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

November 3, 2005

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Nov-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 3 November 2005 Jeudi 3 novembre 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VETERANS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

BY-ELECTION IN

SCARBOROUGH-ROUGE RIVER

RIDESHARE

ENERGY CONSERVATION

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

VISITOR

SPEAKER'S RULING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

(CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD PRESERVATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉSERVANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ FAMILIALE DE FREDERICK BANTING

ENERGY CONSERVATION RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN MATIÈRE DE CONSERVATION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES SERVICES AUX PERSONNES AYANT

UNE DÉFICIENCE INTELLECTUELLE

CELEBRATION OF HELLENIC HERITAGE ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA FÊTE DU PATRIMOINE HELLÉNIQUE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ENERGY CONSERVATION

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ENERGY CONSERVATION

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ENERGY CONSERVATION

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

REMEMBRANCE DAY

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

EMPLOYMENT

WATER QUALITY

ENERGY CONSERVATION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

EARLTON/TIMISKAMING

REGIONAL AIRPORT

PATHOLOGIST

ENERGY CONSERVATION

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SMART METERS

MORTGAGE BROKERS

PETITIONS

financial services industry

CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MACULAR DEGENERATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MACULAR DEGENERATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

Mr. Mauro moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I am pleased to rise this morning once again to have an opportunity to debate and move second reading of

Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act. This is a reintroduction of a private member's bill that I introduced in June of this year to make the PSA test, a blood test for men to find an

indication of the potential for the existence of prostate cancer, an insurable service under OHIP.

In June 2005, when I first introduced the legislation, it was a little bit exciting. It was my first private member's bill, but quickly the reality of this

institution struck me when I found out about 30 minutes later that that was the last day of the session in the spring and that it was likely that this bill would not be carried forward. So here I

find myself again introducing what I feel is a very valid and legitimate piece of legislation that hopefully will end up being passed into law some day.

I'd like to begin by indicating that this test is something that does have a bit of controversy surrounding it. It is not something that is unanimously endorsed

by everyone in the medical community. However, it is fair to say, I think, that there are more people in the medical community who do endorse it than who don't, and I think it's also fair to say

that much of the resistance to the introduction of this piece of legislation, the PSA test as a valid test, comes from people in the non-medical community.

Part of the controversy stems, I think, from two pieces: One is that it can sometimes indicate a false negative, and there is a stress situation related to men

who may find themselves in this situation; the other is the cost to the health care system. I'm going to leave those two for now; I will get back to those in a little while and speak to them a

little later on in my 10 minutes.

There are a couple of things that are worth entering into the record statistically that I think I need to read in, and I'd like to do that for you now.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canadian men. At least one in every seven Canadian men is expected to develop the disease in their

lifetime, and 27% of them will die of it. In the year 2000 alone, prostate cancer caused the death of over 1,300 men in Ontario.

It's the third leading cause of cancer death among men. The irony, of course, with this statistic is that prostate cancer is one of the most curable of all of

the cancers that exist, if it is detected early. That goes to why I feel very strongly about the introduction and the OHIP coverage of this test.

A recent study by University of Connecticut researchers shows that prostate cancer survivors fare relatively well and rarely deem the diagnosis to be a traumatic

or life-altering event.

Those mainly at risk of prostate cancer are men 45 or older, those with a family history, and men of African descent. Other risk factors include diets high in

fat, calories and red meat.

"PSA" stands for "prostate specific antigen." It is a blood test that measures a substance called prostate specific antigen, a protein produced by prostate cells

and by prostate tumours.

As I mentioned earlier, there are also many who are in support of this. The medical practitioners most involved with the treatment of this disease are those who

tend to lend the largest support to the insurability of the test. An Ipsos Reid survey shows that the vast majority of Ontario urologists -- in fact, about 85% of them -- believe that

prostate-specific antigen screening tests for prostate cancer help reduce mortality in the general population and should be covered under provincial health insurance plans.

Mr. Aaron Bacher is the chairman of the Man to Man Prostate Cancer Support Group here in the greater Toronto area. I believe this particular support group is the

largest in Ontario, and maybe in Canada. What Mr. Bacher and his group have had to say is this:

"As chairman of the Toronto Man to Man Prostate Cancer Support Group, the largest such group in Canada, we see too many men at our meetings who are the direct

result of putting off getting a PSA test done until it was too late. All the men who come to our meetings do so after being diagnosed with prostate cancer, and they come to us looking for answers.

We hear about how they didn't get the test done because it was going to cost them a few dollars, or their GP told them it wasn't necessary because of the cost or that the test is `unreliable.'"

As I've mentioned already, we know all about some of the controversy that surrounds the test, but it is still the only test available. According to Mr. Bacher,

until something else comes along, it's all we have to deal with. Every one of the men in their group credits the PSA test for having saved their lives.

One of the things that has changed that I would like to talk about in terms of scientific data coming forward to support the insurability of this test, one of

the recent innovations, is something that's referred to in the medical community as the velocity of change or the rapidity of change. What that would require is for PSA tests to start to be

administered by medical practitioners on a regular basis. That would provide a baseline of data which the medical practitioners would have to refer back to when they administer subsequent

tests.

One test indicating a high PSA level is not necessarily an indicator of the existence of prostate cancer, although it may be. This is what some of the

controversy surrounds. However, if we were to begin using this new model, the rapidity or the velocity of change, we would be able to compare a first PSA testing level to a second and a third PSA

testing level. The velocity of change in those readings is a very reliable indicator of the potential existence of prostate cancer in men. Of course, this is very key because, as we know, early

detection leads to early cure.

Laurence Klotz is a professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, and he speaks on this issue. He is the head of the prostate cancer group at Sunnybrook and

Women's College Health Sciences Centre. On the issue of this rapidity and velocity of change, he had this to say:

"A rapid rise in PSA has been clearly demonstrated to be associated with aggressive prostate cancer. Furthermore, by the time someone developed advanced prostate

cancer, the PSA is almost always very high. The widespread use of PSA testing has resulted in the disease being diagnosed at a stage when it is much more curable. More important, death from

prostate cancer has dropped 25% in the past years in North America. This advance test deserves as large a headline as the one casting suspicion on the PSA test."

There are many reasons why I believe we need to be funding the PSA test and other tests of a like nature. We in this Legislature are all very familiar with the

challenges our health care system faces in terms of its very sustainability. We all know about the challenges it faces from a financial perspective. We all know that our health care budget

represents about 40% to 45% of the overall provincial expenditures in this province, somewhere in the order of $30 billion to $35 billion out of about $75 billion or $80 billion in total, and we

all know it's continuing to increase. In fact, there was an

article in the paper just this morning talking about how health care expenditures are expected to increase by an additional 7.5% or 8%

this year.

We have seen those increases continuing on a regular basis over the last number of years, and if any of us are interested in the survivability of the system, we

need to find ways to manage it better. I would suggest that one of those ways is by the introduction of more preventive tests that will lead to early cures because, as we all know, if we can catch

these things early, it is much less expensive to deal with them earlier than later.

By way of example, I will tell you that if the test as it currently exists costs about $25 or $30, a radical prostatectomy, once diagnosed in its early stages,

would cost the health care system about $16,000. A radical prostatectomy, or the treatment of the disease after it has spread, would cost in the order of $30,000. So I think it's fair to say that

one early detection would pay for the cost of approximately 1,000 of these tests.

We all know that in this province we have an aging population, and concurrent with that aging population is going to be an explosion in certain diseases

associated with aging. One of them is advanced prostate cancer for men. Others, such as different dementias and things like that -- diabetes is a very dangerous one where we expect a large

explosion in numbers, as the population ages in Ontario. I would suggest that we may end up in a position where we do not have a choice except to begin to get more proactive in our approach to

these diseases as they begin to increase in numbers.

The challenge, of course, for government is that in many cases we are all running around putting out fires. We have so many acute pressures on the health care

system that it's difficult to find the resources to put into preventive measures as we try and deal with the challenges we have. Also, governments have not been historically good at doing things

the benefits of which accrue five, 10 or 15 years down the road. I would suggest that we are at a point here where we no long have a choice, where prevention needs to become a large part of what we

do. It is better for the patients, and clearly it will be better for the long-term sustainability of the very system we hold so dear in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, we have with us in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from the Hong Kou District People's Congress of

Shanghai, China. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill presented by my colleague from Thunder Bay. At the outset, I

want to underline that I think this should be a non-partisan issue. The previous government didn't take action in this regard and the current government isn't. I think the member opposite is

bringing forward this bill to try to push the ball forward, and I commend him for doing that.

The bottom line for me, and the bottom line for many of the people I represent in Nepean−Carleton, is that we believe that in the fight against cancer we

need to use all the tools at our disposal, and this is only one of them. I've had a number of constituents over the years come in and speak to me about this issue. I've seen the bureaucratic

gobbledygook that I'm sure the member opposite has seen and the explanations on why this can't be done, rather than looking at the case for why it should be done.

There was a very powerful story in Ottawa, one that involved the media. The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario each year recognizes journalists for their

contribution to health care reporting, and there was a very personal story about a community leader, about a colleague and friend of the journalist by the name of Carol Anne Meehan, who put a

series together on prostate cancer on CJOH television. This had a huge impact, not just on my views but on the number of calls I received in my constituency office.

She put on a series about her colleague and friend Max Keeping. Max Keeping is an anchor at the local newscast and a real community leader, someone who does more

than 200 community events per year and who is probably the favourite son of Ottawa. Mr. Keeping went public with his illness in order to inspire others to get tested for this type of cancer, which,

as the member opposite said, affects one out of eight Canadian men. The good news is that this type of cancer is curable, but only if detected early. Something that irks Mr. Keeping and something

that irks many of us is that this PSA test used to diagnose this cancer is not covered by OHIP, and it only costs an extra $25. The member opposite spoke about how detecting one case early could

literally pay for about 1,000 tests -- let alone the human cost, which is something that is quite important.

