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

December 2, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Dec-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 2 December 2004 Jeudi 2 décembre 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENIOR CITIZENS

DENTAL HYGIENE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1991

SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

SENIOR CITIZENS

DENTAL HYGIENE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1991

SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

VISITOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHARITY HOCKEY GAME

POVERTY

DIABETES

HIGHWAY 7

VISITORS

PENSION PLANS

HEALTH SERVICES

TAMIL CANADIAN COMMUNITY

EVENTS IN NIPISSING

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

JOHN TURNER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

MEMBER FOR

TIMISKAMING-COCHRANE

PRESS GALLERY CHARITY AUCTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (MEDICAL EXPENSE TAX CREDIT), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU (CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT POUR FRAIS MÉDICAUX)

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES

ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS

D'ALIMENTS

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE RÉSEAU TRILLIUM

POUR LE DON DE VIE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

VISITORS

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

DEFERRED VOTES

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

DISABILITIES ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'ACCESSIBILITÉ

POUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

DE L'ONTARIO

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

DISABLED PERSONS

UKRAINIAN ELECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

AIR QUALITY

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

HYDRO GENERATION

FOOD SAFETY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PROVINCIAL PARKS

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

CURRICULUM

GREENBELT LEGISLATION.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD AND YOUTH SAFETY), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES)

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD AND YOUTH SAFETY), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I move that, in the opinion of this House, a seniors' bill of rights should be enacted which embodies the principle

that Ontario's older citizens are respected members of the community, providing invaluable resources to the community through their contribution to the social, cultural, historic and spiritual

enrichment of the community as well as providing an abundance of experienced leadership;

And further, that the province of Ontario should develop a Seniors' Bill of Rights to reinforce a sense of independence, dignity and choice for our seniors.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Sergio has moved private member's notice of motion number 31. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr

Sergio, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Sergio: I'm delighted to initiate the debate in this hour dedicated to the members of this House, which we know as our private members' time.

I am delighted to debate the resolution which I have introduced this morning in the House. This resolution, if approved, in my humble opinion, will have a profound impact on the lives of Ontario

seniors, a sizable group whose numbers are estimated at some 1.54 million, representing about 12.6% of the province's total population.

Statistics tell us that by the year 2028, Ontario's seniors population will more than double to 3.2 million. Already, as of this year, some 73,000 reside in some

600 nursing homes, and some 35,000 more reside in some 650 retirement homes. Let us not forget that we have thousands more of our Ontario citizens afflicted with Alzheimer's, and people with

dementia. I am sure that every member of this House and this government thinks about this very large sector of our population.

Further, I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should develop a seniors strategy, which will go far in providing a sense of

independence, dignity and choice in our seniors' daily lives.

In a modern culture increasingly defined by its frenetic pace and self-obsessed nature, it is not surprising that we often neglect to take into account the

invaluable contribution seniors have made to society as a whole. Primarily through their immense wealth of experience, sage-like maturity and their role as patrons of culture and our historic

tradition, our elderly serve as society's steadfast anchor, a vital source of enlightenment and expertise. This recognition is long overdue, and it's about time we begin acknowledging our

seniors.

This aforementioned resolution aims to improve seniors' quality of life. First and foremost, intolerant acts in the form of flagrant ageism, stereotyping and

acts of discrimination will no longer be condoned. Simply put, seniors warrant our respect.

Second, appropriate provincial authorities are encouraged to step up their efforts in promoting healthier lifestyles for seniors and continue to include seniors'

groups in the planning and execution of government-sponsored awareness campaigns. Seniors have a vested interest in the planning of their daily lives, particularly with respect to arranging

healthier lifestyles, their own personal wellness, and continued opportunity for intellectual and spiritual growth.

Third, as the honourable Minister of Health has mentioned on numerous occasions in the past, the McGuinty government will continue to provide for a

long-term-care system that is effective, trusted and accessible across the province.

Finally, what I believe to be one of the resolution's most significant components is this government's commitment to offering seniors support against various

forms of abuse -- be it financial, physical or emotional -- ensuring that neglect and exploitation within both the local community and health care settings is brought to public light and dealt with

appropriately. Truly, we should ensure that seniors' rights are fully protected and promoted.

While I may be repeating myself -- because I think seniors are very worthwhile -- I think rights are important for our seniors: that they have the right to have

their right to work protected and the right to securing acceptable retirement; that they have the right to access a protective social service for the vulnerable and the right to a dignified system

for end-of-life care for those in need; and that seniors have the right to remain in their communities and in their homes through supportive, community-based long-term-care facilities.

Members of this assembly, this resolution is an important step in ensuring that seniors are given the well-deserved opportunity to enjoy their golden years free

of worry and fear. They have provided an immense service to society, and now we have a chance to pay them back in kind. This is what I envisage to accomplish with this resolution. Is it hard to do

what we know is right for seniors in Ontario?

The seniors' challenge must be embraced, carried on with vitality, vigour, persuasive strength and convincing conviction. If our young are priceless, then our

seniors are golden. Often, we laud our seniors, we praise our seniors, we take pride in our seniors. Often, we say that our seniors have given us their best. If we mean that, and I know every

member of this House does, then it is our responsibility to give them back our very best. Members of this House, I call on you today to get started. I am asking for your kind support of this

resolution today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): First of all, let me congratulate the member for York West, a member I have known in this House for many, many

years, and recognize his abiding interest in the welfare of seniors in this province.

I'm pleased to respond to this resolution, having held the responsibility of creating the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat. Being the first long-term-care minister

in Canada, I've had occasion to devote a lot of my political career to the interests of seniors.

I want to begin by saying that I share with all members of the House our admiration and respect for Ontario's 1.6 million seniors, but the proof in the pudding

of any political promise is the delivery of those services, and what we have to date in the province of Ontario is a certain contradiction in the manner in which seniors are being treated by the

current government.

One would always look for a certain degree of consistency. So there are two issues I want to raise in the short time that I have this morning. One is the context

of a bill of rights for seniors, which is a noble gesture and one worthy of support. But as I recall, as the draftsperson of Ontario's Victims' Bill of Rights, which contains specific rights that

were enjoyed by victims, it was voted against three times in this House by Liberal members, consistently. Their argument was that you can't have a bill of rights that only talks about platitudes

and good intentions; it has to have some real teeth.

The draft that the honourable member opposite has shared with me does not in any way, shape or form represent anything that comes close to the model that was

finally developed by our government as a Victims' Bill of Rights. In fact, it is one of the standard platitudinous type of arrangements. Although we can support that as a resolution, I think it

would be wrong to mislead the public to suggest that a seniors' bill of rights, without teeth, without absolute rights that can be found in law -- it wouldn't really be worth the paper it's written

on, which were the words that the Liberals used when referring to the Victims' Bill of Rights.

So it's worthy of support, but let's not make this into something that it really isn't, because what is required is a whole series of legislative protections. If

we look at the current track record of the government, one of the platitudinous statements that's included in the draft is that neglect and exploitation within the local community and in health

care settings would be an issue that the government would protect them from. Well, how is it that the government is protecting seniors from neglect and exploitation in health care settings when it

delists optometry services and it delists physiotherapy services and it delists chiropractic services? Isn't that a contradiction? Doesn't that fly in the face of the principles of a bill of

rights? Ontario's seniors are now, for the first time in their entire lifetime, paying a health tax and a premium tax for OHIP, which they never did in the past; people over the age of 65 were

exempt. Actually, for the first time in Canadian history, we've got senior citizens in nursing home beds who are paying this tax. How is that protecting seniors on their limited income?

Now, there are a whole series of issues, which I feel require much more fulsome debate, and it's unfortunate that in the course of an hour we're not able to do

that. But I do want to say to the member opposite -- he is an honourable member, he has presented something which, in my opinion, is worthy of support, but I want to remind him to look at his own

Hansard, at comments that and he others made about bills of rights that didn't have any real legislative rights contained within them. If that isn't, then this is just a simple resolution that

demonstrates for all in this House our respect and admiration for a generation that sacrificed extensively to create the greatest province in our country, and for those seniors we will be eternally

grateful. I just feel that a bill of rights for seniors should have teeth in it, should have real rights in it, and failure to do that is just a very wonderful, warm statement of intent by all of

us.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I certainly join the member from Burlington in supporting in principle the concept of a seniors' bill

of rights. It's certainly a great way to raise awareness, and if anyone has raised awareness of seniors' issues, it's Cam Jackson.

Just last Friday, a fellow named Harry Gundry down in my riding turned 108. I'm positive he's the oldest senior in my riding and probably one of the oldest in

Ontario. Harry is in good health and good spirits. I know his son Doug pretty well. Doug was interviewed in the Simcoe Reformer. He was asked, "How would it come to pass that your dad is 108 years

old?" His son Doug said, "We have an 18-year-old dog, so there must be something in the water," but he alluded that it may have been genes as well. His father, Harry, did his own banking up until

last year. He stopped driving at age 93, and the only time he was ill, according to his son, was when he fell off his horse. He no longer rides his horse because his horse died, but if we can all

follow the steps of someone like Harry Gundry -- Harry is from Vittoria. Vittoria is a very small community. There is a lady in Vittoria, Clara Bingleman, who is 105 years old. I think of other

people in my riding. My driver during one of the elections was Sadie McQueen. She passed away just short of 100 years old. Many of us locally would also remember fondly Daisy Arthur.

I know Pat Spencer is in the Legislature today with her colleagues. They are here to observe our deliberations on the Dental Hygiene Act. I think Pat would know

a number of these people. We know dental hygienists are an important component of looking after seniors in our communities, people who have built the Ontario that we live in today. They built our

roads; they built our schools. They went through the Depression. They fought in the Second World War and Korea. The challenge for our government, for us as a society, is to build a province where

seniors can live with respect, compassion and independence. I truly hope that this motion today will help us to continue down that road.

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion of the member from York West, who has introduced

this. I want to just put on the record, and I've said it many times before, that the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock has the second-highest population of seniors in the province, so issues

affecting our seniors are very important to me. They have a very active seniors' group there. Judy Muzzi is the president of the Ontario seniors' group. She keeps us informed of all the seniors'

issues, and there are many.

