor

John Gray of Oshawa, as well as Bob Malcolmson, the executive director of the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. Naturally, we spoke of the challenges facing our economy generally, and General

Motors specifically, on how all leaders at every level must work together, much like the United