PSA tests aren't perfect, but they are the best diagnostic tool we have at our disposal. DNA science work is holding out great promise, but in the interim this

is certainly the very best diagnostic tool. One of the fundamental inconsistencies in all this is that PSA tests are covered by the taxpayer if they're done in a hospital. How in one silo of our

health care system the taxpayers and the government and our publicly funded health care system will pay for it and in another they won't is, quite simply, baffling. The bottom line, if you ask Max

Keeping, if you ask anyone who has gone through this, is: Are we going to place our trust in Ontario's doctors to make this decision if they hold it to be a wise one? The bottom line is that men

shouldn't be dying from this. It has put a huge pressure on a number of families.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge that one of the great shames to government -- not just to this government but to the previous government -- you could see in

Cornwall, Ontario. I don't know if our colleague from Cornwall is here. The Victorian Order of Nurses raised money privately to put on a clinic in Cornwall, Ontario, this past September. They

raised money privately, they felt so strongly about this. In this PSA clinic, held at the Cornwall Square shopping centre, some 300 men attended and some 30 tested positive. That really does put

the government to shame, whether it's this government or the previous government. That shows that there's a huge amount of support out there and that people are prepared to act on their own.

I will be voting in favour of the bill. I'd like to see it moved through committee on an expeditious basis and for a final vote on third reading.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): It is so much fun to be in the Legislature debating a bill with a fellow northerner, in this case from

northwestern Ontario, all the way across on the other side of the part of northern Ontario that I represent.

I want to say up front that we will support this motion. We New Democrats believe that public health means a public health care system, and that a service that

is essential for the well-being of people should be a service that is paid for by the public purse through our public health care system. We agree that PSA tests would be a good thing to be covered

off publicly.

I've got to say that as an adult male over the age of 45, I've been going every couple of years for the PSA test myself. I figure it's a good idea. We have a

family history where some of the males in our family have actually succumbed to prostate cancer, so that's something you have to watch. I don't mind. I can afford to pay the 25 or 50 bucks or

whatever it is. But not everybody is as fortunate as me. Not everybody makes a decent salary of $90,000 plus a year and can afford to do it. I think one of the things we've learned in our health

care system is that what you really need to do is to try to make access to health care as easy as possible for the individual, so that they're not discouraged to be tested for something that might

be life-threatening. Quite frankly, for the health care system, it probably saves them money in the long run.

Let me make this argument: If someone is not caught early when it comes to the diagnosis of a disease -- in this case, prostate cancer -- it's much more

expensive for the health care system, I would say, to catch this disease when it's further into the line of progression. Obviously, more radical treatment, more radical surgery and more radical

approaches need to be taken to deal with the disease. If we're able to get to it a lot earlier, we're in a much better position to manage the disease, save the health care system a lot of money

and, more importantly, make it a much easier medical intervention for the person who is being tested. So I support that.

I find it a bit odd that a government member would have to bring a private member's bill forward for this. George Smitherman is a competent Minister of Health;

I've said that a number of times. Certainly I think George, at heart, wants to make the health care system better. But I wonder why it is that a government member has to get a private member's bill

to do something that his government should be doing in the first place. I know George feels pretty strongly about this issue as well and I wonder why there has not been more discussion within the

Liberal caucus and ultimately at the Liberal cabinet table to say, "How much is this going to cost and is this something that we could afford to do?" So I have to draw a couple of conclusions by

way of this debate today: Either that has not happened, which I find a bit sad, or it has happened and the government doesn't want to go there -- equally just as sad.

I don't want to rain on the parade of the member for Thunder Bay, but, in part, that's what I'm doing. I would think these kinds of discussions happen within the

Liberal caucus when it comes to deciding what should be funded and what direction the government should take on various initiatives. That was certainly the case when I was a member of a government

caucus. You would bring those issues to your caucus, you would have a discussion, it would then be referred to one of the cabinet committees to take a look at the issue and then it would be brought

back to caucus as a formal report in order to make a decision if the caucus wanted to go in that direction.

I'd be interested in knowing from the member, when he has a chance to wrap up in his last two minutes, where that is. Is the government seriously looking at this

and is this an attempt to showcase and move the idea forward, at which point we'd support you wholeheartedly, or should we be somewhat worried? Do you need a little bit more help? Should members of

the opposition be standing up here and asking questions of the Minister of Health, helping you out? I know it would be a little bit more difficult for a backbench member of the Liberal government

to get up and go after his own minister. If you need that, you don't have to drop me a brown envelope; just come and talk to me. I'd be glad to do it.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): You'd be too shy to do that.

Mr. Bisson: I'm a very shy member, you've got to know. I am so shy, I shake every time I stand up in the Legislature to ask a question or

anything. But if you need help in that way, I'm serious to do it.

In regard to the benefits of the testing, I know there's some controversy on this issue. You have some people in the medical profession who say the PSA tests can

give you a false negative or a false positive. In talking to my own family doctor about this particular issue, we've had the discussion about whether you should rely entirely on the PSA test. The

answer is no, but the PSA test is certainly one of the tools that is available to the medical community for early detection, if you should have a condition that is starting to develop as far as

your prostate. I think men need to take this very seriously and say, "There are things we have to do other than just the PSA test to make sure that we are properly tested." So I would encourage

anybody who is watching to go and see your doctor once a year, at the very least. You should get a full examination, not only for the prostate but for other conditions like blood pressure, which

I'm a candidate for. I've always had high blood pressure, since I was about 16 years old. It's certainly a hell of a lot higher since I've been here, but that's a whole other story. So we need to

take that seriously, and I would encourage people to do that.

It also brings us to the issue -- and I want to do this because I know the member would agree with me on the following point, which is somewhat removed from

prostate tests but connected to our health care system, and that is access to health services for people in Ontario. If you're living in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Windsor or some of the bigger

centres, you don't think about this; you take it for granted. "I don't feel well; I'll go see my doctor." If the doctor thinks there's something, he'll send you to a clinic or to the hospital and

you get a test in a relatively short period of time.

For people living in northwestern or northeastern Ontario, that's not the case. Far too often, people don't have a family doctor. In Kapuskasing, for example,

you have a lot of people who don't have family doctors. Right now, the Minister of Health is actually looking at a proposal from the town of Kapuskasing, from the citizens there, to open up a

health clinic as a way to alleviate some of the pressure on our current doctors. I certainly hope the government is going to look at that favourably. I know the Minister of Health is looking at

that and I encourage him to lend all of his support to the Kapuskasing proposal. If there is a proposal out there that needs approval, I would argue that is the one, because of the situation they

have in Kapuskasing, and in the area as well.

My point is that we really do have a problem in northern Ontario when it comes to access to health services. Some of the most basic services sometimes are very

difficult to have access to, especially if you don't live in one of the five major regional centres in northern Ontario: Timmins, North Bay, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. If you live

in one of the smaller, outlying communities, it gets pretty darn difficult. For example, if you live in Hearst and you have to be on dialysis, you can't get dialysis services in Hearst. You have to

either drive down two or three times a week to Kapuskasing or you have to go to Timmins. That's not the easiest thing in the world to do at times, especially in the winter months when the weather

is not so good.

Imagine living in some of our remote communities on the James Bay or up in northwestern Ontario. Those communities are isolated from health services entirely.

They don't even have doctors in their communities. We have physicians who fly in from Weeneebayko hospital and through the James Bay General Hospital. They have an agreement to share doctors.

Depending on what community you're in, you're either served by the James Bay General or the Weeneebayko hospital. But you have to bring doctors in by plane on a weekly basis, if you're lucky, to

deal with some of the most basic things that we take for granted when it comes to health services.

I want to report to members of this House that there is an initiative in northeastern Ontario that is spurred by this government and the federal government, to

which I give total support, and that is the integration of their health care system on the James Bay coast. Currently, the federal government runs part of the health system on the James Bay,

through the Weeneebayko General Hospital -- good people who do a good job. Pat Chilton, who is the CEO of the hospital, is doing a great job of motivating his team, providing services and running

the system efficiently, all within the budget. Then you have Peter Fabricus on the provincial side, at the James Bay General, along with his board, doing an absolutely amazing job of providing

services, not only when it comes to acute care services, but services within the community -- everything from mental health services and others.

The problem is, there is a disconnect, because you have this federal-provincial system, depending on what community you're in. If you're in the community of

Attawapiskat, you're served by James Bay General Hospital, where you have a hospital wing and you have services. If you're in Kashechewan or Peawanuk, you find yourself in the federal system and

you have a health clinic. So the attempt is to work toward integrating those two hospitals into one provincial hospital.

I want to say on the record, this is something I wholeheartedly support. I think the government is going completely in the right direction, and a good example of

why I think they're going in the right direction is what happened in Kashechewan over the last couple of weeks. The federal government, in my view, is not only disinterested but, quite frankly,

doesn't have the capacity to deal with many of the issues that are important to the people of the James Bay and northwestern Ontario. It's not that the federal government is evil; I don't argue

that. Sometimes I feel that, but --

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Incompetent.

Mr. Bisson: Incompetent, I would say is the case. But the problem is that they don't have the depth and capacity in the bureaucracy to do this.

Let me give you an example. I try sometimes to equate it this way: Imagine you have two baseball teams, the provincial baseball team, which let's say is the Ministry of Health, and the federal

baseball team, which is the federal Department of Health. The provincial government supports hospitals, doctors, community health clinics, mental health, developmentally handicapped children. It

has a complete breadth of services that we have established across this province to make sure that we have an integrated health service, so that there are not just independent silos within health

services, but people work together. It's like having a baseball team with nine players on the field. You've got a full bench of baseball players sitting on the bench who are just as good as the

people out on the field, if not better, and you've got a great management team. You've got the trainers, you've got the doctors, you've got everybody to keep the baseball team going. Federally,

you've got nine players and maybe a manager; that's about it. That would be the analogy. It's not because the federal government is evil; it's just that they don't have the breadth or the depth of

bench to provide the kind of support needed for our health care system in aboriginal communities. I think people will be much better served by the province because that's what we do best.

The second point is that in the transfer of the federal hospital over to the province, we need to ensure that the dollars that the federal government now spends

on Weeneebayko and other health services on the James Bay come to the province on an annual basis, so that the total sum of money we get to operate services on the James Bay is sufficient to

provide full services. It would be a travesty -- I would say, a crime -- if all of a sudden the federal government says, "All right, we're going to give you some capital dollars to build a hospital

somewhere on James Bay, and we're going to get out of the health business." Well, get out of the health business, but you still have a fiduciary responsibility to First Nations. I would argue that

the federal government needs to recognize that and needs to make sure there's an annual allocation to the province to make sure that we have sufficient dollars not just to provide services at Moose

Factory or Moosonee or wherever it might be, but that we have services that we offer across James Bay.