Like many of these motions, this is one that, as my colleague from Burlington said, is long on fine rhetoric but does not speak to how or when it may be

implemented. However, it is a first step, and, as the Chinese proverb says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

We could use all the time speaking to this motion detailing how this government has not done enough for our province's seniors during its first year. But in the

spirit of the season, I'm sure we're going to focus on some positive messaging, what we can do to persuade the members opposite that our seniors are to a large degree responsible for the freedoms

and the high standard of living that we enjoy in Ontario. We certainly owe them a debt of gratitude for all they have done. A seniors' bill of rights would help reinforce a sense of independence,

dignity and choice for our seniors.

I know that the member from Burlington, who has spoken, worked for many years to bring seniors' issues to the attention of this place, and continues to do so

quite well in all his efforts. They certainly made people's lives better in many different ways. The PC government made a lot of contributions to the seniors in our province and recognized that our

current prosperity is through their hard work and sacrifices.

The long-term-care services were very non-existent. I remember when my dad was elderly and needed extra care, it was such a struggle to get a long-term-care

facility that could fit his needs. I know that in the years that have followed since 1997, we've had a lot more long-term-care beds in the province -- 20,000 -- but certainly in the riding of

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock there are a lot of long-term-care facilities that can accommodate seniors' needs, and they no longer have the extensive years of waiting that used to exist.

The current shortage of doctors, I hear from many of my seniors in the riding, is extensive, and it is troubling to them that they can't access family doctors.

I'm hoping that nurse practitioners are going to play more of a role in rural Ontario so that they do have the front-line care they deserve.

We're hoping this has some teeth and that it's going to be enacted so that seniors have the rights, freedoms and privileges they deserve and have the ability to

stay in their homes longer. What a challenge it is in rural Ontario: the hydro rates are going up, taxes are going up and insurance is going up. It's going to be more and more difficult, and

seniors want to stay in their homes as long as they can. So if we can help in any way -- we can talk about the seniors' tax credit. I think it should be more so that it gives them that extra bit of

money, so that they can pay their bills and stay in their own homes and not become vulnerable seniors.

Seniors need to have their right to work protected. Ageism and stereotyping of all older Ontarians should be combated. Seniors play a very active role in our

communities. They give back to their communities immensely. They get organized, and they just make our communities have a much higher quality of life.

So I think that I am going to support this motion. I'm waiting for some details, for some teeth, because we do need to act on it. I know there are many people

who want to speak on this today, so I will let my turn go.

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I'm delighted to be able to stand in support of my colleague's resolution advocating the

incorporation of a seniors' bill of rights in the province of Ontario. It's interesting. The first challenge, I think, is defining what is a senior. I can tell you, I recently got into a movie

because I was a senior. Some people get free coffee because they're seniors, and others have to wait to be able to access certain reliefs within government support services because they need to be

that age to be a senior.

So the idea of incorporating a bill of rights for seniors is actually acknowledging that there's an issue and a challenge, growing from 1.5 million up to over

six million seniors by the year 2008, which is going to be a challenge for any government that's in place in dealing with a very significant bulge. I think we started out as yuppies, and now we're

growing into what they call guppies or grumpies, whatever it is. We were upwardly mobile, and now we're going to be greying and mobile.

The other challenge we have is that we need to recognize that we live in a global world and that a lot of the people who are in our communities today are here

without the advantage of support systems or extended families. That's a whole new reality for a very cosmopolitan city such as Toronto. It has as many challenges as even in the rural community

where, again, they don't have the support systems that they require as well. But when you look at the need, for example, with large ethnic populations -- and I've said this many times -- where

almost 51% of the children in our schools come from every country in the world except Antarctica and Greenland, you know that we have a challenge around ethnic-specific home care and/or long-term

care.

We also know that as people age, the ethnicity issue becomes really important to them, because there's a level of comfort with their language, a level of comfort

with their history and where they were. That really came to the forefront for me in a long-term-care facility -- it was a facility for very elderly people -- where they had put showers in. The

clients were terrified -- and I use the word "terrified" -- of going into the showers. What people had forgotten was that many of those people had lived through the Nazi Holocaust, so the showers

for them were a terrifying experience. That's the kind of sensitivity that we now need to think about in a growing seniors' population, because it is different from when our parents first came to

this country.

So the issue of ethnic-specific long-term-care facilities dealing with banking -- you can think of any number of issues. The idea of even learning how to use an

ATM, computers, brings me into another issue around life-long learning. With the last government, they actually took the access to life-long learning away from seniors. They cut back and cut down

and actually took away continuing education courses, because they didn't value the fact that you need to continue to learn, to use your grey cells, as I call them, in order to stimulate your social

life, because you often are with your peers, but also the idea of learning in order to continue to grow, because every day is a new experience, and a computer is a really good example. If you

didn't live in the age when the computer began, and you need to learn and are in your 70s, where do you go? If you are of modest means, where do you go? Yet the computer is very much a part of

everybody's life today. So there's that part of continuing education.

The other is the statistics, and the shelves are lined with them, the research that will tell you that if you provide access to such things as Tai Chi or even

bridge, which stimulates your mind, you're going to have a healthier senior and therefore you're going to reduce your dependence on long-term-care facilities and on medical facilities. Yet we took

away that life-long learning aspect from them. That's why a seniors' bill of rights is required, because they deserve the opportunity. If we believe in and espouse life-long learning, then we need

to walk our talk, and how do we do that except by protecting that right in some form of legislation?

We also need to look at how we can foster relationships. If you go back to the fact that many people in this country do not have extended families, I can tell

you that when you put a nursery school next to people in a long-term-care facility, it's a whole new world for both. Again, that's part of every person's rights, to interact with another

individual. But how do we foster that, how do we really engage that process, if we don't even have the opportunity to talk about it in the first place or if we don't believe that should continue to

exist?

We also need to look at the issue of discrimination. I always found it so abhorrent when I thought of how a child was abused, but the fact that you have elder

abuse blows my mind. Yet that is something that is happening and is more prevalent in our society than ever before. Again, how do we protect people if we're not prepared to talk about something

that's very contentious?

I'm going to be sharing my time with my colleague from London, and I know that he's going to expand on many of the same kinds of themes, because he deals with

this on a regular basis in his community as well.

Let's talk about the consideration of public policies as we move forward. One of the issues last year -- I live in an area which has a significant number of

seniors, so when I knocked on the door and people said, "We're going to get all this tax relief from the Tory government," I'd say to them, "Folks, step back and take a good look at this. You're

going to get tax relief on one hand, but where do you think they're going to get the money from on the other hand, especially if they're not going to raise taxes? They're going to do what they did

in the United States: They're going to put a capital gains tax on your home when you sell it. If in fact you sell it to go down, you pay the difference in the capital gains tax, or if it becomes

part of your estate, it becomes part of a capital gains tax." That was the dishonesty, I felt, in many respects, because it wasn't as straightforward in giving all of the facts out to seniors.

Let's talk about mandatory retirement. Where do we start with that conversation if in fact we don't believe seniors have a right to have that as part of the

discussion?

Let's talk about the ability, as was said, to live in their homes. Is it a right? Or by the age of 90 must you be stuck in a facility that says, "You can't

cope," because we feel that we know more than you do? Do we listen to seniors? I have a mother-in-law who's 94 this year and quite happy in her home, as long as she has the support services. That

physiotherapist was there in her home not long ago, just to help her learn how to go up and down the stairs.

Let's talk about healthy lifestyles and how we can provide the information and the tools to seniors to enable them to continue to be healthy in their homes, the

medical support, and finally, let's talk about their vulnerability if we don't look after them. We always say that we hold our world as custodians for the future, and that's for the children, but

the children will inherit each and every one of us. So how do we put in place policies, practices, procedures and legislation to ensure that the children will do this in a way that we would deem

responsible?

There are so many issues out there, and that's why this is neither long on rhetoric nor short on substance, ladies and gentlemen. This is a really good beginning

of a discussion that needs to take place in this House on many fronts. I'll throw out to all of you for consideration: Let's talk about 6.5 million seniors driving. If you don't think that's an

issue that we're going to have to struggle with in the not-too-distant future, then I think we're all living in never-never land.

I have great admiration, and I acknowledge that there is a recognition on how we can move forward. I have to tell you that seniors in my community in Etobicoke

Centre would tell you that there's a whole lot to said for grey power. It's phenomenal.

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): As always, I'm honoured to stand up and be part of many debates, and today I'm honoured to stand up and talk

about the resolution brought by the great member of York West, the bill of rights for senior citizens in this province. I talk about it because it's very important, not just for the seniors but for

all of us, because it's our future. I want to talk about how we can protect our future, because every one of us is going to become a senior citizen at one time in our lives. Therefore, I think it's

important for every one of us to speak in support and try to do something in order to protect our future.

I decided 14 or 15 years ago to volunteer. I went to a senior citizens' home in my riding called Dearness Home. It's one of the greatest homes dealing with

senior citizens in my riding of London-Fanshawe. I had the chance and the privilege to speak with many seniors. I spent time every once in a while with them talking about their frustration and

their isolation, because they felt isolated from the mainstream community. They felt discriminated against.

This hurt my feelings back then, and it caught my attention. A huge segment of our society, almost 1.6 million people, is being ignored. I believe that's why the

member from York West brought this issue to the attention of the House, in order to do something to connect that huge segment of our society to the mainstream community and acknowledge the hard

work they did for all of us to enhance the society in which we live today.

My colleague from Etobicoke Centre spoke about a very important issue, about our community being diverse, multicultural. I had the chance to meet with several

groups from different ethnic backgrounds. I would say they are probably listening to us today, because it's very important to them. The group was put together from Portuguese and Italians. They

came to my office and started speaking about the seniors of both those communities. They brought to my attention, they said to me, "You know, when people grow older, they tend to forget the second

language they learned when they came to this land. They go back to their native tongue, and then they have a problem."

support. They're looking for a group of people who can speak their language, who know about their traditions and culture, who know about their heritage, their food, their music; whatever support we

can provide in order to comfort those people who worked hard for us. I think that's a very important element of protecting our seniors in this province.

Also, my colleague from Burlington was speaking about how our government is trying to tax seniors, trying to ignore their right to medical support. I would say,

for the record, that all the seniors in this province, especially after 65 years of age, are allowed to seek medical support from our government, and it's free, with no payment. This is very

important for all the seniors in this province.

After all of us heard from the media about the abuse going on in many senior citizens' homes in this province, our government went one step further and conducted

a review. That's why my colleague who is sitting behind me here, Monique Smith, the PA to the Minister of Health, went all the way across the province, visited many senior citizens' homes and

conducted a good review to provide the ministry and this government with a report, to tell them the best way to deal with our senior citizens in this province. I believe it was a good and credible

report. As a result of that report, the PA to the Minister of Health provided all senior citizens in this province with a free phone number to contact the ministry and submit their complaints. And,

of course, the ministry will look into their complaints right away and will do something about them in order to protect them.

Also, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has taken many steps, trying to invest more money to support facilities, to support senior citizens remaining in

the homes they love, among their families, in the place they grew up in.

It's very important that we're taking many steps to protect them, and I think speaking in support of the bill brought by my colleague from York West is very

important. We're not going to make it a political debate. I think all the people in this place will support it because it's very important, not only to protect our seniors at the present time, but

also to protect our future, because it's very important to plan for the future. That's what I think my colleague is thinking of, and I will gladly support your bill.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have waited for a little while to see the tenor of the debate from the other speakers, and it appears

that everyone is going to be supporting this good bill. This is an idea whose time has come, and probably come again, and if it wasn't being dealt with today, it would most certainly have to be

dealt with in the next few years, as the number of senior citizens in this country and indeed around the world continues to rise.

People all too soon forget that the whole cause of senior citizens, the whole cause of people living beyond 65, is a relatively recent phenomenon in terms of

humankind. Less than 100 years ago, in Germany, Bismarck came out with the first old age pensions. The pensions were pegged at 65, and the reason that age was chosen is that very few people lived

to 65. In fact, only about 10% of the people of that country, and indeed of our country in those days, lived to the ripe old age of 65. In fact, when the Canada pension plan was first organized,

the average payment made to a person who reached that ripe old age of 65 was 13 payments; that is, they lived 13 months, on average, beyond their 65th birthday. So if you were lucky enough to reach

that milestone of 65 and you were one of the first recipients of an old age pension in Canada, odds are that you would receive but 13 payments for the balance of your life. Many people did not get

13 payments; some got a few more. But the average was some 13 months that one lived, or to the age of 66 years and one month.

Much has happened since then, of course. In the relatively short time of two or three generations, people are living much, much longer. In fact, the number of

senior citizens we have today is higher than at any other time in human history. At no time in human history has the number of people living beyond the age of 65 ever been this high.

Of course, the reasons are quite simple. There are better food opportunities. People are better able to have nutrition. There are better public health

opportunities in this country, this province, and indeed in most places around the world. As well, medical practices have improved, with operations, with drug therapy, so that people who ordinarily

would not have lasted into their senior years are now increasingly doing so, to the extent that most people who live beyond their fifth birthday can expect to become a senior citizen, barring any

catastrophic illness, any catastrophic emergency or accident.

The life expectancy in Canada now for women has gone beyond 80 years, and the life expectancy for men is approaching 80 years. So we can expect that the majority

of people, certainly the majority of people in this room, will attain around that age. That means they will have been retired and will be considered seniors in our society for some 15 or more

years. We need to start looking at how we protect those individuals.

There was a time, of course, when senior citizens did not need protection, because the reality was there weren't very many of them, and those who were there were

largely looked after within the confines of their home. They were relatively rare individuals, and usually the children had the obligation of looking after their parents if in fact they were

aged.

But there is a big blip happening, and I'm probably part of the leading edge of that blip, called the baby boomers. Baby boomers make up a huge portion of

Canadian society. It's a phenomenon that is not known throughout the world; in fact, it's not even common in the United States. They don't know that phrase, because the number of children born

between the Second World War and the Korean War was not nearly so large as it was in Canada. But we have a lot of boomers here and there will be a lot more seniors. As has correctly been pointed

out, by the year 2028 when I myself, if I'm still alive, will have attained my 80th birthday, there will be 6.5 million Ontarians who are senior citizens. We need to start looking at that whole

blip. We need to start looking at the numbers of people and how we are going to care for them. We need to look at our frail elderly. We need to make sure there are safeguards in place not only for

their well-being, but also to prevent possible abuse.

In East York, when I had the privilege of being the mayor of that municipality --

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): And a good one it was.

Mr Prue: And a good municipality it was, as my colleague points out -- we had a program, the first instituted program of its kind, which was

orchestrated by the police and the community to look at the problem of fraud against senior citizens. We noticed there were a number of fraud cases. There were unscrupulous contractors who came in

and offered to do work that wasn't necessary on houses, charged exorbitant rates and often walked away. We saw people going door to door collecting for non-existent charities, taking in fraudulent

ways seniors' money, which they didn't have a lot of, but they tend to be very generous. We saw that there were assaults against senior citizens in the streets. We saw as well that there were

assaults in nursing homes.

There was a general feeling that senior citizens were being neglected, and our community came together to make sure that that neglect was stopped. We were very

proud of the fact that the unscrupulous people who were going door to door were stopped. I don't believe they went away, other than that they left our community because we started to inform seniors

through fraud calendars, meetings and a police presence that these people were no longer welcome, and they moved on to more hospitable climes.

We took, as part of our reference in all of this, the country of Japan. Japan has a remarkable feeling for their senior citizens. In fact, they don't refer to

them as senior citizens; they refer to them as national treasures. Someone who reaches 80 years of age is deemed to be a national treasure. They deem that and they say that and they mean that,

because these people are the repositors of the old Japan. If you go to that country today, in Tokyo or in any of the larger cities you will find that they're very much like Toronto. It is hard to

tell that that is the old Japan. You're not going to see pagodas, you're not going to see rice fields, you're not going to see all those things that one might idealize about Japan. You're going to

see ultra-modern cities just like this one, and to go there is to go to just another big city. You need to get out into the country areas to still find the old Japan. But the Japanese understand

that the people who understand what Japan was, the kind of country Japan was at the turn of the last century and right up until well after the Second World War -- it was a country built of farms, a

country built of culture and of tradition, a country that had a remarkable and rich cultural history.

The repositors of those ideals are the elderly; it is the elderly who remember those and can talk to the young people who all around them see a modern city

just like ours, who do not understand their old culture, who do not understand from whence they came or what life was like. The Japanese have deemed their elderly citizens national treasures. These

national treasures go out into the schools, meet with young people, meet in all the hallowed halls of learning to pass on to this generation and to future generations what it means to be Japanese.

We should do the same thing.

We need to realize the changing realities of our own countries. We need to realize that we are increasingly becoming an urban phenomenon. There are very few

people who make their living off the land any more. There are very few people who live in northern towns or small communities. Increasingly, people live in large cities like Toronto or Ottawa or

Hamilton.

Mr Ramal: London.

Mr Prue: Or London. I mean, there are lots of them.

Interjection.

Mr Prue: I don't want to leave out London. No, no. I will not leave out London.

We need, in this new reality, to understand that this bill will go some way in saying that we have national treasures. I hope that kind of language can be

included as well.

But in doing that, I would put to you, it is simply not enough that we have national treasures. We need to make a commitment, as a society, as a government, as

a Legislature, to ensure that not only do we recognize these truly remarkable people but also realize and recognize that they have special needs and that those special needs will involve the

expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

It will require additional monies for geriatric care, as the number of seniors and those living particularly above 80 years continues to grow. We will need

money for seniors' housing. There is all too little seniors' housing available in this province. There is a growing need, as people age and as people are looking for alternative lifestyles, to find

housing that is suitable for them.

There is some wonderful seniors' housing put forward by the municipality of metropolitan Toronto, as it then was, and now by the city of Toronto. There are

some wonderful private ideas. There's a group called Stay at Home in Leaside that has built life-share condominiums for people who leave their homes, who find that a home is just too onerous, and

can live in a wonderful condominium apartment with other seniors in a life-lease plan. There are other options available as well.

We need money for pensions. The Canada pension plan and other pension plans that people are buying into may not be sustainable in the long run. We need to take

a very careful look at whether it will be sustainable to look after 6.5 million senior citizens by the year 2028.

We need money and we need opportunities to make sure that our people remain healthy. I would again ask the government to reconsider your privatization and

delisting of optometry, chiropractic and physiotherapy, because many seniors rely and will continue to rely on these programs.

It may surprise people, but it shouldn't, that most seniors have a hard time having sufficient money. Seniors, as a group, tend to be poor, especially women

who have not had access to pensions and who do not have a lot of money saved up. If you go into the homes, into the seniors' residences and find those who are lucky enough to be in a subsidized

unit, you will find out how incredibly low their salaries and their annual incomes are. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

We need to improve OHIP for them. The health tax is not the way to go, quite frankly, for our seniors. They should be exempt from that tax.

We need go back to the vehicle tax credit so that seniors and people who are disabled can get around. That tax credit has been taken away and ought not to have

been taken away. I recognize that it is there for the most vulnerable and for the poorest, but many of our seniors rely on adequate and modified transportation to have full and complete lives.

We need to ensure that our seniors are well cared for. In a recent example from my own municipality, Community Care East York lost, through a very failed and

flawed bidding process, the right to look after long-term care in our community after having done so for some 16 years. The seniors had people they trusted ripped away from them. It went to the

lowest-bidding group, which I am convinced will never have the support of the community that Community Care East York has had till this time.

We need to do more for recreational programs. Municipalities all over are strapped for cash. They are starting to charge seniors for such recreational programs

as swimming, which they need to remain physically healthy.

So there we go. We've got the whole thing. Seniors are a remarkable asset. We go to the Legions, we talk to people from CARP, we talk to seniors'

organizations, and we can see that they have intergenerational programs. We see them working in the hospitals, we see them working in the municipalities, we see them doing just the most incredible

jobs for us. They are a resource that our society needs, but we in turn need to assist them to be that resource. We need them to give us the focus on from whence we came and to remember the old

skills and abilities that are slowly but surely being lost.

I salute our seniors. I salute the member who brought this forward. We need to do this bill and so much more to ensure that those people who have come before

us and who live with us are well cared for.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate today. I think the member's motion is in good faith.

He's a strong member, the member from York West, and I believe he thinks this is something that should be done. Certainly a seniors' bill of rights is symbolically important. The problem he's got

is, how does he put this into law? Is it going to be a statement or is it going to be actual legislation? That's something that's going to have to be dealt with, because this is just a resolution

today. We're just voting on a motion that is a good-faith motion.