Now, a good model is James Bay General Hospital. They operate a hospital that has a number of wings in different communities. Attawapiskat, Moosonee and Fort

Albany are all wings of one big hospital. So when you go into Fort Albany or Attawapiskat, you have a physical structure that looks like a hospital, that has emergency services, that has a

complement of qualified staff to deal with the health services in those communities, that has ambulances to pick people up in the event of an emergency. But if you go into the federal system, in

Kashechewan or Peawanuck, you don't have that. It's not that the people working in the federal health stations are not dedicated workers; they are. But they don't have the kind of support that they

need, funding-wise, from the government to allow them to do a full range of services.

For example, what we should end up with at the end in each of our communities, including Moosonee, is a wing of a hospital that has emergency services,

acute-care services and also long-term-care services combined into the same facility, so that people, when they're in need of long-term care, don't have to be shipped to Cochrane or Timmins to get

long-term-care services. Those services should be available in the community and be coordinated with the health clinics we have currently within those communities so that we're able to provide

community health services. I think it's a great model, and I encourage Minister George Smitherman to continue the fine work that he's done and his ministry has done in working forward to bring

those services to the people of James Bay.

In the last minute or so that I have on this, I just want to end by saying to our good friend the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan that Owen Lindsey died -- as

you well know, a good friend of ours. I thought you might want to know that. It just came to mind, as we just got the message yesterday. Owen was a long-time member of our party who worked quite

hard in Atikokan on behalf of the New Democrats. I know you would know who Owen is, and you'll probably want to send a note. I just thought of that as I'm standing here, because I thought of

Atikokan. I thought I'd pass that on to you. We're going to miss Owen for sure.

But I just want to say that we as New Democrats will support you. We think it's important that health services be as accessible as humanly possible to the

general public so that people don't think they can't afford or can't go get a test that could be life-saving, but that also in the longer term could save our health care services lots of dollars. I

would just ask the member in his summation if he could give us a sense of where his government is at with all of this, and why he chose the strategy of a private member's bill rather than having

the government do it as their own initiative. Should I read something out of that? Should I not? I'd be interested to know.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to stand up this morning, Thursday morning, in the House and speak on this bill. First, obviously

and without any hesitation, I'm totally in support of the bill, which would amend the Health Insurance Act to cover the cost of screening for prostate cancer. It currently costs around $25. I also

want to thank the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan for continuing with his work in bringing the bill forward. I also want to share with the House that probably for the last five or six months, I've

had the pleasure of reading petitions in from my riding. Many men have been in to see me, and even some women have come in and expressed that they feel this should be covered. So I've been pleased

to be able to do that.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and the second most deadly after lung cancer. Also, because of our aging population, it's the fastest-growing

cancer among men. I want to mention the names of some very significant people who have just recently passed away because of this: Jerry Orbach of Law & Order, at the age of 69; Greenpeace

founder Bob Hunter, at the age of 63; and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, at the age of 80 -- all too young.

Like most cancers, prostate cancer, if caught in time, is treatable and curable. You can ask former American Senator Bob Dole, who was fortunate. Prostate

cancer, if caught in time, is one of the most treatable cancers. Instead of PSA testing costing the government money, not only can it save lives; it can add millions of dollars to our economy. It's

simply a matter of dollars and cents. PSA tests can screen for the presence of increased prostate specific antigens. This test can help identify many men at risk. Presently, six out of 10 provinces

cover the test. If all goes well with the bill, we'll be the seventh.

If one quarter of the 2.4 million males over the age of 40 took the test in Ontario, it would cost around $16 million. And yes, that is a lot of money. It costs

around $16,000 for each prostate test, and to treat the disease later it's around $32,000. So based on those numbers, if we caught one third earlier through PSA testing, the government would

actually save the medical system about $24 million. This type of return on investment is simply a no-brainer. Further, if we're able to cure those who have prostate cancer now, we could actually

pump an additional $68 billion into the Ontario economy over the expected lifetimes of those who have been cured.

Screening may not be perfect, but it can save lives, and it can help the Ontario economy if it's properly implemented. This is certainly an important job for the

Honourable Jim Watson, our excellent Minister of Health Promotion. I'm quite sure that the Minister of Health, who certainly has the heart of Ontarians for health care and is constantly working on

improving it, and the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Dwight Duncan, would applaud such a pragmatic approach to health care.

In closing, I would like to say that a healthy Ontario is a wealthier Ontario. And I would also urge all my colleagues, on all sides of the House, to support

this bill for my colleague Bill Mauro, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. Again, I congratulate him for his passion and caring about the health of Ontarians.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to join in this debate. I certainly will be supporting this bill -- as I did, by the way, on June 9,

2005. I believe the member brought essentially the same bill forward at that time.

What does confuse me is why we are here debating this bill again. We shouldn't be here; we should be in committee dealing with the specifics of the bill and

ensuring that it moves on to third reading and, ultimately, passage and adoption by the government.

I'm concerned that perhaps this government is not serious about this. If it was, it would have taken the direction of this House in June 2005, when it passed

this bill for second reading -- it didn't. At the very least, it could have carried this bill on. Instead, it allowed it to die on the order paper, which means the honourable member has to

reintroduce the bill again today and take another morning of debate on this.

I will say, for the benefit, and perhaps for the help, of the honourable member, that he should encourage his Minister of Health -- and I do so, through this

debate -- with the commitment that his Premier made during the last election.

I want to read into the record -- for the benefit of the honourable member, he can take this and show it to the Premier -- a letter from the Retired Teachers

of Ontario. It's addressed to Dalton McGuinty, April 8, 2005:

"On behalf of the political action committee of the Retired Teachers of Ontario ... we are seeking an update on the position of your government related to the

funding of the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test.

"In November 2002, in your then role as opposition leader, you responded to a similar inquiry ... with the following statement: `In light of the fact that

physicians are ordering the test because they view it as a medical necessity, the Ontario Liberals believe it should be made available to patients free of charge.'

"As it has almost been a year and a half since your government was formed, our political action committee is anxious to know when you plan to make the PSA test

available, free of charge, so we may share this information with our 55,000 members. We hasten to point out that this is indeed a gender equity matter.

"We look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience."

Signed Helen Biales, president, and James Guerard, chair, political action committee.

I read that into the record because clearly this is another commitment that the Premier made. It has now been more than two years since they have been in

office and formed the government, and we still see no action on this. In fact, he's forcing his member to reintroduce a private member's bill that was already passed in this House in the last

session.

I concur with my colleague who said earlier, "What is this all about?" Why do we have to go through this process? We either believe this is the right thing to

do or we don't. The House has expressed its view that it is. The Premier made his promise more than four years ago that he would. He's been Premier for two years plus, and we still don't have

action. I hope this isn't a charade.

I'm supporting -- and I know that my colleagues will support -- the honourable member in his well-intentioned presentation of this bill for debate again today.

I'm with him. We're all with you. Now it's up to the government to act.

There is absolutely no mystery to what has to be done. The Minister of Health simply has to take this forward to cabinet and say, "This is what we're going to

do." We don't have to go through committee; we don't have to go through any further debate, any more procedure. I call on the government to respect the honourable member's call for this PSA test to

be included under OHIP, and we hope we get on with it.

Mr. McNeely: I was fortunate enough to be with Minister Smitherman yesterday at the CHEO hospital in Ottawa where an announcement was made for

the newborn screening laboratory that will be set up there: a $5-million investment in the technology and, I believe, $13 million going forward per year for operation.

This is just a great announcement for us, and it's an announcement that ties into this morning: that we're trying to detect diseases early and be able to treat

them. So that was a great day for Ottawa and a great day for the province because over 100,000 children in this province will now be treated, I believe, for 27 rare genetic diseases, including 20

inherited metabolic disorders.

We're talking about the same thing this morning, and I'm very pleased to support my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan for this extension of PSA testing to be

funded by OHIP.

I have a bit of experience with it because my brother Frank was not tested, was not treated early, and died very prematurely, at 57 years. That's only 12 years

ago. He left a young family. So it's very important that we have these tests.

I went through the tests. I got a family doctor -- I just recently changed last spring. I got a positive test back and so went through the other tests. Sure,

you're concerned when you get back a positive test, but once you get the good news after further testing that there's no problem, it's certainly good. That is one of the criticisms: that you get

these tests back that may be positive but are not indicative of having the disease. But that's one of the little things we have to go through.

When you hear statistics that say that one in seven men is expected to develop this potentially deadly disease in their lifetime, that 1,300 men will die this

year because of the disease, it makes you stop and think. Of course, knowing there is a test that can detect prostate cancer before it becomes lethal gives men a sense of security. At least we can

all go to the doctor and have a checkup. When I was told the test was going to be $25, it wasn't difficult for me to say, "Oh, fine, that's good. Let's go ahead." But I guess in my brother's case,

and in a lot of cases, you don't have the test because I believe the medical system just says, "Oh, you probably don't need it. Don't spend the $25." I don't know why we don't go through it, but in

a lot of cases the $25 is the impediment to not having the test. It seems logical that a test can detect prostate cancer early enough to treat it. All men should be having these tests, and OHIP

should be covering it.

I understand there are many valid arguments that say the test should not be covered, but I think the arguments we've heard here have all shown that these

arguments are not really good enough. So which is worse -- not having that test, or getting that test and having those positive results? I can't believe that that is the reason that we should not

be going forward with this. It's the best test we have. It's one that's supported by many, many doctors and it would certainly save lives, would save that hardship that comes with prostate

cancer.

A study conducted in 2000 shows there would be actually savings to the government. That was mentioned by other people earlier today. That savings has to be

looked at. The savings can't be just in dollar terms. If it's almost there that this is a zero cost to the government, then we should be going ahead with it. I'm sure that our minister will be

looking at it.

If this bill is adopted, it will certainly save that hesitation. We will see more tests. I think the member presenting this bill has shown that by monitoring

the differences in the test results, the indicators are going to be there and the proper treatment will be done at the right time.

Our government has made great strides to ensure that Ontarians get the health care they need. We're very pleased in Ottawa to see that we have two more MRIs.

We're getting more knee and joint replacements. We're getting a lot of additional coverage that we never had in the past. Speaking from a perspective of an Ottawa person, we're very, very pleased.

We have an MRI in our own area of Orléans. This is just moving ahead, and I'm sure that this one step to have these tests paid by OHIP would be a great move forward.

Interjection.

Mr. McNeely: That's right. We've made great strides. I don't see the member, but we have made great strides in the last two years in bringing

Ottawa into the same level of health services as the rest of the province. So whether it's reducing waiting times for major procedures, introducing family health teams, or making sure people can

get the care they need close to home, our government is working toward providing the best health care to all Ontarians. After many years of neglect, we are giving our health care system the boost

it needs. This bill is in line with the goals of our health care transformation. I believe it would complement our government's efforts and make a great addition to the host of improvements we are

making in health care.

Simply put, PSA tests save lives, PSA tests save money and PSA tests are recommended by doctors.

I appreciate having been given the time to speak on this very important bill, and I urge all members to support it.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): To begin with, I'm going to stand here this morning and say that it's almost disappointing that we're back

here. This bill should have been carried forward in the last group of private members' bills, and I compliment the member for bringing the bill forward again. I am in full support of this bill.

I've heard some of the comments from the Liberal members here this morning, and one of the things I haven't heard them say is this: Dalton McGuinty did promise

this treatment. He did promise this testing would take place. You heard that from the member from Oak Ridges. What Dalton McGuinty didn't promise to the people of the province of Ontario was the

$2.8-billion health tax. Some $2.8 billion is what you've raised with that. So it's unacceptable that this is not covered by that today. I think that for men in the province of Ontario who are

trying to look after themselves, this cost, this $25 -- plus I believe there is a tax on that as well -- is something that I believe that Ministry of Health should be covering, particularly in

light of the fact we now have another $2.8 billion to work with. They continue to tell folks how important that $2.8-billion health premium is to the citizens of the province of Ontario, which

averages out to about $1,000 per family. It's unacceptable that we haven't seen some kind of movement so the government could support its own member.

I also want to say, in my riding I'm fortunate that I have one organization in particular. It's called the Orillia Prostate Cancer Awareness group. It's a

bunch of gentlemen -- most of them have come into contact with prostate cancer in the past, and they have worked very hard to bring as much awareness to all of the men and women in the community

that so they can bring awareness to make sure that people get this testing. I can tell you that under the leadership of Mr. Colin Wackett, they have spent an enormous amount of time trying to bring

this awareness to all the folks and make sure they get that testing done. As a matter of fact, they're also working in the Ride for DAD program. I don't know if many of the communities across the

province have that, but I know it's been going on for about four or five years. Under the guidance of the police associations across the province -- in my area, of course, it's the Ontario

Provincial Police Association -- they operate the Ride for DAD program. I think last year they had about 400 motorcycles -- I believe it was in early May -- that did a tour of north Simcoe county,

and they raised over $100,000 for prostate cancer awareness. Some of that money will flow to the cancer care unit at the Royal Victoria Hospital for their future development as well.

I just want to congratulate the member once again for bringing this forward. It is disappointing that your Premier actually did promise this to specific groups

and, in fact, today you're spending another hour of very valuable time here to try to send your message. It's important that we support this bill in this House and that the citizens of the province

of Ontario support this bill, and of course it's really important that men and young men from across our province take the time to get their PSA test. Hopefully, at some point in the not-too-far

future, that fee will be covered by your health card. Thank you very much for this opportunity to say a few words this morning.

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill, standing in the name of Mr. Mauro, the member for Thunder

Bay-Atikokan. I feel rather compelled to speak to the comments just made by the member opposite. He might know that I had a private member's bill that took nine years to pass. His government had

the opportunity to pass that bill, but it wasn't, until Minister Takhar took my private member's bill on school bus safety and passed it. Five different Conservative ministers refused to pass that

bill. I congratulate our member, Mr. Mauro, from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, who has introduced it twice now, on his tenacity to ensure that people have full access to this PSA test that deals with

prostate cancer and to ensure that it will become an insured service -- access for all persons.

I think that basically what we're hearing here this morning is not so much a debate but a conversation about the merits of this bill; that's what we're hearing

this morning. I hear from all parties that they favour this bill. I think it is commendable that the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan has brought this forward and has a bill that not only helps

people within his riding, but even beyond, in the whole province of Ontario.

Not only will this be of benefit to males in our society here in Ontario, but also to their families. This bill has a very wide scope. Yes, it is a bill that

deals with a health care issue of men alone, but remember the families of cancer victims. Too sadly, many of us in this House know of someone who has died of cancer of one type or another. This

bill will be of benefit to families and to males in our society.

What this PSA test will do is provide for early detection. It is important that a prostate-specific antigen test be taken. That test can lead to further tests

that might save a life, and no doubt would. We should be doing all we can to prevent disease and the spread of disease once it is found. This bill will do that. It will help to save lives. That is

the most important part of this whole discussion.

Two others have mentioned, and I want to put on the record, that the baby boomers are moving along in age. I believe there are some three million-plus baby

boomers in Ontario, many of them males. They're aging, and age is one of the significant factors in this particular cancer. We must do everything we can to make sure that people have access to this

test to save lives.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canadian men. At least one in every eight Canadian men is expected to develop the disease in their

lifetime -- one in eight -- and 27% of them may die. In the year 2000 alone, prostate cancer caused the deaths of over 1,300 men in Ontario. Up to 20,000 Canadian men are newly diagnosed every

year. Some five million Canadian men are currently in those cancer risk years, the ages between 45 and 70. It is a significant problem. It is a significant cancer among many men.

In New Brunswick, this is covered universally; in Newfoundland and Labrador it is covered universally; in Nova Scotia it is covered universally; and the

Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and the Yukon all cover it universally. We should be doing the same thing in Ontario for our population. This is quite simply the right

thing to do. It's the right thing to do. We have agreement here. This has been more a discussion rather than a debate.

I want to thank the member for bringing this forward. I believe this should move to committee swiftly. It should be taken to the committee as soon as possible,

and I think it should come back to this House for swift passage. This will give access to all for what has been stated to be a rather cheap test monetarily, but it will save lives. I commend the

member for his efforts.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure to rise once again to speak to the bill brought forward by the member from

Thunder Bay-Atikokan to amend the Health Insurance Act for PSA testing. I spoke in the last session about this bill and the value it has to everyone in the province of Ontario. I have very specific

examples in my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock where I have had gentlemen e-mail me and contact me about the value of PSA testing, and I'd like to thank them for that.

As a former nurse, I'm totally aware of the attention to prevention and early detection that we must do and progress on in this province. We've heard all kinds

of stories about cancer survivors where early detection was the vital life-saving factor. I would be extremely disappointed if this government were to delay the progress of this bill again and not

realize the potential the bill holds.

I'm very happy to have heard the stories from all sides of the Legislature today on the benefits that this test can have in preventing deaths. We've heard a

lot of facts. I know that prevention and early detection and access to doctors are vital for this.

I know there has been some downplaying of the positive role of the PSA test. The prostate specific antigen test uses blood samples. It's an easy test, and it

follows the progress of prostate cancer. When PSA levels rise in blood, doctors are then alerted to pursue further tests to detect early if a male has this debilitating disease. Canadian

researchers assert that screening men with PSA tests before any symptoms of cancer are evident may reduce the risk of getting metastatic prostate cancer by 35%. I think those statistics are

important for all of us.

The present government has delisted many services, but this vital early-prevention test will hopefully not be another casualty of this government. They've got

increased revenues from their health tax, and I want to see the speedy passage of the PSA test and that this be brought forward as soon as possible.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Mauro, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Mauro: A quick thank you to all the members who have spoken on the legislation: the members from Chatham-Kent-Essex, Ottawa-Orléans,

Niagara Falls, Simcoe North, Nepean-Carleton, Oak Ridges, Timmins-James Bay and Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

There are about three points I'd like to touch on in the quick two minutes I have to wrap on this issue. One is that when I first introduced this legislation

in June this year, in the lead up to the introduction of that legislation, I, probably like other members of the Legislature, received a lot of very supportive e-mails, comments and letters on the

introduction of this legislation and the hope that the funding of PSA testing would pass. I can tell you that contained in those supportive messages was the fact that many people in Ontario, and

even those from outside the province, viewed the non-funding of this test as discriminatory in nature. I can tell you it was not something I had considered when I introduced the legislation, or

that compelled me to introduce the legislation. However, there are many groups that find and view this in that context. It's been referenced by others here today.

The second piece is a bit about the controversy of the test that I and others have touched on in terms of trying to provide some balance to the discussion.

It's not controversial in many other places; the efficacy of the test is not in question in a lot of places. Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island all

support and currently fund PSA testing completely in their provinces. A sixth province, BC, will pay for the test if in fact that test comes back positive. Those people and those provinces are not

having a difficulty with the efficacy of this test.

The last thing I would like to say, and that I touched on in my opening remarks in my initial 10 minutes, was on a bit of a macro issue: that we're all here to

try and ensure the sustainability of the system that we have in this province. Many of you have probably read the book by Michael Rachlis; I believe it was called Prescription for Excellence. We

have challenges in this system that we're all aware of. One of the ways that we can deal with some of those challenges is by somehow finding the resources and pulling them away from these acute

challenges that we deal with on a day-to-day basis, and trying to put some of those resources into preventive measures such as PSA testing for men, this blood test.

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

Mrs. Jeffrey moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Building Code Act, 1992 respecting home fire sprinklers / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur le code du

bâtiment en ce qui a trait aux extincteurs automatiques domiciliaires.

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

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise in the House today in order to present Bill 2. Before I begin my formal remarks, I'd like to

acknowledge the attendance this morning of some very special guests, members of the fire service from across Ontario. Thank you for coming.

Every day, these brave men and women put their lives on the line protecting what we value most: our families and our homes. This bill will give these

firefighters another tool in their effort to safeguard Ontarians from the danger of fires.

Every 20 minutes, a fire service responds to a fire somewhere in Ontario, ranging from a typical cooking kitchen fire to a full-blown industrial fire. These

trained professionals have the equipment, the expertise and the training to meet any challenge. Each year, fire services are called on to respond to over 25,000 fires across Ontario. Professional

firefighters have seen first-hand the tragedy families experience when they lose a home or, worse, a loved one. Making residential fire sprinkler systems mandatory in all new residential houses,

apartments and condominiums will reduce the number of tragedies.