I'm proud of the work my government did in the years from 1995 to 2003. In our area, we had a shortage of long-term-care beds, and the elderly in Barrie had to

go to a facility outside the community. I'm very pleased that during that mandate we created over 1,000 long-term-care beds for our seniors and tremendous growth in the retirement home business

also. I'm very proud of the work that was done at Victoria Village. Sam Cancilla, a good friend of mine, spearheaded that particular project with Doug Jagges. It's a state-of-the-art facility for

seniors along the lines of Villa Columbo, which the member from York West would be very familiar with. The work done at Grove Park Home to expand its facilities, the IOOF, Roberta Place and Woods

Park home in Barrie are just classic examples of the new standards that were brought in during our mandate.

There's also the work of the seniors through our area -- the Danube Seniors Leisure Centre with Sylvia Luxton and the members there; they have done great work

in the Bradford area -- the Alcona Lions Club with Larry Wilkins, and also the Barrie seniors' centre that we have at the Allandale Recreation Centre, and the Parkview Seniors' Centre and the good

work that's been done by Jean McCann and others to show that the seniors are very active in the community and are doing a great job.

I'm also proud of the fact that we brought in the community care access centres during our mandate. The Simcoe county community care access centre does a great

job in terms of providing service to people who want to stay at home but aren't able to do everything, but also in directing them into placement with respect to long-term-care facilities. I'm very

proud of that record and the work that was done in my riding.

So I wish the member well, but I think you have to also keep in mind some of the things that his government has done in terms of making seniors pay for OHIP,

the delisting of chiropractic, eye care and physiotherapy services, and removing the cap with respect to hydro rates, which make the quality of life for senior citizens a little bit more

trying.

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

Mr Sergio: Thank you very much. It's very encouraging to hear the contribution that various members of the House have made on today's

resolution: the members for Burlington, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, London-Fanshawe, Etobicoke Centre, Beaches-East York, and Simcoe-Bradford.

Mr Tascona: Barrie.

Mr Sergio: Yes, you can have the whole shebang, Joe. Thank you.

I would find it very hard if there is one member in the House who doesn't have a very solid representation of seniors in their constituency, and I'm sure that

you yourself, Speaker, have a good number of seniors in your area. I can look in this House here and see that there are members who belong to this national treasure, as the member has mentioned. We

would have to have perhaps a survey and see who has more. I think I have the most seniors in Ontario. Maybe my colleague for Etobicoke Centre has, or maybe the member -- she spoke so eloquently --

for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. Maybe she does indeed have the largest seniors population. But no matter what, wherever they are, we all share the same problem, we all share the same concern.

As the member for London-Fanshawe said, if you go into nursing homes, community centres, seniors' clubs, you really know the problem that is affecting our

seniors today. And if you don't find the seniors themselves, you can engage in a discussion with their family members, the younger ones, and they will tell you the difficulties that senior members

are experiencing. So I'm very gratified and I thank the members of this House for their support today.

DENTAL HYGIENE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1991

SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

Mr Flaherty moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Dental Hygiene Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 116, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les hygiénistes dentaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr Flaherty has up to 10 minutes.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 116. I introduced this bill on June 24 of this year to remove

the restriction that currently prohibits dental hygienists from cleaning patients' teeth without first having to obtain a dentist's order.

If I may speak by way of background to the bill, the College of Dental Hygienists was created in 1993, with royal assent then. There was an anomaly, a hangover

from the previous jurisdiction of the college of dentists, with respect to this one particular item of oral hygiene and oral hygiene care. That has persisted over the years and has not been

corrected. The purpose of the bill, and it's a short bill, is quite simply to delete the requirement that there be a dentist's order in place in order for a dental hygienist to conduct that oral

hygiene care.

That issue has been looked at by various members of this House. I'm pleased that there is another private member's bill that stands in the name of the member

for Etobicoke Centre, who is on the other side, as you know. That is Bill 91, which is to the same effect, to accomplish the same what I consider to be good public policy goal of deleting this

requirement.

Why is it a public policy good? It's a public policy good because it will increase access to oral hygiene, to health care in Ontario, which I believe is a

public policy goal shared by my Liberal friends opposite and also by the members of the third party.

This is an attempt to delete this anomaly, this exception in the law of the province. I believe there is tripartisan support for the bill, and I hope that is

reflected in our discussions today.

Those who have indicated some opposition to the bill outside of this place have spoken about safety issues. Those issues were addressed by the relevant

regulatory body, which is the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council in Ontario. They were asked to consider this issue of making sure that the safety issue is dealt with back in the

mid-1990s. They considered it not only once but several times, and reported back to the Minister of Health in May 1996. I commend to members this report by the Health Professions Regulatory

Advisory Council dated May 1996, which has not yet been acted upon.

The recommendation on page 27 of the report is, "HPRAC recommends that the Dental Hygiene Act be amended to allow dental hygienists to perform their authorized

acts of scaling teeth and root planing including (incidental) curetting of surrounding tissue without an order, subject to appropriate restrictions in regulations and standards." I would hope that

if this bill successfully passes second reading today, it will go to committee and be dealt with at committee in more detail with respect to those standards, as recommended by the council.

I will say nothing more about the safety issue other than that it has been dealt with by the appropriate regulatory authority and the recommendation made to

the Minister of Health, which I commend to all members of this House.

I believe there is also support by the Premier. He wrote to the Ontario Dental Hygienists' Association on September 29, 2003, indicating, "In government, we

are committed to acting on the HPRAC recommendations." Those are the recommendations to which I have just made reference, including the recommendation to delete the requirement of the dentist's

order in order for a dental hygienist to conduct that type of oral hygiene care.

Why do this? What's the difference for people in Ontario if this step forward is made? The difference is primarily for persons who are not mobile, vulnerable

people in the province. If you're mobile and you live in an urban area, it's not too difficult to get to the dentist, and dental hygiene is available there. The challenge is particularly acute for

people who have limited mobility, persons with disabilities -- obviously physical disabilities, but in my own experience as president of the Head Injury Association of Durham Region, I can tell you

that we also saw this issue time and time again with respect to the transportation needs of persons with cognitive disabilities and other physical disabilities which may or may not accompany

cognitive disabilities. It is also a significant problem with respect to older persons in Ontario who suffer from decreased mobility, particularly people in long-term-care centres. Earlier this

week we had the executive director of the ALS Society of Ontario here talking about the 750 persons in Ontario who suffer from ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, a degenerative disease which

has increasingly limited mobility as the disease progresses. Regrettably, that's also true for other diseases, as the Speaker and other members of this place know.

So we want to make sure, I think, in the interest of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable people in the province of Ontario, that they have the

opportunity to have good access to oral hygiene. How do we do that? We do that by ensuring that dental hygienists have the opportunity to provide that care and that the care can be taken to these

persons who require the care, and not insist that they find some way of getting to a dentist's office.

So this is true. It's true in the north. It's certainly true in rural Ontario. I've had the benefit of talking to quite a few dental hygienists about some of

these issues and some of the important steps they have taken to help people. There are some troubling stories about the care that is required by people, particularly people with limited

There is support also by the Little Brothers of the Good Shepherd, the Good Shepherd Centres for homeless men in Toronto and in Hamilton. As other members

have, I'm sure, I've visited the centre in Toronto, and it is an advantage that oral hygienists can bring that kind of care to persons who otherwise would not receive the care at the shelters. The

Little Brothers of the Good Shepherd have written, indicating their support for the bill, and these are, of course, dedicated persons who dedicate their lives to helping persons who need help in

the evenings to get off the streets and to receive this kind of fundamental health care.

The Alzheimer Society is also supportive. Again, as I understand it, because of the mobility issue, the transportation issue is always a major issue when

dealing with persons with disabilities in the province of Ontario and other vulnerable people.

As I say, it is not a bill that is complex. It is a straightforward bill. It changes a law that arguably ought to have been changed some years ago in order to

meet the goal that I'm sure the Liberal government shares because of the Premier's commitment to enhance access to oral hygiene care in the province of Ontario. I consider it to be an important

step forward. I think that the safety concerns that have been expressed by some in the province are legitimate concerns that have been thoroughly and adequately addressed by the Health Professions

Regulatory Advisory Council, resulting in the recommendation on page 27 of the report, which is rather -- well, it's almost eight years old now, in terms of timing.

So I encourage members to speak up in favour of the proposed change in the laws of the province of Ontario. I thank the assistance that I have received from

the Ontario Dental Hygienists' Association. Some of the members, including the president, Michele Carrick, are present in the gallery today. Their members are prepared to make that effort to

provide this important health service to persons across the province of Ontario. It's particularly important for seniors, and I have letters from the associations representing seniors in Ontario,

because appearance and oral hygiene are very important to all of us, particularly as we age.

So I commend the bill to all the members. I thank the members who are going to speak on the bill, and I hope they will be supportive.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I'm pleased to take

part in this debate today because I think, for many people across Ontario, this is

a very important issue. Perhaps 40 or 50 years ago, people did not think that dental health was the most important priority. Other issues of physical health took first place. Dental health was

something that was considered secondary or tertiary. But I think we recognize now that dental health is a very important issue. This private member's bill -- and I know there's another private

member's bill that addresses very much the same issue -- is, I think, important for the public of Ontario.

Let me say at the outset that I intend to support this private member's bill, and I urge all members to support it, because I think this will better the

position for many people of this province in terms of access to dental health. Let me say as well that there may be some more detailed issues that need to be addressed, and the appropriate place to

deal with those more detailed issues would be at committee where specific questions can be asked, specific issues can be raised and expert evidence can perhaps be called. In any case, those more

detailed issues can most appropriately be dealt with there.

I, too, want to go into the history of this, because I believe the history is important. There is a lot of health care history to this issue. Let me go back to

the letter which was sent by a former Minister of Health, the Honourable Ruth Grier, to the chair of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. The Health Professions Regulatory Advisory

Council was set up to do the policy research for the Ministry of Health, to tell the Ministry of Health the issues that need to be addressed, some of the sub-issues and some of the complications.

So a very detailed letter was sent by the then Minister of Health to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. This was in September 1994, and the letter reads:

"Re: Need for an `order' from a dentist for dental hygienists to perform certain authorized acts.

"This letter is a referral to you on the issue of whether dental hygienists need an order from a dentist to perform their authorized acts of scaling teeth and

root planing, including curetting of surrounding tissue, or whether dental hygienists should be allowed the option of initiating these procedures without an order, subject to appropriate conditions

in regulations. The matter how this would best be accomplished must also be considered, should your review of the matter lead you to the conclusion that the latter option is preferable.