Last year, a resident of Brampton joined me in the House to show his support for residential sprinklers. In 1999, Mr. Gyamfi lost his daughter in an arson fire

in Brampton. He and his family know the terrible pain and devastation fire causes. He chose to come here today again in order to show his support for residential fire sprinklers. Mr. Gyamfi joins

us here today in the gallery. Thank you, Mr. Gyamfi.

Our fire service professionals are dedicated people who respond quickly to the call for help. However, even the most well-equipped and quickest-responding team

cannot always get to a call in time to save a home or a family. That's where residential fire sprinklers can make the difference. They can respond to a fire in the early stages and give a family a

chance to exit safely while the firefighters are responding to the scene. As many fire professionals know, those precious minutes make the difference. By having sprinklers together with properly

functioning smoke alarms, they are 82% more likely to survive a fire relative to having neither.

Some people have questioned the need for mandatory residential fire sprinkler systems. They've argued that the cost will affect home affordability and may cost

jobs in the housing sector. I would simply respond that today we spend nearly two thirds of our day in a sprinklered environment, and no one has made an argument that we should not have sprinklers

in public places because of costs, or that they cost jobs or cost municipal tax revenues. In our schools, offices, factories, malls, gyms and theatres, we have the benefit of being protected, but

in the one place where more incidents of injuries and deaths related to fires occur -- our homes -- we don't have any sprinkler protection.

This past Sunday evening, the Toronto Fire Service responded to a call at the Fred Victor Mission. A tragic fire cost one person's life, injured five others

and left 50 people without a home or their possessions. This three-alarm blaze required 100 firefighters and two dozen trucks. Sadly, this tragedy could have been prevented had a residential fire

sprinkler system been installed.

Ontario, unfortunately, has the unenviable distinction of being the only jurisdiction in either Canada or the United States that does not require residential

fire sprinklers in high-rise apartments or condominiums. However, we do require them in parking garages and in some lobbies, but not in the units themselves.

Jurisdictions such as Vancouver have a decade of experience with residential fire sprinkler systems. In the 10 years since the city passed a bylaw requiring

residential fire sprinklers, there has not been a single accidental fire death in a home equipped with a system. The American experience has confirmed these results. In fact, to my knowledge, there

have been no accidental fire deaths occurring in a residence with a properly installed fire sprinkler system in the nearly 200 jurisdictions that require them.

The Ontario public understands the value and importance of fire sprinkler systems. In a poll taken this summer by Polara involving over 1,200 respondents, more

than two thirds, 67%, support, making them mandatory in new homes and high-rise dwellings. Nearly three quarters, 74%, of those considering buying a new home also support, this legislation.

Clearly, the public gets it.

This summer, the National Fire Protection Association made a historic decision. The NFPA is an international non-profit organization that serves as the world's

leading advocate for fire prevention and is an authoritative source on public safety. Their membership totals more than 79,000 individuals from around the world and more than 80 national trade and

professional organizations. This group adopted

section 13D requiring the mandatory installation of fire sprinkler systems. "The code provision for sprinklers in new one- and two-family dwellings is

a milestone in fire protection," said James M. Shannon, NFPA president. "It is a significant step in reducing the rate of fire death and injury in the place where people are at most risk for fire

-- their own homes."

Fire professionals such as the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs want to see this legislation passed not only to save lives and protect property, but also to

reduce the number of deaths and injuries suffered by our firefighters responding to these emergencies. Other organizations, such as the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers Association, the

Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and over 50 municipalities across Ontario, support this effort.

Fires in Ontario are costing our economy hundreds of millions of dollars. More importantly, on average, 100 people lose their lives to fire in Ontario

annually.

Unfortunately, in most cases, fires are preventable. Just as we learned the value and importance of smoke alarms in the early 1980s, now is the time to step up

to the next level of fire protection. People put entirely too much faith in their smoke alarms. Frequently, they have not been tested and homeowners fail to replace the batteries. One study found

that in half the fires involving a fatality, the smoke alarms did not operate because of missing or dead batteries. Smoke alarms do what their name implies: They provide early detection and warning

of the smoke from fire. But they take no action on the fire itself. To prevent more deaths and injuries, we need to make meaningful progress in fire protection and safety with an additional

intervention. That intervention, already available, is wide-scale installation of fast-response residential fire sprinkler systems.

One key group this proposed legislation stands to protect is individuals who are frequently overlooked, those who need protection the most: our seniors and our

disabled. Residential fire sprinklers add a level of protection to seniors and the disabled who choose to live an independent lifestyle. Families who worry about their loved ones forgetting to shut

off a stove can now have peace of mind, knowing that their loved ones will have protection that will give them the time to escape safely.

Ontario has a proud record of introducing regulations that protect people from a number of perils. Many of these regulations were adopted with little or no

debate because they were the right thing to do.

For example, the Ontario building code regulations, under

section 4.1.9, were written to include standards of construction that take into account earthquakes.

To my knowledge, no one has died related to an earthquake in Ontario in the past 10 years. Compare this to the over 1,000 deaths and 10,000 injuries attributed to fires during the same time period.

We include earthquake protection because we want to protect people and property under a variety of circumstances. It's not an option but a requirement. How can we debate on an issue such as fire

safety as an option, when Ontarians are being killed or injured due to preventable fires?

Residential sprinklers save lives, reduce injuries and property damage, and need to be in place today. It's a fire safety measure whose time has come. Those

who want to make Ontario a safer place for themselves and their families should support Bill 2. Shouldn't we be listening and implementing what countless coroners' juries have been recommending for

years? Bill 2 simply recognizes something we have known for a long time: sprinklers save lives and property. It's the logical next step, and its time has come. It's the next evolution in building

safer and smarter homes. These silent firefighters stand guard 24 hours a day, seven days a week, protecting what we value most: our families and our homes.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank my friend firefighter Brian Maltby. He has been relentless in his determination to see this legislation come to fruition. I

know Brian has a dream of a day when firefighters will respond to a fire by running into a house, turning off the water, mopping up the floor and returning safe and sound to their loved ones. Thank

you, Brian.

This is a time when we need to demonstrate our commitment to fire safety. We need this bill to pass second reading and to be referred to public hearings so

that Ontarians can participate in making this province a national and international leader in fire safety.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Building Code Act, 1992 respecting home fire

sprinklers, put forward by the member from Brampton Centre.

I believe this legislation has great intentions. As a 25-year firefighter, I can say that I think all members want to protect our families and our properties,

as well as the firefighters who put their lives on the line each day to help protect us. I, too, want to welcome all the firefighters who are in the audience today to hear the presentations.

As with a lot of things, there is a "but." I don't think that, in this case, enough consideration has really been given to this bill, particularly if we go

back. The member introduced Bill 141, which was a similar bill. The only change that was made, from my understanding, is that it now includes that all single dwellings that are going to be built be

included in the building code. I think that change is likely larger than the original bill. I don't believe we've had enough consultation and enough discussion with the community that we are asked

to protect as to how that should be done or whether it is proper. I believe there is a way of doing that, and that is, the building code needs to be amended. I believe that passing a law to amend

the building code to say that any new structure must have a sprinkler system just doesn't cut the mustard. It isn't good enough to not give everyone an opportunity to speak to the issue. As the law

now requires, there needs to be a regular review of the building code and I think that's when this should be put forward. As I said, I don't believe the private member's bill, as it presently

stands, has had sufficient discussion so we can hear all the pluses and minuses.

Taking shortcuts can end up being more serious for everyone involved, and I believe Bill 2 is a shortcut that would cause more damage than its intended

good.

I know the member has done a very good job of putting this together and I want to commend her for it, and she did a good job explaining the positives of the

bill. I will focus more on what we see as the problem part of the bill.

The cost of installing fire suppression systems could be prohibitive to builders and homeowners. There have been reports estimating that the cost passed down

to a homeowner purchasing a new home with a fire suppression system could be anywhere from $3,500 to $4,000 more.

I've also been told that for every $1,000 increase in the cost of a house, 284 starts will be lost per year, which translates into 1,015 jobs per year, which

again can translate into $20.6 million in government revenue lost per year, and which, going one step further, could find that an estimated $2.2 million in future realty taxes is lost.

I don't think this decision should be based totally on the financial aspects of it, but I think all those things need to be considered. All those people who

will be impacted by those changes need to have a say in what the law will be.

As I said, taking shortcuts has a ripple effect that, even with the best intentions, may not do what they had hoped. I would again suggest that discussions

around sprinklers should be part of the building code review.

Incidentally, I've had the opportunity a number of times to be involved in the building code review, and every time I have been involved, sprinklers in

residential units has been part of that discussion. The end result at the committees that were studying it has always been that it should not be implemented into the building code, as the pluses

and minuses did not balance off.

Another question involves the insurance industry. The cost of insurance for just about everything has gone up, and people are becoming insurance-poor. We have

to ask ourselves and the insurance industry whether they are prepared to give families a discount because of the installation of a fire suppression system, or they are going to cover the cost of

damages when a fire suppression system isn't properly maintained. Also, will they eventually penalize those in older homes who are not required to install home sprinkler systems? Remember that,

according to this bill, only new homes must install the system. Again, if we change the law after that and include other homes, to put them into an existing home becomes very cost-prohibitive.

I know the Ontario home builders remain unconvinced that legislated fire sprinklers are more effective in protecting the health and lives of Ontario homeowners

than properly functioning smoke alarms. According to the data collected by the Ontario Office of the Fire Marshal, there was a 25% decline in the number of residential fires in Ontario from 1995 to

2002. The Ontario Home Builders' Association believes this is due in part to improved building techniques and materials, as well as mandatory hardwired smoke alarms. There still does not appear to

be any data collected on the age of the house where most of the fatal fires occurred.

Despite technological advances, home sprinkler systems will occasionally fail, causing considerable property damage and costly insurance claims. Will that be

recovered in the premiums we all pay for our house insurance, or will the insurance company just refuse to cover the cost of a malfunctioning system? There is anecdotal evidence that homebuyers are

not interested in home sprinkler systems.

I read with interest one person's comments on a CBC radio call-in show, where this person says -- let me read it. It's kind of difficult. It's transcribed from

the radio and I can't read what I heard, but it has been transcribed. The reason I want to read it is because some of the things that were said are not things I would say in the Legislature.

"Please keep up the fight to stop this bill. It is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. People are dying in older homes because they have non-functioning

smoke detectors. The people pushing this bill like to throw it out that Vancouver has not had a fire death in 10 years since they implemented this policy. Well, if that's the case, apparently the

old houses without the sprinkler systems aren't burning either. We are planning on building a new home in 2007" -- again, I want to point out that this is not me speaking; this is what the

individual said on the CBC -- "and the thought of being forced to install this system makes me sick. The water damage of an accidental discharge makes me wonder if my insurance is going to cover

the damages.

"There must be more important things these blankety blanks ... can dither about than this. Please don't let them force this on us. The insurance companies are

not supporting this, but are unable to publicly speak out for fear it looks as if they aren't looking after the best interests of the public. The building industry is huge. Band together and stop

these fools." That's the end of the presentation on the CBC.

According to the information I received from one leading GTA builder who has offered residential fire sprinklers to 1,069 new homebuyers, not a single buyer

has purchased the option. In another example, a prominent builder in Windsor constructed a subdivision with 165 homes, all with residential sprinkler systems included as a standard feature. This

builder noted that during the sales process, many purchasers requested a credit toward other upgrades in lieu of the sprinkler system. The purchasers were aware of the benefits of the sprinkler

system but they just did not want one.

With building code changes on the horizon, mandatory residential sprinklers could represent the single most expensive change the building industry would face.

I believe that if that's what's going to happen, then there's a great need to make sure that our whole communities are involved in that process to make sure that everyone understands what's going

in, why it's going in and the benefits that will be derived from it.

The Ontario home builders wrote a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable John Gerretsen, on December 8, 2004, expressing their

concerns and asking for clarification of the government's official position. That wasn't on Bill 2. It was on Bill 141, so it wasn't quite the same; it didn't include the single residential units.

The member from Brampton Centre introduced Bill 141. The Ontario Home Builders' Association received a response on January 24, 2005, indicating that the position expressed in Bill 141 was not that

of the current government, so I'm to take from that that the government does not support this bill going further.

I believe the same as the member opposite. In this case, since the re-seating, obviously she's not opposite; she's on the same side now. But I believe, as the

member does, that we have to do what we can to keep families and those who protect us safe. But I also believe that there needs to be a lot more discussion before something as important as this

becomes law. Cutting corners and fast-tracking are not the answer.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to what I think is a very important initiative. I want to commend the

member for Brampton Centre, Linda Jeffrey, for bringing this forward again. She's very determined to make sure that we deal with this issue because it's an issue that I think all of us are very

passionate about. In fact, our caucus is so passionate about it -- I can only speak for three minutes; don't let that be any indication of how strongly I feel about this, because a number of

members want to speak in support of this bill. I look forward to putting my three minutes' worth in.

I'm not new to this issue. Back in my days at the city of Toronto as chair of the community services committee, I joined then-Fire Chief Alan Speed in

launching our war on fire. One of the significant recommendations in that initiative was an effort to bring about mandatory sprinkler systems. I see that Chief Speed is here with us today, and I'd

like to acknowledge his many years of working toward seeing this initiative go through, as well as many years of working on other initiatives that have saved numerous lives, not only in the city of

Toronto and Ontario but probably throughout North America. He really has done fantastic work and continues to, and I thank him for that.

In my own community of Toronto, since amalgamation, we've lost 140 residents to fires. A hundred people, on average, die each year as a result of fires across

the province. These people have families, they have friends; they're people who could have been saved otherwise with initiatives such as mandatory sprinkler systems.

There are concerns that have been raised about damage that may be created by sprinkler systems if they go off. I think people have to start dealing with the

facts here. It's not like in the movies, where you see hundreds of sprinklers going off. These are very sensitive pieces of technology where, when there is a fire, they only go off over that one

area where the fire is and, generally speaking, only one or two of them would go off in that area in a highly concentrated way. In fact, in terms of accidentally going off, it hardly ever happens.

I think it's one in 16 million sprinklers that will be defective, which is really never. It really is a bogus argument to suggest that these sprinkler systems are going to go off and create all

kinds of damage.

I also have noticed that joining us today is Fire Chief Bill Stewart, the fire chief for the city of Toronto. I know Chief Stewart is passionate about saving

lives. That's why he's dedicated his entire life to fighting fires. He has said to me on more than a few occasions that there's nothing we can do to save lives more effectively than a mandatory

sprinkler program in the province of Ontario in new housing. I agree with him.

When it comes to experts on these things, there's nobody I respect more than Chiefs Alan Speed and Bill Stewart. I agree with them. They're suggesting we move

forward on this initiative, and I certainly share with them my support for their efforts in the past and the present and the efforts of our colleague here in bringing forward what I think will be a

very important piece of legislation.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I too am pleased to join in the debate regarding the bill brought forward by the member from

Brampton Centre, Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Building Code Act, 1992 respecting home sprinklers.

There is no question that fire has many tragic consequences, including injury, property damage, loss and sometimes even death. As lawmakers, I think we all

stand united in our desire to find ways to reduce deaths from fire. The question we are looking at today, though, is whether mandatory sprinklers in new residential construction is the best route

to follow. The member from Oxford has articulated quite well some of the concerns that are out there.

We know that smoke alarms save lives. We know that new homes are built in a much safer way than older homes because of changing building code requirements. The

number of deaths attributable to fire in one- and two-family homes is on the decline. We know that sprinklers can save property, but do we know that we need them in new homes as a way to save

lives?

Looking at some statistics compiled by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., we can see that there are some groups that seem to have a higher risk level for

fire-related deaths. First Nation communities, rooming houses, rural communities and mobile homes all have higher risk levels. The bill would not really change their circumstances or their risks.

Perhaps part of the risk faced by these people could be reduced by studying ways to improve smoke detector usage in existing older homes and rooming houses.

This bill calls for the use of sprinkler systems in new homes. This is a costly plan that will add to the purchase price, making it that much more difficult

for people to afford to buy new homes. It will mean lost jobs in the housing sector as well. We don't have the figures to show us whether fire deaths have been occurring in older or new homes, yet

we are contemplating a plan that might be directed at the wrong target: new homes. If the bill were narrower in scope and did not include new house construction, I would have an easier time

supporting it.

Before I finish my comments -- and I know some other members of my party would like to speak -- I'd like to take a moment to remind people on both sides of the

House of the important role that firefighters play in our lives today and to thank all the firefighters who are present here today in the Legislature.

As pointed out by my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington yesterday, having firefighters available to respond to a blaze is surely the best protection we have in

our communities. I know first-hand about the impact this has had on our rural communities, and I fully support his efforts. My own riding has been hit hard, and local fire services have lost the

help and assistance of over 15 volunteers in the city of Kawartha Lakes alone. Double-hatter firefighters play a vital role in small communities across the province, and the current union action to

curtail the legitimate volunteer activities of their membership has had a significant impact on fire services. We need the expertise these volunteers bring, and we value their willingness to use

their skills to protect their neighbours. Having a firefighter available to respond to a fire is the best protection of all.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I stand in support of this bill, as I did last year -- was it last year or two years ago?

I want to commend the member from Brampton Centre. She is a bulldog, and I say that from East York, because the symbol of East York is a bulldog: tenacious and

unrelenting and just won't give up and is loyal to the end. That was the symbol of East York, and I think it should also be the symbol for the member from Brampton Centre.

She has seized upon an idea whose time has truly come and perhaps should have come before. I don't know why this did not pass the last time. It certainly had

all-party support in this Legislature. But unfortunately, like so many private members' bills, it died on the order paper with prorogation.

This is the second time, and she's taken the opportunity over this last period of time, between the debate on the first attempt and today, to actually improve

the bill. The bill is a much better bill today even than it was then, because it now includes condominiums and apartments. It has expanded to the full range of new development that may take place

in Ontario.

Many people have already spoken, and I think the statistics speak for themselves. This is going to go into new homes, and I commend that all of the new homes

in this province should be as safe as they possibly can be.

There was a time, not that many years ago, when people started to notice that a great many of the cars that were on the highway were not particularly safe.

Through crash tests and other tests that the automotive industry and various levels of government did, it was determined which cars were not as safe as others. Certainly what has happened is that

those cars which were deemed to be unsafe are no longer on the road. When people go out to buy a car today, they look at how safe that car is likely to be in terms of seat belts, air bags or crash

test worthiness. They look at those kinds of things.

People who are buying a house are no different. They want to buy a house, a home, a place where they're going to live, a condominium, an apartment that is

totally safe. We have an obligation as a provincial government to do exactly the kinds of things we did around automobiles all those many years ago. Certainly today, no one would go out and buy a

car, no one would market a car and no one would be allowed to sell a car that was unsafe. But today in the province of Ontario, we are the last jurisdiction in North America that does not allow for

sprinklering of properties and new properties. That seems to me to be kind of bizarre. If we are going to save hundreds of lives and deem it our duty to do so on the roads of this province -- and

it's a good duty and it's something we need to do -- why are we going to say that losing your life in a fire is any less important, any less relevant? If we can save one life, never mind hundreds

of lives, by doing this, surely it is something we should do.

There are those who will balk at the cost. How much is this going to cost on a new home? One per cent of the price? I doubt that. Half a per cent? Sure, it's

going to cost a little bit of money, but it costs money if you want the proper goods and services to be produced. I will tell every person who balks at that cost or every person who speaks against

the $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 or whatever it is that it costs to install the system in their particular unit that on the day a fire starts in that unit, they are going to think that that was the best

investment they could possibly ever have made in their lives. They are going to know they did the right thing. Not only they, but their friends and neighbours, if they live in an apartment or a

condominium, are going to be thankful that even if the fire did not originate with them, that will make it virtually impossible for the fire to spread to them.

So I want to commend the member from Brampton Centre. I want to say that she has done the right thing.