"This referral is made in accordance with

section 12 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. This matter is a private for the ministry. I am therefore

requesting that you complete your analysis" within a prescribed time frame.

The letter then goes on and says:

"I am seeking advice, not only on whether the proposed amendment would be in the public interest, but also on whether the advisory council feels that there are

any pressing issues related to the proposed amendment which need immediate attention (eg, the fact that a number of hygienists may be operating without a protocol seems to be of immediate concern).

If there are such pressing issues, I would like the council's advice on what would be the best procedural way to address such questions in the absence of a legislative amendment" etc.

Then the letter goes on to raise a number of very specific questions to really narrow the issues:

"

(1) What was the `status quo' prior to the proclamation of the Regulated Health Professions Act? Did dental hygienists routinely self-initiate these acts?

"

(2) Does the need for an `order' from a dentist to allow a dental hygienist to perform scaling teeth and root planing, including curettage of surrounding

tissue, negate self-governance of the dental hygiene profession?

"

(3) Do dental hygienists have the training to assess adequately whether they should proceed independently with scaling teeth and root planing (including

curetting of surrounding tissue) or whether they should insist the patient see a dentist or physician for an assessment and/or diagnosis?

"

(4) Is an assessment by a hygienist enough, prior to initiating scaling teeth, root planing and curettage, or is a diagnosis necessary? If so, who should

provide the diagnosis? A dentist? A physician? Either? Could the need for pre-screening (eg, for the purpose of prophylactic use of antibiotics) be addressed acceptably in some other way (such as a

protocol)?

"

(5) What does self-initiation mean? Is it really self-initiation of

an act when a dental hygienist performs a procedure under a `standing order' or

`protocol'? Is the public interest served better if hygienists self-initiate scaling teeth and root planing?

"

(6) Would public health dentistry be adversely affected if hygienists cannot self-initiate these procedures?

"

(7) Is it more cost-effective for the health care system and patients for dental hygienists to practise on their own?"

And so the questions go on. Detailed questions were asked of this body which operates on a non-partisan basis, which is there to do the research to sort

through the issues.

It was a very detailed referral letter to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council in 1994. Now, not surprisingly, the council was not able to answer

immediately, so the report was first submitted to the Minister of Health in September 1995. I want to note that by 1995 it was now a Conservative Minister of Health, so we're not dealing with

something that happened under the NDP. Some of this was initiated under the NDP; then it was reported to a Conservative minister.

On April 23, 1996, the then minister wrote to the Health Professions Reglatory Advisory Council requesting further clarification of conclusions and

recommendations. The report that was then finally submitted on May 17, 1996, was even more detailed. I simply want to refer to that report. It's a detailed report, and this is the kind of thing

that members could actually look at in committee, because they answer all the questions, they engage in the debate, they engage in the discussion. There is, if I may, an examination and

cross-examination, re-examination of some of the issues, and this is non-partisan advice.

What is their recommendation? "The Health Professions Advisory Council recommends that the Dental Hygiene Act be amended to allow hygienists to perform their

authorized acts of scaling teeth and root planing including (incidental) curetting of surrounding tissue without an order, subject to appropriate restrictions in regulations and standards. The

regulations must clearly limit self-initiation to patients where there are no contra-indications or uncertainty as to whether it is safe to proceed." So that was the recommendation, a non-partisan

recommendation from people who were specifically there to provide advice.

In fact, if you go to Web site of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council, this is what they say: "The Health Professions Regulatory Advisory

Council provides independent policy advice to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on matters related to the regulation of health professions in Ontario." That's their job, and as I said

earlier, they were sent a very detailed referral letter which asked a number of specific questions, asked for research, asked for evidence and asked then for the opinion. Their opinion, after in

effect studying it for two years, was, "HPRAC recommends that the Dental Hygiene Act be amended to allow dental hygienists to perform their authorized acts of scaling teeth and root planing

including (incidental) curetting of surrounding tissue without an order." That was their recommendation.

Some would say, "What about this issue of regulations and standards?" Well, that's really what the regulation of a profession involves. This advisory council

has said that hygienists should be able to do this work; now get down to the business of putting in place the appropriate regulations and standards so that everyone will know the scope of practice.

They'll know exactly how this is going to be determined. That's what the regulatory process is really all about.

What has happened since then? I'm mindful that I've only got five minutes left. In fact, there are a number of things that have happened since then. The

College of Dental Hygienists, after receiving this information, as the Minister of Health received it, actually sat down and started thinking about standards of practice. What should the standards

of practice be? Because they were self-initiated, they have actually published since 1996 how dental hygienists would be regulated to operate within this recommendation that was made by the Health

Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. So they have actually done some of this work already.

Now, I guess the question would be, what does this mean for ordinary folks? That's, at the end of the day, really what we're here about. What does this mean

for ordinary folks? Well, as my colleague Mr Flaherty has indicated, it means some folks who might not have ready accesss. The advisory committee said very clearly when it set out its

recommendation that with the appropriate regulations and standards in place, people's health would not be threatened; in fact, people's health would be better served. So I think, generally, that is

what this would mean for the average person out there across Ontario.

I know that whenever you get into health care debates, you immediately get into debates about, "What is the scope of practice of this profession, ie, dentists

and dental hygienists, and where do they conflict?" So there are likely some details that arise here; in fact, I know there are some details. Those are the kinds of things that I believe should go

to committee. If this bill passes second reading and goes to committee, some of those nitty-gritty issues, the more detailed issues, can in fact be raised and dealt with at committee. I think that

would be good work for the committee. In fact, it would be excellent, positive work for a committee to do in order to move this forward. And after hearing the evidence and listening to the analysis

and the opinions, if the committee then wants to offer some amendments, so be it, but that's the place for those more detailed issues to be sorted through and worked upon.

I believe firmly, having some acquaintance with the history of this issue, with the reports and with the follow-up that's happened since then in terms of the

work of the College of Dental Hygienists saying, "We need standards; we recognize that. Here's what we think should be the standards. We need regulation within this scope of practice. Here's what

we think the regulation should be," with all of the work that's been done on this -- and I must say, non-partisan work, work that has occurred under different governments -- NDP, Conservative,

Liberal -- non-partisan work that was done by the advisory council, with all of the work that's been done here -- and I say good work that's been done, thoughtful work, good analysis, good

examination and re-examination of the issues -- I believe all members of the Legislature should vote in favour of this measure today so that it can be sent to committee, and the next steps, the

more detailed analysis, whether or not amendments are needed and, if amendments are needed, what kind of amendments there should be, that kind of work should now proceed.

I believe that literally hundreds of thousands of Ontarians would be very well served by the members of this Legislature voting to support this measure today

and moving it to the next stage of the legislative process.

If I may just speak about the economics of the province, I don't know about other members, but what I hear people say to me every day is, "I work longer, I

work harder, and at the end of the month I seem to have less in my bank and less in my pocket." As a pocketbook issue, this issue would speak to that. Making sure that people can have access to

affordable, reliable, good, quality service in terms of dental health would be served by us passing this measure today.

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill this morning and to share my time with my

colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Bill 116 is all about improving access to health care. It's about letting patients choose where they get their teeth cleaned and choosing the health care

practitioner who performs the procedure. It's also about allowing dental hygiene services to be brought to people who can't go to a dentist's office. It's about lowering the costs of oral hygiene

treatments. And it's about letting the dental hygiene profession regulate itself in the public interest, as was intended when dental hygiene became a self-governing profession, independent from

dentistry, in 1993.

We have far too many people in Ontario today who go without routine oral care and compromise their own health because of the order requirement. As a rule,

dentists do not go to long-term-care facilities, they do not do house calls, and they aren't easily accessible in rural or remote areas. I've seen too many heart-rending stories about people in

vulnerable situations who really let their own oral health care deteriorate. Removal of the order requirement will allow them to get the help and the care they need directly from a dental

hygienist.

Bill 116 is also about implementing the recommendations of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Committee. It was this council that, after extensive

reviews, recommended not once but twice that the order requirements should be removed in the public interest. Bill 116 is virtually identical to Bill 91, which I tabled in the House on June 4,

2004, and I support Bill 116 because I am convinced it is the right thing to do for the people in Ontario.

I've been impressed by the number of people who have taken the time to contact me in support of my bill or of Bill 116, and I really don't care whether it's my

bill or the bill from the member for Whitby-Ajax that does it, as long as it gets done. There may not be many things on which the honourable member and I agree, but I can assure you that we do

agree on this.

There are some who would have us believe that the removal of the order requirement will somehow endanger patient safety. I reject that claim, and I'd like to

tell you why. The order requirement actually did not exist prior to 1993, so no one, not even opponents of Bills 116 and 91, has suggested that patient safety was in jeopardy previous to 1993

because of the absence of the order requirement. But suddenly, now, it's a serious issue for them. The order requirement was really added to the Dental Hygiene Act as a political compromise with

dentistry in order to let self-regulation by dental hygiene go forward without opposition. It is ironic that some have now elevated the political expedient to something that is necessary to protect

patient safety.

The Health Professions Legislation Review, which was spoken about earlier and was the precursor to the Regulated Health Professions Act, determined that

hygienists have the knowledge, the skill and the judgment to perform their authorized act of scaling, root-planing and cleaning of teeth, which we understand can be done without an order.

In other jurisdictions in the United States and, actually, in British Columbia, dental hygienists work safely without the requirement of an order or any

supervision by dentists. As I have already said, the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council recommended that the order be removed in the public interest.

There are a few who suggest that the people who would benefit from the removal of the order requirement are people who are medically compromised and therefore

need the order requirement to be retained so that dentists, not dental hygienists, decide when it's safe to clean a patient's teeth. These are seniors, residents of long-term care facilities,

students studying away from home, of whom I have one, persons who rely on public health, residents of rural and remote areas, the home-bound, and those who are physically or mentally

challenged.

In fact, according to the Ontario Dental Association, it's just about everybody. In a press release that was issued yesterday, the ODA states, "Most adults in

Ontario have some form of medical condition" that requires a dentist's diagnosis before routine teeth cleaning. I actually thought that our health status was in better condition in Ontario, but

obviously the ODA does not agree.

It is actually insulting to characterize that every senior is medically compromised, and it is fundamentally wrong to say that every resident of a

long-term-care facility is medically compromised. The same goes for anyone who wants to exercise his or her choice as to where, when and by whom they get their teeth cleaned.