I also want to commend the men and women in uniform here today, those who have come down to support this bill and who in fact support our communities each and

every day. There is a large contingent here from my city of Toronto -- I think even some who lived and worked in the former borough of East York all those years ago when I was mayor. I have nothing

but the highest admiration for the men and women who risk their lives every day. I ask members to think about the risk to the lives of these people. When they get to a house after four or five

minutes, six minutes, it's just about the time of the flashpoint. Without a sprinkler, that fire is going to be more advanced, it's going to be hotter, and it's going to be more dangerous to all of

you. With a sprinkler, it's going to be less advanced, less hot and less dangerous to all of you.

Firefighting is a dangerous profession. I want to know that we in this province are doing our bit to help them, to make sure they have a better chance of

fighting the fire and saving lives, but also a better chance of returning home to their loved ones each and every day. It is time for this fire safety bill to be passed.

I would be remiss, and I would not be the opportunist that I am, if I did not talk about my own bill that also died on the order paper last year, because I

think it is a companion piece. It's something that I think maybe could be, in committee, incorporated into this bill, or, if the government sees fit and wants to bring forward an omnibus bill

dealing with fire as a result of what is being said, then the government could do that as well.

Last year I introduced a piece which was not for new homes. It's not somewhere new to go, but it was something to deal with older homes, because in this

province we have many buildings that are 50 years old, 60 years old, even some that are more than 100 years of age, and they do not have adequate fire standards in them. I know it would be

cost-prohibitive to take the apartments, the condominiums and the homes that are more than 50 years old and force people to start making major renovations to put in sprinklers. I know that. But my

bill was very simple. It was to make sure that in apartment buildings two things happened. Number one is that all of the apartments were co-linked so that when the alarm went off in one apartment,

people in another apartment down the hall would be notified that an alarm had been sounded and that there would be a pull system to ensure that the alarm would be sounded throughout the building,

so that people would not suddenly discover a fire that was well advanced in one unit coming in and really doing damage to them. That was the first provision.

The second one is to me such a no-brainer. I cannot believe we are still one of the only jurisdictions in North America that allows wooden fire escapes. I want

you to think about that: We allow wooden fire escapes in this province. That means, for a person fleeing for their life in a rooming house, a home or an apartment building, the only avenue of

escape is down the fire escape, and the fire escape itself is on fire. In this province, we allow that.

My bill would have given the construction industry and the people who own apartments, homes and rooming houses where there are multiple people living in a

unit, time to put in a non-combustible fire escape, be that cement, metal or something that would not burn. Quite frankly, we cannot cut off an avenue that someone has to escape. We have to give a

person who is at risk every opportunity to get out. We have to give the firefighters, as well, every opportunity to get in.

In the fire in question which did this -- and I have the coroner's report here. It's the Report on the Inquest into the Deaths of Linda Elderkin and Paul

Benson, and it's dated October 2001. It was prepared by the Office of the Chief Coroner in Toronto. It was a fire that took place in my own riding of Beaches-East York on Queen Street in the Beach.

Those two people died, and the coroner's jury came to the conclusion that two things were wrong: (1) there wasn't an interconnected; and (2) the only avenue they had of escape was down a burning

fire escape, and the firefighters could not get up that same burning fire escape to get to them to rescue them.

I'm suggesting that there is a lot that needs to be done in Ontario; there is an awful lot that needs to be done. This bill is a good start for new homes. I am

suggesting that when the time comes -- and I intend to reintroduce my bill because it too died on the order paper with prorogation -- that we include Bill 2, or perhaps have it included, if this is

going to be fast-tracked -- because my turn won't come up until 2007 -- at the time that we go to committee. It is simply not acceptable that people in Ontario are at some kind of risk.

My own bill was passed by all members here in the Legislature. It got, I think, a couple of lines in the Toronto Sun here in Toronto, and I think that's all

that the press in Ontario covered on that particular bill. It was front-page news, though, in the Vancouver Sun. It was front-page news that Ontario was considering having a bill to stop wooden

fire escapes. But they had it on the front page because they were mocking us. They were saying that they couldn't believe that a place like Ontario allowed wooden fire escapes, which have been

banned in British Columbia for half a century; that Ontario still has a private member's bill and still allows wooden fire escapes.

I say that because everyone is watching. We are the last jurisdiction in North America that does not have a sprinkling system in individual residences. Yes, we

have them in halls and, yes, we have them sometimes in the family rooms of major condominiums or in the party rooms. We have them in a couple of places like that, but we don't have them where the

majority of fires start. We don't have, quite frankly, adequate legislation dealing with safety when it comes to older buildings.

I commend the member, I commend the firefighters, and I commend everyone who has spoken in favour of this bill. I'm sure that this is going to pass unanimously

here today. But the real question will not be whether this bill passes in this Legislature today on second reading; it will be what happens to it after today. All too often, what happens with

private members' bills is that everybody's happy and we all walk out of here and then it goes to committee, and the committee never calls the bill. It never goes to public hearings. It never gets

an opportunity to be reintroduced at third reading. Someone at third reading will stand up and generally say no when it's asked if it is going to proceed unanimously, or, in the alternative, some

kind of deal will be made between the House leaders about which bills are allowed to go forward and which ones are not allowed to go forward, and the whole thing ends up dying.

The member from Brampton Centre, as I said at the beginning, is to be commended, because she's not willing to let the concept over which she has fought so long

and so hard die. I want to assure the House that I am not about to let my bill die, either. When my turn comes up, as it will in the early spring of 2007, I intend to put the same bill back before

this Legislature. I know that it may or may not pass again on that occasion, and it may or may not be referred to committee. But I would hope that the idea needs to go beyond this. It needs to go

to cabinet. The cabinet and House leader need to understand that this legislator is committed to saving lives. We know that lives can be saved. Just the same way that we know that seat belts save

lives in cars, we will know that sprinklers will save lives in new condominiums, apartments and homes. We need to impress upon them that this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that, if the

government saw fit to do it in their own bill, would probably pass without debate, or certainly with no more debate than we're giving here today. It is a bill that would be very easy for the

cabinet to bring forward. It would be a bill that would not engender any kind of hostility in this House and would probably pass within an absolute modicum of time.

That is where I think we're coming from here on this. I am asking the government -- when I say "the government," I mean not just the Liberal Party but the

executive council -- to have the same commitment to fire safety and saving lives that the members who are here and who have spoken today have on this issue. Clearly, this is a responsibility which

cannot be shirked by us. It is a responsibility that we must take seriously.

The firefighters are giving up their very valuable time. There are giving of their expertise. They have told us how little this is going to cost. They have

told us how it's going to save lives. The insurance industry has even told us that the sprinkler system can cut the average cost down to $1,000 from $15,000 for fire damage. Even they have to be

happy. The homeowners who pay the insurance are going to, in the end, save money on this.

I don't see that there is anything wrong with this bill. I am asking that everyone vote for it today, but more importantly, I'm asking for all members in this

House, when you see a member of the executive council -- cabinet -- tell them that this bill is one that needs to be rushed through.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): It's always a pleasure to speak after my good friend and colleague from Beaches-East York. Michael Prue is

always passionate about fire safety.

I want to congratulate the member from Brampton Centre, Linda Jeffrey, for two things: certainly for Bill 2, which I'm going to speak on, but as well for her

recent appointment as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. It's well-deserved. Congratulations.

It's a shame that the public can't see the entirety of this House. It is truly impressive to see all the representatives we have from across Ontario who are

here on behalf of the bill, many of them dressed in their uniforms. In the two years that I've been here as a new MPP, I think this is one of the most impressive days I have seen. I thank all of

you for taking the time to come out to support Linda's bill.

I want to recognize some people from my area who have taken the time to come out here: Fire Chiefs Ken Eden and Jo Zambito from Niagara-on-the-Lake. Thank you

for coming out. I know there is a fire chief from the town of Fort Erie, Jim Douglas, here as well, so thank you.

One individual who was not able to attend but who certainly wanted to be here was our fire chief from the city of Niagara Falls, Patrick Burke, whom we are

fortunate to have and who I know is respected throughout all of Ontario as a fire chief. I want to read Patrick's -- we affectionately call him Pat -- remarks into Hansard today. Pat has indicated

to me that he would like to say to the House and to everyone across Ontario that he knows "the issue of residential sprinklers will be discussed in the House today.

"As chief of the Niagara Falls Fire Department, I can advise you that I fully support residential sprinkler legislation. Sprinklers have saved many lives and

much damage over the years by extinguishing fires in their early stage, or by holding fires in check until the arrival of the fire department. A prime example of the effectiveness of sprinklers is

the city of Vancouver, where a residential sprinkler bylaw significantly contributed to the fact that there were zero fire deaths in Vancouver in the year 2004. This is an amazing statistic given

the size and complexity of that city. We have had recent examples in Richmond, BC, and Toronto where sprinklers may have made the difference in preventing three deaths.

"I hope that you will support the legislation being proposed. It will enhance the safety of many Ontario citizens."

Again, it's from our chief, Patrick Burke, Niagara Falls.

This is a wonderful bill. I am confident and I always remain positive. I've been here two years, and there are days you sometimes think that it's a slow House,

that it's difficult to get things through, but I remain positive that this bill is going to get through, that it's going to be supported. I hear the opposition has concerns over it. I'm sure we'll

bring them in line to share with them that lives are more important than dollars and cents, and that will take this bill forward. So thank you. I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill 2, which, as everyone obviously knows, was Bill 141 in

the past, with some changes.

I know there has been quite a bit of debate and stats on all sides of this issue, and although I'm not really buying into either side of it, what I'm looking

at is that what I will try to bring forward will be somewhat different. Firefighters, as everybody here has agreed, have a very honourable tradition. They work hard in our communities and do a

great job. I know they're the first ones to respond. I think some of the other areas that could be focused on are the 1710 and 1720 issues that were brought forward because I see a large number of

concerns in this area.

If you look at the public sector, they always seem to jump on things that are very beneficial to society and something that society buys into. That's why you

see the guy from Canadian Tire pushing the smoke alarms and everything else. But where's the guy from Canadian Tire pushing home sprinkler systems? I don't see the demand there. I don't see the

public buying into this as something they really feel is necessary in their community and their homes. Quite frankly, how can you put anything of value on somebody's life when these sorts of things

come forward? By the same token, I grew up with a lot of firefighters. A lot of firefighters were my friends before I became elected and a lot more firefighters are my friends now since being

elected, but I don't know one that has a home sprinkler system in their house right now. That speaks a lot for it on its own, when you're looking at this issue.

There are a lot of areas of concern that I look at. I have a lot of rural residents, such as up at my father's property. Where he lives, he's got power outages

for three and four days. I know the member from last time on Bill 141, Mr. Bisson, spoke on this issue and talked about a community that lost the entire school because of a malfunction -- it froze

and broke. What are you going to do in communities where there's no hydro and no pressurized water, things like that?

I certainly hope that if this issue comes to committee we get a full opportunity, that we can hear from insurance people, because I believe in the end it will

cost more to have it in place than it is at the start. I think it should be given the opportunity at that time.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It certainly is a pleasure to join in the debate and to be able to extend my welcome to the men and women

in our fire services who put their lives on the line every day.

Other speakers before me have said that this simply is a bill whose time has come. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It's important to be clear about this

bill: We're not talking about going back and having to retrofit older homes. What we're saying is that every home in Ontario that is built from this point on, should this bill pass, would have a

fire sprinkler system in it.

I think you have to ask, whom do you take your advice from on fire protection? I take it from the men and women who have shown up today in uniform who practise

that on a daily basis. They are the people we should be taking advice from. They are the people who are providing us with the advice that this would be a tremendous move forward, were we able to do

that.

If you didn't want to take advice from those people, there are some other people who have joined us in the gallery today. There are some young people here. If

you said to those young people, "Were you to start to build a new house today, what would be some of the most important things you would put in that house?" I think that surely those young people

would agree with us that a device that would protect against the spread of fire in a house would be something that would be very high on their priority list.

I think that from the very old to the very experienced to the very young in our society, most people, from a common sense perspective, would agree that this is

a bill whose time has come and that we need to find a way to make it happen.

The member from Brampton certainly deserves credit for bringing the bill back. I think she has alluded to the fact and spoken to the fact that she has made

some improvements to the bill in order to gain even more support.

It is a very sensible approach to what is a very serious problem, and it applies to new housing only. When you compare some of the types of appliances that are

offered today in new homes, things like dishwashers and microwaves and granite counters and landscape lighting and lawn sprinklers, why would you not start to install fire protection? It just seems

to make sense to me, and I think it's going to make sense to a lot of members in this House.

Take a look at the experience of the city of Vancouver, and take a look at the experience of over 200 North American jurisdictions that have decided that fire

sprinklers are the way to go. Ontario citizens, I believe, deserve the same protection, which would be afforded under this bill, were it to pass, that currently other members of North American

society enjoy.

Of 100 deaths in Ontario in 2003, 87% of those deaths took place in people's homes; not in their businesses, not in vehicles, but right in the place where

they're supposed to feel the safest, right in their own homes.

I want to tell you about a situation that maybe drives the point home a little bit and maybe helps us all to understand what types of decisions people who are

employed professionally in our fire services have to deal with on a daily basis. It is an incident that took place in Oakville in 1998.

On August 15, the fire department in Oakville received a call at 4:01 from a lady who said, "I have a fire in my house," and then the line went dead. By 4:05,

the trucks were on the scene. The police officer who had attended could hear the people in the house. The fire protection personnel who were there were unable to rescue the people from the house,

even though they knew, when they were on the perimeter of the scene, that there were people who were still alive in that house. By the time 4:18 came along, they had two bodies on the front lawn.

By the time 4:28 came along, they had two more bodies. They were able to perform CPR and revive each one of those individuals, three children and a mother, and they sent them to local hospitals.

They all died within 36 hours. They didn't die from fire; they died from the effects of smoke inhalation.

It seems to me that what the member from Brampton is presenting to us today is a way to prevent that type of circumstance from ever happening again. It

deserves the support, I think, of every member of this House.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I also applaud the member for Brampton Centre for this bill. I'm pleased to see representatives

from the fire services and others here today.

In an earlier life at Loyalist College I taught night courses to individuals from fire services. They were a very tough crowd to teach, because they weren't

there in the evening to get a credit or to get an evening away from home; they were passionate about what they were doing. Their questions were sometimes very difficult and challenging, but they

were passionate about it, and I have a great deal of admiration.

What I have learned in life, folks, is that everything costs too much. I remember when we were talking about putting seat belts in cars, and that they cost too

much. It was absolutely ridiculous to consider that and to make people put it on. How many lives have been saved by seat belts in this world? I don't know; thousands, maybe a million. When they

came up with the concept of air bags, they were way too much money. There's no way, and it would be unfair to the public to have to pay for air bags. How many lives have they saved?

I remember when smoke detectors first came out, and they were way too much money for the number of lives they were going to save. There was opposition from

various groups saying, "Smoke detectors are too much money." Builders said, "We don't want to have to bear the cost and pass it on to the public, because if we add a smoke detector, they won't be

able to afford the house." How many lives have smoke detectors saved? We'll never know.

Now we're at another milestone in history, one which says we have the opportunity to do something that will save people's lives. I'm somewhat surprised at some

of the discussion. If you think that these sprinklers cause water damage, you go into a house that's had a full-fledged blaze and see the water damage. I suspect, for a house that may be short of

water in a rural area, then they're short of water for a full-fledged fire, and it takes an awful lot less water with a sprinkler system than it does to bring in the trucks and put it out.

These are not high-tech systems; these are relatively simple, relatively maintenance-free. You don't have to be awake; you don't have to hear them go off; you

don't even have to be in the home for them to activate and save your house. Smoke detectors -- we have the problem of batteries. Whenever I cook, ours goes off and it's tempting to pull that

battery out, and I have to remember that at my age I won't remember to put it back in, so we'll just leave that battery in there and put up with the noise for a few minutes. My wife is hearing

impaired. She has difficulty hearing the smoke detectors go off, but she wouldn't have difficulty with a sprinkler.

Here is the last thing: The worst thing you'll ever have in life is to live with "what if." If you've ever lost a loved one, you will spend the rest of your

life, if the circumstances were preventable, saying, "What if?" I know people who say, "What if? What if I'd gotten to the hospital sooner? What if I'd had the battery in the smoke detector? What

if I'd done this or done that?" If putting this system in your home or building avoids you having to live every day the rest of your life with, "What if I'd had a sprinkler system in the home?"

then it's worth every penny. If it saves one life in Ontario, then this bill has served its purpose and it's worth the money.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Brampton Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs. Jeffrey: I'd like to thank the members from Scarborough Centre, Niagara Falls, Oakville, Prince Edward-Hastings, Oxford,

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Beaches-East York and Oshawa. What an interesting group of speakers they were this morning.

I wanted to sum up, in the short time I have available, to focus on three messages. What I'd like people to think about this morning after this debate is: This

bill is designed to protect what we value the most. We have a collective responsibility to protect the health and safety of all Ontarians. We know that sprinklers complement the early-warning

capability of smoke alarms by adding fire suppression. We need to encourage and educate consumers about residential fires. Our future depends on it. We need to embrace this proven technology to

protect all Ontarians.

Last year we lost over 100 people. These people were our mothers, our fathers and our children. Over time, we've lost heroes in our community: firefighters. We

need to ensure that the risk for future and current firefighters is minimized.

I'd like to invite all members of the House to come out and visit the Toronto Fire Services sprinkler trailer which is outside in front of the Legislature

today for an hour. Come out and see how effective and how quick-acting they are. It's a wonderful little demonstration tool that we have the loan of this afternoon.

The best time to include residential sprinklers in the building code would have been 25 years ago; the second-best time for this Legislature to make a decision

that would protect all Ontarians is today. I would appreciate your support of this bill.

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

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 5, standing in the name of Mr. Mauro.

Mr. Mauro has moved second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 6, standing in the name of Mrs. Jeffrey.

Mrs. Jeffrey has moved second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Building Code Act, 1992 respecting home fire sprinklers. Is it the pleasure of the House

that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members for this. Call in the members. I remind them that this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Mauro has moved second reading of Bill 4. All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bryant, Michael

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 1.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion passed.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The standing committee on justice policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Mauro has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: We're having a vote here.

Agreed? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

The majority has voted in favour.

It will be referred to the standing committee on justice policy.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Given the strong support for this bill, I would ask that we give unanimous

consent to have third reading of this bill immediately so that the government can deal with it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We can give unanimous consent to order the bill for third reading, but we cannot give it passage here.

Agreed? I heard a no.

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

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Jeffrey has moved second reading of Bill 2. All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bryant, Michael

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Parsons, Ernie

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Smith, Monique

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Miller, Norm

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 26; the nays are 8.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to have this bill ordered for third

reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? I heard a no.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House --

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): Mr. Speaker, could I have it referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Jeffrey has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Agreed? I heard a

no.

All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

A majority being in favour, it is referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

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

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VETERANS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's truly an honour for me to be here today and to introduce some folks who are in the Speaker's gallery.

We have with us five veterans of World War II, all from the riding of Simcoe North and all great people in their communities: Bernie Levesque, Bruce Gilbert, Roy Shakell, William Smith and Vern

Sweeting, who is here with his son, Tom Sweeting, who happens to be the special budget adviser at the Ministry of Finance. We also have with us today Deputy Mayor Jim Downer of the town of Midland.

Jim also has a connection with Queen's Park: Jim's uncle, Reverend Wally Downer, was a member here for over 30 years.

I also want to point out today, with Jim in attendance from the town of Midland, that the town of Midland initiated a movement throughout the province of

Ontario, and indeed throughout the country, to allow veterans who have veterans' licence plates -- those are the plates with the poppies on them -- to have free parking in municipalities. A number

of municipalities across our province, and I believe across our country now, are initiating this movement.

Although there will be more time later on for our tribute to veterans, it's really special that I am able to enjoy this afternoon with these folks. They're

great members of our community, and it's an honour for me to have them here with me today.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): On this exciting day when we are talking about conservation, I'm pleased to stand here and tell you

about the great initiative underway at the University of Ottawa biology building. This 56,000-square-foot research and teaching facility is a great example of how exceptionally energy-efficient

buildings can be. After looking at the myriad of ways that energy efficiency can be incorporated into building design, the design team devised four distinct innovations: first, high-performance

window glazing, extra-wide thermal breaks and an added layer of insulation; second, a cooling system that dehumidifies air at the central unit and circulates this air throughout; third, growth

chambers that enable the recovery of waste heat; and fourth, fume hoods that are energy-efficie