Those who oppose Bill 116 and Bill 91 suggest it's necessary for a dentist to examine a patient every time the patient has their teeth cleaned by a dental

hygienist in a dental office. But that's not always the case. In public health, standing orders or protocols apply when the dental hygienist is responsible for deciding whether patients should or

should not have their teeth cleaned, and no one has raised concerns about that particular practice. In remote communities and on First Nations reserves, dental hygienists are often the only dental

practitioner whom patients see, and no one has raised concerns about that practice.

I urge the honourable members to reflect on their own experience when they go to a dentist to have their teeth cleaned. I venture to say that if they are

examined by the dentist at all, it's usually after the dental hygienist has completed the procedure. In fact, an independent survey found that 90% of dental hygienists always or usually analyze

assessment data, determine significant findings, identify oral health-related factors, establish priorities for dental hygiene care and, specifically, clinical interventions for patients.

So I don't believe for a minute that resistance to removal of the order requirement is based on concerns about public safety. It really is about two things:

It's about the exercise of power of one profession over another -- it's about maintaining control -- and it's about money. It's about revenues. It's as simple as that.

The essence of the order requirement is that it ties dental hygienists to employment by dentists. It ties the delivery of the service to conventional dental

clinics and, as I have said, it's about securing for dentists the revenue stream that dental hygienists generate. Because of the order requirement, charges for all hygiene services in Ontario are

made by dentists, pursuant to the fee guide of the Ontario Dental Association.

This is a really important consideration for all of our constituents, but in particular for those who do not have extended health benefits and who cannot

afford to pay for themselves. Dr Pran Manga of the University of Ottawa calculated that teeth cleaning and other routine oral hygiene services could be provided at up to 40% less. Think: 40% less

cost if that order is removed. Why would we reject an initiative that stands to save our health care system, quite frankly, millions of dollars annually? Why would we even consider rejecting

something that actually would provide service for the poor and vulnerable, whose numbers, we know, are increasing? Children of poor families do not have the access to dentists. They don't get their

teeth examined any more in school, and they're not getting good oral hygiene.

I believe the other piece of information that's critical is that when you look in the latest study out of the United States, in long-term health care

facilities the fact that there isn't good oral hygiene is contributing to significant health issues that needn't occur. So we know that this can make a difference.

In closing, I reiterate my support for Bill 116, and I urge my colleagues on this side of the House to support this bill, because it really benefits everybody

in Ontario.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I am pleased to rise and contribute to the debate on Bill 116. It's an area that politicians are often loath to

venture into, and that's the area of scope of practice, particularly when it comes to health care professionals. I am very pleased to see politicians here in the assembly today coming forward and

arguing to move ahead with Bill 116, which I certainly support.

I want to commend my colleague too, the member for Whitby-Ajax: certainly as an MPP, as a minister, as Deputy Premier and as a leadership candidate for the

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, a man who's not afraid to tell you where he stands and who brings forward brave initiatives. It's certainly within his character to bring forward Bill 116

here today.

I think that, as a principle, one should err on the side of consumer choice. Of course, when it comes to health care issues, we need to ensure that consumers

have the proper information and that they're protected by adequate training and precautions. Certainly, in this case I believe that does exist. Dental hygienists go through extensive training. I

understand some 700 hours of clinical experience is part of their training, covering scaling, root planing and oral prophylaxis, among other training initiatives -- 700 hours per dental hygienist

coming out of school.

On top of that, you have the College of Dental Hygienists, which has appointees from the dental hygienists themselves as well as public appointees to make sure

that the standards of care, quality of care and training exist, and proper disciplinary proceedings if that fails. I would say that, all in all, the college system of health professionals in the

province of Ontario is generally functioning quite well, and I'm confident, in this case, functioning very well.

Third, we have the Health Professionals Regulatory Advisory Council -- HPRAC -- one of the more esteemed bodies in the province of Ontario, which takes its

time and very carefully, very cautiously reviews areas of medical practice. HPRAC has intervened in this matter on a couple of occasions. In fact, as some speakers have already said, this issue

goes back more than a decade to some mediation the Ministry of Health conducted, I believe in 1993-94, to try to find a solution. That was not successful. Then HPRAC reviewed the matter and

reported back in September 1995 and once again in May 1996: a very careful, well-thought-out review in the area of scope of practice, both times affirming that changes to the act like Bill 116

should take place.

While this issue has been around a long time and has been reviewed on several occasions, unfortunately the act has not moved forward until today. I am pleased

to see it in the Legislative Assembly. I will be supporting it and I look forward to it carrying at third reading.

I believe that in areas like long-term care and non-ambulatory residents from rural or remote areas, individuals who don't have private dental assistance will

benefit from this type of consumer choice, protected by the College of Dental Hygienists and reviewed by HPRAC. I know I've received some calls from some dentists in my riding who oppose the

legislation -- Dr Zammit and Dr Southward were talking about it. I reviewed their suggestions and I appreciate their input. I've also heard from dental hygienists in my riding, Marie Lochhead and

Susan Luchesi, an old classmate of mine, a great individual dedicated to her profession as a dental hygienist and a strong advocate for the hygienists, whom I found had compelling arguments to

support this legislation.

It's about time to move ahead. It has been given due consideration. I'm very proud to stand in my place and say, let's move forward. I'll be voting for the

legislation.

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm very pleased to stand up today and indicate my support of Bill 116. I have also had an

opportunity to speak to dental hygienists in my own community and hear from them about what change they hope to see in their profession. I think it is important we acknowledge that this is a

not able to get to a doctor, or are non-ambulatory or are affected by cost consequences. We've learned over the years that making sure Ontarians are healthy by looking at a preventive approach is

the best mechanism to ensure the health and safety of those individuals in our province.

I know others have spoken about the fact that this is perhaps a long time in coming and that there has been a lot of debate, not in this Legislature

necessarily, but an examination of this issue. I thought it would be helpful to look at the recommendation HPRAC brought forward in October 1995. After an 18-month review, HPRAC recommended the

following:

"The Dental Hygiene Act, 1991, should be amended to allow dental hygienists to perform their authorized acts of scaling teeth and root planing including

(incidental) curetting of surrounding tissue without an order, subject to appropriate conditions in regulations and standards. The regulations must clearly limit initiation of the procedures by

dental hygienists to patients where there are no contra-indications or uncertainty as to whether it is safe to proceed. The regulations and standards of practice governing the limitations and

expectations relating to initiation should be established through consultation with other professionals, particularly dentists and physicians, before the act is amended."

I agree with my colleague across the House that this is the type of debate that is appropriately done at a committee level. We can bring those experts forward

and talk about the concrete details of how this could move forward. At its heart, it is about ensuring that all of us work together in this Legislature to the benefit of those in our community.

I know that at times what we're talking about might seem very technical, but I think it is about making sure we have increased access to dental hygiene

services in this province, so that those individuals who do not currently have access have the choice to locate a professional practitioner to ensure they have the care they need in terms of their

oral hygiene and oral health.

I'm one of those individuals who loves getting my teeth cleaned. I really am one of those people who do like going to the dentist and getting my teeth cleaned.

I've had an opportunity to speak to the dental hygienists about this, and to think about the fact that there are many individuals, in particular seniors in the community, whom I meet who simply

don't have that opportunity to attend a professional and get the help they need.

Although I support Bill 116, we have some more work to do; there is no doubt about it. There is more work to do to ensure that protections are put in place,

but it is important to acknowledge, as my friend across the House indicated, that the profession itself has been doing some of that work over the years, to establish standards of practice. The

Ontario dental hygienists have demonstrated that professionalism coming forward. They have restrictions on how they would seek to operate, and you need only speak to the dental hygienists -- I know

some of them are here with us today -- about why they want to see this change, and you see in their eyes and in their voices the passion, the desire to help and to care for those individuals in

this province.

They really bring forward that initiative of being caregivers in all our communities, and it is their goal to make sure that Ontarians who need it the most,

frankly, have access to that care so we can prevent more serious medical problems from arising, those that arise when you are not able to sufficiently take care of the issues you need.

I had a chance to speak to my mom about this issue last night. We were talking about the fact that it was imperative. On January 7, I will be going to Edmonton

to my grandmother's 100th-birthday party. It has been important over the years that those issues -- she's living in a long-term care facility, has lived in a small rural community, did not have

access to a dentist, did not have access to those types of services. It has been a health detriment over the years; there's no doubt about that.

That's what we're talking about today: making sure that we make those services available. It's been important to me in making my determination on why I

supported this to know that organizations have the same goals in mind, like the Good Shepherd Centre, like some of the many organizations in our province that do good work on all of our behalf

every day, making sure those citizens in each of our communities are cared for and looked after in their time of need. Groups like the Alzheimer Society, the ALS Society, the Good Shepherd, the

Ontario seniors coalition, are all strong supporters of this bill. It's important to ensure that from their perspective, they're supportive, because they want to ensure that oral hygiene doesn't

lead to morbidity among those who are vulnerable.

If there is something we can be proud of today, it's that everyone across this House is coming together, I hope, in a unified front to support those across

Ontario who are vulnerable. As a result I am very proud to stand in support of Bill 116.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate on Bill 116, brought forth by my colleague from

Whitby-Ajax who has done a lot of work on this. The essence of the bill has been bantered back and forth for over a decade now, since the Ontario health act early in the 1990s gave dental

hygienists their own college and permitted self-regulation. What we're seeing here today is not something new in terms of different professions trying to get established, which the dental

hygienists have accomplished, but moving to also provide service and to serve the public in the best way that serves that profession.

Both sides, as we've heard already, the Ontario Dental Hygienists's Association and also the Ontario Dental Association have made points on this issue. There

are obvious self-interest aspects from both the dentists and the dental hygienists, to be quite frank about it. I think what it comes down to, as I think the member from Erie-Lincoln and the member

for Whitby-Ajax have stated, is what is best for the population in terms of cost, health and safety. I think those are a number of areas that have been addressed by both sides as we go through

this.

In terms of cost, the position of the dental hygienists is that they can provide the treatment more cost-effectively, and that's certainly something that has

to be looked at because dentists, when you talk to them, look at the use of a dental hygienist, as they state their position, as sort of a loss leader, which often doesn't generate much income

after all the expenses: rent, equipment and staff. They put their position forth, saying, "If that's the case, how can a dental hygienist do it for less?" But I don't think that's essentially the

point in terms of what we're looking at here, in terms of serving of the public, in terms of the costs that they pay.

The argument of greater access to care by the dental hygienists is certainly a valid point; however, we have to focus on the areas where they're trying to

provide this access, and usually it's the sick and the elderly. That's the focus, as we move through this, in terms of making sure there is greater access to care to the broadest sector of the

population that there possibly can be.

Dental hygienists are well trained to do what they do. They usually have a one- or two-year course straight out of high school, and this includes all the

additional science and physiology requirements. Certainly in the training aspect, there really isn't an issue. I think what's at issue is what we face with respect to CGAs, CAs and different groups

that want to become self-regulated, like the acupuncturists and some other groups that are trying to move into an area that is provided through doctors. It is an area that you have to look at in

terms of, what's the best way to provide that service?

I think this bill has to go forward. The member from Whitby-Ajax has put a lot of work into this. We've heard all the sides. I think we have to go to committee

hearings and hear the arguments from the public and see what is best, so we can get the facts. I think that's what is important, because we certainly have positions from the Ontario Dental

Hygienists' Association and from the Ontario Dental Association, but we have to hear the facts.

We also have to look at the fact that the Liberal government, during the election, made a promise with respect to dealing with the recommendations from the

HPRAC regarding dental hygienists. They indicated that they are committed to acting on those recommendations, but you have to look at it in perspective. Now that they've promised that, really, what

is the chance of that promise coming through? Because they have broken every other promise. What's happening here is that you have the member from Whitby-Ajax, a committed member, who has brought

it forth. It's the loyal opposition that has brought this bill forth, not the Liberal government, who promised they would deal with this. At the end of the day, this is an issue that we have to

join together on.

I have received input from Dr Chris Cottle from the city of Barrie, who works in this area and is on the Ontario Dental Association as a representative. I've

also heard from Melanie Doyle, from the Ontario Dental Hygienists' Association, who is also from my riding of Barrie. I appreciate their input and I look forward to this bill receiving the merit

that it deserves.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise to speak in support of Bill 116, the amendment to the Dental Hygiene Act of 1991. It's an amendment to

change the needs that exist presently in our society, where the dental hygienists have to get an order from a dentist before they can perform the work that they have been trained to do, that fits

within their scope of practice.

I think it's very important, particularly representing a part of rural Ontario where a lot of services are not as available as they might be, and dental

services are no exception. When I look back, when I came to this area that I now represent, the only time that my family went to have their teeth looked at was when the child would start to cry

because they had a toothache. Nine times out of 10, when we finally got to the dentist, the dentist would have to pull that tooth out.

I want to welcome the dental hygienists who are here today.

I go back quite a way, and at that time, I don't expect there were many dental hygienists in existence. I'm an old person.

Today, when I go to the dentist -- and incidentally, it's in the same town. It's not quite in the same building, but close to the same building that I went to

as a child. When I go there now, my children go into the office next to the one that I go into, where the dental hygienist is doing everything that's required for my children. Incidentally, they do

a very good job.

When I asked my dentist about how the association works, he said, "It works very well." Obviously, he looks after the dental needs and the dental hygienist

next door does a very good job of maintaining the quality and condition of my children's teeth. I said, "There's a bill coming forward that talks about removing the need for the order that you have

to give and that the dental hygienist has to work with you on. What's your position on that?" He said, "I guess for us here it makes absolutely no difference. Obviously, she's doing her work and

we're doing ours." There's more than one dentist in that office and everybody is doing their thing.

Obviously, we have a need for the dental hygienist in other places where they don't have a dentist available, such as long-term-care facilities. That was

mentioned by the member from Whitby-Ajax. In rural Ontario, transportation is a major problem. We don't have transit and so forth, so if the disabled don't have the ability to drive or someone to

drive them, they can't get to these services. The dental hygienists are prepared and, in many cases, are already doing it with an order from a dentist, looking after the needs of these people.

I think that really brings out the point of the need for the order. It seems to me that if it's a formality that a dentist must sign an order, and then I can

take this piece of paper and as a dental hygienist I can travel around and provide services to homes for the aged and to disabled people, I really don't see the need for that order if the dentist

is never going to be able to supervise the work anyway. After doing research, I found out what the dental hygienist is doing; in fact, they are better qualified and have had more training in doing

that than the average dentist. So I don't know why the dentist should have to give an order that he will not follow up on just to allow the dental hygienist to do what it is they're trained to

do.

I think it's a very good bill to bring forward, to let the experts, shall we say, perform in their field. I don't believe anybody in Ontario is well served by

suggesting that one group of individuals should be able to control another group of experts in doing their duty. But more than that, they not only control or give the order, they also end up taking

a payment for doing that. I don't think it's appropriate, where one person -- I guess the right word is -- lives off the avails of another's labour. They have absolutely --

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): That's one way of putting it.

Mr Hardeman: Oh, some of the members in the Legislature are taking more from that statement than was meant, I'm sure.

It comes down to the ability of some of our people to pay for the services they require. It's a proven fact that the dental hygienist can perform this service

more economically and effectively for my community if it's not done through the dentist's office, if they can set up a practice to provide that service in my community, where, incidentally, dental

services are not as prevalent as they are in some other areas of the province. They're very hard to access, very hard to get to, and indeed may be not quite as available as they are in the big

cities.

I strongly support this bill, and from listening to the debate this morning, I'm sure it will pass unanimously, as I've heard absolutely no one speak against

it. For the dental hygienists who are here today, I want to say I proudly support this bill and will be voting that way.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Whitby-Ajax has two minutes.

Mr Flaherty: I want to thank all of the members who spoke here this morning, in the last hour, most of whom have made reference to the

important issue here, which is increased access to dental health, to oral hygiene, to health care in the province. To the member for Kenora-Rainy River; the member for Etobicoke Centre, who also

has Bill 91 standing in her name, to the same effect as Bill 116; and the members for Erie-Lincoln, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Oxford, my thanks to all of them for speaking in

support of the bill.

Two points: Bill 91 is standing in this place. The member for Etobicoke Centre has spoken eloquently in support of the concept that we should increase access

to oral hygiene in the province of Ontario. I thank the member. She's correct, we don't agree on everything, but there are issues that affect access to health care in Ontario with respect to which

I am sure the member for Etobicoke Centre and I agree, like this issue, and to which many members of this House agree.

It is a good day in this place, Speaker, I'm sure you'd agree, when members of all three parties can rise above partisan concerns, look at an issue that

affects a broad group of people in Ontario and come together and support a bill that is not a long bill. It's a short bill but it deals with a specific issue. The result of the bill eventually

becoming law in Ontario, which I hope it does, will be to increase access to health care for many of our constituents in rural Ontario, but also in other part of the province, certainly; for all

our constituents who have transportation issues, particularly the vulnerable people in Ontario, including elderly people.

For all those reasons, I thank my friends who spoke in support of the bill and I look forward to its passing.

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

SENIOR CITIZENS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall deal first with ballot item number 43, standing in the name of Mr Sergio.

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

DENTAL HYGIENE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1991

SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 44, standing in the name of Mr Flaherty.

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

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

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): The standing committee on public accounts.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Flaherty has asked that it be referred to the standing committee on public accounts. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1157 to 1330.

VISITOR

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to welcome to the House the Right Honourable John Turner,

the former Prime Minister.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Welcome, Prime Minister.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHARITY HOCKEY GAME

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my legislative colleagues for their participation and support in

the fourth annual charity hockey challenge.

On Monday last at Oshawa's Civic Auditorium, I was pleased to host a hockey challenge between the Queen's Park Legiskaters and the Durham Regional Police. All

proceeds of this game went toward minor hockey teams in Oshawa. This year's event presented a unique opportunity for the public, as hockey's most cherished trophy, the Stanley Cup, was on hand for

viewing, picture-taking and touching just for luck.

I'd like to praise the Hockey Hall of Fame and its employees, especially Mike Boltz and Phil Pritchard, the guys who wear the white gloves, for their hard

work, dedication and care in bringing the cup to Oshawa.

I'd also like to pay special thanks to the members who made up the Legiskaters team: the members from Pembroke-Nipissing-Renfrew, Scarborough Centre, Durham,

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Mississauga West and our outstanding coach, the member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who organized the members and the security staff from Queen's

Park; also, the city of Oshawa's Mayor Gray, along with city council members. Without the years of experience that come along with the Civic Auditorium management and staff and all the volunteers,

including the Oshawa firefighters, my staff and my father, the evening could not have run as smoothly as it did. To them, a big special thanks. I'd also like to express my gratitude to the Durham

Regional Police, Chief McAlpine and organizer Sergeant Ross for their sportsmanlike conduct on and off the ice.

Over 1,500 excited fans turned out for the event. More importantly, up to $20,000 was raised in support of the NASC, CYO, OCHL, Oshawa Girls' Hockey and Oshawa

Minor Hockey.

It's all about kids and hockey, as showcased in the kids' mini game between periods, which ended up in a 0-0 tie. Thanks to all, and remember: Never mind the

luck; give it your best and the luck will take care of itself.

POVERTY

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Today we've been visiting with students from McMaster University who joined us to talk about some of the

issues in my city. They're studying the inadequacy of the government's personal needs allowance for people who live in residential care facilities. It's $112 a month. I think it's pathetic to

expect that anyone could survive on that amount, let alone change the circumstances they are in. Imagine trying to survive yourself on $4 a day, not just for one day or two, but every single day of

your life. That's the reality of the grinding poverty that 95,000 residents experience every day in Hamilton.

The McMaster students have studied the issue in depth and have come up with practical steps the government can take right now: for example, raise the

allocation to $160 a month and index allowances to keep them at pace with inflation; make Ontario minimum wage a living wage right away; ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are looked after

and have the dignity that comes with having adequate means to purchase basic items like a newspaper, a cup of coffee and bus fare. The minister's pitiful $2-a-month increase doesn't cut it at

all.

I rise in support of the McMaster students, who have studied the punishing effects of poverty on residents in special-care homes. We should ensure that these

residents have the dignity of an adequate allowance so they don't have to become career panhandlers or face being shunned and ostracized by others.

I know the Minister of Community and Social Services also met with the McMaster students today. I urge the minister to please follow through on the

government's promise and take meaningful action on poverty for the health and well-being of the city of Hamilton and the province as a whole.

DIABETES

Mr Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): On November 26, 2004, at the Pearson Convention Centre, the Young Liberals in Brampton came

together to hold the first-ever Dinner for Diabetes fundraiser. The event was a huge success, as a crowd of 300 people attended the event. It is a proud testament to the youth of Brampton that they

were able to raise more than $10,000 for the Canadian Diabetes Association during Diabetes Awareness Month. I, along with my fellow Brampton MPP colleagues the Minister of Health and the Minister

of Transportation, was privileged to partake in this important and significant event.

As I'm sure you know, diabetes is a chronic disease that cannot be cured but can only be prevented or managed. Today, over 700,000 Ontarians live with diabetes

and an estimated 300,000 Ontarians do not know that they have diabetes. The high-risk group includes those who are of Aboriginal, Hispanic, Asian, South Asian or African descent.

The vice-president of research and education for the Canadian Diabetes Association, Donna Lillie, praised the commitment of the youth of Brampton in bringing

awareness to this deadly disease. The Canadian Diabetes Association helps to ensure that Canadians are well informed about this deadly disease through diabetes research, education and service. With

a commitment from those in the community, such as the Dinner for Diabetes fundraiser, and from all of levels of government, we will be able to manage and ultimately cure diabetes.

HIGHWAY 7

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Once again, I am rising in this House to insist that the provincial government take appropriate action to

fast-track the construction of the new four-lane Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph. This much-needed project, which has been talked about and studied for a generation, is currently undergoing

further study and public consultation involving environmental issues. While we're all concerned about the environmental impact of major projects, the Ministry of the Environment must not allow the

Highway 7 job to become bogged down in unnecessary bureaucratic delay. We need a new Highway 7 for reasons of safety and the efficient movement of goods and people through and within our growing

and dynamic communities in Waterloo region and Wellington county.

For almost two years now I have been calling upon successive provincial governments to prioritize the projects in the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action

plan, including the new Highway 7. The project ideas come from the municipal councils of the communities I'm privileged to represent. They have the support of many hundreds of our residents who

have signed petitions which I continue to present to this House.

A few days ago I was pleased to attend a meeting with the Ministers of Transportation and Public Infrastructure Renewal, along with Waterloo regional chair Ken

Seiling, Kitchener mayor Carl Zehr, Woolwich township mayor Bill Strauss, Guelph mayor Kate Quarrie, and Guelph/Eramosa township mayor Clint Martin. Our elected community leaders made a compelling

case that this project needs to continue to move forward. And in a recent editorial headline, the Guelph Mercury said, "Time to Approve a New Highway 7." No one in this House could have said it

better.

VISITORS

Mr Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I stand today to say that this morning the Ministry of Tourism and

Recreation had their first meeting of the advisory council on the trails strategy of Ontario, and I would like the House to recognize four people sitting in the gallery who have assisted us with

this: Mr John Marsh, John Broderick, Sandra Hanson and Patrick Connor. Thank you very much for coming to Queen's Park to assist us with this process.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): It is not a point of order.

PENSION PLANS

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): At the end of the last session of the Legislature in June, I rose in this House to ask the members

gathered here to keep in mind some of my constituents. I'm speaking of the retired workers, both unionized and salary, of Stelco. For roughly the last year, they've been living with tremendous

uncertainty as their former employer, Stelco, has been undergoing restructuring under court protection, courtesy of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

Right now, the steel market is healthy -- we could even say it is robust -- and the bidding war for Stelco is now in high gear. Justice James Farley has

reminded the companies involved that in their zeal to cut a good deal and cash in on the booming steel market, the pensioners -- the men and women who spent their lives working for that company and

in good faith deferred their wages in the form of pension considerations -- should not only be remembered but be given priority in this deal and, might I add, in any future deals.

While this government recognizes its role in helping to protect the pensioners, we can all agree it should not be the job of taxpayers of this province, this

country or any other country to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of profit-making companies, especially the obligations to human beings and their families who contribute so much to the

success of those companies. As the future of Stelco seems now to be bright, so too should the futures of the workers, especially the pensioners who have been watching helplessly from the

sidelines.

I'm proud to know that the Premier and his staff, the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Labour, as well as our area minister and MPPs, have all

been taking this issue very seriously, and will continue to do so.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Later this afternoon, I'll be introducing a private member's bill which will help ease the very real financial

pressures Ontario families face as a result of the McGuinty government. In early 2004, the Liberal government amended regulations under the Ontario Health Insurance Act. Sadly, and without

consultation, this government announced the delisting of routine eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy care. This is causing undue pressure on the hard-working Ontario resident who now must pay

out of pocket for these important services. Clearly, Ontarians are paying more for their health care and receiving less. The Premier made almost 40 promises on health care during the last election;

we now see his promises mean nothing.

December 1 marks the first day in which citizens are going to be forced to pay 100% of the cost of these services. This is simply wrong. Approximately 600,000

chiropractic patients signed petitions and letters asking the Premier not to delist chiropractic funding. This demonstrates the importance of chiropractic care in Ontario. Indeed, I might say that

in Scugog, in my riding, is the home of Dr Daniel Palmer, who is considered the founder of chiropractic care.

My private member's bill is entitled

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to tax credits for medical expenses. Last October, the Premier asked

Ontarians to choose change. He promised a radically different Ontario and improved quality of life. Well, none of this has happened. Thanks to this government, change is all that is left in the

pockets of hard-working Ontarians.

TAMIL CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to take this opportunity to inform the Legislature of an inspiring evening I shared with a

number of Tamil young people at the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre Awards of Excellence 2004, held at the University of Toronto on October 30. The Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre

was hosting their sixth annual awards ceremony acknowledging the incredible talent and achievement of young Tamils in our community.

Allow me to congratulate these fine young people for putting forward the positive side of our youth. Too many people focus on the negative and tar all of our

young people with the same brush. When the majority of young people have so much potential, there's no question our future will be in good hands.

Allow me to congratulate the award winners that evening. Their accomplishments are impressive. Their talent was on display throughout the evening.

The Tamil community has quickly become an important part of life in our community. They are a growing community. They are a flourishing community. They're a

community that is quickly adapting to the Canadian way of life. Tamil small businesses are popping every everywhere. This community is having an incredibly valuable impact on our local economy.

I'm delighted to congratulate these young people today for their achievements. I congratulate our local Tamil community on their accomplishments and

entrepreneurial spirit. These young people are proud of their Tamil heritage and proud to be Canadians. They are truly inspiring to us all.

EVENTS IN NIPISSING

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): Christmas came to Nipissing this past weekend. On Friday evening, the mayor of North Bay, councillors, Santa

and Mrs Claus and I made our way down Main Street to officially light the downtown Christmas tree and start the downtown Christmas walk. Thousand of North Bayites came out Friday evening to stroll

down Main Street, enjoy carollers and musicians and the hospitality of our downtown merchants. Hundreds of people joined my staff and me in our office for hot chocolate and treats. Our thanks go to

the downtown improvement area staff and volunteers, as well as the parks and recreation staff and the various merchants for a really beautiful evening.

On Saturday, the volunteers at the Callandar library organized a fabulous Celtic holiday house tour, where over 400 people in the community of Callandar toured

five beautifully decorated homes and enjoyed homemade scones and tea and Sandy Peden's famous shortbread.

Saturday night, Mayor Brazeau of Callandar and I, along with councillors and Mayor Billingsley from Nipissing and a few hundred residents, lit up the

waterfront in Callandar and enjoyed listening to the students of MT Davidson school sing from their Christmas pageant. Thank you to the Callandar library volunteers, the merchants, the rec

committee and the volunteers who created such a beautiful evening and day in Callandar.

Finally, on Sunday in Mattawa, the parents, teachers and students at St Victor's hosted a Christmas tea and bake sale while the volunteer firefighters

organized a wonderful Christmas parade, which began at the Algonquin long-term care home, where many of the residents were able to enjoy the parade.

I'd like to thank Butch Belanger, the firefighters and the volunteers who made the parade such a success, and I'd like to thank all of those people who are

building our communities in Nipissing.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I rise this afternoon on behalf of the residents of Etobicoke Centre to say thank you to Minister

Takhar and to the Ministry of Transportation for our new barrier that's going to be erected along Highway 427. Now, while I know that that's not of particular interest to a lot of people, I can

assure you that it is to the folks who bought their homes some 40 or 50 years ago, who now have over 400,000 cars that go by their homes each and every day. The noise is a significant challenge for

these folks as they get older and wish to stay in their homes.

JOHN TURNER

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I also would like to take a moment to say thank you to the Honourable John Turner. I'd like to be

able to say thank you for 25 years of contribution to the political scene in Canada and for his continued, sustainable contribution to people such as myself, whom he's chosen to help and mentor as

I learn this whole new process called politics at the provincial level. It's something you can't do on your own. You really do need the helping friend that you can turn to for some good, sage

advice, somebody who's been there, done that and turned all those corners, as it were. I have a great deal of respect for this gentleman, and in particular for the fact that he is my friend. I

thank you, sir.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I beg leave to present a report on curriculum development and implementation from the standing

committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Sterling: In 1996, the Ministry of Education undertook the development of the first province-wide curriculum. Elementary curriculum policy

documents were introduced in 1997 and 1998. The new secondary curriculum was introduced one grade at a time, beginning with grade 9 in 1999 and ending with grade 12 in 2002. The committee examined

the first value-for-money audit of this program area since the development and implementation of the new curriculum.

In its report, the committee made seven recommendations. Among them are two that refer to at-risk students. The ministry has been asked to report on the

actions it has taken to create more effective pathways for these students, including increasing the number of locally developed courses that qualify for compulsory credit and to provide information

on the impact of its programs for at-risk students. The committee also recommended that the ministry report on the results of its research regarding social promotion and remediation.

This completes the committee's work on the 2003 annual report of the auditor. The committee held nine hearings in February 2004. Following these hearings, the

committee has submitted unanimous reports on each of those hearings. The tabling of these reports has completed the cycle that we are in.

I'd like to thank the members of the standing committee on public accounts, who include Laurel Broten, Jim Flaherty, Shelley Martel, Bill Mauro, Julia Munro,

Richard Patten, Liz Sandals and David Zimmer. I would like to thank them as their Chair.

I would move adjournment of the debate.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 25,

An Act respecting government advertising / Projet de loi 25, Loi concernant la publicité gouvernementale.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Marsales, Judy

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 20.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act / Projet de loi 60, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le patrimoine de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): No.

The Speaker: Carried.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Spe